As the preceding sections suggest, there are great complexities in applying the principles of public trusteeship to the new realities of digital television. The challenges are at once technological, legal, social, political, and economic in nature, and are so intertwined as to create difficult questions for policymakers and broadcasters alike. The Advisory Committee has sought to face these challenges squarely, recognizing that, while the digital television age may introduce new uncertainties, it also holds great opportunities.
The Advisory Committee's inquiry has been necessary because the seemingly simple transition from analog to digital television broadcasting actually entails many complications. Analog broadcasters send one signal, usually 24 hours a day. Digital broadcasters may send one or multiple signals, at many different time periods throughout the day. Some of these signals may be programs; others may involve data transmissions or other broadband and telecommunications services. The vast new range of choices inherent in digital television technology makes it impossible to transfer summarily existing public interest obligations to digital television broadcasting. A key mandate for the Advisory Committee, therefore, has been to suggest how traditional principles of public-interest performance should be applied in the digital era.
A second mandate has been to consider what additional public interest obligations may be appropriate, given the enhanced opportunities and advantages that broadcasters may receive through digital broadcasting. The grant by Congress of the use of digital spectrum to broadcasters is valuable. We are in no position to assess that value in monetary terms. No one knows whether digital television will maintain, much less increase, broadcasters' revenues. If the digital portion of the public airwaves does provide enhanced economic benefits to broadcasters, however, it is reasonable to recommend ways for the public to receive some benefit in return.
Whether or not digital broadcasting results in greater revenues for licensees, it promises to open up exciting new opportunities for meeting important goals for our society. Channels of communication will be more plentiful. The clarity of images will be sharpened and sound quality enhanced. The varieties of television signals that can be transmitted—and the imaginative new programming and information formats—will expand.
The television medium, in short, will become more versatile, flexible, and abundant. The sheer capacity of digital television will also allow specialized interests and needs to be met more effectively. New openings for improving political discourse and invigorating democratic deliberation will be possible. New ways to meet the educational needs of Americans can be developed. The work of schools, libraries, training centers, and distance education can be enhanced. One can imagine new communications venues for diverse groups in each community. Digital broadcast technology also can help improve early warning of impending natural disasters, and enhance the opportunities for individuals with hearing and vision disabilities to receive programming and communications.
Some of these goals, such as disaster notifications and expanded closed captioning, can be achieved at modest additional expense. Others, such as enhancing education, will clearly cost more. In its recommendations, the Advisory Committee explores ways of achieving these goals without placing undue or unreasonable burdens on broadcasters.
Formulating recommendations that could command a broad consensus yet speak with clarity has been a special challenge for this Advisory Committee. The 22 members of this panel represent a diverse range of interests and perspectives. Formulating recommendations is difficult, too, because no one really knows how digital broadcasting will develop. It is unclear when receiver costs will become low enough to attract significant audiences; when digital broadcasting will actually supplant analog broadcasting; and which transmission formats digital broadcasters will choose to offer—single-signal high-definition programming, multiple-channel multiplexing, or any number of data/information services.
The answers to these issues are likely to vary from one region of the country to another, and in major metropolitan areas as opposed to rural communities. Significant technical questions also remain, such as what technical formats will dominate, how advances in screen technologies may enhance viewing, and how improvements in compression technologies may expand channel capacity.
Mindful of these uncertainties, the Advisory Committee has operated under several basic principles in formulating its recommendations. The first is that the public, as well as broadcasters, should benefit from the transition to digital television. Second, flexibility is critical to accommodate unforeseen economic and technological developments.
Third, the Advisory Committee has favored, whenever possible, policy approaches that rely on information disclosures, voluntary self-regulation, and economic incentives, as opposed to regulation. Traditional regulation tends to be inflexible and can generate counterproductive incentives for broadcasters. On the other hand, marketplace forces do not always deliver important social benefits, such as sufficient educational programming for children or adequate attention to public affairs. In such circumstances, government can appropriately play a role.
The Committee's preference for minimal regulation does not mean total deregulation or the elimination of broadcasters' public interest obligations.(1) Broadcasters have a long tradition of commitment to the public interest and have formally affirmed their commitment to serve as guardians of the public trust in their use of the public airwaves. Congress, the Executive Branch, and the courts have consistently held that public interest obligations for broadcasters are appropriate and required as a condition of using valuable portions of the public airwaves. Those obligations do not disappear in a digital era. With these recommendations, the Advisory Committee hopes public interest service in broadcasting will be continued and enhanced.
The recommendations that follow address ten key areas of concern:
- Disclosure of Public Interest Activities by Broadcasters
- Voluntary Standards of Conduct
- Minimum Public Interest Requirements
- Improving Education Through Digital Broadcasting
- Multiplexing and the Public Interest
- Improving the Quality of Political Discourse
- Disaster Warnings in the Digital Age
- Disability Access to Digital Programming
- Diversity in Broadcasting
- New Approaches to Public Interest Obligations in the New Television Environment
Endnote
1) Of course, no imaginable system really involves total 'deregulation' in the sense of no government involvement. Any system of broadcasting must and will depend on a positive role for government. Genuine laissez-faire is not an option in light of the need, at minimum, for government to manage the spectrum and minimize interference.