*Pages 1--1 from  Microsoft Word - 46073.doc*
 NEWS  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).  News  Media  Information  202  /  418-  0500  Internet:  http://  www.  fcc.  gov  TTY:  1-  888-  835-  5322  FOR  IMMEDIATE  RELEASE  NEWS  MEDIA  CONTACT: 
 February  10,  2005  Catherine  Bohigian  (202)  418-  2100 
 PRESS  STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  KEVIN  J.  MARTIN  ON  DECISION  TO  DENY  MULTICAST  CARRIAGE  RIGHTS  TO  BROADCASTERS 
 Today,  the  Commission  concludes  that  broadcasters  should  not  get  cable  carriage  of  their  multicasted  broadcast  signals.  This  issue  has  been  pending  for  several  years  and  was  a  difficult 
 decision  for  the  Commission.  Indeed,  even  the  majority  acknowledges  that  the  statutory  language  is  ambiguous,  and  therefore  that  we  could  have  interpreted  it  to  mandate  broader 
 carriage.  Ultimately,  the  Commission  made  a  policy  judgment  that  the  benefits  of  this  programming  were  outweighed  by  the  burden  on  cable  operators.  I  disagree.  I  think  the  public 
 would  benefit  more  from  more  free  programming. 
 Congress  gave  broadcasters  valuable  spectrum  to  use  to  offer  “advanced”  television  to  American  consumers.  Thanks  to  recent  technological  developments,  broadcasters  can  now  use 


 this  digital  spectrum  to  offer  high-  definition  programming  as  well  as  several  additional  standard  definition  programming  streams  at  the  same  time.  Without  cable  carriage,  however,  many  of 
 these  programs  will  not  have  the  opportunity  to  succeed  commercially.  As  a  result,  by  denying  cable  carriage  to  all  but  one  of  the  potential  broadcast  streams,  this  Order  effectively  prevents 
 any  broadcaster  relying  on  “must  carry”  from  investing  in  multiple  programming  streams.  The  record  is  replete  with  examples  of  the  free  programming  services  broadcasters  want  to  provide  or 
 expand,  including  local  news,  local  weather,  local  sports,  coverage  of  local  elections  and  government  proceedings,  and  foreign  language  programming.  Yet,  with  carriage  rights  for  only 
 one  stream,  these  broadcasters  cannot  support  all  of  this  additional  programming.  The  burden  on  cable  of  a  requirement  to  carry  these  multicasted  channels,  however,  actually  would  be 
 significantly  less  than  it  was  in  the  analog  world,  thanks  to  compression  technology  and  dramatically  expanded  cable  capacity.  Moreover,  the  burden  on  cable  capacity  is  capped  by 
 statute—  a  cap  that  has  been  upheld  by  the  Supreme  Court. 
 Finally,  it  should  be  kept  in  mind  that  this  decision  will  have  the  most  adverse  impact  on  small,  independent,  religious,  family-  friendly  and  minority  broadcasters.  Network  stations  and 


 most  large-  market  broadcast  affiliates  are  likely  to  get  their  signals  carried  through  retransmission  consent;  must-  carry  was  never  about  these  large  broadcasters.  Must  carry  was 
 designed  for  these  smaller  broadcasters  that  in  the  past  have  been  unable  to  negotiate  with  larger  cable  operators.  These  broadcasters  play  an  important  part  in  their  communities,  and  we  should 
 not  be  hindering  them  from  investing  in  new,  free  programming  for  their  viewers. 


 -  FCC  - 
1