OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION: MEDIA OWNERSHIP 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND 

THE INTERNET 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 5, 2007 

Serial No. 110–77 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION: MEDIA 

OWNERSHIP 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

45–289 2008

OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION: MEDIA OWNERSHIP 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND 

THE INTERNET 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 5, 2007 

Serial No. 110–77 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

DENNIS B. FITZGIBBONS, Chief of Staff 

GREGG A. ROTHSCHILD, Chief Counsel 

SHARON E. DAVIS, Chief Clerk 

DAVID L. CAVICKE, Minority Staff Director 

(II)


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

Vice Chairman 

JANE HARMAN, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Ranking Member 

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

JOE BARTON, Texas (ex officio) 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Hon. Jane Harman, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 3 

Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 4 

Hon. Rick Boucher, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 4 

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, opening statement ....................................................................................... 6 

Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 8 

Hon. Hilda L. Solis, a Representative in Congress from the State of California .....................................................................................................................

Hon. Lois Capps, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 10 

Hon. Mary Bono, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 11 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Massachusetts, opening statement ..................................................................... 12 

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 13 

Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 15 

WITNESSES

Kevin J. Martin, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission ................... 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 262 

Michael J. Copps, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission .......... 29 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 230 

Deborah Taylor Tate, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission .... 37 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 312 

Jonathan S. Adelstein, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission . 43 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 215 

Robert M. McDowell, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission .... 58 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 292 

Sidney Bliss, president and chief executive officer, Bliss Communications, 

Incorporated .......................................................................................................... 106 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 109 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 226 

E. Faye Williams, national chair, National Congress of Black Women, Incorporated .................................................................................................................. 114 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 116 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 328 

Andrew Levin, executive vice president and chief legal officer, Clear Channel 

Communications ................................................................................................... 120 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 122 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
Page

VI 

Andrew Levin, executive vice president and chief legal officer, Clear Channel 

Communications—Continued 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 255 

James L. Winston, executive director, National Association of Black Owned 

Broadcasters ......................................................................................................... 132 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 134 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 323 

John F. Sturm, president and chief executive officer, Newspaper Association 

of America ............................................................................................................. 139 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 141 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 307 

Juan D. Gonzalez, past president, National Association of Hispanic Journalists ......................................................................................................................... 154 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 156 

Jerald N. Fritz, senior vice president, legal and strategic affairs, Allbritton 

Communications Company .................................................................................. 159 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 161 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 249 

Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president and chief executive officer, Media Access 

Project ................................................................................................................... 183 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 185 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 302 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Jean M. Prewitt, president and chief executive officer, Independent Film 

& Television Alliance, letter of December 5, 2007 to Messrs. Markey and 

Upton ..................................................................................................................... 208 

Matt Welch, Los Angeles Times, article of November 16, 2007 ........................... 210 

‘‘FCC Opens Media Ownership Proceeding for the Public Comment’’ FCC 

News Release, June 21, 2006 .............................................................................. 212 

Summary of Ideas on Newspaper-Broadcast Cross-Ownership, by Leslie Marx. 

Submitted by Mr. Doyle ....................................................................................... 332 

Gene Kimmelman, vice president for Federal and International Policy, Consumers Union, et al., letter of December 4, 2007 to Messrs. Dingell and 

Barton ................................................................................................................... 359 

Kevin Martin, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, letter and 

attachment to Mark Goldstein, physical infrastructure issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office .................................................................................. 362 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION: MEDIA OWNERSHIP 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2007 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS

AND THE INTERNET, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:35 a.m., in room 

2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey (chairman) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Doyle, Harman, Gonzalez, 

Inslee, Boucher, Stupak, Rush, Green, Capps, Solis, Dingell, 

Stearns, Upton, Shimkus, Pickering, Bono, Walden, Radanovich, 

Terry, and Barton. 

Also present: Representative Blackburn. 

Staff present: Amy Levine, Tim Powderly, David Vogel, Colin 

Crowell, Maureen Flood, Philip Murphy, Neil Fried, Courtney 

Reinhard, and Garrett Golding. 

Mr. DOYLE [presiding]. Chairman Markey is on his way, but 

since this is going to be a long morning, we thought we would get 

started. 

Mr. UPTON. Our box has been open for a little while. 

Mr. DOYLE. So I intend to waive my opening statement, so we 

will go right over to our ranking member, Mr. Upton. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, my friend. I will give an opening 

statement. We have a Republican Conference that is going on as 

well, so I think we will have members coming in, as that won’t be 

over until after 10 o’clock. I appreciate today’s hearing. 

Traditional media, including radio, TV, and newspaper, have 

been thrust into the world of new media. CBS has announced the 

creation of Inner Tube; Clear Channel now has a juiced-up online 

division; and ABC, NBC Universal, and FOX are all investing in 

Internet video streaming. This wave of new technology owes its 

very existence to a deregulatory environment that encourages innovation and investment. And, while all of this is quite exciting, we 

cannot forget about broadcasting, which remains a critical, free 

source for news, information, and public awareness for so many of 

our local communities. To ensure that broadcasting remains competitive and enjoys the benefits of investment and innovation, polVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:45 Dec 19, 2008 Jkt 045289 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A289.XXX A289

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
2 

icymakers should look to the absence of regulation of new technologies as a guide. 

I commend Chairman Martin for addressing the serious competitive and financial challenges facing local newspapers and the need 

to revisit the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership ban. The effect 

of the ban is to limit how a newspaper, with its enormous investment in local newsgathering, can reach local citizens. This only diminishes the news and information available to Americans. I am 

puzzled, however, by the chairman’s recent comments that he does 

not intend to propose relief for our Nation’s local radio broadcasters, who face similar challenges and constraints. In fact, the 

parallels are striking. 

Both newspapers and local radio have seen dramatic declines in 

their advertising revenues, threatening the economic model upon 

which their respective services depend. Free radio advertising revenue fell an average of 8 percent between September 2006 and 

2007. Both compete with an unimaginably more diverse array of 

media outlets than existed in 1996, virtually all of whom are less 

regulated. Liability of both newspapers and broadcast radio is crucial to preserving localism, diversity of voices, and healthy competition in the American media landscape. Yet both are singled out 

among their competitors for archaic ownership restrictions that are 

limiting the ability of these companies to serve the needs of their 

local communities. Thus, I propose modest reforms of the ownership restrictions for local radio in very large markets. 

Look at another tier. Specifically, I suggested that the Commission permit common ownership of 10 stations in the markets with 

60 to 74 stations and permit common ownership of 12 stations in 

the markets with 75 or more stations, nothing radical or revolutionary. In fact, I would like to think that it is a very reasonable 

and evolutionary approach, especially if we would like to keep free 

radio as a medium in the future. 

I look forward to hearing the views of the chairman and all the 

Commissioners on that matter. The challenge for Congress and the 

FCC is to take stock of the vast changes in the media marketplace. 

We must seize this opportunity to modernize the regulations governing ownership to enable all forms of media to have a fair chance 

of competing for the attention of our fellow Americans. Likewise, 

older forms of media will have to be more creative, more innovative, and more dynamic than ever to remain competitive. But the 

government has a responsibility to ensure that we do not throw on 

the shackles of outdated ownership rules. 

Common sense and the Courts tell us that the explosion of media 

sources remove concerns over a lack of viewpoint diversity and 

competition in the marketplace, which have been the principal justifications for the ownership rules. And while there has been tremendous growth and advances made in the world of media over the 

years, the unfortunate reality is that our Nation’s media ownership 

laws do not reflect or even acknowledge such great advancement. 

I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses today, and I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Upton. The Chair now recognizes my 

colleague from California, Ms. Harman. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
3 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANE HARMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to wish everyone a happy holiday from one dysfunctional body to another. 

Commissioner Tate was going to use that line, but I got here first. 

What I hope in the new year is that dysfunction stops and that 

we proceed smartly with some issues in which we both have strong, 

mutual interest. I want to start with one that is even more important to me than media cross-ownership and that is the 700-megahertz band auction. That is critical to me not just because it can 

invite some new participants into this marvelous communication 

system that we have, but most important it can finally provide 

emergency spectrum for our first responders who are out trying to 

protect our communities against the next terrorist attack or natural disaster. We have had plenty of experience recently with natural disasters. I fear we may have experience soon with manmade 

terrorist incidents, and we have wasted a lot of time on this. 

Last week I hosted a DTV transition briefing in Los Angeles. I 

want to thank Chairman Martin for sending FCC staff to give a 

presentation to local officials in my district. The standout turned 

out to be Mayor Kelly McDowell of the vaunted city of El Segundo, 

California, a brother to Commissioner Rob McDowell. And we are 

going to work hard to make sure that there is not one nanosecond 

delay in that transition and that the auction comes out right, so 

that the emergency sector has the tools that it needs, finally, in 

order to make sure that we have interoperable communications 

across our country. 

On to the other subject, which is media cross-ownership. I would 

just like to say that the Commission, in my view, must allow the 

public adequate time to weigh in. I think the December 18th date 

is pushing it too fast. With the Tribune waivers put to rest, there 

is no need to rush on so critical an issue. All of us should want to 

get it right, and I believe all of us do want to get it right, and there 

is a lot to consider. Much of the content on TV and radio, music, 

sitcoms, and movies like Cool Hand Luke, comes from Southern 

California, my backyard. The FCC’s media ownership rules should 

keep the airwaves open to new artists and the novel programming 

that buoys the Los Angeles and American economy. Acting hastily 

could alter the media landscape with disastrous fallout, so I urge 

caution and a fair, open process. 

Let me just conclude by saying that many of us spent a very 

pleasant weekend in Washington—that is sometimes an 

oxymoron—at the Kennedy Center events. Many of you were there, 

and many of us were there. There was a showcase, the diversity 

and talent of the American artistic community. They are amazing. 

And it will remain to me very important to make sure that their 

diverse talent is able to be listened to and watched over our airwaves. So I hope we do this right, and I certainly offer my best efforts. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank the gentlelady. The Chair now recognizes Mr. 

Shimkus. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
4 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple quick things, 

and I will try to move expeditiously. I appreciate my colleague from 

California talking about 9–1–1. You all know I am involved and 

heavily invested in that, and you all play an important role in public safety. And we want to make sure we move in that vein. 

The presidential debates that they had on CNN/You Tube really 

identify the fact that the public, especially the younger generation, 

get their information from a lot of different places, and it is not the 

traditional media sources anymore. Having said that, that talks 

about the reason why we are having this hearing today. And, 

Chairman Martin, you are moving on the 20 largest markets. I am 

in support of that. 

Opening statements help identify where members are in their 

thought process. I am one that thinks it is not far enough. The 

Telecommunications Act requires you all to look at the competitive 

marketplace and see if these restrictions are still needed. I don’t 

think you can say the world has not changed significantly, to the 

point where people get information from such a diverse range of 

sources today that it is really hard to believe that you would roll 

back and say media ownership has to be tightened versus freed. 

And you all have had two rounds of ownership studies. I think they 

support that case, and I would encourage you to move rapidly to 

easing these restrictions for the benefit of the consumer and the individuals in our society who are trying to find information. 

I have got good friends up on the dais there, and we have talked 

on many different issues on many different aspects of where you 

all are the experts, and I look forward to working with you. I am 

bringing at least the Midwest perspective of rural Illinois and the 

St. Louis media market and Springfield media market, not the 

major metropolitan areas. But it is still a very important aspect in 

our society, and I look forward to working with you. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes the 

gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ of Texas. I waive opening statement. 

Mr. DOYLE. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Boucher. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK BOUCHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I welcome 

the opportunity this morning to discuss the Commission’s proposal 

for newspaper/television cross-ownership and to offer an idea in the 

alternative to the proposal that Chairman Martin has put forward. 

I share Chairman Martin’s view that under certain circumstances 

newspaper/television cross-ownership in some markets should be 

permitted. But I differ with them on what those circumstances 

should be. 

Since the original cross-ownership ban in 1975, the news and entertainment content available to the typical consumer has expanded dramatically. There is more choice today than there was in 

1975. Unlike in 1975, when the local papers and local TV stations 

were for practical purposes the sole information available to most, 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
5 

today’s consumer has satellite services, independent cable channels, and, most importantly, Internet-delivered fare at his disposal. 

He is no longer dependent solely on local print and broadcast 

media for news and information. 

The financial effect of this explosion of news and information alternatives on the newspaper industry has been profound. Advertising revenue declined by 9 percent in the third quarter of this 

year alone. For a decade, circulation numbers have been declining. 

The industry has responded in what I think is a highly creative 

way that, in my view, well serves the information consumer. 

Legally permitted newspaper/television cross-ownership in one of 

the markets that serves my congressional district has, in my observation, resulted in a better news product, both for the newspaper 

and the TV station that are commonly owned. The collaborative 

pooling of the newsgathering and reporting talent of the print and 

the broadcast operations enables more in-depth reporting on major 

events and an increase in the number of local events that can be 

covered when TV contributes on the print side and when print contributes to television reporting. I have seen this collaboration in operation, and the improvement in the news product is real. 

Under Chairman Martin’s proposal to permit cross-ownership 

only in the 20 largest markets, the beneficial combination that I 

have described in my district would have to be disbanded. Either 

the television station or the newspaper would have to be sold by 

the entity that owns both. The news consumer would, in my opinion, suffer. 

I agree with those who say that maintaining a diversity of voices 

in a community is important. That should be the basic test for 

whether a proposed combination should be legally permitted. I 

would ask that the Commission consider permitting a combination 

where, following the combination, there would be at least one independently-owned television station and one independently-owned 

newspaper of regular, general circulation remaining in the market. 

At most, the number of independent voices in such a situation 

would decline from four to three. Diversity would be preserved, and 

many more helpful combinations would be allowed than under the 

proposal that has been made to date. 

I hope the Commission will consider that constructive alternative, and, Mr. Chairman, having exceeded my time, I am pleased 

to yield back. 

Mr. DOYLE. I thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes 

Mr. Walden. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

the opportunity in having all the Commissioners here today, and 

for the first time in 20 years and 7 months, I am no longer a broadcast licensee, once we closed on the sale of our radio stations yesterday. So I feel somewhat free to talk about—— 

Mr. UPTON. Did the check clear? 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes, the wire cleared it at 4:52 yesterday. And so 

it has been a great business. I have been in the radio business for 

20 years, and I come to this hearing with some level of mixed emoVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:45 Dec 19, 2008 Jkt 045289 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A289.XXX A289

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
6 

tion, both in terms of leaving that behind but also having witnessed what happened out of the 1996 Act and the ability to pool 

together larger groups of radio stations. In my own situation, we 

went from two to five, having put one on the air ourselves and acquiring two others, two of which, frankly, weren’t cash flowing. 

Those were the two we bought. They had no Associated Press 

newswire, which we added, and they had a full-time newsperson, 

but I am not sure how long that position would have lasted. 

My point in telling you that is not from our own success but the 

notion prior to 1996, about half the radio stations in America ran 

in the red. The ability to group together made them more economical, viable units. And I agree with the gentleman from Virginia, 

who just spoke about the partnerships that are out there that could 

actually enhance the free flow of information in a community. And, 

in fact, some of the cross-ownership between newspaper and broadcast might actually benefit listeners and readers more in small 

communities where the economics are actually tougher than in the 

major markets. And you might actually have improved coverage 

and improved quality of coverage if the two were allowed to partner up, keeping in mind that you still need competition in a community. So we will argue about what is that level of cross-ownership that is appropriate and still provide for diversity in news and 

competition in news coverage. But some level would make sense in 

most markets, I believe. 

I look at the extraordinary and rapid shift in how information is 

delivered and the competition that exists in the marketplace today. 

My father started in broadcasting in the 1930s. The radio stations 

we purchased in 1986 went through the full digital changeover, 

and I look today at the competition we get, when my wife is notified by text message on her cell phone that the schools may be running an hour late, is a long way from when we were the only carrier of that information every morning. 

And so, as we try to compete in these various markets and try 

to compete with new media, whether that is satellite-delivered 

audio or in the broadcast TV case, satellite-delivered TV, there is 

no prohibition in my market from two entities and, if the Commission decides, one entity, from offering all satellite audio programming and still owning newspapers if they want it. 

So I think we have to review this. I am glad the 1996 Act calls 

for that, and I appreciate the Commission’s diligence in looking at 

the Act’s requirements in providing us with some options to consider and for the people to consider as well. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time. I look forward to the testimony of the panel. 

Mr. DOYLE. I thank my colleague. The Chair now recognizes the 

distinguished Chair of the whole committee, Mr. Dingell. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy to 

me, and I note that this is a very important hearing, and I commend you for holding it in a very timely fashion. I also want to welcome back to the committee my valued friend, Andy Levin, who 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
7 

served so well on this committee as Democratic Counsel. While we 

may not see eye to eye on the matter of radio consolidation, I am 

happy that he is here today. 

In recent months we have heard about many FCC agenda meetings postponed all day while closed negotiations on important public matters were conducted. We have witnessed too much sniping 

among the Commissioners, and we have heard too many tales of 

short-circuited decision-making processes. In sum, the FCC appears to be broken. 

The victim in this breakdown is a fair, open, and transparent 

regulatory process, or is it perhaps that the transparent and open 

regulatory process is not available and that that is the cause of the 

events before us? The real loser, of course, is the public interest 

and the American consumer. 

When the process breaks down, reasoned analysis and debate 

suffer. The public confidence in the agency is shaken. This committee is responsible for overseeing the Commission, and I think 

that it would be intolerable if this committee were to allow this situation to continue. This is why I have asked the Subcommittee on 

Oversight and Investigations of this committee to review how the 

agency is conducting its business. 

Chairman Martin is ultimately responsible for the conduct of the 

FCC. But each Commissioner, including those on the Democratic 

side, is also responsible for ensuring that the agency works effectively for the American people. This means on the part of all that 

there be good-faith efforts to discuss differences and seek common 

ground, and it will require honest efforts to work together and to 

negotiate out the differences. I remind the Commissioners that 

they are appointed to faithfully interpret the laws. Agency proceedings should not be a forum to pursue personal agendas. 

As Chairman Stupak commences his investigation into the FCC 

process, I encourage him, and I think he probably needs little encouragement in this matter, to take a broad view and to examine 

the role that all Commissioners play in ensuring that the agency 

serves the broad public interest. I hope that all of us here on this 

committee and this subcommittee can work together to remedy the 

problems that exist. 

With respect to media ownership, Congress has for decades deliberately acted to protect localism, enhance diversity, and promote 

competition in local media markets. In 2003, then-FCC Chairman 

Powell issued an order that eviscerated several long-standing rules 

that protected the local media marketplace. The process employed 

by Chairman Powell was so poor and the results so legally untenable that the Third Circuit remanded the order back to the Commission. 

Today we will hear about the Commission’s latest proposal. I continue to have grave concerns about the lack of time to review comments on the proposed rule. If there is anyone who believes that 

one week provides sufficient time to review the thousands of pages 

of comment that will assuredly be received, then I have a bridge 

in Brooklyn that I’d like to sell to that unfortunate individual. 

My initial reaction to any proposal designed to permit greater 

consolidation of the media is not positive. I am willing to consider 

Chairman Martin’s arguments and those of his colleagues and to 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
8 

give them all fair and proper consideration, and I do recognize that 

the marketplace has changed. But the question is, is the Commission properly responding on this matter? 

I want to thank the members of the Commission for being here, 

and I look forward to their testimony. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DOYLE. I thank the chairman. The Chair now recognizes the 

gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me thank you 

and Mr. Markey for having this hearing and thank our Commissioners for coming here. And I know how difficult your job is in 

some of the nuances here and the tough decisions you make, particularly in dealing with all the politics. But I think in light of 

what we see in the market with, you know, the consumers can 

choose from both satellite, radio, iPods, Internet radio, wireless 

phones, downloads, audio streams, many of us have even gone into 

the iTunes University that Apple has put together and got full 

courses from 28 various colleges. There is such a plethora of 

choices, so obviously the question becomes in media ownership who 

should own what, and should we relax the ability for these companies to do cross-ownership, and I sort of think so. I know it gets 

to be very controversial, and I really respect what you have to do 

here. 

Today’s hearing, as I understand, focuses on Chairman Martin’s 

plans to relax rules with regard to cross-ownership for broadcast 

and print media properties within a single market. I think this proposal, frankly, Mr. Chairman, represents real progress. It is a good 

step forward. The repeal of that ban was justified and necessary to 

give newspapers the opportunity to survive. People say the Washington Post won’t be around in 10 years as a delivered item to our 

doorstep, and so I think they need this to survive and compete 

against the Internet. 

It also serves to further strengthen the local news operations of 

cross-owned broadcast stations. With a growing number of sources 

of news and information, and looking at a proper analysis of the 

media marketplace, leads to the appropriate conclusion that competition, rather than regulation, will best serve the consumers. As 

many of you know, I introduced H.R. 4167, the Broadcast Ownership for the 21st Century Act. My bill goes a little further than perhaps the Commission wants to consider, but it would eliminate the 

cross-ownership regulations based on the FCC’s findings that the 

prohibition could not be justified for large markets in light of the 

abundant sources that citizens rely upon for news. So mine goes a 

little further than perhaps than the Commission would want to do. 

On another note, Mr. Chairman, a year ago the Commission approved the merger of AT&T and Bell South in order to promote additional competition in the voice, wireless, video, and broadband 

marketplace. This decision was based on the philosophy that in a 

competitive marketplace consumers are best served by the light 

touch of regulation, where companies are allowed to grow, compete 

and innovate, and that is good. However, Mr. Chairman, you seem 

to have some concern that guided you to approve the AT&T/Bell 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
9 

South merger and propose a relaxation of broadcast/newspaper 

cross-ownership rules by pushing for a rule to impose a 30-percent 

horizontal ownership cap on cable operators. So in light of what 

you have done, coming back with this 30-percent horizontal ownership cap on cable operators is something that perhaps during this 

hearing I hope you will give your justification, and how do you apparently make this decision based upon your other actions? 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this hearing. I look 

forward to hearing the witnesses, and I appreciate their giving of 

their time to serve, because obviously many of these people could 

be doing something else, but we appreciate very much what they 

are doing. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DOYLE. I thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes the 

gentlewoman from California, Ms. Solis. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HILDA L. SOLIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. SOLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to the Commissioners for being here this morning. I am pleased that we are 

going to have a discussion today on FCC media ownership proposals and how they impact diversity and localism. 

The number of women and minorities who own broadcast television and radio stations in the United States, as you know, is 

shamefully low. Women comprise over half of the U.S. population 

but just over five percent of full-power commercial television stations. Minorities compromise only 34 percent of the U.S. population 

but only three percent of all full-power commercial TV stations. 

Just 1.25 percent of all stations, as you know, are owned by 

Latinos or Hispanics, and, as you know, they are the fastest-growing minority in the country. 

These numbers are declining even further, as minority-owned 

stations decreased by 8.5 percent from 2006 to 2007. And, unfortunately, as noted by the GAO, the FCC lacks accurate data on minority ownership information. So that is one question that I would 

hope that we could clarify today. 

Furthermore, the FCC in my opinion has failed to make a goodfaith effort to enact serious proposals that would increase diversity 

in broadcast ownership. To address the low numbers of women and 

minority owners of broadcast stations, I had joined with Commissioner Adelstein in September, calling for an independent task 

force on minority ownership. I would like to know what the status 

of that is and what the time frame and hearings, when they will 

be set. I also ask that the task force complete its work before the 

FCC put forth any proposals on media ownership. These calls were 

echoed also by some very substantial Latino organizations, including the National Council of La Raza, LULAC, and MALDEF. 

I am still frustrated very much, so I have to say, Mr. Chairman, 

Chairman Martin, for you putting forward this proposal, which in 

my belief will not provide the broadest participation by all segments of our society. And I want to strongly encourage the Commission to take more time to review cross-ownership proposals and 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
10 

instead of taking swift action to just try to remedy certain concerns 

for certain special interests. 

In addition, I have a deep concern regarding your proposals to 

implement new regulations on the cable industry. Any proposals 

that include an a la carte cable or multicast must carry rules that 

will not negatively impact the potential for diversity, for minorities 

to also be able to have some of their flagship programs that are 

currently available to us now. So I would urge you to take these 

different points into consideration and hope to hear that you will 

be able to respond to some of my concerns. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. DOYLE. The Chair now recognizes my friend from Mississippi, Mr. Pickering. 

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I yield back for right now. Is 

there another speaker? 

Mr. DOYLE. OK. We will go back over to this side. The gentlewoman from California, Mrs. Capps. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LOIS CAPPS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank both you 

and Chairman Dingell for your work on this topic. This hearing is 

an example, and an excellent one, I believe, of responsible congressional oversight. The diversity and integrity of our speech, whether 

over the airwaves or in print, demands that we proceed cautiously 

with any proposal regarding media consolidation. The decisions we 

make today will seriously impact the level of diversity in our 

media, from ownership to news coverage to non-biased portrayals 

of minorities. My district is 42 percent Latino, yet there is only one 

minority-owned television station. Women own less than eight percent of radio stations and no television stations. In all, two firms 

control nearly two thirds of the market’s audience. 

Mr. Chairman, my district is dominated by a handful of media 

companies, and I am wary when further attempts at consolidation 

take place in a flurry of haphazard procedures and without actively 

addressing these particular needs for increased diversity and localism. Let me say just one word about localism. We had a brush and 

forest fire a couple of years ago that cut off access to our single 

transportation corridor down the central coast of California from all 

of the ranchers and farmers living in the back country, and there 

was panic literally about how to get in touch with some of these 

people. Now I know there is a possibility, with the explosion of 

Internet and other capabilities, but going back to the old-fashioned 

ways that people would find out about road closures and all kinds 

of other things that they need to know, I am concerned with the 

thrust of what is being proposed. 

And I want to also join, although I know I am in danger of the 

euphemism the pot calling the kettle black, the alarming discord 

by which proceedings at the FCC are now characterized. Unfortunately, this characterization is not limited to the genesis of mediaownership proposals that we are reviewing today. More than one 

FCC proceeding frankly has been short-circuited by truncated or 

wholly foregone procedural norms. Chairman Dingell noted in his 

letter to Chairman Martin, reasoned analysis and debate have sufVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:45 Dec 19, 2008 Jkt 045289 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A289.XXX A289

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
11 

fered, especially of late, at the FCC. And I think we all want to 

take responsibility and look forward to restoring the FCC to a fair, 

open, and transparent agency that puts the public interest first. 

So, Vice Chairman Doyle, I want to thank you for holding this 

hearing, and I look forward to the testimony of all of our witnesses. 

I yield back. 

Mr. DOYLE. I thank my friend. The Chair now recognizes the 

gentlewoman from California, Ms. Bono. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARY BONO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFONRIA 

Ms. BONO. I thank the Chair, and I would like to begin today by 

admitting that I share with other committee members the desire 

that localism and diversity be reflected in our media. However, I 

am also keenly aware that the traditional media are under intense 

pressure from the growth of new media, primarily due to the Internet, which not only contains a tremendous amount of information, 

but also possesses an ability to converge media platforms. In my 

view, the Internet is creating hyper-competition among media outlets. As such, we as policymakers need to allow traditional media 

to remain competitive and experience growth. We must do what we 

can to prevent the traditional media from being hamstrung by outdated or ill-advised rules. Let us face it. We no longer live in an 

era with three commercial television networks, no cable, no satellite, and no Internet. 

With respect to radio, in June 2006, I joined 22 of my colleagues 

in writing to the FCC to encourage the Commission to allow common ownership of up to 10 radio stations in markets with 60 or 

more stations and ownership of up to 12 stations in markets with 

75 or more stations. Today, I restate that request and ask that the 

FCC not overlook the need to modernize the local radio ownership 

structure. When I hear about rules’ being modernized in one area 

but not in another I am disturbed, because it is foolish to think 

each medium operates in a vacuum. Often lost in the rhetoric of 

those that would like to prevent any market-based radio ownership 

rules is the fact that over a decade ago radio was also a struggling 

industry. More than half of the radio stations in the United States 

were operating in the red because the FCC’s rules prevented rational economic behavior. Then in 1996 Congress stepped in and 

modestly relaxed the FCC’s local radio ownership rules, a necessary move that enabled local radio to stop the bleeding and continue to provide local programming. Indeed, Congress rightfully 

recognized in 1996 that radio stations couldn’t fulfill their public 

interest obligations if they couldn’t even afford to stay on the air. 

Despite the steps taken in 1996, we are all aware that over the 

last decade unimagined technology and the Internet have provided 

consumers with more choices from which to access news and audio 

entertainment. Traditional boundaries are being knocked down. 

Just yesterday I was listening to Marshall and Stone, a talk show 

in Palm Springs, while in my condo in Washington, DC. I am not 

alone in this practice. Wall Street understands this and continues 

to project little to no growth if all things remain the same. What 

we can expect if we continue on with an overregulated, inflexible 

marketplace is less money for radio stations to serve local commuVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:45 Dec 19, 2008 Jkt 045289 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A289.XXX A289

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
12 

nities, pay employees, and invest in new technologies and online 

and HD radio. 

Increasing the radio ownership limits on markets with 60 or 

more stations would be a good start. In doing so, the Commission 

would be providing radio with greater regulatory parity in the already competitive audio marketplace. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time. 

Mr. MARKEY [presiding]. The gentlelady’s time has expired. The 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak. 

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, if I waive my opening, do I get 3 

extra minutes of questions? I will waive, because I have many 

questions. 

Mr. MARKEY. Are there any other members seeking recognition 

for the purpose of making an opening statement? Then the Chair 

will recognize himself for his opening statement, and then we will 

move to questions from the Federal Communications Commission. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. MARKEY. Today, the subcommittee is holding an oversight 

hearing on the Federal Communication Commission and in particular the proposal recently put forward by Chairman Martin to 

relax the broadcast cross-ownership rule. Under the previous FCC 

Chairman, in response to pressure from special political and corporate interests, the Commission approved a drastic and indiscriminate elimination of mass media ownership rules across the 

board. Thankfully, that plan was thwarted from going into effect by 

the Court and remanded back to the Commission. 

Chairman Martin’s proposal wisely avoids further deregulation of 

radio and television ownership limits and seeks only to relax the 

broadcast/newspaper cross-ownership rule. After months of public 

and corporate input and several public hearings around the country 

on the general issues of media ownership, localism, and diversity, 

I believe Chairman Martin’s specific proposal merits scrutiny and 

input from the public and the Congress. The process by which this 

proposal is considered and voted upon should reflect the importance of the subject which it addresses. Its consideration should 

also be informed by the public hearings conducted around the country. Postponing the planned vote from December 18 would remove 

clouds of procedural objections that currently obscure the specifics 

of the proposal and hamper efforts to directly discuss them. The 

chairman’s plan would benefit from more time so that the public 

and the Congress can see clarification over several provisions that 

remain ambiguous or vague with respect to their intent or operational effect. 

Our national media policy has long been characterized by efforts 

to promote the values of diversity and localism. Over time, the 

technologies utilized to deliver information to the public have 

changed. But these values remain immutable. As a matter of media 

policy, diversity of ownership remains our only proxy for diversity 

of viewpoints. Elimination of ownership limits therefore removes 

the best tool we have to help ensure that the public has access to 

a wide array of viewpoints and local news and information. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
13 

Because our system of democratic self-government relies on an 

informed citizenry, we must seek ways to strengthen such historic 

policy objectives. Excessive media concentration can represent a 

powerful toxin to democracy, and for this reason we are attaching 

great importance to the present policy undertaken at the Commission. 

I again urge Chairman Martin to give the public and the Congress the time his serious proposal warrants for review and consideration. It is important to remember that the limits on mass media 

ownership that Chairman Martin proposes to relax were not created solely by liberals. On the contrary, both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, have insisted on such rules and 

developed them in bi-partisan fashion over a number of decades. 

The broadcast/newspaper cross-ownership rule, for instance, was 

adopted by the Commission during the Nixon and Ford Administrations. The Commission chose to take action during that time due 

to what was occurring in communities around America. 

On the local level, powerful conglomerates in the 1960s and the 

1970s were amassing multiple ownership of media outlets. During 

that timeframe, in the top 50 television markets comprising 75 percent of the Nation’s television homes, 30 of such markets had one 

of the local TV stations owned by a major newspaper in the same 

market. By 1967, some 76 communities possessed only one AM 

radio station and only one newspaper, and they had cross-ownership interest between the two. Fourteen small communities had 

one AM radio station, one television station, and only one daily 

newspaper, all commonly owned. 

Finally, I firmly believe that the Commission must take concrete 

action as part of this overarching media ownership examination to 

improve our Nation’s abysmal record with respect to minority and 

female ownership of broadcast licenses. Racial and ethnic minorities own a paltry three percent of full-power television licenses, 

even though they make up roughly one third of our population. 

Women, who represent half of the population, own only 5.8 percent 

of such licenses. The Commission is long overdue to make progress 

on this front. 

So I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. We very 

much appreciate having the full Commission before us. 

I am told before I introduce the Commission that the ranking 

member of the full committee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, has arrived, and so I will recognize the gentleman from Texas 

at this time for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad that you came 

a little late. It helped me. You probably didn’t do it for that reason, 

but I do appreciate it. 

It has been said that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. 

If that is the case, we could use a few hobgoblins at the FCC. The 

FCC is poised to eliminate the absolute ban on broadcast/newspaper cross-ownership at its December the 18th open meeting. 

That is a good thing, not a bad thing. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
14 

As Chairman Martin has rightfully pointed out, when the ban 

was created in the 1970s, cable served fewer than 15 percent of television households. Satellite television and the Internet did not 

even exist. Today, everyone except 13 percent of the television 

households subscribe to cable or satellite, and almost one third of 

Americans regularly get their news over the Internet. With all of 

these independent competing sources for news and information, the 

rationale for the ban preserving localism and diversity starts to collapse. In fact, newspapers are so strapped these days that the ban 

probably hinders localism and diversity. If you come from any of 

the big newspaper cities in America, you know what I mean. Circulation is down nearly everywhere, so they are laying off and cutting back. Big print is on a starvation diet and is not quite so big 

anymore. One of the real joys of the Internet age is that people decide where they get their information, not editors. 

Once upon a time most people had three TV channels, one for 

each of the networks, and a choice perhaps of one or two newspapers. Now, they have got one local newspaper, hundreds of channels, and thousands, literally, of Internet sites. The cross-ownership ban is a relic of the past. Its time has gone, and it should be 

abolished. Yet it appears that at this same meeting, where Chairman Martin and the Commission apparently plans to honor the 

rise of vigorous media competition by eliminating a largely meaningless regulation, the FCC is not going to revise or eliminate other 

broadcast media ownership restrictions that the Courts have repeatedly said it has failed to justify. 

Moreover, according to reports, the FCC even plans to reimpose 

the very cable ownership cap that a Federal Appeals Court has 

sent back to the FCC on first amendment grounds. It baffles me 

how the same FCC can appropriately eliminate regulations for 

some segments of industry because of increased competition and at 

the very same time refuse to deregulate or even impose more regulation on segments of industry that are creating that very competition. 

The problem has not been lack of review or lack of information. 

The FCC’s media ownership restrictions have seen an unprecedented amount of public scrutiny. Starting in late 2002, after two 

DC Circuit Court decisions ruled the FCC failed to justify its media 

ownership restrictions, the FCC has commissioned 12 media ownership studies, received thousands of pages of comment and nearly 

2 million filings from the public, held a media ownership field hearing, and held four localism hearings. After the FCC imposed a new 

set of restrictions that the 3rd Circuit found unjustified in 2004, 

the FCC reviewed more than 130,000 new comments, released a 

second public notice to collect proposals for increasing minority and 

female broadcast ownership, conducted six field hearings on ownership, held two field hearings on localism, and received comment on 

more than 10 economic studies. I have a feeling that the Courts 

will once again conclude that the FCC has not justified imposition 

of the media ownership restrictions. Like I said, maybe the FCC 

needs a few hobgoblins just for consistency’s sake. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the hearing, and I yield 

back. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
15 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much. I note that the 

other gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, has arrived. Would he 

want to be recognized for the purpose of making an opening statement? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. GREEN. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman. And again, I thank you 

for holding this hearing. I want to welcome back our FCC Commissioners. 

To start with, I share my many members’ concerns about the 

process at the FCC, and I commend Chairman Dingell’s leadership 

to look into the problem. The last several media ownership hearings were called on short notice, and the cable proceedings and the 

FCC meeting agenda has been less than open. It is not the way to 

keep the public’s trust and certainly not the way to maintain a 

sense of openness in the Commission’s proceedings. 

But while there have been several problems recently with the 

current proceedings, such as short notice before the hearing in Seattle, over the years the Commission has compiled a significant 

record on cross-ownership. For over a decade now the FCC has 

been reviewing the broadcast/newspaper cross-ownership ban, and 

the current media ownership proceeding began nearly 18 months 

ago. The current proposal to lift the broadcast/newspaper crossownership cap would apply to only the 20 largest markets, so less 

than 10 percent of the designated media markets. Newspaper ad 

revenue and circulation has been declining for a number of years, 

and most data supports the fact that their own non-revenue growth 

is also slowing as well. I think lifting the cross-ownership cap could 

help traditional media outlets compete with the new competition in 

the marketplace while protecting diversity and localism in the market if necessary protections are included. The last major legislative 

attempt Congress had on media ownership was 1996 in the 

Telecom Act, which Congress authorized to help the financiallystruggling radio industry and authorized an increase in the number of stations a single owner could acquire in the market. We saw 

after the 1996 Telecom Act, which lifted the cap on radio stations 

in our nation’s largest cities to eight, an economic turnaround for 

many stations that had been struggling, as well as an increase in 

diversity of programming in many instances. Portable music players, cell phones, Internet radio, satellite radio all compete now with 

free over-the-air, local broadcast radio, which none of us could have 

expected in 1996. I have supported small increases in radio ownership in large markets because I believe the FCC’s limits on radio 

ownership act as a cap on the number of formats that are available 

in a local market. The station owner can only own one station, and 

that owner will program the most popular and the most profitable 

format. If the owner can program two stations, then the owner will 

pick the top two formats. The limit on terrestrial radio even in the 

largest market is still eight stations, while satellite radio has hundreds of channels, and the Internet radio channels are basically infinite. 

If we really want to get more format diversity and free over-theair, the way to do it is allow for radio to compete on a playing field 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
16 

that is less minimally leveled by allowing radio to own a few more 

stations in a larger market. This will give the owners in these markets the opportunity to come up with new formats to meet the 

needs of their listeners. Since our experience in 1996 demonstrates 

the way the market is operated, in 1995 there were only 32 radio 

formats, but after Congress relaxed the ownership restriction, that 

number is at 85 today. And I am interested in hearing from our 

Commissioners what their thoughts are in relaxing ownership rules 

in the largest markets. That is where there are significant underserved populations in need of radio stations in some areas, such as 

Spanish-language stations that are formatted to meet their needs. 

Again, I thank the chairman of our subcommittee for holding the 

hearing. I look forward to our witnesses, and I yield back my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair notes 

that the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Terry, has arrived. Would 

the gentleman want to be recognized for the purpose of making an 

opening statement? 

Mr. TERRY. Waive. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman does not. The Chair does not see 

any other members who seek recognition at this time. So we will 

turn to our panel. We thank the entire Federal Communications 

Commission for coming before this subcommittee today on such an 

important issue. We thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your work and 

the other members of the Commission on telecommunications 

issues on an ongoing basis. It has been a particularly hectic time 

at the Federal Communications Commission, and the next few 

weeks have the prospect of continuing that trend. And so we know 

you are all very busy, but of course, these issues are central to congressional policymaking as well. 

So let me now recognize you, Mr. Chairman, and whenever you 

are ready, please begin. 

Mr. MARTIN. Good morning, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member 

Upton, Ranking Member Barton—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Could you just hold for 1 second? I see the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, has arrived. Does the gentleman 

wish to make an opening statement? 

Mr. RUSH. No, but I have one that I have submitted for the 

record. 

Mr. MARKEY. We will have the gentleman from Illinois’ statement inserted into the record at the appropriate point. 

Mr. MARKEY. Again, we come back to you, Chairman Martin. 

Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF KEVIN J. MARTIN, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL 

COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

Mr. MARTIN. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to 

discuss the Commission’s review of the rules governing media ownership. 

I have a brief opening statement, and I certainly look forward to 

answering any questions you might have. 

A robust marketplace of ideas is by necessity one that reflects 

varied perspectives and viewpoints. Indeed, the opportunity to express diverse viewpoints lies at the heart of our democracy. To that 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
17 

end, the FCC’s media ownership rules are intended to further three 

core goals: competition, diversity, and localism. 

Section 202(h) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, as amended, 

requires the Commission to periodically review its broadcast ownership rules to determine ‘‘whether any of such rules are necessary 

in the public interest as a result of competition.’’ The statute then 

goes on to read, ‘‘The Commission shall repeal or modify any regulation it determines to be no longer in the public interest.’’ 

In 2003, the Commission conducted a comprehensive review of 

its media ownership rules, significantly reducing the restrictions on 

owning television, radio, and newspapers in the same market and 

nationally. Congress and the Courts overturned almost all of those 

changes. There was one exception. The Court specifically upheld 

the Commission’s determination that the absolute ban on newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership was no longer necessary. The 

court agreed that ‘‘reasoned analysis supports the Commission’s determination that the blanket ban on newspaper/broadcast crossownership was no longer in the public interest.’’ 

It has been over 4 years since the Third Circuit stayed the Commission’s previous rules and over 3 years since the Third Circuit 

instructed the Commission to respond to the Court with amended 

rules. It is against this backdrop that the FCC undertook a 

lengthy, spirited, and careful reconsideration of our media ownership rules, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the 

process and the proposed rule changes with you today. 

In 2003, when we last conducted a review of the media ownership rules, many expressed concern about the process. Specifically, 

people complained that there were not enough hearings, not 

enough studies, and not enough opportunity for comments and public input. When we began 18 months ago, the Commission committed to conducting this proceeding in a manner that was more 

open and more transparent and allowed for public participation. 

I believe that is what the Commission has done. First, we provided for a longer public comment period of over 120 days, which 

we subsequently extended, and we have held six hearings across 

the country at a cost of more than $200,000, and we held two additional hearings specifically focused on localism. The goal of these 

hearings was to more fully and directly involve the American people in the process. Public input is critical to our process and informs the Commission’s thinking on these and other issues. 

We listened to and recorded thousands of oral comments and allowed for extensions of time to file written comments on several occasions. To date, we have received over 166,000 written comments 

in this proceeding. We also spent $700,000 on 10 independent studies. I solicited and incorporated input from all of my colleagues on 

the Commission about the topics and authors of those studies, and 

we put those studies out for comment and made all the underlying 

data available to the public. 

I also committed to completing the Notice of Inquiry on localism, 

something that was initiated but stopped under the previous Chairman. This included holding the two remaining hearings. In all told, 

the Commission devoted more than $160,000 to hear from expert 

witnesses and members of the public on broadcasters’ service to 

their local communities. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
18 

I presented my colleagues with a final report containing specific 

recommendations and proposed rule changes reflective of the comments that were produced by the record of that inquiry. 

Finally, although not required, I took the unusual step of publishing the actual text of the one rule I thought we should amend. 

Because of the intensely controversial nature of the media ownership proceedings and my desire for an open and transparent process, I wanted to ensure that members of Congress and the public 

had the opportunity to see and review the actual rule prior to any 

Commission action. 

The media marketplace is considerably different than it was 

when the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule was put in 

place more than 30 years ago. Back then, cable was a nascent service, satellite television did not exist, and there was no Internet. 

Consumers have benefited from the explosion of new sources of 

news and information, but according to almost every measure, 

newspapers are struggling. At least 300 daily papers have stopped 

publishing over the past 30 years, their circulation is down, and 

their advertising revenue is shrinking. 

At the Boston Globe, revenue declined nine percent in 2006. The 

Minneapolis Star Tribune announced an ad and circulation decline 

of $64 million from 2004 to 2007, and the San Francisco Chronicle 

reported in 2006 that the paper was losing $1 million a day. Newspapers in financial difficulty oftentimes have little choice but to 

scale back their local newsgathering. In 2007 alone, 24 newsroom 

employees at the Boston Globe were fired, including two Pulitzer 

Prize-winning reporters. The Minneapolis Star Tribune fired 145 

employees, including 50 from their newsroom. The Detroit Free 

Press and the Detroit News announced cuts totaling 110 employees, and the San Francisco Chronicle plans to cut 25 percent of its 

newsroom staff. 

Without newspapers and their local newsgathering efforts, we 

would be worse off. We would be less informed about our communities and have fewer opportunities and outlets for the expression 

of independent thinking and a diversity of viewpoints. 

If we believe that newspaper journalism plays a unique role in 

the functioning of our democracy, we cannot turn a blind eye to the 

financial condition in which these companies find themselves. Our 

challenge is to address the viability of newspapers and their local 

newsgathering efforts while preserving our core values of diversity 

of voices and a commitment to localism in the media marketplace. 

Allowing cross-ownership may help to forestall the erosion of 

local news coverage by enabling companies to share their local 

newsgathering costs across multiple media platforms. Indeed, the 

newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule is the only one not to 

have been updated in three decades, despite that fact that FCC 

Chairmen, both Democrat and Republican, have advocated doing 

so. 

As a result, I proposed that the Commission amend the 32-yearold absolute ban on newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership and 

allow a newspaper to purchase a broadcast station, but not one of 

the top four television stations and only in the largest 20 cities in 

the country, as long as eight independent voices remain. This relatively minor loosening of the ban on newspaper/broadcast crossVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:45 Dec 19, 2008 Jkt 045289 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A289.XXX A289

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
19 

ownership in markets where there are many voices and sufficient 

competition would help strike a balance between ensuring the quality of local newsgathering while guarding against too much concentration. 

In contrast to the actions of the Commission 4 years ago, we 

would not loosen any other ownership rule. We would not permit 

companies to own any more radio or television stations either in a 

single market or nationally. Indeed, this proposed rule is notably 

more conservative in approach than the remanded newspaper/ 

broadcast cross-ownership rule that the Commission adopted in 

2003. I believe that the revised rule would balance the need to support the availability and sustainability of local news while not significantly increasing local concentration or harming diversity. 

I see that my time has expired. Establishing and maintaining a 

system of local broadcasting that is responsive to the unique interests and needs of individual communities is an extremely important goal for the Commission and one of the principles upon which 

our media ownership rules are built. Last week, the Commission 

also adopted an order requiring television broadcasters to better inform their communities about how the programming they air 

serves them. 

In addition, I have circulated a Localism Report and NPRM that 

addresses other actions the Commission can and should take to ensure that broadcasters are responsive to their local communities. 

And in order to ensure that the American people have the benefit 

of a competitive and diverse media marketplace, we need to create 

more opportunities for different, new, and independent voices to be 

heard. 

The Commission has recently taken steps to address the concern 

that there are too few local outlets available for minorities and new 

entrants. Last week, we significantly reformed our low-power FM 

rules in order to facilitate LPFM stations’ access to limited radio 

spectrum. The Commission also took significant actions adopting 

an order that will facilitate the use of leased access channels for 

diverse viewpoints. 

I have also circulated an order that proposes to adopt rules that 

are designed to promote diversity by increasing and expanding 

broadcast ownership opportunities for small businesses, including 

minority and women-owned businesses. The order adopts a significant number, a majority, of the recommendations made to the 

Commission by the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council and our advisory committee on diversity. The items I have circulated on localism and minority ownership are important steps to 

ensure that broadcasters fulfill their obligations to serve their local 

communities and to expand opportunities for entry into media ownership and media programming. 

Regardless of whether the Commission acts on the newspaper 

cross-ownership rule, these are important actions that the Commission should address. It is my sincere belief that all of these proposals taken together will serve the public interest, providing for 

competition, localism, and diversity in the media. My proposed 

change to the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule addresses 

the needs of the newspaper industry and helps preserve their local 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
20 

newsgathering, while at the same time preserving our commitment 

to localism, diversity, and competition. 

It is not an exaggeration to say that the media ownership rules 

are the most contentious and potentially divisive issue to come before the Commission. It certainly was in 2003, and many of the 

same concerns about consolidation and its impact on diversity and 

local news coverage are being voiced today. And it is no wonder. 

The decisions we make about our ownership rules are as critical as 

they are difficult, and the media touches almost every aspect of our 

lives. We are dependent upon it for our news, our information, and 

our entertainment. And indeed, the opportunity to express these diverse viewpoints does lie at the heart of our democracy. 

So the Commission has no more important responsibility than to 

strike the right balance between ensuring our rules recognize the 

opportunities and challenges of today’s media marketplace and 

prioritize the commitment to diversity and localism. 

I look forward to working with my fellow Commissioners in the 

upcoming weeks to adopt rules consistent with these goals, and I 

certainly would be happy to answer any questions about the proposals I put forth. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Martin follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
21 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 45289A.001
22 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here 45289A.002
23 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 45289A.003
24 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 45289A.004
25 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 45289A.005
26 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 45289A.006
27 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 45289A.007
28 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 45289A.008
29 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Now we will 

hear from the senior Democrat on the Federal Communications 

Commission, Commissioner Michael Copps. Welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. COPPS, COMMISSIONER, 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

Mr. COPPS. Thank you. Good morning Chairman Markey, Ranking Members Barton and Upton, members of the committee. 

This oversight hearing could not have come at a better time. The 

FCC is lurching dangerously off course, and I fear that at this 

point only congressional oversight can put us back on track. The 

chairman is proposing that just 2 weeks from now the FCC open 

the door to newspaper/broadcast combinations in every market in 

the country. At the same time, we have given short shrift to pressing problems like the sad state of minority ownership of U.S. media 

properties, the obvious decline of localism in our broadcast programming, and a DTV transition that holds real potential for television outages and the consumer backlash the likes of which you 

and I haven’t seen for a long, long time. My written statement discusses how we are flubbing up I believe the DTV transition. 

The ownership proposal in front of the Commission has been portrayed as a moderate relaxation of the newspaper/broadcast crossownership ban in the 20 largest markets. But look carefully at the 

fine print. The proposal would actually apply the same test in 

every market in the country. That is right. Any station can merge 

with any newspaper in any market. The only difference is that in 

the top 20 markets you start with a presumption that you meet the 

test, while in the other markets you don’t. 

But here is the rub. The four factors proposed by the chairman 

are about as tough as a bowl of Jell-O. You don’t even have to meet 

them all. It is just a list of things the FCC will consider. Given how 

the FCC has considered media regulation in recent years, I have 

about as much confidence that a proposed combination will be 

turned down as I do that the next Commission meeting will start 

on time. 

The ownership process here has been no better than the proposed 

substantive outcome. The Commission conducted hearings reluctantly on ownership and localism, yet I cannot find anywhere in 

the pending item the citation of a single citizen’s testimony. Was 

public comment without value? Is such comment extraneous to our 

decisionmaking? And why were some hearings called with such little notice that people often could not attend? There are other process breakdowns during this proceeding which time precludes my 

discussing, inadequate studies, items written and even circulated 

before the comment period closes, and so on. We need a process 

that allays distrust rather than one that creates it. 

To me, this is just nuts. We are rushing in to encourage more 

consolidation without addressing the real damage consolidation has 

already caused. We haven’t systematically addressed the fact that 

in a nation that is almost one-third minority, people of color own 

3.26 percent of all full-power commercial television stations, 

women, five percent. And we wonder why minority issues and minority contributions to our culture gets such short shrift and why 

minorities are so often depicted in caricature. Is our response to 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
30 

this really going to be to take the smaller stations where the few 

lucky minority owners happen to exist and put them now into a big 

media bazaar and to put such stations totally out of reach of aspiring women and minority broadcast entrepreneurs who still don’t 

have the incentives that they require to become owners? Is the response to the decline of localism really going to be to encourage 

more one-media company towns often controlled from afar rather 

than instituting a real, honest-to-goodness licensing renewal system where the presence of localism and diversity determine whether a broadcaster gets to keep his license? And please don’t tell me 

that a little localism tweak here or there can fix the problem, so 

go ahead and vote to loosen the rules now, and we will be back to 

do a better job later. I think we should all want a comprehensive 

localism package now such as we were told was coming when the 

localism proceeding was initiated rather than rushing ahead to encourage more of the consolidation that did so much to diminish localism in the first place. 

What we have here is an unseemly rush to judgment, a stubborn 

insistence to finish the proceeding by December 18th, public and 

congressional opinion be damned. When overwhelming majorities of 

citizens oppose this, when members of Congress write to caution us 

every day, and when legislation to avoid a nine-car train wreck is 

being actively considered on Capitol Hill, I think the FCC has a responsibility to stop, look, and listen. 

The stakes are enormous. I know a little bit about the history of 

this country, and I know how precious media is. The diversity and 

creativity of our culture can be encouraged or discouraged by 

media. Media can reflect and nourish these things or shove them 

aside, and there has been too much shoving aside in recent years. 

Our civic dialogue can be either expanded or dumbed down by 

media. Lately our policies have encouraged an erosion of the civic 

dialogue upon which the future of our democracy depends. 

I hope the committee will act to save the Commission from itself. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to our 

discussion. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Copps follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
31 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 45289A.009
32 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 45289A.010
33 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 45289A.011
34 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 45289A.012
35 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 45289A.013
36 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 45289A.014
37 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Commissioner Copps, very much. Our 

next witness is Commissioner Deborah Tate, from the Commission 

as well. We welcome you back, Commissioner Tate. Whenever you 

are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE, COMMISSIONER, 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

Ms. TATE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and ranking members. 

It is an honor to appear before you today and an honor to be a 

member of the Federal Communications Commission. 

Since arriving in January 2006, there have been literally hundreds of issues before us, some ministerial that are important to 

parties who are affected, and others of national and international 

significance which foster competition, encourage innovation, and 

help ensure our global competitiveness for years to come. A few of 

the issues you all have noted this morning will have lasting impact 

on our country, from the remand of our media ownership rules to 

coordinating with the industry for a successful DTV transition, 

from our fiscal responsibility in managing spectrum to encouraging 

the nationwide deployment of broadband services, especially as it 

relates to the interoperability of public safety. 

These have been at the top of our agenda since I arrived. They 

are among the most historically significant that the Commission 

will make and command your attention, ours, and the public’s. We 

are here today to seek and listen to your input on one of these and 

that is media ownership. 

Since October 2006, as has been noted, we have held six public 

hearings across the entire country, including my home town of 

Nashville. These lengthy hearings from sea to shining sea provided 

an opportunity for Americans to have unprecedented access to a 

governmental body about the role that media plays in their lives 

and their opinion regarding ownership of media outlets. 

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 comments not only of course from the general public but 

also from expert panels of economists, producers, musicians, directors, professors, students, small and large broadcasters, and of 

course many, many community organizations. During the roughly 

year and a half of on-going hearings, we also had 10 media studies 

by preeminent economists, academics, and researchers. 

Never before, as many of you all have noted, has there been so 

much competition for the eyes and ears of American consumers of 

news and information, wherever, whenever, and however, on any 

device that they may choose. This competition is cross-platform, 

and it includes newspapers, broadcasters, cable, satellite, wireline 

networks and, increasingly, mobile networks. And as more platforms offer access to the Internet, those sources only expand. 

Like many of you, I am an avid consumer of news, but my list 

of news sources pales in comparison to those that the younger generation use. So we need to not only structure our media ownership 

rules to account for the needs of today and our generation but of 

the next generation, the I-generation that lives in an online, 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
38 

YouTube world, with access to local, national, and international 

news sources that we never dreamed of at their ages. 

I share many of the concerns that commenters made regarding 

the negative impacts media can have, from extreme violence to exceedingly coarse language to the impact on childhood obesity. I also 

continue to be troubled, as many of you all have noted, with the 

alarmingly low rates of female and minority ownership, and I have 

tried to work with others to find solutions, both inside and outside 

the Commission, which can have a positive impact as we go forward, from the NAB’s Education Foundation series for women and 

to the Hispanic Broadcasters Association Financing and Capitalization Seminar. And I have worked with the National Association of 

Black Owned Broadcasters at their outreach events. 

I am very pleased that the Commission is presently considering 

a number of proposals put forward by the chairman to assist 

women and minorities, specifically with both capital and debt financing. In addition, I have offered to lend my support to an annual conference engaging partners and potential financiers. Another recommendation from the Commission is allowing women 

and minorities to purchase expiring construction permits. Finally, 

we continue to discuss changing our Equity-Debt Plus rule. 

Let there be no doubt that women, many of whom are AfricanAmerican, are succeeding in the industry. Look, for example, at 

Cathy Hughes of Radio One, Susan Davenport at Sheridan, Caroline Beasley, and Susan Patrick. But I hope that we will continue 

to employ every possible avenue to have a more positive impact on 

the diversity of both voices and ownership. 

I look forward to hearing your thoughts today and working with 

you on these and many other important issues. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Tate follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
39 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here 45289A.015
40 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here 45289A.016
41 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here 45289A.017
42 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 45289A.018
43 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Commissioner Tate, very much. Next 

we will hear from Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, and we welcome you back again, Commissioner. Whenever you are ready, 

please begin. 

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN, COMMISSIONER, 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Upton, Congressman Barton, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for calling this hearing to address the future of American media. No issue 

on our agenda has more far-reaching consequences for the future 

of our democracy than this one. As I have traveled across the country, I have heard a bipartisan chorus of opposition to further media 

consolidation. Americans from all walks of life, from all political 

perspectives, from the right, left and virtually everyone in between, 

do not want a handful of companies dominating their main sources 

of news and information. It goes against the spirit of America for 

that kind of concentration of power in the media to occur. People 

from all perspectives decry the coarsity of our media that has coincided with the rise of consolidation. Yet, we seem to be on a sprint 

to disregard the public’s view of the public interest. We are on a 

dangerous course that could damage the diversity of voices that is 

so critical to the future of our democracy and to an informed citizenry. 

Given the importance of this, it is very disappointing to see the 

Commission proceed without due deference to the American public 

and their elected representatives. For example, at a recent hearing 

in Seattle, Washington, it was announced with just 5 days’ notice, 

the minimum amount of notice allowed by law, despite the express 

request for more time by members of the Washington delegation, 

including Congressman Jay Inslee. Nevertheless, over 1,000 people 

showed up on a Friday night to voice their opposition to increased 

media consolidation. And I can tell you that, as you know in Seattle, Mr. Inslee, there are a lot of diversions on Friday night out 

there, but they poured out because they cared about this issue. 

They poured out their heart and soul. They read poems, they sang, 

they begged us not to allow further media consolidation. 

And what was their answer? The next day, back at the office, the 

chairman announced in a New York Times op-ed—not to us, but 

in a New York Times op-ed—his plans for relaxing the cross-ownership rule. It is hard to imagine how it was possible to review and 

consider hundreds of public comments that we received that night 

in Seattle before issuing that proposal the next working day. It is 

also an ominous sign for those hoping their comments on the current proposal be considered in the decision-making process as we 

hurtle towards December 18th and are given only one week to consider the public comments after they close. 

Though the proposal is portrayed as modest, it would actually 

open the door to newspapers buying up broadcast outlets in every 

market in America as Commissioner Copps indicated. It would replace the current ban with a wide-open bazaar that only requires 

buyers to meet the loosest standards for a waiver. The waiver 

standards are so weak that combinations could be allowed in any 

city, no matter how small, for any TV station, no matter how domiVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:45 Dec 19, 2008 Jkt 045289 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A289.XXX A289

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
44 

nant. My colleague, Mr. Copps, called it a bowl of Jell-O. I called 

it like a wet noodle that can be shaped at will by three Commissioners. They are overcooked. 

Some claim that relaxing the rule would create more local news, 

yet a path-breaking study by leading consumer organizations, 

using the FCC’s own data, demonstrates that claim to be wrong. 

Properly analyzed, the FCC’s data shows that in communities with 

cross-owned stations, the overall level of local news actually is diminished. There is less local news. It is hard to see how that promotes localism, it is hard to see how that promotes competition, 

and it is hard to see certainly how combining these outlets would 

increase diversity. Further, there is no real evidence that crossownership improves the finances of the newspaper industry. Witness Tribune, whom we just approved a merger for who came in 

in very desperate financial straits. Virtually no company in America owns more cross-ownership stations than the Tribune. So to 

argue that this is somehow going to save the newspaper industry 

when they were recently put on the block defies reason and defies 

the evidence on the record. 

The Internet is causing some disruption in revenues, there is no 

question. Newspapers are under a lot of pressure, but their profits 

remain very high by corporate standards, 20 percent margins on 

average. The Internet also though presents a wonderful opportunity for future revenue growth if newspapers focus on news. 

So I think we really need to reassess our priorities here. Whatever you think of the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership ban, 

across the country—and we have been all across the country, we 

have been to over 20, 30 hearings—people aren’t clamoring for us 

to relax the newspaper cross-ownership ban. They are concerned 

about how responsive their local media is to local communities, 

what is happening in their own community, the local artists that 

aren’t getting heard on the radio to the local civic and cultural affairs that they are not hearing enough about on the news that covers if it bleeds, it leads. They are concerned, people of color and 

women are stereotyped, misrepresented or underrepresented. 

So first things first. Media consolidation would only take these 

outlets further out of the reach of women and people of color. We 

should first implement improvements to localism and diversity of 

ownership before we consider loosening the media ownership rules, 

not afterwards. As Congresswoman Solis noted, I have called for 

the creation of an independent, bipartisan panel to guide us on a 

course to raise the dismal level of ownership of media outlets cited 

by members of this committee by women and minorities. Many 

members of Congress, along with Congresswoman Solis, have 

joined that call. And many civil rights organizations have joined 

that call, thus far to no avail. 

So to restore an open and transparent process, I think the Commission should voluntarily follow course along the lines laid out by 

members of this committee and in the bipartisan bill approved 

unanimously yesterday by your counterpart committee in the other 

body, the Media Ownership Act of 2007. I don’t see why we can’t 

follow something that was on a bipartisan basis approved by our 

Oversight Committee and by request of members of this committee. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
45 

Following these simple guidelines can set us on a path toward 

a fair and transparent process, and you will no longer hear complaints about process from me if we follow those guidelines. 

Another critical area of concern, and an area where the FCC 

should show far greater leadership, is the DTV transition. We need 

a national DTV outreach, education, and implementation plan that 

coordinates the efforts of all stakeholders. We should create a DTV 

Transition Task Force immediately to coordinate Federal efforts 

and work with our private sector partners. And we need to establish more guidance for broadcasters soon. As the GAO recently 

noted, nobody is in charge of the transition, and there is no plan. 

We still have time to turn this around but only if we increase the 

level of leadership, coordination, and resources dedicated to it. The 

ongoing leadership of this subcommittee has been extremely helpful, and I thank you for that in focusing our efforts; and we need 

more focusing from you. 

I also look forward to working with you to ensure that the American media remains the most vibrant in the world and to ensure 

that the DTV transition goes as smoothly as you intended. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Adelstein follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
46 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here 45289A.019
47 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 45289A.020
48 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 45289A.021
49 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 45289A.022
50 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 45289A.023
51 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 45289A.024
52 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 45289A.025
53 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here 45289A.026
54 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 45289A.027
55 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 45289A.028
56 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 45289A.029
57 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 45289A.030
58 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Commissioner Adelstein, very much. 

And now we will turn to the fifth of five FCC Commissioners, Commissioner Robert McDowell. We welcome you back, Commissioner. 

Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. MCDOWELL, COMMISSIONER, 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Upton, and members of the subcommittee. 

Almost exactly 216 years ago, on December 15, 1791, the American people ratified the Bill of Rights. First among them is the first 

amendment. Among other things, it guarantees the freedom of 

speech and freedom of the press. Perhaps it is first because all 

other rights and all other issues can be affected by how the media 

filters and shapes information. In 1791, other than word of mouth, 

the primary medium for conveying information and opinion was 

paper. Today, competition, innovation and technology have produced an explosion of countless forms of media that bombard us 

with so much data our culture has created a text-messaging acronym to name one of the phenomena produced by these changes, 

TMI, or too much information. 

Of course, the Federal Communications Commission is tasked 

with reviewing rules governing the ownership of only some of the 

platforms that comprise today’s media marketplace. The Commission’s work on this matter has been unprecedented in scope and 

thoroughness. The current proceeding began at my very first open 

meeting as Commissioner, almost 18 months ago. We gathered and 

reviewed over 130,000 comments and extended the comment deadline. We released a Second Further Notice regarding proposals to 

increase ownership of broadcast stations by people of color and 

women. We traveled across our great nation to hear directly from 

the American people during eight field hearings. During those 

hearings, we heard from 115 expert panelists, and we stayed late 

into the night and sometimes early into the next morning to hear 

directly from concerned citizens who signed up to speak. We also 

commissioned and released for public comment 10 economic studies 

by respected economists. 

So, during my entire term as a Commissioner, we have been reviewing this matter. But our review didn’t begin last year. The previous round began in 2002. At that time, the Commission received 

millions of formal and informal comments. Four localism hearings 

were held across the country, and the FCC also produced more 

studies. The 2002 review ended with both the legislative and judicial branches overturning large portions of that Order. However, 

the Third Circuit in the Prometheus case concluded that, ‘‘reasoned 

analysis supports the Commission’s determination that the blanket 

ban on newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership was no longer in the 

public interest.’’ 

But the debate began even earlier, in 2001. That proceeding 

sprouted up as a result of a June 2000 report from a Democrat-controlled FCC. That report resulted from a 1998 proceeding, which 

stemmed from a 1996 proceeding, which was sparked by bipartisan 

legislation. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
59 

In short, the directly-elected representatives of the American 

people enacted a statute that contains a presumption in favor of 

modifying the ownership rules as competitive circumstances 

change. Section 202(h) states that we must review the rules and 

‘‘determine whether any of such rules are necessary in the public 

interest as the result of competition. The Commission shall repeal 

or modify any regulation that it determines to be no longer in the 

public interest.’’ 

We also have a statutory duty to pursue the noble public policy 

goals of competition, diversity, and localism. We have been debating all of these ideas for years. In the meantime, the media landscape has undergone dramatic change. 

Now, we have five national networks, not the three I grew up 

with. Today we have hundreds of cable channels spewing out a 

multitude of video content produced by more, not fewer, but more 

entities than existed before. Now we have two vibrant DBS companies, telephone companies offering video, cable overbuilders, satellite radio, the Internet and its millions of websites and bloggers, 

a plethora of wireless devices operating in a competitive marketplace, iPods, Wi-Fi, and much, much more. And that’s not counting 

the myriad new technologies and services that are coming over the 

horizon, such as those resulting from our wireless auctions. 

All Americans, and the rest of the world, are migrating toward 

the boundless promise of new media for their news, information, 

and entertainment. That is where the eyeballs, ad dollars, energy, 

and investments are going. It should be no wonder that this new, 

exciting frontier is lightly regulated. While traditional media is 

shrinking, new media is growing. The best news is that all Americans will benefit from this new paradigm, because new technology 

empowers the sovereignty of the individual, regardless of who you 

are. All of us should continue to examine the important public policy implications of this new era in the context of these facts. 

Thank you for having us here today, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McDowell follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
60 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 here 45289A.031
61 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 45289A.032
62 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 68 here 45289A.033
63 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 69 here 45289A.034
64 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 here 45289A.035
65 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 71 here 45289A.036
66 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 72 here 45289A.037
67 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Commissioner McDowell, very much. 

And now we will turn to members of the subcommittee for questions for the Commission. The Chair will recognize himself for that 

purpose at this time. 

Chairman Martin, why does your proposal select the top 20 markets? Aren’t you concerned that that will be viewed as an arbitrary 

decision in the same way that the court ruled earlier that Commissioner Powell’s plan was arbitrary and not backed by facts? How 

did you arrive at the number 20? 

Mr. MARTIN. Well, whenever the Commission is trying to make 

any kind of a line-drawn exercise, it becomes difficult, and people 

will always argue that the Commission drew those lines arbitrarily. 

Traditionally, the Commission does deserve some deference from 

the courts on that. But the main reason that I drew it was it was 

a natural breaking point. If you looked at the number of commercial owners for television stations in the top DMAs, and the top 20 

DMAs, 18 of those 20 had at least double-digit owners of television 

stations. But starting with No. 21, that went down to seven/five, 

seven/six, six/six, seven. So it started going down to single digits 

and actually below the eight independent owner threshold that we 

were trying to establish and that we mirrored off of the television 

duopoly rule. 

Mr. MARKEY. In your plan, you actually include a waiver for 

markets that are below the top 20, and you have a hurdle that has 

to be overcome in order for mergers of newspapers and media outlets to occur below the top 20 markets. Is that a Berlin Wall or just 

a speed bump? In other words, why have you abandoned the historical test that the property has to be in distress essentially and used 

a new test that some are saying could result in an easier path to 

merger? 

Mr. MARTIN. In both the top 20 markets in the cases where there 

is a presumption that this would be allowed and in the bottom 

markets and the other remaining 200 markets where the presumption is it wouldn’t be allowed, we will consider a series of factors 

so that people can come in and make their case that either the presumption in favor of a merger should be overcome and the presumption against a merger should be overcome. And actually, when 

I met with particular public interest groups, some had advocated 

that kind of a case-by-case analysis because they also wanted the 

opportunity to come in and oppose mergers that would still be 

within the top 20 markets and still be able to put forth evidence 

that would indicate that those shouldn’t be sold out. Right in 

the—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Would you consider, Mr. Chairman, working with 

the other members of the Commission towards moving back to the 

current standard for waivers, rather than the new standard which 

you propose in this draft? 

Mr. MARTIN. First I should say I would absolutely consider working with all of the Commissioners on the proposal to the extent 

that any of them are willing to engage in the substance of it to try 

to figure out—and their proposals on how they think that they can 

be improved and make it better. 

Mr. MARKEY. Let me just ask this. 

Mr. MARTIN. Sure. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
68 

Mr. MARKEY. Is your intent that this be a high hurdle or just a 

speed bump? 

Mr. MARTIN. Oh, no, I think that when there’s a presumption in 

favor or presumption against the merger, I think it should be a 

high hurdle. 

Mr. MARKEY. A high hurdle? Let me then turn to Commissioner 

Copps. 

Mr. MARTIN. The one thing I would add is I do think it is important that the previous waiver policy was only for financial distress. 

Mr. MARKEY. I understand that. 

Mr. MARTIN. I think that one of the critical factors that we 

should be considering is their commitment to start new local news, 

and I think that that would be something that I would be hesitant 

to not be able to take into account. 

Mr. MARKEY. Commissioner Copps? 

Mr. COPPS. I don’t think it is a Berlin Wall, and I don’t think 

it is a speed bump, either. I think it is an on ramp to more consolidation in many markets across the country. This is a tremendous 

loophole, so all you have to do in the top 20 markets is meet the 

presumption or you are presumed to have met, and in the smaller 

markets you have to demonstrate that you are meeting that presumption. But we make this so very, very easy it is not even a test, 

it is just factors that we will consider. That is what it is called. 

Does a combination produce more news? We are not looking at 

whether it produces more news for the market, we are looking to 

see maybe they added one little column in the newspaper. So OK, 

they do that. Do they maintain independent news judgment? Do 

you know how we are going to determine that? We are going to 

look at their organizational charts and their titles of the people 

who hold them. So that is not exactly the most stringent kind of 

test I have ever seen. We look at levels of concentration. We 

haven’t done a very good job with that. It is hard to get levels of 

concentration on any market in this country, and we go through 

proposals where you count the New York Times the same as the 

Penny Shopper; so you know, that is a little bit leaky, too. And 

then we look at financial condition, you know. I have never met 

with a company at the FCC that doesn’t come in and say they are 

in financial distress at some point. They are all in distress. They 

are all broke. Or then they go to Wall Street and they say we will 

pay you, we are doing so great; and then when they come down 

here, it is moan and groan and bewail their horrid—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Copps, could I just hear from Commissioner 

Adelstein on this subject for a second? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. I would certainly agree that all of the standards 

are so loose that there is virtually no line that is drawn that is set 

in stone. All of them are like shifting sands. Financial distress, it 

is not financial distress, it is financial condition. I could always say 

I would like my financial condition to be better, who wouldn’t? 

Newspapers right now, their margins have gone down from 30 percent to 20 percent, very high by corporate standards. And yet they 

could argue, gee, we have had our margins cut by one-third. Even 

though we make more money than everybody else, our financial 

condition is affected. Therefore, they would be eligible for a waiver. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
69 

You talk about the other standards. They are all so loose. The 

level of concentration in the market, no definition of a level of concentration. 

Mr. MARKEY. You have heard both of their comments, Commissioner Martin, but you say you want a high standard that would 

be difficult to me. Could you explain the difference in perspective 

in terms of the language which you are—— 

Mr. MARTIN. Sure. 

Mr. MARKEY. —using in your proposal, and would you be willing 

to work to find language that would raise the presumption which 

you are saying is a high hurdle and not a speed bump? 

Mr. MARTIN. Sure. First, I would say I absolutely would be willing to work with them on finding language that would make them 

feel more comfortable that this is a high hurdle. So absolutely, I 

would be willing to work with them. 

For example, on the level of concentration, our typical concentration analysis we use an HHI concentration analysis. Because 

broadcasters aren’t selling a product to consumers, we have to traditionally look at the advertising market as a surrogate for the 

level of concentration among properties, so that is traditionally how 

the Commission has looked at that level of concentration. Some 

public interest groups have criticized that and want us to look at 

other things like viewership and subscription to newspapers. I 

didn’t want to foreclose on people being able to put that kind of evidence in the record to demonstrate concentration, but our traditional analysis has been an HHI analysis, which I would assume 

the Commission would follow. That would be one of the examples 

of how I would traditionally think that we would be imposing this, 

but I didn’t want to preclude others from coming forward with 

other evidence of self-concentration, which is why it was a broader 

standard. But I would certainly be happy to work with the other 

Commissioners. 

Mr. MARKEY. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The time of the 

chairman has expired. I now recognize the ranking member, the 

gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton. 

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad you went 

over your time. I will try not to go over. I am going to try to get 

two questions in. We will see what happens. 

First, I want to ask unanimous consent to put an L.A. Times 

story in the record which I missed during my opening. 

Mr. MARKEY. Without objection, it will be included. 

Mr. UPTON. Chairman Martin, just a quick question going back 

to my opening statement as it relates to radio. Again, the numbers 

are in. We know that the industry is doing far worse today than 

at any time in the past. Isn’t this the same situation as what you 

are trying to address with the newspaper side of things as it relates to radio? Some of them I know are on the second panel. 

Mr. MARTIN. Sure. The most significant difference between what 

is occurring in the radio market and the newspaper/broadcast 

cross-ownership ban is that the radio market and the radio owners 

received some significant amount of ownership relief in 1996. The 

1996 Act actually changed the Commission’s previous ownership 

rules directly, whereas it told the Commission to only study the 

newspaper rule. So actually the implementation of the newspaper 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
70 

rule, as Commissioner McDowell went through the lengthy process, 

that the Commission has never been fully implemented. 

Mr. UPTON. The courts though allowed this door to open, though, 

to reexamine the radio side, is that not right? 

Mr. MARTIN. They absolutely did, and there is a significant increase in the number of radio stations that are actually available 

today compared to the number of radio stations that were even in 

the marketplace in 1996. But there has also been a significant decrease in the number of owners since 1996, and that is a different 

situation that we are facing today in the radio than we see in 

newspapers. That is why that, in combination with a significant 

amount of concern that was raised at many of the public hearings 

about the radio consolidation that has already occurred, has convinced me that at this stage we should be careful about the radio 

markets and any immediate further consolidation and instead focus 

on the rule that hasn’t been updated since 1975. 

Mr. UPTON. OK. I’m watching the clock, and I want to get an observation, and I would be interested in each of your comments as 

it relates to this. I just drove halfway across the country three 

times during the Thanksgiving break, and I did not listen to my 

iPod or CD player. I listened to the radio. I picked up literally hundreds of stations, AM and FM, talk, music, et cetera, three different languages, French, English, and Spanish. I can remember as 

a child having only three TV stations, the three networks from Chicago that reached my house over the air along with WGN. Today 

as I have cable, literally hundreds of stations, everything that you 

could imagine in terms of diversity, I listen and log onto the Internet every day for news and sports, a variety of different stations; 

and I know in terms of my local station, WSBT, which is in South 

Bend, the 89th largest media market in the country, received a 

waiver 35 years ago. It is aligned with the newspaper, the South 

Bend Tribune, as well as a couple of different radio stations, as 

well as the TV, and now that we are in the digital stage, they have 

partnered between all of those different entities, a 24-hour digital 

newsroom of which a number of news stories are required literally 

every hour that pop up on that screen. And to go back a little bit 

to Mr. Markey’s question on maybe a different angle is while I believe that it is important to lessen the cross-ownership restrictions 

on the 20 largest markets, I think it is also very important as we 

have seen the success here in South Bend, the 89th market, that 

we look at the list of stations at the bottom also crying for that 

same type of relief in order to survive. And I would be interested 

in your comments briefly knowing that I have got a couple minutes. 

Mr. MARTIN. I think that you can make certainly a strong case 

that actually consumers would benefit from additional newspaper/ 

broadcast cross-ownership in the smaller markets in that there 

could be more financial situations that are difficult for people to do 

local newsgathering. The problem is those smaller markets are also 

where there is the greatest danger of consolidation that has occurred. So you have the most potential benefit but also the greatest 

danger because there are fewer outlets. And that is the reason why 

I think that a strong case can be made, but I think the Commission 

should take what obviously is a controversial step gradually and at 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
71 

least address it where there seems to be a plethora of other voices 

in those largest markets first before we move forward on the smaller markets. But I don’t disagree that there are lots of people who 

argue it is actually just as important or more so in the smaller 

markets to preserve the ability to gather news. 

Mr. UPTON. And Commissioner Copps, you have seen this. I don’t 

know if you have been to WSBT in South Bend, but I am sure that 

you have seen a number of these smaller markets where in fact it 

works, the localism, the diversity, they are indeed, you know, truly 

a part of the community in terms of as it relates to them. They 

have received numerous awards, NAB, newspaper, et cetera, for 

their commitment to their localism, which frankly, I don’t know if 

they could survive without somewhat of that cross sharing of different pools of reporters as well as technical assistance, particularly as they go to the digital age, which requires really millions 

of dollars to convert from analog to digital, which they have already done. 

Mr. COPPS. Well, I have been to a lot of markets around this 

country, and I have listened to a lot of people decry the loss of localism. We have heard of episodes where the consolidated stations, 

nobody is minding the studio; so a public safety incident occurs, 

and it is impossible to notify the community of it. I have heard 

complaint after complaint about consolidation leading to the cutback in local newsroom staff, which leads me to the other point I 

would like just briefly to make. We have heard a lot of discussion 

about the dynamism of the new market with the Internet, and I 

am a great believer, I love the Internet. It is not a substitute for 

newspapers and broadcast. It is far and away a minor player when 

it comes to how most people get their news, and anybody who is 

concerned about the future of this new media ought to be concerned about what we do with the old media, because some of the 

same trends are coming there. You go on the Internet, and most 

people go on the Internet, they are not looking for Mike Copps’s 

news website coming out of Alexandria, Virginia, they are going to 

read their own newspaper. Look at the 20 titled news items on the 

Internet. It is the same folks that—— 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pittsburgh, Mr. Doyle. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first start off by 

saying how much I appreciate the LPFM order last week. I want 

to thank the chairman and the Commissioners for their part, and 

I want to make sure that people hear this part that was unanimously agreed to. The Commission said, and I quote, recommends 

to Congress that it remove the requirement that LPFM stations 

protect full-power stations operating on third adjacent channels. Interference isn’t a question anymore. Not only did the $2 million 

study the FCC commissioned prove it, but also the fact that big 

broadcasters want to use the same technology as LPFM on those 

same frequencies for repeating their signals proves it, too. If anything, having new local non-commercial options might keep people 

listening to free FM radio across the dial. So again, FCC to Congress, fix the anti-LPFM law. Mr. Chairman, I hope we can expect 

movement on my bill to do just that early next year, and I want 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
72 

to thank my friend Mr. Terry, who has co-sponsored that bill with 

me. 

Now, Commissioner Adelstein, very briefly, the Commission was 

supposed to vote last week on whether or not cable operators have 

met the 70–70 rule, the market penetration and take rate standard. What happened? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Well, we did vote on a report that was radically 

altered. The initial draft suggested that the 70–70 part had been 

met, and it wasn’t until the night before the meeting that I learned 

from our own internal data that I had asked for earlier that day 

that it had been omitted from the earlier draft for the first time 

in history. After many years of our own internal data being included, it was dropped, that in fact we determined that the 70–70 

test had not been met. 

Mr. DOYLE. Sounds like a question of process. I want to piggyback on top of questions of process because I think another important question of process is a memo on cross-ownership dated June 

15, 2006, from the FCC’s chief economist, and it begins like this, 

‘‘Mr. Chairman,’’ it says, ‘‘this document is an attempt to share 

some thoughts and ideas I have about how the FCC can approach 

relaxing newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership restrictions.’’ Then it 

lays out the work that would need be done to justify lifting the 

cross-ownership rule. Now this is June 15, 2006. Just 6 days later, 

the FCC announces that it was going to look into media ownership 

and commission some studies and hold public hearings and ‘‘invite 

comment on how the commission should address radio, television, 

and newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership issues.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, could I ask unanimous consent that these be entered into the record for today’s hearing, both the paper on crossownership rule and the press release from a week later? 

Mr. MARKEY. Without objection, it will be included in the record. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. Chairman Martin, a more cynical person 

than I might ask the question, did you know what you wanted to 

do on June 15, 2006? I would hope that overturning cross-ownership rules wasn’t a foregone conclusion, that you actually looked at 

studies, saw what they said, wanted the field hearings, listened to 

the public and the stakeholders, and then announced your rule. 

And my question is, Chairman Martin, did your chief economist 

prepare similar papers that took sides on other media ownership 

rules before the FCC announced it was going to seek comment and 

pay for studies? 

Mr. MARTIN. I think that it is fair that I did have an idea of what 

I thought the Commission should end up doing in June and that 

is to implement the rule the Commission had already adopted and 

had been affirmed by the Third Circuit. The difference is—— 

Mr. DOYLE. But my question is did your economist prepare other 

studies on other issues? 

Mr. MARTIN. I was first trying to answer the first I think you 

said more cynical question and that is that the cross-ownership 

rule, the ban on cross-ownership, had already been eliminated. The 

Commission had said the ban was no longer appropriate, and the 

Third Circuit had already said by the time that memo was produced the ban was no longer appropriate. As a result, we were 

going to do some kind of ownership relaxation for cross-ownership 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
73 

because the ban was no longer appropriate. As a result, I did ask 

staff to try to determine how we were going to do ownership studies to make a new determination of where that line should be 

drawn so that they didn’t accuse us of doing it arbitrarily. But I 

am not aware—— 

Mr. DOYLE. Has this been done in any other instance? 

Mr. MARTIN. The memo? No, we didn’t do a memo on any other 

rules because going into the rule-making, none of the other rules 

had a presumption. 

Mr. DOYLE. OK. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MARTIN. The one rule was the courts had—— 

Mr. DOYLE. By the way, I have 8 minutes, Mr. Chairman, not 

five, just so you know. Is that from 8? 

Mr. MARKEY. Yes, you—— 

Mr. DOYLE. OK. I want to move on. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Martin, in my years on the committee, I have learned 

a lot from Chairman Dingell, including this technique, so a simple 

yes or no will suffice to the following questions. In the Seattle hearing last month, you referred to the publisher of the Seattle Times, 

Frank Blethin, as being a vocal proponent of keeping the rules the 

way they are. And you also said, and I quote, ‘‘I think you have 

to put that in the context of almost every newspaper in the country 

having cutbacks and that those will continue until they can diversify their media holdings and spread their costs over other outlets.’’ 

Do you agree with that statement? 

Mr. MARTIN. I haven’t—— 

Mr. DOYLE. It is just a yes or no question. 

Mr. MARTIN. I can’t say for sure that I said it, but yes, I think 

I generally agree with it. 

Mr. DOYLE. Are you aware that Dean Singleton, owner of the 

York Daily Record, and dozens of other papers of the Media News 

Group, said that the newspaper industry is, quote, very, very, very 

profitable, and it will continue to be for a long time? 

Mr. MARTIN. I am not aware that he said it but—— 

Mr. DOYLE. He did say that. Are you aware in late October that 

he also said that more people read the Sunday newspaper than 

watch the Super Bowl and that newspapers are, quote, holding up 

better than most other media? 

Mr. MARTIN. No, I am not aware that—— 

Mr. DOYLE. He said that, too. Are you aware that Scarborough 

Research, a firm that works closely with the Newspaper Association of America, their report concluded that, and I quote, they continue to find that when online readers are considered, the story of 

newspaper readership for many papers transforms from one of 

slow, steady decline to one of vibrancy and growth? 

Mr. MARTIN. I am sorry, what was the question? Have I seen 

that report? 

Mr. DOYLE. Yes. 

Mr. MARTIN. I haven’t seen that report, no. 

Mr. DOYLE. Are you aware that the Mid-Atlantic Community Papers Association opposes lifting the cross-ownership rule? 

Mr. MARTIN. I think someone from that group testified at one of 

our hearings I believe. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
74 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. Are you aware that the Midwest Free 

Community Papers opposes lifting the cross-ownership rule? 

Mr. MARTIN. I apologize. It may have been the Midwest, not the 

Mid-Atlantic, that testified in Chicago. 

Mr. DOYLE. Are you aware that the Association of Free Community Papers opposes lifting the cross-ownership? 

Mr. MARTIN. Yes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Are you aware that the Independent Free Papers Association opposes lifting the cross-ownership rule? 

Mr. MARTIN. No, I haven’t heard of that association. 

Mr. DOYLE. They are. Are you aware that the Community Papers 

of Michigan opposes lifting the cross-ownership rule? 

Mr. MARTIN. No. 

Mr. DOYLE. How about the Free Community Papers of New 

York? 

Mr. MARTIN. I knew the Free Community Papers Association 

was. 

Mr. DOYLE. The Free Community Papers of New England? 

Mr. MARTIN. No. 

Mr. DOYLE. The Texas Community Newspapers Association? 

Mr. MARTIN. No. 

Mr. DOYLE. The Wisconsin Community Newspapers Association? 

Mr. MARTIN. No. 

Mr. DOYLE. The National Newspaper Publishers Association, also 

known as the black press of America, opposes lifting the cross-ownership rule. Did you know that? 

Mr. MARTIN. I believe they were at the Chicago hearing. I think 

a representative—— 

Mr. DOYLE. Are you aware the National Association of Hispanic 

Publishers opposes lifting the cross-ownership rule? 

Mr. MARTIN. I think so, yes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. Now, let me get to the hearings. We had 

one in Pennsylvania. It was in Harrisburg. I remember frantically 

calling about a week before that hearing to try to find out what 

time it was and get the details. One of the things that Commissioner Copps said struck me particularly about the dumbing down 

of America. Do you know that you had this hearing in Harrisburg, 

only one newspaper, Harrisburg Patriot, made an effort to cover 

that story. AP did a wire on it, but only the broadcast trade journals picked that up. Nothing in the News Media Group, York Daily 

Record, Lebanon Daily, or any other newspaper in the State of 

Pennsylvania. But every one of those papers ran a five-paragraph 

AP wire story on Hugh Hefner’s belief that Anna Nicole Smith’s 

body should be buried in the Bahamas. You talk about the 

dumbing down of America. You can see why many people, Commissioner Copps and myself, were concerned. 

I am going to skip my last question because I want to get to my 

conclusion, Mr. Chairman, if you will indulge me. 

Mr. MARKEY. I am sure it is going to be great. 

Mr. DOYLE. I know we have lots of questions about process here, 

and I agree with Chairman Dingell that the vote on media ownership needs to be given complete analysis and reflection. I am not 

sure if that is possible to do by the end of this year. I read what 

is driving it is the transfer of the Tribune company to a private 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
75 

owner. I understand the chairman has proposed the Commission 

will deny the waivers, but if the Tribune sues the FCC, it gets an 

automatic waiver. That doesn’t sound right to me. I would be interested in hearing from the Commissioners if they have ever seen 

any process like that before, and finally, Mr. Chairman, I am withholding judgment on media ownership rules, but I am really concerned with how the FCC got here. And I think we need more time 

to take a look at this process. December 18th seems way too short 

of a time. The Senate has already passed a bipartisan bill. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman—— 

Mr. DOYLE. I think we may need to do that in the House, and 

I thank the chairman for his indulgence. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes—— 

Mr. DOYLE. Was it really 8 minutes? 

Mr. MARKEY. It was 10 minutes that the gentleman from Pennsylvania received, and it is I am sure in silence being noted by the 

Republicans and perhaps not in silence after I recognize the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just tell my 

good friend Mr. Doyle from Pennsylvania that if you wore a watch 

that had numbers on it and not one of those fancy watches with 

no numbers, you would know that you had more than 8 minutes, 

see. Well, I want you to know, Chairman Martin, that some of us 

do support the relaxation of the cross-ownership rules. So you have 

a few friends on that issue. Now, some of us are skeptical on some 

of your other positions, but on that one, we are with you; and we 

hope that you will vote to do that. 

What puzzles me though is that in that same hearing apparently 

next week or the week after next you are going to reimpose the 30 

percent cap for cable ownership. Now, I don’t understand the philosophy that the Commission apparently is going to support relaxation in the top 20 markets for newspaper ownership but in the 

same hearing is prepared to vote to reimpose an ownership cap on 

cable television. Could you explain that dichotomy? 

Mr. MARTIN. Sure. I think at that same hearing I would propose 

we actually leave in place all of the other ownership rules that the 

Commission has had, which would be not only the cap on cable, but 

also the current radio caps and the current cap on duopolies and 

that we not make any other changes at this time on the other 

media ownership rules. I think that media ownership in general is 

obviously a very contentious issue, and I think as a result of that 

I would encourage the Commission to move cautiously. And I think 

that the appropriate response is then we should move forward 

where there seems to be the most need for some kind of change, 

and I think the most need for that is the rule that affects the industry that seems to be having the most difficulty in continuing its 

local newsgathering and also seems to be the only one that hasn’t 

been updated since the 1970s. All of the other ownership rules 

have been amended either by statute or by the Commission at 

some point in the 1990s. This is the only rule that has had no 

change. That is why I think it is important that is the one we move 

forward with first. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
76 

Mr. BARTON. You don’t see any irony in going one way on one 

issue and the other way on the other issue? 

Mr. MARTIN. Well, I don’t view it as going the other way on the 

other issues because I would not impose and provide lower caps 

than the Commission had previously. I am just not going to provide 

any further regulatory relief on any of the other issues. Some of the 

other Commissioners have encouraged the Commission to reconsider some of those ownership caps than actually lower them, even 

at the expense of trying to get media companies to divest some of 

their assets, and I’m not proposing to do that, I just don’t propose 

providing additional relief for those other companies at this time. 

Mr. BARTON. I want to switch issues here. We are all aware of 

the dispute that is going on between various interests on what is 

called carriage disputes. I am a little concerned that the Commission has chosen apparently right now to consider imposing a government mandated arbitration for carriage disputes. I am told that 

in the latest FCC possible version, the government is actually prepared to dictate the structure of a carriage agreement between two 

private parties. That just really amazes me. So I have a two-part 

question for each of the five Commissioners. I want each of you to 

tell me whether you believe the FCC has the statutory authority 

to intervene in a private commercial negotiation over carriage of 

video programming. If you say yes, I would like for you to tell me 

and the committee what conditions you believe must exist before 

you would agree to such an extraordinary step. Let us just start 

with the chairman and then go through the Commissioners. 

Mr. MARTIN. I do believe we have the authority, and we have actually exercised it before, most recently in the context of the 

MASN-Comcast dispute in which they were unable to reach an 

agreement, and we ordered an arbitration process for that particular dispute and also announced that we would reform our rules 

to better ensure that those disputes got resolved quickly. And I 

think the touchstone of when the Commission should be interfering 

is when there is evidence of discrimination in which the operator 

of the cable system who has the infrastructure for providing access 

to news and information is discriminating against other people who 

are trying to get access to that vis-a`-vis content they own. And I 

think that is the touchstone for the Commission’s analysis. 

Mr. BARTON. Let us just go Mr. Adelstein, Mr. Copps, Ms. Tate, 

and then Mr. McDowell. 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. I do believe that we have the authority but only 

under the statute when there is discrimination by a vertically integrated cable operator. I was very concerned about a proposal that 

we were considering that would have allowed this to go to arbitration with no finding of discrimination. In other words, I can set up 

the Adelstein Channel, which would be very boring, I am certain. 

And I would be able to go to arbitration immediately, and the cable 

operator would actually have to offer me some kind of a contract. 

That was extraordinary in its breadth and I thought did not consider the limitations on our authority in the statute that there 

should be a finding of discrimination first, and hopefully we can 

work with our colleagues to come up with a more rational proposal 

for dealing with what should only be in extraordinary cirVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:45 Dec 19, 2008 Jkt 045289 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A289.XXX A289

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
77 

cumstances that the government intervenes and only those authorized by Congress. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. Mr. Copps? 

Mr. COPPS. More than occasionally I find myself agreeing with 

Chairman Martin. In a basic answer to your question, do we have 

the authority? We came close to actually having an item on this, 

but there are items of contention that remain. So hopefully we can 

work through them. I think any independent programming is vitally important. 

Mr. BARTON. You might want to repeat that. People couldn’t hear 

you. I heard you. 

Mr. MARKEY. The last part. 

Mr. COPPS. I am sorry. I said, more than occasionally I find myself in agreement with the chairman, and the basic thrust of his 

answer to the question you asked was one I agree with. There are 

items to be debated. Commissioner Adelstein pointed some of them 

out. We came close to having an item at the last agenda meeting. 

We didn’t quite get there. Hopefully we will soon. I think it is vitally important to make sure that independent programming is 

provided to the American consumer. 

Mr. BARTON. We have got two more Commissioners. 

Mr. MARKEY. If the final two Commissioners could answer quickly. 

Ms. TATE. Yes, sir. I have been leery about entering into these 

agreements. I have tried to encourage the companies to do that. 

When they come in to talk to us, I say, have you filed a complaint? 

Have you gone through the process that you have available to you 

now? I agree with Commissioner Adelstein that I was concerned 

about there needs to be a finding of discrimination before we act, 

before we come up with any remedy. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Similarly, I am concerned that we first must 

have a finding of discrimination. In the case of the MASN deal, we 

had a complaint that was filed at the FCC and had been sitting 

there for 15 months and was not acted upon. So I was very concerned about that, and we wanted to resolve that. If the government couldn’t do it, then let us try a private-sector solution. But 

in the history of some of these complaints, certain types of these 

complaints, there have only been two of them that were filed at the 

Commission, so if folks are serious, they should file a complaint. 

Both of those two, by the way, were settled out of court, so to 

speak. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. Without objection, I would like to enter into the record a letter to the committee 

from the Consumers Union, the Consumer Federation of America, 

and Free Press on Chairman Martin’s proposal and process issues 

at the Commission. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing on 

page 359.] 

Mr. MARKEY. The Chair recognizes now the gentlelady from California, Ms. Harman. 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Commissioners for very thoughtful and interesting testimony. As I mentioned in my opening statement, I am rabid about getting the DTV 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
78 

transition right so that first responders at long last have communications systems which they did not have on 9/11 and still do not 

have, 6 years after 9/11. I only have 5 minutes, but I do want to 

probe this point with each of you very briefly because we need to 

remember that if Americans’ TV sets go dark on February 17, 

2009, our debates about cross-ownership and media consolidation 

will only be purely academic because the airwaves will be inaccessible to large swaths of the country. 

You are the lead agency for consumer education on DTV, and I 

know you have not all agreed that the Commission is doing 

enough. Commissioner Copps just testified that the Commission is 

flubbing the DTV transition. So I would like to start with you, 

Commissioner Copps. Why do you say this and ask each of you to 

comment. 

Mr. COPPS. We don’t have a program. I recently had the opportunity to visit the United Kingdom, where they are doing a lot on 

the DTV transition. They are phasing it in, they are not pulling the 

switch all on one day and potentially discombobulating millions of 

Americans, they are going in city by city by city, one station, then 

the rest of the stations. All of this is preceded by consumer outreach. 

Two specific personal contacts to every subscriber in the United 

Kingdom. If you are either elderly or disabled, they come to your 

home and not only tell you what you need to do but do the hookup 

for you. They are spending an outrageous $400 million for 60 million citizens of the United Kingdom. We have spent like $5 million. 

We are giving NTIA I think to do consumer outreach. We can’t get 

the job done that way. It is just simply not going to happen. They 

are doing consumer surveys. We ought to be considering 

transitioning in and do some demonstration projects. I think we are 

setting ourselves up, you and me both, for some mighty irate consumers come February 18, 2009. 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you. Chairman Martin. 

Mr. MARTIN. I assume you just want me to respond to Commissioner Copps’—— 

Ms. HARMAN. No, I want you to respond to the question. Are we 

flubbing the DTV transition? 

Mr. MARTIN. Oh, do I think we are flubbing it? No. Are we 

spending as much money per consumer as they are spending in 

other countries? No, we are not, either. I think that how much 

money we have for consumer education, that the Commission has 

requested monies in the past, and we have got some in our budget 

this year. Ultimately that is Congress’s decision about how to allocate public resources for consumer education. We did receive a letter this past summer from Chairman Markey and from Chairman 

Dingell encouraging us to adopt a series of requirements on all the 

industries we regulate, most specifically on broadcasters, that 

would require a series of PSAs and public education information. 

There is an order in front of all the Commissioners that implements almost exactly the letter that Chairman Markey and Chairman Dingell had requested, and it goes almost verbatim to implement those kind of requirements. And it is in front of all the Commissioners. I hope that we will implement it soon. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
79 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you. Do others have comments? Commissioner Adelstein. 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. I commend the chairman for that proposal. I 

think it is an excellent proposal that gets us started. It comes directly, almost rips from what Chairman Markey and members of 

this committee propose, which I think is a good and responsible 

thing to do, a good place to start. It is not just a matter of resources, though, it is a matter of leadership. The GAO has testified 

that nobody is in charge. The GAO has testified that there is no 

plan. And I hate to report to you, but it is true, there is no plan 

to make a plan. I don’t even know of any effort underway to try 

to figure out how we are going to systematically deal with the education we need to do, to implement the program. We need to start 

I think with creating an interagency Federal task force. If the private sector has done that, we should at least do that for the Federal Government. 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you. Other comments? Commissioner Tate. 

Ms. TATE. Yes. One of the first things that we did, of course, was 

discuss with the retailers what their responsibility was in terms of 

informing consumers who are buying new televisions, and we have 

already issued I think several hundred citations. So I think we are 

beginning to use the tools that we have. 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you. Commissioner McDowell. 

Mr. MARTIN. If you deferred, I was going to ask you if I could 

have entered in the record our written response to the GAO study 

that was referenced by one of the other Commissioners. Actually, 

GAO has not accepted all of our written response because they said 

it is too long on the plan that we have. So I would ask if that could 

be entered in the record as well. 

Mr. MARKEY. Great. I think that would be very helpful for us, 

and without objection, we will take that and—— 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing on 

page 362.] 

Ms. HARMAN. And finally Commissioner McDowell, I just have 10 

seconds of comments following what he says. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Absolutely. I think the level of anxiety and 

angst right now is very healthy. It reminds me of the angst that 

was building before Y2K. I think there are a lot of moving parts 

obviously working in partnership with the Department of Commerce. Certainly there is always room for more effort, but I think 

as we get closer to February 2009, we will see a heightened consumer awareness. 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you. Let me just add that we cannot let this 

deadline slip. This is about consumer convenience and access to television sets, but it is mostly about whether or not we are going to 

give tools to first responders that will protect all of us in the event 

of future manmade and natural disasters, and I urge all of you to 

do much more, and I urge all of us to do much more. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentlelady’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I have a question 

I want to submit in writing to Chairman Martin. It is on emergency services stuff, and if I just put that in the record—— 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
80 

Mr. MARKEY. And we would ask for a written response to it 

which we will put in the record. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. And I was wondering if my friend Michael Doyle is the guy that he mentioned was Solomon. I am reading 1 Kings again. It sounds like Solomon you were referring to, 

so maybe those comments are appropriate. But I also would note 

the increased partisan tension. I think Congresswoman Harman 

brought the hearing back to some process, and that is unfortunate 

because telecommunications is not a partisan debate. We are regionally focused on areas of concern. And it is tough. We appreciate 

the concerns about process from the Democrat minority on the 

Commission because we are going to vote on an Energy Bill today 

that has no hearing, no language, no subcommittee, no full committee; and I don’t think anybody knows what it is. I mean, we 

have got some broad outline. So for my colleagues over there to 

complain about your process is ironic to say the least. And I think 

what is fair is fair in the battle of ideas. If we all had a clear process, the policy that comes out is better. We all don’t deny that. We 

are going to pass an Energy Bill that gets vetoed by the President 

because it is not going through the process. 

Having said that, let me ask if we could just go with Commissioner Adelstein first. Everybody is up here while you are making 

your testimonies, reading their BlackBerrys, getting information 

and news stories from an Illinois local guy. It is called Capitol 

Facts, and he is in the Capitol. He is not an AP or UPI guy, and 

he is sending what is going on in the Illinois government and politics right here, real time. Do we have more access to information 

today or less than when the Telecom Act was initiated in 1996, and 

then if you would say we have more access to information today or 

not since the three court rulings on media ownership in 2002, the 

two DC Circuit decisions and the 2004 Third Circuit decisions. 

More information now or less? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. I would say that there might be more hoses, but 

as Congressman Inslee is the one who said they are coming out of 

the same spigot. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Let me try the Michael Doyle approach. More information or less in both areas, yes or no? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. Both timeframes? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. I would say slightly. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. In 1996 and—— 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. People still rely on newspapers for their information and broadcast. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Commissioner Copps. 

Mr. COPPS. More or less diverse information. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I may disagree with that but—— 

Mr. MARTIN. Yes, more of the timeframes. 

Ms. TATE. Yes, more. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Yes, more, in both times. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And that is for both timeframes, 1996 and—— 

Mr. MARTIN. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. My time is short, and I am going to be punctual 

for the chairman’s sake. You know, my local radio stations are concerned about staying on the air. I visited two during the break, 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
81 

WJBD in Salem, Illinois, WGEL in Greenville, Illinois. They are 

more concerned with this royalties board and the artist payments. 

And then the other concern goes with webcasting and the fact that 

they are webcasting but there may be two grabs at the money. And 

the local radio stations do provide a public service for information. 

And you know, if something happened in Salem, Illinois and people 

went one community over, the radio station is still broadcasting. It 

is not big enough to cover very far, I think 1500 watts. How do 

they know what is going on locally? Well, they can go to the web. 

But the problem is on the royalties issue, there is going to be so 

many big gaps of time because they are not going to pay a second 

bite at the apple on a royalties board. So you have got a lot of in 

essence dead air on their ability. That is what concerns small, rural 

information providers, and I cover 30 counties in rural southern Illinois. I am not worried about St. Louis. I am not worried about 

Springfield, Illinois, and I am definitely not worried about Chicago 

because they have got a lot of money, they have got a lot of constituents, they have got a lot of advertising, they have got a lot of 

big business. I am worried about rural southern Illinois, where 

there are few people, few large businesses, not a lot of advertising 

revenue, and if you all help focus on that, then you will make rural 

America very happy. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back on that. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. I think we have 

time to recognize one additional member and that is Mr. Gonzalez 

who is next in line. 

Mr. GONZALEZ of Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

My question will go to Chairman Martin. In your opinion, what is 

the greatest obstacle—— 

Mr. MARKEY. By the way, if I may interrupt, for all members, we 

will return with the Commission after we have the four roll calls 

that are scheduled on the House floor, and all the members who 

seek to be recognized for questioning the Commission will be recognized at that time. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas 

again. 

Mr. GONZALEZ of Texas. Thank you. The greatest obstacle to minority ownership. How do you accommodate it, how do you facilitate it? I know you have some proposals. You have responded to 

a letter that was sent to you by members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, some of them anyway, and how does access to capital play into that whole equation? 

Mr. MARTIN. The two biggest obstacles for increasing diversity of 

ownership are access to capital by the people who want to buy stations and actually access to new stations or to the airwaves themselves. So I think that those are the two biggest, single biggest obstacles, and I think it is very difficult to address both of them. Obviously we have already issued lots of licenses for television, news, 

and radio stations; and many of them were done long before the 

current process is in front of the Commission. We do have a process 

now in which we auction off the rights to new broadcast stations 

on the commercial side, and in that context we do provide opportunities for smaller entities to compete and get certain bidding credits, just like we do on the wireless side. But the problem is that 

the vast majority of licenses have already been issued. So the single biggest obstacle is the fact that the vast majority of licenses 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
82 

have been issued already and then access to capital to buy some 

of those licenses on the market. 

Mr. GONZALEZ of Texas. So let us just say the supply is limited 

and the price is high, and you know, economics is economics, regardless. So what can the FCC do again to facilitate, encourage, accommodate minority ownership? I mean, we go round and round on 

this, but the reality is like in any other enterprise, minority businessmen and women generally don’t have those assets. I mean, is 

it something that is a permanent situation, or what can you do? 

Mr. MARTIN. I think it can be a challenge for a long time. I think 

there are some things the Commission can do, I think there are 

some things that Congress could end up doing to support it. I think 

that what the Commission can do is try to increase the supply. So 

what we have tried to do is identify where new stations could be 

available. We also have tried to, as we were talking about with 

Congressman Doyle, try to identify ways in which we could have 

other avenues like low-power FM stations that would become available where it wouldn’t need to protect the current commercial operators as much. That is one area of increasing supply. We have also 

tried to, and what I propose is that we waive some of our rules to 

the extent that these stations are going to be utilized by new entrants, so that for example if a current provider has a construction 

permit that is expired, he could be able to sell that to someone else 

who is a designated entity. That would be one way of increasing 

the supply for them. I also think that there are a variety of ways 

we could try to address some of the financing, but it is more limited. One of the things that I propose doing is changing what we 

call our attribution rule, our equity plus debt rule, that would 

allow for a designated entity who wanted to buy a broadcast station to help get financing from other people that are involved in 

broadcast properties without having those broadcast properties attributed to him so that he would violate the ownership rule. So 

that is one way that he could go and get financing from other people involved in the business who would understand the value of the 

broadcast property. So I think that would address some of the 

prices-too-high component, along with increasing the pool or the 

limited supply. 

I think Congress could and the Commission has unanimously or 

supported and recommended in the past and does again now that 

Congress enact a tax certificate legislation, which would significantly help on the financing side for designated entities and minorities to be able to purchase property. So those are the ideas that 

we have. Some of the proposals that were put forth by the diversity 

committee do give me pause that I don’t think we are able to enact. 

For example, there was a proposal that we waive all the foreign 

ownership restrictions on broadcasters if the foreigner was someone 

who was a minority or a designated entity. I am very concerned 

about foreign ownership in broadcasting. That has traditionally 

been something that Congress has been very concerned about. That 

is one of the commendations that was put forth to us. I would not 

recommend to the Commissioners that we waive foreign ownership 

to try to diversify the airwaves. I think that that is not a good idea. 

So I think there are things we can do. I recommend that we take 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
83 

some steps. Some of the things that have been recommended I 

would be hesitant about doing. 

Mr. GONZALEZ of Texas. Commissioner Adelstein, your thoughts? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. You talked about economics, there is very small 

supply, the price is very high. If you relax the newspaper/broadcast 

cross-ownership rule, you actually then increase the price, because 

you have a new deep-pocketed entry coming in. As it turns out, 

over half of the minority-owned stations are in the top 20 markets, 

and of those, none are in the top four. So the chairman’s proposal 

directly targets those stations, those very few stations that are 

owned by minorities, for sale and makes it more difficult for minorities to have their own unique voices heard by being able to buy 

in because prices will actually go up. So the access to capital actually becomes higher, the prices become higher, and the economics 

issue is affected. 

Secondly, he laid out I think today many positive proposals that 

he has discussed in the minority ownership proceeding that we are 

engaged in, but the definition of minorities is such that the organizations representing interests of Hispanics and Latinos and others 

have said that it actually undercuts the ability of minorities to get 

access, because he doesn’t define them as socially and economically 

disadvantaged business, it uses the broader small business definition. And in fact, there are fewer minorities that own media outlets 

in that definition than there are in the STB definition which is 

Constitutionally approved and is something that we could use. So 

if we could change the definition, I think many of the proposals he 

is talking about would actually be very beneficial. 

Mr. GONZALEZ of Texas. Commissioner Copps? 

Mr. COPPS. I believe the greatest obstacle has been our reluctance to address this issue in a holistic and a comprehensive fashion. There are lots of good ideas, but we need to prioritize them. 

We are not going to get them all done. What are the four or five 

that are really going to make a difference here? Certainly the tax 

certificate, that would have to be done legislatively and would 

make a huge difference. I think there are some other good suggestions here, but the Diversity Committee sent recommendations forward maybe a couple of years ago, and until recently most of them 

sat. We have to have the commitment that we really need to address the shameful state of minority ownership. 

Mr. MARKEY. Would the gentleman from Texas yield? There are 

only 3 minutes left on the House floor just so you know. 

Mr. GONZALEZ of Texas. In that case, I yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman yields back, and we at this point 

will take a recess for about 30 minutes, and then we will come 

back and reconvene the hearing. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. MARKEY. The subcommittee will reconvene, and after another couple of seconds here so that everyone can settle in, the 

Chair will recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns, for 

a round of questions. Why don’t we instead move to the gentleman 

from Virginia, Mr. Boucher, and then we will come back to Mr. 

Stearns. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Boucher, is recognized 

for 5 minutes. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
84 

Mr. BOUCHER. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want 

to thank the members of the Commission for joining us here today 

and sharing their views with us and responding to some of our 

questions. 

I want to return to the subject of the digital television transition. 

One week ago today I had the opportunity to visit the U.K. community of Whitehaven, which is the first community in the United 

Kingdom where the digital television transition has been accomplished. And it was accomplished with remarkable smoothness. As 

a matter of fact, the individuals there with whom I met said that 

the only surprise they had was the fact that on switchover day 

there was total calmness, absolutely no surprises. And that is the 

kind of results I would like to see us have and I know you would 

here in the United States. 

There are, however, some remarkable differences between what 

was done in the United Kingdom and what we are prepared to do, 

and I would just like to make a couple of observations about those 

differences and get your reaction to how we might change our process going forward. In the United Kingdom, there was a multimedia 

advertising effort, and every television viewer in Whitehaven was 

literally inundated with information, publicly funded, about the 

fact that the transition was coming and the kinds of steps that television viewers ought to take to prepare for it. The elements of that 

public campaign included radio and television ads, a newspaper 

comprehensive guide that was inserted in newspapers delivered to 

every home, and independent direct mail publicly funded that went 

to every home announcing that the transition was coming and talking about steps to take, and in the Whitehaven community, they 

even had a countdown clock in the harbor that everybody in town 

viewed. Some loved it, some hated it, but everybody saw it, and 

they absolutely knew what that countdown clock meant. So on 

transition day, everybody was prepared. 

Now, in the United Kingdom, as Commissioner Copps noted, they 

proceeded community by community; and within the individual 

communities, even one television channel at a time starting with 

the channels least viewed and then moving up to those that are 

more popular. So they are clearly taking this step by step, unlike 

the United States, where in a little more than a year we are going 

to have a nationwide switchover with every community on every 

channel. 

In the United Kingdom they allocated about $1.2 billion, the 

pound equivalent of that, to their public education and their public 

assistance effort. We have a total of about $1.2 billion in this country, and that is largely for a converter box program. We have allocated about $5 million to public education. The United Kingdom 

has one-fifth the population of the United States, so in comparable 

dollar terms, if we were to spend the same amount per viewer that 

they are spending, we would have to spend about $6 billion. We are 

spending $1.2 billion. 

And there are a few other things to note. There were some surprises for me. We have talked a lot about converter boxes. We 

haven’t had much to say about external aerials. But they have had 

to replace 10 percent of the external aerials on homes that have 

analog television sets. These aerials were sufficient to get an anaVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:45 Dec 19, 2008 Jkt 045289 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A289.XXX A289

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
85 

log signal, perhaps a snowy one, but are not sufficient to pick up 

a digital signal at all. And these aerials have had to be replaced. 

Beyond that and perhaps even more importantly, they discovered 

that many people did not have the technical know-how to be able 

to take the converter device that switches digital back to analog 

and actually install that in their homes so that they can keep their 

analog set in operation. And they had to have technical assistance. 

We haven’t contemplated that. That is not a part of our converter 

box subsidy program. 

And so I realize Chairman Martin indicated earlier that the level 

of funding is Congress’s decision, and I certainly agree with that; 

but all of you are Presidentially-appointed and you are Senate-confirmed, and at a minimum, I think that entitles you to express an 

opinion. So I am going to ask you for your thoughts on the adequacy of the current program that we have in the United States. 

Do we need more money? Do we need to think about things we 

have not considered, such as external aerials and the need for technical assistance, and perhaps as Commissioner Copps earlier indicated, we should consider some kind of demonstration program 

here in the United States akin to what the U.K. has done, starting 

in one community, the community of Whitehaven, and even expanding out from there. I agree with Ms. Harman when she said 

we should not delay the switchover date. I think too much planning 

has gone into that date. But prior to that date, we have a little 

more than a year. I think we need to do things differently, and I 

would welcome your views on whether or not we do and what different things we ought to be doing. Who would like to begin? 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. But the witnesses would be allowed to, if they would, please briefly answer the 

question. 

Mr. MARTIN. I certainly think some additional public resources 

for public education would be helpful. The Commission has asked 

for some of those in the past. We actually have some of that in our 

budget now. I think that would be helpful. I don’t anticipate we 

will ever be able to match on a per-dollar, per-capita basis what 

they have done in the U.K., but at least some additional resources 

would be helpful. 

I also think that in lieu of that, the Commission needs to—and 

as again, I think that Chairman Markey and Chairman Dingell deserve the credit for prodding the Commission to go on and put in 

full place requirements that require the industry to go through a 

similar kind of education campaign. Some of them were already 

trying to put together proposals to do that, but I think that that 

was a helpful thing for the Commission to put in place some requirements to make sure there is a multi-media, multi-faceted education campaign. So I think we need to do that, some additional resources directly would help. 

Mr. MARKEY. Very briefly. 

Mr. COPPS. It is a totally inadequate project as Jonathan said 

that needs leadership. I was part of the Y2K thing when I was in 

the Clinton administration, and that was organized, it had a focus 

of leadership, and it got the job done. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
86 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Martin, you 

know, I have been to these hearings quite a bit, and I see a little 

bit more friction between the Commissioners here than I have seen 

before, and I would certainly want to be able to understand, and 

Mr. Copps has indicated there has been not enough comment period. Incidentally, Mr. Copps, you can see we didn’t start our hearing on time, either, so if you are saying the FCC doesn’t meet on 

time, we don’t do the same thing here. 

But Chairman Martin, this whole business of media ownership, 

when I was on the Telecom Conference Committee with the Senate 

for the Telecom bill in 1996, you know, by 1998, we started talking 

about media ownership. So this has been going on for almost a decade. So I guess my question to you, FCC media ownership restrictions I think have received a lot of public scrutiny in light of the 

court review which occurs regularly, the comments, there have 

been economic studies, my staff told me there have been field hearings, so maybe you can walk us through what the public input has 

been. The comment by Mr. Copps has been there has been not 

enough time for comments 

Mr. MARTIN. Obviously in light of the 2003 court decision as we 

were beginning this process, again, I wanted to provide more of an 

opportunity and address some of the concerns that have been 

raised about not having enough public hearings and not having 

enough time for public comment. When we started the process, we 

had an extended 120-day comment period, so it was 4 months to 

provide comments. That got extended several times to give people 

even more time to prepare their comments. We had six field hearings focused on ownership and an additional two hearings focused 

on localism at which we would stay for hours and provided the 

public an opportunity to comment. And we did hear hundreds and 

thousands of comments from the public on our ownership rules and 

the concerns they had with the media in general and whether they 

were serving their community. 

We have received thousands of public comments, both from the 

industry and from advocacy groups that are more specific and then 

just in e-mail campaigns and the opportunity for the public to 

weigh in just to express concerns about media consolidation more 

generally. 

And as you said, we have done a series of economic studies. We 

have put those out for comment and for peer review. And so I think 

we have had an extended comment period for debate on this issue. 

Mr. STEARNS. All right. Commissioner Copps and Adelstein, I 

think you have heard all the members, particularly on this side, 

talk about how the media market has changed so much in terms 

of the media platforms, whether it is satellite, Internet, or MP3 

players. I guess the question for both of you is doesn’t that fact, 

combined with the mandates of section 202(h), which is ownership 

restrictions are reviewed every 4 years, and recent court decisions 

in which the courts have really made decisions, doesn’t that require 

the FCC to relax ownership restrictions that were created many 

years ago before these developments? So in a sense I am saying 

perhaps we need to relax them. The courts have indicated that on 

the court decisions, but wouldn’t the two of you agree that based 

upon the media platforms that have come out here and what has 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
87 

happened in the courts under the mandates of section 202(h) that 

the FCC should relax ownership restrictions? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. The court said the Commission could relax the 

rules. It did not indicate that we necessarily should. The concern 

I have—— 

Mr. STEARNS. But isn’t that important if they indicate you should 

relax but they are not siding on your side? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. They are saying that it is possible, but they are 

not saying it is necessary for us to do so. So in other words, the 

court hasn’t compelled us to relax the rules. They said that if you 

want to relax, that is something which you would have the capability to do under their—— 

Mr. STEARNS. If the courts were concerned, wouldn’t they compel 

you? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. They could compel us to change the rule. They 

could say you have to change it. We still have the opportunity to 

find that the current rule is in the public interest and sort of modify it in another way. My concern is that people still get their news 

and information from the same sources, even as we have an explosion of technology and new opportunities for access to information. 

Our own data that we viewed in the course of this proceeding 

found that 89 percent of the people we surveyed list newspapers 

and broadcasting as their first and second most important source 

of news, and just three percent referred to the Internet or cable. 

And just one percent rely exclusively on alternative media for their 

news and information. If you go out there and you look at the other 

sources, the Internet, people say you can go to the Internet. The 

Newspaper Association said there are all these wonderful competitive alternatives. Consumer groups evaluated them and found that 

just 3.6 percent contained original reporting. So there is not really 

a lot of original news being generated there. 

Mr. STEARNS. The question that I have asked, I don’t think the 

courts have even justified the existing rules. 

Mr. COPPS. What the court said was that a blanket prohibition 

without any possibility of having an exception appears to be no 

longer justified but that further regulation of newspaper/broadcast 

ownership might be entirely justified, and it is perfectly consonant 

with both the first and the fifth amendment of the Constitution. 

That is what the court said. So I think had we gone in eventually 

with a justification for a good rule, that is where so many of our 

FCC decisions break down. We have inadequate legal justification 

that with the deference the chairman was talking about before, we 

would expect that we could have gone in and had a realistic presentation and still could justify a realistic approach to this. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Solis. 

Ms. SOLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is for Chairman Martin, and this has to deal with access to accurate data 

about minority- and women-owned broadcasters. And I would just 

ask you, is it in fact important for the FCC to have adequate data 

that reflects those populations that we are going to be deciding 

their participation in these important topics that we are discussing 

today? Is that something that you personally feel is important? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
88 

Mr. MARTIN. Sure. I think it is important to understand exactly 

the scope of the diversity of ownership in the media landscape 

today, and trying to get additional information to understand that 

I think is important. 

Ms. SOLIS. Information that was I guess provided that you asked 

for regarding minority ownership and demographic information, information that came from your own agency, was not accurate. And 

I hate to say but what we are hearing is essentially there are serious flaws in demographic information for various populations. So 

I am wondering what kinds of remedies or what kinds of steps will 

you take and the Commissioners to help rectify that? We have already heard from members talking about that, the under-representation and ownership of minorities and women. How do we then 

address the issue if we don’t have adequate information to make 

those kinds of policy decisions? 

Mr. MARTIN. Well, I think there are a variety of things we can 

even do still to try to address the issue, but I agree with you that 

we need to be collecting information. Part of the recommendations 

that have been made to the Commission and part of the minority 

ownership proposal that I have in front of the other Commissioners 

begins to collect the varying information that people said we didn’t 

have adequate enough information and develops and starts longitudinal studies that starts saying we are going to collect this information, and we are going to do it over time so we can see what 

the impact has been over time of minority ownership. So—— 

Ms. SOLIS. We do kind of know right now that we haven’t 

changed in terms of the under-representation, so how rapidly 

would you be willing to move on this? Because I think so many of 

us here are very tired about hearing the same things over and over 

again and would like to see some action. 

Mr. MARTIN. On the data-collection issue that is in front of the 

Commissioners now to begin doing the data collection exactly as 

the diversity groups have advocated that we do, both short term 

and long term, that is what they mean by a longitudinal study, 

they want to do it over time and see how the differences have been 

impacted. But I have proposed the Commission begin collecting information exactly as they would like us to. 

Ms. SOLIS. I think one of the concerns I would have is who those 

researcher demographers are and some accountability and transparency as to how that data is collected, because that just goes 

back to the same question of not having good data and being more 

transparent about that. The other question I have is something 

that we really haven’t talked about, and I would like to ask Mr. 

Copps as well as Mr. Martin. But Mr. Martin, I will start with you. 

On private equity, we are talking about media ownership and who 

owns the levers here, and it just strikes me that for some reason 

we don’t really understand fully if there is enough transparency in 

terms of who and truly are the owners or folks that pull the levers 

for these trust funds that are established and what kind of disclosure and accountability has been made available or what steps will 

you take to make that known? My concern is that as we talked 

about localism with the Tribune merger and all that, I look at my 

own community and I see that we have actually turned the corner 

and gone in the opposite direction. So I would like to know if there 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
89 

is a way for members of this committee to be able to get that kind 

of information from you and what steps you are going to take to 

do that. 

Mr. MARTIN. We have certain rules about what kind of ownership 

interests are attributable and which ones aren’t. The private equity 

companies are obviously increasingly interested in media properties, but our ownership rules are the same whether it is a private 

equity company or another kind of person or entity that is interested in owning media properties. I—— 

Ms. SOLIS. Could I ask Mr. Copps if he agrees with that? 

Mr. COPPS. No, this is such an important question because private equity is transforming the media ownership environment. Instead of publicly held corporations, which you can at least track 

and file 10K forms with the SEC, you have these private money 

funds and everything else which don’t have to file, I can’t find out 

who owns what. When we got into a recent merger it was only because my staff started digging that we began to find out what this 

one company held. How can I do my job of protecting the public interest if I can’t even locate who owns what, leave alone who is responsible for a bad decision that may have been made? 

Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I don’t know if I am going to have 

enough time to ask my other questions, but I would like to submit 

them to the Commissioners for their response, if that is possible. 

Mr. MARKEY. And we would ask the Commission please to respond in writing. 

Ms. SOLIS. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentlelady’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Pickering. 

Mr. PICKERING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And what I will try 

to do is ask a series of questions, and I will combine some and have 

some stand alone. I thank the chairman for having this hearing, 

and I thank all the Commissioners for coming before the committee. 

First, to the chairman, as I understand it your recent proposal 

on media ownership applies to the top 20 markets. 

Mr. MARTIN. That is correct. 

Mr. PICKERING. Mississippi would not be one of those top 20, is 

that correct? 

Mr. MARTIN. That is correct. 

Mr. PICKERING. There are some who say that there is a loophole, 

though, that would allow someone to drive a truck through that. 

Is that true, not true? If true, how, and if not true, why? 

Mr. MARTIN. It is not true that there is a loophole that you can 

drive a truck through, and the Commission has rules the people 

can file for waivers on. Even if we have a presumption against allowing cross-ownership in smaller markets, people can always file 

for waivers. What we have said is those waivers would be presumed to be against the public interest, but we would take certain 

factors into account like the financial distress of the properties as 

we traditionally have in waivers. But even in that context, we 

would look at the level of concentration as we traditionally have 

done in ownership issues. We would also look at something we 

have not talked about before, and that is if someone is willing to 

start new news, if they are willing to create a new local news voice, 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
90 

I think that is an important consideration that we should take into 

account. 

Mr. COPPS. I think as I said before this is a loophole. These factors that we are going to consider are so generic and they are so 

porous, I mean, it is the new media ownership sponge. I don’t know 

what it is, but it scares the heck out of me. 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. I think it is open season in any community, including Jackson, Mississippi, any community in the country can 

apply for a waiver on the basis of very loose standards. For example, the financial condition. If they are making less money than 

they used to, that would be a factor. If they have more news than 

otherwise would have been the case, but we don’t define what more 

news is. That could be 10 minutes a year more news. Somebody 

promises, I will put on 10 minutes more, I will put on one special 

for a half-an-hour more news than you had last year, that would 

qualify for a waiver. I can’t imagine a more porous standard. 

Mr. MARTIN. We did not say that would qualify for a waiver. 

That is not what the order says. No, what we have said is you can 

apply for a waiver and these are the criteria we would consider. We 

do not say that you would qualify for it. 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. The waiver standard says more news. That is 

the only standard, more news. So what is more news? There is no 

definition if it is 5 minutes, 10 minutes, or 50 hours. Theoretically, 

under that standard 10 minutes could qualify. 

Mr. COPPS. It doesn’t get you the waiver, but it sure as heck 

opens the door. 

Mr. PICKERING. Is more news a new standard? 

Mr. MARTIN. It is. We have not taken into account before people 

starting additional local news, but if the concern that the Commission has and what is the most evident that we have heard from 

people is the negative implications on local news, I think it would 

be significant if we were saying as a result of the transaction people were going to make a commitment to start new local news. I 

think that would be significant and something we should take into 

account. 

Mr. PICKERING. Let me quickly note a couple of other different 

areas. One, special access. I know the Commission is considering 

and gathering data. If the data in addition to what is already established on the record shows that in special access lines that the 

local incumbents enjoy 90 percent control of that market, would the 

Commission consider that as a functioning competitive market, or 

would appropriate action be warranted if it is that type of finding, 

90 percent control? 

Mr. MARTIN. I think you would have to look at what the trends 

were over time. I mean, if it used to be 100 percent and it is down 

to 90 and you saw trends that were increasing competition, that 

would be different than if there had been increased competition 

and the special access markets had become more competitive and 

had become more consolidated. So I think it would depend, and it 

is hard to say the absolute figure without looking at what the trend 

lines were. 

Mr. PICKERING. Any other Commissioner? 

Mr. COPPS. The 90 percent scares me. 

Mr. PICKERING. Commissioner McDowell? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
91 

Mr. MCDOWELL. You know, the record from my perspective is uneven. It does not give us a conclusive, well-defined picture of the 

marketplace. As you know, and as I said last summer, I would like 

to see more detailed mapping, broadband mapping actually, of special access ruling on a very granular basis before we make any further decisions. 

Mr. PICKERING. On universal service, a number of merger conditions have been accepted or adopted and likely additional merger 

conditions that would cap the growth of probably 80 percent of the 

fund on the wireless side. Given that, it seems to me that that is 

an automatic constraint on the growth of the fund, and would that 

justify making sure that we get comprehensive and give us the 

chance? While you have constrained growth of the fund, probably 

reduction of the growth of the fund, does it give us a chance both 

here on the Hill and at the Commission to make sure that we get 

this right to consider broader proposals or the joint board recommendations, and does that argue for a go-slow approach because 

this is very significant as we build out broadband, especially in underserved and rural markets? 

Mr. MARTIN. I think it does relieve some of the pressure and in 

that sense give us a chance, but I think it is incumbent upon the 

Commission to still try to move forward then with those broader 

processes. In addition to the item in front of the Commission where 

I have proposed we implement the joint board’s recommendation of 

a cap, I have also proposed other more fundamental reform, including making all carriers come forward and provide their actual costs 

and including trying to look toward how we can reform the process 

so that we move to a most efficient or least costly mechanism for 

serving communities that otherwise wouldn’t get service. So I think 

it does provide us that opportunity, but then it is incumbent upon 

us to engage in those other items that are in front of us as well. 

Mr. COPPS. As a member of the joint board, I really welcome your 

emphasis on what Congress and the Commission can do together. 

We have submitted recommendations to include broadband, to do 

away with the identical support rule, to make sure we have good 

auditing. I think if you threw into that baby collecting on intrastate, you would have yourself pretty good universal service plans. 

So I hope the Congress will maybe consider that, and together we 

can move forward and bring this to a conclusion, because we got 

to get this broadband deployment done. 

Mr. PICKERING. I would encourage the Commission to make sure 

that we get it right, to work with Congress. And we have a chance 

now with these cost constraints in place to do something comprehensive and sustainable and to really promote broadband in 

rural areas, combined with what we are doing with 700 megahertz. 

So I do encourage you to act, but in this case in concert with Congress, and judiciously and wisely because this is a major, major opportunity and reform that we want to get right. The last question 

deals with FCC process and reform. I have always been a proponent of shot clocks and deadlines. How do you handle your process so that principled outcomes are most likely guaranteed? And as 

five Commissioners are before the committee, however many members of Congress we have, all the personalities in a process will 

have the right outcome. Do you have any thoughts on what we 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
92 

could be doing to improve the internal process for each member of 

the Commission, each Commissioner? Do you each have deadlines 

for responding, for acting? What is the process not only from the 

chairman’s perspective, but also from each Commissioner and 

meeting deadlines? And I would like to just ask a broad question, 

do you have any proposals of FCC reform that would help you do 

your job better? 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired, so we will ask 

the witnesses to respond very briefly, please. 

Mr. MARTIN. I think that the most significant process reform that 

has been proposed by the Commissioners for a long time has just 

been the opportunity for the Commissioners to meet more than just 

two Commissioners at a time. I think that obviously would help facilitate some further discussions and debate. But I think there are 

all kinds of rules and deadlines that are in place on Commissioners, and I certainly think that I work with all the Commissioners to try to end up accommodating the concerns that they end 

up having, but I think that there has been a lot made of certain 

public concerns about deadlines that some people think of them as, 

and I am not sure I agree with those, that there are a lot of deadlines that are missed by Commissioners that actually significantly 

delay, for example, release of items, when statements aren’t provided when they are supposed to be. There are some process concerns that would apply to everyone. 

Mr. COPPS. Real quickly we have some process concerns to work 

ourselves through, when our meetings are going to be scheduled, 

how much notice, what are the rights of three Commissioners to 

bring an item up, to send an item back, to edit an item, and so 

forth. There are a number of them. I would also though echo what 

the chairman said, we need to do something, and I have been talking about this every time I come before this committee, to do something about the closed-meeting rule. Some of these frictions you are 

talking about I think could possibly be significantly ameliorated if 

we were able to sit down a couple times during the pendency of an 

item. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 

Commission for being here. A number of you mentioned these 10 

studies. I have a number of questions about these studies. Mr. 

Chairman, I am going to start with you. How were the authors of 

these studies selected? 

Mr. MARTIN. The authors of the studies were selected primarily 

by the Chief Economist at the time. The Chief Economist provided 

a list of potential authors. 

Mr. STUPAK. Is that the report that Mr. Doyle put in the record, 

the summary of the ideas based on broadcast—— 

Mr. MARTIN. No, it wasn’t that report. She tried to gather a list 

of academics and econometricians around the country who would 

focus in particular on the industry. 

Mr. STUPAK. Did you get input from the other Commissioners? 

Mr. MARTIN. We did. We did actually get input and ask the other 

Commissioners. Only one of the Commissioners suggested any 

names, and all of the potential authors that any Commissioner sugVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:45 Dec 19, 2008 Jkt 045289 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A289.XXX A289

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
93 

gested were reached out to. Three of the four study authors that 

were suggested by Commissioner Copps agreed to end up doing a 

process, one I think said they didn’t want to. 

Mr. STUPAK. Are you generally satisfied with these 10 studies? 

Mr. MARTIN. Are we generally satisfied with the 10 studies? I 

think that they give us a general sense of what is going on—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, let me ask you. Study No. 1, which looks at 

how people get their news, is alleged to use data that excluded 

Latinos. Have you heard that claim? 

Mr. MARTIN. What is that? 

Mr. STUPAK. Your first study excluded Latinos. It was a study on 

how people received their news. It excluded Latinos. Wouldn’t that 

be a flaw in the study? 

Mr. MARTIN. I think it doesn’t capture how Latinos are actually 

receiving their news, no. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, if you don’t count them, they are excluded, 

right? 

Mr. MARTIN. If they are not included, then they are not—— 

Mr. STUPAK. How about No. 2, which focuses on TV station ownership structure, which allegedly missed 75 percent of the TV stations that were female-owned in 2005 and missed 69 percent of the 

TV stations that were minority-owned in 2005, is that correct? 

Mr. MARTIN. I am sorry, you were saying the study missed those? 

Mr. STUPAK. Yes. 

Mr. MARTIN. I think that what was important though is that the 

study also concluded that even having missed those that minority 

ownership for TV stations had fallen and that female ownership of 

stations—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, of course, it is fallen if you missed 75 percent 

of them. 

Mr. MARTIN. No, I am saying the point of the study actually supported there were concerns with minority and female ownership. 

You are right, I think it is unfortunate if they didn’t find all of 

them, but they were still concluding that there were concerns with 

it. 

Mr. STUPAK. Let us go to study No. 3. Study No. 3 I am a little 

concerned about because it is by Mr. Crawford. At the time wasn’t 

Mr. Crawford negotiating with the FCC to become the Chief Economist? 

Mr. MARTIN. No, when we asked him to do the study, we actually 

asked Mr. Crawford to be the Chief Economist the year before. He 

was unable to because of his academic commitments. We asked him 

to end up doing this study. We subsequently asked him when it 

came open again would he consider being the Chief Economist for 

a year. It is a rotating position that academics come and take. 

Mr. STUPAK. Sure. 

Mr. MARTIN. But more importantly, because he did this study, 

Mr. Crawford has not and will not and is recused from working on 

the media ownership proceeding—— 

Mr. STUPAK. OK, but it looks like the dates overlap from our investigation. Let us go to study No. 6. In the peer review it says the 

imperial data in the study are so limited that the study conclusions 

do not and cannot possess the reasonable level of confidence necessary to provide policymakers with useful evidence on which to 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
94 

use their regulatory decisions. Put simply, the findings from the 

single, 3-day study of one type of news broadcast should not form 

the evidentiary basis of any sort of public policymaking. Do you 

agree with that peer review? 

Mr. MARTIN. I am familiar with that peer review, and the way 

that the proposed item responds is that this is not the only study. 

There were three different other studies, all concluded the same 

thing. 

Mr. STUPAK. Let us go to study No. 7. 

Mr. MARTIN. The cross-owned newspapers and broadcast properties actually increased their news. It was the same conclusion we 

had had in the other studies that had been done. So while we recognize that there have been peer reviews that say we shouldn’t rely 

on this, we don’t exclusively—— 

Mr. STUPAK. But you are relying on this study and this peer review to help make your decision? 

Mr. MARTIN. We are relying on the study and the peer review, 

along with the criticism. 

Mr. STUPAK. Number 7. It said the study is oversimplistic. Its assumptions and methodology are flawed. It fails to analyze the effectiveness of the failed station rule and fails to evaluate any of the 

MMTC’s recommendations to improve minority ownership. Each of 

these were required by the Third Circuit. That is the Prometheus 

court ruling. Instead, the Beresteanu and Ellickson study, study 

No. 7, develops a legally flawed and unsolved methodology that inflates the percentage of minority- and women-owned broadcasters 

by using census data that includes music program distribution, 

piped-in music services, network television. Overall, it says, I find 

the study is insufficient to meet rational decisionmaking standards. 

So that is what the peer review said on No. 7 again on minority 

ownership. 

Mr. MARTIN. Yes, and if I could respond, what study seven concluded was it found that minority and females were clearly underrepresented in radio, television, and newspapers relative to their 

proportion. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, isn’t it—— 

Mr. MARTIN. And it found our data was extremely limited and 

that we needed to do better datagathering, both of which I 

think—— 

Mr. STUPAK. So I have just pointed out five of the 10 studies that 

you are relying upon to make this decision on December 18th that 

you are rushing to make are flawed or have some real serious question about the integrity of the data being based upon. Why would 

they have to use census data? Why wouldn’t they use FCC data to 

reach conclusions about women and minorities? 

Mr. MARTIN. I think what is most important is I am not sure 

that there is any disagreement, and I think the studies support 

what the concerns that have been raised that minorities and females are underrepresented in broadcast. 

Mr. STUPAK. Maybe I am not making myself clear. 

Mr. MARTIN. But I think that they still support that minorities 

and females are underrepresented, which was the finding of the 

study. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
95 

Mr. STUPAK. Let me quote the last line of the peer review No. 

7. It said, I find that Beresteanu and Ellickson study insufficient 

to meet the rational decisionmaking standard. That is what the 

FCC is supposed to be doing. Five of the 10 studies have serious 

flaws and questions. Minorities and women are not being counted. 

There is no basis to do it. You talk about wanting to go forward 

in the future, either short term or long term, however women and 

minorities as Ms. Solis mentioned are being counted. You don’t 

have a rational basis to even begin for a baseline, so how can you 

go forward to make a comparison, your own data within the Commission? Commissioner Tate mentioned Ms. Hughes, Cathy 

Hughes, being the largest minority-owned radio station. But when 

she submitted her application, was it FCC–323, you excluded her. 

You don’t even have her in your own records. That is how flawed 

the data are and your studies are that you are trying to make this 

decision. That is what is bothering us. What is the rational decisionmaking, what are you basing it upon? 

Mr. MARTIN. The concerns you are raising about study seven, 

though, the study actually had the same conclusions and findings 

as I think you all are saying you support, which is that minorities 

and women are underrepresented and that we need to gather better data. That was the conclusion of the study. So while people 

think that they should have gathered better data, which we are in 

the process of trying to do, the studies’ basic findings I think you 

agree with and I agree with. But more importantly the study—— 

Mr. STUPAK. But you said in your own opening, you, Commissioner Tate, Commissioner McDowell, you rely on these studies. In 

fact, one you said $170,000 you spent of the taxpayers’ money on 

these studies. You actually spent $322,500 on these studies, and 

five of the 10 are flawed. And then you also released them, or I believe you did, Mr. Chairman. You released these studies before you 

had a final published, submitted, peer review. And that is contrary 

to OMB guidelines on the way you do it, right? 

Mr. MARTIN. No it is not. 

Mr. STUPAK. It is not a violation of your own OMB guidelines in 

peer reviewing? 

Mr. MARTIN. No, it is not in violation of the OMB guidelines. 

OMB guidelines say that before a Commissioner agency disseminates, and by disseminate which is a term of art, they mean that 

they put out—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Let me ask you about this. 

Mr. MARTIN. They put out the peer review, and it has to be within Commission position, that we did not disseminate it if we put 

it out for public comment. 

Mr. STUPAK. We will pick this up when you come back for O&I. 

But let me say this. The Commission did set section 257, Market 

Entry Barrier Studies, in 2000, which were made part of the FCC’s 

official record. Those studies, among other things, discuss the extent to which small businesses, women- and minority-owned businesses, face barriers entering in the communications industry 

along with a series of proposals. What work has the FCC done to 

follow up on this section 257 findings of 2000, which was recommended you do? 

Mr. MARTIN. Sure. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
96 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. Please answer. 

Mr. MARTIN. Can I respond? 

Mr. MARKEY. Please. 

Mr. MARTIN. Actually, the Commission has a section 257 report 

and order that I circulated a year ago that was adopted by the 

Commission in October that hasn’t been released because we are 

still waiting on a statement from one of the Commissioners. Commissioner Adelstein voted it December of last year but has still not 

given us his statement. 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Correction. I have given you the statement. 

Mr. MARTIN. Hold on. I am sorry? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. I just don’t want to have myself misstated here. 

I did give the statement. 

Mr. MARTIN. You didn’t as of yesterday morning. So when we 

checked yesterday morning—— 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. It is as of yesterday. 

Mr. MARTIN. I am sorry, you did that as of yesterday? He voted 

it a year ago, and he did not give us his statement for a year. The 

report recommends that Congress adopt the Minority Tax Certificate program. We have been trying to get that out for a long time 

and have been unable to because we didn’t have a statement that 

was provided by one of the Commissioners. That is the action we 

took in response to the section 257 report and circulated it a year 

ago. It was opted in October. 

Mr. STUPAK. I have further questions. I will take them up later. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. We will submit the questions to the Commission. 

We will ask that they be responded to. The Chair recognizes the 

gentleman from California, Mr. Radanovich. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome panel 

members. I do have a couple questions of some of the various members. Mr. Adelstein, earlier today you stated that no matter how 

you feel about broadcast ownership, that there hasn’t been a large 

enough gathering of information or enough time to comment; and 

given the fact that there have been no hearings on the proposal to 

limit cable ownership and huge changes in the competitive landscape have happened since 2001, how can you feel that the Commission is ready to vote on the cable ownership cap? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Well, the cable ownership cap is a very difficult 

issue. I mean, it certainly is something that we were directed by 

the Court to look at. The law requires that we put in place a limit 

on the ownership by cable companies. This has been pending for 

some time. The chairman put forth the proposal which I have supported to maintain the current cap, but it certainly is something 

that you know, we have had the rules remanded by the DC Circuit. 

So it is a difficult order. And I have supported the chairman’s proposal on that. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. McDowell, would you care to comment on 

that as well? 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Can you repeat the question? I am sorry, Congressman. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Yes. Do you feel that the Commission is ready 

to vote on the cable ownership cap now given the fact that there 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
97 

have been no hearings and, you know, perhaps debated that there 

is not enough information to do that yet? 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Well, the cap, of course, goes back to litigation 

from a prior Commission and the DC Circuit decision in 2001. I am 

reviewing the draft order. It is teed up for our December 18th 

meeting. I am reviewing it in the context of the Turner II decision 

from 2001 of the DC Circuit. The big concern there are the first 

amendment implications. I am not sure the draft order as currently 

written will satisfy the Court’s concerns, so it could be ripe to be 

handed back to us or overturned by the DC Circuit. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. Ms. Tate, I wanted to commend 

you for your stance against unjustified regulation of the cable industry at last month’s FCC open meeting. Thank you very much. 

I understand that another item is now circulating at the FCC that 

would reimpose the very same 30 percent cable ownership cap that 

a 2001 DC Circuit decision concluded that the FCC failed to justify 

under the first amendment. In light of the fact that there is more 

video competition now than there was in 2001, do you oppose this 

unjustifiable cable regulation just as you opposed the previous regulation last month? 

Ms. TATE. Would you repeat the question? 

Mr. RADANOVICH. It is a long one. 

Ms. TATE. Unlike Commissioner McDowell, I am still looking at 

this. It is set for our December meeting, and you know, certainly 

I am going to go back and look and see what the Court said in 2001 

and then try to review the record before I make my decision. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. Mr. Martin, do you view this as arbitrary, that we are considering all sorts of media except cable in 

the cap debate? 

Mr. MARTIN. No, not at all. Indeed, as I stated earlier, actually 

except for newspapers and only in a very limited way, we are leaving in place all of the caps on radio, all of the caps on TV, and all 

of the caps on cable. So I think it is actually very consistent. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Martin, one further question. There are 

two main rationales for media ownership limits, and they are promotion of viewpoint diversity and localism, but haven’t the FCC 

and now the Third Circuit concluded that the newspaper/broadcaster cross-ownership ban harms rather than helps diversity and 

localism? 

Mr. MARTIN. I think the Commission has said that it could end 

up raising concerns, but the Third Circuit didn’t conclude that. 

What the Third Circuit in fairness said was that the newspaper/ 

broadcaster cross-ownership cap, it was rational for the Commission to remove it. And some of the Commission’s rationale was 

that, but the Third Circuit didn’t affirmatively find that. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To all the Commissioners, 

first of all, welcome, and I just can’t express the level of my frustration as I sit here before you and I hear the same song and 

dance, the same empty words, the same expressions of concern, and 

frankly the same universal agreement that minority media ownerVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:45 Dec 19, 2008 Jkt 045289 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A289.XXX A289

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
98 

ship is a very serious problem. I am just absolutely frustrated. I 

am a minority, and to hear this body continue to come up with for 

me empty rhetoric as it relates to minority ownership is just almost 

abysmal as far as I am concerned. It just shows a total lack of sincerity. Back in 1998, the FCC identified the minority ownership 

issue as a serious problem, as a real critical issue. The Commission 

accepted this problem, this analysis, this viewpoint, and the Commission declared that it would take some steps to remedy the situation. Ten years later, no remedy, just rhetoric. And I haven’t seen 

any concrete FCC action, and I have been on this subcommittee for 

a number of years now. The Federal courts got involved. The Third 

Circuit criticized the FCC on this issue when it remanded the 

FCC’s last attempts to relax its rules and specifically ordered the 

FCC to address the issue on remand. It is my understanding, 

Chairman Martin, that the FCC has yet to fill the Third Circuit’s 

mandate. Yet today, you are coming in, you are saying December 

the 18th you are going to promulgate and pass some rules to relax 

cross-ownership provisions, but yet still, there are still no real efforts and activities, no real plan to deal with the No. 1 issue before 

the FCC and before the American people, and that is the unfairness in the telecommunications industry, the lack of ownership, the 

problem that a majority of the American citizenry do not have a 

voice, a recognized sustained voice in terms of media ownership 

over the public’s airwaves. Next month you are going to be quoting 

Dr. King’s ceremonies at the FCC, and I am sure you are going to 

be quoting his statement about justice delayed is justice denied. 

Well, let me paraphrase him if I can. Ownership, media access delayed is media access denied. Now when will the FCC stop denying 

minorities ownership provisions and assist them to become owners 

of media outlets in this Nation? Start with you, Chairman Martin. 

When, specifically when? 

Mr. MARTIN. On December 18th the Commission will vote on the 

item that implements the minority ownership proposals that were 

put forth by the Diversity Committee. There were 28 proposals 

they said we could implement right away, and I have gone through 

and proposed to the Commission that we adopt more than a majority of them but not all. But I think that on December 18th is the 

day we will adopt those specific proposals. That includes extending 

time for construction permits when they sell the property to a minority. It includes adjusting our attribution rules so that the equity-plus-debt rules do not apply if the owner is a designated entity, which includes minority, female, and small businesses. It adjusts some structural waivers. It does non-attribution for, as I said, 

equity-plus-debt. It has a zero tolerance for abuse—— 

Mr. RUSH. Commissioner Copps. Excuse me. Commissioner 

Copps, do you agree with this? 

Mr. COPPS. When we should do this is before we vote on ownership. Consolidation has made minority ownership infinitely more 

difficult than it was before, so why would we vote to open up a new 

bazaar before we have these things really in place? It is a question 

of commitment. The chairman wanted to vote a number of these 

items in an item that was drastically changed like 3 days before 

we were to vote. That is not considered leadership, considered pubVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:45 Dec 19, 2008 Jkt 045289 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A289.XXX A289

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
99 

lic comment on an item. We need to do this before we vote on consolidation. 

Mr. RUSH. Commissioner Adelstein? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. I would like to say that I wish that that was a 

token item that we were going to be voting December 18th, but 

that would be too kind. We have actually been told by some of the 

representatives of the minority communities that it actually hurts 

women and minorities because the definition of women and minorities is any small business. There is not a socially and economically 

disadvantaged business definition in there. As a result, these 

things will actually be a setback. They won’t actually help. So we 

need to change the definition of who gets benefited by the proposal 

or it is less than worthless. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. I think it is appropriate to have these 

oversight hearings any time there is an instance where the Federal 

Government or an agency of the Federal Government is really demonstrating palpable contempt of the people it is supposed to serve— 

the American people. And the 650,000 people I represent believe 

that that is what is happening with the FCC on the cross-ownership rules right now. For two significant reasons I want to talk 

about those and ask the Commissioners about that. The first reason is that the proposed rule Chairman Martin has proposed and 

a lot of press accounts suggest it only affected the top 20 markets 

and the first amendment will be safe everywhere else. Well, in fact, 

if you read the rule, it essentially allows the FCC to remove these 

cross-ownership protections for the first amendment in every market in the country and even to allow ownership of the top four 

media outlets, even in the top 20 markets. All it does is it allows 

the FCC to take bites out of the first amendment in market by 

market and cloaks that in some innocuous language that it affects 

only the top 20 markets. So this is something that ought to concern 

everybody in small and large markets, and it is certainly a concern 

to my constituents. 

And I want to move to the second reason why I am a little concerned about this. Out in Seattle we had a hearing. We heard 

about it 5:00 p.m. on November 2nd to tell us about a hearing on 

November 9th, effectively less than a week’s notice under the apparent attempt to reduce the number of people in Seattle who were 

going to turn out, knowing Seattle is a very vigorous opponent of 

these rules. It didn’t work. Over 1,000 people showed up, stayed 

until 1:00 in the morning, and enormous eloquence, sincerity, and 

strength of the message, don’t do what the proposal of Chairman 

Martin is now proposing to do. And the thing that was most disturbing is that when you had 1,000 people staying until 1:00 at 

night on a Friday, on the next Tuesday morning in the New York 

Times, we see an op-ed by the chairman saying that he is going to 

propose rules that would basically ignore the testimony of these 

hundreds of people in Seattle the Friday before. 

Now, that troubles me, because apparently this is an op-ed that 

I can’t believe wasn’t written before this testimony was even listened to. We expect Commissioners to go out and listen to the will 

of the American people, take testimony, evaluate it, work with the 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
100 

other Commissioners and come up with reasonable proposals. My 

folks in Seattle believe that they were treated like a bunch of 

chumps out there that they had the FCC come out, fake like you 

are listening to them, and the deal was already done. And I don’t 

think that is consistent with the obligation of FCC Commissioners 

to listen to the people. The Commissioners need to listen to the 

commissioned who are the real bosses here. 

So my first question, Chairman Martin, is, was your op-ed, at 

least rough draft, written before you listened to these thousands of 

people out in Seattle? 

Mr. MARTIN. Sure, I was working on drafts of the op-ed. I am 

sure I was working on it on the way out to Seattle as well. 

Mr. INSLEE. And when did you send the final draft to the New 

York Times? 

Mr. MARTIN. I am sure it was some time over the weekend. I 

don’t know. I don’t know whether I submitted it on Friday or Saturday. I don’t know. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, knowing how the New York Times works, I bet 

you submitted it before you heard the testimony in Seattle. I am 

going to ask you to check that out and let us know. But it doesn’t 

really matter because it is pretty clear that minds were made up 

before 1,000 people spent their Friday night coming out to share 

their opinions with the people who are supposed to be working for 

them, not telling them what they are doing in their infinite wisdom. And I have heard arrogance out of Washington, DC, before; 

and even though I work here, I don’t believe that it is the source 

of all wisdom. And I can respect people’s academic assessments of 

this rule and studies that we do and everything else. But you 

know, the ultimate repository of wisdom in this country is the people that we work for, and they have told you repeatedly in very visceral terms, they don’t like this idea of reducing the protection of 

cross-ownership between newspapers and electronic media outlets. 

Maybe you don’t respect their views, but they are sincere, and they 

have them, and we ought to listen to them a little bit. And what 

happened here is really a disgrace to that principle. And the folks 

in Seattle deserve an apology, frankly, in this regard. And maybe 

you move forward after apology with the rule you want, but this 

is not right. It does not sit well with me or them. So I am hopeful 

that you will go back and really think at some point about the substance of what the people in Seattle told you and reconsider this 

rule, because I will tell you what, the way you set up this rule, it 

is clever. It says, well, we have a presumption, you know, against 

in the taller markets, the non-top-20 markets. We will just have a 

presumption of innocence if you will. Well, there are a lot of people 

sitting in jail where the presumption of innocence has been overcome, and in front of this jury, there are going to be a lot of people 

that are going to be convicted, and the first amendment is going 

to go down big time. This rule is wrong and should not stand. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair notes 

that all members of the subcommittee have been recognized, asked 

a round of questions. The gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. 

Blackburn, is not a member of the subcommittee but a member of 

the full committee, and she is as faithful an attendee at these hearVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:45 Dec 19, 2008 Jkt 045289 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A289.XXX A289

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
101 

ings as any member of the subcommittee; and with unanimous consent, I will recognize the gentlelady for 5 minutes to ask a round 

of questions. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Chairman Markey, and I appreciate your consideration. 

Mr. MARKEY. Put on your microphone there. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. It is on. Maybe my voice is too soft, too genteel. 

How about that? Too genteel, but you and the ranking member are 

kind in allowing me to continue to work through this. I do appreciate that very much. I think that it is clear to the Commissioners 

that there is a great deal of disappointment with the way some 

things have been carried out, and Chairman Martin, I will have to 

tell you that reading the proceedings of the 26th, reading some of 

the transcript, your comments leading up, it has been with great 

disappointment that I have looked at how you have approached disagreement. And I do consider it an element of disrespect for our 

constituents who have chosen to speak out on those issues. I regret 

that. I regret the subjective approach that you have chosen to take, 

and as many of my colleagues have said today, the lack of an orderly process within your working framework is evident, and that 

is regrettable for those of us who are working diligently and who 

see the telecom industries and the interactive technology industries 

as essential for economic growth and prosperity. 

I did want to ask one question if I may, Mr. Chairman, and submit my opening statement for the record. Commissioner McDowell, 

coming to your testimony, you talked a lot about the diversity within the industry as a whole. And I am working on a piece of legislation I am going to file which would repeal section 612(g), the 70– 

70 rule, which I think is something that is anachronistic. I don’t 

think the chairman needs to dust it off and try to unilaterally regulate the industry. I don’t think the Commission needs to do that. 

I think the industry is vibrant, and it is competitive, and some 

things are just not necessary. And I went back and looked at 1984 

and when that was put in place, and I thought of myself as a young 

mother who was very proud of my 19-inch color TV that I could get 

as much Sesame Street on that thing as I needed to occupy my little kids. I was very proud of my wall-mounted wireless phone because I no longer had a 20-foot cord across the kitchen, and I think 

about how far we have come since that time. So since you talked 

about diversity, very quickly, if you would just make a comment for 

me about the 70–70 rule and repealing the Commission’s authority 

in 612(g) and where you think that would stand, I would appreciate 

that. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Well, certainly back in 1984 it was a different 

world. Most consumers only had a choice of one paid video subscriber, MVPDs we called them; and there was far more vertical integration and far fewer independent networks. Back in 1984, there 

were less than 100 national programming networks, now there are 

over 500. Back then, vertical integration between cable operators 

and programmers was at about 50 percent. Today it is about 15 

percent, actually less than 15 percent. Today the average consumer 

has the choice of about three MVPDs, video providers. Back then, 

satellite was basically non-existent. Now it has a market share of 

about 30 percent. Back then, phone companies were not in this 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
102 

market, now Verizon alone has about a million subscribers. And I 

could go on, but the point is that the marketplace has changed considerably. Now, prices have gone up, but on a per-channel basis, 

they have actually gone down. There are reports out there and 

studies that show that prices have, you know, gone up 100 percent 

over a certain period of time, but at the same time the number of 

channels that subscribers have available to them—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. So you would say it is a point worthy of consideration? 

Mr. MCDOWELL. It is a point worthy of consideration 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Commissioner Adelstein. 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. I enforce the laws, Congress writes it. If you repeal it, I won’t, but, as it is on the books, I think we need to enforce it. I was very concerned of course with the method by which 

there was an attempt to arrive at a conclusion that wasn’t supported by our own internal FCC data. So I think as long as it is 

on the books, I think we have to do the best we can to be accurate, 

fair, and basically report the truth to Congress as we see it. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. But you wouldn’t fret if it went away? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Well, you know, I think you could give frankly 

the FCC some valuable tools to promote diversity if we reach the 

70–70 limit, so I am not necessarily going to advocate its repeal. 

I just think we need to be accurate in how we assess whether or 

not we reached that number. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Very good. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield 

back. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentlelady’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from 

Michigan, Mr. Dingell. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your courtesy, and 

again, I commend you for this hearing. 

Members of the Commission, Chairman Martin, thank you for 

being here. I have a limited amount of time, so I will try and proceed by asking questions that can be responded to by yes or no. 

Chairman Martin, this question is in two parts. Do you agree that 

the Administrative Procedure Act requires an opportunity for notice and comment and that that Act is essentially an expression of 

the constitutional requirements on these matters? And would you 

agree that the APA requires that orders adopted by the Commission must take into account those comments received from the public? Yes or no. 

Mr. MARTIN. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, to the other Commissioners then. Please 

again, with apologies, I ask yes or no. Ladies and gentlemen, would 

you each agree that each of your offices has received a draft order 

in the media ownership proceeding from the chairman’s office? 

Starting on your left and my right, yes or no? 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Yes, we have received a draft. 

Mr. DINGELL. Ma’am? 

Ms. TATE. It was published, and so I have seen what the chairman has stated publicly. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I know you have gotten 

one. Commissioner? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Yes. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
103 

Mr. DINGELL. Sir? 

Mr. COPPS. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Chairman Martin, can you explain to us very 

quickly how a draft order in the media ownership proceeding that 

is circulated in this fashion before the comment cycle on the proposed rule ends could possibly take into account comments that are 

yet to be submitted to the Commission? 

Mr. MARTIN. The APA notice requirements where we go out and 

ask the public for what they think about our proposed rules are 

satisfied when we began this process 18 months ago. We adopted 

the NPRM at the time, and we actually sought public comment. 

Public comments have been coming in almost the entire time since 

then, and indeed, what was requested of me by members of Congress and urged by some of my colleagues is that we publish the 

proposed rule, publish it, which is what I did. I think that was in 

Commissioner Copps’s original statement when we adopted the 

NPRM. But as the Third Circuit when they sent it back to us recognized it can’t be that every time we try to take action that the 

APA results in a revolving-door requirement. It can’t be that we 

propose to do something, people comment on it, and then we actually try to move to final order and we have to put that out for comment on it and then people have to seek comment on it. Then as 

we reach another decision we have to put that out for comment, 

and then if we alter it every time that results in a revolving door 

that never allows us to reach a decision. We have sought public notice and comment on our proposals, and we have satisfied the APA 

for that. What I have proposed doing is publishing the one rule 

change so that everyone would have an opportunity to actually see 

it, which is what was actually urged on me and urged on the previous Chairman. 

Mr. DINGELL. I want to thank you for that, Mr. Chairman. I 

want to observe that this is a very fine answer, but I am not sure 

it is quite responsive to the question. Now, in the interest of time, 

this question is for Commissioners Adelstein, Copps, Tate, and 

McDowell. Please again, yes or no. The first one is does this indicate that the Commission can be assumed to be operating in a fair, 

open, and transparent manner that allows for the full examination 

of all issues in a reasonable, responsible, rational way on the basis 

of an adequate record? Start on your left and on my right, yes or 

no? 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Sometimes yes, and sometimes it could use improvement. 

Mr. DINGELL. Sometimes yes, sometimes no? Ma’am? 

Ms. TATE. I would agree. 

Mr. DINGELL. Sir? 

Mr. COPPS. No. 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. No. 

Mr. DINGELL. This question then again for a yes or no answer. 

Commissioners, do you believe that you and your staff have full, 

unfettered access to all the Commission’s information and resources without oversight or interference by the chairman so that 

you may make informed decisions when voting on items before the 

Commission? Starting again on your left. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Same answer, sometimes yes and sometimes no. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
104 

Mr. DINGELL. Ma’am? 

Ms. TATE. When I have had a problem, I have gone and asked 

the chairman for more information, and he has responded. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you. Sir? 

Mr. COPPS. No. 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. No, not in all circumstances. 

Mr. DINGELL. Then this question, have you always voted and had 

opportunity to vote on items only after seeing a final and complete 

order? Starting on your left if you please 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Yes, I have only voted on items after seeing a 

complete order. 

Mr. DINGELL. Ma’am? 

Ms. TATE. Typically we get a red-line version, and then we have 

the opportunity after the vote to go back and make sure that if we 

had any changes to that order they were included in the order. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you. Sir? 

Mr. COPPS. I think the answer would have to be no in light of 

posted option at us and changes that have occurred in items. 

Mr. DINGELL. Sir? 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Technically Mr. Copps is correct. Usually we 

wait until we see them, and that is sometimes why the meetings 

start so late. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, this question, gentlemen, and ladies. Do you 

believe that the Commission is doing all that it can to ensure that 

the regulatory process is open, fair, and is done with a full opportunity for public comment in an appropriate and proper fashion? 

Starting again, please, ladies and gentlemen on your left. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. It could always use improvement. 

Ms. TATE. I believe we have been doing that, but we could always 

improve. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you. Sir? 

Mr. COPPS. Not the way that I would define those items you 

talked about. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you. 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. No. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Mr. Chairman, I think you would agree with 

me that you and I both would like to hear the answer to every 

question that I have just asked to have been yes. I am concerned 

here about the way the FCC is running, and I am much concerned 

about the process that we are observing and seeing that the agency 

improves dramatically. It is my view that when the Commission 

acts, these matters should be the subject of adequate notice and 

full opportunity for comment, that the Commission should function 

in a way which brings all of the Commissioners in because they are 

all equal, all have a vote, in determining whether the agency functions as is required by the Communications Act and other statutes 

in the, quote, public interest. And until and unless I see that that 

is happening or I see evidence about opportunity for people outside 

of the Commission to file comment in a way that enables it to be 

properly considered and heard by the Commission, to create a proper record upon which we may be assured that the Commission is 

functioning properly and carefully, I will continue to have significant concerns. Now, in view of what I have said, Mr. Chairman, I 

think it is fair that I should permit you to respond. I hope I have 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
105 

not offended you, but these are honest concerns which I think you 

can observe are shared by members of the Commission. I think 

that when you observe the process and the practice, it becomes 

clear that the Commission has not been including the public in a 

way that the public should have been included to have its comments properly considered as part of the record. Mr. Chairman, if 

you wish to respond, I would be honored that you do so. 

Mr. MARTIN. Sure, and thank you for the opportunity. I think 

that the Commission has actually followed the appropriate procedures in the media ownership context to allow for people to be able 

to understand what the Commission is proposing to do and to actually allow for them to have the opportunity to comment on it. Indeed the Commission has no obligation to go through the extra step 

before we adopt an order of publishing the proposed rule. In our 

notices of proposed rulemaking the law allows us to seek general 

comments with directions of what we are thinking about doing and 

have people make comment on it, and we actually very rarely go 

through the extra step that we did here of before the Commission 

action, publishing the actual rule so people can see that again. But 

that does not create an initial obligation to go through and do the 

whole notice and comment cycle over again. And actually, it was 

an extra step. If an extra step of disclosure to the public triggers 

additional process requirements, it will actually discourage the 

commission from taking that extra step. And what we were doing 

in this instance was to try to give them more opportunity to see 

what we were doing. 

As far as the internal processes and how the Commission ends 

up operating, I am sure that they can always end up being improved; but we have been operating under the same internal processes since I was a staffer working for Commissioner FurchtgottRoth, when Bill Kennard was chairman, and we followed the same 

process and procedures that we did then. When I was in the minority as a staffer, when I was a Commissioner under Chairman Powell, and since I have been Chairman, we have followed the same 

basic processes and procedures. 

Mr. DINGELL. I am going to say something that I learned when 

I got to be chairman of this committee. I went over to see the Parliamentarian, he was Lou Deschler, who was one of the giants in 

that business, and I said Lou, I am very concerned about how I am 

going to do when I am chairman. I said, what do I need to do to 

do a good job? He said, John, you have got to do two things. One, 

you have got to be fair, and two, you have got to appear fair. Those 

are rules that I have not breached. I suspect the second is the more 

difficult of the two rules to adhere to. I just would observe one 

other thing. I always am interested in the substance, but I am 

very, very interested in the procedure because my old daddy taught 

me a little lesson way back when I was young. He said, son, if you 

let me write the procedure and you write the substance, I will overcome you every time. And that is why it is so important that the 

process and the procedure be fair. You are the guardian of that 

within the Commission, and I say this with respect and affection 

because I like you and I think you are trying. But I would observe 

that these are matters that are going to I think require your attention, and I suspect if they do not get that, I imagine that you are 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
106 

liable to see these things upset by the courts over failure of the 

Commission to properly give notice and opportunity for comment. 

And I just hope that you will keep that in mind as you proceed 

about the business of the Commission. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARTIN. Thank you. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think that is a 

very good note on which to end the questioning of the Federal Communications Commission. We thank you very much for your patience, and obviously we are going to be in very close contact with 

you with many of the issues that were raised today. And we will 

take a minute or so break here while the first panel moves out and 

the second panel of witnesses comes up before the committee. 

Mr. COPPS. Thank you very much. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you all very much for your patience. This is 

obviously a very important subject, and we have put together one 

of the most expert panels ever constructed on any subject in the 

history of Congress. It has been put together with a lot of very 

careful thought, and we thank you for staying around. We are now 

heading towards 41⁄2 or 5 hours into this hearing, and there is no 

end in sight. And I think, you know, you can’t get too much of a 

good thing. So let us just keep going, and we will begin with Sidney 

‘‘Skip’’ Bliss, who is the president and chief executive officer of 

Bliss Communications, Inc. His company owns both newspapers 

and radio stations in Wisconsin. Here is what I am going to say, 

though, just so that you all understand, that each of you is going 

to have to aspire to a higher percentage of your thoughts going 

unspoken. And so this 5-minute rule upon which you were invited 

to testify will be enforced, and so please look at maybe the opening 

two or three or four paragraphs of your statements, and maybe 

some of that could go and you could get right down into the guts 

of what it is you want us to know, you know? So that would be 

very, very helpful to us. We will begin with you, Mr. Bliss. Welcome. You have 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF SIDNEY BLISS, PRSEIDENT AND CEO, BLISS 

COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 

Mr. BLISS. Thank you. I am happy to be here today to offer you 

a real-life story of how owning and operating a newspaper/radio 

combination in a small town can mean better service to the public. 

I live and work in Janesville, Wisconsin, a growing community of 

70,000 people. The Janesville Gazette, founded in 1845, is Wisconsin’s oldest daily newspaper publishing 7 days a week and since 

1883 has been under the continuous ownership and operation of 

five generations of my family. Over the course of those 162 years 

of operation, the Gazette has covered the news and events of our 

community like no other source, and the people of Janesville have 

come to rely on the newspaper for its accuracy and credibility. 

Before there was a Federal Communications Commission, the 

government turned to newspaper publishers during the Great Depression and asked them to invest in the new industry of radio to 

get it off the ground because newspapers knew more about how to 

gather information and disseminate it than anyone. My father purVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:45 Dec 19, 2008 Jkt 045289 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A289.XXX A289

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
107 

chased the license for WCLO–AM, and the station went on the air 

August 1, 1930, 4 years before Congress passed the Communications Act of 1934. The programming was locally produced and included large segments of local news gathered by a team of local 

news reporters who aggressively competed with the newsroom of 

the daily newspaper, which was located in the very same building. 

Over time, as the medium grew, local groups of all kinds appeared 

on WCLO. Radio became the people’s source for timely information 

of breaking news, community events, sports, and emergency weather. Eventually a new medium emerged which offered a higher quality listening experience, and my father acquired an FM license, and 

on October 10, 1947, WJVL–FM went on the air. 

Although this new technology lent itself best to music-oriented 

formats, we continued to inform the audience of important news 

with on-the-hour and half-hour news updates. The Gazette and 

these stations have been owned and operated together since we 

went on the air, and our newspaper/radio combination was not 

made subject to the cross-ownership ban that went into effect in 

1975. Our 77-year commitment to quality, independent, community-based broadcast journalism continues today on both of these 

legacy stations. In fact, newsroom staffing at the stations over the 

past several years is at an all-time high. 

Both the newspaper and radio stations are frequent award winners on a state and national level, and the newspaper is currently 

Best in Class in Wisconsin. In every case, we have acted responsibly, and our public file at WCLO and WJVL reflects this. Community leaders from all walks of life seek us out so that we can 

better understand their issues. As a result, we take proactive positions and help push quality initiatives forward. WCLO–AM is an 

all-local news, weather, and sports talk radio station with a combination of CNN, local newscasts on the hour, and local news on 

the half-hour. Monday through Friday our morning local talk show 

brings in community leaders and elected officials to discuss issues 

of importance with our listeners. Each election cycle, we produce 

local debates in cooperation with the newspaper and the local University of Wisconsin campus. Last night, in conjunction with local 

performing arts groups, we recreated a live radio broadcast of 

Dickens’s Christmas Carol. 

However, since our founding, the information business has undergone enormous change. Where we were once the sole provider 

of news locally, today there is a wide array of outlets for people to 

get that news. Television, Internet, cable, satellite, and telephone 

communications all compete with us every day for our audience 

and often for the advertising revenue that supports our newspaper 

and radio stations. This intense level of communication is creating 

tremendous challenges for our industries, and it is critical that we 

have the ability to operate and acquire new businesses that will ensure our economic future. 

Under the current cross-ownership ban, as a newspaper publisher, I am the only businessman who is prohibited from pursuing 

local business broadcast opportunities, while national companies 

with no local ties to the community are free to do so. This makes 

it much harder for our company to stay competitive and do what 

we do best, providing our community with local news and informaVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:45 Dec 19, 2008 Jkt 045289 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A289.XXX A289

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
108 

tion. There is another FM station in our community that offers no 

local news programming. It has been sold four times in the last 15 

years, and if we were allowed to acquire it, we would have extended our full complement of newscasts. We also operate daily 

newspapers in three other communities, and in one of them, 

Marinette, Wisconsin, the local radio stations were just sold a year 

ago. And again, we were prohibited from acquiring them and providing formal local news programming where there was none. 

The newspaper industry is one of America’s great institutions 

and is the principal defender of the first amendment. Yet, it is 

changing dramatically as we speak. If we are to do our job and be 

economically viable, we must not be forced to operate with one 

hand tied behind our back while our competitors are allowed to 

prosper. The newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership ban is antiquated and outdated rulemaking and in the interest of economic 

fairness needs to be eliminated. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bliss follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
109 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here 45289A.038
110 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here 45289A.039
111 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 45289A.040
112 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here 45289A.041
113 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here 45289A.042
114 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. You finished with 1 second left to go, 

Mr. Bliss. You did an excellent job. 

Mr. UPTON. You got to be in radio. 

Mr. MARKEY. It is our sincere desire that it can be emulated by 

the—— 

Mr. UPTON. That is authorized by Mr. Markey, right? 

Mr. MARKEY. So we thank you. Our next witness, Dr. E. Faye 

Williams, is National Chair of the National Congress of Black 

Women, a non-profit organization dedicated to the educational, political, economic, and cultural development of women and their 

families. We welcome Dr. Williams. 

STATEMENT OF E. FAYE WILLIAMS, NATIONAL CHAIR, 

NATIONAL CONGRESS OF BLACK WOMEN, INC. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Chairman Markey and Mr. Upton, 

members of the subcommittee. We have been this way before, Mr. 

Chairman, and this is early compared with the last time we were 

here when we got on about 5:30. But as you know, the National 

Congress of Black Women has had a keen interest in media matters for over 15 years when we began a campaign against violence, 

denigration, and misogyny in the media. And I think I speak for 

much of the civil and human rights community in making three essential points. My first point is that America’s media companies, 

over whom you exert considerable influence, need to display more 

responsibility and refrain from disseminating degrading, 

misogynistic content in order to make a simple buck. Members are 

all too aware of the examples of media companies jumping at opportunities to produce movies, videos, music, and other content 

that portray people of color as debase caricatures and poor images 

of women. They hide behind the first amendment, which is their 

right, but ignore the larger issue about assuming corporate responsibility to remove the poison from our airwaves. 

And that brings me to my second point. There is no balance. As 

Chairman Dingell and Chairman Conyers have said previously, the 

current FCC is broken. As a lawyer and a former congressional 

staff member, I know the administrative agencies require transparency and the meaningful participation of the public. I hope this 

committee, as others have done, will call on the FCC to cease all 

rulemaking until the committee is able to complete a full-fledged 

investigation into recent abuses by the FCC, abuses cited by both 

Republicans and Democrats. 

Third, the current FCC chairman seems bent on pursuing a decidedly anti-diversity agenda, but I hope this committee will stop 

that. Chairman Martin insists on a big reward for the media companies by relaxing ownership rules. All the available data show 

that this drastically curtails diversity in local markets. Clear Channel, and I am not sure whether Mr. Levin has a good right or left 

punch, so let me not be too hard on him, but let me just say they 

own a whole lot out there and that prevents women and people of 

color from owning also and having something to say about the content. 

As a result, the minority-owned media company is becoming an 

endangered species, Mr. Chairman. Despite making up 34 percent 

of the U.S. population, racial and ethnic minorities own only 7.7 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
115 

percent of radio stations and just over 3 percent of television stations. Under Chairman Martin the situation has worsened. Last 

year alone minority ownership among TV stations dropped over 8 

percent. The number of black-owned stations fell 80 percent, yet 

the chairman continues to roll back cross-ownership rules, and like 

Mr. Rush, I am frustrated that no plan is coming forth. This kind 

of special interest giveaway at the expense of the public is made 

all the more disturbing by Chairman Martin’s effort to disproportionately regulate the only medium on which black-owned programmers and people of color have been able to gain any kind of foothold, cable television. 

And so I want to say, Mr. Chairman, as we go through this, a 

la carte pricing, a long-time pet project of Chairman Martin, would 

kill minority programmers because they rely on the bundled tier 

for exposure and for their advertising revenue; and without this 

benefit, their costs would soar and their audience would really 

dwindle. 

So, Mr. Chairman, the Commission’s recently adopted leased access price cuts, for whatever good points it might have by definition, does nothing to increase minority ownership. I think the term 

media sharecropping has been used, and as a sharecropper’s 

daughter, we definitely don’t want to go back there, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Martin continues to promote these policies as helping minorities, but in a letter written to 13 major organizations and virtually 

the entire civil rights community, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Martin’s 

agenda would set back the cause of diversity. We have seen this 

play out before. We would be happy to invite Mr. Martin and others to come into our communities to hear what we have to say and 

then of course try doing some of the things that would be helpful 

to us. 

I also hope that my friends in the consumer advocacy community 

will become more sensitive to our concerns as well and not seek to 

enable Mr. Martin’s power grab. They are bad government and detrimental to diversity. 

And once again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity 

to appear before your committee. And, of course, I will submit my 

entire statement for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Williams follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
116 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 45289A.043
117 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here 45289A.044
118 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here 45289A.045
119 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here 45289A.046
120 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Dr. Williams, very much. Our next witness, Andrew Levin, is executive vice president and chief legal officer of Clear Channel Communications, a media conglomerate that 

owns hundreds of radio stations, television stations, and outdoor 

advertising. And like you, Dr. Williams, Mr. Levin is also a former 

Hill staffer, for this committee, in fact. So we welcome you back, 

Andy. 

STATEMENT OF ANDREW LEVIN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT 

AND CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER, CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS 

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member 

Upton, Congressman Stupak. It is great to be here today. It is certainly an honor to be back here. I have to say if there is anything 

I have learned since I left, it is a lot more fun to be on that side 

than it is on this side. But I appreciate the opportunity to be here, 

and I thank you for inviting me. 

The focus of the hearing obviously was the FCC Chairman’s proposed changes in newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rules. 

Chairman Martin has made it clear he doesn’t intend to propose 

changes to any other ownership rules, including the radio rules. 

But neither the FCC review that is required by law nor the Third 

Circuit remand are limited to just the newspaper rule. The FCC 

has a legal obligation to address all of its ownership rules and 

make a decision based on the entirety of the record before it, not 

just on a small subset of that universe. It is my hope that members 

of the committee will focus on today’s marketplace realities and 

agree that changes to the local radio ownership rule are once again 

necessary in 2007. 

People often forget, and it has been mentioned a few times today, 

that prior to the Telecom Act of 1996, more than 60 percent of the 

Nation’s radio stations were operating in the red, and many of 

them were facing the threat of going silent entirely. Congress recognized that crisis, took action, and it worked. And now we are sitting here 12 years later, and radio companies are again facing 

major operating challenges. Radio industry revenues have grown 

less than 1 percent a year over the last 5 years. Projections going 

forward are all flat to negative. This is unsustainable for our industry. 

A seismic shift has taken place in the competitive landscape. The 

rapid growth in new, unregulated digital services, including satellite radio, iPods, and Internet radio, is significantly eroding the 

amount of time spent listening to free broadcast radio. In the space 

of only the last 4 years, XM and Sirius increased their 

subscribership from less than 1 million customers in 2003 to over 

16 million customers today. Likewise, I doubt that anyone in this 

room could have imagined in 1996 that 110 million iPods and other 

MP3 players would be in consumers’ hands by now. 

Clear Channel by no means begrudges these new technologies for 

their success, quite the contrary. But free radio broadcasters, who 

ironically are the only ones who serve the local needs of their communities, are still shackled by these outdated regulations that not 

only limit their growth but by extension limit their ability to deliver important local services. The FCC simply can’t look the other 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
121 

way. Regulatory reform is needed, and there is ample room for 

more ownership flexibility in the radio market without causing excessive concentration. 

Just look at the facts. The top 20 radio companies in this country 

make up less than half of the total radio market. Clear Channel 

itself owns just 8 percent of U.S. radio stations. By contrast, nearly 

90 percent of the recording industry is controlled by just four companies. And the top seven cable companies control 85 percent of 

that market. The Commission can’t simply ignore the change that 

has occurred in the marketplace, and if the Commission does the 

unthinkable and approves the XM/Sirius merger, it will make repeal of the local ownership limits an absolute imperative. A combined XM/Sirius would control more spectrum than both the AM 

and FM bands combined in every local market. 

If the FCC approves the creation of a spectrum monolith like 

this, without at the same time revising rules for local free radio, 

it would be both a dereliction of its statutory mandate and profoundly unfair to the broadcast industry and the American public. 

As Ranking Member Upton and other members of the subcommittee have recognized, at a minimum, the FCC should raise 

the current caps in the largest markets, as Chairman Martin is 

proposing to do with newspapers. That action would be exceedingly 

modest, but it is the bare minimum needed to ensure that radio 

does not become something that only people who can afford to pay 

for it can listen to. 

Finally, and very importantly, I agree with Dr. Williams that immediate action is needed to improve the disgraceful state of minority media ownership. One way is for Congress to reinstate the minority tax certificate program, which Clear Channel has supported 

for years. Clear Channel also urges the Commission to take immediate action and adopt the bold proposals of the MMTC and 26 

other minority media groups, including Rainbow Push and LULAC, 

who support repeal of both the AM/FM subcaps and adoption of an 

incubator program that they believe will provide an immediate 

spike in minority and women ownership. 

In closing, I implore the members of the committee to not leave 

free, over-the-air radio behind. It is an opportunity to protect the 

future viability of free broadcast radio service, and thank you very 

much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Levin follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
122 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 45289A.047
123 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here 45289A.048
124 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 132 here 45289A.049
125 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 133 here 45289A.050
126 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 134 here 45289A.051
127 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 135 here 45289A.052
128 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 136 here 45289A.053
129 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here 45289A.054
130 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 45289A.055
131 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 45289A.056
132 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Levin, very much. And our next 

witness, Jim Winston, came before the subcommittee many times 

in the past. He is the executive director of the National Association 

of Black Owned Broadcasters, the largest trade organization representing the interests of African-American owners of radio and television stations. Welcome back, Jim. Whenever you are ready, 

please begin. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES L. WINSTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BLACK OWNED BROADCASTERS 

Mr. WINSTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you and the 

members of the subcommittee for inviting me to speak this afternoon. 

I am here today to make three requests of the subcommittee. 

Please support reinstatement of a minority tax certificate policy to 

promote minority ownership of broadcast facilities. Please prevent 

the Federal Communications Commission from further relaxing its 

broadcast ownership rules until it has adopted meaningful policies 

to promote minority ownership of broadcast facilities. Third, please 

investigate Arbitron’s new portable people meter audience measurement system, because it appears that within its design is a critical flaw in the gathering and processing of the audience data. 

We have had very good discussion about the need for a minority 

tax certificate policy. I will cut my comments short there other 

than to note that Congressman Charles Rangel has introduced 

H.R. 3003, and Congressman Bobby Rush has introduced H.R. 600, 

both designed to reinstate the tax certificate policy. NABOB 

requests that the members of the subcommittee join Congressmen 

Rangel and Rush in working to reinstate the tax certificate policy. 

With respect to the FCC’s media ownership proceeding, again, we 

have had a great deal of discussion about that today. And NABOB 

requests the subcommittee direct the Commission to adopt policies 

either specifically designed to promote minority ownership or at a 

minimum adopt policies to promote ownership by socially and economically disadvantaged businesses. Also, the subcommittee should 

direct the Commission to delay any action on changes in its ownership rules until a task force to establish policies to promote minority ownership as proposed by Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein 

has been created and it has completed its work and reported back 

to the Commission with its recommendations. 

What I would like to do is to take this opportunity to bring to 

the subcommittee’s attention a new threat to minority ownership 

of broadcast stations coming from the portable people meter audience measurement system adopted by Arbitron. Arbitron maintains 

a monopoly of the business of measuring audiences of radio stations, which means that if radio stations do not subscribe to 

Arbitron’s rating service, the radio stations will have no ratings 

data to present to advertisers who purchase advertising time on 

radio stations. Arbitron has recently created the PPM methodology, 

an unaccredited electronic audience measurement tool, to replace a 

paper diary methodology, an accredited methodology, which 

Arbitron has used for decades. Initial results from the PPM system 

have shown drastic declines in the audiences for stations serving 

African-American and Hispanic audiences. The failure of Arbitron 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
133 

to obtain Media Ratings Council accreditation for PPM in Philadelphia and New York and its failure to obtain reaccreditation in 

Houston is a situation that calls for an investigation by this subcommittee, because that failure suggests that there are other deficiencies in the methodology that are not yet apparent. 

NABOB therefore requests that the subcommittee investigate the 

PPM methodology and obtain information on the PPM accreditation process from Arbitron and the Media Ratings Council. There 

is precedent for such a request. Congress requested such information from Nielsen and the Media Ratings Council when the local 

people meter was being investigated by Congress in 2004. 

NABOB applauds the subcommittee’s decision to investigate the 

Federal Communications Commission’s efforts to allow further consolidation of ownership in the broadcast industry. However, 

NABOB submits that the committee must investigate this even 

more sinister threat to minority ownership of media properties 

posed by Arbitron’s PPM system. If Arbitron was allowed to use its 

monopoly system in the audience rating business to force its defective PPM methodology on stations nationwide, the loss of minority 

media ownership that may result could be far more devastating 

than the loss which may result from the proposed further relaxation of the FCC’s ownership rules being proposed by Chairman 

Martin. 

We thank you in advance for considering this request, and we 

look forward to working with you to investigate and rectify this 

very serious situation. Thank you for the opportunity to appear 

today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Winston follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
134 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here 45289A.057
135 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here 45289A.058
136 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 45289A.059
137 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 45289A.060
138 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 45289A.061
139 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Winston, very much. Our next witness, John Sturm, is the president and chief executive officer of the 

Newspaper Association of America. Welcome back to the subcommittee, Mr. Sturm. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN F. STURM, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

NEWSPAPER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA 

Mr. STURM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Upton, Mr. Towns, 

Mr. Stupak. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. I will try 

to address the goals of competition, diversity, and localism, which 

is what we are here about in the context of the 32-year-old ban on 

newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership. Let me be clear, however, at 

the outset. In our humble opinion, Chairman Martin’s proposal is 

extremely limited. It is limited only to the top 20 markets. For all 

other markets, essentially, the ban remains in place. It would be 

subject to waiver criteria that for the first time ever presumes 

newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership to be against the public interest. So you are presumed guilty before you come into the FCC to 

seek a waiver. In fact, our position is and always has been that the 

across-the-board ban should be eliminated across the board. 

As was mentioned earlier today when the Commission testified, 

this is the only ownership rule that was enacted by the Commission in the 1970s that has not been changed, modified, or eliminated since that time, a time when there were three stations per 

market and a handful of radio stations. Since that time, broadcast 

stations, the number of them, has more than doubled. We have 

cable, satellite, wireless, Internet, and all the things that you have 

heard referred to earlier today. This is the largest, the biggest, the 

most enormous expansion and explosion of media in the history of 

the world, and during that period of time, only newspapers have 

contracted. 

Process. This is the sixth time in the last 11 years that the FCC 

has a proceeding to review the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule in some fashion. My association has filed 12 sets of comments on this issue over the last 11 years. I last testified on this 

exact issue on September 15, 1999, in front of this committee. Very 

little has changed in that time as far as the application of the rule 

is concerned, but what has changed is that there is more competition, more competitors, more choices, more diversity, and much 

more difficult times for newspapers. 

We have had a unique situation with this rule and that is the 

grandfathered markets where the rule has been inoperative since 

1975, and Mr. Upton referred to one of those, shows that there is 

no harm to the public through cross-ownership; and in fact, all of 

the studies also indicate by the FCC and other sources that more 

news and public affairs is the one differentiator between newspaper 

ownership of a station and ownership by any other. It is the single 

differentiator. It is the only difference. More news, more public affairs for local audiences. Eliminating the rule would be pro-competitive because it would allow newspapers to reach audiences just 

like everybody else does. 

Diversity. There is a wealth of viewpoint diversity. Not only is 

there talk radio, national newspapers, blogs, local Internet services 

but an increasing desire in local markets for the Internet to provide 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
140 

truly hyper-local news. These things are developing. Many of you 

saw just the other day in the Washington Post a story of digital 

sports. That is a local, Internet-based sports newsgathering organization that will compete with local newspapers. 

Localism, an important part of the FCC’s criteria. Local newspapers are simply the most local of all media. Local autonomy and 

local editorial control is the culture of newspapers. No one else does 

local news like newspapers, and broadcast stations and their audiences would benefit from relaxation under this rule. Local news is 

not being invested in by anyone these days. You should not count 

on Google or Yahoo to do local news. 

Newspapers have been kept out of the market for 32 years. It is 

time for newspapers to be allowed to compete just like everyone 

else. In order to be ineligible to hold a broadcast license, you have 

to be either a foreigner, a convicted felon, or a newspaper publisher. That is the way it has been since 1975. In today’s world, not 

the world of 1975, that is unconscionable, it is unwarranted, and 

even as the court said in 2004, unnecessary. 

Thank you for your time and your attention. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sturm follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
141 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 45289A.062
142 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 45289A.063
143 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 45289A.064
144 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 45289A.065
145 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 45289A.066
146 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here 45289A.067
147 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here 45289A.068
148 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here 45289A.069
149 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 here 45289A.070
150 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here 45289A.071
151 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 45289A.072
152 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here 45289A.073
153 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here 45289A.074
154 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Sturm, very much. The next witness, Juan Gonzalez, is past President of the National Association 

of Hispanic Journalists, an organization dedicated to the recognition and professional advancement of Hispanics in the news industry. We welcome you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF JUAN D. GONZALEZ, PAST PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HISPANIC JOURNALISTS 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Mr. 

Chairman and committee members. And I have prepared some 

written remarks, which I have submitted to you, but I will also 

change it a little bit on the basis of the testimony. 

My name is Juan Gonzalez. I am here representing the National 

Association of Hispanic Journalists, a non-profit organization with 

more than 2,000 members who work in television, radio, and newspapers in the United States in both English and Spanish language 

medium. I am founder and former president of the Association, a 

staff columnist for the New York Daily News, and a co-host of the 

national radio program Democracy Now. In nearly 30 years as a 

professional journalist, I have never testified before any government body on any issue, but I and the members of my Association 

are here today to plead for your help because the profession that 

we love and the media industry in which we labor has repeatedly 

and profoundly failed the public interest, convenience, or necessity 

of a huge portion of our population, the approximately 100 million 

Americans of African, Hispanic, Asian, and Native descent. 

Even as our Nation has become ever more diverse racially and 

ethnically, we all know as much as 35 percent of our population is 

now minority. Minority ownership of the broadcast companies that 

provide the public essential news reports and interpretations of 

daily events has remained at shockingly low levels. The Free Press 

report released last week found the percentage of minority-owned 

stations declined from an already paltry 3.45 percent in 2006 to 3.1 

percent and that among African-Americans, it plummeted from 25 

stations in 1998 to 19 in 2006 to eight to 2007. Black ownership 

of television stations in America is disappearing. Since 1998, even 

though the total number of commercial television stations has increased by about 13 percent, the number of minority-owned stations has stagnated. 

And radio is hardly much better. A 2006 study by Free Press 

concluded that minorities own just eight percent of the 10,000 commercial radio stations in the country. In contrast, overall minority 

ownership in the general non-farmed sector of business in America 

reached nearly 18 percent in 2002, the last year for which we have 

comprehensive government data. That is five times better than television and twice the level of radio. 

Chairman Martin’s plan to permit expanded cross-ownership by 

newspapers and television stations places the future of minority 

ownership in even greater jeopardy. Under the chairman’s plan, all 

19 minority-owned television stations operating in the top 20 markets would become potential targets for purchase by local newspapers. 

Some might ask why we as journalists place so much emphasis 

on the racial and ethnic composition of media owners. It is simple. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
155 

Direct experience has shown us that ownership matters when it 

comes to diversity in newsroom employment and more importantly 

when it comes to diversity of voices and meeting the news and information needs of minority communities. Not surprisingly, the 

percentage of journalists of color working at local TV stations and 

at daily newspapers also declined last year, and minority employment in both local broadcasting and newspapers continues to lag 

behind overall population. 

For 11 years, our association has issued annual reports on the 

coverage of Hispanics by the evening news broadcasts of the major 

television networks. Year in and year out the results are inevitably 

the same, less than 1 percent of network news has been devoted 

to stories that specifically focus on Hispanics. Depending on that 

year, anywhere from 30 to 45 percent of that small universe of stories has centered on two main issues, immigration and crime. A 

more marginalized and distorted image of the Latino population in 

America could not be imagined. In 2001, NBC spent $1.9 billion to buy a bunch of local 

Telemundo stations. At the time, NBC executives personally assured me as president of the Association and the FCC that the 

merger was in the public interest and would provide more resources and news to the Hispanic community. After gaining regulatory approval, merging its back office operations, in 2006 NBC 

laid off 700 workers and announced that it was eliminating local 

news staffs at Telemundo stations in five of the Nation’s biggest 

cities, San Diego, Phoenix, Houston, San Antonio, Denver, and consolidating them in a regional newscast, in a regional local newscast 

in Dallas. Only in the Orwellian world of our major media broadcast companies can you improve local news coverage by eliminating 

it in local cities and piping it in from 1,000 miles away. 

Previous FCC studies have confirmed a direct nexus between minority ownership, workforce diversity, and the content of news. 

NAHJ and more than 20 civil rights groups—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Gonzalez, please summarize. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes—have called on the FCC to address minority 

ownership, and I would just like to say that next year represents 

the 200th anniversary of the Hispanic press in America and of the 

black press, 180 years ago, and we are still fighting those fights to 

require adequate representation of the concerns of the minority 

community. We urge the committee to please stop these proposals 

of Chairman Martin until full understanding of the implications for 

minority media is resolved. Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gonzalez follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
156 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 165 here 45289A.075
157 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 166 here 45289A.076
158 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 here 45289A.077
159 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. Chairman Markey is, like, good. Next 

we will turn to Jerald Fritz, who is the senior vice president of 

legal and strategic affairs for Allbritton Communications, a Washington, DC-based owner of local television stations affiliated with 

ABC. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF JERALD N. FRITZ, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

LEGAL AND STRATEGIC AFFAIRS, ALLBRITTON COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY 

Mr. FRITZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Upton, Mr. Towns, 

Mr. Stupak. I appreciate the invitation. 

If Congress or the FCC were to design a media company today, 

it might want to use the Allbritton organization in Washington as 

its model. WJLA, the ABC affiliate here, is the local news leader. 

Its commitment to extensive local service and news is award winning. Combined with News Channel 8, the first local, all-news 

cable service in the country that Allbritton founded 15 years ago, 

the two television stations program a remarkable 18 hours of live 

news per day. These channels of course are supplemented by rich 

Internet websites that expand information options to those viewers 

who are unwilling or unable to sit and watch traditional television. 

WJLA also recently launched two digital subchannels focused exclusively on local community interests. Local Point is a fast-paced, 

short form channel that features local filmmakers, local bands, 

local comedians, local news, and local entertainment. WJLA’s other 

digital subchannel is its unique 24-hour local weather channel. As 

many of you know, the addition of Politico and Politico.com to the 

information mix was driven by Robert Allbritton’s vision of a specialty website and print publication that would take coverage of 

politics to a new level. The depth of its articles and range of all 

things political is reflected in the recent survey from Editor and 

Publisher Magazine, which ranked Politico.com as one of the top– 

25 rated newspaper websites in the entire nation after only 10 

months of existence. This is powerful evidence of changing information habits. Politico shares its infrastructure with WJLA, News 

Channel 8, and Local Point. In fact, that is the key point to this 

media platform model in Washington. 

More information is generated by these co-owned platforms together than possibly could be accomplished separately. The ability 

of the broadcast and cable channels to rely on information from 

each other is critical to the journalistic and economic success of 

both. Similarly, Politico’s reliance on the television stations’ infrastructure enhances both organizations. The Allbrittons have created these platforms from scratch with their own capital and the 

vision to enhance locally-owned media that serves the needs of the 

local community. 

Now, as you may know, this multiple media platform organization was born out of the tragic loss of one of the region’s great 

newspapers, the Washington Star. In fact, the Washington community and Joe Allbritton in particular are among the victims of the 

unintended consequences of the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule. In 1975, the Star was losing $1 million a month, a lot 

of money in those days. Joe Allbritton had recently purchased the 

Washington newspaper/broadcast combination in hopes of saving it. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
160 

He came to the FCC requesting a waiver of the newly-adopted rule 

so that he could redirect money from the television station into the 

paper to keep it alive. The FCC said no. Commissioner Robert E. 

Lee wrote a dissent to that decision prophetically entitled, ‘‘Au 

Revoir Etoile, Goodbye to The Star.’’ Allbritton wanted to keep the 

paper and try to swap WJLA for a station in Oklahoma City. The 

Commission didn’t like that, either, because he would keep a nonvoting stock interest in WJLA, even though he would have absolutely no control over the station. The Commission threatened to 

unscramble the proposed deal by making any rule changes retroactive to him. So he reluctantly sold his locally-owned newspaper 

to Time magazine based in New York, which kept it for a year or 

so and then shut it down, ironically leaving a monopoly newspaper 

in the shadow of the FCC and in the Congress’s backyard. So much 

for diversity. 

Much has changed in the ensuing 30 years. We have so many 

channels of information available to us now that it takes well over 

5 minutes just to scroll through most television program guides. 

Adding the information from the Internet simply explodes the 

premise of the ownership rules. The threat that any organization 

can dominate the information flow to the public is a long-retired 

notion, if it ever had any viability. Broadcasters are not calling for 

an end to all ownership regulation. We merely want to modernize 

out-of-date restrictions that do not reflect current competitive realities. Reasonable reform of outmoded limitations will permit broadcasters to compete more effectively against multi-channel media 

and Internet providers and maybe even save some newspapers. As 

the FCC has recognized, maintaining competitively viable stations 

serves the public interest. It allows them to provide significant 

presence in their communities and offer costly services such as 

local news. Reform of broadcast-only local ownership limitations 

can help those stations do just that. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fritz follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
161 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 170 here 45289A.078
162 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 171 here 45289A.079
163 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 172 here 45289A.080
164 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here 45289A.081
165 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here 45289A.082
166 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here 45289A.083
167 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here 45289A.084
168 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 177 here 45289A.085
169 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 178 here 45289A.086
170 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 179 here 45289A.087
171 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 180 here 45289A.088
172 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 181 here 45289A.089
173 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 182 here 45289A.090
174 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 183 here 45289A.091
175 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 184 here 45289A.092
176 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 185 here 45289A.093
177 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 186 here 45289A.094
178 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 187 here 45289A.095
179 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 188 here 45289A.096
180 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 189 here 45289A.097
181 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 190 here 45289A.098
182 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 191 here 45289A.099
183 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Fritz. And our final witness, one 

of the most frequent witnesses in the history of the Telecommunications Subcommittee, Andrew Jay Schwartzman, one of the very 

few witnesses who everyone knows his middle name as well, is 

president and chief executive officer of the Media Access Project, a 

35-year-old public interest media and telecommunications outfit. 

Welcome back. 

STATEMENT OF ANDREW JAY SCHWARTZMAN, PRESIDENT 

AND CEO, MEDIA ACCESS PROJECT 

Mr. SCHWARTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to 

skip my prepared remarks and try to address some of the things 

that have come up on this panel, which means I don’t have a sense 

of time, so I would appreciate if you would give me a high sign 

after 4 minutes. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Upton, Mr. Towns, 

Mr. Stupak. For 30 years, I have been coming here and sitting on 

panels with some of the very best and most responsible broadcasters in the country. This is not about the Skip Blisses of the 

world, this is not about the Allbrittons. The responsible broadcasters who do a good job, are close and responsive to their communities, would make it unnecessary for us to have a regulatory 

scheme. This is about the broadcasters who don’t do their jobs, who 

abuse the licenses that they have to serve the public interest. The 

simple fact is that in a community of 60,000 people in Wisconsin, 

one daily newspaper and two radio stations is enough, and the cost 

of diversity to the public would be too great to change those rules. 

That is just the way it is. 

The simple fact is that most of the synergies that can come from 

common ownership from newspapers and broadcasting companies 

can come from joint ventures without ownership. As I detailed in 

my testimony, there are hundreds of those. Just last week I heard 

Newscorp and Channel 9 in New York talk about their joint venture with the Bergen Record in northern New Jersey to improve 

their coverage of northern New Jersey. They take more use of the 

services of the Bergen Record in northern New Jersey than they do 

the commonly-owned New York Post in New York. It is just not 

necessary to own these properties in order to get the synergies that 

can come from combining the sources of news organizations and 

without the cost to the loss of diversity. 

As I said, I deal with some of the best broadcasters in the country here, but that brings me to Mr. Levin and Clear Channel. Not 

always. Thousands and thousands of comments have been filed before the FCC, hundreds of witnesses have testified, not one member of the public of which I am aware has called for greater local 

consolidation in radio. It comes from Clear Channel, and it comes 

from the NAB and nowhere else. Local radio consolidation means 

less diverse formats, more imported formats, less localism. Clear 

Channel just laid off four programming people in Chicago in favor 

of adding sales people—more distant programming, less attention 

to regional taste. There is no need to change the local radio rules. 

With respect to the fact that the XM merger would somehow justify changing the radio ownership rules, I know it takes a lot of 

chutzpah for a company that has owned 8 million shares of XM 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
184 

radio to complain about that merger and then say it justifies letting them own more radio stations. I also point out that Clear 

Channel benefits from the news digital radio formats that allow 

multiple program feeds. Again, Clear Channel is a major owner of 

iBiquity, the company that has the exclusive license for that technology. So they have ample means for dealing with alleged competition from XM and Sirius radio. 

Back to newspaper cross-ownership in the time I have remaining. 

Newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership results in a loss of a diverse 

voice in the community, and as the studies have shown, the FCC’s 

own data unequivocally shows that on a market-wide basis, newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership means less news to the community. Yes, some, but not all, newspaper/broadcast combinations increased the amount of news created by that television station, but 

they crowd out their competition and result in a loss of diversity; 

and when you control for grandfathered cross-ownership, even that 

difference goes away. 

Finally, with respect to the discussion about what the court held 

in Philadelphia, the court held in Philadelphia that, based on the 

record the FCC had in 2003, it could properly conclude that there 

was no continuing need for a newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership 

rule. The thousands of pages of additional information filed, including what I just referred to, gives the FCC an ample basis going forward to conclude based on the record available to it in 2007, or I 

hope in 2008, provides a powerful basis for retaining the existing 

newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rules; and there is nothing 

contrary to what was said this morning, nothing that the court said 

that requires the FCC to change those rules. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schwartzman follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
185 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 195 here 45289A.100
186 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 196 here 45289A.101
187 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 197 here 45289A.102
188 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 198 here 45289A.103
189 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 199 here 45289A.104
190 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 200 here 45289A.105
191 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 201 here 45289A.106
192 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 202 here 45289A.107
193 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 203 here 45289A.108
194 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 204 here 45289A.109
195 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 205 here 45289A.110
196 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 206 here 45289A.111
197 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 207 here 45289A.112
198 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 208 here 45289A.113
199 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Schwartzman, and that completes 

the time for opening statements from our witnesses. The Chair will 

now recognize himself for a round of questions. 

Earlier you heard the chairman of the FCC talk about what happens under his proposal outside the top 20 markets. One of the criteria is in order to receive a waiver, there would have to be proof 

that merger between a newspaper and a television station would 

result in more news. Mr. Sturm, how would you quantify more 

news? What is the test? 

Mr. STURM. I am not sure that I can absolutely quantify right 

off the top of my head, but clearly let us say that a first local news 

service by a broadcast station, radio or television, would seem to 

me clearly to be in the public interest. If that station is not doing 

news and it can be acquired by a newspaper which is going to put 

news on that station, that I can assure you, that would certainly 

fulfill the criteria. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. Let me go to Mr. Bliss. What would your test 

be? Can you use the microphone, please? 

Mr. BLISS. I am in the business of local news. That is what I do, 

that is what my people do, that is what we are best staffed to do. 

We have a staff of 25 full-time committed journalists at our newspaper. We have four full-time broadcast journalists at our radio 

stations. There are no locally-staffed news operations in anywhere 

of half-a-dozen radio stations in my market. My definition would be 

that I would apply what my newspaper is capable of doing and 

take that staff of 20 to 30 people and apply that to a broadcast situation. I would enhance. I think it is fairly clear what I bring to 

that organization. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Schwartzman, how would you define it? 

Mr. SCHWARTZMAN. I don’t think it is possible to quantify on a 

market-wide basis, which as I have indicated has to be the test. If 

the effect of newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership is to crowd out 

the other competitors in the market, it is going to mean less news 

and much less diversity in that community. You can have a standard which I think would be terrible, that an applicant simply raises 

his hand and promises that he will do more news, and goodness 

knows how that is going to be enforced years later when the license 

comes up for renewal. It is not possible to make every other broadcaster in the community raise their hand and make the same 

promise. So I don’t think it is a workable standard. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. Back to you quickly, Mr. Sturm. Is there something else that you—— 

Mr. STURM. Yes, there is. I think if a newspaper came in in a 

proposal for a waiver with a tough standard that the Commission 

has proposed, a very difficult standard, can show there is going to 

be a substantial increase in local news and public affairs over what 

is being provided by the station at the present time. That, too, 

should be a criteria, at least one of the criteria, to undergird a 

waiver of the rules. 

Mr. MARKEY. I have to just quickly move on. I am sorry. Dr. Williams, elaborate on the importance of minority and female ownership of media properties. Why is it so significant? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I believe it is important because 

we, particularly women of color, have been so denigrated that we 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
200 

believe we need the opportunity to speak for ourselves and to speak 

freely; and when the media are owned by someone else, then we 

do not have the opportunity to paint that picture of us. So I think 

it would give us more time in the media, we think it would give 

us an opportunity to speak and speak loudly about who we are. 

Malcolm X once said, unless we know who we are, the world will 

never know who we are. And some of us have been working particularly in the Women’s Coalition, which was here not long ago 

that is made up of the National Organization for Women, Feminist 

Majority, Black Civic Participation, women from Rainbow Push. All 

of these organizations, including women in labor and sports and 

others, we believe that we have come together, and we have been 

able to define what we want to see, but we don’t have the opportunity to present who we are and to influence our children because 

now we are seeing too much negative out there. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Gonzalez, could you answer the same question? 

Why is it so important? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Well, I think it has been demonstrated both in 

some of the FCC’s own studies that minority ownership has an effect on the kind of news it is covering, on the employment situation 

within many of these news organizations, minority owners are 

more likely to regard minority journalists as qualified to do the job 

than other owners, and I think that the choices that are made over 

what gets covered is critical; and that is why we have so much 

marginalization of news that affects the minority community in the 

existing local television stations, local newspapers as well, although 

newspapers generally have done a better job on this. Mr. Sturm, 

I agree that newspapers provide an enormous amount of local 

news, but television stations could provide. No one is saying the 

television stations are distressed financially. Even newspapers are 

not distressed, but television stations could provide more news, 

they just choose not to do so. They choose not to do so with their 

huge profit margins. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez. My time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to make the 

observation as we look at all the members that are here on this 

panel, I dare say that all of us are news junkies. When we are at 

home and when we are here as well, we want to know what is 

going on in our communities. We want to be able to help those in 

need, we want to be able to be responsible using the position that 

we have, and I have to say, as I have traveled the great State of 

Michigan, when I was up in Marquette, it was the local TV and 

broadcasters that I saw, whether it be weather or other issues that 

might impact me. And Mr. Sturm, I know I have seen you on the 

plane to South Bend on a lot of Saturdays, maybe not as many this 

year, but you will be back next year, I know. But as we all visit, 

my district is a microcosm of the country. I have got a large city 

like Kalamazoo, I got Chicago media and obviously we get South 

Bend, Elkhart, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, and as I visit my newspapers, large and small, Mr. Bliss, I really connect with your side 

of the State of Wisconsin, because that is not unlike mine. They are 

very similar. And as I watch my local station, not Chicago, but the 

one, South Bend particularly, they are there. They got news trucks 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
201 

that are there on traffic, I mean a whole variety of things, much 

like I see here, just as I identified to the Washington scene with 

Allbritton. Channel 7 is a great station, and I know that at any 

time I can go to Channel 8 on my Comcast cable and I can see the 

weather, the time, I can see all the things that are happening. I 

look at the Post, which is delivered to my office. They have got a 

special section on Virginia that comes. I mean, just a whole variety 

of things that connects the media conglomerates with what is going 

on on the local scene, whether it be in a smaller community like 

Alexandria where I live here or obviously back home. And I was 

glad to hear Dr. Williams, your comment against a la carte as well, 

because I am a believer that the broader that base is, that has allowed for channels that would never be there without that because 

they have got to share some of those costs. And to me, that is what 

this lifting the ownership does. It shares some of those costs, like 

it has in my little niche in South Bend between the newspaper in 

the 89th largest market, the radios, and the TV together so they 

can share that staff. And I have seen the same thing when I walk 

the streets of Michigan Avenue in Chicago where I can see WGN 

broadcasting live right on Michigan Avenue, and when you go inside you see the connection that is made with their TV as well as 

their radio. And in terms of local content, man, you can’t beat that 

flavor as it relates to the Chicagoland region. 

As I get to my question, let me say, Mr. Levin and Mr. Fritz, 

when it comes to the cable and the satellite services, whether it be 

audio or video, it is the ability to program large numbers of channels that allows the providers to offer the consumers that wide 

choice, diverse, find your own niche, and I made the comment earlier in my opening statement, as I traveled halfway across the 

country three times in the last couple weeks during the Thanksgiving break, multitude of stations, everything that you could imagine you could get. And it took forever to get that seek button to actually recycle all the way through as I traveled from Michigan 

through literally 10 to 12 States coming back to DC. Ironically, 

isn’t it the broadcast ownership caps that force the broadcasters to 

aim more at the mass market; and therefore, if you lifted that cap, 

you would provide more diversity so that you would find all the different niches that the consumers are going to want to find and 

keep? 

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Upton, you hit the nail right on the head, and 

if you look at the actual data from 1996 until today, the number 

of unique formats that are on the air on radio have increased dramatically, despite Mr. Schwartzman’s comments. In fact, we have 

gone from I think 35 formats in the radio industry to at least 80 

since 1996. And the concept is exactly as you described. The more 

outlets that an operator is allowed to program, the more diverse, 

the more niche—— 

Mr. UPTON. They share those expenses. 

Mr. LEVIN. Absolutely. Cost sharing as well as taking a risk that 

some new format, an untested format, may not be successful. 

Mr. UPTON. I am running out of time so I want to get my question in before the gavel comes down. Mr. Sturm, what will be the 

fate of the newspaper industry if the FCC fails to reform these 

caps? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
202 

Mr. STURM. If the newspaper industry continues to not be able 

to compete with the same platforms, the same opportunities to 

gather audience that other forms of media have, the newspaper industry trends will continue to go down. All of the vital signs of the 

newspaper industry now are negative. That is very difficult for me 

to say, but it is true. Note Mr. Fritz’s testimony about the wonderful local services that are provided by Channel 7, News Channel 8, 

and indeed other channels that they are bringing online to the 

Washington area community. Interestingly enough, that is all competition for the Washington Post and Washington Times because it 

is local news. 

Also interestingly enough, he can own Channel 7 and own News 

Channel 8. The Washington Post can’t own a broadcast station that 

competes with his offerings in the Washington market. 

Mr. MARKEY. But you do very well competing against the Politico. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the 

gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Markey. Mr. Bliss, I live in the 

Upper Peninsula of Michigan, so I know quite well your stations 

and your newspaper. A string of public interest groups have submitted an analysis of the FCC that allegedly shows that cross-ownership reduces the total amount of local news and eliminates the 

independent voice. And there is supposed to be a Localism Task 

Force within the FCC which really hasn’t been functioning much 

in recent years. Have you had any contact with the Localism Task 

Force? Have you worked on that, anyone from your papers been involved with it? 

Mr. BLISS. No, sir, I am not familiar with it. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. So the hearing they had on October 31st here 

in Washington, DC, you had been made aware of it? 

Mr. BLISS. No, I was not aware of it. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. Let me ask this question. Mr. Gonzalez, I mention in my questioning of the Commissioner the studies. I find the 

studies to be rather flawed, especially when it comes to the minority and women ownership issue. In fact, study one looks at how 

people receive their news; and its use of data basically excluded 

Latinos in that study. Do you believe the FCC had properly considered minority media ownership especially as it relates to Latinos 

as they have come up with this proposal? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. No, I don’t think it has. I mean, I think it is pretty clear that even in analyzing its own reports filed by the media 

companies in terms of ownership, I think the Free Press study documented that it missed quite a few minority owners. 

Mr. STUPAK. Like two thirds of them. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Two thirds. And when we wrote to the NTIA last 

year to find out why the NTIA had stopped doing its own survey, 

we were told that it as an agency had no plans to do any further 

surveys and referred us to the FCC. So we find the situation where 

there is basically no government agency that has accurate data on 

what is the level of minority ownership. How can they resolve the 

problem when they don’t even have the proper data on the problem? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
203 

Mr. STUPAK. Right. In fact, on some of them they used the census 

data. But where did you get your data then when you testified? 

You had specific numbers and—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Well, I based it on the Free Press study that was 

done. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. They actually, as they explain in their study, 

they took all of the FCC 323 data, but they actually manually reviewed it as opposed to doing a computerized analysis of it, which 

is how the FCC ended up with inaccurate data, an inaccurate summary of its own data. 

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Schwartzman, do you believe that the FCC has 

adequately researched and addressed the important issues relating 

to minorities and localism? 

Mr. SCHWARTZMAN. No, I don’t. The FCC’s failure, as has been 

discussed, to have any meaningful awareness of minority ownership is a stunning failure in light of the court’s directive that it ensure that it take minority ownership into account in connection 

with any new rules that it would adopt. So the answer is that I 

think the Commission has fallen very far short of that. Its Localism 

Task Force has been, as you have indicated, somnambulant until 

the last few weeks, and there is no reason to expect that the powerful viewpoints expressed at the Commission’s hearings is going to 

be reflected in whatever the Commission puts out. So I think it is 

falling short. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, they have referred to this proposed rule, as 

this proposed rule with the loophole that would allow the newspaper/broadcast combination in all markets. Would you see that as 

a loophole? 

Mr. SCHWARTZMAN. Yes, absolutely I do. While we could discuss 

it at great length, I would point to one thing in particular. Instead 

of the current standard for a permanent waiver, which is financial 

distress, until last Friday when Tribune received a waiver it didn’t 

ask for in Chicago, there had been exactly four permanent waivers 

in history, four stations which have qualified for this difficult test. 

Instead of that, it is substituting for financial distress, financial 

conditions; and financial conditions is anything that three FCC 

Commissioners say it is. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, the Tribune waiver, I guess I am still confused 

on that one. How do you not get a ruling but yet you get a waiver 

or if you go to court you get a 2-year waiver? How do you undo the 

work you have done those 2 years? Wouldn’t you—shouldn’t there 

be a stay or something? How do you put it back together if at the 

end of 2 years you find the waiver wasn’t appropriate and it is denied then? It is a crazy one. 

Mr. SCHWARTZMAN. What the FCC did last Friday is cunning, devious, and highly questionable. 

Mr. STUPAK. Ever been done before? 

Mr. SCHWARTZMAN. Never been done before. Whether the court 

will be able to sort it out, we can only begin to tell. 

Mr. STUPAK. More questions but I am out of time, I think. 

Mr. MARKEY. We will come back. We will do a lightning round 

of 2 minutes. We will recognize Mr. Radanovich, and anyone else 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
204 

that has a final question we will be able to accommodate. The gentleman from California. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am wondering if anybody in the panel can speak up then and 

advise me that if it were accepted that the minority view was not 

necessarily represented in the court case and FCC rulings, then if 

they were represented, would that change anybody’s opinion that 

is supportive of the FCC ruling, would it change the results? Mr. 

Sturm, I am thinking that you might have a comment on that. If 

the minority status, if it is accepted that that view wasn’t adequately represented in the reviews and such through the courts 

and all, if they were, then how would that change things? Because 

of the media platform explosion since 2001 and the ability to access 

media now is so great that—— 

Mr. STURM. I am not sure I fully understand your question, but 

I think what you are saying is if minorities were fully represented 

in broadcast ownership, would that change anything? Do I understand you correctly? 

Mr. RADANOVICH. My question is because I am hearing a lot from 

folks here that those reviews that substantiate the FCC position, 

the court rulings were based on inadequate data. Is that correct or 

not correct? I mean, that is the accusation. 

Mr. STURM. I am not familiar with the data, the studies that 

have been done with regard to the minority ownership part of this 

thing. I am familiar with the studies that have been done about 

newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership for the last dozen years or so. 

And I would just say, I am not sure this is responsive, but all those 

studies find that newspaper ownership of broadcast stations increases local news and public affairs on those stations. And I would 

also say that we have had several references to a study that suggests that there is some sort of a contraction in the marketplace 

because of newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership. That was one 

study done by an advocate, versus all of the government’s studies 

and all the independent studies that have been done over the last 

12 years. I believe it is statistically invalid, that study, but in order 

to reach its conclusion, interestingly enough, it has to assume the 

validity of all the FCC studies and the independent studies that in 

fact show that newspaper/broadcast ownership increases local news 

on those stations. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Dr. Williams, can you kind of walk me through 

this on your position that improved access through your community 

is being denied given the increase in media platforms that are 

available to the public now. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, sir, if we, not just in the black community 

but in the people of color, are nearly 35 percent of the population 

but own such a small or miniscule percent of radio and television, 

I don’t think then media ownership would be going down as it has 

been under the current FCC Chairman Martin. I believe if we had 

more ownership, then we could give better images of ourselves. I 

think it is fine when other people want to speak for us, but we 

want to speak for ourselves, and we want to have the opportunity 

to do that; and the only way we can do that is to increase our ownership, because only then are we free to say what must be said. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
205 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Under the current proposal, then, you believe 

that your ability to own and control your own stations and media 

outlets is hampered by this proposal? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, I think so. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Maybe I understand your FCC position but the 

courts and the justification that they need to do this—I guess I 

want to be able to understand how that FCC ruling backed up by 

the courts would make it less able for your community to have station ownership but also on your purpose of getting your message 

out in the community and how that would hamper it. 

Mr. WINSTON. May I speak to that, sir? 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Yes. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. 

Mr. WINSTON. As a trade association of African-Americans who 

own radio and television stations, what we know is that the consolidation of the media industry over the last decade resulting from 

the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has increased the prices of stations, which means that minorities have not been able to buy into 

the industry, so that when you allow further consolidation, you further increase the value of existing stations, making it more difficult 

for minorities to buy into the industry. 

So consolidation has the immediate effect of pricing us out, and 

as all the witnesses have been talking about, the studies clearly indicate that the minority community is best served by its own outlets. And this is both an economic issue as well as a voice issue. 

Half of the general managers of radio stations in America who are 

minorities are employed by African-American owned stations. We 

are 2 percent of the stations. We employ half the general managers. OK? That is the kind of thing that is affected by excluding 

us from being industry owners. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. And I accept Mr. Winston’s position as my own 

since he is the expert. 

Mr. SCHWARTZMAN. May I add something, Mr. Radanovich? 

Mr. MARKEY. Very quickly, please, Mr. Schwartzman. 

Mr. SCHWARTZMAN. Mr. Radanovich, perhaps this will help. The 

chairman’s proposal would allow acquisition of stations which are 

outside of the top four in their market. Every single minorityowned television station in the top 20 markets falls outside of the 

top four, and therefore it becomes an acquisition target for a local 

newspaper; and we strongly believe that the chairman’s proposal if 

adopted will have a dramatically adverse effect in reducing the 

number of minority-owned television stations in the top 20 markets. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes—Mr. Sturm? 

Mr. STURM. Can I comment on that? Thank you. The notion that 

somehow the rules should not be changed because of those 19 stations, and I will certainly accept Mr. Schwartzman’s number, in 

fact it is like I might want to buy your house but you don’t have 

to sell it to me. In fact, what will happen is the value of those stations, if you change the rules as Mr. Winston just said, will go up. 

So those minorities that own those stations will have a better property, certainly a more valuable property, than they do now. They 

don’t have to sell it to anybody. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
206 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. Got it. Thank you. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 

Stupak, is recognized for 3 minutes. Mr. Radanovich went over 2 

or 3 minutes, so we will give you another 2 or 3 minutes. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thanks. It has been brought up repeatedly here 

today there are other ways that people get their news and all that, 

but if we go back and look at the real statistics and you start talking about the Internet and you can access it there, in one of these 

peer reviews they indicated that many people don’t have access to 

it. Ninety-nine percent of the public has a television in their home, 

yet only 47 percent of Americans have broadband access. Twentynine percent of the public state they have no Internet access, 27 

percent don’t own a computer. When you break it down, 71 percent 

of white Americans have Internet access compared to 60 in the African-American community and 56 in Latinos. So the different diverse media outlets we can get our news from for diversity I don’t 

think really exists. I think the problem is more compounded. 

Let me ask you this one, though. Mr. Winston, can you explain 

further how that Arbitron PPM system threatens minority ownership of properties, because you were just talking about point share 

and all this? 

Mr. WINSTON. Yes. Let me just take a minute. I have written it 

up in my written testimony, but let me try to break it down very 

simply. What happened when Arbitron introduced the first PPM 

data in Houston, the minority-formatted stations’ ratings fell, like, 

to two, from 89. And let me give you these hypothetical numbers. 

I don’t have the exact numbers in front of me. In Philadelphia, a 

minority station goes from two to 14. In New York, a minority station goes from two to 12. None of them has changed anything they 

are doing, but suddenly their ratings are different. So now the advertising community comes in and says, oh, you got much less audience than you had yesterday, so now your rates that you want 

to charge us, well, you can talk about half that price. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, then the value of your station would go down? 

Mr. WINSTON. The station goes down, you have got to lay off people, and when we met with Arbitron about this and described the 

problem to them, they said, well, what you need to do is to program 

to the data, which means go from the black format to a white format, which would undermine exactly everything we are trying to 

be about. 

So the answer is not that we need to change, the problem is that 

we didn’t do anything different under the diaries than that we are 

doing under PPM. There is something wrong with their methodology, and it needs to be looked at. 

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Sturm, let me ask you this. Mr. Schwartzman 

mentioned about joint ventures, and there you wouldn’t have to 

worry about the ownership stuff. You could put the economic resources there and go into joint ventures. Why wouldn’t that joint 

venture that he suggested work to what you were trying to do, 

what you are trying to advocate on behalf of newspapers? 

Mr. STURM. Two points. It can work in certain situations perhaps. The most local one that I can think of recently was the 

Washington Post had a programming arrangement with Bonneville 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
207 

here in the Washington market to do a sort of a news kind of service, and it didn’t work for whatever reasons. There are cultural differences between the station and the programmer in so many 

cases. And the last point I would make, and I will confess that if 

anything I thought of coming here today, I didn’t think I would 

quote Commissioner Adelstein, but when he complained about the 

concept or the idea of having minorities lease channels on cable 

systems, he called that media sharecropping versus media ownership. And I guess the same principle applies. There is no substitute 

for ownership. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. Thank you. We 

thank—— 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, just one more question? 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Radanovich, you have one final question, 

please. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Fritz, if I can 

engage you here for a second. Much attention has been placed on 

the current newspaper/broadcast ownership ban, but both the DC 

Circuit in 2002 and the Third Circuit in 2004, the Prometheus decision, ruled that the FCC has failed to justify the current radio and 

television ownership restrictions. In your opinion, does section 

202(h) demand that these limitations be revised as well? 

Mr. FRITZ. I don’t think it demands it, but I think that the evidence suggested in the multiple filings to the Commission justifies 

it. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from California. So that 

completes the questions from the subcommittee members. We 

thank our witnesses. This is an important subject. Newspapers are 

vital. They serve important functions in our communities and in 

our democracy. Advocates for and against relaxing the newspaper/ 

broadcast cross-ownership ban both argue that their view will result in more news, diversity, and localism. This argues at a minimum that the FCC should give Chairman Martin’s proposal the 

time it merits to fully address these issues and its impact. I have 

urged him to do that, and I hope that he will. This has been a full 

day. These issues have been aired out I think in a very constructive 

fashion. We thank our witnesses. It was a great panel. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
208 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 219 here 45289A.114
209 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 220 here 45289A.115
210 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 221 here 45289A.116
211 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 222 here 45289A.117
212 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 223 here 45289A.118
213 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 224 here 45289A.119
214 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 225 here 45289A.120
215 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 226 here 45289A.121
216 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 227 here 45289A.122
217 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 228 here 45289A.123
218 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 229 here 45289A.124
219 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 230 here 45289A.125
220 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 231 here 45289A.126
221 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 232 here 45289A.127
222 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 233 here 45289A.128
223 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 234 here 45289A.129
224 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 235 here 45289A.130
225 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 236 here 45289A.131
226 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 237 here 45289A.132
227 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 238 here 45289A.133
228 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 239 here 45289A.134
229 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 240 here 45289A.135
230 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 241 here 45289A.136
231 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 242 here 45289A.137
232 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 243 here 45289A.138
233 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 244 here 45289A.139
234 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 245 here 45289A.140
235 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 246 here 45289A.141
236 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 247 here 45289A.142
237 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 248 here 45289A.143
238 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 249 here 45289A.144
239 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 250 here 45289A.145
240 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 251 here 45289A.146
241 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 252 here 45289A.147
242 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 253 here 45289A.148
243 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 254 here 45289A.149
244 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 255 here 45289A.150
245 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 256 here 45289A.151
246 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 257 here 45289A.152
247 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 258 here 45289A.153
248 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 259 here 45289A.154
249 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 260 here 45289A.155
250 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 261 here 45289A.156
251 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 262 here 45289A.157
252 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 263 here 45289A.158
253 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 264 here 45289A.159
254 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 265 here 45289A.160
255 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 266 here 45289A.161
256 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 267 here 45289A.162
257 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 268 here 45289A.163
258 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 269 here 45289A.164
259 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 270 here 45289A.165
260 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 271 here 45289A.166
261 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 272 here 45289A.167
262 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 273 here 45289A.168
263 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 274 here 45289A.169
264 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 275 here 45289A.170
265 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 276 here 45289A.171
266 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 277 here 45289A.172
267 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 278 here 45289A.173
268 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 279 here 45289A.174
269 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 280 here 45289A.175
270 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 281 here 45289A.176
271 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 282 here 45289A.177
272 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 283 here 45289A.178
273 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 284 here 45289A.179
274 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 285 here 45289A.180
275 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 286 here 45289A.181
276 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 287 here 45289A.182
277 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 288 here 45289A.183
278 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 289 here 45289A.184
279 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 290 here 45289A.185
280 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 291 here 45289A.186
281 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 292 here 45289A.187
282 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 293 here 45289A.188
283 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 294 here 45289A.189
284 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 295 here 45289A.190
285 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 296 here 45289A.191
286 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 297 here 45289A.192
287 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 298 here 45289A.193
288 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 299 here 45289A.194
289 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 300 here 45289A.195
290 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 301 here 45289A.196
291 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 302 here 45289A.197
292 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 303 here 45289A.198
293 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 304 here 45289A.199
294 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 305 here 45289A.200
295 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 306 here 45289A.201
296 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 307 here 45289A.202
297 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 308 here 45289A.203
298 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 309 here 45289A.204
299 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 310 here 45289A.205
300 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 311 here 45289A.206
301 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 312 here 45289A.207
302 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 313 here 45289A.208
303 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 314 here 45289A.209
304 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 315 here 45289A.210
305 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 316 here 45289A.211
306 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 317 here 45289A.212
307 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 318 here 45289A.213
308 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 319 here 45289A.214
309 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 320 here 45289A.215
310 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 321 here 45289A.216
311 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 322 here 45289A.217
312 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 323 here 45289A.218
313 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 324 here 45289A.219
314 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 325 here 45289A.220
315 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 326 here 45289A.221
316 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 327 here 45289A.222
317 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 328 here 45289A.223
318 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 329 here 45289A.224
319 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 330 here 45289A.225
320 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 331 here 45289A.226
321 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 332 here 45289A.227
322 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 333 here 45289A.228
323 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 334 here 45289A.229
324 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 335 here 45289A.230
325 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 336 here 45289A.231
326 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 337 here 45289A.232
327 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 338 here 45289A.233
328 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 339 here 45289A.234
329 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 340 here 45289A.235
330 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 341 here 45289A.236
331 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 342 here 45289A.237
332 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 343 here 45289A.238
333 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 344 here 45289A.239
334 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 345 here 45289A.240
335 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 346 here 45289A.241
336 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 347 here 45289A.242
337 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 348 here 45289A.243
338 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 349 here 45289A.244
339 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 350 here 45289A.245
340 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 351 here 45289A.246
341 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 352 here 45289A.247
342 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 353 here 45289A.248
343 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 354 here 45289A.249
344 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 355 here 45289A.250
345 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 356 here 45289A.251
346 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 357 here 45289A.252
347 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 358 here 45289A.253
348 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 359 here 45289A.254
349 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 360 here 45289A.255
350 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 361 here 45289A.256
351 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 362 here 45289A.257
352 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 363 here 45289A.258
353 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 364 here 45289A.259
354 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 365 here 45289A.260
355 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 366 here 45289A.261
356 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 367 here 45289A.262
357 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 368 here 45289A.263
358 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 369 here 45289A.264
359 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 370 here 45289A.265
360 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 371 here 45289A.266
361 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 372 here 45289A.267
362 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 373 here 45289A.268
363 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 374 here 45289A.269
364 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 375 here 45289A.270
365 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 376 here 45289A.271
366 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 377 here 45289A.272
367 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 378 here 45289A.273
368 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 379 here 45289A.274
369 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 380 here 45289A.275
370 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 381 here 45289A.276
371 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 382 here 45289A.277
372 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 383 here 45289A.278
373 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 384 here 45289A.279
374 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 385 here 45289A.280
375 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 386 here 45289A.281
376 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 387 here 45289A.282
377 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 388 here 45289A.283
378 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 389 here 45289A.284
379 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 390 here 45289A.285
380 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 391 here 45289A.286
381 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 392 here 45289A.287
382 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 393 here 45289A.288
383 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 394 here 45289A.289
384 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 395 here 45289A.290
385 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 396 here 45289A.291
386 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 397 here 45289A.292
387 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 398 here 45289A.293
388 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 399 here 45289A.294
389 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 400 here 45289A.295
390 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 401 here 45289A.296
391 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 402 here 45289A.297
392 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 403 here 45289A.298
393 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 404 here 45289A.299
394 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 405 here 45289A.300
395 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 406 here 45289A.301
396 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 407 here 45289A.302
397 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 408 here 45289A.303
398 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 409 here 45289A.304
399 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 410 here 45289A.305
400 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 411 here 45289A.306
401 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 412 here 45289A.307
402 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 413 here 45289A.308
403 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 414 here 45289A.309
404 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 415 here 45289A.310
405 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 416 here 45289A.311
406 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 417 here 45289A.312
407 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 418 here 45289A.313
408 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 419 here 45289A.314
409 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 420 here 45289A.315
410 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 421 here 45289A.316
411 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 422 here 45289A.317
412 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 423 here 45289A.318
413 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 424 here 45289A.319
414 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 425 here 45289A.320
415 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 426 here 45289A.321
416 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 427 here 45289A.322
417 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 428 here 45289A.323
418 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 429 here 45289A.324
419 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 430 here 45289A.325
420 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 431 here 45289A.326
421 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 432 here 45289A.327
422 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 433 here 45289A.328
423 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 434 here 45289A.329
424 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 435 here 45289A.330
425 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 436 here 45289A.331
426 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 437 here 45289A.332
427 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 438 here 45289A.333
428 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 439 here 45289A.334
429 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 440 here 45289A.335
430 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 441 here 45289A.336
431 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 442 here 45289A.337
432 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 443 here 45289A.338
433 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 444 here 45289A.339
434 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 445 here 45289A.340
435 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 446 here 45289A.341
436 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 447 here 45289A.342
437 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 448 here 45289A.343
438 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 449 here 45289A.344
439 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 450 here 45289A.345
440 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 451 here 45289A.346
441 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 452 here 45289A.347
442 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 453 here 45289A.348
443 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 454 here 45289A.349
444 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 455 here 45289A.350
445 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 456 here 45289A.351
446 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 457 here 45289A.352
447 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 458 here 45289A.353
448 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 459 here 45289A.354
449 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 460 here 45289A.355
450 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 461 here 45289A.356
451 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 462 here 45289A.357
452 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 463 here 45289A.358
453 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 464 here 45289A.359
454 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 465 here 45289A.360
455 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 466 here 45289A.361
456 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 467 here 45289A.362
457 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 468 here 45289A.363
458 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 469 here 45289A.364
459 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 470 here 45289A.365
460 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 471 here 45289A.366
461 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 472 here 45289A.367
462 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 473 here 45289A.368