********************************************************    
                                                     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.
                                                           
*****************************************************************
                                                                                                                       
                                               May 26, 2000
                                                           
         STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER GLORIA TRISTANI,
                     DISSENTING IN PART
  
In the Matter of 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review Review of the Commission's
Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the
     Telecommunications Act of 1996 MM Docket No. 98-35
  
       I dissent from the majority's conclusion that the dual network rule should be
  modified to permit ABC, CBS, Fox, or NBC to combine with UPN or WB.  Such a
  modification is unsupported by the record and, if ultimately adopted, would further erode
  the already tenuous level of diversity available on the public airwaves.
  
  Congress itself modified the dual network rule only four years ago, as part of the
  Telecommunications Act of 1996.  In describing the networks covered by its amended
  rule, Congress expressly referred to "emerging networks (WBTN, UPN)," a fact recently
  relied on by the Commission in applying the rule to UPN in connection with the CBS-
  Viacom merger.  Thus, in 1996, Congress found that the state of competition warranted
  continued application of the dual network rule to UPN and WB.  Admittedly, the
  Commission may change the rule adopted by Congress pursuant to the biennial review
  provisions of the 1996 Act.  But nothing has occurred in the past four years that should
  lead us to question Congress' judgment.  
  
  To the contrary, all of the arguments advanced by the majority as justifying
  modification of the rule were as true, if not more true, in 1996 than they are today.  First,
  the majority asserts that program production and networking are complementary inputs
  that make vertical integration desirable, and that a merger of one of the top four networks
  with UPN or WB could be characterized as a merger of an established broadcast network
  with an established program producer.  Leaving aside the factual inaccuracies of this
  argument (e.g., ABC and Fox are affiliated with major production studios just like UPN
  and WB), this characterization was equally true in 1996.  Second, the majority argues that
  the rule should be retained for the top four networks but repealed for UPN and WB
  because the former are "established" broadcast networks, while the latter are still
  "nascent."  Again, however, even assuming that UPN and WB are still "nascent"
  networks, they were far more nascent in 1996, when Congress specifically decided that
  they should fall within the dual network rule's application.
  
  It is not hard to anticipate the effect that modification of the rule will have.  It will
  reduce diversity on the public airwaves by reducing the number of outlets available to
  independent program producers.  Independent programmers are already having a difficult
  time gaining network carriage.  For the new television season, a record 24 of 37 new
  series are either owned or co-owned by the television networks which will air them. 
  Disney will own or co-own an interest in 3 out of 4 of ABC's new programs; CBS owns
  an interest in 6 of 7 new shows; NBC owns an interest in 4 of 7 new shows; 20th Century
  Fox will own or co-own 5 of Fox's 9 new shows; Paramount will produce 2 of UPN's 4
  new series; Warner Brothers will own or co-own 4 of  6 new shows for WB.  Far from
  demonstrating that the rule has outlived its usefulness, the marketplace shows that the rule
  may be needed more today than ever. 
  
       The Order emphasizes the economic efficiencies that would accrue to incumbent
  networks by modifying the rule.  This I do not doubt.  But we have a higher duty than
  helping broadcasters maximize their private gain.  Our first duty is to manage the airwaves
  in a manner that promotes the public's interest in competition and diversity.  In the
  absence of evidence that more than four independent networks are not economically
  feasible, we should be cautious about changing our priorities.