Order Code RL31925
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
FCC Media Ownership Rules:
Issues for Congress
May 16, 2003
Charles B. Goldfarb
Specialist in Industrial Organization and Telecommunications Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

FCC Media Ownership Rules
Summary
The Federal Communications Commission is reviewing all of its media
ownership rules both to meet the requirement in the 1996 Telecommunications Act
to perform a biennial review and to be responsive to Court rulings that the
Commission had failed to provide sufficient justification for specific thresholds
incorporated in two of the rules. The Commission is expected to adopt an order on
June 2, 2003 that will retain, modify, or repeal each rule based on a determination of
whether the rule continues to serve its diversity, competition, and localism goals.
The media ownership rules strongly influence both the structure of the media
sector and the relative negotiating power of individual companies and entire
segments of the sector. Therefore the FCC proceeding has gained a lot of attention
from companies, trade associations, and individuals concerned about the media.
The media ownership rules that have attracted the greatest attention are:
(1) The National Television Ownership Rule that restricts a broadcast network from
owning and operating local broadcast stations that reach, in total, more than 35
percent of U.S. television households.
(2) The 50 percent “UHF discount” used to calculate market share for the National
Television Ownership Rule, by which a UHF station that, for example, reaches
2 million TV households would be measured as if it reaches only 1 million.
(3) The Newspaper-Broadcast Cross-Ownership Rule that prohibits common
ownership of a full-service broadcast station and a daily newspaper in the same
market.
(4) The Local Television Multiple Ownership Rule (sometimes referred to as the
“TV Duopoly” Rule) that restricts an entity from owning two television stations
in the same market unless at least one of the stations is not among the four
highest-ranked stations and there are at least 8 independently owned and
operated commercial or non-commercial full power stations in the market.
(5) The Radio/Television Cross-Ownership Rule that limits the number of
commercial radio and television stations one entity may own in a market.
(6) The Local Radio Ownership and Radio Market Definition Rules that limit the
number of radio stations one entity may own in a market.
A number of bills and resolutions have been introduced in the 108th Congress
that reflect a range of positions on many of these rules. These include H.R. 1035,
which would increase the national television ownership cap to 45 percent, codify the
50 percent UHF discount, eliminate the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule,
and allow for ownership of two TV stations in markets with 6 stations; H.R. 2052
and S. 1046, which would explicitly keep the national television ownership at 35
percent; H.R. 1763 and S. 221, which have a number of provisions to tighten up the
radio multiple ownership rules; and H.Res. 218, which among other things would
make it the sense of the House that the FCC should not weaken any current media
ownership rules.
This report will be updated as events warrant.

---

Contents
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
National Ownership Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
National Television Ownership (The 35% Cap) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Dual Network Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Local Ownership Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Cross-Ownership of Broadcast Stations and Newspapers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Local Television Multiple Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Radio/Television Cross-Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Local Radio Ownership and Radio Market Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

---

FCC Media Ownership Rules:
Issues for Congress
The Federal Communications Commission’s media ownership rules are
currently under review and the FCC is expected to make decisions about their
retention, modification, or repeal on June 2, 2003.1 Because of the potential for far-
reaching changes to a number of long-standing rules (including the current 35%
national television ownership cap, prohibition on cross-ownership of newspapers and
broadcast stations in a market, limits to multiple station ownership in the same
market, limits on cross-ownership of radio and television in a market, and limits to
radio station ownership in the same market), a number of bills have been introduced
in the 108th Congress that reflect a range of positions on each of these issues. This
report analyzes each of the major areas that may change either as a result of action
by the FCC or as a result of congressional action. The various positions in the debate
also are summarized.
Background
Pursuant to Section 202(h) of the Telecommunication Act of 1996,2 the FCC
must conduct a biennial review of its broadcast ownership rules and repeal or modify
any regulation it determines to be no longer in the public interest. In addition, the
Commission must revisit several of these rules as a result of Court rulings that the
Commission had failed to provide sufficient justification for specific thresholds
incorporated into the rules. The Commission is expected to adopt an order retaining,
modifying, or repealing each of these rules on June 2, 2003.
The 2002 Biennial Review was initiated on September 12, 2002;3 review of the
Commission’s broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership rule and waiver policy was
initiated on September 13, 2001;4 and review of the Commission’s local radio
1 See, e.g., Communications Daily, Friday, May 2, 2003, at p. 1: “[FCC Chairman] Powell
said the date for the vote — June 2 — essentially was set in stone.”
2 Telecommunications Act of 1996, P.L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, § 202(h).
3 Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review — Review of the
Commission’s Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section
202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, MB Docket No. 02-277, released September
23, 2002.
4 Order and Notice of Proposed Rule Making, Cross-Ownership of Broadcast Stations and
Newspapers, MM Docket No. 01-235 and Newspaper/Radio Cross-Ownership Waiver
Policy, MB Docket No. 96-197, September 20, 2001.

---

CRS-2
ownership rule and radio market definition rule was initiated on November 8, 2001.5
The FCC has sought comment on whether each specific rule continues to serve the
Commission’s goals of diversity, competition, and localism — and if the rule serves
some purposes while disserving others, whether the balance of the effects argue for
maintaining, modifying, or eliminating the rule.6
Partly as a result of the court remands, the FCC has been reviewing the
advantages and disadvantages of implementing rules that incorporate specific market
share or number of competitor threshold levels that are applicable across the board
to all entities vs. implementing some sort of flexible, yet quantifiable “diversity
index” that would allow for case-by-case reviews that more readily take into account
market-specific or company-specific characteristics. It is possible that a “hybrid”
rule could be developed that continues to employ threshold levels, but calculates
those levels using a weighting methodology based on a diversity index.
As explained below, several bills and a resolution have been introduced relating
to a number of these ownership rules.
National Ownership Rules
National Television Ownership (The 35% Cap)
The Commission’s National Television Ownership Rule prohibits an entity from
owning multiple television stations “which have an aggregate national audience reach
exceeding thirty-five (35) percent.”7 In practice, this rule applies to the major
broadcast networks, limiting them to ownership and operation of local broadcast
stations that reach, in total, 35 percent of U.S. television households. The rule
codifies statutory language from the 1996 Telecommunications Act that sets the 35
percent cap.8 In 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit remanded the rule to the Commission on the grounds that the
Commission had failed to provide a justification for the 35 percent level.9
Under the rule, when calculating the total audience reached by an entity’s
stations, audiences of UHF stations are given only half-weight. That is, if an entity
owns a UHF station with an audience of 2 million households, that audience would
only be counted as 1 million households when calculating the entity’s market reach.
5 Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, Rules and
Policies Concerning Multiple Ownership of Radio Broadcast Stations in Local Market, MM
Docket No. 01-317 and Definition of Radio Markets, MM Docket No. 00-244, released
November 9, 2001.
6 See e.g., 67 FR 65751, ¶ 75.
7 47 C.F.R. 73.3555(e)(1).
8 Telecommunications Act of 1996, P.L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, § 202(c)(1)(B).
9 See Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 280 F.3rd 1027
(DC Cir. 2002).

---

CRS-3
This is sometimes known as the “UHF discount.” This discount was implemented
because UHF signals tend to have a smaller geographic reach than, and are of inferior
quality to, VHF signals.
The proposals of various parties have ranged from retaining the rule, to raising
the cap to 45 percent, to replacing a numerical cap with a “diversity index” based on
antitrust models, to eliminating the cap altogether.
The arguments of proponents of retaining the 35 percent rule include:
(1) locally owned and operated stations are more likely to be responsive to
local needs and interests than network owned and operated stations (for
example, they are more likely to pre-empt network programming when
non-network programming of special local interest, such as local sports
events, is available or when network programming does not meet
community standards);
(2) if there are fewer independently owned and operated affiliates, they
will be under much greater pressure from the networks not to pre-empt
network programming even if programming of special local interest is
available;
(3) some broadcast networks that also own cable networks have refused to
give local cable systems permission to retransmit their local broadcast
stations’ signals unless they also carried the integrated company’s cable
networks; if these broadcast networks could own and operate additional
local broadcast stations, they could extend this practice to those stations.
The arguments of proponents of raising or eliminating the 35 percent rule
include:
(1) it does not make sense to limit the national ownership reach of
broadcast entities in light of cable and satellite alternatives available
to the viewing public;
(2) empirical evidence submitted by broadcast networks in the FCC
proceeding shows that network owned and operated stations provide
more local news programming than independently owned and
operated stations;
(3) network owned and operated stations continue to be run by local
station managers who must be responsive to local demands to be
successful;
(4) broadcast networks are less profitable than local broadcast stations,
so to help broadcast networks compete against cable networks for
rights to expensive sports programming (and keep such programming
free to the public), the networks must be able to own and operate
more local broadcast stations.

---

CRS-4
Proponents of a diversity index argue that approach will allow for review on a
case-by-case basis, analogous to case-by-case antitrust reviews, rather than relying
on a one-size-fits-all cap. But opponents of a diversity index claim it will be difficult
to construct an objective index, and once constructed it will be difficult to administer,
adding uncertainty to players in the marketplace.
Some parties also have called for elimination of the UHF discount, especially
if the 35 percent cap is increased. They claim that the UHF discount in effect raises
the current cap to as high as 70 percent and if retained while the cap was increased
to 45 percent would raise the effective cap to as high as 90 percent. The provision
in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 relating to digital television requires all
television stations that currently broadcast over the VHF band to migrate to the UHF
band by December 31, 2006 unless certain conditions are not met. If those
conditions are met, all stations will then be UHF stations. Parties for retention of the
UHF discount argue that UHF signals remain weaker than VHF stations and thus
reach fewer households.
Several bills have been introduced in the 108th Congress that address the
National Television Ownership Rule. Rep. Stearns has introduced the Broadcast
Ownership for the 21st Century Act (H.R. 1035) that would amend the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 by raising the ownership cap to 45 percent and by
incorporating the 50 percent UHF discount. Rep. Burr has introduced the
Preservation of Localism, Program Diversity, and Competition in Television
Broadcast Service Act of 2003 (H.R. 2052) that would explicitly keep the ownership
cap at 35 percent. Sen. Stevens has introduced an identical bill (S. 1046).
Dual Network Ownership
As currently constructed, this rule prohibits the four major networks — ABC,
CBS, Fox, and NBC — from merging with one another.10 In 2001, as part of its
previous biennial review of media ownership rules, the FCC modified this rule to
allow the four major networks to own, operate, maintain, or control broadcast
networks other than the four majors. With this change, Viacom, the owner of CBS,
was allowed to purchase UPN, and NBC was able to purchase Telemundo, the
second largest Spanish-language network in the U.S.
Although the Dual Network Ownership rule is formally included in the current
biennial review, and the Commission has sought comment on the impact on localism,
diversity, and competition of allowing the four major networks to merge, there is no
expectation that the Commission currently is considering any changes in this rule.
10 The rule “permits broadcast networks to provide multiple program streams (program
networks) simultaneously within local markets, and prohibits only a merger between or
among [the four major networks].” 67 FR 65751 at ¶ 156.

---

CRS-5
Local Ownership Rules
Cross-Ownership of Broadcast Stations and Newspapers
The newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule prohibits common ownership of
a full-service broadcast station and a daily newspaper when the broadcast station’s
service contour encompasses the newspaper’s city of publication.11 When it adopted
the rule in 1975, the Commission not only prohibited future newspaper/broadcast
combinations, but also required existing combinations in highly concentrated markets
to divest holdings to come into compliance within five years. The Commission
grandfathered combinations in less concentrated markets, so long as the parties to the
combination remained the same. The Commission adopted a policy of waiving the
rule, for existing or future combinations, if
(1) a combination could not sell a station;
(2) a combination could not sell a station except at an artificially
depressed price;
(3) separate ownership and operation of a newspaper and a station could
not be supported in a locality; or
(4) for whatever reason, the purposes of the rule would be disserved.12
There are more than 70 grandfathered newspaper-broadcast combinations. The
Commission also has granted waivers since adopting the rule.
The proposals of various parties have ranged from retaining the rule, to allowing
cross-ownerships in larger markets only, to replacing the rule with a “diversity index”
that would identify on a case-by-case basis whether a merger might reduce
independent voices in a particular market, to eliminating the rule.
The arguments of proponents of retaining the rule include:
(1) any cross-ownership reduces the number of independent voices in the
community, especially in small markets with only a small number of
voices;
(2) the merged entities, facing less competition for local news service and in
the name of cost savings, will reduce the total amount of resources going
to produce local news in the community;
11 47 C.F.R. § 73.3555(d). For AM radio stations, the service contour is the 2mV/m
contour, id. § 73.3555(d)(1); for FM radio stations, the service contour is the 1mV/m
contour, id. § 73.3555(d)(2); for TV stations, the service contour is the Grade A contour, id.
§ 73.3555(d)(3). A daily newspaper is defined to be one that is published in the English
language four or more times per week. Id. § 73555 n.6.
12 Amendment of Sections 73.34, 73.240, and 73.636 of the Commission’s Rules Relating
to Multiple Ownership of Standard, FM, and Television Broadcast Stations, Docket No.
18110, Second Report & Order, 50 FCC 2d at 1085 (1975).

---

CRS-6
(3) especially given that there are few communities with multiple newspapers,
cross-ownership will give the merged company a competitive advantage
in the advertising market over a broadcast-only competitor.
The arguments of proponents of modifying or eliminating the rule include:
(1) in many cases, local broadcasters cannot afford to commit any
resources to local news, or can only provide minimal news coverage,
but by sharing the newspaper’s resources they could expand local
broadcast news coverage;
(2) two studies in the record in the proceeding, one commissioned by the
FCC and one by the Project for Excellence in Journalism at Columbia
University, concluded that the broadcast stations of grandfathered and
waived combinations provide more and better local news coverage
than non-combined stations;
(3) newspapers and broadcast stations in combinations maintain
independent editorial voices.
Proponents of a diversity index claim that such an index can appropriately
weight the diversity impact of the individual broadcast stations and newspapers in a
specific market to make informed case-by-case decisions about a proposed merger.
But opponents of a diversity index claim it would be difficult to construct an
objective index, and once constructed it would be difficult to administer, adding
uncertainty to players in the marketplace.
This represents a situation where economic and diversity goals can be in strong
conflict. On one hand, it is in small markets, where resources are limited, that
broadcasters are most likely to lack the wherewithal to produce local news
programming on their own, so that cross-ownership might allow for a broadcast news
voice that would not otherwise exist. On the other hand, it is exactly in these small
markets that there are very few voices to begin with, so that cross-ownership might
reduce what little diversity already exists.
Rep. Stearns has introduced the Broadcast Ownership for the 21st Century Act
(H.R. 1035) that would direct the FCC to eliminate its newspaper-broadcasting cross-
ownership rule.
Local Television Multiple Ownership
Under this rule, sometimes referred to as the “TV duopoly” rule, an entity may
own two television stations in the same Designated Market Area (DMA) only if the
following requirements are met: either
(1) the Grade B contours13 of the stations do not overlap, or
13 The Grade B contours (which represent the required field strength in dB above one
(continued...)

---

CRS-7
(2) (a) at least one of the stations is not ranked among the four highest-
ranked stations in the DMA, and (b) at least eight independently owned
and operating commercial or non-commercial full-power broadcast
television stations would remain in the DMA after the proposed
combination were consummated.14 The latter is sometimes referred to as
the “top four ranked/eight voices test.”
In the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Congress directed the Commission to
“conduct a rulemaking proceeding to determine whether to retain, modify, or
eliminate its limitations on the number of television stations that a person or entity
may own, operate, or control, or have a cognizable interest in, within the same
television market.”15 In 1999, the Commission performed a review and modified the
rule. In 2002, that local ownership rule was remanded to the Commission by the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,16 which ruled
that the Commission failed to justify why it only included TV stations among the
voices in the voice test, excluding other media.
The proposals of various parties have ranged from retaining the rule, to
implementing a “10/10 plan” (that would allow pairs in smaller markets by
permitting stations with a 10 audience share or greater to pair with ones with below
10 shares; allow case-by-case waivers for combinations that do not meet the 10/10
criteria; allow “triopolies” in big markets among bottom-rated and financially
struggling stations; and count cable and satellite TV toward audience shares), to
eliminating the eight voices test but retaining the prohibition on pairs among the top-
four stations, to permitting combinations in any markets as long as the collective
audience of the combination is 30 percent or less and the combination passes
Department of Justice/Federal Trade Commission horizontal merger guidelines, to
allowing combinations anywhere unless all local stations would end with one owner,
to complete elimination of the rule.
The proponents of retaining the rule argue that the rule safeguards the number
of independent local news voices in the market, given that broadcast television is the
primary source of local news for Americans; that cable and satellite companies
provide virtually no local news; and that radio news is not a substitute for television
news. They also claim that the rule protects against a combination attaining market
power in the local television advertising market.
13 (...continued)
micro-volt per meter, or dB/mv/m) are defined in Section 73.683 of the Commission’s rules
for each television channel, as follows:
Channels 2-6 ................ 47 dB/:v/m
Channels 7-13 .............. 56 dB/:v/m
Channels 14-69 ............ 64 dB/:v/m
14 47 C.F.R. 73.3555(b); Local TV Ownership Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 12907-08,
¶ 8.
15 1996 Act, § 202(c)(2).
16 See Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 284 F.3rd
148 (DC Cir. 2002)

---

CRS-8
The proponents of modifying or eliminating the rule argue that radio stations
and some local cable systems provide alternative local voices that should provide the
basis for loosening the current constraints. They also argue that the local advertising
market is broader than just television advertising — it includes radio and other media
advertising — and thus that the current rule is not needed to safeguard against market
power in the local advertising market.
The proponents of a diversity index claim that a diversity index can accurately
weight the diversity impact of the individual television stations in a specific market
to make informed case-by-case decisions about a proposed merger. But opponents
of a diversity index claim it would be difficult to construct an objective index, and
once constructed it would be difficult to administer, adding uncertainty to players in
the marketplace.
Rep. Stearns has introduced the Broadcast Ownership for the 21st Century Act
(H.R. 1035) that would direct the FCC to revise its local television multiple
ownership rule to allow an entity to own, operate, or control two TV stations in the
same market if the grade B contours of such stations: (1) do not overlap, or (2) do
overlap and at least six independent broadcast or cable television voices would
remain in the market after transfer of the license of the station in question.
Radio/Television Cross-Ownership
The radio/TV cross-ownership rule limits the number of commercial radio and
television stations one entity may own in a market. The rule allows common
ownership of at least one television station and one radio station in a market. In
larger markets, a single entity may own additional radio stations depending on the
number of other voices in the market. The rule generally allows common ownership
of one or two television stations and up to six radio stations in any market where at
least twenty independent “voices” would remain post-combination; two TV stations
and up to four radio stations in a market where at least ten independent “voices”
would remain post-combination; and one TV and one radio station notwithstanding
the number of independent “voices” in the market. For this rule, a “voice” includes
independently owned and operating same-market, commercial and non-commercial
broadcast TV, radio stations, independently owned daily newspapers of a certain
circulation, and cable systems providing generally available service to television
households in a DMA, provided that all cable systems within the DMA are counted
as a single voice.17 The rule was initially implemented in 1970. The Commission
adopted a presumptive waiver policy to permit certain radio/TV combinations in
1989, and relaxed the rule to its current form in 1999.
The proposals of various parties have ranged from retaining the rule, to
replacing the voice test with an advertising-revenue test, to eliminating the rule.
17 47 C.F. R. § 73.3555(c). If permitted under the local radio ownership rules, where an
entity may own two commercial TV stations and six commercial radio stations, it may own
one commercial TV station and seven commercial radio stations. Local TV Ownership
Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 12953, ¶ 113.

---

CRS-9
The proponents of retaining the rule argue that the rule safeguards the number
of independent local voices in the market and that the voice definition in the rule
includes all the significant local voices in a market — that satellite and Internet
voices are not local and therefore do not contribute to local diversity. They also
claim that the rule protects against a combination attaining market power in the
overall local advertising market.
The proponents of modifying or eliminating the rule argue that satellite and
Internet services provide alternative local voices that should provide the basis for
loosening the current constraints. They also argue that the local advertising market
is broader than just television and radio advertising — it includes other media
advertising — and thus that the current rule is not needed to safeguard against market
power in the local advertising market.
The proponents of a diversity index claim that a diversity index can accurately
weight the diversity impact of the individual television and radio stations in a specific
market to make informed case-by-case decisions about a proposed merger. But
opponents of a diversity index claim it would be difficult to construct an objective
index, and once constructed it would be difficult to administer, adding uncertainty
to players in the marketplace.
Local Radio Ownership and Radio Market Definition
The FCC’s current local radio ownership rule codifies the language in Section
202(b)(1) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, entitled “Local Radio Diversity —
Applicable Caps,” which required the Commission to revise its local radio ownership
rules to provide that:
(A) in a radio market with 45 or more commercial radio stations, a party
may own, operate, or control up to 8 commercial radio stations, not
more than 5 of which are in the same service (AM or FM);
(B) in a radio market with between 30 and 44 (inclusive) commercial
radio stations, a party may own, operate, or control up to 7
commercial radio stations, not more than 4 of which are in the same
service (AM or FM);
(C) in a radio market with between 15 and 29 (inclusive) commercial
radio stations, a party may own, operate, or control up to 6
commercial radio stations, not more than 4 of which are in the same
service (AM or FM);
(D) in a radio market with 14 or fewer commercial radio stations, a party
may own, operate, or control up to 5 commercial radio stations, not
more than 3 of which are in the same service (AM or FM), except that

---

CRS-10
a party may not own, operate, or control more than 50 percent of the
stations in such market.18
The market size, for purposes of the local ownership limits, is measured through
use of a complex system of overlapping signal contours. This methodology tends to
result in very expansive local markets and therefore increases the number of stations
that individual entities can own. In its 1998 biennial review, the Commission
decided to examine the method by which it defined geographic market. In the current
biennial review, it has sought additional comments on its radio market measurement
methodology. One consideration is to move away from a market definition
methodology based on technical signal characteristics to a methodology based on
market-driven characteristics, such as Arbitron audience rating boundaries.
The proposals of various parties relating to the current local radio ownership
rule range from retaining the rule; to applying additional requirements to the rules
(e.g., assessing the impact of each acquisition on minority ownership, eliminating
temporary waivers for proposed mergers exceeding current ownership limits,
requiring station sales needed to comply with existing limits to be made at the time
of merger, “flagging” and giving extra scrutiny to mergers that allow one owner in
a market to control 40 percent of radio advertising revenues or two owners to control
60 percent, making local marketing agreements count toward an operator’s
ownership total); to eliminating the rules.
The proposals of various parties relating to measurement of the radio market
range from retaining the current methodology; to ignoring the signal contours of
powerful out-of-town stations that boost market size and therefore the number of
stations permitted to one owner; to decreasing the number of stations a company can
own locally by measuring markets based on the Arbitron model rather than on
overlapping signals.
The proponents of retaining or eliminating the rule argue that the rule, and the
resultant consolidation in the industry, has turned around the industry financially,
from one in which more than half the radio stations were losing money to one that
is very profitable and attracting an increasing share of the total advertising market.
They also claim that the number of program formats has increased.
The proponents of modifying the rule to tighten ownership requirements claim
that the rule has resulted in both horizontal and vertical consolidation (e.g.,
ownership of concert promotion companies, concert venues) that has resulted in
anticompetitive behavior by the large vertically integrated companies that has
reduced competition in the radio, advertising, music, and concert markets, reduced
program format diversity, and reduced local programming.
Sen. Feingold has introduced the Competition in Radio and Concert Industries
Act of 2003 (S. 221) that, among other things, would (1) prohibit the FCC from
18 Section 202(b) also provides that the Commission may permit a party to exceed these
limits “if the Commission determines that [it] will result in an increase in the number of
radio broadcast stations in operation.” 1996 Act, § 202(b)(2), 110 Stat. at 10-11.

---

CRS-11
loosening the current limitations on multiple ownership of radio stations and exclude
these radio ownership rules from the required biennial review; (2) require the
Commission to designate for hearing any license application that would result in an
entity having as aggregate national radio audience reach exceeding 60 percent; and
(3) require the Commission to prescribe regulations to prohibit the transfer or
assignment to operate, or the use of, a local marketing agreement with respect to a
commercial radio station if the transfer or assignment, or such agreement, will permit
the applicant, or brokers of such agreement, to own, operate, or have an attributable
interest in commercial radio stations that are in aggregate more than 35 percent of the
audience of the local market of such radio stations or more than 35 percent of the
radio advertising revenue in the local market of such radio stations. Rep. Weiner has
introduced an identical bill (H.R. 1763).
Rep. Hinchey has introduced a resolution (H.Res. 218) that it is the sense of the
House of Representatives that the FCC should not weaken any current media
ownership rules and should allow for extensive public review and comment on any
proposed changes to current rules before issuing a final rule. In addition, some
Members of Congress have sent letters to the FCC relating to the substance or the
timing of the Commission’s review of its media ownership rules.

---