NAB, MMTC, Others File Reply Comments In FCC Quadrennial Review Of Ownership Rules

Replies

Reply comments in the FCC's Quadrennial Review of the broadcast ownership rules were due by YESTERDAY (5/29), and the first replies are now showing up in the Commission's filing system, including reply comments from the NAB, MMTC, and other parties.

The NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS's filing rips opponents of lifting ownership caps and subcaps as making "fundamentally backward" arguments, reiterating its contention that the definition of the competitive marketplace for broadcast stations should include other media. "(T)he FCC’s primary focus in this proceeding should be on the intense and growing competition radio and TV stations face for audiences and advertising revenue in a broad marketplace with myriad content sources and advertising options," the NAB argued. "Due to these profound changes, the current local radio and TV ownership rules are no longer 'necessary in the public interest as the result of competition,' and Section 202(h) requires the Commission to 'repeal or modify' them." And the NAB dismissed its opponents as offering "no legal, factual or even logical arguments that undermine NAB’s proposals," calling the opponents "proverbial ostriches with their collective heads in the sand" submitting "opinion pieces" to which the FCC should "pay little heed."

The MULTICULTURAL MEDIA, TELECOM AND INTERNET COUNCIL's reply comments examine what the organization believes would happen if the ownership cap and subcaps were lifted as the NAB has proposed, saying that the plan would hurt diversity and competition and "would have an especially negative effect on the public in markets ranked 75+ by NIELSEN -- 26 of which are located in state capitals," causing diversity to be "entirely abandon(ed)" in those markets. The MMTC also disputes the NAB's contention that the extension of the Cable Procurement Rule (encouraging licensees to do business with minority- and female-owned businesses) has been barred by Congress.

SAUL LEVINE's MOUNT WILSON FM BROADCASTERS also opposes the NAB's position in his reply comments, agreeing with other first-round commenters that "raising the broadcast radio subcaps will harm competition, particularly small operators, and hurt AM radio." LEVINE also partly agrees with iHEARTMEDIA's position that eliminating FM subcaps would hurt AM stations, but differs with iHEART on eliminating AM subcaps (iHEART supports the elimination, MOUNT WILSON opposes it). "The big players will continue to argue for further deregulation," LEVINE contends, "even while the current system is already working for them. One only needs to look at the booming business results for ENTERCOM COMMUNICATIONS to see that for the giants, there is no need for further deregulation." Citing ENTERCOM's addition of a simulcast of its Country KFRG (K-FROG 95.1)/SAN BERNARDINO on KCBS-F-HD2/LOS ANGELES, competing with his Country KKGO (GO COUNTRY 105.1)/LOS ANGELES, LEVINE adds, "Imagine the devastating impact if ENTERCOM were to have four more FM stations" in the market.

Also urging the FCC not to further increase the ownership caps were SARKES TARZIAN, arguing that further deregulation would harm competition in smaller markets and hinder the ability of smaller operators and clusters to compete in larger markets ("even greater homogenization will set in, when the big fish eat all the smaller ones") and CRAWFORD BROADCASTING, raising the alarm that eliminating subcaps "would, as we previously stated, have a serious detrimental effect on already struggling AM stations as existing AM programming would be moved to FM," and disputing ALPHA MEDIA's contention that the addition of streaming, HD RADIO, and translators have improved the competitive position of AMs to the point where subcaps can be eliminated.  GRANT CO. BROADCASTERS, on the other hand, supported the NAB's position, and disputed the MMTC's argument on diversity with the contention that access to capital is the "real issue hurting the industry."

TAXI PRODUCTIONS, INC. (Urban KJLH/LOS ANGELES) supported the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BLACK OWNED BROADCASTERS' opposition to eliminating the subcaps and disputed the CALIFORNIA BROADCASTERS ASSOCIATION's position against the subcaps ("More industry consolidation will not help small independent radio operators like KJLH.... A relaxation of ownership caps will certainly not enhance the chances that more localvoices will be heard.").

And the MUSICFIRST COALITION and the FUTURE OF MUSIC COALITION took on the NAB by arguing that the FCC's public interest obligations "require that the Local Radio Station Ownership Caps not be loosened at all" and that loosening the caps "would cause harm to the public interest in diversity, competition, and localism as experienced by listeners of AM/FM radio, including with respect to the diversity of music played on AM/FM radio.... lt is not the mission of the Commission to bail out larger radio clusters at the expense of smaller radio clusters and other competing audio delivery platforms by allowing further consolidation of AM/FM radio station ownership."

« see more Net News