STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS ON THE ANNOUNCEMENT BY CHAIRMAN JULIUS GENACHOWSKI OF HIS INTENT TO LAUNCH AN INTERNET FREEDOM PROCEEDING September 21, 2009 The Internet was born and thrived on openness. Keeping it open as some players amass the power for gatekeeper control is essential. The FCC's Statement of Four Internet Principles that we won in 2005 was the initial down-payment toward that objective. Chairman Genachowski’s bold announcement today is a significant further investment in safeguarding Internet Freedom. I salute him for it. Broadband users should be able to use any device or application they want, to reach any legal content they wish, using any broadband technology, so long as they don’t cause harm to the network. Some rules of the road and a venue for enforcing them are required to make this vision reality. This is why I have long advocated an enforceable principle of non-discrimination, ensuring that product and service providers understand the difference between advancing and shortcircuiting Internet Freedom. And the venue with the expertise to adjudicate claims of alleged discrimination, and with the authority to enforce the principle, is the FCC. The Chairman’s statement also rightly accords high priority to transparency for consumers. Users have a right to know how the network is being managed and what practices providers are employing. A sixth principle of transparency is therefore not just good--but essential--policy. Certainly a well-considered Internet Freedom approach will take into account what constitutes reasonable network management practices;

how evolutionary and revolutionary changes can alter the landscape and even change the guidelines on what is or is not acceptable; and solicit the input of all stakeholders--consumers, innovators, technologists and entrepreneurs. Internet Freedom is part-and-parcel of bringing the wonders of Twenty-first century telecommunications to each and every American. Today's announcement is a significant stride toward realization of this vision.    

The FCC and Media Democcracy

by Kristin Lee

May, 2003

WIFP Associate Who owns the local television stations, radio stations and newspapers? As of today (May, 2003), federal law dictates that media companies cannot own both a broadcast station and a newspaper in the same

market. Yet on June 2, 2003, the FCC is set to vote on deregulating much of the safeguards on media ownership, opening the floodgates for increased media consolidation. Such consolidation is unprecedented and would have lasting ramifications on every citizen in the United States, particularly women and minorities who are already marginalized by the mainstream media. The proposed deregulation would have a powerful impact on reporting, coverage, and in the way reporters present news information to the public. The coverage of events ­ the ways in which information is conveyed to the public - is a crucial portion of a functioning democracy. Historically, the U.S. government has set ownership limits to encourage media fairness, diversity, and accountability for news coverage. The extent and style media uses to report issues are significantly affected by regulations on ownership. Access to information is an integral component of democracy, and the media has an increasingly considerable role in information distribution. Publications, radio, television, video, film and Internet coverage and distribution are all affected by media ownership, restrictions, and distribution policies. Issues of media ownership certainly affect businesses. But what is media democracy and why is it important to every U.S. Citizen? Media democracy is founded on two important notions: one, that public forums such as radio and television airwaves are public property, and two, that everyone has a right both to have their voice heard and to access a variety of viewpoints and information . Currently there is much debate over the benefits and downsides to media regulation. The FCC's proposed deregulations of media ownership laws are inciting this fiery debate between proponents and opponents of deregulation. Proponents argue that deregulating current media ownership laws would increase media outlets by promoting more competition, while opponents argue that similar deregulations in the past which were supposed to increase competition (such as the 1996 Telecommunications Act) in fact had the opposite effect. These previous deregulations caused a surge of mergers that discouraged competition.

Without competition, the two founding notions of media democracy have been significantly marginalized in recent years as the diversity of media sources shrink at an alarming rate. The loss of diversity in media ownership is a concern for democracy in the U.S., as citizens need a variety of information on all sides of the spectrum in order to make educated, informed decisions that will affect both their lives and the future of democracy. It is essential to provide media forums in which people can speak for themselves and communicate with one another. This paper will explore the impending FCC decision, the history of communication regulations and the ramifications of potential deregulation.

A Brief History of Media Regulation The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was established through the Communications Act of 1934. The FCC was created as an independent government agency charged with the regulation of interstate and international communications by television, wire, satellite, radio, and cable. The new Commission was in charge of ensuring that the limited broadcast airwaves owned by the public were used to their benefit. In the 1940s, when larger media companies started to gain immense power, the federal government began a series of regulations to keep the power and influence of the corporations in check. In 1941, the Local Radio Ownership Rule and the National Television Ownership Rules were written into law. The new laws fit in with the anti-monopoly sentiments of the early 1940s, which made it easier for the passage and support of these anti-media monopoly issues . The law stated that any given broadcaster would henceforth be barred from owning television stations that reached over 35% of U.S. homes. In 1946, the Dual

Television Network Rule was enacted, which prevented any major network from purchasing another. In 1949, the Fairness Doctrine was established. The Fairness Doctrine was a major step forward in limiting the power of media corporations' control over communications systems and remains a model relevant in today's marketplace. It established that the media needed to serve the public interest in certain ways. It also emphasized the importance of allowing all points of view to be heard. In the words of the Media Access Project, an organization dedicated to improving media democracy, "for fifty years, the fairness doctrine advanced the public's First Amendment right to receive information on important issues. The fairness doctrine arises from the principle, reaffirmed by Congress and the United States Supreme Court, that broadcasters have special public trustee obligations, which they voluntarily incur in exchange for the exclusive use of scarce public airwaves." The Doctrine sought to ensure that the media served as a vehicle for the public to access to information and to make certain that controversial issues of public importance would be discussed in fair and balanced ways. The concern for a diverse media ownership continued into the 1960s and 1970s. In 1964, the Local TV Multiple Ownership Rule was written into law. This law prevented owning multiple television stations in any given market, unless there are more than 8 stations within the market. In 1970, the Radio/TV Cross Ownership Rule was founded, which prevented big media from owning a television and radio station in the same market jurisdiction. Similarly, owning both a broadcast television station and a newspaper was barred in 1975. Then, in the early 1980s, the wave of media regulation stopped. President Ronald Reagan began reversing regulation laws and systematically demolishing media restraints. First, Reagan rescinded the rules that ensured that non-entertainment programming would be broadcast. Reagan then initiated the major overturn of media regulation

policy in 1987, when the Bush administration sought to put an end to the Fairness Doctrine. In the court case Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts ruled that the FCC was no longer responsible for regulating the Fairness Doctrine because Congress did not mandate it. Until recently, the FCC has sought to uphold its commitment to the First Amendment to ensure "the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources." In 1996, many of the previous actions to protect the consolidation of the media were overturned. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the first significant change in FCC law in more than 60 years. The new law sought to open competition in the communications market. Not surprisingly, the law was looked favorably upon by media corporations. It led to a wave of mergers, and actually decreased competition in the market. Instead of many groups providing media services, consolidation brought the number of participants down to only a handful of companies. The Act brought on a 1/3 decline in commercial radio stations (a loss of 1,700 stations). Although the Act was supposed to lead to a decrease in consumers' cable cost, cable prices have actually increased 30% since the law was put into effect. Now 7 companies, including AOL/Time Warner and Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, own 75% of the market . The Telecommunications Act actually contradicted its intention of increasing media choices. Instead, it harmed competition and media democracy. The free market did not promote a diverse group of media companies as promoters of the Act predicted. In fact, the Telecommunications Act encouraged consolidation. Now under the influence of the pro-big business Bush Administration and his choice of the pro-big business Michael Powell (son of U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell) as the FCC Chairman, there is a strong force desiring greater deregulation in the FCC policies. On September 12, 2002, the FCC announced its "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" (NPRM) . The NPRM alerted the public to a change in rules ­ which the FCC was heading towards further media deregulation.

This year, the FCC continues along the track of the NPRM considering changing regulation policies under its Strategic Goals Program. Congress has mandated that the FCC review its rules every two years. In addition, a Washington, DC Circuit Court of Appeals demanded the FCC show "empirical evidence" in support of their rules, or the rules must be altered; Congress has mandated such reviews every two years under the Commission's Strategic Goals Program. Several major networks have also pushed for the FCC to review its policy. The following rules are under review. The National Television Ownership Rule (1941): A broadcaster cannot own television stations that reach more than 35% of U.S. homes. Television-Radio Cross Ownership Rule (1970): Limits the number of radio and television stations a single entity can own in any given market. Broadcast-Newspaper Cross Ownership Prohibition (1975): This rule prohibits a company from owning a television station and newspaper in the same market. Dual Network Rule (1946) ­ No entity can own more than one major television network. Local Television Ownership Rule (1964): Bans broadcasters from owning more than one of the four stations in a single market." The potential overthrow of any of the above rules is a direct threat to the goal of a diverse and democratic media. If only several companies control the airwaves, only a handful of people will have control over what millions of people read, see and hear. One of the most frightening facts about the upcoming proposed deregulation is that only a small portion of the public is aware of the suggested changes because few news outlets are reporting about it. According to a survey conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Pew Research Center for People and the Press, 72% of the American public had heard

"nothing at all" about the proposed changes in FCC regulations. It is impossible for the public to make an informed decision or informed protest regarding the future of their ability to access new information. Yet the public is now overwhelmingly uninformed of the suggested FCC changes and potential implications, while the deadline for public action is quickly approaching. The FCC will announce their decision on these issues on June 2, 2003.

Media Consolidation: Who Owns What and Who Will Profit From Deregulation?

"Two nuclear power plant manufacturers own two of our national networks - General Electric owns NBC, and Westinghouse now owns CBS. The other network is owned by a cartoon company: Disney owns ABC"-- Ralph Nader

"...Five companies are now the gatekeepers and decision makers for the programming choices of the vast majority of  {the} American people..."-Joint Comments, Writers Guild of America West To understand the gigantic significance of the upcoming FCC decision, it is important to understand two things: who owns what and who will profit from media deregulation. In terms of ownership, only a few companies control the majority of media outlets in the U.S. While media consolidation has been a trend over the past few decades, the changes due to the 1996 Telecommunications Act were noticeably significant. In

looking at the media consolidation this act spurred, it is possible to get a taste of the type of mergers that may occur if the FCC opts for deregulation. One of the most significant effects of the 1996 Telecommunications Act was the merger of America Online (AOL) and Time Warner. The extensiveness of their media holdings is an example of how much control one company can have over what people read, hear, and see. For example, the list of companies in the AOL/Time Warner Empire includes the obvious AOL, AOL Instant Messenger, Time Life Books, and Warner Brothers Studios. But the company also owns: CNN, Fortune Magazine, Life, Sports Illustrated, HBO (all HBO sectors), and Cinemax. In addition, the company owns a wide array of television, music and movie companies, including: The Cartoon Network, Reprise, Newline Cinema, Atlanta, Electra, and Whino. In addition to the aforementioned magazines, AOL/Time Warner owns the magazines: People, Entertainment Weekly, InStyle, Mad Magazine, Sunset, Real Simple, Health, Weight Watchers, Food and Wine, Money, DC Comics, Vertigo Comics, Ski, Skiing, Transworld Skateboarding, and Transworld Snowboarding, among others. AOL/Time Warner has joint ventures with EBay, 3Com, Eastman Kodak, General Motors, Citigroup, Hewlett Packard, American Greeting and more. The group also owns three Atlanta sports teams: the Braves, the Hawks, and the Thrashers. This is by no means an exhaustive list. What is particularly frightening about this massive ownership list is how few people are aware that large companies such as AOL/Time Warner own and govern publications and shows that do not directly bear their name. It is possible for people to believe that there are an abundance of choices in programming and news; however, few realize that the guidelines and corporate interests that shapes content. An example of another media giant is billionaire Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. The News Corporation has control over: Harper Collins Publishers and Affiliates, Fox News, Fox Sports, 34 Local Fox Stations, 20th Century Fox Studios and Films, The L.A. Dodgers, NY Knicks, NY Rangers, the Staples Center, and digital technology firms

such as New Advanced Technologies. This is not to mention the News Corporation's media possessions in Asia, the United Kingdom, Australia, Fiji, Europe, or Latin America, which are equally impressive in number and expanse. The News Corporation provides a number of different programs; however, conservative voices reign on all News Corporation broadcasts. With conservative interests and viewpoints as guidelines, the News Corporation's stations, such as Fox News, present a conservative viewpoint and conservative agenda. When looking at the sheer volume of media and news outlets that the News Corporation owns, it is striking how much control the corporation has in terms of who speaks and how they are portrayed. Under current FCC regulations, it is illegal for a corporation to own more than one media outlet in any given city. However, if current regulations are reversed in the upcoming June 2 decision, corporations will be allowed to own the same television, radio, and newspaper outlets in any given town. The impact of such control would be far reaching. Instead of having a multitude of voices reporting on local events that challenge and support local policies and government, and provide different viewpoints and information, the number of voices and reporters could be severely diminished. As the Columbia Journalism Review voices in an editorial commentary, "The FCC is not involved in anything so simple and unsophisticated as bumping off a couple of weeklies. It is laying the groundwork for startling changes in the rules of media ownership that will encourage media monopoly and thus filter more and more American journalism through a smaller and smaller number of media corporations. The dangers of FCC deregulation are that fewer companies will have control over what information is released and how it is conveyed. With fewer companies and fewer reporters, public information will be limited. There will be fewer reporters covering events, fewer eyes and ears to interpret and present any given occurrence or issue. In addition, there will be less people involved in actually running the stations, which will

jeopardize a media outlet's ability to relay information with speed and accuracy. It also gives the parent company the ability to limit what is expressed on its stations or pages. Instances of such practices are already occurring in radio broadcasting. An example of the hazards of corporate ownership occurred last year, when hundreds of thousands of gallons of toxic anhydrous ammonia were dispersed into the air by a train wreck in the town of Minot, North Dakota. Due to Clear Channel's takeover and reduction of the staff at local radio station KCJB, emergency workers and authorities were not able to get through to the station to have them announce the emergency and evacuate Minot's citizens. Clear Channel owns all six of Minot's radio stations. Each station is run more or less on autopilot, as Clear Channel selects programming from a playbook and only one full-time news reporter covered local news in Minot for all six stations; thus, no one was around to inform the community. The lack of local news coverage harmed the town of Minot due to the minimal amount of local coverage and local voices. Another problem with Clear Channel is the issue of censorship. In a clear example of a parent company censoring its member stations, Clear Channel has a play list of acceptable songs that spells out to stations what they can and cannot play. The ramifications of these guidelines affect over 1,200 radio stations nationwide that are owned by Clear Channel. Though each channel appears to be its own station, with its own call number, signature sounds, and deejays, each station is owned by the Clear Channel parent company that stringently limits content. During the war on Iraq early this year, Clear Channel refused to play anti-war songs and has banned playing the Dixie Chicks after their public criticism of President Bush. It's not only the loss of access to media in emergency situations the public should fear if corporate regulations were done away with. Due to the size and financial muscle of these corporations, it is virtually

impossible to break into the field with a new media business. As media giant Barry Diller, former CEO of such companies as Universal and Paramount and current CEO of USA Interactive, concluded on the April 25, 2003 Bill Moyers show on PBS, the current situation facing upstart networks or shows is dismal, and they have there is no possibility of breaking into the market on their own. With little chances of a new media upstart succeeding, it is unlikely that dissident voices of mainstream interests will be allowed to speak on mainstream broadcasts or printed pages, as corporate media outlets have no desire to act against their own interests.

Proponents of Deregulation/Major Players Proponents of deregulation include business people and their probusiness allies, as well as large media firms, such as the Tribune Company and AOL/Time Warner. For the most part, proponents of media deregulation are the people who seek to profit financially from it. Proponents of deregulation are a small but extremely powerful, financially capable, well-connected group of big-business men and women. Media business executives such as the News Corporation's Rupert Murdoch and AOL/Time Warner's CEO Steve Case, as well as pro-business, pro free-market republicans such as FCC Chairman Michael Powell are behind pushing for deregulation. They have the allies, the capital, the media control and connections in government to put on the pressure for deregulation and will likely get their way. Such a change in FCC regulation could bring significant profits to media companies, and allow them to better conduct their business. President George W. Bush appointed Michael Powell as the FCC Chairman for his administration. Powell joins two other Republican Appointed Commissioners, Kevin Martin and Kathleen Abernathy. The

trio forms a Republican majority on the five-person FCC committee, with Clinton-appointed Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein forming the commission's democratic minority. Like Bush, Powell has a strong interest in providing opportunities for Big Business. Powell has exposed his beliefs that large media corporations are supporting free market demands. "I start with the proposition that the rules are no longer necessary," Powell stated last December . Powell noted that he sees evidence that media consolidation is bringing more choices in programming to consumers. "When I look at the trends in television over the last 20 to 50 years, I see a constant and increasing explosion in varietyin the purported golden age of television there were three networks." Chairman Powell sides with other Republicans who believe that a free market will encourage an increase of program variety and choice for the public. Large media corporations are strongly in favor of the impending FCC deregulations because it would allow them both unprecedented control and the freedom to make a fortune off of further mergers. The irony, or perhaps a key example to how media deregulation will harm democracy, is that the very issue of the FCC's proposed deregulation is largely unmentioned in larger media outlets. A rare article acknowledging the issue recently appeared in the Washington Post. According to reporter Frank Ahrens, only ABC reported the decision, and that was at 4:40 in the morning. Outside of the Washington Post, the L.A. Times was one of the few newspapers to report the story. In addition, the Times acknowledged the ties it had to its parent company, The Tribune Company, in lobbying for deregulation. Yet few other newspapers or broadcast media outlets have reported on either the FCC or the ways in which their parent company would stand to benefit from changes in FCC policy. According to Gene Kimmelman, Senior Director of Advocacy for the Consumer's Union, a non-profit consumer advocacy group, very few stations or papers have covered the issue because it is not in their best interest: Those broadcasters and newspapers are whom we rely upon to tell that

story and allow the American people to have that public debate. And they don't want to have that debate. They want a deregulatory-minded administration just to get out of their way, eliminate ownership limitations, and let them join together. And the American people unfortunately may find out about this on the back end after it's all happened. This is one of the key points at the heart of the deregulation debate. Proponents of deregulation do not want to draw attention to the issue because they are the profiteers of deregulation. This is the reason that the American public is not being fairly informed about what is about to happen to the media, the bloodline to information distribution in this country.

Overview of Opponents to Deregulation/Major Players

"One of the most important votes of 2003 will be cast not in Congress or in voting booths across the country but at the Federal Communications Commission. At stake is how TV, radio, newspapers and the Internet will look in the next generation and beyond. At stake are core values of localism, competition, diversity and maintaining the vitality of America's marketplace of ideas. And at stake is the ability of consumers to enjoy creative, diverse and enriching entertainment," -- FCC Commissioner Michael Copps Despite unprecedented consolidation due to technology, a consumer's apparent choices in media access have grown. Consumers can choose from a variety of sources to receive news through television, cable, radio, or the Internet. Yet despite the abundance of choices in

information and entertainment sources, public interest advocates argue that such choices cover up media ownership (see "Who Owns What" section of this paper). Do consumers realize that sometimes the perceived choice between several media outlets are in fact all owned by the same parent company? For example, AOL/Time Warner owns CNN as well as several local stations in a variety of cities. While a consumer can choose between either station's coverage, both are still controlled and governed by AOL/Time Warner's best interests. Opponents of deregulation also argue that the consolidation of media ownership promotes similarities and sameness in programming. It also decreases the number of people who can participate in the media, thus reducing its power as an essential tool of democracy. The opponents represent a wide spectrum of the public and include politicians, academics, public interest watch groups, and media/journalist watch groups. On April 10, 2003, the majority of the Senate Commerce Committee spoke out against the immediacy of the proposed June 2 decision date, calling for full disclosure and review of changes in FCC policy before they are made final . Senators Olympia J. Snow (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND) were the principal letter writers. In their letter to Chairman Powell, the Senators argued that a thorough review of FCC policy changes was necessary. They warned that "[d]ramatic changes in the structure of our media marketplace could have long-term consequences on the diversity of voices and free expression in our nation. Given the gravity of this proceeding we are puzzled as to why the FCC would not insist on having a thorough discussion about any proposed changes before these would take effect. Openness in this process is the best path to ensure that Congress and the public support the agency's direction." The Senate Commerce Committee has also been an advocate of challenging the impending FCC decision. Committee Chairman Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has held several hearings and panels, including a recent hearing summoning Rupert Murdoch and several media experts,

including Gene Kimmelman of the Consumer's Union. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has been instrumental in posing key questions regarding media ownership and responsibility. The academic community has also come out in large numbers against FCC deregulation. On May 1, 2003, 285 academics wrote the FCC a letter calling for the FCC to investigate the potential impact of media consolidation and to wait several months to allow for public debate. The letter, from professors across the nation, stated their concerns about the complexities and probable outcomes of doing away with governmental restraints on media. FCC Commissioner Michael Copps is one of the staunchest supporters of enforcing and retaining FCC regulations. Copps has spoken out against deregulation and both called for and helped initiate public forums for discussion. Copps recently expressed his concern on a Bill Moyers PBS show called Now: "If you take this to the next logical conclusion, you could end up with a situation where one cable company owns the newspaper, the television station and the cable system that may have some economic efficiencies attached to it, but I daresay it also has some profound social and political considerations that we ignore only at our own tremendous peril." There are even people within the giant media corporations that are concerned about the ramifications of mergers. Media mogul Barry Diller also recently appeared on Now. Diller expressed his apprehension about the mergers. What was interesting about Diller's objections is that they were from a capitalistic, business standpoint. Diller realizes that media consolidation will decrease both competition and diverse representation of opinions. "You have companies that produce, that finance, that air on their channel and then distribute worldwide everything that goes through their controlled distribution systemwhat you get is fewer and fewer actual voices participating in the processI am not saying that those forces are bad and that the results are evil. What am I saying is that with that I

think comes the necessity to say, 'Well, you can't own all your programs.' Well, you can't own every voice there is to own. There should be some restraints [... There used to be] a real sense of public service responsibility. That those airwaves actually belonged to the public. You used them. You profited from them. But you had to keep it in balance. That was a healthy environment." When even media moguls like Barry Diller are speaking out about the lack of healthy market competition in the media environment, there is certainly a problem. Right now, there are just a few companies that control the majority of newspapers and public airwaves. Unfortunately, these are the companies with the financial clout to keep it that way. Opponents to media deregulation are working fiercely to retain limits on media ownership to prevent further consolidation. The fight that media opponents are up against however, is very difficult. Even with such loud and numerous critics of deregulation, there are still not enough people in the public that are aware that this is occurring ­ and they do not have the financial resources to influence the pocketbooks of corporations or politicians. The lack of coverage alone is a sign of what the future of further deregulation will bring.

Potential Effects of Media Deregulation The Deregulation of media and broadcasting will have a significant impact on every American and his or her access to information. For the American uninformed about the lack of regulation, there will seem to be a plethora of options in terms of television channels and newspapers. Upon closer look, however, the consumer may notice that coverage and viewpoints among the sources is essentially the same. Upon investigation, such person would discover that the reason for the similarity and blandness is veiled ownership. If the FCC discards ownership regulations, one company operating each station or newspaper under a different name may own a single city's choices of

media. For the American citizen/consumer aware of the lack of regulation, the media might resemble a Big Brother sort of control. FCC action to protect versatility in the public airwaves is a necessary public interest; increasing profit for only a few large media companies is not. Regulations are necessary to retain a communications system in which equitable access, equal opportunity, and diversity of opinions can thrive. The FCC should consider implementing additional laws to safeguard publicly owned airwaves. One suggestion, offered by Judge Posner to Schurz Communications, it that the commission "carve out a portion of the production and distribution markets and protect them against the competition of the networks, in order to foster a diversity of programming sources and outlets..." Posner's solution would offer an alternative to media run by corporations and corporate interests, it would guarantee a space outside corporate interests, thus aiding in the pursuit of media democracy. Concerned citizens can join groups who are advocating for media democracy. They can also contact the FCC to demand public hearings on the FCC's proposed changes to current regulations in order to inform people about the proposed changes. The corporate media is not giving much attention to the necessity for public hearings nor on the FCC's proposed changes in general. After all, the corporate media has nothing to gain from getting the public riled up about future media options -they have their financial interests to think of. As deceased Senator Paul Wellstone said in the introduction to Robert McChesney and John Nichol's book It's the Media, Stupid, the effort to once again limit control over the mass media will undoubtedly incur resistance from the media corporations themselves. Progress in the area of antitrust has almost always come in response to public pressure. Yet, this is the fundamental quandary of democratic media reform: involvement of the public in this debate depends on coverage and attention by the major media that has traditionally been the source of information. Unfortunately, the record to date has not been

encouraging. The major media have been virtually silent on the public policy implications of its own rapid consolidation over the past 15 years. It is tragically ironic that the very media resources we need to utilize as a public forum to publicly debate the impending FCC decision are the companies that will be affected by the FCC decision. These very sources are the ones not providing information about the upcoming decision, leaving the public largely uninformed. Independent and community based activists are left to inform the public through smaller grassroots communication networks. One option in opposition to media regulation and corporate media ownership is simply to not support corporate media outlets and to support non-traditional media outlets. Concerned citizens interested in media democracy can both support grassroots democracy and demand that the mainstream media be held accountable for reliable, fair coverage. Both media conventions encourage a healthy democracy. How can a democracy exist if only one side of an argument can be expressed? If media content is limited, how far is a content-controlled democracy from a dictatorship? It is essential to raise one's voice against government support of consolidation of voices and restriction of our abilities to communicate with one another and to have access of a range of different opinion, viewpoints, and voices of all economic, ethnic, and socio-political diversities. It is imperative that the United States government retains its regulations on the media: information is too valuable a resource to be put in the hands of a few. It is too important a commodity to hand over to corporations who value the corporate bottom line of financial prosperity over the health of democracy and a wellinformed public. Indeed, information is the most valuable tool of democracy, and it is the job of everyone ­ citizens, politicians, and business people to hold the media accountable to standards of accuracy and fair, informed, diverse coverage.