The Federal Communications Commission has yet to post an Order on its Web site announcing the details of today's decision to allow entities to own newspapers and TV stations in the same market. But that has not stopped anybody from sending their press releases to LLFCC. Here's what we've got so far:

• FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein's dissent
• The Media Access Project
• The Benton Foundation

STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN, DISSENTING

Unprecedented media consolidation in recent years has allowed giant multinational media conglomerates to dominate growing numbers of local news markets from coast to coast. These media giants have swallowed up locally owned newspapers, TV and radio stations across America. This has presented challenges to both our culture and our democracy by undercutting the American tradition of a local press, rooted in and responsive to their own communities.

Central to our American democracy is a rich and varied supply of news and information. An informed citizenry requires the "uninhibited marketplace of ideas," where there is an open exchange of communications regarding music, news, information and entertainment programming over the public airwaves. Broadcasters, along with newspapers, still produce, disseminate, and ultimately control the news, information, and entertainment programs that most inform the discourse, debate, and the free exchange of ideas. As the Supreme Court has observed, "it is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral and other ideas and experiences." That right is enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

By moving forward now with relaxation of the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule, the majority ignores the repeated pleas of the American people and their representatives in Congress. There is no time-sensitive issue that compels us to act today. In fact, we were asked by leaders in Congress, including our oversight committees, to defer today and conduct a more inclusive process. That we are moving forward when the voices that matter are asking us to refrain defies the imagination.

The FCC has never attempted such a brazen act of defiance against Congress. Like the Titanic, we are steaming at full speed despite repeated warnings of danger ahead. We should have slowed down rather than put everything at risk.

The reasons for Congressional concern were underscored by the frantic scramble to make major policy changes at the last minute to this item. Late last night, there was a brand new proposal to provide waivers to 42 newspaper-television combinations. And not until early this morning, we learned of massive changes to the waiver standards - an issue of grave concern to me and a number of leaders in Congress. The majority argues this item is the product of long and careful deliberation. But after an odyssey through the Commission and the Courts, massive changes and new, previously unseen waivers were adopted in the dead of night on the eve of a vote. That hardly inspires confidence that this was an open, transparent and deliberative process.

Last week LLFCC published a playful little piece: "Faux Celebrity FCC filings on the rise." Overnight it became the blog's most popular story, logging more hits in less time than anything else on the site. It also generated several interpretations with which I disagree.

The "Faux" article disclosed something that I've noticed over the last year or so. Every now and then some wag files comments with the FCC using the name of a famous person: Donald Trump, Paris Hilton, even Leon Trotsky, Joseph Stalin, George W. Bush, and Jesus Christ. The filings often mangle some auto-comment available on the Web site of a public interest or lobbying group.

They can be pretty funny, too.

"I'm a dead Communist, but I don't want to pay more for my telephone service!" declared "Leon Trotsky" in an FCC comment submitted in March of 2005 regarding a Commission proposal to boost Universal Service Fund rates.

So I compiled all these comments into a story, posted it, and sent it to the mother of all media regulation sites: Techdirt, whose lead writer Mike Masnick generously mentions my blog from time to time.

While members of Congress are protesting the Federal Communications Commission's likely approval of a newspaper/television station cross-ownership rule this Tuesday, December 18, five big media companies say the proposal does not go far enough.

At a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on Thursday, FCC Chair Kevin Martin defended his plan to allow entities to own both newspapers and television stations in the top 20 Nielsen defined markets in the United States. Martin cited shrinking advertising revenue for newspapers, leading to less local news reporting, as the reason for the consolidation move.

"Allowing cross-ownership may help to forestall the erosion in local news coverage by enabling companies to share these local news gathering costs across multiple media platforms," Martin told the Committee.

But the Sinclair Broadcast Group, Gannett Inc., Media General, Morris Communications, and Clear Channel all say they want even more FCC lenience in buying up media properties. Over the last two weeks these five corporations have lobbied the Commission for further relaxation of its media ownership rules; a host of comments arrived on December 11th, the last day for public comments on Martin's proposal.

A major phone company threw the book at a proposal to require incumbent telcos to provide consumers with information about the upcoming DTV transition in their telephone and cable bills. Qwest's December 12th filing with the Federal Communications Commission claims the idea will cause "customer confusion" and violate the First Amendment.

"Any notice about changes in broadcast television signals should come from sources that have a reasonable, logical connection to the issue," a rep from Qwest explained to an advisor to Commissioner Robert McDowell that day. "In this instance, that could include, e.g., broadcasters, cable and satellite television providers, and manufacturers of television sets."

The government has set February 17th, 2009 as the last day of analog broadcasting. The next day all TV stations must transmit via digital (or "DTV") signals. To help the estimated 21 million households that still have analog TV make the transition, the Department of Commerce will soon issue discount coupons good for set top boxes that convert analog sets into digital receivers.

In an issue packed meeting scheduled for December 18th, the Federal Communications Commission will vote on one of its media ownerships rules, to the dismay of the agency's two Democrats.

"This is a huge mistake," Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein said in a public statement posted on the agency's Web site today. "The FCC should have heeded the calls of Congress and the American people to conduct a credible process on an issue of this importance to our very democracy. That means providing a meaningful opportunity for public input, rather than the callous disregard exhibited thus far."

For the last two months FCC Chair Kevin Martin has publicly advocated an FCC rule change that would allow entities to own a newspaper and a television station in the top 20 U.S. urban markets. Critics in Congress and elsewhere have accused Martin of rushing the decision. They have also asked that he publish the exact text of the proposed change for public comment before bringing the matter to a vote, something Martin has refused to do.

"We have been engaged in internal discussions to try to get our processes back on track," Copps and Adelstein's statement concludes. "We wish those discussions had led to better results. At this point, given the lateness of the hour, we hope that either we can turn this around internally, or that Congress can save the FCC from itself."

Sometimes I get interviewed on the radio about some subject related to the Federal Communications Commission. Invariably the host asks me the same question: "What can the public do about this matter?"

In response I rattle off the names of some good groups to contact: Free Press, the Benton Foundation, the Media Access Project, The Prometheus Project, etc, etc, etc.

After which the host invariably adds with a perky, helpful tone: "And you can also contact the FCC at dub dub dub dot fcc.gov. Right?"

"Er, uhum, rite . . ." I mumble, and hope that we move on to the next question quickly.

You see, I never tell civilians that they can contact the FCC on some matter, because they usually can't. Go to fcc.gov now and see for yourself.

Are you there? As you can tell, the home page of the site is a blizzard of links and options. After a minute or so you'll notice a link on the left: "Contacting the FCC."

But if you go to that page, you'll find no easy way to reach the Commission on a specific issue. Sure, there are e-mail links to the commissioners, but I can't seriously promise anyone that they will read, much less respond, to something Jane Q. Public e-mails them, because the chances are that they won't.

"Don't prevent states from fixing my cell phone problems," someone who signed their name "Donald Trump" wrote to the Federal Communications Commission in June of 2005.

"Here, hold my hairpiece for a minute while I take this call from California—" the filing continues. "what? You think cell phones should be regulated somehow? Disclosure? Costs? You crazy? Hell, I'll NEVER allow California to do any such thing! . . . YOU'RE FIRED!"

Did Paris Hilton file with the FCC?
Only her hairdresser . . .

As someone who searches for and reads FCC proceeding statements a lot, I run into many FCC filings signed by people who comment as celebrities, noted historical figures, or even as dirty words. Most, but not all, are creatively mangled Web form comments provided by public interest groups on specific issues.

"I'm a dead Communist, but I don't want to pay more for my telephone service!" declared "Leon Trotsky" in an FCC statement submitted in March of 2005.