*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 8398.doc*
 NEWS  News  media  Information  202  /  418-  0500  Fax-  On-  Demand  202  /  418-  2830  TTY  202/  418-  2555  Internet:  http://  www.  fcc.  gov  ftp.  fcc.  gov  Federal  Communications  Commission  445  12  th  Street,  S.  W.  Washington,  D.  C.  20554  This  is  an  unofficial  announcement  of  Commission  action.  Release  of  the  full  text  of  a  Commission  order  constitutes  official  action.  See  MCI  v.  FCC.  515  F  2d  385  (D.  C.  Circ  1974). 
 FOR  IMMEDIATE  RELEASE  Contact:  William  J.  Friedman 
 April  19,  2001  (202)  418-  2300 


 PRESS  STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  GLORIA  TRISTANI 
 Re:  Elimination  of  the  Dual  Network  Rule  for  Emerging  Networks 
 I  dissented  from  the  majority's  conclusion  that  the  dual  network  rule  should  be  modified 
 to  permit  ABC,  CBS,  Fox,  or  NBC  to  combine  with  UPN  or  WB.  Despite  the  lengths  to  which 
 the  majority  goes  to  show  viewers  are  benefited  by  allowing  further  consolidation  in  the 
 broadcast  industry,  today’s  decision  will  only  further  erode  the  already  tenuous  level  of  diversity 
 on  the  public  airwaves. 


 Read  closely,  today’s  Order  states  a  result  that  is  in  search  of  a  rationale.  Commenters 
 supporting  the  modification  of  this  rule  say: 


 “A  duopolized  UPN  is  better  than  a  dead  UPN.” 
 This,  by  itself,  may  be  true.  But  the  Commission  dresses  up  the  same  point  with 
 extensive,  and  pointless,  reference  to  economic  literature  and  ample  parroting  of  Viacom’s 
 filings  to  conclude  the  benefits  from  complete  elimination  of  the  rule  “could  accrue”  to 
 consumers.  I  hope  rather  than  believe  the  majority  is  correct. 


 As  much  as  I  might  be  concerned  about  the  rule’s  impact  on  UPN,  the  question  I  have  to 
 answer  is  not  whether  the  financial  difficulties  of  a  party  subject  to  a  rule  justify  eliminating  the 
 rule.  I  can  only  vote  to  change  the  rule  if  the  public  interest  is  served  and  when  the  grounds 
 advanced  support  the  change. 


 Here  the  best  that  can  be  said  is  that  a  case  for  a  waiver  of  the  rule’s  application  could  be 
 made  by  UPN  and  WB.  With  a  waiver  request,  the  Commission  would  be  in  a  position  to: 


 1.  Obtain  the  necessary  detailed  financial  data  to  ensure  the  financial  woes  of  the 
 network  are  in  fact  caused  by  the  rule’s  application; 


 2.  Determine  on  a  complete  record  whether  the  financial  woes  are  solved  by  removal 
 of  the  rule’s  constraints. 


 3.  Develop  explicit  conditions  that  ensure  compliance  with  the  terms  of  the  waiver, 
 and, 
1
 2 
 4.  Protect  the  public  interest  by  insisting  that  the  alleged  efficiencies  achieved 
 through  the  consolidation  authorized  by  the  waiver,  actually  flow  through  to  the 
 public  in  the  form  of  better  programming  and  greater  viewpoint  diversity. 


 Wholesale  abandonment  of  well-  settled  rules  is  not  the  way  to  save  a  struggling  network, 
 or  promote  the  public  interest.  Decreasing  the  number  of  owners  of  broadcast  networks  is 
 simply  not  a  means  to  achieve  greater  viewpoint  diversity.  Sadly,  the  train  of  consolidation 
 continues  to  run  on  time. 


 -  FCC  - 
2