February 1996: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 becomes law. Section 202 of the Act instructs the Federal Communications Commission to review its media ownership rules every two years, and to consider "whether any such rules are necessary in the public interest as a result of competition." ("FCC initiates third biennial review of broadcast ownership rules," news release, September 12th, 2002)

September 20, 2001: The FCC initiates a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking comment on whether the Commission should revise its rules limiting common ownership of a broadcast station and a newspaper in the same market. The Commission adopted the rule in 1975. It "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." The Commission's NPRM notes that when Congress passed the Telecommunications Act, it "expressly considered but rejected making changes to the news/broadcast co-ownership policies." But the Notice asks whether the "proliferation of new media" means that "the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule is no longer necessary to ensure that consumers of news and information have access to diverse ideas and viewpoints" (Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, September 20, 2001, Sections 2, 6, 15).

October 29, 2001: The FCC announces the creation of a media ownership working group "that will be tasked with developing a solid factual and analytical foundation for media ownership regulation." The group consists of seven economists, attorneys, and managers employed by the FCC ("FCC Chairman Michael Powell announces creation of media ownership working group," news release, October 29, 2001)

On the same day the FCC holds a "roundtable panel on media ownership policies" that includes consumer advocates, economists, government officials, and academics.

November 9th, 2001: The Commission opens an NPRM on its local radio ownership rules, asking for public comment on the impact of radio ownership consolidation since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the FCC's own relaxation of local radio ownership rules in 1992.

September 12, 2002: The FCC initiates its Third Biennial Review of ownership rules. The NPRM asks the public three questions:

1. Does the marketplace provide a sufficient level of competition to protect and advance these policy goals?
2. If not, do the current ownership rules achieve these goals?
3. Are revisions to the rules required to protect and advance diversity, competition and localism in the media market? (News Release, "FCC Initiates Third Biennial Review of Broadcast Ownership Rules," September 12th, 2002)

The docket opens the questions to six rules:

• Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership Prohibition (1975): "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." (See October 29, 2001 entry).
• Local Radio Ownership (1941, 1996): The Telecommunications Act of 1996 allows a company ("entity" in FCC lingo) to own eight radio stations in a market of at least 45 commercial stations, less stations in smaller markets.
• National TV Ownership Rule: "The national TV ownership rule prohibits an entity from owning television stations that collectively would reach more than 35% of U.S. television households." (S. 126)
• Local TV Multiple Ownership (1964): A company can own two TV stations in a region only if "at least eight independently owned and operating commercial or non-commercial full-power broadcast television stations would remain in the DMA [designated market area] after the proposed combination." (S. 73)
• Radio/TV Cross-Ownership Restriction (1970): "The radio/TV cross-ownership rule generally allows common ownership of one or two TV 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." (S. 98, note 176)
• Dual Network Rule (1946): "The dual network rule was originally adopted over sixty years ago and flatly prohibited any entity from maintaining more than a single radio network. A few years later, the rule was extended to television networks." This means that radio and TV networks cannot merge with each other. (S. 157)
  (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, adopted September 12, 2002).

October 1, 2002: FCC issues twelve studies on media ownership. Some of their findings:

• That the rate of growth of independent ownership of media (139% since 1960) is not keeping up with the rate of growth of media outlets (radio stations, TV stations, newspapers, etc., 195% since 1960).
• That consumers substitute the Internet and broadcast TV for news. They substitute weekly newspapers and daily newspapers for news. They substitute daily newspapers and TV stations for news. But "[t]here is little or no evidence of substitution between weekly papers and broadcast TV, between radio and the Internet, or between radio and cable."
• "Of the ten commonly-owned newspaper-television combinations studied, five exhibited a similar slant in covering the final weeks of the 2000 Presidential election, while five exhibited divergent slants."
• Since the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the biggest station owners in any market controlled over ten percent more advertising revenue. By 2002, the largest owners received 46.8% on average, almost half of all advertising revenue. The average number of radio station owners in markets declined from 13.5 to 9.9.
• Economic growth, rather than ownership concentration, explains the rise in advertising rates from 1996 through 2001.
• Economic concentration likely results in more "non-programming material (commercials, PSAs, etc)."

November 5, 2002: The FCC extends the public comment period for its NPRM on media ownership. The agency also offers more public access to the data contained in its twelve studies. But Commissioner Michael Copps calls the extension inadequate:

"We've asked the public to analyze six separate media consolidation rules. We've asked them to sift through twelve studies that many groups claim are inadequate. We've asked them to suggest what other areas of this issue need to be explored. And we've asked them to do all this in a media landscape that has changed dramatically over the past decade. Yet we provide a mere 60 days to do this. The last-minute addition of 30 days fails to even come close to solving the problem the FCC has created."
(Michael Copps, statement, November 5, 2002).

December 4, 2002: FCC Chair Michael Powell announces public hearing on media ownership to be held in Richmond, Virginia. Commissioner Michael Copps praises the announcement, but says that the FCC needs to hold more public hearings, especially in the mid-west and on the west coast (Michael Powell, Michael Copps, statements, December 4, 2002)

January 16, 2003: FCC holds an unofficial public hearing on media ownership at Columbia University's Law School. FCC Commissioner Kevin Martin urges reconsideration of the FCC ban on newspapers and broadcast station cross ownership. Michael Copps says to the conference audience that "I don't believe that we have the foggiest idea right now about the potential consequences of our actions." Michael Powell defends the course the FCC has taken. "[L]et me now tell you this. We will have broadcast ownership rules at the end of this proceeding." (Kevin Martin, Michael Copps, Michael Powell, statements, January 16, 2003)

January 20, 2003: Conservative New York Times columnist William Safire inveighs against "media gigantism" in his regular op-ed column, and opposes relaxing media ownership rules. "Does this make me (gasp!) pro-regulation?" Safire asks his readers. "Michael Powell, appointed by Bush to be F.C.C. chairman, likes to say 'the market is my religion.' My conservative economic religion is founded on the rock of competition, which - since Teddy Roosevelt's day - has protected small business and consumers against predatory pricing leading to market monopolization. . . . Republicans in the House, intimidated by the powerful broadcast lobby, don't admit that some regulation can be pro-business."

February 27, 2003: The Commission holds its official hearing on media ownership at the Richmond Convention Center, in Richmond Virginia. Fifteen representatives of reform groups, broadcast corporations, and trade groups make statements on the FCC's broadcast ownership rules.

March 7, 2003: Public hearing on media ownership held in Seattle, Washington and attended by Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps.

March 31, 2003: Public hearing on media ownership held at Duke Law School in Durham, North Carolina, and attended by Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps.

April 11, 2003: FCC Chair Michael Powell notes in his response to letters from eight members of Congress that the broadcast ownership rules NPRM has received 18,000 comments, with over 17,000 coming from individual Americans (Michael Powell, letter to United States Senator John McCain, April 11, 2003).

April 28, 2003: Michael Copps appears at a conference on media ownership held at the Annenberg School Media Consolidation Forum in Los Angeles. "Here is my concern:" Copps tells the group. [W]e are on the verge of dramatically altering our nation's media landscape without the kind of national dialogue and debate these issues so clearly merit. Thirty-five days are all that's left, if FCC Chairman Powell continues to insist that the roll be called on June 2. So in just over a month, the FCC will have voted on this, changed the rules, reconfigured the media landscape, and told the world that, sorry, there's no opportunity or time for public comment on what has been voted into place." (Michael Copps, talk at the Annenberg School Media Consolidation Forum, April 28, 2003, p. 2)

May 12, 2003: The National Rifle Association sends out a "Media Monopoly Alert" to its members, signed by NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre, urging them to oppose media concentration: "[Y]ou better believe that if these Big Media executives get the control they want over over America's radio and T.V. airwaves, it will be all but impossible for your NRA to fight our grassroots battles in the way we have done so successfully in the past - by putting your message on the air, telling your fellow citizens the truth, and getting them involved."

May 13, 2003: Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein call a postponement of the FCC's impending roll call decision on media ownership rules, scheduled for June 2nd. They also ask for the FCC to schedule another public forum on the controversy. "A public airing would make for better policies," they say. "It would make for better buy-in from the American people. And it would enhance the sustainability of any Commission decision in court."

Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy opposes any delay, citing the FCC's statutory obligation to complete a media ownership rules review as per the 1996 Telecommunications Act. ("FCC Commissioners Adelstein and Copps call for public airing of media ownership proposals," press release, May 13, 2003; "Statement of Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy opposing delay of the broadcast ownership biennial review," press release, May 13, 2003).

May 15, 2003: FCC Chair Michael Powell declines to delay proceeding. "There is precedent for granting such a request," Powell explains, "but it is not customary to do so over the strong objections of a majority of Commissioners who are prepared to proceed, or where Congress has statutorily set the pace of our deliberations, as is the case here." ("FCC Chairman Responds to Request for Delay on Media Ownership Proceeding," press release, May 15, 2003).

June 2, 2003: By a vote of three to two, the Federal Communications Commission revises many, but not all, of its media ownership rules. The Commission:

• Retains its ban on mergers in any of the top four national broadcast networks.
• Revises its local TV multiple ownership limits. Now the FCC permits:
  • a company to own two stations in markets with five or more TV stations, but only one of these stations can be among the top four in ratings.
  • a company to own three TV stations in markets with 18 or more TV stations, but only one of these stations can be among the top four in ratings.
  • both non-commercial and commercial stations to be counted as part of the market formula
  • a waiver process for markets with 11 or fewer TV stations in which two top-four stations seek to merge. The FCC will evaluate on a case-by-case basis whether such stations would better serve their local communities together rather than separately.
  • In explaining this rule change, the FCC argues "that Americans rely on a variety of media outlets, not just broadcast television, for news and information. In addition, the prior rule could not be justified as necessary to promote competition because it failed to reflect the significant competition now faced by local broadcasters from cable and satellite TV services. This is the first local TV ownership rule to acknowledge that competition."
• Expands the percentage of U.S. TV households a company can reach from 35% to 45%.
• Keeps its local radio ownership rules intact, which limit entities from owning more than eight stations in large markets. But the FCC replaces its definition of geographic markets in the United States with the Arbitron corporation's definitions of geographic markets. The market formula includes commercial and non-commercial stations.
• Creates new cross media ownership rules, quoted here:

  "In markets with three or fewer TV stations, no cross-ownership is permitted among TV, radio and newspapers. A company may obtain a waiver of that ban if it can show that the television station does not serve the area served by the cross-owned property (i.e. the radio station or the newspaper).
  In markets with between 4 and 8 TV stations, combinations are limited to one of the following:
  (A) A daily newspaper; one TV station; and up to half of the radio station limit for that market (i.e. if the radio limit in the market is 6, the company can only own 3) OR
  (B) A daily newspaper; and up to the radio station limit for that market; (i.e. no TV stations) OR
  (C) Two TV stations (if permissible under local TV ownership rule); up to the radio station limit for that market (i.e. no daily newspapers)."

FCC Commissioner Michael Powell praises the rules as reasonable and legally necessary. "I must punctuate one irreducible point: Keeping the rules exactly as they are, as some so stridently suggest, was not a viable option," he argues. "Without today's surgery, the rules would assuredly meet a swift death."

But the decision draws a strong reaction from Michael Copps: "I dissent because today the Federal Communications Commission empowers America's new Media Elite with unacceptable levels of influence over the ideas and information upon which our society and our democracy so heavily depend," Copps says in a public statement. ("FCC Sets Limits on Media Concentration," FCC news release, June 2, 2003; Michael Powell, press statement, June 2, 2003; Michael Copps, press statement, June 2, 2003).

August 13, 2003: The Prometheus Radio Project, a low-power FM advocacy group, supported by a coalition of media reform groups, files a petition for review and motion to stay the FCC's newly enacted media ownership rules in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. They are joined by the San Francisco based Media-Alliance and The National Council of Churches in Christ two days later.

September 16, 2003: The United States Senate by a vote of 55-40 moves to overturn the FCC's revised TV/newspaper cross ownership rule and rule expanding a company's national TV household reach from 35 to 45 percent (Edward Epstein, Senate votes to block new FCC rules, San Francisco Chronicle, Wednesday, September 17, 2003, A-1).

June 24, 2004: The Third Circuit Court of Appeals grants the Prometheus Radio Project's motion to stay. The court argues that the FCC's new rules were not in the public interest, observing that the FCC's assessments of media diversity "gave too much weight to the Internet as a media outlet, irrationally assigned outlets of the same media type equal market shares." The FCC's media ownership rules revert back to their earlier state until the next scheduled media ownership review (Prometheus Project v. Federal Communications Commission, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, "Opinion of the Court," 56).

January 21, 2005: Michael Powell resigns as Chair of the FCC. President Bush names Kevin Martin new Chair.

January 27, 2005: Reacting to news that the U.S. Solicitor General will not appeal Prometheus v. FCC, Commissioners Adelstein and Copps call for more hearings across the country to find out what public has to say about media localism and diversity.

"I think there are companies out there who want to game the process by having the Commission write quick rules, one by one and under the radar scope, and accomplish piecemeal what they couldn't get whole," Copps says. "The American people are not served by a stealth airwaves grab." ("Copps and Adelstein Welcome Decision Not to Appeal Third Circuit Media Ownership Ruling," FCC Press Release, January 27, 2005).

February 6, 2006: President Bush announces that he will appoint telecom lobbyist Robert M. McDowell to the Federal Communications Commission. The appointment, when confirmed by the United States Senate, will give Martin the 3/2 Republican majority he needs to reopen the media ownership proceeding.

February 8, 2006: National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) president David K. Rehr files a statement with the FCC calling for the Commission to "reform the prohibition on owning a newspaper and even a single broadcast outlet in the same market." Rehr also asks the FCC to permit local TV duopolies.

"Clearly, localism and diversity cannot be served by restrictions that doom local broadcasters to ownership arrangements no longer economically viable in today's highly competitive media marketplace," Rehr concludes in his letter.

February 24, 2006: A filing indicates that Rehr has personally met with FCC Chair Kevin Martin about the media ownership question on or around February 24.

March 15, 2006: A group of prominent media reformers meet with the FCC and ask for "procedural transparency and extensive public participation" when the Commission again considers revising its media ownership rules. The activists meet with a media advisor for Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate. They include representatives of the Media Access Project, Free Press, U.S. Conference on Catholic Bishops, the Prometheus Project, and the Institute for Public Representation.

April 4, 2006: Speaking before the Newspaper Association of America's annual convention, FCC Chair Kevin Martin says that the "public has not been convinced of the need" for lifting the FCC's ban on TV/newspaper cross-ownership.

"The public needs to understand both the value that your papers offer and the struggles you face in continuing to provide news in an increasingly competitive media market," he tells the gathering. "Indeed, the failure of the Commission to modify our rules is not our fault alone."

May 26th, 2006: The United States Senate confirms Robert M. McDowell to the Federal Communications Commission.

June 21, 2006: The FCC announces that it will launch a new media ownership proceeding lasting 120 days, but Democrats Copps and Adelstein express skepticism about the new proceeding, particularly the fact that it does not guarantee the public a chance to comment on any final rules the Commission formulates.

"I am deeply disappointed that this Notice does not contain a specific, up-front commitment to share proposed media concentration rules with the American people in advance of a final vote," Copps says. "I do not see how we can be transparent and comply with the dictates of the Third Circuit without letting the American people know about and comment on any new standards of measurement that we adopt in developing our ultimate decision."

July 24, 2006: FCC launches new Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on media ownership limits. Public has until September 22nd to comment and until November 21st to reply to comments.