*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 47930.doc*
 JOINT  STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONERS  MICHAEL  J.  COPPS  AND  JONATHAN  S.  ADELSTEIN, 
 CONCURRING 
 Re:  Counterpoint  Communications,  Inc.  (Transferor)  and  Tribune  Television  Company  (Transferee),  Request  for  Extension  of  Waiver  of  Section  73.3555(  d)  of 
 the  Commission’s  Rules  for  Station  WTXX(  TV),  Waterbury,  CT 
 We  have  been  deeply  troubled  by  the  Commission’s  long  inaction  on  this  and  other  overdue  waivers  of  our  media  ownership  rules.  In  this  case,  we  are  also  troubled  by 
 the  Bureau’s  action  in  sending  a  letter  to  Tribune  stating  that  the  company  was  in  full  compliance  with  our  rules.  Notwithstanding  these  disagreements  with  the  Commission’s 
 failures  in  this  case,  we  reluctantly  concur  in  the  overall  decision.  We  concur  because  the  Commission  at  long  last  conducts  the  public  interest  analysis  in  this  case  that  it  should 
 have  conducted  years  ago.  We  concur  because  the  Commission  does  a  better  job  here  of  fleshing  out  the  standard  it  will  apply  as  it  processes  waiver  requests.  We  concur  because 
 the  Commission  states  that,  henceforth,  it  will  address  waivers  as  they  come  due  and  not  permit  them  to  remain  in  force  through  Commission  inaction.  We  would  have  preferred 
 the  Commission  to  indicate  a  time  limitation  for  our  processing  of  such  requests,  but  today’s  item  at  least  improves  upon  the  current  process.  And  we  concur  because  the 
 Commission  makes  clear  that  it  expects  to  see  clear  evidence  of  serious  and  sustained  efforts  to  come  into  compliance  with  our  rules  before  it  will  consider  granting  any 
 extension. 
 When  the  Commission  approves  a  transaction  that  does  not  fully  comply  with  its  rules,  the  Commission  has  often  granted  a  temporary  waiver  to  allow  the  acquiring 
 company  to  come  into  compliance  with  the  media  ownership  limits.  Yet  companies  routinely  file  requests  to  extend  waivers  and  the  Commission  too  often  fails  to  either 
 address  those  requests  or  to  enforce  its  rules  once  a  waiver  has  lapsed.  This  has  been  an  unconscionable  abdication  of  responsibility  that  does  nothing  to  provide  predictability 
 and  certainty,  leave  alone  to  safeguard  the  public  interest.  The  Commission  has  allowed  companies  to  avoid  compliance  with  our  rules  and  to  hold  licenses—  sometimes  for 
 years—  in  the  hope  that  our  media  concentration  protections  will  one  day  be  loosened  and  these  waivered  deals  can  then  be  made  permanent.  In  effect,  the  Commission’s  inaction 
 has  allowed  companies  to  push  the  consolidation  envelope  ever  further. 
 How  much  better  it  would  be  if  the  Commission  would  address  pending  waiver  requests  in  a  timely  manner,  evaluate  whether  such  waivers  indeed  serve  the  public 
 interest,  and  then  enforce  its  ownership  rules.  In  the  present  case,  the  Commission  finally  approaches  meeting  this  responsibility,  albeit  two  and  a  half  years  after  the  waiver 
 technically  expired. 
 This  case  presents  a  tough  decision  for  us.  We  disagree  with  the  process  followed  –  both  the  Commission’s  protracted  inaction  and  the  Bureau’s  intervening  action  in 
 sending  its  letter  to  Tribune.  Nevertheless,  we  believe  we  must  look  at  the  specific  facts  of  this  case  and  determine  if  the  public  interest  is  served  by  granting  a  further  extension. 
1
 There  are  clearly  times  when  the  public  interest  is  served  by  granting  a  waiver  or  an  extension.  But  we  believe  we  must  conduct  a  rigorous  public  interest  analysis  before 
 granting  such  actions.  In  this  case,  the  Commission  not  only  finds  public  interest  benefits,  but  also  examines  and  evaluates  whether  Tribune  has  made  best  efforts  to  divest 
 WTXX  either  alone  or  in  combination  with  WTIC.  Given  Tribune’s  documented  efforts,  as  well  as  the  significant  possibility  that  either  the  station  might  go  dark  or  service  to 
 the  community  would  be  reduced  without  additional  time  for  Tribune  to  divest,  we  will  reluctantly  concur.  We  are  in  full  support,  however,  of  the  Commission’s  decision  to 
 deny  a  permanent  waiver  in  this  matter.  Tribune  has  simply  not  made  the  case  for  a  permanent  waiver.  We  would  also  point  out  that  through  this  decision,  the  Commission 
 implicitly  recognizes  that  a  permanent  waiver  for  the  Hartford  matter  has  the  clear  potential  to  undermine  localism,  competition,  and  diversity. 


 Although  the  Commission  finds  that  the  public  interest  would  be  served  by  granting  an  extension  in  this  case,  other  waivers  of  our  ownership  limits  have  also  lapsed. 
 These  other  cases  may  not  present  affirmative  public  interest  benefits  justifying  an  extension  of  a  waiver  or  evidence  that  the  company  has  made  efforts  to  come  into 
 compliance  with  our  rules.  The  Commission  commits  in  this  Order  not  to  let  waiver  petitions  languish  and,  in  effect,  be  granted  through  inaction.  Companies  that  seek 
 waiver  extensions  are  now  on  notice  that  they  must  demonstrate  their  efforts  to  come  into  compliance  with  our  rules  and  that  any  waiver  extension  will  serve  the  public  interest. 
 We  expect  the  Commission  to  carry  through  with  its  commitments,  and  we  also  expect  companies  to  comply  with  the  terms  of  their  waivers. 
2