TESTIMONY OF FCC COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS U.S.…

       TESTIMONY OF FCC COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS
        U.S. HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
   SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET
   "OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION:
                      MEDIA OWNERSHIP"
                       DECEMBER 5, 2007

       Good morning Chairman Dingell, Chairman Markey, Ranking Members Barton

and Upton and Members of the Committee.

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

dangerously off course, and I fear that at this point only Congressional oversight can put

us back on track. The Chairman is proposing that, just two weeks from now, the FCC

open the door to newspaper-broadcast combinations in every market in the country. At

the same time, we have given short shrift to pressing problems like the sad state of

minority ownership of U.S. media properties, the obvious decline of localism in our

broadcast programming, and a DTV transition that holds real potential for television

outages and a consumer backlash the likes of which you and I haven't seen for a long,

long time.

        Let me begin with media ownership. The proposal in front of the Commission

has been portrayed as a "moderate" relaxation of the newspaper-broadcast cross-

ownership ban in the 20 largest markets. But look carefully at the fine print. The

proposal would actually apply the same test in every market in the country. That's

right--any station can merge with any newspaper in any market in the country. The only

difference is that in the top 20 markets you start with a presumption that you meet the

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

       And that's the rub. The four factors proposed by the Chairman are about as tough

as a bowl of Jell-O. You don't even have to meet them all--it's just a list of things the
FCC will "consider." Given how the FCC has "considered" media regulation in recent

years, I have about as much confidence that a proposed combination will be turned down

as I do that the next Commission meeting will start on time.

       This is not the only example of media regulation that seems like a chapter from

Alice in Wonderland. Just last week, an FCC majority ostensibly "denied" Tribune a

waiver before turning around and granting a two-year waiver if and when Tribune files an

appeal. The majority turned these unprecedented legal summersaults to push Tribune to

challenge the newspaper-broadcast cross ownership ban in a court they think may be

more sympathetic to their cause than the Third Circuit.

       There's still more evidence of the real agenda at play. I've given Chairman

Martin credit for holding six media hearings around the country. No one knows better

than the American people whether they are being served by their local media. And at

each stop, all of the Commissioners agreed--the public needs to be heard before the FCC

acts on a subject as important as the American media.

       Hundreds and hundreds of citizens came out at great inconvenience to

themselves--and often waited for hours--to provide their testimony. Throughout the

process, many openly questioned whether the hearings were real or just cover for a pre-

determined outcome. Those questions gained credence last month when our last media

ownership meeting was announced for Seattle with only one week's notice. Well, last

week we may have gotten our answer. I went through the draft Order to see how it

handled the hundreds of public statements at these hearings. While there is a passing

reference to the public hearings, not a single citizen's testimony is specifically cited or

discussed. I was flabbergasted. The whole point of these hearings was to gather




                                            -2-
evidence from the American people--and the Order does not find a single comment

worthy of mention?

       So then I went through the draft to look for the public input from our six separate

localism field hearings, which the Further Notice stated would be considered as part of

the media ownership record. Again, not a single citizen's testimony is specifically cited

or discussed. It's hard to reach any conclusion other than public comment is largely

extraneous to the process. What else are we to think when a draft Order is circulated two

weeks before public comment is due on the proposal?

       I realize we are not taking a public opinion poll in this proceeding. But public

comment deserves more consideration than this. As anyone who attended these hearings

can tell you, calls for more media consolidation were few and far between. Indeed, a

recent survey finds that 70 percent of Americans view media consolidation as a problem.

And by an almost two-to-one margin, they believe newspapers should not own TV

stations in the same market and they want laws to make sure that can't happen. Those

poll numbers are consistent across the political spectrum. So this is no red state-blue

state issue. It is an all-American grassroots issue.

       I recognize that there is another possibility--that this is simply a rush job to be

completed any way possible by December 18, so there just wasn't enough time to

consider the full record. Whatever the reason, there is only one way to do this job and

that is to do it right. The issues are too important to address in a slapdash manner.

       No one on this Commission, even if some feel differently about the pros and cons

of changing the ownership rules, should want to perpetuate those kinds of appearance




                                            -3-
issues about the FCC. We need a process that allays fears rather than one that creates

them.

        In the meantime, I believe that there are two policy goals on which we need to

make real progress--minority and female ownership is one, localism is the other. These

issues have been languishing for years at the FCC. We always seem to be running a fast-

break when it comes to more media consolidation, but it's the four-corner stall when it

comes to minority and female ownership and ensuring that broadcasters serve their local

communities.

        Racial and ethnic minorities make up 33 percent of our population but they own

only 3.26% of the full-power commercial TV stations. And that number is plummeting.

Free Press just recently released a study showing that during the past year the number of

minority-owned full-power commercial television stations declined by 8.5%, and the

number of African American-owned stations decreased by nearly 60%. It is almost

inconceivable that this shameful state of affairs could be getting worse; yet here we are.

        It may be difficult for you to believe, but the Commission doesn't even have an

accurate count of minority and female ownership. That is indicative of the lack of

priority the Commission has attached to minority ownership in recent years.

        There are recommendations that have been presented to address the issue, both by

outside commenters and our own Diversity Committee. These need to be put together in

a comprehensive and systematic response to a problem that is a national disgrace. And it

is a national disgrace to have a media environment that is so blatantly unreflective of how

we look as a nation. I support Commissioner Adelstein's call, joined by many others, for

an independent panel to review the dozens of proposals before us. We need to fix this




                                            -4-
problem before voting on any proposals permitting big media to get even bigger. Why

should we change the ownership rules now, putting into play the very stations that small,

independent, minority broadcasters could have a shot at if they had the proper

incentives? Why would we even consider that?

        It's the same story on localism. A draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was

recently circulated, apparently on the basis that asking questions is sufficient to "check

the box" so a Commission majority can move forward to loosen the newspaper-broadcast

cross-ownership ban. But localism must never be seen as a means to an end--it is an end

in itself. It is at the heart of what the public interest is all about. All deliberate speed in

getting some localism back? By all means. A rush to judgment to clear the way for more

big media mergers? No way.

        And in all this haste to give big media a nice present for the holidays, critical

issues are being neglected. We are 14 short months from a massive DTV transition that

will directly affect millions of American households. We have one chance to get this

right. Unlike many countries that are taking a phased approach, we are turning off analog

signals in every market in the country on a single date.

        I recently traveled to the United Kingdom to witness the first stage of their DTV

transition. I was concerned before going over there; I am thoroughly alarmed now. The

UK is taking the transition seriously, and has put together the kind of well-funded and

well-coordinated public-private partnership that I, and many of you, have been calling for

over here.

        There are two basic things that need to happen for a successful transition on

February 17, 2009. Number one, we have to get consumers ready. We have a pending




                                              -5-
consumer education proceeding that could help ensure that the message is getting out in a

coordinated and effective way. But no vote has been scheduled to get it done.

          The second thing that has to happen is broadcasters need to get ready. Hundreds

of stations need to take significant action in the next 14 months. Things like new

antennas and transmitters, new tower construction, and new transmission lines--all of

which can require financing, zoning approvals, tower crews, or international

coordination. But many broadcasters need to know what the technical rules of the road

are going to be before they can move forward. Those issues are teed up in a proceeding

called the "Third DTV Periodic Review." That proceeding also proposed to have every

station in the country file a progress report--where they stand now, what more they need

to do, and how they propose to get there. The record in the Third Periodic Review has

been closed for months. No one but the FCC can make these decisions. Indeed, the

original proposal called for the station reports to be filed by December 1 of this year so

we could report to Congress about potential trouble spots with enough time to take

action.

          And yet--inexplicably--no draft Third Periodic Order has yet been circulated to

the Commission for a vote. We need to address these issues now. Already, I fear that

many broadcasters simply aren't going to make it. If we don't start making the DTV

transition a national priority, we will almost certainly have a 9-car train wreck on our

hands. And the American people will be looking for someone to blame. Those of us

who plan to be on duty in February 2009 are going to need some real good answers.

          Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I look forward to your questions.




                                             -6-