Opinion ID: 185600
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to comply with s 202(h)

Text: The networks argue that the Commission's decision toretain the NTSO Rule was not only arbitrary and capriciousbut also contrary to s 202(h). As just discussed, we agreewith the networks that two of the reasons the Commissiongave for retaining the Rule did not even purport to show theRule was necessary in the public interest, as required by thestatute. Furthermore, we agree that the Commission provided no analysis of the state of competition in the televisionindustry to justify its decision to retain the national ownership cap. The Commission's brief description of the broadcasting market, a single paragraph of the 1998 Report underthe heading Status of Media Marketplace, is woefully inadequate: The Commission merely listed the number of television households, the number of television stations, the percentage of those stations that are affiliated with networks,and the number of stations an average viewer can receive,without defining the relevant markets, let alone assessing thestate of competition therein. See 1998 Report p 9. Nor didthe Commission attempt to link the listed facts to its decisionto retain the national ownership cap. That, however, isprecisely what s 202(h) requires. Consequently, we agreewith the networks that the Commission failed even to address meaningfully the question that Congress required it toanswer.