Congressman Doyle Weighs in on
FCC Media Ownership Rules

Washington, DC – February 23, 2007 – U.S. Representative Mike Doyle (PA-14) sent a letter commenting on the Federal Communications Commission’s media ownership rulemaking to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin yesterday for inclusion in the record of the hearing that the FCC is holding today in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Congressman Doyle urged the FCC to carefully consider the internet’s role when it reviews its media ownership rules.

“The web is a valuable, perhaps essential, tool for expanding and enriching public debate in our country,” Congressman Doyle wrote. “It has already greatly enhanced the nation’s discourse on public affairs. But until it is as pervasive as broadcast media and newspapers – and until new websites truly compete with those traditional media outlets (and the web sites they control) – the web’s existence should not be used to justify media consolidation.”

The text of the letter follows in its entirety.

Dear Chairman Martin:

I am sorry that I am not able to join you in Harrisburg today. I ask that you include this letter containing my comments on media ownership as part of the record for this hearing.

As vice-chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, I have a strong responsibility for making and overseeing federal policy on issues like media concentration. Moreover, I believe that this issue is of the utmost importance to our democratic system of government and our nation’s future economic well-being. I am concerned that a misstep on this issue could have serious repercussions for both.

I commend you for being interested in hearing from thoughtful people outside of the confines of Washington. I believe that the American people have a lot at stake in these hearings, and I appreciate you choosing Pennsylvania’s capital city as the site of the third of six hearings on media ownership.

I also want to thank the witnesses from Pennsylvania who have come to today’s hearing in order to comment on the state of our nation’s media and the impact on our nation if greater concentration of media ownership were allowed.

I want to focus my comments today on one important piece of the media ownership debate—the rise of the internet as a complement to the local news and information created by newspapers, broadcast television and radio stations, and wire services. Some media companies and associations have asserted that the internet’s potential in this regard is sufficient justification for the Commission to relax its media ownership rules. Then-Chairman Michael Powell made the mistake of acting as if the internet was an independent source of national and local news— a mistake repudiated by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals when they remanded the Commission’s rules on this very point.

I believe that the internet has the potential to give everyone an equal platform to report about and opine on the goings-on around them. An open and free internet could be considered the first truly accessible tool to make the spirit of First Amendment come alive for everyone in the country. But without an internet available to all that guarantees fast speeds to anyone’s content, that potential is just a promise.

The reality of the Internet today for most Americans is not really comparable to its potential. The reality is that the FCC considers 200 kbps as broadband—a speed so inadequate that even video optimized for slower connections like that provided by YouTube requires 500kbps -- 150% faster -- to run in real-time. The reality is that broadband isn’t available -- even at those low speeds – to tens of millions of Americans.

The reality is that only small percentages – 11% of respondents in a recent survey – use the internet as a frequent source of local news and information. The reality is that the websites of local TV stations and local newspapers account for about half of the sites these Internet users visit most frequently.

The web is a valuable, perhaps essential, tool for expanding and enriching public debate in our country. It has already greatly enhanced the nation’s discourse on public affairs. But until it is as pervasive as broadcast media and newspapers – and until new websites truly compete with those traditional media outlets (and the web sites they control) – the web’s existence should not be used to justify media consolidation.

While bloggers and some websites cover local news extremely well, many are centered on opinion, food and theater reviews – or they simply aggregate links to websites of broadcasters or newspapers. The fact that most of these websites generate significant content reacting or responding to content produced by local broadcasters or newspapers underscores the internet’s importance as a complement and a supplement – not a competitor – to traditional media outlets.

Proposals to allow increased media concentration raise serious concerns from many Americans who believe that too much media ownership concentration will choke off information and viewpoints that are essential for wise public decisions in the future. I hope that the Commission will thoroughly examine the media landscape today before deciding how to proceed on the issue of media ownership. I want to assure you that I will continue to monitor the Commission’s proceedings on this matter with great interest.

Again, I thank the Commission, and its staff, for making the trip to the Keystone State for this hearing on media ownership.

###