OPENING STATEMENT OF 
FCC CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTIN
PUBLIC HEARING ON MEDIA OWNERSHIP
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
SEPTEMBER 20, 2007
Good afternoon.  Thank you for joining us today.
We began a comprehensive review of our rules governing media ownership in the summer of 
2006.  This hearing is the fifth in a series of six media ownership hearings the Commission 
intends to hold across the country.  The goal of these hearings is to more fully and directly 
involve the American people in the process.  As I have said many times before, public input is 
critical to our process and will inform our thinking on these issues. I appreciate all of you being 
here today.
The decisions we will make about our ownership rules will be as difficult as they are critical.  
The media touches almost every aspect of our lives.  We are dependent upon it for our news, our 
information and our entertainment. Indeed, the opportunity to express diverse viewpoints lies at 
the heart of our democracy.  A robust marketplace of ideas is by necessity one that reflects 
diverse perspectives and viewpoints.
Our media ownership rules are intended to further three core goals:  competition, diversity and 
localism. Many who have commented in this proceeding, including at hearings such as this one, 
express significant concern about increased consolidation and preservation of diversity in the 
media. And I anticipate hearing more about this from many of you tonight.
Also critical to our review of the media ownership rules is exploring and understanding the 
competitive realities of today’s media marketplace. Many of you here are likely familiar with the 
changes taking place at your local paper, the Chicago Tribune.  You might also know then that 
some of our rules have not been updated for years and may no longer reflect the current 
marketplace. Indeed, the Third Circuit recognized this fact when it upheld the Commission's 
elimination of the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership ban.  It is our task to respond to the 
court by ensuring that our ownership rules take into account the competitive environment in 
which media companies operate as well as ensuring we continue to promote localism and 
diversity.
I would like to return for a moment to the issue of diversity in the media.  In order to ensure that 
the American people have the benefit of a competitive and diverse media marketplace, we need 
to create more opportunities for different, new and independent voices to be heard.  
The Commission needs to be committed to expanding opportunities for entry into media 
ownership and media programming, as well as other communications services.  Indeed, at our 
previous ownership hearings, many people argued that the impact of the media consolidation that 
has already occurred has had several negative impacts.  First, they argued that consolidation has 
2
limited the number of channels available to minorities and new entrants.  Second, they argued 
that it has made it more difficult for independent programmers.  And third, they argued that it has 
made it easier for large media companies to advertise products by integrating them into programs 
without notice.  
Regardless of whether the Commission makes any changes to its ownership rules, these are 
important issues that the Commission should address.
First, the limited number of channels available in the broadcast television and radio spectrum 
bands and the high start-up cost of building a station are significant barriers to entry into 
broadcasting.  It can be very difficult for anyone – especially a new voice – to find an available 
channel and gather enough capital to build a new broadcast station.  I believe the Commission 
that should help small and independently-owned businesses overcome these obstacles by
allowing them to lease some of an existing television station’s broadcast spectrum to distribute 
their own programming. 
As we have just heard, all television broadcasters are required to begin broadcasting in digital in 
2009.  This conversion to digital enables broadcasters to fit a single channel of programming into 
a smaller amount of spectrum.  Often, there is additional spectrum left over that could be used to 
air additional channels.  Small and independently owned businesses should be able to take 
advantage of this extra unused capacity and operate their own broadcast channel.  This new 
station would be able to air its own programs and obtain all the accompanying rights and 
obligations of other broadcast stations, such as public interest obligations and carriage rights on 
cable and satellite systems.   Moreover, we have had similar policies with low-power FM and 
leased access to create additional opportunities in radio and cable. 
There is already a real world example of a similar type of arrangement. Post-Newsweek provides 
for carriage of Latino Alternative TV (LATV) programming on its multicast channels in Miami, 
Orlando, Houston, and San Antonio. The Commission currently is considering adopting this 
idea of allowing small and independently owned businesses and other qualified designated 
entities to use some of broadcasters’ digital capacity. 
In this same rulemaking, the Commission is also seeking comment on several other proposals to 
allow “qualified designated entities” to more easily get into broadcasting such as by allowing 
them to purchase expired construction permits and be allotted additional time to construct the 
broadcast facilities. 
Second, many argue that in today’s media environment it is oftentimes difficult for independent 
and niche networks to get carried by cable and satellite providers.  For example, the Black 
Family Channel recently announced it was becoming an online-only channel and would no 
longer be shown on TV.  Rick Newberger, chief executive of the Black Family Channel, was 
quoted in one newspaper article about the announcement saying, “Today, if you want to start a 
cable network, it might be easier to schedule a ride to the moon.” 
I believe the Commission could take several steps to make it easier for independent programmers.  
For example, just last week, the Commission asked whether we should limit the ability of large 
3
media companies to tie or bundle their programming.  I also believe offering cable and satellite 
channels on a more a la carte basis such as in smaller bundles or themed tiers could benefit 
minority consumers and increase programming diversity. In addition, I also think the
Commission should reexamine the cable leased access rules to better encourage independent 
programmers.
Eliminating tying and giving consumers more choice would be an important step toward leveling 
the playing field between independent programming voices – those not affiliated with the large 
broadcast, cable and satellite distributors – and competing channels that are owned by cable and 
satellite.  Under the current system, many cable and satellite-owned networks are bundled into 
the offerings not necessarily because viewers are demanding them, but because the distributor 
has a financial interest in maximizing their distribution.  Under a system in which viewers do the 
choosing, those channels that do not benefit from a corporate parent will be able to attract 
viewers on a more equal footing. 
But you don’t have to take my word on it.  In a joint letter to the U.S. Congress Consumers 
Union, Consumer Federation of America, Free Press and Communications Workers of America 
said it the best: “Cable companies act as gatekeepers over the programming allowed into the 
expanded basic package, preventing independent content producers from reaching viewers.  By 
allowing consumers to vote with their wallets rather than forcing them to buy channels they 
never watch, the marketplace will responding by providing more diverse and higher quality 
programming that consumers demand.”
While I believe all consumers would benefit from channels being sold in a more a la carte 
manner, minority consumers, such as those living in Spanish speaking homes, might benefit most 
of all.  For example, cable providers often require subscribers to purchase dozens if not hundreds 
of channels in order to get Spanish language programming – and then they must often pay an 
additional cost.  Under a la carte, however, Spanish speaking homes could purchase only Spanish 
language channels without having to pay for numerous other channels they may not be interested 
in. 
Finally, I want to highlight one other media issue that is increasingly affecting consumers.  At 
our very first media ownership hearing in Los Angeles, several witnesses raised concerns about 
the issue of product integration.  TiVos and DVRs now allow viewers to more easily skip 
commercials. As a result, networks may be turning to more subtle and sophisticated means of 
incorporating commercial messages into traditional programming.  As these techniques become 
increasing prevalent, there is a growing concern that our sponsorship identification rules fall 
short of their ultimate goal:  to ensure that the public is able to identify both the commercial 
nature of the programming as well as its source.  I believe it is important for consumers to know 
when someone is trying to sell them something and that it is appropriate for the Commission to 
examine these issues.  Accordingly, I recently circulated a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to my 
colleagues seeking comment on the relationship between the Commission’s sponsorship 
identification rules and increasing industry reliance on embedded advertising techniques.  
Specifically, this Notice seeks comment on whether it is necessary to amend the Commission’s 
sponsorship identification rules to ensure adequate disclosure to the public.  I hope that the 
Commission moves forward quickly on initiating this inquiry. 
4
In closing, I want to say again, how pleased I am that we are holding our hearing here in 
Chicago.  I look forward to hearing your thoughts and insights on the subject of our media 
ownership rules.  Thank you for your participation today.
-FCC -