**Remarks of Commissioner Robert M. McDowell**

**National Religious Broadcasters Capitol Hill Media Summit**

**Wednesday, Sept. 17, 2008**

**The National Press Club**

**Washington, D.C.**

**As prepared for delivery**

Thank you, Craig, for your kind introduction. I am honored to be part of
your program this afternoon.

First, I'd like to give many thanks to NRB and its members for your
efforts to help educate our fellow Americans about the DTV transition.
During the FCC's DTV consumer education "blitz," I have been reaching
out to religious broadcasters to help increase awareness. I've been
heartened by religious broadcasters' diligence related to the DTV
transition and I look forward to working further with you and with all
broadcasters in this vital endeavor.

Serendipitously, today is Constitution Day. On September 17, 1787, the
U.S. Constitution was ratified. It took until 1791 to ratify the Bill of
Rights. First among those rights are those embodied in the First
Amendment: the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. It is
these inalienable rights that lie at the heart of your missions as
religious broadcasters. The freedom to worship without government
interference is a right that continues to set us apart from so many
other societies around the globe. Without a doubt, we are truly blessed
to live in this great country.

As a result of being able to blossom under these freedoms, America's
media environment is more robust and competitive than ever. You don't
need me to tell you just how exciting -- and challenging -- a time it is
to be part of the modern day media cacophony. At times the explosion of
new content appears to be overwhelming: billions of new sources
connected through the Internet; hundreds of cable channels; even more
content on satellite TV and radio; MP3 players; and, of course,
thousands of radio and TV stations, plus much, much more. In fact,
there's so much content out there that teenagers created a text
messaging acronym to describe this information flood: "TMI," or "too
much information."

Religious broadcasters are at the forefront of innovation when it comes
to new media. Most religious radio and TV stations now also operate
websites, and many stream programming to computers or deliver
downloadable content for portable devices. I note that the "NRB Tech
Lab" series of seminars slated for your 2009 convention will be devoted
to analysis of the latest new media models for strengthening your
ministries.

So in the context of this new media world, why are policymakers like us
at the FCC unearthing decades-old mandates to re-impose on radio and TV
stations? Didn't we think that they were safely slumbering away in their
crypts for all eternity? Why is the FCC considering overburdening the
traditional electronic media precisely at this crucial moment in history
when broadcasters face more competition than ever before?

This apparent new era of media re-regulation is troubling in several
respects. For starters, with top-line revenue falling, I know that many
small broadcasters can ill afford to shoulder the costs of obligations
that were deemed obsolete years ago.

In fact, just last month I had the pleasure of traveling to North Pole,
Alaska where I spent some time with a small broadcaster -- the
Evangelistic Alaska Missionary Fellowship, licensee of KJNP-TV, which
kindly hosted me on one of its talk shows to discuss the coming DTV
transition. KJNP, which also operates an AM and an FM radio station, has
to be the most northern religious broadcaster in the United States.
What's more impressive is that it operates its three stations almost
exclusively with volunteers. Its TV station has been digital for some
time and its radio operation is moving toward digital briskly.

But I have to ask, in this era of a seemingly infinite number of new
media voices, why should KJNP -- or any other broadcaster who struggles
to remain viable in the digital age -- be required to shoulder
regulatory burdens that no longer serve their original purpose? Perhaps
a case could have been made decades ago for thinking that each broadcast
station should broadly serve all the content needs of all listeners and
viewers in its community at some point in the broadcast day. But even if
that notion made sense back then, how could the return of old mandates
like ascertainment and exhaustively categorized program reporting ensure
that consumers today get everything that the *government thinks* they
need to see and hear -- when consumers now have so many more media
options other than broadcasting?

I know that during our panel discussion we'll address several of the
troubling initiatives that the Commission has before it -- such as the
Enhanced Disclosure and Localism proceedings -- so I'll save the
specifics until then. But I will note now that these proceedings, and
several others, seem based on the premise that broadcasters have more
power, and therefore need more regulation, than ever before. I disagree
with that premise.

Thank you again for having me, and I look forward to your questions.