********************************************************    
                                       NOTICE
  ********************************************************
                              
              This document was converted from
         WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.
                              
 Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
           will not show up in this text version.
                              
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
  original document will not show up in this text version.
                              
      Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
         will not be preserved in the text version.
                              
      If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.
                              
*****************************************************************
               STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER GLORIA TRISTANI
                                
In the Matter of Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in Markets for the Delivery
           of Video Programming, CS Docket No. 99-230

     Cable is in the midst of a major transformation, from a platform for the delivery of one-way
video programming to a platform for the delivery of a bundle of products, including advanced and
two-way services.  For many of these services, the cable industry has been driving residential
deployment and has begun offering consumers the kind of competitive choice envisioned by the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.  Cable deserves a great deal of credit for its efforts.  
     But this Report is not about cable's entry into new markets like Internet access or telephony. 
Under the Communications Act, this Report is about competition in the market for the delivery of
video services.  Millions of Americans still rely on plain old one-way video service for their news,
information and entertainment.  These consumers should not be forgotten in our rush to continue
sharpening the cutting edge.
     Two things stand out in this year's Report:
     First, it appears that widespread video competition, if it comes, will come via satellite and not
from terrestrial competition.  In particular, incumbent local exchange carriers, which once clamored
for the right to offer video (and, indeed, took the issue all the way to the Supreme Court), continue to
show limited interest in large-scale entry.  Indeed, it appears that Ameritech (now SBC) -- always the
"poster child" for LEC video entry -- may be dropping out of the cable business altogether.  DBS, by
contrast, continues to add subscribers, and, with local broadcast signals now available in many
communities, may be on the verge of finally becoming a true alternative to cable for many consumers. 
We must continue to do whatever we can, within the confines of the law, to strengthen DBS's ability
to compete.  
     Second, the number of distinct programming voices that the public receives is distressingly
small.  The Report finds that 46 of the top 50 cable networks are owned by twelve large media
conglomerates   ABC/Disney, General Electric, CBS, News Corp, Time Warner, Viacom, Discovery,
Rainbow Media, Liberty Media, USA Networks, E.W. Scripps and Comcast.  And two of the
remaining four services are C-Span and C-Span2, which are funded almost exclusively by the cable
industry.  More disturbing, these same entities also control the top commercial television broadcast
networks, dozens of television stations and lesser cable networks, many of the major movie, TV and
video production studios, and even the country's largest video rental distributor.  Thus, to a significant
extent, the video programming that the American public receives is being funneled through a handful
of media gatekeepers (not to mention the vast magazine, newspaper, publishing and Internet properties
owned by these entities).  



     These potential bottlenecks should be a concern of all those who care about true competition
and the clashing of opinion that is so vital to our democracy.  How information is presented and what
stories are covered on television   and, often more important, what stories are not covered   has a
significant impact on public perceptions and the discussion of public issues.  More channels do not
necessarily mean that additional views are being expressed.  More channels often just mean that the
same voices can express their views over and over again.