[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 61 (Tuesday, March 31, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15353-15362]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-8276]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Chapter I
[MM Docket No. 98-35; FCC: 98-37]
Broadcast Services; Radio Stations, Television Stations
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
[[Page 15354]]
ACTION: Review of rules; notice of inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the requirements of Section 202(h) of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Commission issues this Notice of
Inquiry soliciting comment on whether any or all of its broadcast
ownership rules are no longer in the public interest as the result of
competition.
DATES: Comments are due by May 22, 1998, and reply comments are due by
June 22, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Holberg, Mass Media Bureau,
Policy and Rules Division (202)418-2134 or Dan Bring, Mass Media
Bureau, Policy and Rules Division (202)418-2170.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Inquiry in MM Docket No. 98-35, FCC 98-37, adopted March 12,
1998, and released March 13, 1998. The complete text of this Notice of
Inquiry is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C., and may also be purchased from the Commission's copy
contractor, International Transcription Service, (202)857-3800, 1231
20th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. The Notice of Inquiry is
also available on the Internet at the Commission's web site: http://
www.fcc.gov.
Synopsis of Notice of Inquiry
I. Introduction
1. This Notice of Inquiry is the first step in our biennial
ownership review of the broadcast ownership and other rules as required
by section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (``Telecom
Act'').1 That section provides:
\1\ Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat.
56 (1996). Also required by that section is the biennial review of
rules adopted pursuant to sections 202(a)-(f) of the
Telecommunications Act. These include rules pertaining to cable as
well as broadcast cross-ownership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission shall review its rules adopted pursuant to this
section and all of its ownership rules biennially as part of its
regulatory reform review under section 11 of the Communications Act
of 1934 and shall 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 it determines to be no longer
in the public interest.
Section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended,2 similarly provides that under the statutorily
required review, the Commission ``shall determine whether any such
regulation is no longer necessary in the public interest as a result of
meaningful economic competition'' and requires that the Commission
``shall repeal or modify any regulation it determines to be no longer
necessary in the public interest.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 47 U.S.C. 161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Once this phase is completed, we will review the comments and
issue a report. In the event we conclude there is good reason to
believe that any of the rules within the scope of the review, or
portions thereof, should be repealed or modified, we will issue the
appropriate Notice(s) of Proposed Rule Making.
II. Framework for Review
3. For more than a half century, the Commission's regulation of
broadcast service has been guided by the goals of promoting competition
and diversity.3 Competition is an important part of the
Commission's public interest mandate because it promotes consumer
welfare and the efficient use of resources.4 Diversity,
particularly diversity of viewpoints, is the other important part of
the Commission's public interest mandate. The Commission's viewpoint
diversity objective promotes a goal the Supreme Court has stated
underlies the First Amendment. As the Court has said, the First
Amendment ``rests on the assumption that the widest possible
dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is
essential to the welfare of the public* * *.'' 5 Promoting
diversity in the number of separately owned outlets has contributed to
our goal of viewpoint diversity by assuring that the programming and
views available to the public are disseminated by a wide variety of
speakers. Moreover, our diversity concerns are separate from our goal
of promoting competition. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recently stated
that ``[f]ederal policy* * *has long favored preserving a multiplicity
of broadcast outlets regardless of whether the conduct that threatens
it is motivated by anticompetitive animus or rises to the level of an
antitrust violation.'' 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For a short history of the Commission's broadcast ownership
regulations, see Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket
Nos. 91-221 and 87-8, 10 FCC Rcd 3524, 3526-29 (1995)(hereinafter
``TV Ownership Further Notice'').
\4\ Revision of Radio Rules and Policies, 7 FCC Rcd 2755 (1992),
recon. granted in part, 7 FCC Rcd 6387 (1992), further recon., 9 FCC
Rcd 7183 (1994).
\5\ Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 20 (1945);
accord Federal Communications Commission v. National Citizens
Committee for Broadcasting, 436 U.S. 775 (1978).
\6\ Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 117 S.Ct. 1174
(1997)(citations omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. We also note that the definition of economic markets (i.e.,
product and geographic markets) is an important step in the assessment
of current levels of competition that section 202(h) and section 11
require in order to determine whether such competition has eliminated
the need for our broadcast rules. The Commission has previously
identified three economic markets in which broadcasters operate: the
market for delivered video programming; the advertising market; and the
program production market. In addition, we tentatively considered that
cable television directly competes with broadcast television stations
in each of these markets, and that broadcast radio and newspapers
compete with television in the local advertising market. While we also
sought comment on whether other suppliers of video programming (e.g.,
Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS), Direct Broadcast
Satellite (DBS), etc.) compete with broadcast television stations, we
stated that it may not be appropriate to include them because their
current market penetration is so low that they are not relevant
substitutes to a majority of Americans.7 Commenters are
invited to address the correctness of these tentative considerations,
as well as their applicability to the instant proceedings. After
exploring the issue of which media compete with broadcasting in each of
the economic markets, the competitive analysis then focuses upon
whether and to what extent market power exists and is being exercised,
and what effect our ownership rules have on the existence and exercise
of market power in each of these markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ TV Ownership Further Notice, supra at 3538.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Our diversity analysis focuses upon the ability of broadcast and
non-broadcast media to advance the three types of diversity (i.e.,
viewpoint, outlet and source) our broadcast ownership rules have
attempted to foster. Viewpoint diversity refers to helping to ensure
that the material presented by the media reflect a wide range of
diverse and antagonistic opinions and interpretations. Outlet diversity
refers to a variety of delivery services (e.g., broadcast stations,
newspapers, cable and DBS) that select and present programming directly
to the public. Source diversity refers to promoting a variety of
program or information
[[Page 15355]]
producers and owners.8 In the TV Ownership Further Notice we
sought comment on whether nonbroadcast outlets contributed to our
diversity goals. We tentatively considered that cable television, as
well as broadcast television, provides diversity in this market given
that cable has the capability for local origination of programming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See TV Ownership Further Notice, supra at 3547-51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. We propose to apply this framework to evaluate whether our rules
continue to be in the public interest as required by the Telecom Act.
We seek comment on this proposal. In performing our section 202(h)
review, we will consider the effect of meaningful competition that has
developed and the extent to which this competition has been furthered
by our rules. We also seek comment on the relevance to the framework of
the Commission's assessment of the state of competition in the multi-
channel video programming delivery services (MVPDs) market contained in
the Cable Competition Report,9 which was released subsequent
to our TV Ownership Further Notice. Furthermore, we seek comment on how
the Commission's assessment of the competitive effects of the Bell
Atlantic/NYNEX merger bears on our analysis here.10 We also
seek data, studies and any other information relevant to our
consideration of these competition and diversity issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Fourth Annual Report, in the Matter of Annual Assessment of
the Status of Competition in Markets for the Delivery of Video
Programming, CS Docket 97-141 (adopted December 31, 1997) (''Video
Competition Report'').
\10\ See Memorandum Opinion and Order In the Application of
NYNEX Corporation, 12 FCC Rcd 19985 (1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Rules To Be Reviewed
7. In this Notice of Inquiry we describe each of the rules that are
within the scope of our biennial broadcast ownership review. We seek
comment on any other rules commenters believe should be included in
this review. The rules are grouped into three categories. The first
group are those broadcast ownership rules that are currently being
examined in pending Commission proceedings. The second group are those
broadcast ownership rules that have recently been changed to implement
provisions of the Telecom Act of 1996.11 Finally, the third
group are the remaining broadcast ownership rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ We will not be reviewing herein the elimination of national
radio ownership limits (Order, 11 FCC Rcd 12368 (1996)) or cable/
network cross-ownership restrictions (Order in CS Docket No. 96-56,
11 FCC Rcd 15115 (1996)) because neither is a ``rule adopted
pursuant to'' section 202(h) or an existing broadcast ownership
rule. Additionally, although these subjects are referred to in
section 202(f)(2) of the Telecom Act, the Commission has not revised
any rules pertaining to ensuring cable carriage, channel
positioning, or nondiscriminatory treatment of broadcast stations by
cable systems. Accordingly, these subjects, will not be expressly
and separately addressed except as set forth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules Currently Subject to Outstanding Proceedings
8. Several of the Commission's broadcast ownership rules are
currently the subject of open proceedings. They are as follows:
The television ``duopoly'' rule, which states that a party
may not own, operate or control two or more broadcast television
stations with overlapping ``Grade B'' signal contours.12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 47 CFR 73.3555(b). This rule is currently under
consideration in MM Docket Nos. 91-221 and 87-8. See Notice of
Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket No. 91-221, 7 FCC Rcd 4111(1992);
TV Ownership Further Notice, supra; Second Further Notice of
Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket Nos. 91-221 and 87-8, 11 FCC Rcd
21655 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``one-to-a-market'' rule, which generally prohibits
the common ownership of a television and a radio station in the same
market.13 In 1989, the Commission amended the rule to
specify that it would ``look favorably'' on requests for waiver of the
restriction in the Top 25 television markets if, after the merger, at
least 30 independently owned broadcast voices remained, or if the
merger involved a ``failed station.'' Case-by-case review of waiver
requests is also provided for in instances where the presumptive waiver
criteria are not present. Section 202(d) of the Telecom Act directed
the Commission to extend its presumptive waiver policy to the Top 50
television markets if it finds that doing so would be in the public
interest.14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 47 CFR 73.3555(c). This rule is also currently under review
in MM Docket Nos. 91-221 and 87-8.
\14\ See note 12, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the daily newspaper/radio cross-ownership rule
15 which generally prohibits the common ownership of a daily
newspaper and a radio station in the same community. The outstanding
proceeding examines whether the Commission should modify the existing
waiver policy for this rule.16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 47 CFR 73.3555(d). The rule applies to all newspaper/
broadcast cross-ownership situations. Only the waiver policy with
respect to newspaper/radio combinations is currently under review in
another proceeding.
\16\ See Notice of Inquiry in MM Docket No. 96-197, 11 FCC Rcd
13003 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. We believe that our ongoing review of these rules in the
outstanding proceedings satisfies the requirements of section 202(h) of
the Telecom Act.17 We anticipate taking action in those
proceedings during 1998 independently of the instant review. We
consequently seek no additional comment on these rules in this Notice
of Inquiry. Nor do we seek comment on our attribution standards. Our
attribution rules define what the Commission will consider a cognizable
interest for purposes of its ownership rules. They do not of themselves
establish limits on ownership or restrict cross-ownership combinations.
Furthermore, they are currently under consideration in MM Docket Nos.
94-150, 92-51, and 87-154.18
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ In the Conference Report accompanying the Telecom Act, it
is stated that the, ``conferees are aware that the Commission
already has several broadcast deregulation proceedings underway. It
is the intention of the conferees that the Commission continue with
these proceedings and conclude them in a timely manner.'' H.R. Rep.
104-458, at 164.
\18\ See Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket Nos. 94-150
et al., 10 FCC Rcd 3606 (1995); Further Notice of Proposed Rule
Making in MM Docket Nos. 94-150 et al., 11 FCC Rcd 19895 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules Recently Changed by Section 202 of the Telecom Act
10. The Commission modified/eliminated several of its ownership
rules in accordance with section 202 of the Telecom Act. Section 202(h)
of the Act directs the Commission, without limitation, to review its
broadcast ownership rules as part of the biennial ownership review.
Parties are invited to provide data or other information which would
indicate whether some, or all, of the remaining rules are no longer in
the public interest. In this proceeding we will review the impact of
the remaining rules on competition and diversity and discuss our
analysis in the report we issue.
11. In the course of this review, we will examine the effect these
rule changes have had, thus far, on the structure and trends in media
markets and their impact on our competition and diversity goals. We
propose to make this assessment by developing a record examining the
changes in the structure of the industry (horizontal concentration and
vertical integration) and financial performance in media markets, as
well as changes in diversity. Examining the structure of an industry
provides information about the industry's conduct and performance. For
example, horizontal concentration can give firms sufficient market
power to raise rates above competitive levels or otherwise engage in
anti-competitive activity, although it can also result in new
efficiencies that accrue to the
[[Page 15356]]
benefit of consumers. Examining changes in ownership will provide
information on the effects on diversity.
12. Parties are invited to provide us with relevant information,
but our review will also be informed by publicly available information,
e.g., BIA and Compustat. Toward this end, we include data and a
preliminary assessment of some of these effects. We invite parties to
comment on the information we present as well as to provide additional
data that will shed light on the effects of these rule changes in the
media market.
13. National Television Ownership Rule. Section 202(c)(1) of the
Telecom Act directed the Commission to modify its rules to eliminate
the numerical limit on the number of broadcast television stations a
person or entity could own nationwide and to increase the audience
reach cap on such ownership from 25 percent to 35 percent of television
households. The Commission amended section 73.3555(e) of its Rules to
reflect this change.19
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Order, 11 FCC Rcd 12374 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. It is clear that there has been some consolidation of
television stations since the Telecom Act. However, most of the top 25
television group owners remain significantly below the 35 percent reach
cap, with only Fox's and CBS's television stations reaching more than
30 percent of U.S. households. The industry continues to be
unconcentrated at the national level, with our estimate of the
Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) still below 1000, increasing from 264
in 1996 to 308 in 1997.20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The HHI is a standard measure of economic concentration.
The Department of Justice uses the HHI as part of its evaluation of
market competition. They generally consider a market to be
unconcentrated if the HHI is below 1000. HHIs are calculated by
summing the square of each television owner's percentage of total
television station revenues. The data for our estimate of the HHI
comes from the BIA database which estimates station, owner, and
market revenues. The revenue estimate combines national and local
advertising revenue for each station, owner, and market. The 1997
HHI uses 1997 ownership data, combined with 1996 revenues, and the
1996 HHI uses 1996 ownership data, combined with 1995 revenues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. We seek comment on the effect of this rule on competition and
diversity and whether this rule is no longer necessary in the public
interest as the result of competition. What effect has it had on
competition in the national advertising market or the program
production market at the national level? How does the rule affect
existing television networks or the formation of new networks? We also
seek information on the extent of economies of scale realized as a
result of the consolidation permitted by the Telecom Act.
16. Local Radio Ownership Rules. Section 202(b) of the Telecom Act
directed the Commission to relax its radio multiple ownership rules to
allow common ownership of up to eight radio stations on the local
level, depending on the number of stations in the market. The
Commission has revised its Rules to reflect this mandate.21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Section 202(a) of the Telecom Act directed the Commission
to eliminate its national radio ownership restrictions. The
Commission amended its rules so that there are now no limits on the
number of radio stations that may be owned nationally. Order, 11 FCC
Rcd 12368 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. We will include in the record of this proceeding an FCC staff
report which reviews the response of the radio industry to the revised
rules from March, 1996 to November, 1997. We invite comment on the
information set forth in this staff report. As the report documents,
the number of commercial radio stations has increased 2.5 percent from
10,222 to 10,475. At the same time, there has been a tremendous
increase in the number of station transactions since the passage of the
Telecom Act resulting in an increase in industry concentration. At the
national level, the number of owners of commercial radio stations has
declined by 11.7 percent from 5,105 to 4,507. This decline is primarily
due to mergers between existing owners. The result of these mergers has
been to change the ranking and composition of the top radio station
owners.
18. At the local level, there has been a downward trend in the
number of radio station owners in Arbitron radio Metro markets. The
average number of radio station owners across all radio Metro markets
declined from 12 to 11, a loss of about one owner per market. The top
10 radio Metro markets experienced an average loss of 3 owners per
market, from about 30 owners to about 27 owners per market. The
smallest radio Metro markets (markets 101-265) experienced an average
loss of about one owner per market, from about 9 owners to 8 owners.
Further, the top owners in each Metro market generally account for an
increasing share of total radio advertising revenues in these markets.
For example, the top four radio owners in each Metro market, on
average, account for about 90 percent of their Metro market's total
revenues, compared to about 80 percent in March, 1996. The staff report
also indicates that the average number of distinct radio formats across
all radio Metro markets is 10, remaining unchanged from March, 1996, to
March, 1997.
19. At the industry level, the staff report indicates that publicly
traded companies whose primary business is radio broadcasting are
experiencing robust financial performance. Operating margins have
increased slightly, while their profit margins have varied. This is
largely a result of their increased debt loads. Advertising revenues
have been sufficient, to date, to generate positive cash flow on an
industry-wide basis. This health is reflected in stock returns better
than those of the typical S&P 500 company. The market's valuation of
radio companies suggests that the market is foreseeing future earnings
growth in this industry. The observed consolidation of the radio
industry appears to have had positive financial consequences for these
radio companies.
20. We invite parties to comment on the effect of the local radio
ownership limits on competition in radio. What has been the effect on
competition in the program delivery market? What has been the effect on
competition in the local advertising market? In this regard, the TV
Ownership Further Notice noted that television (broadcast and cable)
and newspapers provided some level of competition to radio in the local
advertising market.22 Is there greater efficiency at the
local level due to consolidation? We ask commenters to provide data
documenting any economic efficiencies and specific cost savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The program production market is national in scope and is,
thus, unaffected by changes in the local radio rule. We further note
that in reviewing radio station mergers under the antitrust laws,
the Department of Justice has taken the position that radio stations
form a distinct local advertising market and that newspapers, cable,
and broadcast television stations are not effective substitutes to
radio stations in this market. See Address of Joel I. Klein,
Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division of the Department of
Justice, ``DOJ Analysis of Radio Mergers'' (Feb. 19, 1997)
(available at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/speeches/jik97219.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. We also seek comment on the impact on diversity in radio. Are
the current ownership limits set forth in our rules no longer necessary
in the public interest? For example, has coverage of news and public
affairs been enhanced as a result? We also note that there has been a
drop in the number of minority-owned radio broadcast stations, as
reported in the annual report released by National Telecommunications
and Information Administration.23 It has been argued that
the change in the radio ownership rules has been detrimental to the
enhancement of ownership by
[[Page 15357]]
minorities and women in the provision of radio service. The Commission
has a statutory obligation under section 309(j) of the Act as well as
an historic commitment to encouraging minority participation in the
telecommunications industry.24 We seek comment on the
relationship between these ownership limits and the opportunity for
minority broadcast station ownership. We also seek comment on any
similar effects on female ownership of broadcast facilities. We invite
commenters to address judicial considerations in this regard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Minority Commercial Broadcast Ownership in the U.S., a
report of the Minority Telecommunications Development Program,
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (August
1997). In this report, the number of minority-owned commercial radio
stations declined from 312 in 1995 to 284 in 1996/97. There are no
statistics available concerning female ownership of broadcast
facilities.
\24\ For a brief historic overview, see generally Notice of
Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket Nos. 94-149 and 91-140, 10 FCC Rcd
2788 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. We invite comment on whether, given the issues raised above, we
should modify the local radio ownership rules in any respect.
Specifically, we seek comment on whether the way in which we count
stations for purposes of applying our local radio ownership rule should
remain the same or be modified in order to more realistically account
for the number of stations in a market. We ask parties to be specific
in any such proposals they advocate.
23. Dual Network Rule. Section 202(e) of the Telecom Act directed
the Commission to revise its ``dual network'' rule.25 Under
the prior dual network rule, the Commission generally prohibited a
party from affiliating with a network organization that maintained more
than one network of television broadcast stations. The Telecom Act
directed the Commission to revise the rule to permit a television
broadcast station to affiliate with a person or entity that maintains
two or more networks of television broadcast stations unless such
networks are composed of: 1) two or more persons or entities that were
``networks'' on the date the Telecom Act was enacted; 26 or
2) any such network and an English-language program distribution
service that on the date of the Telecom Act's enactment provided 4 or
more hours of programming per week on a national basis pursuant to
network affiliation arrangements with local television broadcast
stations in markets reaching more than 75 percent of television
households.27 The Commission amended its dual network rule
to reflect this directive.28 We believe, at this time, that
no broadcast television network has begun to deliver a dual stream of
video programming. We seek comment on whether the current dual network
rule is no longer in the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 47 CFR 73.658(g).
\26\ A ``network'' is defined with reference to 47 CFR
73.3613(a)(1) for this purpose.
\27\ The Conference Report stated that the Commission was being
directed to revise its dual network rule ``to permit a television
station to affiliate with a person or entity that maintains two or
more networks unless such dual or multiple networks are composed of
(1) two or more of the four existing networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX)
or, (2) any of the four existing networks and one of the two
emerging networks (WBTN, UPN).'' S. Rep. No. 230, 104th Cong., 2d
Sess. at 163.
\28\ Order, 11 FCC Rcd 12374 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Remaining Rules
24. The UHF Television Discount. The national television ownership
rule states that an entity may own any number of television stations
(subject to the restrictions of the local ownership rule) so long as
the combined audience reach of the stations does not exceed 35 percent,
as measured by the number of television households in their respective
ADIs. Under our rules, UHF television stations are attributed with 50
percent of the television households in their ADI market.29
The Commission has stated that it would review the UHF discount in the
biennial ownership review.30
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 47 CFR 73.3555(e)(2)(i).
\30\ Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket Nos. 96-222,
91-221 and 87-8, 11 FCC Rcd 19949, 19956 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. The Commission adopted the UHF discount in 1985 due to concerns
that UHF station signals generally cannot reach as large an audience as
VHF station signals.31 Since that time we have observed in
other contexts that this UHF signal disparity has been ameliorated over
the years.32 This is due in part to improved television
receiver designs, as well as the fact that many households receive
broadcast channels via cable rather than by over-the-air transmission.
When the UHF discount was adopted in 1985, cable passed approximately
60 percent of all television households 33 and had
approximately 32 million subscribers.34 Today, the pass rate
has risen to 97.1 percent with approximately 64.2 million
subscribers.35 Moreover, the Supreme Court has recently
upheld the constitutionality of the ``must-carry'' rules which require
cable systems to carry local television broadcast
stations.36 Parties have nonetheless urged us to continue
the UHF discount policy given the significant number of television
households that do not subscribe to cable.37
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Memorandum Opinion and Order in Gen. Docket No. 83-
1009, 100 FCC 2d 74, 92-94 (1985).
\32\ See Report and Order in MM Docket No. 94-123, 11 FCC Rcd
546, 583-86 (1995) (repealing the prime time access rule); Report
and Order in MM Docket No. 87-68, 3 FCC Rcd 638 (1988), clarified 4
FCC Rcd 2276 (1989) (eliminating the policy under which applications
to initiate or improve VHF service were considered contrary to the
public interest if they threatened adverse economic impact on
existing or potential UHF stations).
\33\ Estimate based on data in Television Factbook (Cable and
Services volume, 1986 ed.), pp. A39 and A44.
\34\ See 1997 Television and Cable Factbook at F-1.
\35\ Fourth Annual Report, supra at para. 14-15.
\36\ Turner Broadcasting Systems., Inc. v. FCC, 117 S. Ct. 1174
(1997).
\37\ See Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket No. 96-222,
11 FCC Rcd 19952-54 (1996) (summarizing comments on issue of whether
UHF discount policy should be retained).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. We request comment in this proceeding on whether the UHF
discount should be retained, modified, or eliminated. In this regard,
commenters may wish to address whether the discount, at its current
level, remains appropriate in light of the decreasing disparity between
VHF and UHF television due to improvements in transmission and
reception technology, cable carriage of UHF television stations under
our must-carry rules, and increasing cable penetration. Is there any
evidence that the current UHF discount provides a competitive advantage
to networks that own UHF stations? While the audience reach of many
group owners are unaffected, the reach of several group owners,
including Fox and Paxson, would exceed the national reach cap were it
not for the discount. Should we decide that the discount be retained in
some form for analog television, does it make sense to retain such a
discount at all once we have transitioned to digital television
transmission? At that time, we expect broadcast television stations
will be operating on ``core'' channels, most of which are currently
allotted to UHF television.38 Finally, if the discount were
reduced or eliminated, in what manner should group owners that exceed
the new limits be grandfathered?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of the
Sixth Report and Order in MM Docket No. 87-268, FCC 98-24 (released
February 23, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. Daily Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-ownership Rule. The daily
newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule prohibits the common ownership
of a broadcast station and a daily newspaper in the same
locale.39 The Commission adopted the rule in
1975.40 Like all of
[[Page 15358]]
our multiple ownership rules, the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership
rule rests on the twin goals of promoting diversity and economic
competition.41 The Commission determined that, as a general
rule, granting a broadcast license to an entity in the same community
as that in which the entity also publishes a newspaper would harm
diversity.42 Although the Commission, in adopting the rule,
noted its expectation that there could be meritorious waiver requests,
it set forth very stringent waiver criteria.43 As a result,
only two cases, both involving television/newspaper combinations, have
been found to warrant permanent waiver of the rule.44
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ The rule provides that: No license for an AM, FM or TV
broadcast station shall be granted to any party (including all
parties under common control) if such party directly or indirectly
owns, operates or controls a daily newspaper and the grant of such
license will result in: (1) The predicted or measured 2 mV/m contour
of an AM station, computed in accordance with Sec. 73.183 or
Sec. 73.186, encompassing the entire community in which such
newspaper is published; or (2) The predicted 1 mV/m contour for an
FM station, computed in accordance with Sec. 73.313, encompassing
the entire community in which such newspaper is published; or (3)
The Grade A contour of a TV station, computed in accordance with
Sec. 73.684, encompassing the entire community in which such
newspaper is published. 47 CFR 73.3555(d).
\40\ Multiple Ownership of Standard, FM, and Television
Broadcast Stations, Second Report and Order, 50 FCC 2d 1046 (1975)
(``Second Report and Order''), recon., 53 FCC 2d 589 (1975)
(``Recon. Order''), aff'd sub nom. Federal Communications Commission
v. National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting, supra. The
provisions of 47 CFR 73.3555 do not apply to noncommercial
educational FM and TV stations. See 47 CFR 73.3555(f).
\41\ Second Report and Order, supra at 1074.
\42\ Id. at 1075.
\43\ The criteria are: 1) inability to sell the station; 2) the
only possibility of the station's sale would be at an artificially
reduced price; 3) separate ownership and operation of the newspaper
and the broadcast station could not be supported in the locality;
and 4) the purposes of the rule would be disserved by its
application or application of the rule would be unduly harsh.
\44\ Field Communications Corp., 65 FCC 2d 959 (1977); Fox
Television Stations Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 5341, 5349 (1993); aff'd sub
nom. Metropolitan Council of NAACP Branches v. FCC, 46 F.3d 1154
(D.C. Cir. 1995). In both cases, the combination had previously been
owned by the same or substantially the same parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. In 1996, the Commission opened an inquiry to consider amending
the waiver policy with respect to newspaper/radio
combinations.45 Since the scope of this biennial ownership
review encompasses the issues raised in the outstanding NOI, we will
place the comments we have already received into the record of this
review and take them into account in our review of the broader rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See Notice of Inquiry in MM Docket No. 96-197, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. Additionally, we note that a Petition for Rulemaking seeking
elimination of the rule in its entirety was filed by the Newspaper
Association of America (``NAA'') on April 28, 1997.46 We
will place this filing in the record of this proceeding and invite
comment on the merits of the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See Newspaper Association of America, Petition for
Rulemaking in the matter of amendment of section 73.3555 of the
Commission's Rules to eliminate restrictions on newspaper/broadcast
station cross-ownership (April 28, 1997) (``NAA Petition'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. Generally, the NAA Petition argues that in adopting the rule
there never was a record of evidence that cross-owned stations engaged
in anti-competitive practices. NAA further argues that, whatever the
FCC's original reasons for the rule were, ``[i]n the abundantly diverse
and highly competitive mass media marketplace of the late 1990s,
maintenance of these selective cross-ownership restrictions is
unnecessary, discriminatory, and unjustifiable.'' 47 NAA
points to relaxation in other Commission ownership rules 48
and argues that the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule unfairly
singles out newspaper publishers, denying them the ability to realize
efficiencies and synergies while leaving their competitors free to do
so.49 NAA also argues that relaxation of the newspaper/
broadcast cross-ownership rule will help preserve newspapers and
broadcast stations as viable media outlets and enhance diversity.
Finally, NAA asserts that the rule is inconsistent with the First
Amendment and that courts today would require a far stronger showing
than was made in 1975 to support such a direct limitation on the free
speech rights of a particular class of citizens.'' 50
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Id. at 16.
\48\ Id. at 40.
\49\ Id. at 38 et seq.
\50\ NAA Petition at 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. A number of parties, however, have argued for the continuation
of the rule. Supporters of the rule commenting in the Notice of Inquiry
on our newspaper/radio waiver policy contend that daily newspapers
often dominate the local advertising market and to give a party with
such dominance a broadcast outlet would allow it to exercise market
power with respect to the local advertising market.51
Supporters also contend that newspaper/broadcast combinations would
give a single entity too much of a voice with respect to forming
opinion on public issues. The new media pointed to by opponents of the
rule, they state, do not add significant local viewpoints, are not
locally based, and do not provide news or information on local
issues.52 Although supporters of the rule agree that cable
television and the Internet have the potential to facilitate debate on
local issues, they dispute that they yet serve that purpose to any
significant degree and argue that these media are costly and do not
reach large segments of the community.53
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ See Comments of David E. Hoxeng d/b/a ADX Communications in
MM Docket No. 96-197 at 2. Hoxeng provides as an example San
Antonio, TX, where, he states, the cost-per-thousand to newspaper
advertisers skyrocketed following the buyout and closure of one San
Antonio daily by the other. Id. at 2-3. See also Comments of
Tennessee Association of Broadcasters filed in MM Docket No. 96-197
at 5.
\52\ See Joint Comments of Black Citizens for a Fair Media et
al. filed in MM Docket No. 96-197 at 18-19.
\53\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. We invite comment on these competing positions with respect to
the newspaper cross-ownership restriction. We specifically ask
commenters to address whether the rule should be retained, modified or
eliminated.
33. Competitive Effects on the Market for Delivered Programming.
Since newspapers do not operate in the market for delivered video or
audio programming, allowing cross-ownership between television and
newspapers in a local market would not appear to harm competition in
the market for delivered video or video programming. We invite comment
on this view.
34. Competitive Effects on the Market for Advertising. In the TV
Ownership Further Notice we tentatively considered that the local
advertising market includes video advertising (broadcast and cable),
radio advertising and newspaper advertising.54 Total local
advertising revenue for radio, television, newspaper, and cable was $68
billion in 1996. Local radio accounted for $12 billion (17.2 percent of
the total), television accounted for $21 billion (30.3 percent),
newspapers accounted for $34 billion (49.7 percent), and cable
accounted for $2 billion (2.9 percent).55 Permitting the
owner of a broadcast TV or radio station to own a newspaper, or vice
versa, could give the company the market power to raise local radio,
television, and/or newspaper advertising rates, depending on the market
share of the combined entity. We invite comment and evidence on this
issue, and on the levels of local advertising share that might give
rise to competitive concern. Commenters may also wish to comment on
NAA's views concerning competition in the advertising market. While
newspaper local advertising revenue may be as large as combined
television and radio local advertising revenues, NAA argues that it
includes newspaper classified advertisements, a market in which
broadcast stations do not compete with newspapers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Allowing such joint ownership should have no effect on
competition in the national advertising market because of
differences in the geographic dimensions of this market.
\55\ ''Estimated Annual U.S. Advertising Expenditures 1990--
1996,'' Prepared for Advertising Age by Robert J. Coen, McCann-
Erickson.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. Competitive Effects on the Program Production Market.
Newspapers, being a print medium, are not a participant in the video
and audio program production markets. Thus, relaxing this rule would
not appear to
[[Page 15359]]
harm competition in these supply markets. We invite comment on this
view.
36. Other Economic Effects. Broadcaster and newspaper interests
have long made the argument that the quality of news and public affairs
programming to the public, a core concern of the Commission, could be
enhanced if broadcasters could share in the expertise of a newspaper's
operations. We seek comment on this issue. Could the same beneficial
results be achieved through non-attributable joint ventures? Studies
documenting and comparing the news and public affairs programming of
existing newspaper/broadcast combinations with the news and public
affairs programming of broadcast facilities that are not owned by a
newspaper in the same geographic market would be particularly
informative.
37. Similar claims have been made with respect to efficiencies
realized as a result of the combination's advertising sales force.
While any realized reduction in expenses could make the joint
enterprise more economically viable than the separate operations were
before the combination took place, we are most interested in whether
such efficiencies would produce benefits for broadcast audiences and
advertisers. We seek comment on this view.
38. Effects on Diversity. The newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership
rule is intended to promote media diversity on the local level. The
maintenance of such diversity has been a central Commission objective
since its establishment. However, there have been changes since the
rule was adopted. For example, the Commission now allows some cross-
ownership between television and radio stations in the same local
market and Congress has directed us to relax our local radio ownership
limitations. In addition, there has been an increase in the number of
radio and TV stations and local newspapers. We must examine the rule in
this context, but with a full recognition of the importance of
diversity in local markets. Clearly, combined operations reduce the
number of separately owned outlets. We seek comment on the impact of
this reduction on the public interest. We also seek comment on whether
and to what extent, newspapers and broadcast stations under common
ownership express contrasting points of view or cover each other in a
critical manner.
39. In this regard, we point out that television, newspapers, and
radio continue to be America's major source of news.56 The
Roper survey found that more than two-thirds of Americans usually get
their news from television, and 37 percent from newspapers.
57 The survey indicated that Americans also rely on radio as
a news source, but to a lesser extent than television and newspapers.
We consequently wish to proceed cautiously in this area and seek
comment on how the public's reliance on these media for news would be
affected if we were to relax this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ America's Watching: Public Attitudes Toward Television
1997, Roper Starch Worldwide Inc.
\57\ Respondents were permitted to name more than one news
source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40. The combination of a large daily newspaper and a large
broadcast station could have a significant impact on diversity. We seek
comment on whether the impact on diversity depends on the relative size
of the newspaper and broadcast facility involved in a potential merger.
Commenters should also address NAA's argument that various pay video
delivery services and other informational media, together with an
increase in broadcast stations and weekly newspapers, sufficient to
assure diversity in the absence of the rule? Or, as argued by opponents
of relaxation of the rule, are such other informational media too
limited in availability or use, or do such media provide insufficient
information on issues of local concern to offset the loss of diversity
on the local level that would accompany elimination or relaxation of
the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule? We also seek comment on
how diversity is served in suburban markets where the appropriate
outlets to be examined may include metropolitan television and radio
stations and community or suburban newspapers rather than newspapers in
the major city.
41. Cable/Television Cross-ownership Rule. Section 76.501(a) of the
Commission's Rules effectively prohibits common ownership of a
broadcast television station and cable system in the same local
community.58 The Telecom Act eliminated a similar statutory
prohibition.59
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ The rule prohibits a cable operator from carrying any
broadcast television station if it directly or indirectly owns,
operates, controls, or has an interest in a television broadcast
station whose predicted Grade B signal contour overlaps any part of
the area within which its cable system is serving subscribers.
\59\ See Subsection 202(i) of the Telecom Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. The rule was adopted in 1970 in order to further the
Commission's policy of promoting diversity in local mass communications
media.60 In adopting the rule, the Commission made clear
that it was avoiding any ban on joint ownership of a television
broadcast station and cable system not located in the same area. ``It
is not our desire to keep television broadcasters out of the CATV
industry, but to avoid over-concentrations of media control . . . we
should have no objection to exchange of CATV systems among broadcasters
which would maintain their involvement in the CATV industry while
eliminating local cross-ownerships.'' 61
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Amendment of Part 74, Subpart K, of the Commission's Rules
and Regulations Relative to Community Antenna Television Systems;
and Inquiry Into the Development of Communications Technology and
Services to Formulate Regulatory Policy and Rulemaking and/or
Legislative Proposals, Second Report and Order, in Docket No. 18397,
23 F.C.C. 2d 816, 820 (1970).
\61\ Id. at 821.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. This is the first time since adopting the cable/television
cross-ownership rule that the Commission has reviewed the rule. Indeed,
since 1984, the rule was required by statute.62 When the
Telecom Act eliminated the statutory provision, the Conference Report
clarified that repeal of the prohibition should not prejudge the
outcome of any review by the Commission of its rules regarding cable/
broadcast cross-ownership.63 The Telecom Act also eliminated
our rule prohibiting broadcast television networks from owning or
controlling cable systems.64 While broadcast television
networks are now statutorily permitted to buy cable systems, they are
still generally precluded from doing so on any significant basis by the
cable/broadcast cross-ownership rule, because the networks are also
broadcast television licensees. We seek comment on whether this rule
should be retained, modified or eliminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 added section
613 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C. 533).
Section 613(a)(1) of the Act provided that ``It shall be unlawful
for any person to be a cable operator if such person, directly or
through 1 or more affiliates, owns or controls, the licensee of a
television broadcast station and the predicted grade B contour of
such station covers any portion of the community served by such
operator's cable system.'' That provision was eliminated by section
202(i) of the Telecom Act.
\63\ House Rep. No. 458, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. at 164.
\64\ See Subsection 202(f) of the Telecom Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
44. Effects on the Market for Delivered Programming. Television
stations compete in the market for delivered video programming with
cable system operators, wireless cable operators and possibly with DBS
operators serving their ``local'' market. We note that in its Fourth
Annual Report on the status of competition in the market for the
delivery of multichannel video programming, the Commission stated that
``local markets for the delivery of
[[Page 15360]]
video programming generally remain highly concentrated and continue to
be characterized by some barriers to entry and expansion by potential
competitors to incumbent cable systems.'' 65 While the
ability of the broadcast spectrum to compete as a transmission medium
with cable is effectively limited by the amount of broadcast spectrum
and channels that are assigned to television markets, the Report notes
that DTV has the potential to allow the broadcasters to become more
effective competitors with cable companies in the multichannel video
programming distribution market. 66
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Fourth Annual Report, supra at para. 11. Section 628(g) of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, requires the Commission
to report annually to Congress on the status of competition in the
market for the delivery of video programming. Congress imposed this
annual reporting requirement as one means of obtaining information
on the competitive status of markets for the delivery of
multichannel video programming delivery that would aid both Congress
and the Commission in determining when there was competition
sufficient to reduce or eliminate many of the regulatory restraints
imposed on the cable industry.
\66\ Fourth Annual Report, supra at para. 95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
45. We seek comment on the relevance of our conclusions in the
Fourth Annual Report on our consideration of competitors to broadcast
television. We seek comment on whether these changed market
circumstances render our rule unnecessary. Also, we seek comment on the
possible effects that repeal or relaxation of the cable/television
cross-ownership rule may have on the market for delivered programming
in particular. Would common ownership of a cable system and a
television station increase or diminish the program choices, or the
preferred programs, available to audiences? Would repeal or relaxation
raise competition concerns in this market? Could relaxation of the rule
result in public interest benefits? Could the same beneficial results
be achieved through non-attributable joint ventures? Should a
distinction be made in judging the effect of this rule on local versus
national programming?
46. Effects on the Market for Advertising. Allowing joint ownership
of a television station and a cable system in a local market might give
the joint owner the economic power to raise its advertising rates
within the local service area if, by virtue of the combination, the
local market became concentrated.67 Evidence on whether
significant market power in the local advertising market already exists
is mixed. As we stated earlier, total local advertising for these media
was $68.5 billion in 1996. Local cable advertising revenues were small
($2.0 billion, 2.9 percent of total local advertising) when compared to
local commercial broadcast television station advertising revenues
($20.7 billion, 30.3 percent of total local advertising), but they are
increasing in size and importance.68 Radio local advertising
revenues accounted for $11.7 billion (17.2 percent of total local
advertising) and newspaper accounted for $34 billion (49.7 percent of
total local advertising). Prior studies have found mixed evidence
regarding the impact of cable on broadcast TV station advertising
revenues.69 Thus, at this time, it is not clear whether
cable system operators offer effective competition to broadcast station
operators in providing local advertising.70
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Allowing such joint ownership should have no effect on
competition in the national advertising market because of
differences in the geographic dimensions of this market.
\68\ ``Estimated Annual U.S. Advertising expenditures 1990-
1996,'' Prepared for Advertising Age by Robert J. Coen, McCann-
Erickson. See also Bernstein Research, Network Television Primer,
February 1998 at 6 (showing advertising growth rates for cable
networks and television).
\69\ TV Ownership Further Notice, supra at 3571.
\70\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
47. When considering advertising substitutes, we recognize that
while many firms use a mix of video, audio, print, and other media to
advertise their products and services, some firms may rely on video
advertising almost exclusively and are, therefore, most affected by any
market power that might be created by a modification to this rule. We
have previously noted that it is not clear how substitutable radio and
newspaper local advertising is for broadcast television local
advertising.71 We seek information and data about the
appropriate scope of the product and geographic advertising market
within which television stations and cable systems compete. Statistical
evidence supporting fact-based analysis on the substitutability of
these media in the local advertising market will especially be welcome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
48. Effects on the Program Production Markets. We specifically seek
comment on whether the cable/broadcast television rule is no longer
necessary in light of the current state of the program production
market. The program market could be affected if Commission modification
or elimination of the cable/television cross-ownership rule permitted a
cable/television combination to exercise market power in the purchase
of video programming for delivery in the local market. We seek comment
on whether cable/broadcast television combinations could exercise
monopsony power--i.e., the ability of the cable/television combination
to artificially restrict the price paid for programming. We solicit
evidence on the potential market power in the program production market
if we were to eliminate or relax the cable/television cross-ownership
rule. Specifically, we seek comment on whether other broadcast stations
and alternative providers of delivered video programming (e.g., MMDS
and DBS) may mitigate a cable/television combination's potential for
monopsony power by providing program producers with additional local
outlets for their product. We ask commenters to address whether our
analysis of this issue is affected by whether the programming in
question is network-provided programming, syndicated programming sold
on a national basis, or programming produced for particular local
markets. We also seek comment on the potential for a cable/television
combination to deny alternative providers of delivered video
programming access to the programming of the television station
involved in the cable/television combination. On a related matter, we
seek comment on whether our channel positioning and must-carry rules
provide sufficient protection to ensure that if a cable company owns a
local television station, the cable company could not discriminate in
favor of its owned television station.
49. Other Economic Effects. Allowing cable/television cross-
ownership within a local market may permit an entity to realize
economies of scale, reducing the costs of operations. Joint ownership
may permit cost-sharing in administrative and overhead expenses,
sharing of personnel, joint advertising sales, and the pooling of
resources for local program production (such as news and public affairs
programming). The cost savings from these economies could then be used
to provide better programming to the public, better coverage of local
issues and possibly lower the cost of advertising and/or increase the
quality of service available to advertisers. We seek evidence from
commenters of the existence and magnitude of such economies and whether
they can be reached through alternatives to common ownership, e.g.,
joint ventures. In addition, we ask commenters to describe how likely
such economies are to be passed on to audiences and advertisers.
50. Effects on Diversity. Our concern with diversity is most acute
with respect to local ownership issues. Both television and competing
video outlets are viewed at the local level. We ask
[[Page 15361]]
commenters to address the impact on diversity if we were to modify or
eliminate the cable/television cross-ownership rule. Would any and all
cable/television combinations lead to greater harm to diversity than
other ownership combinations that Congress or the Commission permit?
Since cable and broadcast television may be the closest substitutes in
the video marketplace, should the Commission be especially vigilant in
promoting diversity in the context of this rule?
51. Experimental Broadcast Stations. Subpart A of part 74 of the
Commission's Rules 72 provides for the licensing of
experimental broadcast stations. These are stations ``licensed for
experimental or developmental transmissions of radio telephony,
television, facsimile, or other types of telecommunication services
intended for reception and use by the general public.'' 73 A
multiple ownership rule pertaining to experimental broadcast stations
prohibits any person (or persons under common control) from controlling
directly or indirectly two or more experimental broadcast stations
unless it can be shown that the research program requires the licensing
of two or more separate stations.74
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ 47 CFR 74.101--74.184.
\73\ 47 CFR 74.101.
\74\ 47 CFR 74.134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
52. Because this is an ownership rule pertaining to a type of
broadcast station, we believe that section 202(h) of the Telecom Act
requires the Commission to review the rule as part of its biennial
broadcast ownership review. However, experimental broadcast stations
generally are prohibited from providing regular program
service.75 Accordingly, it does not appear that they
significantly participate in competitive or diversity markets.
Nevertheless, we seek comment on whether this rule remains in the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ 47 CFR 74.182.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Waivers
53. As we begin this first biennial review of our broadcast
ownership rules, we believe it is important to review and restate our
approach to granting conditional waivers of broadcast ownership rules
which are under active consideration by the Commission in a rulemaking
or inquiry proceeding. Generally, we have not granted conditional
waivers of a broadcast ownership rule simply on the grounds that the
rule was the subject of an ongoing rulemaking or inquiry proceeding,
believing that such a blanket approach would make our enforcement
processes unworkable and would subject our regulatees to undesirable
levels of uncertainty. Perhaps more importantly, such an approach would
necessarily assume that compliance with the subject rule during the
pendency of its review was not in the public interest, an assumption
which would ordinarily lack a substantial record basis at the notice of
inquiry or notice of proposed rulemaking stage of a proceeding.
Nonetheless, there are limited areas of our broadcast ownership waiver
practice where we have consciously departed from this general approach.
54. For example, in certain cases in recent years the Commission
has granted interim waivers or extensions where a pending proceeding is
examining the rule in question, the Commission concludes that the
application before it falls within the scope of the proposals in the
proceeding, and a grant of an interim waiver would be consistent with
the Commission's goals of competition and diversity. This is most
likely to occur where protracted rulemaking proceedings are involved
and where a substantial record exists on which to base a preliminary
inclination to relax or eliminate a rule. An example of this situation
involves the TV duopoly rule geographic market standard currently under
review in our local ownership rulemaking.76
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ See Second Further Notice in MM Docket No. 91-221 & 87-7,
11 FCC Rcd 21655, 21681 (1996) (Commission states that granting
waivers satisfying the proposed standard would not adversely affect
its competition and diversity goals in the interim).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
55. In contrast to those situations, in our first biennial review
of our broadcast ownership rules, we do not believe it appropriate to
provide for conditional waiver of any of the ownership rules under
review in this proceeding solely because of the pendency of this
review. Here, for example, we do not have a protracted proceeding or
substantial record on any of these rules that leads us to initial
conclusions about any specific proposals to modify or eliminate any of
the rules at issue here. In addition, we do not have substantial waiver
experience suggesting an appropriate course of action regarding the
rules under review herein. We retain, of course, both the right and the
obligation to review any request for waiver of our rules based upon the
specific facts in a particular case. What is important is whether the
public interest would be served by a grant of the waiver.77
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ See WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir.
1969).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
56. We are aware that in at least one case a conditional waiver of
the radio-newspaper cross-ownership rule has been granted based upon
the pendency of a proceeding.78 To the extent that this
decision suggests that the pendency of a proceeding by itself would be
sufficient basis for a waiver, it is superseded, although as a matter
of equity we do not alter its governance of the situation to which it
was addressed.79
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ Letter to Joel Rosenbloom from Chief, Mass Media Bureau
concerning ABC/Capital Cities-Disney Company merger, dated October
24, 1996, p. 2.
\79\ We note that the staff, on March 6, 1998, granted an
extension of the Tribune Company's temporary waiver to commonly own
a television station and newspaper in the Miami, Florida market.
Stockholders of Renaissance Communications Corporation, DA 98-456
(MMB March 6, 1998). That action was based on special circumstances
and does not, in our view, stand in contradiction to the conditional
waiver standard we articulate here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Conclusion
57. By this Notice, we solicit comments on these and any other
issues pertinent to our review of our broadcast ownership and other
rules. Commenters should frame their discussion and analysis in a
manner consistent with our framework for addressing our historic
competition and diversity concerns. We ask commenters to provide data
and evidence to support their positions so as to facilitate objective
analysis of the issues raised.
Administrative Matters
58. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in sections 1.415
and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested
parties may file comments on or before May 22, 1998, and reply comments
on or before June 22, 1998. To file formally in this proceeding, you
must file an original plus six copies of all comments, reply comments,
and supporting comments. If you want each Commissioner to receive a
personal copy of your comments, you must file an original plus eleven
copies. You should send comments and reply comments to Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and reply comments will be available
for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC
Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20554. Copies may be obtained through the Commission's contract copier,
International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20036. ITS can also be reached at (202)857-3800 or by
facsimile at (202)857-3805.
59. Subject to the provisions of 47 CFR 1.1203 concerning
``Sunshine
[[Page 15362]]
Period'' prohibitions, this proceeding is exempt from ex parte
restraints and disclosure requirements pursuant to 47 CFR 1.1204(b)(1).
60. Accordingly, it is ordered that pursuant to the authority
contained in sections 4, 11, 303, and 403 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 161, 303, and 403, and 202(h) of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, this Notice of Inquiry is adopted.
Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-8276 Filed 3-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
