Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-33
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS
APPROVING IN PART, DISSENTING IN PART
Re:  Digital Audio Broadcasting Systems and Their Impact on the Terrestrial Radio Broadcast 
Service (MM Docket No. 99-325)
 Digital radio is only in its infancy, but already we are beaming with optimism about its 
innovative potential. What we see holds special promise for consumers, with all kinds of possible 
new and valuable services that can significantly alter the radio listening experience. Digital radio 
means multiple audio programming channels, audio-on-demand services, and receivers that can 
pass along information ranging from song and artist identification to news, traffic, weather 
bulletins and public safety information—and all of it free of the static, hiss and pop that 
sometimes limit our analog system. Even as it begins to deliver all this top consumers, it’s great 
good news for broadcasters because it provides exciting new business opportunities that just 
might reinvigorate free over-the-air radio. So there is a lot here to be happy about.
 For the most part, today’s decision focuses on the technology and mechanics of the 
conversion to digital radio systems and it does a good and commendable job of this. Among 
other things, we refrain from imposing a mandatory conversion schedule, allow FM radio stations 
to operate in an extended hybrid digital mode and address FM translator and booster operations.
So far, so good.
But the digital transition involves more than just developing new technical standards.
Digital broadcasting has the power to reconfigure the communications landscape in good and 
powerful ways—if we get our policies right. If we get our policies right, we can ensure that 
digital radio enhances localism and that it translates into more locally originated programming, 
public affairs coverage and airtime for local musicians and creative artists. If we get our policies 
right, we can ensure that digital radio enhances diversity through a wider range of programs, 
viewpoints and new opportunities for underserved and non-English speaking communities. If we 
get our policies right, we can give real meaning to public interest broadcasting in the digital age.
 Let’s be clear. Broadcasters today are able to multicast. The FCC already has authorized 
over 600 stations to multicast using in-band/on-channel (IBOC) technology. Within this number 
there are broadcasters, NPR among them, making creative and local uses of their spectrum 
dividend. These innovators are improving radio. But by adopting a blanket authorization for all
digital radio, this decision confers a free pass on others to take their spectrum, bypass local 
communities and run more of the canned and nationalized programming that is all too common 
on our consolidated analog system today and which is, truth be told, responsible for many of 
broadcast radio’s current problems. So I am disappointed that we move ahead without answering 
important questions about how this spectrum—spectrum that belongs to the people—will be used 
to benefit local communities. The item sidesteps what I believe is a fundamental responsibility of 
the Commission: to determine what the public interest means in the digital age.
 Important questions go unanswered here. What does the ability to multicast several 
streams into a community of license have on the competitive landscape there? I hope we’ll look 
at this before anyone suggests loosening our ownership limits. Does a company really need to 
own eight radio stations in a market when it has the ability to multicast? How about making sure 
some of these multi-streams are used for more local news and information, for local music and 
other creative talent, for minority and non-English language audiences? These are the kinds of 
questions we have to answer if we are really serious about promoting localism, competition and 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-33
2
diversity in the digital era. There are other questions raised by this item. For instance, the 
Commission permits the use of digital radio spectrum for ancillary and supplementary services, 
including subscription services. What public interest obligations attach to the use of this public 
spectrum when it is used for subscription services? Another question: would any of our 
indecency rules apply to these services? Still another: in the digital television context, the 
Commission required broadcasters to pay 5 percent of their revenues if they use the public 
spectrum for private subscription services. Here we allow such uses—but with no such payback 
to the American people. Shouldn’t the people being compensated for this private use of a public 
resource? Couldn’t we move to make that happen? The list goes on. My point is: wouldn’t it be 
a good idea to figure some of this out before moving ahead?
  My hope going into this proceeding was that we would not only authorize an exciting new 
technology, but we would also help ensure that it reaps the promise of enhanced localism and 
diversity that it is so capable of providing. Because we stopped short of completing this mission, 
I must respectfully dissent in part to the item. I do want to thank the Bureau for its hard work to 
encourage the development of digital radio, and also many in the radio industry who have 
devoted their time, energy and resources to advance to pioneering what all of us agree is a truly 
exciting new service. I just hope we will eventually find a way to make sure it does what it is 
capable of doing to serve the public interest.