CONCURRING STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O’RIELLY
Re: Promoting the Availability of Diverse and Independent Sources of Video Programming, MB 
Docket No. 16-42.
In reading the item as originally circulated, there were a number of edits I believed were needed 
and appropriate.  One of the first of these was some slightly more concrete language in the statement of 
the primary goal of the proceeding.  The avowed goal is to “begin a conversation” on the state of 
independent and diverse programming, and I asked to change “begin a conversation” to “seek 
information,” which in my view is a more appropriate goal for an inquiry of a federal regulatory agency.  
Of all my proposed edits, this seemed like one of the easiest lifts, but surprisingly to me, this minor 
wordsmithing request was denied, more than once, in fact.  Which left me to wonder why the 
Commission majority was so deeply wedded to this innocuous-sounding phrase, “begin a conversation.”  
And the more I thought about it, the more it became clear that “beginning a conversation” is a completely 
inaccurate description of what is happening here.
“Begin” implies that this is somehow a novel topic that interested parties have not had an 
opportunity to weigh in on yet.  However, as anyone who has ever followed media regulatory issues is 
aware, the debate around program carriage, or lack thereof, is as close as it gets to a constant fixture.  For 
almost as long as there have been cable and satellite systems, programmers have been arguing that they 
need more carriage.  We should all be able to agree that this “conversation” has been going on in some 
form at least since 1989, when the Commission’s cable competition NOI included several timeless 
assertions, for example: “[s]ome program suppliers also complain that rising concentration in cable 
system ownership has led to their inability to gain access to large cable systems.”  Programmers have 
found many sympathetic ears to their complaints both in Congress and at the Commission over the 
decades.  From the “leased access” system established by the 1984 Cable Act and the program carriage 
requirements of the 1992 Cable Act, to the Commission’s 2011 modifications to its carriage rules and its 
common insistence on further carriage requirements as a condition of MVPD mergers, there have been 
numerous legislative and regulatory attempts to address the challenges faced by independent 
programmers from many different angles.  
The technology has changed a lot since the debate began, but the arguments haven't changed 
substantially.  We’re now living in an age of thousand-channel MVPD lineups.  And many consumers 
seeking a different structure are rapidly adopting robust over-the-top offerings of linear and on-demand 
programming alike.  Additionally, compelling content is being monetized to previously unimagined 
degrees on the web and mobile devices.  In a world that has brought us this explosive growth in the sheer 
number of potential platforms for content, it is interesting that access to the old network is still considered 
a major issue, but with this debate it seems the more things change, the more they stay the same.
So if this item is not beginning a new conversation, what in fact is it beginning?  Many of you 
interested have, of course, not been able to read the document yet, but it should not come as a spoiler to 
say that what we are beginning is more accurately described as the latest regulatory push.  Though billed 
as a simple NOI laying out some questions to give a platform for more dialogue, almost every paragraph 
in the original draft was slanted in the direction of that push.  I appreciate that many of the edits I and 
Commissioner Pai submitted to try to add some requisite balance were actually accepted, and so it allows 
me to concur with the item.  Ultimately, I hope that these edits will help steer the proceeding into 
conversation territory.