Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.  I appreciate all the Commissioners being here this morning.

 

Mr. Chairman, I ask that my full statement be included for the record.  Thank you.

 

The signals being sent lately by the FCC are mixed.  Deregulation, albeit very timid, is being pursued on the media consolidation front, while every possible angle to increase regulations on the video market seems to be pursued.  I urge the Commission to let the free market grow and allow consumers to enjoy new benefits and innovations in 2008.

 

Media Ownership:

 

·       Our media environment is more complex than anyone could have dreamed 30 years ago.  Then, the average citizen perhaps had a one newspaper, 3 TV broadcasters, and a handful of radio stations in their local community. 

 

·       It was a time before:

o   widespread cable or satellite TV (both are now available to practically every household, offering hundreds of channels)

o   satellite radio (also now available to all)

o   the Internet (offering limitless information from limitless sources) 

 

·       To suggest that American citizens in 2007 have limited, or even decreasing, access to voices is laughable. 

 

 

 

·       The Commission is right to amend the dated cross-ownership ban.  By listening to some of my colleagues, you may think that the changes being proposed are earth-shattering.  Of course, they are not.

 

·       There are currently many examples of cross-owned local newspaper and TV properties already existing in the United States.  Over 30% of U.S. households live in those communities.  I do not believe democracy is suffering because of it.

 

·       I would like to point out that the Commission could go further, however.  I think we should stop regulating competing media segments differently, based on transmission technologies they use. 

 

·       For example, the two satellite radio companies in America are close to getting their merger approved.  They use different transmission technology than local radio stations, but they compete with each other.  I would like to know why regulators allow one segment to essentially have ownership deregulation, but another to face limits that have the effect of hurting consumer choice and market competitiveness.     

 

Regulation in the Video Market:

 

·       It is unnecessary and harmful for the government, through the FCC, to get involved in private business negotiations.  The competitive market rewards those offering the best product and punishes those that do not.  These incentives provide the impetus for agreements to be reached between programmers and distributors in nearly all cases.

 

·       It is also unnecessary and harmful for regulators to mandate the way companies in a competitive industry offer their product to consumers, whether at the retail or wholesale level.  I believe “a la carte” is a great idea and I would like to have someone offer it at my home in South Carolina.  But, the government mandating it is a bad idea that needs to be buried.