**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE**

*RE: 2006 Quadrennial Regulatory Review-Review of the Commission's
Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section
202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; 2002 Biennial Regulatory
Review-Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other
Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202of the Telecommunications Act of
1996; Cross Ownership of Broadcast Stations and Newspapers; Rules and
Policies Concerning Multiple Ownership of Radio Broadcast Stations in
Local Markets; Ways to Further Section 257 Mandate and To Build on
Earlier Studies; Public Interest obligations of TV Broadcast Licensees.*

As Commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission we face many
serious, far-reaching, and contentious decisions affecting this nation.
While I always strive to seek consensus, I know there will be some times
when consensus is simply not possible, and we must agree to disagree.
Today is one of those days.

I believe that the process we have engaged in over the past year and a
half, has been open, transparent, and thorough---a true example of our
vibrant democracy at work. Others may disagree. While I think we would
all prefer to be part of a unanimous decision, I do not believe waiting
would have resulted in any further agreement.

In its 2004 remand, the 3^rd^ Circuit affirmed "the power of the
Commission to regulate media ownership." In addition, Congress requires
that the Commission undertake a review of our media ownership rules
every four years. The 3^rd^ Circuit also made clear that the FCC must
not simply be a "revolving door" of notice and comment. We must act to
fulfill our obligations: "monitor the effect of . . . competition . . .
and make appropriate adjustments' to its regulations." In this Order we
conclude our 2006 Quadrennial Review, and respond to the Court's remand
of our 2002 Biennial Review Order.

I wish that I had time to truly capture and describe the places we
visited and the thousands of individuals who lined up to speak to us --
from California to Maine; Chicago to Florida; Pennsylvania to Tennessee
-- we traveled literally from sea to shining sea. In several cases, we
stayed until after midnight in order to accommodate those citizens who
took time to sit through hours of public testimony. These lengthy
hearings provided an opportunity for thousands of American citizens to
have unprecedented access to a governmental body about the role media
plays in their lives and their opinion regarding media ownership. Over
my 20-plus years of public service -- at all levels of government -- I
cannot remember a single time that an agency expended this much
institutional energy and investment on an issue, or was this open and
thorough regarding a matter of public interest. We invited comment not
only from the general public, but also from expert panels of economists;
TV, radio, and film producers; musicians; directors; professors;
students; small and large TV and radio broadcasters, and community
organizations. During the roughly year and a half of on-going hearings,
we arranged for ten media studies by experts -- preeminent economists,
academics, and researchers -- and also released all of those studies for
public comment as well as peer review by unaffiliated experts. Four of
the studies were peer reviewed by multiple reviewers.

In addition to the FCC's formal process, I also felt it was important to
seek first-hand knowledge regarding the challenges, as well as the
exciting innovations, facing broadcasters and newspapers. I toured large
and small media outlets, local broadcasters, network affiliates, and
newspapers. In addition, I spent time hearing from consumer
organizations, such as Media Access Project and the Consumer Federation
of America, as well as some of our nation's most knowledgeable
professors and economists, and Members of Congress.

Throughout this process, I was struck by the ongoing, dramatic changes
in how Americans use the media to receive news, information, and
entertainment.  Increases in broadband penetration have transformed the
Internet into a viable platform for streaming full-length video
programming, with more content moving online daily.  And our mobile
phones now provide us with stock quotes, email and news updates from
sources locally and around the globe. With the multiplicity of sources
now available at the click of a button, the historic concerns underlying
the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban would seem to be alleviated.
Many academics and professionals note that developments since the
Commission last reviewed its rules show that the diminishment of
mainstream media power over information flow is real. This will only
continue as the Internet and other communications networks develop. The
diminution in the power of old media enhances the need to permit
exploration of the synergies of limited cross-ownership. The Commission
must ensure that our rules do not unduly stifle efficient communications
that are likely to preserve or increase the amount and quality of local
news available to consumers via these outlets.

As we traveled across America, one of the most prominent concerns we
heard was with regard to radio consolidation. This was especially true
at the hearing we held in my hometown of Nashville, TN\-- Music City
USA. While best known as the "Home of Country Music", Nashville is the
#2 video production locale in the country; second only to L.A. Nashville
is the home of some of the greatest songwriters and musicians in the
entire world. It provided an appropriate forum to take a look at how
ownership affects artists and their art.  I want to thank all the
Tennessee public officials, Belmont University, and so many Nashville
stars who participated: Naomi Judd, Big and Rich, George Jones, Dobie
Gray and my good friend, the late Porter Wagner. We listened and heard
from you, and many fans as well, who opposed further radio
consolidation, and today we retain the current radio ownership limits.

For those concerned about radio consolidation, it is important to note
that the industry has recently seen a number of radio giants engaging in
significant divestitures. Major companies like Clear Channel, ABC,
Entercom, and CBS have divested, or filed applications to divest,
hundreds of stations over the last few years. This is a good example of
the marketplace in action. In addition, many of the stations that were
spun off were made available to new owners through capital supplied by
the former ones. This will hopefully result in additional women and
minority owners; a good result for them, and for America's diverse
citizenry.

In addition to radio ownership, the other concern that stands out in my
mind is the content provided by today's media outlets. From concerns
about the pervasive impact media has on our children, to the lack of
diversity of programming, to the "negativity" of news coverage in
general. Some commenters took issue with a specific local station. To
those citizens, I commend you to our website, www.fcc.gov, where you can
file complaints regarding a broadcaster who may not be fulfilling their
public interest obligations, or you believe has violated other
Commission regulations. Also, we recently adopted an Enhanced Disclosure
Order, requiring local broadcasters to post their public inspection
files online, which will make it easier for individuals and citizens to
review those files to ensure that broadcasters are meeting their
regulatory responsibilities.

It was important to the process that we heard not only from passionate
members of the public who shared personal stories of how media ownership
has impacted their lives, but also from dispassionate academics and
economists who analyzed marketplace data and derived findings that
directed our inquiries. The studies examined various subjects, but
several conclusions were reached. First, there is a staggeringly low
rate of female and minority ownership in the broadcasting industry.
Today, we adopt a separate order that takes positive steps to address
that concern. Second, according to three of our media studies,
cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcast stations actually results in
more local news. Some point out the potential inconclusiveness as to the
outcome of some of the studies, but this concern lends credence to our
decision to conduct a case-by-case review of the particular
characteristics of specific combinations in specific markets, rather
than adopting a one-size-fits-all rule.

In conclusion, I think it is important to step back from the
emotionally-charged debate that has surrounded this issue over the past
few weeks, and consider the narrowness of the rule change we make today.
In this Order, we retain the limits on television ownership, radio
ownership, and radio-television cross-ownership. We retain the
newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban, except in the top 20 markets,
which are our most media-rich, highly-populated markets. We establish a
heavy presumption against cross-ownership in markets outside the top 20.
This was at the heart of the 3^rd^ Circuit's decision which affirmed the
elimination of the ban, upholding the Commission's conclusion that the
ban undermined localism and was unnecessary to protect diversity.

We have traveled across the country and heard from thousands of
citizens. The process has been long, but fruitful. Many wanted us to go
further in repealing the ownership restrictions, but we have chosen a
measured and cautious approach. We recognize the changing dynamics of
the media market, but also give due consideration to the weight of the
record before us. In the end, our approach is an extremely modest
change, which reflects the views of citizens as well as experts gathered
over the past 18 months.

Thank you to the Media Bureau for organizing the many public hearings
and for drafting this item. Most of all, thank you to all of those
citizens who participated in this truly monumental process. We value
your insight and hope you will continue to be part of this Commission's
work in the future.