**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS,**

**CONCURRING IN PART, DISSENTING IN PART**

Re: *2006 Quadrennial Regulatory Review & 2002 Biennial Regulatory
Review---Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other
Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of 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 Definition of Radio Markets* (MB Docket Nos. 06-121,
02-277, MM Docket Nos. 01-235, 01-317, 00-244)

One thing we can probably all agree on is the need to start this
proceeding. It has been two years since the Third Circuit sent back to
us the misguided handiwork of the previous Commission. We owe the court
a response to its instruction to revisit this proceeding and to do it
right this time. Additionally, Congress instructed us to review all our
media ownership rules in a quadrennial review, which by statute must
commence this year---another reason why we should proceed. Meanwhile,
the rush to consolidation continues. Since we last voted on this issue
three years ago, there have been more than 3300 TV and radio stations
that have had their assignment and transfer grants approved. So even
under the old rules, consolidation grows, localism suffers and diversity
dwindles. For these reasons, I agree that we need to start this
proceeding now.

But in Washington, things aren't always what they seem. In fact, this
innocuous-looking document initiates the single most important public
policy debate that the FCC will tackle this year. Don't let its slimness
fool you. It means that this Commission has begun to decide on behalf of
the American people the future of our media. It means deciding whether
or not to accelerate media concentration, step up the loss of local news
and change forever the critical role independent newspapers perform for
our Country.

It's tempting to see this debate as important only to giant media
moguls. Some companies want the government to make the decision to rush
into more media concentration behind closed doors in sequestered
Washington bureaucracies. But I believe that Americans need to know what
the FCC is doing and that we have a solemn obligation to encourage
public participation in the decision. It's important because if we make
the wrong decision our communities and our country will suffer. This
debate will have far reaching implications for the credibility of
information Americans get from the media---for the vitality of the civic
dialogue that determines the direction of our democracy---and for
whether TV and radio offer entertainment that is creative, uplifting and
local or degrading, banal and homogenized.

Let's review some history. We all know that in 2003 the FCC tried to
eliminate important safeguards that protected media diversity, localism
and competition. A majority of Commissioners approved *stunning*---there
is no other word for it---rules that would allow one corporation to own,
in a single community, up to three TV stations, eight radio stations,
the cable system, the only daily newspaper and the biggest Internet
provider. How can it be good for our Country to invest such sweeping
power in one media mogul or one giant corporation?

Three years ago the FCC tried to inflict this massive wave of further
consolidation onto an already highly concentrated media industry. The
majority of the Commission voted to do so without seeking adequate input
from the American people, without conducting adequate studies and
without even revealing to the country what the new rules would be before
forcing a vote. I pleaded with the majority to do more comprehensive
research, to ask the tough questions and to halt the blind rush to more
consolidation. My pleading fell on deaf ears. A public, transparent
process was not what was wanted. Instead, our far-reaching review of
critical media concentration protections was run as a classic
inside-the-Beltway process with too little outreach from the Commission
and too little opportunity for public participation.

The Commission's stealth process three years ago and the ownership rules
that resulted from it galvanized Americans all across this country. In
response, millions of Americans from right and left, Republican and
Democrat, concerned parents, creative artists, religious leaders,
independent businesses, civil rights activists and labor organizations
united to protest the Commission's actions. Senators and members of
Congress from both parties and from all parts of the country called for
those rules to be overturned. Commissioner Adelstein and I traveled the
country attending hearings on this issue. On media consolidation, there
are no red or blue states---there is only an all-American, grassroots
issue about what government proposes to do to the people's airwaves. The
Senate voted twice to overturn the rules and the House, it was clear to
all, would have done so if permitted to vote. In time, the court held
that the FCC's ownership rules were legally and procedurally flawed,
sending them back to the FCC to begin again, which brings us to today.

All of that is wrapped up in this little document. Don't underestimate
it. We have a choice to make. Will we repeat the mistakes of the past?
Or will we work for a process and an outcome that respect the millions
of Americans that care deeply about their communities' media and what
their kids watch, hear and read? We'll soon know what choice the FCC
makes. We'll undoubtedly have some hearings and some research this
time---I think at least that part of the lesson has been learned. But
Americans know the difference between a fig leaf and a real commitment.

If you see hearings in your hometown, instead of a just a few
preselected cities, you'll know. If you see FCC Commissioners come to
listen to your point of view personally, instead of expecting you to
hire a \$500 an hour lobbyist to get heard, you'll know. If the FCC
contracts for independent, well-funded studies and seeks public comment
on those studies, instead of buying a few-half hearted, time-crunched
papers that slide into the record without comment, you'll know. And,
critically, if the FCC shows you the specific rules that will reshape
the American media before forcing a vote, instead of rushing from this
short document to a final vote, you'll know.

You should expect your government to do more this time. We ought to be
able to work together and do better. I hope we can. The answer will
become apparent in the months ahead. The process we are launching will
have to be watched and validated every step of the way.

To be successful in this effort, we will need to work really hard, get
around the country, look at various markets, collect the data and reach
out to build an adequate record. Good, sustainable rules are the result
of an open public process, a serious attempt to gather all the relevant
data and a commitment to transparency. Bad rules and legal vulnerability
result from an opaque regulatory process and inadequate data.

-   ***[Public Process]{.underline}:*** This time we need to include the
    people in our process instead of trying to exclude them. We need to
    hear from anybody who has a stake in how this is resolved. And
    everyone has an interest and a stake. I asked for some dozen themed
    hearing around the country, so we could examine the impact of media
    consolidation on such topics as minorities, senior citizens,
    religious broadcasters, family-friendly programming, jobs,
    independent programming, those with disabilities, campaign coverage
    and payola. We couldn't get agreement on these. But we will monitor
    closely any hearings that are held under Commission auspices and if
    they fall short of true openness and inclusiveness, I will do my
    part to make that known. Good hearings must include all sides of the
    debate and be held in diverse communities around the country. Last
    time, I learned fifty times more about what is going on in various
    media markets at grassroots hearings and town hall meetings than I
    ever could have learned by isolating myself in my office inside the
    Beltway and reading formal comments. And citizens have a right to
    expect direct access to decision-makers at the FCC. When a
    regulatory agency is charged by the law with important public policy
    matters, it has the obligation to reach out, explain and solicit
    citizen input. A handful of generalized FCC hearings are not
    themselves enough. I hope citizens in hundreds of communities across
    this country will gather to discuss the future of the media. These
    issues deserve to be discussed in every community because they are
    going to affect every community. For my part, I stand ready to
    attend as many of these community hearings as I can.

-   ***[Research and Data]{.underline}:*** This time, we also need
    better research and a willingness to ask the tough questions. We
    need independent studies on the impact of media concentration in a
    variety of markets so that the FCC can base its decisions on a more
    solid foundation. Last time a number of in-house studies were
    undertaken, but they didn't ask most of the questions that needed to
    be asked and both their methodologies and conclusions received
    widespread criticism. We are talking here about understanding a
    mega-billion dollar industry, and a few studies done on the cheap
    just are not going to tell us what we need to know. What we need
    instead are independent researchers to produce some real data on
    important questions like the impact on independence when newspapers
    and broadcasters are owned by the same conglomerate, the impact of
    increasing consolidation on minorities and the correlation between
    media concentration and broadcast indecency. These are only a few of
    the questions we need to understand before we vote. I, for one,
    would be reluctant to vote on final rules unless and until we have
    the information and analysis needed to inform our votes.

-   ***[Transparency]{.underline}:*** This time, we need a transparent
    process that ensures we understand the full implications of our
    decisions---both the intended consequences and the unintended ones.
    Such a process makes inevitably for better policy. It also makes for
    better buy-in from the people. And it would enhance the
    sustainability of Commission decisions in court. A transparent
    process is especially critical for issues of this magnitude when the
    Notice asks broad, general questions. Let's remember the beating the
    Commission took in court for failing to inform the American people
    of its proposals last time before we were required to vote. I am
    deeply disappointed that this Notice does not contain a specific,
    up-front commitment to share proposed media concentration rules with
    the American people in advance of a final vote. I do not see how we
    can be transparent and comply with the dictates of the Third Circuit
    without letting the American people know about and comment on any
    new standards of measurement that we adopt in developing our
    ultimate decision. I frankly fear that in the absence of a Further
    Notice and lacking a commitment to a comprehensive final Order
    incorporating all of the ownership rules, an attempt could be made
    to split off one or two rules and ram them through the Commission.
    This must not be allowed to happen and I dissent in part because
    such protections for the people are lacking in today's proposal.

Finally, there are two other aspects of this item that should give us
all pause. I am disappointed that localism is not front-and-center in
this proceeding. For decades the Commission has interpreted the
Communications Act to require broadcasters to be responsive to local
concerns and to represent a diversity of views and opinions. Localism
and media ownership are inextricably linked. Ownership interests have a
duty to air programming responsive to the needs and interests of their
communities. But if we really want our local stations to be accountable
to our local community, why should citizens who want to dial up local
station owners have to call from one end of the Country to another? Is
it really good for our Country for distant powers in New York or Los
Angeles to dictate so much of what we see, hear and read in our
hometown? These are important questions that go right to the heart of
this proceeding. But you won't find them asked here. Instead, the
Commission goes to great lengths to isolate our stalled localism
proceeding from today's media ownership proceeding. The most this Notice
does is commit our staff to compiling a summary of the dated record we
have in our localism docket. Though there is bipartisan support for
completing our localism proceeding before revving up media ownership,
the Commission will apparently choose to leave localism stuck at the
starting gate.

I am also disappointed that this item fails to commit to specific
efforts to advance ownership by minorities. The Third Circuit took the
Commission's earlier decision to the woodshed for sidelining proposals
to advance minority ownership. Despite this, all we can muster up here
are a few questions about this glaring challenge. Why won't we commit to
studying the state of minority media ownership in this country and the
impact that consolidation has had? Are we afraid of what the facts might
show? It is no excuse to argue that many of the nation's broadcast
licenses were given away decades ago when women and people of color were
unlikely to obtain them. Those sins of omission need to be excised and
new strategies to encourage diversity in ownership and jobs and
programming need to be put in place. While people of color make up over
30% of our population, they own only 4.2% of the nation's radio stations
and 1.5% of the nation's TV stations! More recent statistics suggest
that even these numbers are in free fall. I believe the ownership of our
media should look more like the diversity of our people. But if all the
Commission does is ask a few pat questions and then sweep this issue
under the rug one more time, we are not laying the groundwork for
progress.

Let me conclude with a challenge to our nation's media to take up this
issue, highlight it, give it the attention it merits, inform the debate
and spark a national conversation on these issues all across this broad
land of ours. With relatively few exceptions, the media---big media
especially---failed the test last time, and failed it badly. I hope that
was not because some very important media enterprises have financial
interests riding on the outcome of the ownership proceeding. Major media
companies are at pains to assure us their newsgathering operations are
independent of their corporate interests. Here is an excellent
opportunity to test that proposition. Because ignoring the issue of
media concentration is not going to make it go away.

Launching this proceeding is the easy part. Now comes the hard work. So
much hangs in the balance. If we are serious about it and do not treat
this proceeding as business-as-usual, if we approach these issues with
receptivity on all sides to hard facts and compelling evidence and if we
reach out---really reach out---to people all across this land, I believe
the Commission can arrive at a decision that will withstand judicial and
Congressional scrutiny and more importantly, the scrutiny of the
American people. I for one am ready to roll up my sleeves and work with
my colleagues to get the job done and done right this time. The American
people have a right to expect more from this Commission than they got
from the previous one.