Working with your cable affiliates as we explore america. Next, the federal Communications Commission needs to consider a proposed rule change to broadcast ownership rules that would impact a merger between the Sinclair Broadcast Group and the tribune corporation. Before meeting was just over four hours. We will show you about 90 minutes of it. We will now proceed to a vote. [roll call] the item is adopted the privileges granted as requested. Thanks to the staff for the presentation. Madame secretary, please take us to item number six on the agenda. Mr. Tremaine and sharon and mr. Commissioners, the next item of the presented by the bureau and ibureauand is entitled 2014l give up a great review of the Commission Broadcast Ownership rules and other rules adopted for 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 96 and michelle perry, chief of the bureau will give the introduction. Thank you very much, madame secretary. Whenever you are ready. Good afternoon, chairman and commissioners. We are pleased to present an order on reconsideration and notice of the rule making that t modernizes the Commission Broadcast Ownership rules to reflect the realities of the modern marketplace and seeks to comment on how to structure and implement the program to facilitate new entry in the broadcast industry. Joining me at the table are Benjamin Arden and the media bureau. Chad will present the item. We present to you this order which repeals and moderate restrictions initiated in keeping her program to help facilitate the entry of the new and diverse broadcast industry and how to structure this as appropriate. The commission is required by statute review the ownership top rules that before heres a too determine whether they are necessary in the Public Interest as the competition. And to review and modify any regulation the commission determines to be no longer in the Public Interest. August of last year the Commission Adopted a second report were completed in 2010 and 2014 review of the rules. Several parties saw the consideration of the aspects in the second report order and todays Order Granting part three petitions for reconsideration finding that many of the ownership restrictions about were maintained in order are not supported by the record and must be repealed or modified. Specifically the order repeals the broadcast ownership rules finding that it is no longer necessary to promote the Viewpoint Diversity given the multitude in the marketplace and that it prevents the combinations that would enable broadcasters and local newspapers to better serve the local communities. It also finds it is no longer necessary to promote diversity in the marketplace and must be eliminated. They must remain in the market after the ownership of the two stations. The order finds the test was unsupported by the record on any reasonable basis. It also incorporates a casebycase review option. This approach to the applications will better reflect the conditions in the local markets. Todays order also repeals the attribution rule for the Television Sales which are to allow non commonly owned stations to jointly sell their advertising time. The commissions decision to attribute was unsupported by the record and the beneficial agreements that serv would serve Public Interest by allowing broadcasters to serve their local communities. The order adopts the approach for transactions involving the markets which are part of a larger needles and audio market and in addition, todays order r on reconsideration maintains the requirement for the shared Service Agreement involving commercial television stations. At times the decisions requiring the disclosure in public inspection files was supported by the record. Finally, todays order finds that the commission will adopt in Incubator Program to help promote new entry and diversity in the broadcast industry. This can help provide benefits to an entity that hopes facilitate ownership for a certain class through the provision of Technical Expertise or financial assistance. In todays notice we seek comment on implementing such a Program Including how to define entities eligible to participate in the activities and incentives for encouraging. The review process for the proposal, compliance and potential costs and benefits of such a program. The media recommends the commission about an order on reconsideration and the proposed rulemaking and requests privileges to make any necessary technical. Now for the comments beginning with commissioner clyburn. I didnt take a with the commissioner. I think he predicted 1 00 and i predicted 115. We are both wrong. [laughter] i dont drink, but i am getting closer. [laughter] resetting the tone. [laughter] the problems with the order on reconsideration is so glaring on the process and substance it is truly hard to decide where to begin. Do i start by describing why the wholesale elimination of key he had ownership rules will harm competition, do i focus on the number of loopholes the commission blesses through this order or do i highlight how the majority has chosen to take some of the same facts used by the Commission Just over a year ago to reach the opposite conclusions . After i address each of these in greater detail, allow me to explain the alternative proposal that ive put forward to my colleagues. Let me establish that despite what youve been told about the genesis of this order it isnt about helping small struggling broadcasters or newspapers. While the jury is still out on whether it could actually achieve that goal, its about helping Large Media Companies grow even larger, which is actually in stark contrast to what the president said just last week discussing the importance of having, and i quote, as many news outlets as you can because if we were to provide health for the smallest entities in the media markets, we would have adopted a proposal focused expressly on the financially challenged stations but instead todays action coupled with the recent actions including the reinstatement of the discount and the elimination of the main studio will, we paved the way for the broadcast media empires that will be light years removed from the community they are supposed to serve. They would have degrees of power far beyond the imagination of our local communities, our local outlets that inform us of what is happening in our community. Those outlets that investigate proprieties and the government. Before and after the manmade disasters. We play a unique role and unlike those news networks, our local outlets deliver their broadcasts using the public airwaves and with that comes the response of thauthority to serve the Public Interest. If you are to ask someone who owns their television station after they look at you and possibly punch you they wouldnt be able to answer. If the same was affiliated with the stations through a sharing agreement with the local news anchor is reporting a story using the same script as dozens of other stations around the country or even another in their very own market while these may not be the top questions for most americans, the answers matter the viewers and listeners have the right to know those answers. They should also be aware that these practices are already happening today and the floodgates to more consolidation will come without more transparency or accountability. To be clear, the media landscape has changed a lot over the past 30 years and when it comes to the coverage of national and International Events theres no question that theres more than there was back in 1975, the but if we are going to play that game of making comparisons between legacy platforms and newer interests including cable news and online sources, we need a neutral empire to keep the score because these platforms are not created equal. The reality is that they are not substitutes when it comes to local news and event coverage. As one news publication put it last week, consolidating ownership wont put more reporters on the ground, but it will certainly amplify the influence of a small number of companies. I couldnt have said it any better. Citing simple fairness, the chairman responded by making comparisons to local broadcasters and companies on twitter and facebook yet the last time i checked none of them are in the newsgathering business or to my knowledge engaged in local news productions. The recent visit underscored this very point to me. Under the local news tab for the district of columbia by now of the first ten search results linked to stories by traditional local newspaper broadcast or television or radio outlets. These are what we shouldnt ignore when in the Current Media landscape and while im not here to provide Financial Success i wanted for myself as much as i wanted for you. The stories depicted are cited in this order by the largest broadcasters as reasons for eliminating the rules that do not match the realities of what is being presented on wall street. One major broadcast group is that and reported their revenues are up 15 this year, a new record. Another is revenues were up 17 and yet another broadcaster saw its price reach a record high earlier this year. And even further evidence of that bath matching filings and transmission consent fees, they are up year over year by as much as 162 . These are the Financial Realities on the ground then why are we in such a rush to eliminate protections that may prevent consolidation but have Untold Stories of Viewpoint Diversity or maybe less obvious to the casual observer or the loopholes that this order places. As i have shared in past statements there have been cases in which these have been shown to be in the Public Interest but ive also described arrangements that amounted to the control of the station including the same programming, talent, management and studio. Such an agreement coupled with the dismantling of overrules distorts the reality of how much control broadcast station owners have in any given market. This also fails to acknowledge in a december 2014 the blog of the chai chairman and i describw in forcing the local Television Ownership rules the minority owned stations were established. Similarly, absent from the analysis eliminates the ownership attribution of these arrangements. As it was pointed out in a recent filing it coupled with the repeal of the test to enable a Single Company to dominate Advertising Sales and make new entry in possible. Once again the order fails to consider this reality. Turning now to the process. Where we reverse not much more than one year after the commission completed its last review. Certainly something must have changed in those past 15 months to warrant such a change in the direction ge that the facts aree facts and while my colleagues may not have agreed with the policy adopted in the Previous Administration, it was based on the record that hasnt changed. If they disagree with the policy and that is their right to hold such a belief, than what they shoulthen what theyshould have a new proceeding and build a case for that position. Records have admonished the agency in the past for changing the rules without a supporting record into todays order and reconsideration it ignores the quick instructions. Continuing on the topic of the process, take a look at how the order incorrectly invokes 202 for its policy goals three times, not one, two or three times. The clerk told us if we want to make meaningful changes to the rules to promote minority and female ownership then we must get comprehensive reliable data and for example the court stated at a minimum adopting and modifying its rules they must examine the relevant data and a satisfactory explanation for its actions including a connection between the facts found and the choices made. Here the commission flipped those instructions on its head by concluding without the benefit of new data that we cannot continue to subject broadcast television licensees to aspect of a local Television Ownership rules that can no longer be justified based on the unsubstantiated hope that they would promote minority and female ownership. Supporters of this order may point to the newly established Advisory Committee on digital diversity and digital and government as evidence that we are on a path towards obtaining better data. The problem in that notion is that we are adopting todays order list and two months since the Committee Held its first. So what is the point of establishing a committee if the majority is ready to reach the conclusion that the core media ownership rules are no longer necessary to support the goal of increasing diversity . The 31 members of the committee have agreed to step away from their busy schedules to do what the chair described as taking important steps towards increasing diversity through the Communications Industry and bringing Digital Opportunity so why not let them get to work and make recommendations to the full commission and rely on the data instead of reversing the actions of the Previous Administration simply because you feel differently. Newsflash, there was a path forward that could have garnered my support but regrettably come to the proposa, theproposal i ps rejected. All were denied on the basis of section one dot 429 of the commissions rules. This section of the rules outlined a set of criteria by which the commission would consider a petition that includes new facts or arguments that had been presented. But neither the facts or arguments have changed in the year since the commission completed the last quadrennial review. The majority has routinely rejected petitions for reconsideration is that fail to meet these requirements, but here it ignores the rules to satisfy its own selfserving interests. Second, i propose opening up a new proceeding to explore the adoption of the gator program. Such concept has been debated for many years with bipartisan support, but as you know it is largely untested. I believe the questions proposed in the notice of proposed rulemaking are the right ones to be asking that we are undertaking the process in the wrong order. Third i urge my colleagues to initiate a proceeding that would build on a comprehensive set of data examining the impact of ownership diversity on the podcast marketplace. The proceedings should also examine how further media consolidation would impact localism and competition. They would be undertaken expeditiously and completed prior to the start of the equatorial review. Last i propose any changes to the commissions media ownership rules be considered part of the 2018 quadrennial review once the appropriate data is collected and an assessment can be made on the impact that an established program has had in creating opportunities for new interests and small businesses. In my opinion these are consistent with the commissions rules, the instructions in the Third Circuit and the commitment as an agency to be data driven. Now my colleagues and other proponents of eliminating those rules might suggest that my aim was to further delay the inevitable. This couldnt be further from the truth. The reality is the rule changes made in this order are all in turn related by working independently at each change rather than processing the collective impact of the changes on the media landscape we are left with a deeply flawed order with no data to support its conclusions. So welcome back, my friends, to the industry consolidation mark at the fcc where teams, my colleagues and to the majority, are more intent on granting industry wishes than giving a gift to those in the general public. Mark my words, they will go down in history as one when the fcc abdicated its responsibility to uphold the core values of localism, competition and diversity in broadcasting. I do separately dissen desperatk forward to the day when the court issues a decision to right this sad wrong. The statement is from the chief judge in 2004. Section 202 of the tote medications they opt uses unmistakably mandatory language to describe these obligations. Despite what my colleagues would have you believe, our passion today is not part of a larger master plan to favorably set the landscape for a future merger and the election of duty. Todays item in 2017, concludes the commissions 2010, 2014 annual review. First it eliminates the newspaper broadcast cross ownership rule and bcl. As the item explains, todays environment, the rule makes no sense. It is not a new idea. The commission has been unable to justify the role for more than 15 years it concluded in 2002 that a complete ban of newspaper crossownership was no longer needed. As a result, the 1975 rule remains. Then in 2006, once again the fcc no longer felt it justify the ban and modified it accordingly. As a result, 1975 rule remains. Prior to the Commission Action , the courts delay and highlighted the nbc o rule stating the 1975 bn remains in effect to the state even though they determined more than a decade ago that its no longer in Public Interest. The commission acted on the proceeding and examine the full media landscape and did nothing to adjust the rules in response to the landscape. Despite having the votes to limit the roles, the commission ignored precedent and the record before and decided to maintain the role, again the 1975 rule remained. Today we fix the shoddy effort of the Previous Commission and establish a thorough record and analysis to find that its no longer necessary. I have no doubt it will wind up bef