STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN
Re: Promoting the Availability of Diverse and Independent Sources of Video Programming, MB 
Docket No. 16-42.
While much has changed when it comes to the viewing habits of Americans since the passage of 
the 1992 Cable Act. Multichannel video programming distributors maintain significant influence in the 
ever expanding video programming marketplace.
Since my arrival at the FCC in the summer of 2009, I have met with and spoken to dozens of 
independent programmers from extreme ends of the ideological spectrum. Politics and prose aside, they 
find agreement on three core issues: each says that they are facing insurmountable challenges when it 
comes to acquiring program carriage; that it is difficult to receive fair or reasonable contract terms; and 
growth in their online distribution model is inhibited, because program distribution access is often 
restricted via contract.  
During the recent AT&T/Direct TV merger, a number of these issues were raised yet again by 
many parties, including independent and network-affiliated programmers as well as small cable operators, 
who repeatedly requested relief.  While we found that the issues raised were perhaps not best handled in 
the context of that merger, the level of concern, I felt, merited a separate proceeding where we could 
explore and gain a better understanding, of the video programming marketplace and whether certain 
practices by operators, as claimed, are limiting the ability to reach viewers. 
While I remain unsure that the Commission is the best place to answer or resolve the issues raised 
in today’s Notice of Inquiry, we are enabling discussions about what role, if any, the Commission should 
play in addressing obstacles that may be preventing greater access by consumers to independent and 
diverse programming. This is a concern because fostering diversity of programming is an important goal 
of our work. Section 257 of the Communications Act tasks the Commission with carrying out the national 
policy of seeking to promote the purposes of “favoring diversity of media voices, vigorous economic 
competition, technological advancement, and promotion of the public interest, convenience, and 
necessity.”
1
  Does this provision give the agency the authority to act in this area, or are some the issues 
that independent programmers bring forth best resolved by other agencies, or by industry-driven 
solutions?
The goal of this Notice of Inquiry is to launch a fact-finding exercise that will start a conversation 
on how best to promote the availability of diverse and independent sources of video programming, 
including Public, Educational and Governmental Programming. And any issue that brings together a 
content provider who campaigned for my ouster and another who sings my praises, surely merits a robust 
discussion.
Again, I want to thank the Media Bureau for this item, especially Martha Heller, Raelynn Remy, 
Calisha Myers and Holly Saurer. 
                                                     
1
47 U.S.C. § 257(b).