Market and technological changes are creating challenges to the long-standing business models employed by broadcast television networks and local television stations, but at the same time generating potential opportunities for those networks and stations. These changes generally are strengthening the position of parties that control popular program content in their negotiations with distributors of that programming. The changes also may be affecting the three pillars of U.S. government media policy—localism, diversity of voices, and competition—and damping the effectiveness of existing regulations intended to foster them. As a result, various stakeholders have asked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or commission) to eliminate or modify some of its broadcast media ownership rules and retransmission consent rules. In particular: The FCC currently is collecting data and comments, and sponsoring research, as part of the statutorily mandated quadrennial review of its broadcast ownership rules. Those rules, among other things, set limitations or prohibitions on the number of national broadcast networks under a single owner, the number of television stations that can be jointly owned in a local market, and the cross-ownership of a television station and a major daily newspaper in a local market. In its comments in that proceeding, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) seeks elimination of the cross-ownership restrictions and relaxation of the restrictions on a single entity owning or controlling two television stations in a single local market, claiming these rules prevent efficient combinations required to support the cost of providing local news and emergency journalism. Other commenters claim that such consolidation would harm, rather than foster, diversity of voices, competition, and localism. For example, the National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters claims that consolidation places smaller firms with few stations at a competitive disadvantage, and that "any further relaxation of the Commission's multiple ownership rules would exacerbate the already dismal lack of minority ownership in the broadcast industry." The FCC is seeking comment on a petition for rulemaking, submitted by a coalition of multichannel video distributors (cable operators, satellite operators, and telephone companies) and consumer organizations, requesting that the commission amend its retransmission consent rules to include dispute resolution mechanisms and mandatory interim carriage while disputes are being resolved. The NAB and the associations of the local station affiliates of the four major broadcast networks oppose the petition, claiming that the market is working properly and that FCC intervention is unwarranted and would be harmful. Since the FCC has addressed such issues in response to statutory instructions intended to foster diversity, competition, and localism, Congress may choose to provide statutory or informal guidance to the FCC as it moves forward with the proceedings. Broadcast networks and broadcast stations control program content that is highly valued by multichannel video distributors and also distribute programming in competition with many other media outlets. Thus, they are both strengthened and weakened by recent market changes. Most notably, the successful entry of hundreds of cable networks and the proliferation of social networking and video Internet websites have fragmented audiences and provided advertisers with alternative avenues for reaching consumers. A recent UBS Investment Research report claims that "every year, global advertising is losing 200 points [2 percentage points] of growth to other marketing usage or is eliminated, thanks to technology improvements" and that "structural changes [affecting broadcast television advertising] remain strong and are even accelerating." This presents a significant challenge to broadcast networks and stations, which traditionally have relied upon advertising for more than 90% of their revenues. (In contrast, in 2008, advertising revenues represented only 42.8% of the revenues of advertising-supported cable networks and that proportion likely has fallen since then.) Several research companies project television advertising revenues, each employing its own proprietary model and assumptions. Although the various forecasters project different levels of advertising revenues, they generally identify the same trends. As an example, according to a recent forecast by Magna Global, a consultant to advertisers: the advertising revenues of English language national broadcast networks peaked at $14.7 billion in 2005, fell slightly in 2006 and 2007 and then fell significantly in 2008-2009; they have begun to recover in 2010 but are not likely to reach the previous peak until about 2015. the advertising revenues of Spanish language national broadcast networks experienced a slight decline from their 2007 peak but are growing rapidly and may be 50% higher in 2015 (exceeding $1.5 billion) than they are today. the Olympics, which have provided a revenue shot in the arm in alternate years to the network with the broadcasting rights and its affiliate stations, generating as much as $785 million in incremental advertising revenues in 2000, will generate substantial, but lesser amounts in the future as more of the programming is carried on cable networks and the Internet. the non-political advertising revenues of local broadcast television stations peaked in 2007 at about $17.8 billion, fell substantially in 2008 and 2009, and are now experiencing increases, but are not expected to reach the 2007 high by 2015. the political advertising revenues of local broadcast television stations, which are much higher in even-numbered years than in odd-numbered years, and greatest for the quadrennial presidential election, will continue to grow substantially, so that the sum of non-political and political advertising revenues is likely to equal or surpass that of the earlier peak. But political advertising revenues are not spread equally across all broadcast stations; they are focused on stations in geographic areas where there are contested elections. This forecast implies that during the next five years, total broadcast television advertising revenues will at best recover to their previous peak. Other market changes, however, have led to a brighter outlook for broadcasters' non-advertising revenues. For example, competition has developed among the companies that deliver multiple channels of video programming to subscribers—cable operators, satellite operators, and some telephone companies. If a multichannel video distributor fails to obtain the retransmission rights to national and local broadcast television programming, which many households consider "must-have" programming, it risks losing some of its subscribers to a competitor that does offer the programming. As a result, broadcast networks and stations are able to demand higher cash payments from these multichannel video distributors for the retransmission rights. This has created a second revenue stream for broadcasters that is projected by SNL Kagan, a media research firm, to grow from $762 million in 2009 to $1.09 billion in 2010, $1.36 billion in 2011, and more than $2.6 billion in 2016. Note, however, that the projected increases in retransmission consent revenues, which will be shared by broadcast networks and local stations, may be less than the fall in network and local station advertising revenues from their earlier peaks. Technological innovations are creating the potential for other new broadcast revenue sources. For example, in June 2010 12 large broadcast groups created a joint venture, Mobile Content Ventures, to develop broadcast-based mobile digital television technology and bring it to market. In September 2010, a second consortium of broadcasters owning 346 television stations announced the creation of the Mobile500 Alliance in support of mobile digital television technology. This technology, an alternative to wireless broadband video, would allow a station to broadcast encrypted video signals that could be received by anyone in its geographic service area with the appropriate receiver; the viewer could move anywhere within the service area and continue to receive the signal. With broadcast mobile video, the bandwidth (and, hence, spectrum) requirements increase as the number of different video signals offered increases, but do not increase as the number of users increases. In contrast, with wireless broadband video distributed to cell phones, the more users in a location, the more bandwidth and spectrum is needed. Since the broadcast technology allows many consumers to share the same spectrum, broadcasters are unlikely to have to impose the sort of usage charges that AT&T recently imposed on its customers. The underlying broadcast technology may not allow broadcasters to offer as wide an array of programming as wireless broadband video providers, but the broadcasters already own or control much of the "must-have" programming sought by consumers. Also, with the digital transition, broadcasters are able to broadcast multiple video programming streams, rather than a single stream, and this "multicasting" may generate additional advertising and retransmission consent revenues for broadcasters. Although to date revenues are small, some analysts are bullish on multicasting's potential impact on broadcast station cash flow. None of these potential new revenue streams has been proven yet in the marketplace, and other technological innovations may not benefit broadcasters. For example, while it is possible that the nascent 3-D technology will lead to popular programming, it is more likely that such programming will be distributed via a pay-television model than an over-the-air broadcasting model. This macro picture of the broadcasting industry, with some networks and local stations facing declining advertising revenues without compensating new sources of revenues, has led to concern about the future of broadcast television news and sports programming. More Americans rely upon television news than any other news medium and, despite the success of cable news networks, the national news broadcasts of ABC, CBS, and NBC continue to attract more prime time viewers than the cable networks. But most network news programs continue to lose audience share , and the average viewer age for the networks' evening newscasts has risen to 63.1 years. Not only does a smaller audience mean that broadcasters can charge less for ads, but as advertisers tend to prefer younger viewers, an aging audience generates less advertising revenue. As a result, in the past three years all three national broadcast networks that have national news divisions have made cuts in those divisions and taken other steps that could affect the quality or scope of their news coverage. Although viewership of local television news programming continues to decline, Americans still rely more on broadcast television than any other media source for local news and public affairs information. Those stations that produce original news programming are broadcasting more such programming than ever, but there has been a slight decline in the number of stations that produce news programming and some stations have cut their news staffs. Some of the additional hours of news consist of repeats of earlier broadcasts rather than fresh programming.