December 2008

Recommendation:
Although the Advisory Committee makes no consensus recommendation about entirely new models for fulfilling public interest obligations, it believes that the Administration, the Congress, and the FCC should explore alternative approaches that allow for greater flexibility and efficiency while affirmatively serving public needs and interests.

The broadcast world will soon change from one with some stability and certainty—one analog signal for each broadcast station, operating usually 24 hours a day—to one with unpredictability, uncertainty and fluidity. Some broadcasters will operate one signal, as before, only in digital instead of analog. Some may operate multiple signals, perhaps two, perhaps many more, throughout the day and night. Others will shift between one high-definition channel and multiple channels. Others will add datacasting to the mix. Applying existing public interest obligations to this variegated universe will not be easy, and will certainly not entail a simple one-for-one exchange.

Looking ahead to the digital era, where the flexibility to fit the different patterns that will develop and that will change over time will be increasingly important, many members of the Advisory Committee believe that the Administration, the Congress and the FCC should consider developing a whole new model of public interest obligations.

There are many models to consider. For many of us, a very promising approach would be to move to a kind of "pay-or-play" model. Under this model, broadcasters would be given the choice of maintaining the existing regime of public interest obligations, or of paying a share of revenues to bypass those obligations, while receiving in return an expedited license renewal process. Another option is embodied in a proposal made several years ago by Henry Geller, a telecommunications scholar and former FCC general counsel. Geller would implement a mandatory "pay" system whereby all broadcasters would be relieved of their public interest obligations in exchange for 2 percent of their gross revenues and 1 percent of the revenues from license transfers. The money collected under the Geller plan would be used for an endowment for public broadcasters, other noncommercial telecommunications entities and noncommercial programming, including programming for children, and for free time for political candidates. These options, and others that have been suggested to the Advisory Committee, are described in Appendix D.

The revenues received could then be used to enhance the public interest, by funding noncom- mercial public interest programming and services, especially locally originated and oriented programming and services. All broadcasters, of course, would still have to adhere to all statutory requirements and provide closed captioning, emergency reports, and reasonable access to political candidates. But allowing some stations, including religious and shopping channels, to pay in lieu of other public interest obligations would not only be less cumber- some, it would free up resources that could be used to enhance the public interest. A "pay-or- play" type model would replace the traditional regulatory approach with a marketplace model analogous to the trading of "pollution rights" in environmental regulation.

Advocates of pay-or-play on the Advisory Committee include broadcasters and non-broad- casters alike, attracted to the freedom of choice it provides to broadcasters, its simplicity, and the opportunity under the model to more efficiently allocate resources in the public interest. But several Advisory Committee members objected vigorously to the very idea of pay-or-play, arguing that it would damage or destroy the ethos of public trusteeship on which broadcasting had been built. Some broadcasters likened pay-or-play to the Civil War era policy allowing wealthy individuals to buy their way out of military service. Others had practical objections, wondering how it would be possible to set up an equitable fee structure for the "pay" option, and how to allocate the revenues achieved to enhance the public interest.

Some critics worried that pay-or-play would result in broadcasters dropping all public interest- oriented programming, leaving public interest programming segregated on public broadcasting outlets, resulting in less exposure by citizens to important information on public affairs or programming for children or others.

It was clear from our spirited discussions that the Advisory Committee would come to no consensus on any specific alternative model of public interest obligations. It was worthy of note that the divisions in viewpoint represented in the Advisory Committee were not predict- able, based on affiliation or general perspectives. Even though we make no consensus recom- mendation in this area, we do believe that regulatory authorities, industry groups and public interest groups should explore carefully the range of alternative approaches to public interest obligations by broadcasters in the digital age, looking towards eventual adoption of a model that builds in more flexibility and efficiency while serving public needs and interests.

Recommendation:
Broadcasters should take full advantage of new digital closed captioning technologies to provide maximum choice and quality for Americans with disabilities, where doing so would not impose an undue burden on the broadcasters. These steps should include the gradual expansion of captioning on PSAs, public affairs programming, and political programming; the allocation of sufficient audio bandwidth for the transmission and delivery of video description; disability access to ancillary and supplementary services; and collaboration between regulatory authorities and set manufacturers to ensure the most efficient, inexpensive, and innovative capabilities for disability access.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 mandated that broadcast and cable programming be fully accessible through the provision of closed captioning.(13) Recently, the FCC promulgated regulations to implement Section 305 of the Act, requiring 100 percent of new television programming to be captioned over an 8-year period, and 75 percent of "pre-rule" programming to be captioned over a 10-year period.(14) The obligation to provide captioning access will, of course, continue into the digital era. The 1990 Television Decoder Circuitry Act requires that new television technologies, such as digital technologies, be capable of transmitting closed captions.(15) Passage of this legislation and Section 305 reflect Congress' intent to ensure that our Nation's 28 million Americans who are deaf or hard of hearing continue to receive access to televised news, information, education, and entertainment in the digital age.

Digital technology will open new avenues to enhance and expand captioning access. For example, the ability to alter the size of captions will enable viewers to see both captions and other text appearing on a television screen. The Advisory Committee recommends that broadcasters take full advantage of new digital closed captioning technologies to provide maximum choice and quality for caption viewers, and to work to make captioning in the digital age functionally equivalent to audio transmissions.

The FCC's rules on captioning currently exempt certain categories of programming, including advertisements under 5 minutes, certain late-night programming, and certain local non-repeat programming.(16) Thus, benefits derived from recommendations made elsewhere in this Report—for example, recommendations made with respect to PSAs, public affairs programming, and political discourse—will not reach deaf and hard-of-hearing viewers under existing FCC rules. It is for this reason that we have included within our minimum public interest requirements a requirement for the gradual expansion of captioning on PSAs, public affairs programming, and political programming, where doing so would not impose an undue burden on a digital television broadcaster.

Section 305 of the Telecommunications Act also directed the FCC to conduct an inquiry into the provision of video description on video programming.(17) Video description provides a narration for blind and visually disabled viewers that consists of verbal descriptions of key visual elements in a television program, which are inserted into natural pauses in the program's dialogue. Utilization of video description as a form of providing access has been hindered by the analog standard, which only permits delivery of descriptions via the secondary audio program channel. In contrast, digital technology offers multiple audio channels, with significantly greater bandwidth, that can more easily accommodate video descriptions. We recommend that broadcasters allocate sufficient audio bandwidth for the transmission and delivery of video description in the digital age to make expanded use of this access technology technically feasible.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 allows broadcasters to provide ancillary and supplementary services using a portion of the digital spectrum.(18) The Advisory Committee recommends that broadcasters ensure that the provision of ancillary and supplementary services not impinge upon the 9600 baud bandwidth currently set aside for captioning of digital programs. At the same time, we recommend that as broadcasters explore new digital technologies, they vigorously explore ways to expand access to these ancillary and supplementary services by individuals with disabilities. The provision of these services, which as noted, may include new kinds of video services, computer software distribution, interactive services, and data transmissions, can open a world of opportunities for individuals with disabilities who are seeking full participation in our society. The resulting greater access in employment, education, recreation, and other areas can provide significant benefits to individuals with disabilities and to society as a whole. Drawing upon the flexibility and capacity of digital technology, broadcasters should provide such disability access to their ancillary and supplementary services, where doing so would not impose an undue burden. Among other things, this would entail offering a text option for material that is presented orally and an audio option for material otherwise presented visually.

Finally, just as with emergency notifications, we recommend that the FCC and other regulatory authorities work with set manufacturers to ensure that modifications in audio channels, decoders, and other technical areas be built to ensure the most efficient, inexpensive, and innovative capabilities for disability access.

Endnotes

13) Section 305, Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-114, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).

14) The FCC exempted certain programming from its captioning mandates. The 75 percent requirement for "pre-rule" programming refers to programming that was first exhibited or produced prior to January 1, 1998, the effective date of the FCC's captioning rules.

15) Pub. L. No. 101-431, 104 Stat. 960 (1990) (codified at 47 U. S. C. § 303 (u), § 330 (b).

16) 47 C.F.R. § 79.1 (a)(1).

17) Communications Act of 1934, § 713(f) (codified at 47 U. S. C. 613 (f).

18) Henry Geller, Public Interest Obligations of Broadcasters in the Digital Era: Law and Policy, 6-8 (prepared for the Aspen Working Group on Digital Broadcasting in the Public Interest, January 1998); see also Henry Geller, 1995-2005: Regulatory Reform for the Principal Electronic Media, The Annenberg Wash. Program Nw. Univ. (1994).

Additional Links

• National Association for the Deaf
  • Telecommunications Committee
• National Center for Accessible Media
• American Foundation for the Blind

On to Recommendation 9

Recommendation: (6a) If Congress undertakes comprehensive campaign finance reform, broadcasters should commit firmly to do their part to reform the role of television in campaigns. This could include repeal of the "lowest unit rate" requirement in exchange for free air time, a broadcast bank to distribute money or vouchers for airtime, and shorter time periods for selling political air time, among other changes.

(6b) The television broadcasting industry should voluntarily provide 5 minutes each night for candidate-centered discourse in the thirty days before an election.

(6c) Blanket bans on the sale of air time to all state and local political candidates should be prohibited.

That there are serious problems with American political campaigns and the system of campaign finance is indisputable. The "barriers to entry" for candidates to run, especially to challenge incumbents, are high and growing. A major reason is the burgeoning costs of getting messages across in a cacophonous society that consists of large and diverse districts and states. The quality of political discourse is declining. The problems in the campaign finance system are rooted in existing laws, the changing nature of communications in our society, and many other complicated factors. One of them is the growing role of television in campaigns, and its emergence as the single largest category of spending in elections. Television advertising expenditures increased 800 percent between 1970 and 1996, more than any other category in campaign finance.(9)

Candidates have turned to television advertising, especially on broadcast television, because in many areas, it is the best medium to reach voters. They will continue to do so. At the same time, broadcast television remains the medium of choice for voters to learn about the campaigns and the candidates. Thus, any significant change in the campaign finance system will have to address the issue of the role of television. But no reasonable campaign finance reform can focus on television alone, or put the central burden for improving our political system on the backs of broadcasters. Reform must look at all the elements of the campaign system, recognizing broadcasting as one of them, albeit a vital one.

With some exceptions, broadcasters have played a major role in providing coverage, airtime and resources to enhance campaigns and provide voters with information about candidates and campaigns. The public interest is clearly served by a substantial role for broadcasters in this area. The digital age provides an opportunity to find enhanced ways for broadcasters to serve this interest. We believe that a better balance can be struck which can serve broadcasters, the political system and the public interest as well.

Broadcasters have frequently shown a commitment to providing a voice for candidates so that voters can evaluate their alternatives and so that campaigns can have an appropriate level of real debate and give-and-take to enhance the electoral and governing processes. Innovations by the major networks and station groups like Belo, Hubbard, and Post-Newsweek have been models for other broadcasters. These efforts should be replicated and expanded upon. The industry should redouble its efforts to enhance campaign discourse.

In a democracy that aspires to be deliberative, television can do a great deal if it deals with political issues in a serious way. Engagement with serious issues can be educative; it can increase citizen involvement in political issues; it can make citizens better able to choose. Efforts in this regard should be designed not just to reduce some of the problems faced by candidates with limited resources, but also as a method to ensure that the broadcasting system, private as well as public, helps to promote democratic ideals. To these ends, we recommend three steps in the area of political discourse:

6a. A Broadcast Industry Challenge to Congress on Campaign Finance Reform

First, we call on broadcasters to issue a public, collective challenge to Congress: If Congress passes comprehensive campaign finance reform, broadcasters will commit firmly and clearly to do their part to reform the role of television in campaigns. As we note above, television is only one part of a campaign system filled with serious problems. It is not reasonable to expect broadcasters alone to provide all the answers, or to make as the central component of reform Federal mandates upon broadcasters. But it is equally unreasonable to expect any comprehensive approach to campaign finance reform to ignore television and the role of broadcasters. Therefore, if Congress tackles comprehensive reform, which means including areas like the role of soft money, issue advocacy, the role of parties, contribution limits, the costs, length and tone of campaigns, broadcasters will pledge to work with Congress and other groups to develop proposals to include broadcaster commitments to improve political discourse and provide opportunities for candidates to get their messages across, and will support such reforms as part of the congressional reform package.

The Advisory Committee recommends the following options to consider:

• 1. Repeal the "lowest unit rate" requirement in return for some free time. One option would be an exchange: the repeal of lowest unit rate in return for a commitment by broadcasters to provide some free time (one suggestion is 1 minute of comparable free time for each 2 minutes of time sold) in return for paid time at market rates. The so-called lowest unit rate, the mandated discount advertising rate for candidates(10) , is a complex and cumbersome system that clearly does not work very well. It does not work for candidates, who are confused by the system, and whose time-buying practices often make the lowest unit rate meaningless or superfluous. It can be a bureaucratic nightmare for broadcasters, with extensive reporting requirements and frequent lawsuits from candidates convinced they are being cheated. In the digital age, lowest unit rate becomes even more cumbersome and costly. With the uncertainty and fluidity that will characterize commercial time and time-buying in the digital era, it makes sense to let the market dictate the costs of campaign commercial time. But a simple repeal of lowest unit rate would exacerbate the costs of campaigns, not make it easier to create more opportunities for discourse. The best approach would be to exchange the repeal of lowest unit rate for a simple and better approach on political time—one in which those broadcasters who would be able to air political advertisements at market rates would provide some free time for the paid political time they sell at market rates. Congress could legislate the details of this system, or could delegate the duty to the FCC as the expert agency. To be sure, this simple exchange would not solve the money chase or reduce overall the costs of campaigns. In the context of an overall campaign finance reform that addressed such issues as soft money and overall contribution limits, this change could be a significant component to making the system work better.
• 2. Create a broadcast bank, providing money or vouchers for time for candidates and parties. A second option would be the creation of a broadcast bank, money or vouchers that could be distributed to parties and candidates for the purchase of radio and television time. The broadcast bank could be funded in many ways. Some resources could come from the fees paid by broadcasters for multiplexing or for ancillary and supplementary services. One component could be from a provision of time by broadcasters as their contribution to overall campaign reform.

  How would the time be distributed? One model would have half the time going to the political parties to distribute to candidates as they see fit, and half the time going to candidates who raise sums from small individual donors, as matching grants. Those details, of course, would have to be legislated by Congress or delegated by Congress to the FCC as the expert agency.

• 3. Change requirements governing sale and use of discounted broadcast time to shorten the time period of its availability and expand the length of the candidate's appearance on the air. There are other options involving broadcasting that could improve the campaign process, perhaps in conjunction with the ones above. One would be for Congress to shorten the period of time during which broadcasters must sell time to candidates. Another is to require that candidates appear in the commercials they air. Many feel that a candidate stating his or her own case, rather than through the kinds of slickly produced, almost anonymous ads that so predominate today, would greatly reduce the negative tone of current campaigns.

There are undoubtedly other ideas for broadcasters to fulfill their part of this bargain if their challenge succeeds. But the challenge obviously requires a clear, unambiguous, and meaningful statement by the NAB and/or a representative coalition of important individual broadcasters and broadcast groups for this recommendation for voluntary action to succeed. The acceptance of this recommendation by the broadcasters on the Advisory Committee, who represent many facets of the industry, is a heartening sign that the industry will indeed respond by organizing such a challenge, thus avoiding the criticism that the promise of voluntary action is a hollow one.

6b. Airtime for Candidate-Centered Discourse

Our second recommendation for improving political discourse is for a critical mass of the television broadcasting industry to provide 5 minutes each night for candidate-centered discourse in the 30 days before an election. There are creative ways to improve political discourse, provide opportunities for candidates to get messages across to voters and to enhance voter understanding without heavy monetary costs to broadcasters, regulation of the content of programming, or without it being a kind of programming that will cause viewers to turn away. A broadcaster would make a commitment of 5 minutes for 30 nights (between 5 p.m. and 11:35 p.m., or the appropriate equivalents in Central and Mountain time zones.) We recommend a process with maximum flexibility for broadcasters in this area. Stations would choose the candidates and races, Federal, State and local, in the election that deserved more attention.

We recommend that Congress give the FCC the authority to waive the "equal opportunities" requirements of Section 315(a) of the Communications Act where it is necessary to allow the broadcasters to give time only to major candidates in a race, or to give time only to one candidate if one or more opponents decline the offer of time.(11) Stations would choose the format(s), with experimentation encouraged. Formats might include giving candidates one minute of airtime to get a message across; conducting "mini-debates;" or doing brief interviews with the candidates. The 5 minutes need not be in a contiguous block, but we hope the 5 minutes will not be subdivided into such short segments that serious discourse is precluded. This candidate-centered discourse could occur within station newscasts, but would not have to do so. If broadcasters chose to make the time available within newscasts, they could provide the 5 minutes each night without giving up a single minute of commercial time. We do not intend for this recommendation to supersede the fine efforts of many broadcasters to improve political discourse in their own communities; we hope the proverbial thousand flowers bloom. But we see many advantages in the widespread adoption of this plan. For a modest commitment of time during a brief period each election cycle, broadcasters could provide an immense contribution to the political process and campaign discourse. If every station made this commitment during the period when voters pay the most attention to elections, it would send a powerful signal that elections matter. Not all stations would choose the same races and candidates to cover, but no doubt there would be considerable overlap. In this way, many candidates who otherwise would have no opportunity at all to address a larger audience would be given that chance, probably on several occasions at different times, and via different formats; likewise, many important races that are ignored in campaign season would have a chance to be covered.

We further urge that this commitment, of five minutes a night for thirty nights, be adopted by cable, satellite, radio and other video and audio programmers. And we recommend that this effort not be delayed until the full implementation of digital broadcasting; efforts in this regard should begin in 2000, allowing experimentation with formats and lengths to go on before the digital era.

6c. Blanket Bans of the Sale of Air Time to All State and Local Candidates

The third recommendation is that the FCC should prohibit broadcasters from adopting blanket bans on the sale of time to all State and local political candidates. In doing so, we are not recommending that broadcasters be required to sell time to candidates for every State and local office, or to any particular State or local candidate. We are recommending that broadcasters be prohibited from refusing to sell any time to any candidate for State and local office. We recognize that broadcasters in election periods can have difficulty finding enough commercial time in their inventories to satisfy their regular commercial customers and Federal candidates who have a right to reasonable access, especially in major metropolitan markets where broadcast service areas may include portions of several States. We also recognize that the application of the equal opportunities and lowest unit rate provisions of the Communications Act greatly complicate the practical ability of a station to hold itself out as being willing and able to sell advertising time to all candidates in the multitude of elections held simultaneously in the service area of many broadcast markets.

But the need to balance the demands from applicants for commercial time should not be used to justify a blanket ban on all advertising for State and local offices. Broad blanket policies of this sort make it difficult for local citizens to be informed about the political races that may have the greatest impact on their lives.

Endnotes

9) Norman J. Ornstein, CAMPAIGN FINANCE: AN ILLUSTRATED GUIDE 15-16 (1997).

10) 47 U. S. C. §315(b)(1), (2).

11) With certain exceptions, the Communications Act of 1934 requires that "[i]f any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station." 47 U. S. C. §315 (a).

Supplemtental Statements

• Statement of Charles Benton, Frank M. Blythe, Peggy Charren, Frank H. Cruz, Richard Masur, Newton N. Minow, Jose Luis Ruiz, Shelby Schuck Scott, Gigi B. Sohn, Karen Peltz Strauss, and James Yee; Cass R. Sunstein and Robert D. Glaser join
• Statement of Newton N. Minow, dissenting to , in which Charles Benton, Frank M. Blythe, and James Yee join

Additional Links

• Alliance for Better Campaigns
  • Reaction to the Report

On to Recommendation 7

Recommendation: (4a) Congress should create a trust fund to ensure enhanced and permanent funding for public broadcasting to help it fulfill its potential in the digital television environment and remove it from the vicissitudes of the political process.

(4b) When spectrum now used for analog broadcasting is returned to the government, Congress should reserve the equivalent of 6 MHz of spectrum for each viewing community in order to establish channels devoted specifically to noncommercial educational programming. Congress should establish an orderly process for allocating the new channels as well as provide adequate funding from appropriate revenue sources.

(4c)Broadcasters that choose to implement datacasting should transmit information on behalf of local schools, libraries, community-based nonprofit organizations, governmental bodies, and public safety institutions. This activity should count toward fulfillment of a digital broadcaster's public interest obligations.

The digital age will open up major new avenues for broadcasting information and entertainment to Americans, creating many new lanes on the information superhighway. In theory, the expansion in information resources and avenues should result in the marketplace driving a vast augmentation of programming in all areas, including those that serve the public interest. For the most part, it works well, as witnessed by the substantial amount of quality programming aired by commercial analog broadcasters.

But the Advisory Committee recognizes that the market alone may not provide programming that can adequately serve children, the governing process, special community needs, and the diverse voices in the country. To be sure, cable television's multiple channels have served commendably some of these needs, such as through Nickelodeon for children or C-SPAN for government and politics. But cable channels like these are not available to a large share of the populace, either because they are not carried on many cable systems or because cable itself is neither universally available nor free. Moreover, many of these channels are commercial.

4a. Public Broadcasting

Free, over-the-air broadcasting has the virtue of being readily available to virtually all the people in America, but the marketplace dictates of commercial broadcasters do not automatically accommodate the public interest programming needs of our diverse population. That is why public broadcasting was created and why it has served the country so well. The role that public broadcasting has played in the analog era does not disappear in a digital age. To the contrary, we believe that public broadcasting will continue to be a vital link for many Americans who want access to high quality cultural, public affairs, children's, and educational programs -— indeed, that the exciting capabilities of the digital spectrum in terms of high-definition pictures, multiple signals, data transmission and interactivity should serve to enhance dramatically the value of public broadcasting to the country.

But there is a major challenge ahead for public broadcasting to fulfill its potential in the digital age. The startup costs of converting to digital signals are high, and just as significantly, the costs of producing digital programming are 10 to 20 percent higher than those of comparable analog programming. (See Section I.) We believe that public broadcasting will need the funding necessary to produce quality digital programming and to promote it so that viewers know what is available to them. Thus, we urge Congress to consider ways to provide enhanced funding for public broadcasting in the digital era, and to create a trust fund to make such funding assured and permanent, and to move public broadcasting out of the whipsaw of the political arena. By "public broadcasting," we mean the public broadcasting system, along with independent noncommercial programmers. If Congress does create a public broadcasting trust fund with a base ample enough to fund public broadcasting in the digital age, we join Representatives Billy Tauzin, Edward Markey, and others in urging that public broadcasting reduce or eliminate the practice of "enhanced underwriting" that closely resembles full commercial advertising.(6)

4b. The Creation of New Noncommercial, Educational Channels

Even if the steps described above are taken, we believe that there is more that can be done to exploit the move on the spectrum from analog to digital broadcasting to meet public interest needs. In particular, we recommend carving out space on the spectrum for channels devoted specifically to noncommercial educational programming and services, and funding them in ways that will vastly expand the educational opportunities for all Americans, and particularly for those now underserved by information resources.

The opportunity for digital television to improve student achievement has extraordinarily high stakes for our Nation. The acquisition and use of knowledge is a major resource for our society in the coming century and is pivotal for our quality of life, our economic development, our democracy, and indeed our security. The Nation's success depends upon how effectively all members of our society are prepared to use information technologies, which in turn means that the proficiency of our citizens depends upon the quality of our educational offerings and the capacity of students to utilize information technologies for educational ends. We put our children at a competitive disadvantage in the global economy if we do not invest wisely in educational resources.

The capacity of digital television to expand the flow of information and communication to and within our school systems, and to the population as a whole will require new and imaginative decisions on the dedication of entire channels or sub-channels, and the interaction between programming and datacasting in the digital form.

Under current law, when digital channels are up and running and reaching substantial numbers of people, the existing analog channels are to be turned back to the government, repacked and auctioned off.(7) We recommend that when this process occurs, the equivalent of one 6 megahertz channel in each viewing area be reserved instead for noncommercial educational purposes -— defined as preschool, elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education, lifelong learning, distance learning, literacy, vocational education, children's educational, public affairs, multicultural, arts and civic education, and other programming directed to the educational needs of underserved communities.

We recommend the creation of an orderly process to allocate these channels in a way that will serve each viewing community. A very high priority should be given to ensuring that these educational channels serve underprivileged and minority communities that typically have less access to the educational opportunities present in the information age. One option would be to give the first opportunity to claim and run each educational channel to the local public television station or stations. Partners could include universities, libraries, minority organiza- tions, other noncommercial broadcasters, and other groups. However, the license to operate the channels should be neither automatic nor eternal. The applicants would first have to draft and submit a plan to the FCC indicating how they would involve the local community, including schools, universities, libraries, and diverse and underrepresented groups, what kinds of noncommercial educational programming they might produce and air, and how the new channel devoted to education would be different from their existing public television stations.

The FCC would either accept or reject the plans; if rejected, the educational channel space would be open for application by others, including schools, universities, libraries, minority organizations, other broadcasters or other groups, under clear FCC guidelines made publicly available prior to the application process. The licenses issued would be for finite periods; the record of each station in these areas would be reviewed and considered at license renewal time.

We make this recommendation with one important condition. We believe that spectrum space alone, despite its enormous intrinsic value, will be unable to reach its potential if there are not adequate resources to provide appropriate and engaging programming. New channels devoted to education can be of enormous benefit to the country if they have adequate financial backing. We recommend that Congress provide such funding, using as sources revenues from the auction of other spectrum, including the remainder of the analog spectrum; some of the fees from ancillary and supplementary services by digital broadcasters required by current law; and a portion of the fees we recommend implementing for the use of multiple commercial-driven broadcast channels by digital broadcasters.

The Advisory Committee is very much aware that revenues from auction of the analog spectrum and fees from ancillary and supplementary services are already "scored" under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and are destined for the General Treasury. We urge Congress and the President to reconsider the destination for these funds -- and indeed, urge Congress to adopt the general principle that revenues from auctions of broadcast spectrum and from any fees from broadcasters be used to protect and enhance the public interest in broadcasting. But if Congress and the President decide not to alter the path of these revenues, we urge them to find other sources of revenue for a trust fund for public broadcasting and for the dedicated education channels, whether from industry sources or general revenues. We also urge that any funding mechanism include a provision for matching funds from local communities.

We have two other recommendations in this area. First, the U.S. Department of Education should be encouraged to work with educational programmers to suggest programming and datacasting ideas, once again with a particular sensitivity to the educational needs of minorities and other underserved communities. Second, some portion of the fees collected for these educational purposes, no more than 20 percent, should be set aside for bids by all broadcasters, including commercial ones and minority ones, to produce and air educational programming that would otherwise not be commercially feasible. That revenue should be specifically targeted to support the creation and promotion of programming from diverse and independent producers to air on noncommercial channels, with a particular emphasis on addressing the interests and needs of minorities and other underserved populations. This portion of the fees should be administered by a foundation, perhaps based on the model of the Children's Television Endowment mandated by the Children's Television Act of 1990.

4c. Datacasting

One of the more exciting new capabilities made possible by digital television technology is datacasting, a transmission mode that allows broadcasters to deliver vast amounts of information in a variety of formats to digital television sets and computers. Broadcasters that choose to datacast will be able to send information either alone or in conjunction with audio or video transmissions. The information transmitted could be stock quotations, sports statistics, government information, weather updates, information to accompany video programming, and educational materials to be used with instructional programming, among other possibilities.

Datacasting is also notable for making interactive television feasible. Viewers can engage with programming that is "pushed" at them in the traditional fashion, but also with information content that they can "pull" out of the digital transmission. In this way, important aspects of television broadcasting and the Internet can be combined in innovative ways.

The potential applications of datacasting for education are also significant. Datacasting could transmit course-related materials, such as lesson plans and teacher and student guides, as part of instructional video programming. Schools, libraries, and other educational institutions could use datacasting as a large "digital pipe" to deliver computer-based educational materials during off-peak hours. Public television stations are already developing innovative applications of datacasting for use in conjunction with their video programming as well as in entirely new instructional applications.

Datacasting can also serve a variety of government and public interest needs. Some local government agencies have large amounts of information that could be delivered via datacasting. During weather-related crises, the service could be programmed to track storms house-by-house, and provide viewers with information about when a storm is likely to hit their area.

With datacasting's vast potential to serve, the Advisory Committee recommends that broadcasters develop their plans to implement datacasting with the public interest in mind. Broadcasters should work with local educational and public safety institutions to provide community broadcasting services. The types of information that might be transmitted include:

• Educational programming from preschool through higher education;
• Schedule and logistical information for voting, public hearings, and other governmental activities;
• Public school information;
• Public safety and health announcements;
• Snow emergency information;
• Public text bulletin boards (volunteer opportunities, nonprofit meetings, etc.);
• Community "radio" programming in multiple languages;
• Public access video programming;
• Local library information; and
• Open publication of citizen "letters to the editor."

It is unlikely that datacasting of public interest information would impose an undue burden on broadcasters. Such information consumes little bandwidth, generally less than 1 percent of the total 6 MHz spectrum provided to each digital broadcaster. Digital television broadcasters should be encouraged to offer data broadcasting services on a not-for-profit basis to appropriate community organizations, and have this activity count as a public interest activity.

Endnotes 6) Public Broadcasting Reform Act of 1998, H.R. 4067, 105th Cong. (1998).

7) See 47 U. S. C. §336(c); see also Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251, adding new section 309(j)(14)(A), (B), and (C) to the Communications Act.

Additional Links

Supplemental Statements

• Statement of Charles Benton on Funding New Education Digital Broadcast Channels, in which Frank M. Blythe, Peggy Charren, Frank H. Cruz, Newton N. Minow, Cass R. Sunstein, Gigi B. Sohn, and James Yee join
• Statement of Frank H. Cruz, in which Frank M. Blythe and Newton N. Minow join

• Corporation for Public Broadcasting
  • Projecting the Television Audience in the Digital Future
• Public Broadcasting Service
• Native American Public Telecommunications (NAPT)
• Independent Television Service (ITS)

On to Recommendation 5