No.3] ENHANCING THE SPECTRUM tion of undue concentrations of media power, thereby advancing the project of democratic deliberation isentangling the complex web of diversity-inspire regulations is no easy task, for the Commission's ef- forts to promote diversity, not unlike a coral reef have grown both incrementally and haphazardly. The Commission has invoked the diversity rationale to support a variety of disparate programs, including but hardly limited to tructural egulations that divide and separate media ownership. Content- and viewpoint-neutral regulations that prevent the undue concentrat of media ownership should be maintained and, perhaps, even strengthened. Conversely, diver- sity regulations aimed at controlling the content of programming, whether directly or indirectly, should be abandoned The diversity question is especially deserving of close attention at the moment because Congress and the Commission are actively considering a variety of proposals that would weaken the structural regula- tions promoting diversity of ownership among media outlets he Telecommunications Act of 1996 also sig nificantly weakened both national and local multiple ownership rules, leading to a feeding frenzy of con See Newspaper/Radio Cross Ownership Waiver Policy, 11 F.C.C 13,003, 13,003-08 (paras. 1-8)(1996)(notice of inquiry): Multiple Owner ship of standard, EM, and Television Broadcast Stations, 50 F CC 2d 1046 1975), reconsidered, 53 F.C.C. 2d 589 (1975), aff'd sub tional citizens Comm. for Broad, 436 U.s. 775, 779(1978);47 C.F. R S 73.3555(1998). The newspaper-radio cross-ownership rule, id. s(d)(1)-(2), which generally prohibits a daily newspaper and a station in the same munity from being owned, operated, or controlled, either directly or indi- rectly, by the same party, is under review. See Newspaper/Radi wnership Waiver Policy C.C.R. at 13, 003-08 (paras. 1-8). In add tion, as part of its bienne view, the Commission issued a notice of in- quiry ( NOI) reviewing its broadcast ownership rules. See Review of the Com mission's Broadcast Ownership Rules and other Rules Adopted Pursuant te ection 202 of The Telecommunications Act of 1996, 13 F.C. C.R. 11, 276 1, 276-79 (paras. 1-8)(1998) (notice of inquiry). Among the rules unde eview are a national television ownership rule that limits the audience reach of a television network to an aggregate reach of 358, see 47CFR s 733555(e)(1), a newspaper broadcast cross-ownership rule that prohibit a daily newspaper and a broadcast station in the same community from being wned, operated, or controlled, either directly or indirectly, by the same party, see id. 5 (d)(3), a local radio ownership rule that limits the nt ber of radio stations in a particular market that can be owned, operated controlled by a party, see id. s (a)(1), and the cable/television cross- wnership rule that prohibits a television station and a cable system in the same local community from being owned, operated, or controlled, eithe directly or indirectly, by the same party. See id. 5 76.501(1) 6. Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56KROTO.DOC 12/07/00 9:35 AM No. 3] ENHANCING THE SPECTRUM 103 tion of undue concentrations of media power, thereby advancing the project of democratic deliberation. Disentangling the complex web of diversity-inspired regulations is no easy task, for the Commission’s ef￾forts to promote diversity, not unlike a coral reef, have grown both incrementally and haphazardly. The Commission has invoked the diversity rationale to support a variety of disparate programs, including, but hardly limited to, structural regulations that divide and separate media ownership. Content- and viewpoint-neutral regulations that prevent the undue concentration of media ownership should be maintained and, perhaps, even strengthened. Conversely, diver￾sity regulations aimed at controlling the content of programming, whether directly or indirectly, should be abandoned. The diversity question is especially deserving of close attention at the moment because Congress and the Commission are actively considering a variety of proposals that would weaken the structural regula￾tions promoting diversity of ownership among media outlets.5 The Telecommunications Act of 1996 also sig￾nificantly weakened both national and local multiple ownership rules,6 leading to a feeding frenzy of con- 5. See Newspaper/Radio Cross Ownership Waiver Policy, 11 F.C.C.R. 13,003, 13,003-08 (paras. 1-8) (1996) (notice of inquiry); Multiple Owner￾ship of Standard, FM, and Television Broadcast Stations, 50 F.C.C.2d 1046 (1975), reconsidered, 53 F.C.C.2d 589 (1975), aff’d sub nom., FCC v. Na￾tional Citizens Comm. for Broad., 436 U.S. 775, 779 (1978); 47 C.F.R § 73.3555 (1998). The newspaper-radio cross-ownership rule, id. § (d)(1)–(2), which generally prohibits a daily newspaper and a station in the same com￾munity from being owned, operated, or controlled, either directly or indi￾rectly, by the same party, is under review. See Newspaper/Radio Cross￾Ownership Waiver Policy, 11 F.C.C.R. at 13,003-08 (paras. 1-8). In addi￾tion, as part of its biennial review, the Commission issued a notice of in￾quiry (NOI) reviewing its broadcast ownership rules. See Review of the Com￾mission’s Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of The Telecommunications Act of 1996, 13 F.C.C.R. 11,276, 11,276-79 (paras. 1-8) (1998) (notice of inquiry). Among the rules under review are a national television ownership rule that limits the audience reach of a television network to an aggregate reach of 35%, see 47 C.F.R. § 73.3555(e)(1), a newspaper broadcast cross-ownership rule that prohibits a daily newspaper and a broadcast station in the same community from being owned, operated, or controlled, either directly or indirectly, by the same party, see id. § (d)(3), a local radio ownership rule that limits the num￾ber of radio stations in a particular market that can be owned, operated, or controlled by a party, see id. § (a)(1), and the cable/television cross￾ownership rule that prohibits a television station and a cable system in the same local community from being owned, operated, or controlled, either directly or indirectly, by the same party. See id. § 76.501(1). 6. Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56