[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 88 (Thursday, June 27, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6252-S6253]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 2691. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to facilitate 
an increase in programming and content on radio that is locally and 
independently produced, to facilitate competition in radio programming, 
radio advertising, and concerts, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that will promote competition in the radio and concert industries.
  This legislation will begin to address many of the concerns that I 
have heard from my constituents regarding the concentration of 
ownership in the radio and concert industry and its effect on 
consumers, artists, local businesses, and ticket prices.
  A few weeks ago, I began discussing with my colleagues a number of 
concerns that I have been hearing from Wisconsinites. Anti-competitive 
practices are hurting local radio station owners, local businesses, 
consumers, and artists.
  During the debate of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, I joined a 
number of my colleagues in opposing the deregulation of radio ownership 
rules because of concerns about its effect on consumers, artists, and 
local radio stations.
  Passage of this act was an unfortunate example of the influence of 
soft money in the political process. As my colleagues will recall, I 
have consistently said that this act was bought and paid for by soft 
money. Everyone was at the table, except for the consumers.
  We have enacted legislation to rid the system of this loophole in 
campaign finance law, but we must also repair the damage that it 
allowed.
  In just five years since its passage, the effects of the 
Telecommunications Act have been far worse than we imagined. While I 
opposed this act because of its anti-consumer bias, I did not predict 
that the elimination of the national radio ownership caps and 
relaxation of local ownership caps would have triggered such a 
tremendous wave of consolidation and harmed such as diverse range of 
interests.

  This legislation did not simply raise the national ownership limits 
on radio stations, it eliminated them all together. It also 
dramatically altered the local radio station ownership limits through 
the implementation of a tiered ownership system that allowed a company 
to own more radio stations in the larger markets.
  When the 1996 Telecommunications Act became law there were 
approximately 5,100 owners of radio stations. Today, there are only 
about 3,800 owners, a decrease of about 25 percent.
  Concentration at the local levels are unprecedented.
  At the same time that ownership of radio stations has become 
increasingly concentrated, some large radio station ownership groups 
have also bought promotion services and advertising.
  I have been hearing from people at home in Wisconsin, from Radio 
station owners, artists, broadcasters, and concert promoters who are 
being pushed out by anti-competitive practices, practices that result 
from an increasingly concentrated market.
  I am very concerned that these levels of concentration are pushing 
independent radio station owners and concert promoters out of business. 
And I am concerned that a few companies are leveraging their cross-
ownership of radio, concert promotion, and venues in an anti-
competitive manner.
  My legislation addresses these concerns by prohibiting any entity 
that owns radio stations, concert promotion services, or venues from 
leveraging their cross-ownership in anti-competitive manner. Under this 
proposal, the FCC would revoke the license of any radio station that 
uses its cross owner

[[Page S6253]]

ship of promotion services or venues to prevent access to the airwaves, 
venues, or in other anti-competitive ways.
  For example, if an owner of a radio station and promotion service 
hindered access to the airwaves of a rival promoter, then the owner 
would be subject to penalties.
  My legislation will also ensure that any future consolidation does 
not result in these anti-competitive practices. It will strengthen the 
FCC merger review process by requiring the FCC to scrutinize the 
mergers of large radio station ownership groups to consider the effect 
of national and local concentration on independent radio stations, 
concert promoters and consumers.
  At the same time, it will also curb future local consolidation by 
preventing any upward revision of the limitation of multiple ownership 
of radio stations in local markets.
  It will also close a loophole that currently allows large radio 
ownership companies to exceed the cap by ``warehousing stations'' 
through a third party. In these arrangements, large radio owners 
control a station through a third party, but the stations are not 
accounted for in their local ownership cap.
  Finally, my legislation will also address many of the problems 
created by the consolidation in the radio industry, such as the new 
forms of payola. This legislation will require the FCC to modernize the 
Federal payola prohibition to prevent these large radio station 
ownership groups from leveraging their power to extract money or other 
consideration from artists, such as forcing them to play concerts for 
free.
  Radio is a public medium and we must ensure that it serves the public 
good. The concentration of ownership, in the radio and concert 
industry, has caused great harm to people and businesses that have been 
involved in and concerned about the industry for generations.
  It also harms the flow of creativity and ideas that artists seek to 
contribute to our society. This concentration does a disservice to our 
society at every level of the industry, and it must be addressed.
  I urge my colleagues to join me to cosponsor this legislation to help 
to restore competition to the radio and concert industry by putting 
independent radio stations and concert promoters on a level playing 
field in the marketplace. This will help promote competition, local 
input, and diversity, and promote consumer choices.
                                 ______