Archive

Multiplexing

Mr. Ornstein led a discussion on the possibility o broadcasters providing multiple, advertising-supported video channels (called multiplexing or multicasting). In an outline of core recommendations distributed by Mr. Ornstein, the policy issues concerning multiplexing were addressed: Public interest obligations differ if broadcasters move to true one-for-one exchange -- from existing single analog channel to new high definition digital channel -- than if they move from one analog channel to multiple digital channels, each with its own revenue stream. If broadcasters opt to go beyond two channels, a fourth channel would be set aside for public interest programming, during the hours when broadcasters multiplex. The public interest programming on the fourth channel would be commercial-free and in addition to existing public interest obligations. Broadcasters would be given a choice to 1) run this public interest channel, with a commitment to provide robust programming not just a public access signal or 2) provide funds (a portion of the revenues generated by the third, fifth and other multiple channels) to another entity to run it. Or, in lieu of above, require broadcasters who multiplex (two or more channels) to replicate all public interest obligations (e.g. children's television programming) on all channels.

Jose Luis Ruiz suggested that the "public interest channel" might "ghettoize" public interest programming. Gigi Sohn of the Media Access Project disagreed saying it would give viewers certainty about where to find such shows.

Paul La Camera suggested that this set-up would discourage experimentation and innovation with multiplexing. Harold Crump suggested it would be better to keep public interest programming on each channel.

William Duhamel disagreed with the entire premise that multiplexing demands a different regulatory model. He said the trade being made is just 6MHz for 6MHz of spectrum.

Political Discourse

Mr. Ornstein then addressed how political coverage on television might be improved. The following were suggested as possible recommendations of the Committee: A voluntary commitment by broadcasters to provide candidate-centered discourse 5 minutes a night -- between 5pm and 11:35pm -- for the 30 days before an election. Broadcasters would be free to choose which races and candidates to cover, and to experiment with formats (e.g., a minute of free time for a candidate to speak to voters; a mini-debate; candidate interviews) with equal time rules waived in return for a commitment to fairness. Call on Congress to enact comprehensive campaign reform. As part of campaign finance reform, a repeal of the lowest unit rate in exchange for free time for candidates. Free time would be distributed to parties through the same formula now used for presidential campaign funds. For every 2 minutes of ad time sold to candidates, a broadcaster would give 1 minute of free time, to be split between the parties.

There was also a discussion of an offer reportedly made by NAB President Eddie Fritts. Mr. Fritts was quoted as saying that broadcasters would give two free hours for candidates, if no other time was purchased by candidates. Although Mr. Ornstein and Mr. Minow believed that was a bona fide offer, other Committee members -- mainly the broadcasters -- suggested that that was just a rhetorical flourish.

Mr. LaCamera seemed to show some support for the first item above saying that it was attractive to broadcasters because of the flexibility it offers. Mr. Duhamel voiced some opposition to the item saying that that was 2.5 hrs of "free time."

A Proposal for a Minimum Level of Public Interest Requirements
For All Stations

James Goodman, President of Capitol Broadcasting Company, offered a proposal for minimum public interest standards for all stations. The proposal begins:
"The relationship between broadcasters and the local communities to which broadcasters are licensed always has been the cornerstone of America's system of free, over-the-air broadcasting. Local television broadcast stations are not intended to serve only as conduits for national programming but are intended to respond to the needs and interests of the communities they serve. This attention to localism is the ingredient that separates television broadcast stations from networks, satellite, and cable services. As long as broadcast stations are permitted to use public airwaves, it is not unreasonable for the public, in return, to expect their community needs and interests to be served."

Mr. Goodmon's proposal addresses the following issues: Ascertainment Public Service Announcements Public Affairs Programming Free Political Program Time Accountability Lowest Unit Rate and Reasonable Access Issue Advertising Multicasting "Play or Pay" Public Broadcasting

Mr. Goodmon's presentation focused on the following: Ascertainment: Stations should be required to ascertain a community's needs and interests. This process should be the foundation for the station's news, public affairs and political coverage. The public should be invited to contribute to the process. The process and results would be reported quarterly. Public Service Announcements: Each station would be required to air 150 public service announcements per week spread evenly through all day parts. An emphasis should be put on PSAs produced in cooperation with local groups and 50% should be locally produced. Public Affairs Programming: Each station should provide two hours of public affairs programming per week. One hour should be aired between 6pm and midnight. Half of this programming should be locally produced and address local issues. News programs and portions of news programs would not be counted towards this programming requirement. AccountabilityAccountability: 1) On a quarterly basis, stations would broadcast a program that reports to the community on the station's ascertainment results as a part of the two-hour local public affairs programming commitment. 2) Stations would keep quarterly public files that document A) How they conduct their ascertainment process and the results, B) Their performance in meeting the minimum requirements for public affairs programs, C) Their performance in meeting the minimum requirements for public service announcements, and D) Their performance in meeting the requirements for free time for political candidates.

Mr. Goodmon joked that his aim was to upset "both [Ms. Sohn] and the free market people." None of the other broadcasters supported the proposal. Mr. Duhamel expressed strong opposition. Robert Decherd said that broadcasting does not need to be regulated and he would not support a mandate from the government to perform the above. Mr. Crump said that he is not opposed to realistic minimums, but he was more supportive of voluntary actions rather than mandates. Mr. La Camera suggested a mandate like this would be opposed in court.

Ms. Sohn said she was not upset with the proposal, but felt that perhaps it does not go far enough. She said the broadcasters on the Committee probably already out-perform Mr. Goodmon's proposal. The question is for the stations that do not -- her aim is to raise the "license renewal bar" for those stations.

Mr. Crump said that broadcasters feel that they have been relived from regulation in the past because of the good job they have done. They do not feel there is a reason to "re-regulate." "We remember the good," he said speaking to public interest advocates. "You just remember the bad." Peggy Charren said that we cannot just cross our fingers and hope for the best. She recalled that when she started advocating for children's television she naively believed that all she had to do was talk to broadcasters and tell them how important quality programming for kids is. Only after opposition did she think they was a reason for FCC regulation and then legislation from Congress.

New Model of Public Interest Obligations

The Committee also discussed the following possible recommendations: Endorsement of idea that digital age requires flexibility by regulators and broadcasters alike. Call on Congress, FCC and White House to consider new model for public interest obligations in the digital age. The "Play or Pay" Alternative: allow broadcasters choice to maintain existing framework, to get waiver of certain public interest obligations in return for a fee, or to have some ability to trade obligations with other broadcasters. Any fees collected should be directed to enhance the public interest.