The Honorable Michael K. Powell
Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554 

Dear Chairman Powell: 

Under Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) will undertake its biennial review of the numerous broadcast ownership rules to "determine whether any of such rules are necessary in the public interest as the result of competition."   Far too often, outdated rules remain in place because they are not subject to agency review.   This simple yet important congressional directive, to justify the rules imposed on broadcasters, is critical to ensuring that all of the rules properly reflect the current marketplace they define. 

In a June 29^th correspondence to the Commission, several Members of Congress advocated retention of the Commission's rule that limits the national audience reach of stations owned by a single entity to 35 percent.  This request notwithstanding, we are pleased that the Commission is committed to fulfilling its Congressional mandate to undertake a serious review of these regulations -- without presupposing the outcome -- to respond to changes in the media marketplace.  It is always the right time to review the necessity of existing regulations. 

            The rules governing the ownership of U.S. broadcast properties should recognize and reflect the growth in the number and variety of media outlets in the media market, as well as the significant efficiencies and public interest benefits that can be obtained from joint ownership.  At the same time, the rules should reflect the continuing goals of ensuring diversity and localism and guarding against undue concentration of economic power in the marketplace.  These are not mutually exclusive goals, yet there are those who argue localism is certain to be harmed if the national broadcast ownership rule is raised.   As the Commission undertakes a careful, thoughtful review of the broadcast ownership rules -- the national ownership cap specifically, we would stress that marketplace realities do not support the localism argument for retaining

the national ownership cap.  Quite the contrary, there appears to be no strong nexus between the location of an owner of a broadcast station and the commitment of that station to serving the needs of its local community.  

Good business acumen dictates that broadcasters be responsive to the needs and views of their local communities.  Broadcast stations strive to serve their viewing area's needs by airing popular, local programming  -- news, weather and sports  -- whether or not the station owner is located in the local community, in the state, or across the country.  Illustratively, there are eleven broadcast stations in Massachusetts.   None has an owner headquartered in the state, let alone the local community they serve.  Nonetheless, one is hard-pressed to argue that each and every one of these stations fail to serve their local communities merely because the owners are located elsewhere.  To do so is inappropriate, inaccurate, and fundamentally unfair.  Moreover, automatically assuming the converse - that a local owner always serves the local community - is equally irresponsible.  Hence, we urge the Commission to refrain from perpetuating the fallacy that there is a direct connection between the national broadcast ownership cap and the preservation of localism, without relying on compelling supportive facts.  In doing so, the Commission will ensure that the broadcast ownership rules accurately reflect today's media marketplace, enable more robust competition, and continue to serve the public interest.  

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. 

Sincerely, 

cc:        The Honorable Kevin J. Martin

The Honorable Kathleen Q. Abernathy

The Honorable Michael J. Copps

The Honorable Gloria Tristani

BT/jw