[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 112 (Friday, June 11, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33227-33237]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-14099]
[[Page 33227]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MB Docket No. 09-182; FCC 10-92]
2010 Quadrennial Regulatory Review--Review of the Commission's
Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section
202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Notice of Inquiry (``NOI'') initiates the Commission's
fifth review of its media ownership rules since the passage of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (``1996 Act''). Section 202(h) of the
1996 Act requires the Commission to review its ownership rules (except
the national television ownership limit) every four years and
``determine whether any of such rules are necessary in the public
interest as the result of competition.'' The Commission will take a
fresh look at its current ownership rules in order to determine whether
they will serve our public interest goals of competition, localism, and
diversity going forward. The Commission's challenge is to adapt its
rules to ensure that they promote these values in the new marketplace
and into the future.
DATES: Comments are due on or before July 12, 2010 and reply comments
are due on or before July 26, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 09-182,
by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Tatel, (202) 418-2330; Amy
Brett, (202) 418-2330.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. This document
does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition,
therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law
107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Federal
Communications Commission's NOI in MB Docket No. 09-182, FCC 10-92,
adopted May 25, 2010, and released May 25, 2010. The full text of this
document is available for public inspection and copying during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. These
documents will also be available via ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs). The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy
contractor, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554.
To request this document in accessible formats (computer diskettes,
large print, audio recording and Braille), send an e-mail to
[email protected] or call the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice) (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
Summary of the NOI
1. The NOI asks fundamental questions, the answers to which will
help the Commission define its analytical framework, the scope of this
proceeding, and the considerations that should underlie media ownership
rules for today's environment. The comments and information gathered
through this NOI will help the Commission to formulate a subsequent
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, in which it will invite comment on
proposals for regulations that will best promote its policy goals in
the context of the current media marketplace. The Commission first
seeks a comprehensive understanding of the current media marketplace in
order to determine whether the current ownership rules are necessary in
the public interest as the result of competition. It will explore the
impact its current ownership rules have on the affected industries,
including radio, television, and, indirectly, the newspaper industry.
If it determines that the current rules are not satisfying the public
interest standard, it will assess the potential impact of any new or
amended rules it might adopt. Given the profound marketplace, economic,
and industry changes in recent years, it commences this proceeding with
no preconceived notions about the framework that will result from this
review or what rules it will adopt. It will examine ownership issues
based on the record that is established in this proceeding and will
seek to establish a forward-looking framework based on the media
marketplace of today, not on marketplace factors as they may have
existed in the past.
2. The Commission will take a close look at the impact of
consolidation on media markets. In 1996, there were 10,257 commercial
radio stations and 5,133 radio owners. Today, there are 11,202
commercial radio stations and 3,143 owners, representing a 39% decrease
in the number of owners since 1996. In 1996, there were 1,130
commercial television stations and 450 owners. In 2010, there are 1,302
commercial stations and 303 owners, a 33% decrease in the number of
owners. There are currently 175 television station duopolies, which
includes owners with attributable local marketing agreements, in the
210 Nielsen TV markets. There are roughly 50 newspaper/broadcast same-
market combinations in markets across the country.
3. The media marketplace has seen dramatic changes in recent years.
Broadcast audiences and newspaper readership are on the decline. Media
industries also are experiencing declining advertising revenues,
precipitated in part by the downturn in the national economy. Between
2006 and 2008, advertising revenue declined 13.4% for broadcast
television stations; advertising revenue for radio stations dropped
10.7%; and newspaper advertising revenue dropped by 23.1%. PEJ
estimates that between 2008 and 2009, revenues for the broadcast
television and radio industries each fell 22% and revenues for daily
newspapers fell 26% between 2008 and 2009. In 2009, 12 broadcast
television and radio companies filed for bankruptcy and several
newspaper publishers have either ceased operations or filed for
bankruptcy protection.
4. Newspapers and broadcasters have responded to declining revenues
in part by cutting staff and closing news bureaus. Some newspapers have
given up print editions altogether to concentrate exclusively on online
operations. PEJ estimates that the newspaper industry has lost $1.6
billion in annual reporting and editing capacity since 2000, or roughly
30%. This contraction is accompanied by an explosion of content from
Internet and mobile sources. Changes in technology are reshaping how
people get their news and audio and video programming. PEJ
[[Page 33228]]
reports that 59% of Internet users now use social media and blogging
and networking sites. PEJ reports that a sustainable business model
currently does not exist to finance the production of online content
and finds that even the best new media sites have limited ability to
produce content.
5. The Internet clearly has not wholly supplanted traditional
media, such as broadcast stations, newspapers, and cable systems, but
it has increased the quantity of news and programming available to
consumers. The Commission's review must take account of the Internet's
role and significance. It will examine how traditional media producers
are integrating the Internet into their business models and whether
revenues from Internet advertising can mitigate the effects of the loss
of other advertising dollars. It will attempt to weigh and assess these
trends and evaluate the interrelationships between the marketplace and
the Commission's ownership rules.
6. Views differ on the impact of the marketplace changes discussed
above. Commenters in previous media ownership proceedings have raised
concerns that increased consolidation places control of programming
choices in the hands of too few owners. They have asserted that
consolidation results in insufficient programming variety to serve the
needs of local communities. Parties have asserted that owners of
multiple stations in a market may reduce or cease production of local
programming on some of their co-owned stations and instead rely on the
news produced by their other stations or newspapers. Throughout this
proceeding, the Commission will examine whether consolidation adversely
affects consumers of media, advertisers, creators of content, and
platform owners.
7. Some believe that the economic downturn for traditional media
will lead to reduced news coverage and a less informed citizenry.
Others believe that the advent of new and creative sources of news
available on the Internet will fill any gaps left by traditional news
media. In this proceeding, the Commission will examine these issues
fully and consider what these and other marketplace and technological
changes mean for the regulation of media ownership. After a thorough
review of marketplace developments, the Commission may determine that
the current rules are serving the public interest, or we may determine
that changes are necessary.
8. The Commission's ownership rules must be designed to promote its
enduring public interest goals in the marketplace of today and
tomorrow. Historically, the Commission has formulated its ownership
rules to benefit consumers by promoting the three principal policy
goals of competition, localism, and diversity. The ownership rules have
typically sought to promote these goals by limiting the numbers and
types of media outlets a single party can own. The Commission has set
limits on the numbers of TV and radio facilities an entity may own in
local markets, limited the audience reach nationally of commonly owned
television stations, and restricted the cross-ownership of broadcast
facilities and newspapers in local markets. Through the ownership rules
the Commission strives to ensure that owners promote programming
responsive to local needs, including public safety information and
quality children's programming. All of these types of programming serve
the public interest. The Commission thus must seek to achieve a balance
in addressing media ownership limits to ensure that consumers have
access to these and other types of important programming. The FCC
invites comment on how to ensure that its rules are properly calibrated
to promote its goals under current marketplace conditions.
9. Throughout the NOI, the FCC invites suggestions for analytical
frameworks that will allow it to assess and balance the goals of the
ownership review. Commenters should submit relevant data and studies to
assist in crafting ownership rules and identify any ongoing studies or
projects that it should take into consideration. Its goal is to have
the broadest possible participation from all sectors of the public.
10. Five of the Commission's media ownership rules are the subject
of this quadrennial review: The local TV ownership rule, the local
radio ownership rule, the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule, the
radio/TV cross-ownership rule, and the dual network rule. In 2004,
Congress amended Section 202(h) of 1996 Act to exclude the national
television multiple ownership rule from the Commission's quadrennial
review obligation. What authority, if any, does the FCC retain to
evaluate the national television multiple ownership rule set at 39% of
television households nationwide as part of the quadrennial review or
otherwise.
11. The local television ownership rule provides that an entity may
own two television stations in the same designated market area
(``DMA'') only if: (1) The Grade B contours of the stations (as
determined by 47 CFR 73.684) do not overlap, or (2) at least one of the
stations in the combination is not ranked among the top four stations
in terms of audience share, and at least eight independently owned-and-
operated commercial or noncommercial full-power broadcast television
stations would remain in the DMA after the combination. To determine
the number of voices remaining after the merger, the Commission counts
those broadcast television stations whose Grade B signal contours
overlap with the Grade B signal contour of at least one of the stations
that would be commonly owned.
12. Local Radio Ownership Rule. The local radio ownership rule
provides that a person or entity may own, operate, or control: (1) Up
to eight commercial radio stations, not more than five of which are in
the same service (i.e., AM or FM), in a radio market with 45 or more
radio stations; (2) up to seven commercial radio stations, not more
than four of which are in the same service, in a radio market with
between 30 and 44 (inclusive) radio stations; (3) up to six commercial
radio stations, not more than four of which are in the same service, in
a radio market with between 15 and 29 (inclusive) radio stations; and
(4) up to five commercial radio stations, not more than three of which
are in the same service, in a radio market with 14 or fewer radio
stations, except that an entity may not own, operate, or control more
than 50 percent of the stations in such a market unless the combination
of stations comprises not more than one AM and one FM station.
13. Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership Rule. The newspaper/
broadcast cross-ownership rule adopted in 1975 prohibited common
ownership of a full-service broadcast station and a daily newspaper if
(1) A television station's Grade A service contour completely
encompassed the newspaper's city of publication, (2) the predicted or
measured 2 mV/m contour of an AM station completely encompassed the
newspaper's city of publication, or (3) the predicted 1 mV/m contour
for an FM station completely encompassed the newspaper's city of
publication. The Commission adopted the newspaper/broadcast cross-
ownership rule ``in furtherance of our long standing policy of
promoting diversification of ownership of the electronic mass
communications media.'' In that Order, the Commission stated that its
policy to promote diversity was ``derived from both First Amendment and
anti-trust policy sources.'' In the 2006 Quadrennial Review Order, the
Commission established presumptions for the Commission to apply in
[[Page 33229]]
determining whether a specific newspaper/broadcast combination serves
the public interest. A waiver of the cross-ownership rule is not
inconsistent with the public interest where (i) a daily newspaper seeks
to combine with a radio station in a top 20 DMA, or (ii) a daily
newspaper seeks to combine with a television station in a top 20 DMA
and (a) the television station is not ranked among the top four
stations in the DMA; and (b) at least eight independently owned and
operating ``major media voices'' would remain in the DMA after the
combination. Major media voices are defined as full-power commercial
and noncommercial television stations and major newspapers. For markets
below the top 20 DMAs, there is a presumption that it is inconsistent
with the public interest for an entity to own a newspaper-broadcast
combination. The Commission requires an applicant attempting to
overcome this negative presumption to demonstrate, by clear and
convincing evidence, that the merged entity will increase the diversity
of independent news outlets and competition among independent news
sources in the relevant market. The Commission will reverse the
negative presumption in two limited circumstances: (i) When the
proposed combination involves a failed/failing station or newspaper, or
(ii) when the proposed combination is with a broadcast station that was
not offering local newscasts prior to the combination, and the station
will initiate at least seven hours per week of local news after the
combination. No matter which presumption applies, the Commission's
analysis of the following four factors will inform its review of a
proposed combination: (1) The extent to which cross-ownership will
serve to increase the amount of local news disseminated through the
affected media outlets in the combination; (2) whether each affected
media outlet in the combination will exercise its own independent news
judgment; (3) the level of concentration in the DMA; and (4) the
financial condition of the newspaper or broadcast station, and if the
newspaper or broadcast station is in financial distress, the owner's
commitment to invest significantly in newsroom operations.
14. Radio/Television Cross-Ownership Rule. The radio/television
cross-ownership rule allows a party to own up to two television
stations (to the extent permitted under the local television ownership
rule) and up to six radio stations (to the extent permitted under the
local radio ownership rule) in a market where at least 20 independently
owned media voices would remain post-merger. In markets where parties
may own a combination of two television stations and six radio
stations, the rule allows a party alternatively to own one television
station and seven radio stations. A party may own up to two television
stations (where permitted under the current local television ownership
rule) and up to four radio stations (where permitted under the local
radio ownership rule) in markets where, post-merger, at least 10
independently owned media voices would remain. The rule allows a
combination of two television stations (where permitted under the local
television ownership rule) and one radio station regardless of the
number of voices remaining in the market.
15. The Dual Network Rule. The Commission's dual network rule
permits common ownership of multiple broadcast networks, but prohibits
a merger between or among the ``top four'' networks (that is, ABC, CBS,
Fox, and NBC).
16. In analyzing the policy goals, the Commission will consider
their relationship to four groups of participants in the media
marketplace, each of which may be affected by the ownership rules: (1)
Consumers of media or ``end users,'' i.e., viewers, listeners, and
readers; (2) advertisers; (3) creators of content; and (4) platform
owners, i.e., media distributors, including broadcasters, newspapers,
and cable systems. The FCC seeks comment on how to (1) Define the
policy goals of competition, localism, and diversity; (2) determine how
best to promote these goals in today's media market; (3) analyze the
relevance of the policy goals to each of the four groups of market
participants identified; (4) measure whether particular ownership
structures promote these goals; (5) determine whether any new or
revised rules would promote these goals; (6) determine when a goal has
been achieved; and (7) balance the goals when they conflict with each
other. Are there other goals to consider? To inform the policy
decisions, it seeks relevant data and studies about the levels of
competition, localism, and diversity in a variety of media markets,
including small and large markets, consolidated and unconsolidated
markets, markets with existing cross-ownership, and markets without
cross-ownership. Are there existing public or proprietary datasets that
the FCC should obtain? Are there ongoing studies or projects to
consider? It also seeks comment on the extent to which the policy goals
are quantifiable. Are there alternative bases for analysis, including,
for example, theoretical analysis, modeling, or simulations?
17. The Section 202(h) statutory directive directly links the
Commission's review of the media ownership rules to ensuring that media
markets are competitive. The Commission invites comment on how to
define the competition goal in today's media marketplace. What
analytical approaches should it employ to determine whether common
ownership of multiple media outlets increases or decreases competition?
18. In order to evaluate the performance of the media marketplace,
how should the Commission measure the current level of competition in
that marketplace? It seeks to assess the competitive performance of the
relevant markets, not of particular firms, and is particularly
interested in proposed definitions of relevant product and geographic
markets. They directly impact the applicability of media ownership
limits because product market definitions determine which entities
compete with each other and thus, how many media outlets are in a
market. A narrow product market definition could limit ownership if
limits are based on market size. Previously, the Commission's
competition analysis has focused on whether the rules result in lower
prices, higher output, more choices for buyers, and more technological
progress than would be the case if markets were unregulated. Are these
still the relevant competitive factors to consider? Are there other
factors? Is the competition goal best conceptualized as economic
competition?
19. How should the Commission measure whether its ownership rules
enhance competition in a way that benefits consumers? As noted above,
traditional competitive analysis focuses on price, quality, and
innovation. Indeed, competition is not an end in itself but a means to
advance consumer welfare. Because broadcast radio and television
content is available for free to end users, we cannot use price in
analyzing competition for listeners and viewers. Are there potential
proxies for consumer welfare?
20. The Commission has found that competition among broadcast
outlets is likely to benefit consumers by making available programming
that meets consumers' preferences. Is this still the case today? Should
the Commission seek to determine whether consumers are getting the
content they want from broadcast media? If consumer satisfaction is an
important metric for assessing the state of our competition
[[Page 33230]]
goal with regard to consumers, how should it be measured?
21. How useful is survey research for assessing end user
satisfaction with the range of content provided in the local market?
Alternatively, would it be useful to look at empirical and theoretical
analyses of competition in other markets to gather information about
what market structures, as reflected by the number of firms competing
in a market and market share distribution generally, result in a
competitive market structure? Could it apply such a figure to the media
marketplace?
22. Are there more easily measurable proxies for consumer
satisfaction, such as media utilization? What about factors such as
increases or decreases in utilization to determine satisfaction? If
there is an increase in video programming consumption on the Internet
(measured by minutes of use) and a decrease in such consumption via
broadcast stations, is that a relevant factor in determining consumer
satisfaction for purposes of evaluating our competition goal? What
weight should be given to consumer choices in obtaining media content,
as revealed by actual behavior?
23. What is the best way to measure consumer satisfaction among
particular demographic groups, such as women, racial and ethnic
minorities, non-English speakers, and people with disabilities? What is
the nexus between media ownership and whether or not a particular
demographic group within a designated market area is being served by
available broadcast media platforms?
24. The Commission also seeks comment on the degree to which
various media providers compete for consumers and how to measure this.
Can consumers easily switch among different forms of media without
suffering a loss in satisfaction? If not, what are the trade-offs among
the levels of satisfaction and the forms of media among which they may
switch? Should it analyze the television and radio markets separately
or jointly? Do consumers consider radio and television to be
substitutes in choosing any service and, if so, for what services? Do
television stations adjust the content that they provide in response to
changes in content delivered over radio stations and vice versa? How do
radio and television respond to competition for consumers from other
platforms such as the Internet or mobile devices?
25. Should promoting competition in advertising markets be one of
the goals of the ownership rules? How should it measure the state of
competition in advertising markets? Should it consider performance
metrics that are broader than price, or should it rely on traditional
competitive analysis? How should it define the relevant product and
geographic markets? What is the appropriate analytical framework that
would implement the framework suggested by commenters.
26. While end user prices for broadcast radio and television do not
exist, advertising prices are available, making it possible to do a
traditional competitive analysis of advertising markets. Historically,
the Commission has relied on assessments of competition in advertising
markets as a proxy for consumer welfare in media markets. Does the
state of competition in the advertising market provide a useful
indicator of the state of competition for end users? Does an efficient
competitive advertising market ensure that all end users have choices
that are relevant to their interests and their particular cultures? If
the advertising market is found to be competitive, can the Commission
then infer that the menu of content broadcasters provide is doing a
good job of attracting the demographic groups in which advertisers are
interested? Are certain demographic groups underserved in the media
market, or is competition in the advertising market a sufficient
indicator that its competition policy goal with respect to all
consumers is being satisfied?
27. Media markets have been considered ``two-sided markets,'' in
which platforms use content to bring together consumers on one side and
advertisers on the other side. How should the Commission take this
structure into account? How do differences in the program preferences
of viewers and advertisers affect the competition policy goal, and how
would it balance those preferences if they are not compatible?
28. How should it assess the impact of the ownership rules on
content creators? Platform owners purchase content from creators in the
programming market. To what extent should competition for content among
platforms be a goal? Should competition in the programming market be a
goal as an end in itself, beyond the effect it has on consumers and
advertisers? If so, why? Can competition in the programming market be
fully measured by observing performance metrics in the consumer and
advertising segments, or should the Commission develop different
measures?
29. Should the ownership rules seek to promote competition among
distribution platform owners as an end in itself, apart from any
impacts on the other groups of market participants? Does the race,
gender, or ethnicity of platform owners affect the interests of
consumers, advertisers, or content creators, and how? How does the
Commission assess and measure the significance of competition in
platform ownership?
30. How should the Commission address different effects on
different groups? Should it require efficiencies to be passed through
to end users (in the form of more and/or better content) or to
advertisers (in the form of a more efficient advertising market with
better demographic targeting and/or lower prices) before concluding
that they contribute to policy goals? To what extent should the
analysis of the impact of market structure on media market participants
differ in the context of unserved and underserved communities? What, if
any, changes to the media ownership rules could promote minority and
female ownership of broadcast stations? What marketplace or other
factors would encourage new entry by minorities and/or females? Does
consolidation hinder such ownership or does the opportunity to obtain
efficiencies of scale and scope help promote growth and better public
service by minority and female owners?
31. Consumers of broadcast video content also have choices for
video programming among hundreds of cable channels and on many Internet
sites such as hulu.com, fancast.com, abc.com, fox.com, and available
for download at Netflix.com and at iTunes. Some of the Internet sites
provide free content viewable with online commercial interruptions;
some provide fee-only content; and others offer content only to their
subscribers or members. Consumers of broadcast radio can choose also
among over 100 audio channels carried by satellite radio, downloadable
podcasts, audio streaming, and other audio entertainment available in
cars, on mobile devices, and on computers. What is the impact of such
changes on the economic viability of broadcasters, including
specifically the viability of their local news and public affairs
programming, in terms of the cost of production and resulting station
revenue from such programming? Do new media provide opportunities for
entry by minorities and females?
32. In what ways does competition from the Internet affect the
financial condition of broadcasters? What are the consequences of the
current challenges that traditional media face in monetizing their
content on the Internet? How should the current financial and other
problems being
[[Page 33231]]
faced by newspapers factor into analysis? What role have debt and
profit margins played in the current media structure? Are there other
anticipated near-term marketplace changes that should affect the
analysis?
33. Are there unique attributes of broadcasting that should define
and measure broadcast competition without reference to other media? If
not, what other media should the FCC consider as it assesses
competition in the relevant markets and measures performance? The FCC
invites comment on how to define and promote localism in the context of
the media ownership rules. How does ownership structure affect
localism? The Commission has relied on two measures to determine
whether licensees are meeting their local programming requirements: (1)
The selection of programming responsive to local needs and interests of
broadcasters' communities of license, and (2) local news quantity and
responsiveness. Does the traditional localism goal need to be redefined
in today's media marketplace?
34. The FCC seeks comment on what performance metrics to use to
analyze the relevance of the localism goal for each group of market
participants in determining whether the ownership rules are in the
public interest. How should the Commission define and measure localism
as it applies to consumers? One approach is to measure programming of
interest to the community in general and local news and public affairs
programming in particular. Such programming could be evaluated based on
the quantity of programming responsive to local needs and interests,
which would largely continue the traditional approach. What programming
should be deemed responsive to the community, and how should it be
defined and measured? What sources of content should the Commission
consider? Should it measure the quantity of local content by time or
space devoted to issues, stories, programs or articles, the total
number of these, or some combination thereof?
35. Are there other ways of measuring the extent to which the
localism goal is being achieved in today's media marketplace? Would a
survey on citizen consumption of, and satisfaction with, local content
be a useful measure? Is the satisfaction of local end users (viewers,
listeners, or readers) an adequate measure of whether locally oriented
programming adequately serves local needs? If so, what is a proper
gauge of audience satisfaction with locally oriented content? If
consumers are satisfied with the amount and responsiveness of local
content, does that signify that the media ownership rules are
successfully promoting localism?
36. Alternatively, should it examine local programming inputs, such
as the number of local journalists, the number of local news bureaus,
or expenditures on local news and public affairs, either in absolute
terms or as a percentage of total revenues or expenditures? Would such
inputs to local programming content be a useful performance metric? Are
such inputs a valid proxy for the responsiveness of local programming?
37. Should it consider consumers' interest in locally oriented
programming? How should the extent of consumer demand for free, local
content factor into the media ownership rules? For instance, if ratings
for local news broadcasts have declined over the years, should that
affect any emphasis on the goal of localism? Alternatively, is the
provision of local news programming socially valuable in itself,
regardless of variations in consumer interest in such programming? If
so, would measures of civic engagement such as voter turnout or civic
knowledge be useful to measure?
38. How should it define and measure localism as it applies to
historically underserved minority communities? What is the best
approach to measuring satisfaction among particular demographic groups
with the quantity and effectiveness of locally-oriented programming?
Are there aspects of localism that are relevant specifically to
minority communities? Are there particular types of programming,
including news and informational programming, which are specifically
relevant to minority communities? If so, how should such programming be
defined and measured?
39. Should the Commission consider radio and television (and other
content platforms such as newspapers, cable, and the Internet) as
separate product markets or as a single product market for purposes of
achieving our localism goal? How should it account for nonbroadcast
distribution outlets for locally oriented programming? How should it
account for new media, both in terms of metrics and the impact of new
media on traditional media? Does the Internet play a role in the
promotion of localism by providing a unique forum for communities and
local organizations to share information on niche topics and community-
oriented information not provided by other media platforms? What about
hyper-local and free community group Web sites? What weight should they
be given? While not all consumers have broadband Internet access,
information first reported on the Internet--through local blogs, Web
sites, listservs and similar online sources--may be picked up by the
traditional media and further disseminated to non-users of the
Internet. Is that a relevant factor?
40. Do most local news originate from traditional media sources,
such as broadcasting and newspapers? How heavily should origination
factor into analysis? How should any measure of quantity account for
re-broadcasting or re-purposing of content? Does the current prevalent
business model for traditional media, in which many companies provide
free Internet content, have any adverse effect on the quantity or
responsiveness of local content provided? Should the Commission
consider mobile platforms in its analysis? Consumers increasingly use
smart phones and other mobile devices to access up-to-date information
on local school events and closings, local weather, and local civic
information. Consumers also are using mobile devices to deliver news
and information through social networking Web sites. Should we consider
consumer-to-consumer information in our analysis?
41. Should the Commission seek to promote localism with regard to
the advertising sector of media markets? Is there a policy reason for
the Commission to promote local advertisers' access to local media? If
there is such a policy concern, can it be addressed by ensuring that
the advertising market is competitive?
42. Should the Commission consider content creators in deciding
whether the ownership rules are necessary to advance localism? Does
locally produced or originated content make a particular contribution
toward the localism goal, and, if so, how should it define ``local
production'' or ``origination'' in today's media marketplace. What
entities should qualify as local content creators? How should it
measure the quantity and responsiveness of locally oriented and
produced content?
43. Should the Commission consider platform owners in deciding
whether the ownership rules are necessary to advance localism? Is local
ownership a goal in itself or simply a means to foster the provision of
local programming to consumers? Are there differences in the amount and
responsiveness of local content provided in markets where there are
significant numbers of locally owned and/or managed stations as opposed
to markets characterized by nonlocal owners and/or managers?
44. How does market structure affects localism in all of these
respects? Is there any particular ownership structure that
[[Page 33232]]
would best promote the localism goal? Does combined ownership of
outlets within a platform, such as in radio alone, or across platforms,
such as with respect to radio/television cross-ownership or newspaper/
broadcast cross-ownership, promote or hinder the localism goal?
Commenters should provide predictive evidence as to how any proposed
changes in any ownership rule (whether the change be an elimination,
relaxation, or tightening of an ownership rule or even a waiver or
grandfathering of noncompliance with a rule) would likely affect the
amount, quality, and/or diversity of the local news, public affairs
programming and other information in the community affected by the
change. Is there a difference in the degree to which the localism goal
is achieved in markets with many single station owners versus markets
in which multiple station ownership is more common? Is there any
difference in markets where a TV station or radio station is co-owned
with a newspaper as opposed to ones that are not? Please submit any
relevant studies or data with respect to these issues.
45. How should the Commission define diversity? The Commission
historically has approached the diversity goal from five perspectives--
program diversity, viewpoint diversity, source diversity, outlet
diversity, and minority and female ownership diversity. In this NOI, it
seeks comment on the relative importance of each of these aspects of
diversity. The Commission seeks to refine the performance metrics and
thresholds used to judge how well the current rules operate to achieve
the diversity goal. How does their use comport with the values and
principles embodied in the First Amendment? Commenters should support
their comments with sound empirical evidence demonstrating a link
between structural rules and the diversity goal.
46. What is the proper geographic area and the proper product
market within which to analyze the achievement of the diversity goal?
The Commission tentatively concludes that the appropriate geographic
unit is an area within which, roughly speaking, all citizens have the
same range of media choices. It seeks comment on this tentative
conclusion. Do existing geographic market definitions satisfy this
criterion? Are there any reasons to evaluate diversity on a national
level for some facets of diversity?
47. Should the Commission apply performance metrics for the
diversity goal that aggregate all media outlets in a geographic area or
that separate outlets of each media type? Do particular types of media
contribute more than others to particular aspects of diversity? Should
it analyze local television and radio separately? Should it consider
only content aired on broadcast outlets or are other platforms relevant
as well? How should it take account of the vast number of channels and
range of content available via cable television, satellite television,
and the Internet? Which media, if any, are close enough substitutes to
be considered in the same ``product market?'' The costs associated with
cable television, satellite television, and the Internet (including
paying for the connection and for necessary home equipment) put some
services out of reach for some segments of the population. How should
that be accounted for? If it concludes that the Internet provides the
capability to distribute a nearly limitless variety of content, which
facets of the diversity goal would be satisfied? Focusing on the
Internet, how should it assess the importance of Internet news blogs
and aggregators, such as the Huffington Post or the Drudge Report? Do
aggregators contribute to media market diversity, even if they produce
little or no original content? Commenters should submit studies and
data that evaluate the significance of the Internet in formulating
media ownership regulation.
48. The FCC previously has concluded that program diversity, which
refers to the variety of programming formats and content, is promoted
by competition among media outlets. Is competition among media outlets
the optimal way to achieve program diversity generally? Viewed this
way, a market structure that provides an acceptable level of
competition would also be considered to provide an acceptable level of
program diversity. Does increased competition among independently owned
media outlets always lead to increased program diversity? Are there
situations in which concentrated ownership increases program diversity?
Is it possible to obtain an objective measure of program diversity? Are
the performance metrics suggested above in connection with the
competition goal (e.g., consumer satisfaction, media utilization)
adequate for this task? If additional performance metrics are
necessary, what would they be and how should they be collected?
49. There are certain types of programming that the Commission
historically considers to promote the public interest that we would
consider in our analysis of diverse programming. For instance, the
Commission requires broadcast licensees to provide programming designed
to educate and inform children and to protect children from excessive
and inappropriate commercial messages. What is the impact of market
structure on the availability of such programming?
50. Viewpoint diversity refers to the availability of media content
reflecting a variety of perspectives. How should it measure the level
of viewpoint diversity? Is there an objective measure of viewpoint
diversity? Should it attempt to measure viewpoint diversity through an
analysis or census of available content? Are news and public affairs
programs the only relevant sources of viewpoint diversity? How should
it define news and public affairs programming? For example, is
``Entertainment Tonight'' or ``The Daily Show'' news programming? Can
it make such judgments consistent with the First Amendment?
51. As an alternative to measuring the ``supply'' of content to
assess viewpoint diversity, should it take a ``demand side'' approach
and utilize measures of audience satisfaction and media consumption as
proxies for viewpoint diversity? How do differences in the number of
independent media outlets in an area affect diversity? Do multi-outlet
news content providers contribute more or less to viewpoint diversity
than singly owned outlets? How does platform ownership and market
structure influence viewpoint diversity? Do markets with more
independent owners provide more divergent viewpoints on controversial
issues? Alternatively, are there benefits of combined ownership, even
though it reduces the number of independent owners in a market? Can
combined ownership benefit consumers by allowing economies of scale or
scope that can benefit end users by enabling broadcasters to provide
more diverse programming? In particular, does consolidated ownership
enable owners to provide more news programs that represent wide-ranging
viewpoints? Does the existence of multiple independent decision makers
(sometimes referred to as ``gatekeepers'') increase the likelihood that
all significant viewpoints will be delivered to the public by at least
one local outlet? To what extent does consolidated ownership affect the
ability of nonaffiliated/independent small companies or women/minority-
owned companies that produce programming to get their programming on
the air? What effect, if any, has consolidated ownership had on the
availability of a variety of diverse viewpoints to women and minority
consumers? Are women and minorities increasing their
[[Page 33233]]
ownership levels in companies that are content providers or in other
aspects of media production aside from station ownership?
52. Source diversity refers to the availability of media content
from a variety of content creators. What role does source diversity
play? Is source diversity an end in itself or simply a means to
achieving other diversity goals? Would an appropriate level of outlet
diversity obviate any separate concerns about source diversity? How
should it measure the level of source diversity? Is the availability of
independent content creators a measure of source diversity? If so, how
should it define ``independent content creator''? Is source diversity
important for all types of programming? What role should consumer
satisfaction or media consumption play in evaluating source diversity?
Do the responses to these questions change according to whether the
focus is on the airing of local news, public affairs programming or
other information?
53. Outlet diversity refers in part to the number of independently
owned media outlets in a relevant market. Many of our ownership rules
have been stated in terms of the number of independent media ``voices''
in relevant local markets. Should one of the Commission's goals in
prescribing media ownership rules be to promote more independent owners
in the platform sector of the media marketplace? Should it view outlet
diversity as an instrument for ensuring other types of diversity, such
as viewpoint and source diversity, or as an end itself? How should it
measure the relationship between diverse ownership and our other
diversity metrics?
54. Another aspect of outlet diversity is the ownership of
platforms by diverse individuals and entities, including minorities,
women, and small businesses. What was the impact of the relaxation of
the radio ownership limits mandated by Congress in 1996 on minority and
female ownership of radio stations, and what studies have been done
documenting that impact? Does the FCC's structural media ownership
rules have an effect on broadcast ownership by minorities, women, and
small businesses? What is the relationship between diversity of
broadcast ownership and viewpoint diversity? Commenters should support
their views with data, studies, and analysis. Should the ownership
rules be used to promote diverse types of broadcast owners and, if so,
how can the Commission pursue this goal in a manner consistent with the
Constitution and relevant case law?
55. The Commission recognizes that there may be tension among the
goals of competition, localism, and diversity. For example, proposed
transactions may generate efficiencies and enhance program offerings
but reduce the number of independent media owners, viewpoint diversity,
minority ownership, or localism. How should it weigh our competition,
localism, and diversity goals when they conflict? Should it set minimum
thresholds for each goal and permit consolidation as long as the
thresholds are met? Should any of the ownership rules be designed to
serve one or two goals, rather than all three goals? Are any of our
goals more important in regulating some media sectors than others?
56. Should it apply different performance cutoffs or different
trade-offs across goals in different-sized markets? Should the
competition goal outweigh the diversity of ownership goal in certain
instances? Does the impact of consolidation differ between small
markets and large markets? For instance, does market size affect
whether consolidation results in more or less local or diverse news and
public affairs programming? Should it measure performance on an
absolute level or proportionally to market size? For instance, should
it consider hours of local news and public affairs programming per
100,000 households in the market as opposed to hours of local news in
the market?
57. Are there other policy goals, in addition to competition,
diversity, and localism to consider, in determining ownership limits in
this proceeding? If so, what other goals, why are they important and
appropriate to consider from a statutory perspective in this
proceeding? Should the Commission consider the impact of its media
ownership rules on the availability to all Americans of news and
information, not only local but also national news and information? The
Commission separately has issued a Public Notice to invite comment on
various issues relating to the information needs of communities. The
issues raised in that notice are interrelated to issues raised in this
ownership proceeding although the focus of this proceeding is narrower,
since the Commission concentrated here only on our media ownership
rules. Should it consider the impact of our ownership rules on
investigative journalism? If so, should the Commission consider only
investigative journalism in broadcast media or across all media? If
commenters believe that it should undertake such an examination in this
proceeding, it invites comment on whether revising multiple ownership
rules is necessary to preserve or enhance the availability of news and
information and journalism, and, if so, what specific measures should
be taken to promote these goals.
58. The Commission invites comment, supported by empirical or other
available evidence, on each of the current ownership rules described
above, and whether it satisfies the statutory standard. For each of the
current ownership rules reviewed in this proceeding, it seeks comment
on how the rule affects the local market structure and in turn impacts
the Commission's policy goals. Commenters should propose specific
analytical frameworks for linking the ownership rules to the policy
goals discussed above and measuring the impact of the rules on the
policy goals. Would it be useful to target particular rules to
particular goals, for example, to use the local television and radio
ownership rules to advance the competition goal and the cross-ownership
rules to advance the diversity and localism goals? Are there any
changes it should make to the rules to promote the goals more
effectively? Do the current numerical limits set forth in the ownership
rules continue to be necessary to serve our competition, localism, and
diversity goals? If it decides to retain the current limits, how should
it justify them? Commenters who believe that the current rules do not
promote competition, localism, and diversity should propose specific
modifications to these rules or describe in detail an alternative
framework that would better promote our goals. Commenters should
support their contentions with empirical evidence and explain how their
recommended approaches would affect the various stakeholders, such as
end users, advertisers, content creators, and platform owners.
Commenters also should raise any additional pertinent issues with
respect to each of these rules beyond those on which they are
specifically invited to comment. Commenters who seek modification of
the rules should address how to ensure that any revisions to the rules
are consistent with the courts' decisions reviewing earlier Commission
media ownership orders. For example, what evidentiary bases and what
methodological approaches would enable the Commission to provide a
reasoned analysis that would be adequate to satisfy judicial scrutiny
of any numerical limits it may adopt?
59. The Commission invites commenters who advocate retention of the
current ownership rule structure, with or without modification, to
address the following specific questions about
[[Page 33234]]
the rules: With regard to the local television ownership rule, does the
eight-voices test continue to serve our goals? How does the eight-
voices requirement promote competition, diversity, and localism? Should
it continue to count only full-power television stations as voices, or
should a broader or narrower set of voices be considered? What media
should be considered when determining the number of voices in a market
in applying this rule? Are there other criteria to use to determine
what to count as a voice in a given market? Does the current
prohibition of mergers among the top-four-rated television stations in
a market continue to serve the policy goals? While the Grade B contour
no longer exists in the digital world, is an overlap provision or some
resort to contours still necessary? Should it make changes to the
failed/failing station waiver standard? Should it account for market
share other than through the prohibition of a merger among the top-four
rated stations? Are there any other aspects of the local television
ownership rule that should be revised. Commenters should evaluate the
local television ownership rule in the context of the larger
marketplace for delivered video. What is the impact on television
broadcast programming of competition among MVPDs, and how should it
consider this impact in the context of the local television ownership
rule? Does the 1996 Act require the Commission to maintain competition
among television broadcasters or between broadcasters and other video
providers, or both? Is it necessary also to look separately at the
broadcast television market? Would consolidation of television station
ownership in local markets provide more and better programming? Would
permitting one entity to own more television stations in a local market
enable the broadcast television service to compete more effectively
with MVPDs? Would such combined ownership benefit viewers and/or
advertisers through a strengthened competitive position? Is relaxation
of the rule warranted in smaller markets to help broadcasters compete
with other MVPDs and achieve economies of scale that can allow
provision of more responsive and diverse programming to consumers?
Television broadcasters assemble their streams of content through a
combination of in-house production and outside sources. How does the
local market structure of television station ownership affect the
market for acquiring content? Would significant consolidation of
television stations in a local market have the potential to harm
program syndicators that sell their programming directly to individual
local stations? Can the local television ownership rule affect this
market and, if so, how should it take account of this effect in
crafting the local television ownership rule? The current limit may not
be reached in particular markets. How can it account for under-limit
situations when predicting the effect of changes in the rules on
achievement of the goals?
60. Are the current numerical limits appropriate to achieve the
goals of the local radio ownership rule? The local radio ownership rule
currently distinguishes between AM and FM services. Does it continue to
make sense to have sub-caps for the two services? Have recent
technological advances eliminated the need for this aspect of the rule?
What part should low-power FM stations play in the rule? Should it
account for other sources of audio programming in applying the rule?
Should the degree of consolidation of other media in the local market
be a factor in the rule, or should it continue to count only the number
of radio stations in a market in applying the rule? Should this rule
take account of market share?
61. With regard to the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule,
should the Commission treat newspaper-television combinations
differently from newspaper-radio combinations, as we do in the 2006
presumptive standard? Are some goals or metrics more relevant for one
or the other type of combinations? Are particular market participants
more heavily affected by the rule? Which elements of market structure
are most important for measuring the effects of this rule on the policy
goals? Would relaxing the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule
result in economies of scale and scope that could help newspapers to
survive? Alternatively, do the problems faced by newspapers result from
extraneous factors that make relief in this area irrelevant? For
example, statistics show that fewer people are reading newspapers and,
instead, are increasingly getting news and information from
nontraditional sources. Statistics also demonstrate an increase in the
degree of penetration of new media, including online websites, and
social media. Given the fragmentation of sources of news, would
structural relief help newspapers sufficiently to result in a net gain
in local news and information? Should any such relief operate via a
revised rule or via a waiver standard? If the latter, what type of
waiver standard should be applicable? Is the presumptive standard
adopted in the 2006 Quadrennial Review Order able to further the
competition, diversity, and localism goals as well as result in
economies of scale and scope that could help newspapers survive? Is a
rule that relies on presumptions preferable in order to achieve the
goals? What factors should a relaxed rule or waiver standard take into
account? Should any relaxation of the rule continue to account for the
number of voices in a community? For instance, is there a basis in the
current marketplace for finding that cross-ownerships only in the
largest markets would be in the public interest? Should it take into
account market share of the media entities that would be combined? If
the number of voices is relevant, how should voices be defined for this
purpose?
62. With regard to the radio/television cross-ownership rule, are
the current procedures for counting voices in a market achieving the
goals or should they be modified? Have recent technological
developments had an impact on the voices that should be counted when
applying the rule? Does the current rule for counting voices make sense
in today's media marketplace? If so, do the media voices considered in
this rule's voice count adequately encompass relevant media outlets?
How should the Commission justify a decision to retain the particular
numerical limits contained in the current rule? What type of waiver
standard should be applicable?
63. Would the dual network rule be more effective if it targeted
mergers among networks with specific characteristics rather than
specifically targeting mergers among the four major networks? If so,
what characteristics should it consider, and how should it measure
them? Would a merger between or among any of the top-four broadcast
networks harm competition in the program acquisition market? How does
the Commission balance any conflicting goals underlying this rule? What
is the appropriate metrics to use in analyzing the competitive effects
of the dual network rule on the program acquisition market? Should the
Commission measure shares of expenditures on video entertainment
programming? Is the dual network rule necessary to protect competition
in the national advertising market? What metrics should the Commission
use to make this determination? Should it rely on measurements of the
shares of national advertising?
64. If the Commission finds that the existing media ownership rules
are no longer necessary in the public interest
[[Page 33235]]
as the result of competition, it must modify or eliminate the rules. If
it modifies the rules, should it use a bright line approach or adopt an
alternative approach, such as analyzing changes in ownership on a case-
by-case basis, or a hybrid of the two? What are benefits and
disadvantages of bright line rules versus a case-by-case approach?
Proponents of bright line rules should discuss why to maintain such an
approach and should address the questions, asked above, as to whether
any modifications should nonetheless be made to the current rules. For
example, should the Commission retain numerical limits affecting
ownership of radio stations but revise the current limits?
Alternatively, should it adopt a new rule structure? Proponents of a
case-by-case approach should discuss whether there are certain
ownership rules that are particularly suited to a case-specific review
process, or whether a case-by-case approach should be applied to all
the ownership rules.
65. If it is determined that the existing rules are not necessary
in the public interest as the result of competition, should the
Commission adopt a broad cross-media approach to media ownership? Such
an approach could replace in whole or in part the focus of each of the
current rules on specific types of broadcast outlets. What are the
costs and benefits of outlet-specific rules as compared to rules that
apply to all media together? Would a broad cross-media approach be
consistent with the relevant court cases that have reviewed the
Commission's ownership rules? When discussing possible approaches to
structuring the ownership rules, commenters should address
compatibility of the rules with the court remands in Sinclair,
Prometheus, and Lamprecht. Do the holdings in these cases limit the
Commission's ability to adopt specific ownership limits? Do the
holdings require the Commission to consider any specific factors going
forward? Do these cases suggest that a particular approach to ownership
regulation is more likely than others to satisfy the courts?
66. Would maintaining bright line rules advance the policy goals?
What are the benefits or negative consequences of retaining the current
approach? Do bright line rules adequately take into consideration
today's media marketplace? Do bright line rules promote efficiency in
license transfers and in planning business transactions? Are lenders
more likely to provide financing in a climate of regulatory certainty?
Are there other benefits to consider in maintaining bright line rules?
Conversely, bright line rules do not fully account for either changing
economic conditions within a particular local market or all of the
variations that may exist across markets. The fairness and
predictability of bright line rules must be weighed against their
inflexibility and insensitivity to particular circumstances. To what
extent does the possibility of waivers mitigate any disadvantages of
bright line rules? Are there other disadvantages of bright line rules
to be considered?
67. Alternatively, should the Commission adopt a case-by-case
approach instead of adopting new or revised bright line rules? A case-
by-case approach allows room for consideration of individual
circumstances, thereby increasing the likelihood that a decision with
respect to a specific transaction will best serve a particular market.
A comprehensive review of all the relevant variables in a local market
permits a regulator to render a decision that is appropriate for that
market at that time. The flexibility of a case-by-case approach is an
advantage in the dynamic and rapidly evolving media marketplace. Are
there other advantages of a case-by-case approach?
68. A case-by-case approach also has disadvantages. It can make the
decisionmaking process less predictable, which can generate
uncertainty, posing challenges for market participants and their
lenders. In addition, a complicated set of precedents can evolve from a
case-by-case approach, compounding uncertainty and confusion for market
participants. A compelling set of facts in a particular situation can
lead to an unexpected exception or introduce new variables to be
considered. Over time, simply understanding the precedents may become a
daunting task. The administrative burdens associated with a case-by-
case approach are high relative to a bright line approach. A
comprehensive review process that accounts for the particular
conditions of a local market can prolong decisionmaking and thus chill
market activity. Are there other disadvantages to a case-by-case
approach?
69. Should the Commission adopt a hybrid of the two approaches for
any or all of the ownership rules? For example, a hybrid rule (such as
the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule as modified by the
Commission in the 2006 ownership review) could define parameters that
predict a likely outcome in most cases while allowing room, within
specified guidelines, for an analysis of individual circumstances.
Commenters are asked to explain how their recommended approaches would
affect the various stakeholders, such as end users, advertisers,
content creators, and platforms.
70. Should any of the ownership rules incorporate additional
factors to be considered when the Commission reviews assignment and
transfer applications? Additional factors could potentially include
local economic and financial conditions, the applicant's financial
status and ability to access capital, the size of the local market, the
size of the applicant, the holdings of the applicant's competitors in
the market, the applicant's audience ratings and/or advertising
revenues, the applicant's history of promoting innovation, or the
effects of the digital television transition. Some of our media
ownership rules already incorporate some of these factors. Proponents
of a hybrid approach should explain which factors they believe should
be considered and why and how the Commission should take those factors
into account. Should certain factors weigh more heavily than others?
Opponents of such an approach should explain why the Commission should
not have the flexibility to take these types of factors into account.
71. If the Commission determines that the existing rules are no
longer necessary in the public interest as the result of competition,
should the Commission adopt a broad cross-media approach to regulating
media ownership? Such an approach would look at all conditions in a
geographic market in determining the degree of permissible combined
ownership in that market. What are the benefits or disadvantages of
adopting rules that consider all media in a market together? Would a
cross-media approach better account for changes in the media
marketplace and today's market realities? What parameters should we use
to measure such an approach? How should it define the market, and what
components of the media marketplace should the Commission take into
account?
72. How should the FCC adjust its rules to account for
technological changes that are reshaping how people are getting their
news and public affairs information? Should the Commission's rule
structure account for all major sources of news and public affairs
information? What sources should be included? If there is a decline in
demand for mainstream news media, should it take that into
consideration? How should the rules account for trends in the news
media?
73. If it does consider other sources of news, how should it treat
new media outlets that are owned by traditional media sources? Should
the Commission
[[Page 33236]]
treat Web sites owned by traditional media companies differently from
independently owned Web sites? How should it treat online aggregators
that do not engage in significant original content production
themselves, but rather provide selective access to content created by
other online content providers and/or traditional media sources? How
should it treat other types of arrangements for shared news sources?
How do shared news services affect the coverage of local events? Are
these arrangements permissible under the cross-ownership rules and
should they be?
74. In the 2002 Biennial Review Order, the Commission attempted a
cross-media approach to media ownership by developing a ``diversity
index.'' The Third Circuit vacated and remanded that aspect of the
order as insufficiently supported by the record. If the Commission
takes a cross-media approach, how can it avoid the shortcomings the
court found in the 2002 order?
75. Should the Commission expand its review in this proceeding to
include and consider two issues that may relate to our media ownership
rules? First, the Commission's cross-ownership and local television
ownership rules employ analog broadcast television contours as one
criterion in determining whether the applicable rule is violated.
However, analog contours are no longer relevant. Should the FCC
continue using broadcast television contour for purposes of the
ownership rules, and if so, how should it revise the rules?
76. The Commission has defined two digital television service
contours, the digital noise limited service contour (``NLSC'') and the
DTV principal community contour. The digital NLSC approximates the
Grade B contour. The FCC does not have an equivalent digital contour
for the analog Grade A contour. Should it continue to use contour
encompassment as a triggering factor and to count voices in a market as
currently used in the media ownership rules? If it continues to use
contours to determine compliance or applicability of a rule, what
contours should it use? Should it substitute the NLSC for the Grade B
contour? Is there a suitable substitute for the Grade A contour? Should
it consider using the same digital contour for all of the ownership
rules, and not distinguish between different geographic areas, such as
the analog Grade A, Grade B, and city grade contours? What are the
benefits or harms of adopting a single contour standard? Should it
continue to require 100% encompassment for a rule to be triggered?
77. Alternatively, should it eliminate the use of contours and
adopt a different analytical approach? If so, what criteria should be
used to determine when a rule is triggered? How should it count voices
if it does not use a contour-based method? Should it count voices in
geographic areas? For instance, if it uses Arbitron metro areas for
this purpose, how would it address areas in which Arbitron has not
defined radio markets? What are the benefits or harms of substituting a
geographic-based approach for a contour approach?
78. To facilitate nationwide broadband deployment, the Commission
released and sent to Congress its broadband plan, ``Connecting America:
The National Broadband Plan'' on March 16, 2010. The plan sets out a
plan of action and a roadmap ``to spur economic growth and investment,
create jobs, educate our children, protect our citizens, and engage in
our democracy.'' Is the broadband plan a relevant factor to consider
when developing broadcast ownership rules? Does access to broadband
affect our policy goals? How does access to audio and video content
available over broadband factor into the competition analysis? How does
access to broadband affect the diversity goals?
79. What, if any, specific aspects of the broadband plan are
relevant here? For example, would ubiquitous access to broadband
service in this country impact the media ownership policy? Should the
competitive impact of the Internet be given more weight if the
percentage of consumers with broadband access substantially increases?
The plan finds that mobile services are playing an increasingly
important role in our lives and our economy. Should the Commission's
policy goals to foster mobile services impact media ownership rules?
Should the fact that consumers are increasingly getting news and
programming through their mobile devices impact the decisions in this
proceeding?
80. Ex Parte. The inquiry this Notice initiates shall be treated as
a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the
Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making oral ex parte presentations
are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain
summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a
listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence
description of the views and arguments presented generally is required.
Other requirements pertaining to oral and written presentations are set
forth in section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules.
81. Comment Filing Procedures. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419
of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties
may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated
on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using: (1)
The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the
Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies.
See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR
24121 (1998).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and four copies of each filing.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary,
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th St., SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before
entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an e-mail to [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
89. Accordingly, It is ordered, that pursuant to the authority
contained in sections 1, 2(a), 4(i), 303, 307, 309, and 310 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i),
303, 307, 309, and 310, and Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, this Notice of Inquiry is adopted.
[[Page 33237]]
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-14099 Filed 6-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P