1                         AFTERNOON SESSION
 2                                    (1:40 p.m.)
 3              MR. MOONVES:  Ladies and gentlemen, can we
 4    gather.  Can we reconvene, please.
 5              First, Norm Ornstein for a couple of brief
 6    messages.
 7              MR. ORNSTEIN:  I just wanted to suggest to the
 8    members, we will be discussing this at the conclusion of
 9    this panel or towards the end and not everybody will be
10    here.  Since we are meeting in Los Angeles next, our early
11    plan, which was to focus next on the larger questions of
12    the political process, it doesn't make a whole lot of
13    sense to do that out in California.
14              So we should think a little bit more and come to
15    a conclusion about our agenda for the next session in Los
16    Angeles.  We have some ideas that we'll put on the table
17    later on this afternoon.
18                     PANEL:  EDUCATIONAL PROG
20              MR. MOONVES:  Good.  Thank you, Norm.
21              We are graced with a wonderful panel of five
22    experts in the area of education programming.  Our panel
23    member Peggy Charren has put this together.  Peggy, as you
24    all know, has been the bane of every network's existence
25    for many years and is fondly known as the godmother of

 1    children's television.
 2              So Peggy, I would love to turn the panel over to
 3    you. 
 4              MS. CHARREN:  Thanks.
 5              I'll sit over here since we have so many members
 6    of this panel.
 7              First I want to thank the committee staff and
 8    some members of this committee, too, for --
 9              MR. MOONVES:  Peggy, put the microphone closer
10    to your mouth, please.  Thank you. 
11              MS. CHARREN:  First I want to thank the
12    committee staff and the members of this committee for
13    helping to put this panel together, and it was very
14    significant help.
15              This afternoon's panel focuses on education. 
16    There's no question that television educates.  It's
17    because violent, stereotyped, overcommercialized program
18    educates that so many people worry about it.  But when we
19    talk of TV's power to educate we usually mean the ability
20    to give us what we need to know to grow up healthy and
21    prosper in a democratic society.
22              Every U.S. broadcast license includes a legal
23    mandate to serve the public interest.  Over the past 50
24    years Congress and the FCC have developed policies
25    designed to reinforce that obligation.  For example, the

 1    Children's Television Act of 1990 presently requires three
 2    hours a week of educational programming for children on
 3    each station.  Yet even this minimal guideline is too much
 4    for some TV executives to accept.
 5              In "Any" magazine this month Mark Lieber, who's
 6    the Senior Vice President of Children's Programming at
 7    Polygon Television, wrote:  "No matter how cleverly we
 8    disguise education, most children over the age of four are
 9    inclined to turn the channel.  Instead of mandating a
10    specific number of hours per broadcaster, it would be more
11    effective to devise a collaboratively funded one-hour
12    family special to air each month."
13              He suggests that all the networks and cable
14    companies air that show simultaneously.  That's one hour a
15    month.  Well, so much for diversity.
16              Without discussion and decisions about how many
17    new programming opportunities are inherent in digital uses
18    of the spectrum that can be used to serve the American
19    public, we think that maybe vested interests will win out
20    over the public interest. 
21              James Day, who is the past President of WNET and
22    a big person who helped to organize public broadcasting,
23    put it very nicely in a book he recently wrote.  He said: 
24    "In the communications shakeout that's coming there will
25    be winners and losers.  Some will survive and others will

 1    slip into limbo, victims of the inexorable economic forces
 2    that shape the fate of the mass media."
 3         "Economic forces," he said, "however, are not the
 4    only arbiter of social needs.  This Nation, dependent as
 5    it is upon an informed electorate, must not permit its
 6    organs of enlightenment to be shaped by the same forces
 7    that determine its leading brands of beer, headache
 8    remedy, and dog food."
 9              Now, you may ask what all this has to do with
10    our deliberations here today.  I'm sure that today's panel
11    will have some answers.  First we're going to hear from
12    Gordon Ambach, who's the Executive Director of the Council
13    of Chief State School Officers.  He holds a B.A. in
14    American studies from Yale, a master's in teaching
15    history, and he served as the New York State Commissioner
16    of Education and President of the University of the State
17    of New York. 
18              He developed and implemented the Nation's most
19    comprehensive school reform act, the Regents' Action Plan,
20    establishing rigorous diploma standards.  He served on the
21    National Committee on Libraries and Information Services.
22              And I was particularly pleased to note in his
23    resume that he's a graduate of Hope High School in
24    Providence, because that's where my husband went.
25              Anyway, we're delighted to welcome Gordon

 1    Ambach.
 4              MR. AMBACH:  Thank you very kindly, Peggy.
 5              Co-Chairs and members of this distinguished
 6    committee:  It is a great privilege for me to be with you
 7    this afternoon and to address the subject of public
 8    interest obligation with respect to elementary and
 9    secondary student achievement.
10              I have provided a copy of my brief remarks.  It
11    should be at your places.  I really would like to make
12    five points.  I have five minutes and that divides rather
13    evenly, although a couple of the points have much more
14    weight than do others.
15              I'm going to speak not only on behalf of public
16    elementary and secondary, but nonpublic elementary and
17    secondary interests, and about learning both inside and
18    outside of schools.
19              The public interest obligation for the use of
20    digital television to improve student achievement has
21    extraordinarily high stakes for our Nation.  The
22    acquisition and use of knowledge is the major resource for
23    our society in the coming century.  Information
24    technologies are keyed to access and use of knowledge,
25    which is pivotal for our quality of life, our economic

 1    development, and indeed our security.
 2              The Nation's success depends upon how
 3    effectively all members of our society are prepared to use
 4    information technologies, which in turn means that the
 5    proficiency of our citizens depends upon the quality of
 6    our elementary and secondary education offerings and
 7    student capacity to use the information technologies.
 8              The advice of this committee in my judgment on
 9    the public interest obligations with respect to elementary
10    and secondary education must be exceptionally bold and
11    commensurate with the high stakes of our Nation for our
12    information IQ, if you will, in an internationally
13    competitive environment. 
14              Now, at pivotal points in the history of this
15    country over these past two decades -- two centuries,
16    excuse me -- the Federal Government has in fact from time
17    to time made very significant decisions to commit the
18    Nation's resources to address our educational challenges. 
19    In the eighteenth century we made land grants for
20    establishing local school districts.  In the nineteenth
21    century we made land grants to establish the most
22    extraordinary system of colleges and universities that the
23    world knows, the land grant acts in the latter part of
24    that century.
25              In the twentieth century we had things like the

 1    GI Bill post-World War Two, which created probably the
 2    greatest access to the development of advanced capacity
 3    that any society has ever put forward at one particular
 4    time.  In the sixties we've had major Federal
 5    interventions for children who happen to be economically
 6    disadvantaged or have disabilities, which have changed
 7    substantially opportunities.  I know you saw the
 8    demonstration this morning with respect to persons who
 9    happen to have disabilities.  The Federal Government and
10    its initiatives here have been absolutely extraordinary. 
11    And of course, most recently we've had the universal
12    services discounts for schools and libraries with respect
13    to telecommunications services.
14              Now, I cite these because at various times there
15    have been extraordinarily bold decisions made and I
16    believe we're at the same point with respect to the use of
17    the digital capacity, digital television broadcasting. 
18              Now, in order to justify a public interest
19    obligation and elementary and secondary education, rather
20    than starting with this perspective of what's the
21    technology and how we might use it, it seems to me that we
22    must start with what are the needs in elementary and
23    secondary education and in fact can any of them or should
24    any of them be addressed by the applications of digital
25    television.

 1              I've suggested for you several very specific
 2    items where there is a great need within the elementary
 3    and secondary schools that can be addressed at least in
 4    part through applications of digital television.  A, point
 5    4:  Access to the use of information technologies so that
 6    students can learn the skills and proficiencies to help in
 7    their learning.  This is an extraordinary equity issue
 8    right now across our country.  Perhaps the most important
 9    equity issue in elementary and secondary education right
10    now is the have's and have-not's issue with respect to
11    access to information technologies.
12              The second is in access to timely, inexpensive
13    databases.  This is the issue of how extensively is the
14    Internet or its successor nets going to be available to
15    children in our schools and outside.
16              The third is the opportunity for interactive
17    distant direct teaching and learning in subjects which are
18    typically unavailable:  AP courses, for example, in some
19    schools; or calculus or advanced mathematics; or master
20    classes with performers or artists, such as Izaak Perlman
21    with respect to teaching in very, very special
22    circumstances by distance learning.
23              I happen to have seen Perlman, incidentally,
24    conduct a master violin class with four students in remote
25    locations -- one of the most extraordinary things I have

 1    ever seen.  And he would tell you, just as a parentheses,
 2    he can teach more effectively that way in many cases than
 3    he can teach in person.  There's an interesting dynamic,
 4    that the student loses the anxiety of being at the
 5    master's side and focuses on what are the techniques.  The
 6    sound isn't as great as if you were next door, but the
 7    potential, I use just as an illustration, is incredible.
 8              Next and in a way a derivative from the issue of
 9    those subjects not ordinarily available, but one which is
10    so important for our country, is the use of our digital
11    capacity to help with the learning of languages other than
12    English, both with respect to our populations who are non-
13    English speaking and who need to learn both English and
14    maintain their own language for our overall capacity and
15    for our English speaking population that needs to learn to
16    communicate with the majority of the world which of course
17    speaks languages other than English.
18              The next is using technologies to learn to
19    conduct scientific experiments or operate complex
20    machinery by simulation, what any major industry does at
21    this point with respect to its own employees and something
22    that is extraordinarily important for learning for
23    occupations in our secondary levels, to be able to learn
24    at distance by simulation.
25              The next:  cost effective, round the clock

 1    channels of communications for students, parents, and
 2    teachers to reinforce learning through understanding
 3    expectations for student performance, for access to
 4    curriculum materials at home, for informing about
 5    progress, for homework assignments, for monitoring
 6    students.
 7              The next is recording and displaying student
 8    performance through portfolios or other examples related
 9    to their standards and for informing the public on school
10    results.
11              Finally, the preparation of teachers through
12    observation of good practices in the United States and
13    other nations, exchanges on teaching technique, coaching
14    of candidates and practitioners from offsite locations.
15              I might also offer you a brief parenthetical
16    note there.  There has just been done a major study
17    comparing mathematics and science education in this
18    country and in 40 other countries.  I happened to
19    represent the United States in conducting that study.  The
20    most fascinating aspect of it is comparative videotapes of
21    teaching in different countries, and it is stunning what
22    effect that has been by way of having our teachers now be
23    able to watch Japanese teachers of mathematics or German
24    teachers of mathematics and actually see how they handle
25    the subject.

 1              Now, the potential there, both within this
 2    country and across countries, is just extraordinary. 
 3    Remember, we are dealing with the heart of the educational
 4    system, the teaching and learning of that system.
 5              Incidentally, you'll notice every single example
 6    I have just given you is on teaching and learning.  Every
 7    one of them has to do with student achievement.  We're not
 8    talking here about management information systems, we're
 9    not talking here about other aspects.  We're talking about
10    the core of the function of education. 
11              So let me conclude then by way of saying that
12    the capacity of digital television and that which can make
13    a contribution on each of these needs, surely on other
14    needs, is fantastic.  To use it effectively will require,
15    in my judgment, new and very imaginative decisions on the
16    dedications of entire channels or sub-channels or major
17    parts of them in order to expand the number of pipes or
18    the size of the overall pipeline for information flow and
19    communication. 
20              In addition, the Nation must make a substantial
21    commitment of a part of the revenues from the growth of
22    using digital television for dedication to creating the
23    content for the learning that goes through these
24    pipelines.  There is precedent for Federal action to
25    establish revenue streams for education that use allocated

 1    resources, and they go back two centuries:  the land
 2    grants and then allocation of how they were used; timber
 3    rights, mining rights; and indeed, brought up to date, in
 4    a way the universal services provision is such a kind of
 5    commitment.
 6              Now, I said to you that I was going to propose
 7    some bold solutions.  Maybe these are beyond the scope of
 8    this particular advisory committee.  I hope they're not,
 9    because in my judgment what you do by way of your
10    recommendations and what is done by way of the use of this
11    incredible capacity in technology, an asset which is
12    genuinely that of our Nation as a whole, will have or can
13    have an extraordinary impact on achievement of elementary
14    and secondary students in the future.
15              Thank you very much.
16              MS. CHARREN:  Thank you, Gordon.  You validate
17    what I made my approach to this panel when I started
18    thinking about it.  It's, after all, "Programming in the
19    Digital Era" and, instead of focusing on particular kinds
20    of programming, I thought it was appropriate to focus on
21    where we learned.  First is K, pre-K through 12, and next
22    it's higher education, and it's also libraries and public
23    broadcasting as a place on the screen and as a thread for
24    all these institutional possibilities.
25              Anyway, next we have higher education, and to

 1    discuss it we have Janet Poley, who is President of
 2    American Distance Learning Consortium -- ADEC.  Is that
 3    right, ADEC?  Right.
 4              In March she was named one of the hundred
 5    outstanding technology leaders in government, business,
 6    and academia by Federal Computer Week.  She's been
 7    Director-Deputy Administrator for Communication,
 8    Information, and Technology of the Extension Service of
 9    the U.S. Department of Agriculture.  She served as
10    Coordinator of the Development Management Center, Chief of
11    Party for the Training for Rural Development Projects for
12    six years in Tanzania, and for that she was given an
13    Excalibur Award from Congress in 1983.  
14              She's been involved in technology, technical
15    assistance, and all kinds of evaluation in more than 20
16    countries from Asia, Africa, and Europe, and was a member
17    of the first USDA Extension team sent to Poland to explore
18    establishing an Extension Service there.
19              I imagine it's easier to do what you have to do
20    this afternoon.  Anyway, Janet.
23              MS. POLEY:  Thank you very much.
24              Good afternoon.  I'm very pleased to have an
25    opportunity to speak with you on behalf of ADEC, the

 1    Distance Education Consortium that includes about 50 of
 2    the major state universities and land grant institutions
 3    in the United States.  We're also affiliated with many
 4    nonprofits and professional associations, and what I hope
 5    to do is to share with you some of our vision and ideas
 6    that may be helpful as you think about this very important
 7    public and educational interest. 
 8              I wanted you to know that as a group of higher
 9    education institutions we have about 39 uplink sites
10    across the United States, about 2,000 downlink sites that
11    go into almost all of the counties of the United States. 
12    We partner with many groups, and I would applaud what
13    Gordon has said in terms of the K-12 sector.  I think we
14    have a seamless kind of operation and some of the needs
15    that he mentioned will not be met without a collaboration
16    between higher education, a number of you, and the K-12
17    community.
18              One of the things that I wanted to mention up
19    front:  I come from the land grant institutions and ADEC
20    was founded on that land grant base, and I think this is a
21    very important dimension of who we are and where we come
22    from.  Today we are active participants in the Next
23    Generation Internet and Internet 2.  We're experimenting
24    with interactive technology integration that's appropriate
25    for learning applications.  We have historically black

 1    colleges and universities that are members of our
 2    organization as well as tribal colleges.
 3              We stretch from coast to coast and around the
 4    world.  We have foreign educational institutions involved
 5    in Australia, Mexico, Latin America, and Africa.
 6              As a distributed virtual organization, we work
 7    with a variety of professional associations and nonprofits
 8    in nutrition, health, children's welfare, youth
 9    development, food technology, and the physical and
10    biological sciences.  If you want to know more about ADEC,
11    you can find us on the World Wide Web,, and
12    you'll find some very interesting programming there that I
13    hope will be more broadly used in the public interest and
14    educational sector.
15              My member institutions want you to know how
16    important we think it is to ensure that this transition to
17    the digital television age takes into account building a
18    vibrant public and educational broadcasting sector.  We
19    think that the digital revolution must be developed to
20    serve educational goals critical to the future of our
21    Nation.  I think Gordon did an eloquent job of saying how
22    important education is to this Nation's future.  We talk
23    here about knowledge economy.  It's absolutely essential.
24              Today I want to talk briefly about the five
25    areas that we think are highly important to expand

 1    programming to meet the growing demands of our clients
 2    around the country.  We are currently using all available
 3    technology to program to community leaders and learners in
 4    parenting, nutrition, health, environmental science, food
 5    production, food safety, community development, consumer
 6    affairs, workforce skills, and volunteer development. 
 7              Research tells us of the importance of active
 8    learning and we're entering an era where multidirectional
 9    digital communication can restore our ability to treat
10    each other as intelligent and engaged partners.  But we
11    must think about this as an evolution, and I think that's
12    what many of you were saying this morning.  It isn't going
13    to happen overnight.
14              In the short term, we can work together to
15    provide existing educational offerings to our citizens. 
16    In the longer term, we can develop new integrated digital
17    systems matched to learning styles and the needs of those
18    we serve.  I want to just briefly hit on those five areas
19    that we are hearing from across the country as being
20    important, and my paper testimony will give some very good
21    examples of the institutions doing that kind of
22    programming:
23              First of all, parenting and other programs
24    focused on improving the lives of children and youth;
25              Secondly, the area of health;

 1              Third, lifelong learning, and with a special
 2    emphasis on the aging population.  I notice I'm not the
 3    only one here who's taking on and putting off glasses.
 4              (Laughter.)
 5              So there are some special needs that we all have
 6    as we age.
 7              Workforce technology; and virtual certificates
 8    and degrees.
 9              We're hearing a great deal, I think, these days
10    about those five areas and there are a tremendous number
11    of activities and efforts going on in state universities
12    and land grant colleges.  The governors are even involved
13    in something called Western Governors University, the
14    private sector in Phoenix University.  So it's a whole new
15    evolving, developing kind of marketplace as far as
16    education and learning.
17              The digital television revolution gives us, I
18    think, a wonderful opportunity to move from a mindset of
19    scarcity to a mindset of abundance, of multiple channels
20    and services.  We can now have the long overdue national
21    conversation about what this television appliance does and
22    does not bring into our homes.  We can talk about quality
23    and content and finally bring the television medium to a
24    place front and center in strengthening our local and
25    national economies.

 1              We've already alluded to the fact that 98
 2    percent of American homes have at least one television and
 3    67 percent have two.  We know this is the most ubiquitous
 4    media that we have that goes into our homes.
 5              In the short term, our task may simply be
 6    organizing broader access to more program choices.  In the
 7    longer term, we have a wonderful opportunity to develop
 8    this public and educational sector so as to engage
 9    learners actively in an environment where data, voice, and
10    video are integrated interactively, as talked about this
11    morning.
12              Today, for all practical purposes the
13    institutions that I work with, the land grant
14    institutions, are frozen out of the prospect of creating
15    affordable access to the medium people watch, or have on,
16    more than six hours a day.  The evolution to digital
17    television will give us an opportunity to become more
18    socially responsible.
19              Surely we can encourage broad participation in
20    this new television and Internet integration.  Surely we
21    can carve out some organized time and space among the
22    hundreds of digital channels and services to assure that
23    educational programs are easily found -- and I'll repeat
24    that -- easily found among the offerings.  Surely we can
25    allow universities and nonprofits to have some control

 1    over deciding what they will offer and when.  And we need
 2    to do this in partnership.
 3              We need many groups to be involved in organizing
 4    this new and dynamic digital public interest and education
 5    sector.  We need real collaborations and partnerships.  We
 6    need to look at this so channels can be dedicated to
 7    various audience segments and types of programs.  We need
 8    to plan so that a rich diversity of programs are aired for
 9    the rich diversity of the people we call Americans. 
10    Beyond all else, we need to develop this public interest
11    sector so that it spans and encompasses the Nation.  The
12    quality of our future depends upon everyone becoming
13    lifelong learners.
14              In the 1800's colleges and universities were
15    granted land to develop an organizational system that
16    would take knowledge to the people.  Higher education
17    based on a practical curriculum, learning applicable to
18    real life and open to anyone, not just elites, was a
19    radical idea.  The Land Grant Act of 1862 changed our
20    world forever.
21              You on this committee hold the future of America
22    and the globe in your hand.  I know you will think long
23    and hard about this digital grant to broadcasters and how
24    it can be used in the public interest.  It's clear to my
25    constituents in every state and county in this Nation that

 1    broadcasters, in return for their exclusive use of a
 2    public good, should be required to carry an increased
 3    amount of educational and public interest programming,
 4    located so it can be easily found and widely offered on an
 5    affordable basis.
 6              The digital revolution, after all, is about
 7    restoring the rights of all Americans to participate in
 8    the dialogue which shapes their Nation.  The development
 9    of a broadcasting environment that encourages the
10    development of a real public and education sector is
11    essential for the sustainable security of our Nation.
12              I wish you well and know that Americans in every
13    community in the Nation will be following your actions
14    closely.  They must.  Their vital interests are at stake.
15              Thank you very 
16              MS. CHARREN:  Thank you very much, Janet.
17              Next we have Marilyn Gell Mason, who is Director
18    of the Cleveland Public Library.  She served as Director
19    of the White House Conference on Library and Information
20    Services and as a member of the Board of Trustees of the
21    Online Computer Library Corporation.  She is a member of
22    the Visiting Committee School of Information Studies at
23    Syracuse University.
24              And I'm going to cut short the bios, which are
25    in your packets, so that we can get to the question

 1    period.
 3                     CLEVELAND PUBLIC LIBRARY
 4              MS. MASON:  You forgot the "walk on water, talk
 5    to God," all that. 
 6              When Peggy invited me to meet with you today she
 7    warned me.  She said:  Now, Marilyn, this isn't like
 8    testifying before a Congressional committee; these people
 9    really want to hear what you have to say.
10              (Laughter.)
11              But I can't help thinking that many of you may
12    be wondering what libraries have to do with broadcasting. 
13    I hope in the five minutes I have allotted to me I can
14    convince you that libraries and digital broadcasters have
15    interests that intersect in some very important points.
16              Public libraries are our most democratic
17    institutions.  Their job is to provide every man, woman,
18    and child, regardless of age, race, level of education,
19    economic condition, physical ability or disability, with
20    the knowledge and information that is needed, in the time,
21    place, and in the format they need it.  Thus we are
22    democratic not only in the people, or audience, that we
23    serve, but also in the services, or the programming, that
24    we provide.
25              Because libraries are modestly funded, you may

 1    be unaware of the range of our reach.  A poll that was
 2    completed just this week in Cleveland revealed that 77
 3    percent of the residents of the city have been in the
 4    library in the last year.  I hope you're surprised.  I
 5    was, and I'm used to working with all of those people.
 6              All of these people are inner city residents. 
 7    Cleveland is an intensely inner city city, with almost no
 8    suburban reach to it.  30 percent are below the poverty
 9    level.  Almost half of the children are in below poverty
10    level homes.  The population includes young children,
11    senior citizens, owners of small businesses, students,
12    people struggling to get a job, learning to read, getting
13    information about public assistance, or simply reading the
14    newspaper or perhaps a good book.
15              They find what they want in printed material, on
16    audio or video tape, and more and more frequently on the
17    Internet.  Beginning in 1991, the Cleveland Public Library
18    was the first large library in the country to provide
19    Internet access to the public.  We were, however, far from
20    the last.  Today 60 percent of the public libraries in the
21    country provide Internet access to the public. 
22              Now, I know you're wondering why I'm talking
23    about the Internet because we're talking about digital
24    broadcasting today.  Technologies continue to change, and
25    what was once the exclusive domain of print, then shared

 1    by broadcast technologies, now by Internet, will in the
 2    future be shared by digital broadcasting.
 3              Although many of us continue to think of
 4    television as a distribution mechanism for entertainment
 5    and perhaps advertising, it has always had a larger public
 6    responsibility, as demonstrated by broadcasts of the
 7    Persian Gulf War, confirmation hearings of Clarence
 8    Thomas, children's educational programming, and a recent
 9    tradition of televised presidential debates.  Even the
10    controversial broadcast of the O.J. Simpson trial last
11    year provoked stimulating conversations about race
12    relations in the United States, a topic that has smoldered
13    underground for far too long.
14              With the advent of digital television, the
15    public responsibilities of broadcasters will expand in
16    direct proportion to expanded technical capabilities.  I
17    think that's an important point.  As television moves
18    beyond entertainment in a definitive way to transmit data
19    and even provide an interactive capability now available
20    through wired computer transmission, digital broadcasters
21    must be part of our long-standing national commitment to
22    public access to knowledge and information, a commitment
23    that gave rise to public schools, public libraries, and,
24    most, recently public access to the Internet.
25              As technologies continue to change at an ever

 1    increasing rate, the public has come to rely on the
 2    library to ensure that information does not become the
 3    sole prerogative of the rich.  Some of you may have heard
 4    the discussions of signs of death of the public library,
 5    the fact that libraries have become obsolete.  In the same
 6    poll that was on my desk on Wednesday, we asked the public
 7    how important they thought libraries were in this
 8    information age.  Some of you might want to pause a minute
 9    and think about the answer to that question.
10              The question was:  "Because of the increased use
11    of computers and information technology, libraries are
12    more important than they used to be.  Yes, no, or not
13    sure."  Just form in your own mind, how many people think
14    libraries are more important?  The answer was 81 percent. 
15    Far from becoming obsolete, libraries are becoming
16    essential to the lives of the vast majority of individuals
17    in the community.
18              Digital television is the next big leap in the
19    development of information technology, and you just
20    thought it was for broadcasting.  Discussing the future of
21    digital technology today is like the discussion of
22    computers in the 1970's, when I opined that they had no
23    future, especially in libraries, because they didn't have
24    the storage capacity, they were too slow, and they were
25    too expensive.  That was true in the 1970's.  It is, of

 1    course, no longer true.
 2              While it is true that the digital spectrum is
 3    limited, it is not yet clear what that limitation may mean
 4    in the future, as signal compression technology continues
 5    to improve.  My best guess -- and I listened with great
 6    interest to the panel this morning -- my best guess is
 7    that, whatever any of us may anticipate, it will be wrong
 8    and will probably fall short of what we imagine it will
 9    be. 
10              Still, even today many are suggesting that
11    digital broadcasting will be the vehicle that brings the
12    vast holdings of the Internet to the masses.  If that is
13    the case, all of us have a stake in ensuring free public
14    access to the information people need to live every aspect
15    of their lives.
16              Whether future delivery systems are wired,
17    wireless, or some combination of the two, there is a rich
18    opportunity for public libraries to work with broadcasters
19    to ensure public access to information.  A dedicated
20    interactive library channel, for instance, would enable
21    anyone without a computer or an Internet connection to
22    access to full range of electronic library offerings using
23    his or her television set.
24              These offerings already include today:  the
25    library's catalogue, numerous electronic databases, access

 1    to other libraries, access to other Internet resources,
 2    materials that the library has already digitized,
 3    materials that other libraries, including the Library of
 4    Congress, have digitized, and educational programs,
 5    including computerized literacy programs.
 6              At a time when only one household in seven has
 7    access to the Internet, this scenario is appealing for
 8    public as well as commercial ventures.  I can imagine, for
 9    instance, a child doing some research on Martin Luther
10    King, Junior, a popular topic this time of year, who
11    cannot get to his or her local branch library, as much as
12    we try to make them close and convenient, who could turn
13    on the television, search the electronic Encyclopedia
14    Britannica, and actually see Martin Luther King, Junior,
15    delivering the "I Have a Dream" speech.  This could be
16    done today.
17              Commercial and public interests are not always
18    at war.  Often they exist side by side in a symbiotic,
19    mutually productive relationship.  One example of this is
20    the now almost ancient relationship between libraries and
21    bookstores.  Study after study has demonstrated that
22    people who use libraries also buy books.  They don't use
23    libraries instead of buying books.  It is not a zero sum
24    game.  The existence of each encourages the use of both.
25              The United States has a long-term commitment to

 1    educating and informing its citizenry, and for good
 2    reason.  Educated and informed people not only contribute
 3    to the community as a whole, but educated and informed
 4    people are also more likely to buy other goods and
 5    services.  They are employable and interested in a broader
 6    spectrum of activities.
 7              Today there are many routes to the same truth. 
 8    Libraries and educational institutions must be part of the
 9    broader picture.  Use of the latest technology to further
10    educate and inform citizens will be of benefit to our
11    entire country socially, politically, and even
12    economically.
13              MS. CHARREN:  Thank you so much, Marilyn.
14              Next we have Fred Esplin, who is the General
15    Manager of KUED Channel 7 in Salt Lake City.  In 1989 he
16    assumed the additional responsibilities of Associate
17    Director of the Utah Education Network and of the
18    University of Utah's Department of Media Services.
19              He began there in 1979 as Director of Marketing. 
20    His broadcast background includes development and
21    promotion work for PBS in D.C., WITF-TV and FM, the
22    Pennsylvania Public Television Network in Hershey,
23    Pennsylvania.
24              He's a native Utahn, which is the first time I
25    ever saw that word in print.  His education included an

 1    internship with columnist Jack Anderson, graduate study at
 2    American University, and a White House internship.
 3              We're delighted to have you with us.
 5                   KUED-TV, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
 6              MR. ESPLIN:  Thank you very much, Peggy.
 7              It's good to be with you, and I appreciate the
 8    opportunity to share one public broadcaster's perspective
 9    on how public television might better serve the public
10    interest in the digital age.  I should say from the outset
11    that I applaud the creation of this group and I applaud
12    your taking up the challenge in the important work of this
13    committee to ensure that the public interest is protected
14    and advanced as we broadcasters are entrusted with this
15    finite and significant public resource.
16              As you well know, public broadcasters are
17    committed to harness the most current technology in the
18    service of education and public interest, and it's a
19    commitment we've had from the beginning.  We have it today
20    and will carry it with us into the digital age.
21              Our commitment to education is manifest in four
22    areas that I'd like to speak to briefly.  One is early
23    childhood services.  Another is digital -- excuse me --
24    technology integration in K through 12 education.  The
25    third is workforce technology and education; and the

 1    fourth is digital service accessibility.  I'd like to
 2    share my view on what we're doing in each of these four
 3    areas, briefly touching on the national, but talking about
 4    our experience in Utah as well.
 5              First, public broadcasters are committed to
 6    providing programming which helps with early childhood
 7    development and school readiness.  Right now over 120
 8    public TV licensees covering most of the country provide a
 9    service called "Ready to Learn."  It's a comprehensive
10    programming and outreach service that's designed to assure
11    the school readiness, that kids are ready for school and
12    ready to succeed when they get to school.
13              While many public TV stations -- despite this
14    fact, a lot of public TV stations can't carry the "Ready
15    to Learn" service today because of commitments to the
16    daytime instructional schedule.  In a multiplexed DTV
17    world, this important service could be made available to
18    every child and parent and caregiver in America.
19              The second area:  As you know, public TV has a
20    strong track record in using the latest technologies to
21    provide K-12 educational programming.  As we speak, some
22    30 million students in 70,000 schools are currently served
23    by public television, and we're in the process nationally
24    of developing a comprehensive plan for delivering news
25    services in a digital environment.

 1              In Utah, for example, we already partner with
 2    the 40 school districts in the State and with the State
 3    library system, to connect them to the Internet, to
 4    provide online services, to develop CD-ROM's and
 5    videocassettes and study guides, all to supplement
 6    instructional services.
 7              Let me just give you briefly one example of
 8    that.  We are in the third year of a project called Utah
 9    Collections, where we take the best of some of our video,
10    audio, historic photographs, text, digitize it, put it on
11    CD-ROM, put it online, and ultimately we anticipate
12    putting it on air with digital TV, to supplement the
13    instruction that is made available in the public schools. 
14    We anticipate building on this collaboration by offering a
15    dedicated SDTV service for the public schools with an
16    integrated online and broadcast data instructional support
17    materials to back it up.
18              That's what we're doing in Utah, and we're not
19    alone in that.  A lot of my colleagues throughout the
20    country are making similar plans.
21              Third, public television has a proven track
22    record in both adult literacy and workforce education, and
23    we plan to leverage the features of digital technology to
24    meet critical workforce needs.  Already, public TV around
25    the country provides over 70 college credit TV courses to

 1    more than 400,000 students each academic year, not to
 2    mention a broad array of professional development courses
 3    and teleconferences to organizations nationwide.
 4              In Utah, which is really where the idea of the
 5    Western Governors University began to develop, through our
 6    Governor Levitt, we're very active in this as well.  We're
 7    working with the nine colleges and universities in our
 8    State in the creation and delivery of telecourses and in-
 9    service technology, and are planning for a dedicated SDTV
10    service to make these kinds of services available to even
11    more students and working professionals.
12              Finally, public television is and always will be
13    committed to serve the unserved and underserved
14    populations in our country, those who because of economic,
15    geographic, physical, cultural, or language barriers have
16    been left behind in the commercial marketplace.  Public
17    television, as I expect you know, pioneered in the
18    development of open and closed captioning for the deaf,
19    descriptive video services, and radio reading services for
20    the blind or visually impaired.
21              Digital technology I believe will give us the
22    flexibility and capacity to expand that commitment to
23    those populations and to ensure that the educational
24    services are available to all Americans.
25              I want to cite one other Utah example here as

 1    well.  Mr. Ambach talked about the need for access to
 2    people who might not otherwise get the services, and I
 3    cite this as illustrative.  Part of Navajo Nation is in
 4    Utah, in the southeast corner of the State, Monument
 5    Valley.  You remember the old John Ford movies; a lot of
 6    them were shot down there.  There are several high schools
 7    in the Navajo Nation and they don't have access to a lot
 8    of the curriculum that you do in the urban schools.  There
 9    aren't qualified teachers in a lot of the areas.
10              Working with the school districts in that area,
11    we have been developing, not only for broadcast but for
12    closed circuit, interactive, and now Internet services,
13    which have allowed them to share programming in the Navajo
14    language to preserve that language, which is being lost to
15    a lot of those Native peoples, to deliver Russian,
16    Japanese, and other foreign language classes, to deliver
17    AP courses, and so forth.
18              It's an integrated approach that involves today
19    four or five different means of delivery.  In a digital
20    environment, the ability to do that and other things like
21    that I think will be enhanced.
22              In closing, I would note that in Utah we
23    recognize that it will take a coordinated active
24    partnership among public broadcasters, schools, colleges,
25    and libraries to realize the full potential that I've

 1    described here.  In Utah we've already banded together to
 2    create what we call the Utah Education Network.  Working
 3    together, we are providing distribution through broadcast,
 4    two-way interactive audio and video, Internet access, and
 5    wide area computer networking.  And we're developing
 6    instructional content for each of these means of delivery,
 7    to make certain that Utah students are not road kill on
 8    the information superhighway.
 9              Along with my public broadcasting colleagues
10    throughout the country, we are looking forward to
11    harnessing the potential of digital television to work
12    with and to advance the goals of our partners in public
13    and higher education and the public libraries. 
14              Thank you. 
15              MS. CHARREN:  Thank you.
16              Lastly, I want to introduce Gary Poon.  It
17    occurred to me that because he's here, here in Washington
18    that is -- he's the Executive Director of the Digital
19    Television Strategic Planning Office at PBS -- and because
20    he's very knowledgeable in the issues that we're talking
21    about, I thought first that I'd have him here as a
22    resource in case there were questions that the rest of us
23    couldn't answer.  But I thought, while you're here and you
24    have a microphone, why don't you do a few minutes to tell
25    us what you would tell us if I let you talk.

 1              (Laughter.)
 4              MR. POON:  Sure.  Thank you, Peggy.  I've very
 5    deeply honored to be asked to speak before this very
 6    distinguished committee.
 7              Let me sort of step back and give you my
 8    perspective from a membership organization -- PBS, as you
 9    know, is a membership organization that provides
10    noncommercial educational services and programs to our
11    membership stations and provides interconnection.  Part of
12    my job is to help strategically position ourselves for the
13    digital future and to help our member stations make that
14    transition.  
15              I have three very brief points.  That is:
16    Number one, we feel that digital television is tailor-
17    made for public broadcasting; second, that we can turn
18    lifelong learning into customized services for the
19    learners; and third, that this is a tremendous opportunity
20    for us to fulfil the original vision of our founding
21    fathers and really take it to a higher realm.
22              As for the first point, the tailor-made, why 
23    DTV is tailor-made for public broadcasting, you heard a
24    lot this morning about the uncertainties and the
25    challenges that are facing us as a system, and we want to

 1    turn those challenges into opportunities to further our
 2    mission.  We think that HDTV is perfect for prime time
 3    broadcasting.  You heard this morning that that's where
 4    the audience is.  But also our programming, our prime time
 5    programming, is tailor-made for that type of technology. 
 6    The crystal-clear pictures and the CD-quality sound will
 7    enhance our science and nature, our music and performing
 8    arts, our drama and theater type programming.
 9              Fred talked a little about the types of services
10    that we could provide.  During the day we can multicast,
11    we can experiment with multicasting.  We don't have as
12    much of a worry about fragmentation of audiences as
13    perhaps our commercial colleagues might because our
14    programming is targeted to niche audiences.  In fact, this
15    allows us to really expand our types of services.
16              One point that we want to emphasize is that the
17    data capacity can be then broadcast throughout the day,
18    both in terms of HDTV and multicasting.  
19              This kind of leads me to my second point, which
20    is the flexibility of this technology allows us to
21    customize the types of services to the learner.  If we
22    have time we can show a video of how one vision of how
23    that could be done.
24              But as you know, one of the challenges of
25    education is how we provide materials that learners can

 1    then tailor to their uses.  The ability to deliver a rich
 2    mix of video, audio, text and data allows us to do that
 3    and allows the teacher, as well as the student, to
 4    customize the types of materials for their own needs.
 5              Finally, why I feel this is a golden opportunity
 6    to fulfil the mission and the vision of our founding
 7    fathers, they recognized way back 30 years ago -- and we
 8    just celebrated our thirtieth anniversary of the passage
 9    of the Public Broadcasting Act -- they realized 30 years
10    ago that television is a great technology, but it also is
11    a great technology to serve great purposes.
12              In order to do so, they recognized that we need
13    to be adequately funded.  You heard this morning that the
14    transition will be very expensive.  Bruce Allan testified
15    here that it costs about $5.7 million per station.  You
16    multiply that out by 350 stations and you get over $1.7
17    billion. 
18              We have asked the Federal Government for only a
19    portion of that and our stations have the responsibility
20    of raising the rest through traditional means.  I think
21    this committee has an opportunity to make a recommendation
22    to the administration to ensure that public broadcasting
23    will be adequately funded for the digital future.
24              So thank you very much.
25              MS. CHARREN:  I think you can cue up the video.

 1              MR. POON:  Yes.  This is a video that was put
 2    together by our educational task force.  It's about four
 3    minutes long.
 4              MS. CHARREN:  That's good.
 5              MR. POON:  And it gives an example of one vision
 6    of how the integration of data could be made.
 7              (Videotape, with sound track inaudible.)
 8              MS. CHARREN:  Louder.
 9              MR. POON:  Volume, please.
10              (A videotape was shown, whose sound track is as
11    follows:)
12              VOICE:  -- inside the White House, the West, and
13    the Great War in his classroom.  With the introduction of
14    The Learning Port of PBS online, these programs have grown
15    much more curriculum-connected, making them easy to access
16    and use.  Through The Learning Port, Jim can now look at
17    teaching units organized by content area and grade levels,
18    covering virtually every major historical event in his
19    classes' required textbooks.
20              The teaching units contain lessons plans with
21    short video segments, classroom activities, and home
22    activities.  He can also preview and order programs
23    through The Learning Port and see which ones have been
24    rated highest by other teachers.
25              To help his classes better understand the

 1    Declaration of Independence, Jim ordered "Thomas
 2    Jefferson" for his classroom after watching the broadcast
 3    version on his local public television station.  When
 4    placing his order he requested that the program be
 5    transmitted in digital format by one of his local
 6    stations' DTV media channels so it could be recorded on
 7    his media center's Internet server.
 8              The curriculum index transmitted with the
 9    Jefferson program enabled Jim to have on-demand access to
10    the exact video segments that address the concepts and
11    skills he was teaching.  When the class was studying the
12    events leading up to the selection of Jefferson to write
13    the Declaration of Independence, he was able to call up
14    the exact segment to portray what happened.
15              MODERATOR:  On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee
16    of Virginia introduced a resolution that declared that
17    'These united colonies are and of right ought to be free
18    and independent states.'  Congress scheduled a vote on
19    Lee's resolution for early July, hoping it would convince
20    France to join the struggle against England, the mightiest
21    power on Earth.
22              They established a committee to draft a
23    Declaration of Independence to which all 13 colonies could
24    subscribe.  Benjamin Franklin was asked to write the first
25    draft and refused.  He made it a policy, he said, not to

 1    write documents subject to editing by others.
 2              Jefferson and Adams were assigned the task.
 3              VOICE:  Both Jefferson and Adams were committed
 4    to a republic, but they had very different styles. 
 5    Jefferson was bland and careful and aphoristic and high-
 6    flown.  His rhetoric always soared toward aspiration and
 7    human dignity.  Adams was earthy and anecdotal and
 8    pugnacious.
 9              Jefferson says, I think you ought to do it, and
10    Adams says:  "No.  Three reasons you must do it:  First,
11    you are a Virginian and a Virginian must be at the head of
12    this business; second, I John Adams am disliked and
13    obnoxious and if I write it it will lack credibility; and
14    third, you are ten times better a writer than I am."
15              VOICE:  Classroom activities for the Jefferson
16    lessons focused on students knowing and understanding the
17    five basic freedoms in Jefferson's writings.  Text data
18    was transmitted with the video, providing Jim suggested
19    lessons plans, program transcripts, still pictures, and
20    graphics and other materials.
21              He printed the specific materials he wanted to
22    use in class and sent home to parents suggested homework
23    assignments, encouraged parents and children to watch the
24    program together if possible and answer the questions in
25    the Jefferson student study sheets provided online.

 1              Jim Overbie now uses public television more than
 2    ever because of the convenient access he now has to these
 3    effective teaching tools.
 4              (End of videotape.)
 5              MR. POON:  Thank you.  Stop the video now.
 6              We have actually two other scenes that we
 7    developed.  Again, these are hypotheticals of one vision
 8    of how the digital television can combine video, audio,
 9    text and data to make a much more enriched learning
10    experience over the air and provide it to schools and to
11    the homes.
12              MS. CHARREN:  That was just what I wanted us to
13    be able to look at.  I'm so pleased.
14              Before we close the panel let me point out that
15    the fact that we're meeting here and talking about issues
16    like this is causing other organizations and institutions
17    to focus on how it should work, on how to make it work
18    better.
19              I was asked to announce that the American Center
20    for Children's Television, based in Chicago, is going to
21    be having -- they haven't put the dates on it and
22    everything, but you can stay in touch with them.  They're
23    putting together sort of a seminar, a one-day conference
24    which will be a briefing and brainstorming for people who
25    are in the business of making children's television, about

 1    how this new technology can apply to new formats and
 2    enhance program content and that kind of thing.
 3              I expect that to be happening across all kinds
 4    of constituencies once this is talked about in a
 5    meaningful way.
 6              Thanks very much.
 7              MR. MOONVES:  Thank you, Peggy and the panel.
 8              I'd like to open it up to any questions,
 9    comments.  Yes, Cass?
10              MR. SUNSTEIN:  This was a very wonderful set of
11    presentations about the needs and opportunities with
12    respect to children's programming.  I'd like to put it a
13    bit in the framework of our particular mission, which is
14    the public service obligations of digital television
15    broadcasters.  There are really four simple possible ideas
16    that I think would come out of what you've said.
17              One idea, maybe an inadvertent idea, is that
18    you've given, the last two speakers especially, a very
19    strong plea for deregulation.  Here the idea would be in a
20    digital era, the idea of public interest obligations,
21    that's really a dinosaur, because PBS can provide a
22    tremendous amount of material with digital technology. 
23    There the notion would be that now that Nickelodeon, PBS,
24    Disney, and the Internet Plus are available, well, no more
25    public interest obligations on broadcasters.  That would

 1    be one idea.
 2              A second idea would be the status quo, what
 3    Peggy describes as the minimal three-hour requirement,
 4    basically makes best sense, that, as Marilyn Mason
 5    suggests, things are changing very rapidly, and we don't
 6    really have enough knowledge to do anything other than
 7    just stick with what we've been doing.  That would be a
 8    second possible approach.
 9              A third approach, which I think is consistent
10    with some of the spirit of the things you said, a third
11    possible approach would be to say status quo plus, that we
12    need more obligations in a digital era.  What would that
13    mean exactly?  Well, it might mean six hours rather than
14    three, or it might mean broaden the requirements beyond
15    broadcasters to other providers.  That would be to suggest
16    this is so important that we need more.
17              A fourth idea would be really I think what was
18    suggested by Gary Poon's remarks, would be to rely not on
19    the kind of rigidity of the status quo or the greater
20    rigidity of status quo plus, but to have more in the way
21    of market incentives and trading, such as for example a
22    situation in which each broadcaster would have to provide
23    three hours, but they could sell it to anyone who'd be
24    willing to buy it so long as that person were another
25    broadcaster; or a situation even more flexible:  they'd

 1    have a three-hour obligation, but they could provide money
 2    to PBS instead as a way of fulfilling their obligation.
 3              So these are basically four frameworks that your
 4    remarks all went in the direction of:  deregulation,
 5    status quo, status quo plus, or incentives and trading. 
 6    And insofar as our mission is to talk about really
 7    regulatory obligations and not about the value of
 8    educational programming -- everybody agrees on that --
 9    we're thinking about governmentally imposed obligations. 
10    Those are really, I think, four families of reforms.
11              Now, my question really is mostly for the last
12    two speakers, though for all of you, is first:  Why not
13    deregulate entirely, given what you've said about PBS? 
14    And the second question is, if you've got an answer to
15    that one, why not incentives and trading rather than three
16    hours or three hours plus?  Those are not meant as
17    rhetorical questions.
18              MR. ESPLIN:  Let me take off my public TV
19    manager hat and put on my father hat here for a minute. 
20    I've raised four kids.  They're now into college, so I
21    guess they're close to being raised.  And I look at how
22    they consumed television as youngsters and growing up.  I
23    was real happy when they were little and listened to what
24    dad said to get them to watch Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers,
25    and Reading Rainbow and what-not.

 1              But that control became less and less as they
 2    got older, which leads me to the point, I guess to answer
 3    your question directly:  Speaking as a citizen, not as a
 4    public broadcaster advocating this, from that hat it seems
 5    to me would be a terrible misfortune if this opportunity
 6    were missed to have at least some portion of what the
 7    commercial broadcasters are doing to be for public service
 8    and education. 
 9              The bulk of the time spent watching television,
10    for better or for worse -- and much of it is good and some
11    of it perhaps isn't -- is spent with commercial
12    television, not with public broadcasting.  The opportunity
13    for service on the part of commercial broadcasters is
14    enormous.  The opportunity to do good as a modest payback
15    for the opportunity to use this finite public resource is
16    minimal, it seems to me.
17              So I'm in favor of having the obligation and,
18    while I would welcome maybe, putting on my public
19    broadcaster's hat, to have someone pay me to do something
20    we're going to do anyway, it doesn't seem to me that's
21    really in the public interest here.
22              MR. POON:  Well, I guess I would add that I'm
23    holding actually in my hand the personal copy of the
24    Public Television Program for Action that was owned by Mr.
25    Bob Soddick, who passed away earlier last year.  He was on

 1    the original commission and he gave it to me before he
 2    passed away, and I refer to it often.
 3              The Carnegie Commission thought that they needed
 4    to create a system of public television stations in order
 5    to meet an obligation that was unfortunately not fulfilled
 6    by the commercial stations.  That being the case, we've
 7    created a tremendous system of stations that are
 8    absolutely committed to the public service and the public
 9    interest obligations, and we feel that we've been doing a
10    fine job in that respect.
11              So my remarks I guess could be, I guess,
12    construed as favoring deregulation in some respects, but
13    in others it still does -- it could be interpreted as
14    favoring regulation to ensure that those types of services
15    are provided if the marketplace doesn't otherwise step up
16    to the plate.
17              As for sort of the second comment, about trading
18    and perhaps selling the obligation and maybe perhaps
19    having PBS or its member stations fulfil some of those
20    obligations in return, certainly we are open to creative
21    means that would allow for a steady stream of funding that
22    would come to public broadcasting so that those
23    obligations indeed are fulfilled for the marketplace.
24              MR. MOONVES:  Yes, Marilyn.
25              MS. MASON:  I want to say -- did I say that?  I

 1    didn't think I said that. 
 2              I am reminded of something Arthur Clarke used to
 3    talk about, which is in looking into the future people can
 4    have either a failure or nerve or a failure of
 5    imagination.  A failure of nerve is when you have all of
 6    the factual elements you need and just fail to project far
 7    enough ahead.  For instance, in the seventies when I
 8    thought computers had no future because they were too slow
 9    and all the rest of that, I failed to project, to see
10    faster, cheaper, and so on.  A failure of imagination is
11    where you fail to see that computer chips are going to be
12    invented at all, for instance.
13              In this instance it seems to me that, while we
14    say and even the survey that was reported on earlier today
15    noted that 47 percent of those interviewed or polled or
16    surveyed said that they expected to provide information
17    services which is significantly different than what
18    broadcasters do now, we continue to think of television in
19    the same old way, programming as the same kind of
20    programming that is provided today.
21              My guess is that that is really going to be only
22    part of the future, and we're talking about not only
23    conventional television programming, whether it's for
24    educational purposes or sports or the Simpsons -- I'm
25    sorry -- but it will be data services.  And if information

 1    services are provided only for a fee and if this becomes a
 2    dominant technology, wireless over wired -- and we don't
 3    know the future of that -- then you will be closing out a
 4    vast number of people from getting information because
 5    they cannot pay for it.
 6              Now, there are lots and lots of assumptions
 7    built into all of that and I could argue either side of
 8    any of those assumptions myself.  But the important point
 9    for you to keep in mind is that if we completely
10    deregulate we can be almost sure that public purposes will
11    be ignored, and if we wait until we know what's going to
12    happen it will be too late.
13              So it is important to keep the door open, to
14    keep almost a place-saver there, so that we have a
15    capability of having the public purpose served as the
16    technology develops further.
17              MR. MOONVES:  Janet.
18              MS. POLEY:  Just a quick add to that.  I think
19    in my testimony I emphasized that we need a more vibrant
20    public interest and educational sector.  I think what you
21    said about the status quo plus, that's really the position
22    I'm coming from, that we need a sector, not simply one set
23    of things going on.
24              I think that's a real opportunity for commercial
25    broadcasters.  If you look at the local level, where my

 1    organization does a lot of work, there are opportunities
 2    to have an educational laboratory, if you will, at the
 3    margins, to work with local communities and universities
 4    in this sector, that might produce some interesting
 5    opportunities with larger markets.
 6              I think that as you look at the past one of the
 7    things in the numbers game that we've been playing in the
 8    marketplace, you're less apt to have the innovation kinds
 9    of things occurring in terms of -- I mean, I think we all
10    understand the tough marketplace stuff we're trying to
11    deal with here.
12              But I guess I'm concerned about what we won't
13    get to, not necessarily because you aren't, those of you
14    in broadcasting, aren't doing good things in the public
15    interest in terms of public affairs and news and emergency
16    kinds of things -- there's a lot of public service
17    announcements that come on at 2:00 o'clock in the morning
18    -- but I think there's some opportunities if we can look
19    at some ways to do some new partnerships.
20              So my sense is that that status quo plus has
21    opportunities if we look at how to do it.
22              MR. MOONVES:  Gordon, go ahead.
23              MR. AMBACH:  I just wanted to take one bite at
24    the apple if I could on this one.  First of all, I want to
25    commend the perceptive question.  I think it's a

 1    fascinating way that you've structured it to sort of go
 2    right through.
 3              The premise, of course, is that the more there
 4    is the commodity available, the less you need to regulate. 
 5    I mean, if it's the air, we don't control how much each of
 6    us takes in; or the water, not much control.  And if it's
 7    going to be digital and it's got almost unlimited
 8    capacity, then you don't have to bother regulating because
 9    some way or other there's going to be room for education. 
10              I'm not sure that I would agree with the
11    premise.  I would come to the conclusion that probably
12    some requirement for regulation is necessary, some
13    allocation.  But I'm kind of intrigued by the trade or
14    incentive issue, because the more there is availability of
15    the pipeline then the less is the requirement for specific
16    hours of this or that.  It could be done by various ways
17              Now, the biggest problem here is that we really
18    don't know what kind of potential there is out there for
19    using this asset.  The technical capacities are moving so
20    rapidly that it's very hard to just say, okay, we've got a
21    fixed asset here and we can pretty much judge what we
22    ought to carve out for education and let the rest go. 
23    None of us is going to be willing to say that because if
24    it turns out there's an incredible expansion of the
25    capacity and you can do all sorts of things in education,

 1    they don't want to give it away at this point, and neither
 2    would any commercial broadcaster want to give it away.
 3              But, having said that, it strikes me as though
 4    you have to have some kind of regulation.  I tried to put
 5    an emphasis in my remarks on the fact you start with what
 6    it is that you really need.  I mean, it's our obligation,
 7    I think, in the elementary and secondary domain, and I
 8    think it is in the other domains, to be able to clearly
 9    state, this is what we need in the area of delivery of
10    information technologies, and then figure out how much do
11    you have to sort of earmark in terms of that regulation as
12    to what portion is required to provide it.
13              If you can do that, if you can come up with some
14    kind of a sensible quantification of the proportion of the
15    capacity that you earmark for education, I have no problem
16    personally with a kind of a trade arrangement or a buyout
17    arrangement, that if a commercial company says we don't
18    want to put this stuff on, but we'll put money in the pool
19    for somebody else to do good programming, I'm all for it.
20              I think that makes sense, and I think it gets at
21    this issue I was trying to push earlier.  We not only have
22    the issue of pipelining here, we have the issue of what's
23    the quality of content that goes down the pipe, and that's
24    not going to just happen.
25              Thank you. 

 1              MR. MOONVES:  Frank.
 2              MR. CRUZ:  I just wanted to in a sense expand on
 3    that question and on the comments you made.  If the five
 4    of you stop to consider what it is that each one of you is
 5    asking for, you're very, very clear.  You're K through 12,
 6    university, at the public library level, at a particular
 7    station, and at a particular branch of public broadcasting
 8    in America.
 9              I think what Cass is basically saying, is there
10    not a creative way, if we want to look at bold moves and
11    if the times call for unique bold, brave moves now, rather
12    than waiting for someone to do something at your
13    particular level or at your requests, maybe the time is
14    right now where you possibly could achieve some of those
15    particular goals through some of these creative market
16    incentives that could take place, to finally achieve.
17              Now, this is not my idea.  There are many
18    politicians at the national level who have said that and
19    are really thinking, let's deregulate the commercial side
20    completely, but let's make sure there is funding so that -
21    - I've heard it at that angle, but I haven't heard it
22    applied to your three areas -- that could be done at this
23    particular time.
24              That might be a particular feature of something,
25    Mr. Co-Chairs, that we could possibly think of as

 1    alternate solutions or recommendations.
 2              MR. MOONVES:  Frank, let me go on the record. 
 3    Let me take off my Co-Chair hat and let me put on my CBS
 4    hat for a second to explain a very practical situation
 5    which, Gordon, I think supports what you're saying.
 6              CBS is not watched by children.  We have the
 7    oldest demographic.  Very few children watch it.  We have
 8    no means of promoting to children during the week. 
 9    Therefore, on Saturday morning our children's programming
10    comes in about twelfth.  No exaggeration, we get killed by
11    cable networks.
12              We were watched this year, this season from
13    September until now, on the average by about 500,000 kids,
14    which means the TV was probably turned on, they weren't
15    watching.  You know, it had been left on the night before
16    by their parents.
17              We lost many, many millions of dollars.  Now,
18    I'm not asking for a benefit for CBS.  However, there are
19    -- and by the way, our programming was good.  It wasn't
20    bad programming.  This money would have been so much
21    better spent going to a place where they were watching it,
22    and we would have supported that, going to PBS and saying: 
23    Here, here's X millions of dollars; use it for children
24    who are really watching.  That will be a lot more
25    effective than that.  It's a real practical example of

 1    that. 
 2              Fred, I also -- one second, Peggy.  I want to
 3    comment on something that you said which is ironic and as
 4    a parent I agree with you.  The government issues in terms
 5    of broadcast television sometimes go back and forth.  On
 6    one hand, the three hours of children's, or educationally
 7    sound programming that the government demands is exactly
 8    that, so that we as parents who are not always there will
 9    make sure that our children are getting better things on
10    the air.
11              By the same token, a recent code was instituted
12    with letters and numbers -- V, S, and L-14 -- specifically
13    so the parents would regulate what is going on in their
14    home, which by the way we also support.  We think it is
15    our job as broadcasters to give the parents as much
16    information as possible.  But it is an odd combination
17    between the broadcaster, the child, and the parent, and
18    it's a triangle that we are struggling with. 
19              Anyway, Peggy, to you.
20              MS. CHARREN:  Well, before I deal with what I
21    was going to say before you took off your hat --
22              MR. MOONVES:  I just put it back on.
23              MS. CHARREN:  Right.
24              -- I'd like to deal with that first and then
25    talk to something that the panel brought up.  Since Les

 1    put out in front of us the CBS children's programming
 2    problem -- I have been very careful to try not to bring
 3    these things up.  Having talked about them so much for 30
 4    years, I thought everybody knew where I stood, so I
 5    wouldn't have to say anything.
 6              But I'd like to point out that CBS' Saturday
 7    morning has a two-hour news block in the middle of it, and
 8    it's a bloody miracle that any child in America watches
 9    any of CBS' news on Saturday morning -- I mean,
10    programming on Saturday morning, which is quite good as a
11    matter of fact.  It's a question, that audience flow is so
12    inimical to raising an audience that I couldn't understand
13    it when I first heard it and I'm not surprised that it's
14    not working very well.
15              ABC seems to be very happy with its ratings and
16    it has that nifty program Science Court, for example.
17              MR. MOONVES:  ABC's ratings were three times
18    ours before the news block went in.
19              MS. CHARREN:  Yes, but ABC is doing it.
20              MR. MOONVES:  Wouldn't $5 million of our money -
21    -
22              MS. CHARREN:  Look, you brought this up and I'm
23    answering you, right?
24              MR. MOONVES:  Wouldn't $5 million of our money
25    be better given to PBS?

 1              MS. CHARREN:  I'm saying that -- and that
 2    relates to the second point I was going to make, which is
 3    that, as much as I love public television, and I do love
 4    public television -- I mean, I'm very supportive of the
 5    system, which personally I watch a lot of -- I do not
 6    think the idea of one publisher for information and
 7    education is a terrific idea, and PBS is one institution.
 8              Now, as much as I think that what we have here
 9    today is extraordinary -- I mean, I helped plan it --
10    there are other --
11              MR. MOONVES:  Sorry, Gary.  I was going to give
12    you $5 million and now Peggy has killed it.
13              (Laughter.)
14              MS. CHARREN:  The fact, the fact is that Les' $5
15    million won't buy hats, I mean for everybody else to put
16    on when he takes his off.  The amount of money that the
17    broadcasters were talking about to fulfil this need -- and
18    this idea has come up many times before -- is just not
19    enough.
20              I mean, if they really want to fund the system I
21    can give them some numbers that might make that a
22    reasonable idea.  It has nothing to do with what they keep
23    talking about.
24              But the point is that there's a nonprofit sector
25    out there.  We could have had another representative from

 1    the whole nonprofit sector that wants the ability to
 2    control its own speech and to set its own program
 3    requirements for getting certain kinds of messages out. 
 4    There are a lot of places that you need to separate out
 5    the vested interests from the public interest.  This is
 6    one set of them.  There are other sets, and I do not
 7    believe that public broadcasting can necessarily serve
 8    them all.  There's an opportunity here to set other kinds
 9    of structures, that may be smaller than the structures you
10    represent, but that certainly aren't going to show up and
11    get funded with the idea that we should just ignore this
12    and let the marketplace take care of, she says gently.
13              MR. MOONVES:  Before we go any, I want to shift
14    our conversation just for one moment to say that Rob
15    Glaser, who has to catch a plane, that it's his birthday
16    today.
17              (Applause.)
18              MR. ORNSTEIN:  As a present we're going to give
19    you the $5 million.
20              (Laughter.)
21              MR. MOONVES:  He doesn't need the $5 million. 
22              MR. GLASER:  Thank you. 
23              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Thanks for everything you did
24    today, Rob.
25              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Thanks a lot.  See you in L.A.

 1              MR. MOONVES:  Peggy, are you finished?
 2              MS. CHARREN:  Yes, I'm through.
 3              MR. MOONVES:  Robert?
 4              MR. DECHERD:  I think this is a fairly
 5    intriguing discussion if you look at it in today's
 6    environment forward.  The point was made by Janet and
 7    Marilyn both and it seems to me the real point of
 8    contention comes down to one simple idea, and that is
 9    audience size.  Now, in a perfect world a large part of
10    our population is going to be drawn to the programming you
11    would like to put on the air and all the public interest
12    groups, which have for years argued very persuasively that
13    commercial broadcasters have an obligation, that they
14    would like to have on the air.
15              But we also have to deal with the reality, just
16    as we have in children programming and in the V-chip and
17    in ratings, that people make choices.  So all we're really
18    talking about is what kind of choices are going to be
19    presented to them in the future and who is best able to
20    present those choices to them.
21              Now, it seems to me this breaks down first of
22    all as we begin by defining what we need.  Let's just say
23    for purposes of this hypothet that we need all of the
24    things you've described and we need all of the things
25    you've described this morning from some public interest

 1    representatives and our prior meetings, and that there's
 2    this panoply of others who have equally valid needs.
 3              If we could further hypothesize that there is a
 4    way for all of them to have ready access to a programming
 5    mechanism to convert their needs into quality programming.
 6              Then I think we go to three fundamental issues: 
 7    spectrum, funding, and audiences.  For purposes again of
 8    this example, let's say that the Congress decided to leave
 9    with public broadcasters all 12 megahertz that you will
10    have as of this year, that there's no giveback.  And let's
11    say you then multiplex all of those channels six to one.
12              We now have, instead of where we are in 1997 or
13    were, one channel per market, we have 12 which have all
14    these capabilities we're talking about, plus all of the
15    imagination of the future that Marilyn has very properly
16    caused us to think about.
17              So as a mutual friend of ours Ralph Rogers would
18    have said -- he loved to provoke discussions like this --
19     he said:  Now, who's best able to do that?  The people
20    who are genuinely interested in it or people who are being
21    compelled to do it?
22              So my question is, if you could for the moment
23    imagine that audiences could somehow be made aware through
24    Gemstar's programming guides and the Internet and a
25    zillion other ways that we're going to provide choices for

 1    viewing in the future -- it's not going to be on-air
 2    promotion pulling people from our newscasts into Wheel of
 3    Fortune and CBS prime time, where by the way none of this
 4    is ever going to get on the air anyway -- I mean, let's
 5    not kid ourselves.
 6              If these funding mechanisms that have been
 7    talked about, whether it's Chairman Tauzin's plan, whether
 8    it's the kind of trading we're talking about here, whether
 9    it's any number of things, could provide adequate funding
10    for experts to deal with 12 pipes, back to the pipes idea
11    -- there will probably be 24 some day, and may be
12    available through all these different mechanisms -- and if
13    the availability of those pipes, further, gave you the
14    opportunity to get all of your inventory onto the air,
15    which presently doesn't have any visibility and therefore
16    you can't market to people like the state board of
17    education in the State of Texas, which is going PC if the
18    Governor has his way, why doesn't it make more sense for
19    that to happen properly funded and for we then to have the
20    ultimate litmus test, a point I've been making in every
21    meeting, which is broadcasters, commercial broadcasters,
22    will inevitably be drawn to public interest because it
23    builds audiences?
24              Why isn't that a triple win?
25              MS. CHARREN:  What was the last sentence?

 1              MR. DECHERD:  The last sentence is that
 2    broadcasters, commercial broadcasters like the people
 3    represented here, are always going to be drawn to public
 4    interest programming such as news, information, public
 5    debate.  We had a half-hour debate last night in Dallas
 6    leading out of our late news over an arena that's going to
 7    be voted on Saturday.  We had huge numbers, huge numbers. 
 8    We're going to do that anyway.
 9              But if I've written Leslie's check and everybody
10    else here, it's not just CBS' $5 million.  It's the entire
11    industry, and Chairman Tauzin's idea, and maybe the states
12    wake up and fund some of this, and maybe the Federal
13    Government says, you know, $1.5 billion for this is not a
14    lot.  Why isn't that a good hypothet?
15              MR. MOONVES:  Yes, Janet?
16              MS. POLEY:  Let me comment on that and bring an
17    example in from another area I've been doing some work in,
18    the digital broadcast satellite area, where we've been
19    talking about some kind of consortial mechanism where we
20    can bring to the table various providers to do sort of
21    what I think you're talking about in terms of trying to
22    program some channels that would create a public interest
23    and educational sector.
24              That's not a real easy thing to do, but I think
25    that's something that has, looking ahead, has a whole lot

 1    more viability to it as something to talk about as a
 2    possible solution. 
 3              One of the things that I think is terribly
 4    important to keep in mind is that on the one hand
 5    commercial broadcasters are trying to build big audiences
 6    and on the other hand a lot of us in education are not
 7    necessarily trying to build huge audiences, but we want
 8    the right community of interest and that we don't want to
 9    be fragmented all over the place.
10              So for example, if I am trying to do
11    environmental programming, for example, including programs
12    from all over the United States, I want to be able to pull
13    that together, to market it, to package it, and that has a
14    whole lot more value added than throwing one thing here
15    and one thing there. 
16              So my sense is that that organizational
17    structure, those mechanisms, if we can figure out a way to
18    do that I think that would be very exciting.
19              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Let me throw in a couple of
20    comments here, related comments.  I'm not sure that we
21    have an either-or here, first of all, that it has to be
22    something that's totally market-driven, where it's either
23    we leave everything over to PBS because everybody else
24    just wants to pay, or none of that at all.  You can have a
25    hybrid model and you can have a flexible model, and indeed

 1    we can have one where CBS, which simply doesn't have the
 2    reasons to do this or the interest to do it, could pay,
 3    but others would find that it's perfectly appropriate for
 4    them and we can serve more interests.
 5              MR. DUHAMEL:  Disney, Disney would be the
 6    example.
 7              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Sure.  But I think if we move in
 8    this direction as a group our task is going to be, to use
 9    Bob Wright's watchword from our last meeting, flexibility
10    to try and make sure that we can serve a lot of different
11    interests here in the same way.
12              I would also suggest to you that we can't have a
13    status quo or even a status quo plus, that we can't
14    define, I believe, in a digital world where broadcasters
15    are going to have probably at some time of the day a high
16    definition signal with one stream going out, at other
17    times of the day six or eight streams going out, maybe two
18    at others, and say, all right, you're going to do three
19    hours of children's programming a week, because we're
20    going to get into an unbelievable morass trying to define
21    what three hours is on which of those streams.
22              One of the ways in which we may want to at least
23    think about this is, if indeed we move to a situation
24    where, in non-prime time, where you've got the opportunity
25    to do 6 or 8 or maybe 12, maybe we can have some

 1    flexibility on the commercial channels that would meet
 2    Janet's needs, where one of those channels is in fact set
 3    aside for some of these larger purposes and we pick times
 4    that would fit.
 5              Then you could do a narrowcast in a sense that
 6    would cover a broader area.  That may be one possible way
 7    or one little piece of what we're dealing with here that I
 8    would just throw out.
 9              MR. MOONVES:  Gigi?
10              MS. SOHN:  I actually would like -- is this
11    working?
12              MR. MOONVES:  Yes.
13              MS. SOHN:  I'd actually like Janet to expand a
14    little bit about her discussions with the DBS providers. 
15    In the interest of full disclosure, Janet is my client at
16    the FCC where we're trying to get them to implement the
17    public interest obligations of direct broadcast satellite
18    providers, one of them being that they have to reserve
19    between 4 to 7 percent of their capacity, of their channel
20    capacity, for educational and informational programming.
21              There's a lot of talk today about how digital
22    may or may not eliminate scarcity, but I would argue that
23    if you've got five multiplex signals and one person
24    controlling it you've still got scarcity.  The problem is
25    not scarcity, Cass; it's access.

 1              I'd like Janet to talk a little bit about how
 2    she has approached DBS providers -- these public interest
 3    obligations have not been implemented yet -- how she's
 4    approached DBS providers, some of whom control 150 and 200
 5    channels.  And I'd like her to talk about her success in
 6    getting on those systems.  It's going to be a very short
 7    answer.
 8              MS. POLEY:  Well, we have had no success in
 9    terms of getting access.  We've had a lot of conversations
10    at this stage.  And I guess I would back that up with how
11    we even started moving that direction is that we have a
12    system of satellite uplinks and downlinks all over the
13    country -- I'm sorry for my voice; I'm very froggy today -
14    - and once satellite time went up in terms of going from
15    putting in place an infrastructure for educational
16    purposes in higher ed where satellite time was about $100
17    an hour roughly, to bumping up to $800 to $1,000 an hours,
18    it caused my community of higher ed institutions and
19    nonprofits to start immediately to look around for other
20    options and hybrid systems.  And thank goodness the
21    Internet was there, and you can mail a lot of videotapes
22    for what that transponder time was costing.
23              But one of the things that we thought was very
24    important, we have a lot of clients in rural areas and
25    when you talk about distance ed you're really in many

 1    cases dealing with place-bound people who can't get
 2    somewhere for college classes easily without driving a
 3    couple of hours, et cetera.
 4              So we thought that DBS, which was heavily
 5    marketing to rural areas, would be a natural in terms of
 6    trying to work together on access as far as distance
 7    education was concerned.  We have met with the DBS
 8    providers.  To date, I won't run you through all the
 9    conversations, but I've spent a lot of time on planes
10    between Lincoln, Nebraska, and here and back and forth and
11    out to Denver, and to date we have not succeeded in
12    getting access through that channel.
13              These are things that we know we have markets
14    for.  It's not as though -- but they're not huge markets. 
15              MR. MOONVES:  Yes, Gordon.
16              MR. AMBACH:  May I come back to Robert's
17    proposal, if you will, or at least kind of thesis that was
18    advanced.  And I'm struck -- I'm not a broadcaster, I'm
19    not a programmer.  I'm involved in running major
20    educational systems.  We've got 50 million clients out
21    there.  This conversation if it stays mostly on what is
22    sort of real-time broadcasting is missing the point with
23    respect to what is going to be the availability of work-
24    through digital and the provision of convergent services
25    in the schools and in the homes.

 1              I hope that you really give that very, very
 2    close attention because the capacity to be able to
 3    deliver, as I very briefly suggested before, the content
 4    of what it is that we expect our children to be learning,
 5    reports on how they're learning, interactions between
 6    parents, teachers, and students about that, and the
 7    availability of the pipes to be able to handle that is in
 8    my judgment probably the most significant thing down
 9    track.
10              It isn't going to be real-time broadcasting. 
11    It's going to be what's the availability of getting into
12    the huge storage of information, whether it's in video or
13    data or voice form, whatever it is, and use it when you
14    want it, so that it's on time for the particular learning
15    that's at stake.
16              Now, just two observations about your proposal,
17    because again I think it's a very intriguing one.  You
18    have two premises which you have to get agreement on.  One
19    is that it would be possible to get some kind of
20    aggregation of need if we went across the different
21    desires, if you will.  You probably could get an
22    approximation there.  The proposition is based that you
23    could do that.  
24              And you put in a sort of a statement at the end
25    which, if properly funded, and that's the part of it

 1    which, frankly, I'm most concerned about.  If we are going
 2    to be involved in deregulation which doesn't require
 3    everybody to put on three hours, trades, other kinds of
 4    arrangements for the financing of essentially what's the
 5    content, then we've got to talk very, very specifically
 6    about how do you finance that, and whether, as I suggested
 7    earlier, there are legitimate ways to think in terms of
 8    how the digital asset, if you will, grows in the
 9    commercial environment.
10              Do you tap in for a part of that and in the
11    public interest allocate that back over to the educational
12    forces?  That's the theory behind the universal services
13    discounting which is going on right now.  That may be a
14    way to do it.  I recognize that may be beyond the scope
15    here of the advisory committee or it may be not a very
16    popular idea among many.
17              But if properly funded, it forces us then to
18    have to ask the question, well, what do we mean?  What
19    would the obligation be on the commercial stations for
20    purposes, or the commercial broadcasters for purposes of
21    doing it?
22              But if we could get at those two questions,
23    you've got something. 
24              MR. DECHERD:  May I just interrupt for a moment?
25              MR. MOONVES:  Yes.

 1              MR. DECHERD:  These are not ideas that are
 2    developed at all in my mind, but I go back in my mind, for
 3    example, to Chairman Tauzin's suggestion of a couple
 4    months ago, actually this summer, of a trust fund, which
 5    would be an opt-out for many of these obligations into a
 6    literal discrete corpus from which income is derived.  But
 7    I think that's only part of it.
 8              Several people on this panel have said either in
 9    these discussions or offline that there's a very
10    interesting question about what will happen to the fees
11    that are incurred by broadcasters who use any part of the
12    spectrum for non-broadcast purposes.  For example, those
13    fees which are supposedly now going into the Treasury
14    might be dedicated to this purpose.
15              Moreover, the thing that struck me when I
16    listened to all of you is -- and really I'm taking
17    Marilyn's admonition to heart -- I don't think any of us
18    has stepped back and thought, you know, we're talking
19    about an available resource which has not even been a
20    discussion point with state legislatures, but let's say
21    educators, what I meant to say first, but it's really
22    both.
23              When you look at the educational crisis in K
24    through 12 in this country and you look at the strain on
25    two-parent working families trying to obtain higher

 1    degrees, it's a lot of difference to say, you know, we
 2    have this one PBS channel over here and in the mornings
 3    and on Saturdays and Sunday at 2:00 a.m. we can do this,
 4    that, and the other kind of programming or, for that
 5    matter, public interest programming generally, which is
 6    outside of your purview except for Gary and Fred, but now
 7    to say there's this vast, available, right now, here today
 8    set of pipes.
 9              If you go to the California legislature, they
10    can say what they want about affirmative action and a lot
11    of very complex educational questions, who gets access to
12    universities and not.  This is direct access to a huge
13    resource.
14              Now, who along the political spectrum wouldn't
15    be attracted to at least trying this?  This is not the, if
16    you will, the paradigm which has hounded the funding for
17    public broadcasting.  It's a completely different decision
18    set.
19              MS. POLEY:  It's completely different. 
20              MR. ORNSTEIN:  But it's also -- let me
21    reiterate, Chairman Tauzin basically wanted to channel all
22    of this into PBS, public broadcasting, in effect use PBS
23    as the ground for all of it.  That isn't necessarily the
24    only way to go.  You could have a funding mechanism or a
25    mechanism which you could then channel in a whole range of

 1    other directions.
 2              Gary, apropos this, let me ask you one other
 3    question.  I know that in terms of the streams of data
 4    coming through the pipe that if in prime time you're
 5    putting on a high definition program you're going to use
 6    up almost all of that stream.  But say at 3:00 o'clock in
 7    the morning, you can send through an enormous amount of
 8    data.  Is it the case that you could, for example, send
 9    through a lot of data in the middle of the night when not
10    many people are watching and have it go to the schools or
11    to the libraries and they could then store it in some
12    fashion and then call it up at any time?
13              MR. POON:  Yes, indeed, that is one use of the
14    spectrum when it's not being broadcast either in high
15    definition or standard definition.  There is that big pipe
16    of data capacity, 19.4 megabits, in the wee hours of the
17    night where that could be done to the schools.  Indeed, we
18    within public broadcasting are thinking of ways in which
19    that could be used to further the educational mission.
20              MR. ORNSTEIN:  So getting at what Gordon and
21    Janet in fact were both talking about, it's not real-
22    time, but just having access to those things, presumably
23    we have an enormous opportunity here.  And that's another
24    one where commercial broadcasters in the middle of the
25    night, when they're not looking for the same kinds of

 1    audiences, we might be able to have ways of saying, at
 2    very low cost you can open up to data streams for
 3    libraries, educational institutions and the like, where we
 4    may be able to have a sharing.
 5              MR. MOONVES:  Yes, Janet.
 6              MS. POLEY:  In fact, some of the work that we've
 7    done to date has been that kind of thing over the
 8    satellite system, where you send something, then you use
 9    the Internet to do your interactive aspect of the program. 
10    So there are a lot of ways.
11              Right now it's real clunky because you do the
12    sending, either sending out the videotape or put it over
13    satellite, and then you use the Internet or audio
14    conferencing or whatever.  It's just not integrated.  But
15    I think that's an excellent idea.
16              MR. AMBACH:  Incidentally, if I can take you
17    back to the New York experience, 20 years ago through the
18    public television network we ran the system all night long
19    sending out videos to the schools on order.  It's not a
20    new practice.  It's been going on for a long time.  So the
21    question of expanding it is not really very complicated.
22              MR. MOONVES:  Frank?
23              MR. CRUZ:  I was just going to add that in the
24    public broadcasting realm I know what Fred Esplin has done
25    in Utah, in the State of Utah, but there are other very

 1    good examples of how the full spectrum of linking up the
 2    political forces, the educative forces, the broadcasting
 3    forces in the State have all come together for quite some
 4    time and they all bought off and they do long distance
 5    learning at various levels, not only for K through 12 but
 6    also for nurses and teachers and policemen, et cetera, et
 7    cetera.
 8              In the State of South Carolina they have a very,
 9    very well developed system where they do that.  I think I
10    really believe that we are at a right particular time here
11    in this digital technology revolution where we can, I
12    think, can come up with a variety of different
13    recommendations and solutions regarding public interest
14    obligations and different ways for them to be met by
15    different entities, commercial side and public
16    broadcasting side.
17              MR. MOONVES:  Yes, Fred?
18              MR. ESPLIN:  It's our view in Utah -- and I am
19    not alone, either -- within public broadcasting that data
20    delivery will become increasingly important as our service
21    to education and libraries and so forth, for the very
22    reasons that have been described.  We see it the same way
23    that my colleagues here on the panel have described it as
24    far as making information available at the time the
25    researcher, the student, wants to use it, whether it's a

 1    course or access to data.
 2              Even with digital compression and even with the
 3    possibility of multiplexing, it's a finite pipe, and I'm
 4    very, very intrigued with the thought that Robert
 5    suggested.  If there were a way to hang onto the spectrum
 6    we have now and the spectrum, the DTV spectrum assignment,
 7    the possibility of doing multiplexing of the instructional
 8    programming during the day and the night both and
 9    providing HDTV, but also providing significant data
10    streams, that's very, very interesting, and I would hope
11    this group looks at it very carefully.
12              MR. MOONVES:  Anybody else?
13              (No response.)
14              Well, thank you to the panel.  You were all very
15    helpful.
16              Yes, Charles?
17              MR. BENTON:  Picking up on Gordon's point, to be
18    needs-driven here, it's been a wonderful panel and it's
19    gotten me to thinking about something that I've given a
20    lot of thought to, which is the whole area of literacy. 
21    We have 40 million functional adult -- adult functioning
22    illiterate people in this country, and there's a crying
23    need for the people in the schools not only to learn how
24    to read and write, but also to learn how to use computers,
25    media literacy.

 1              So here's a tremendous need.  Now, isn't there
 2    some way in which both public and commercial broadcasters
 3    could work with schools, libraries, and colleges to take
 4    the three arenas represented here to attack nationally the
 5    problem of literacy?  We need campaign thinking about
 6    solving national problems, but doing it in a local way. 
 7    It's not a mandate by the Federal Government -- we all
 8    know that's not very popular these days -- but to focus on
 9    a big problem, like literacy, where we know there is a
10    huge problem, and to incentivize everyone working together
11    on this problem so there is a structure like the National
12    Defense Education Act which, Gordon, I'm surprised you
13    didn't mention in your review of national acts.
14              MR. AMBACH:  I only had five minutes.
15              MR. BENTON:  The secret of the National Defense
16    Education Act, which was our response to the Russians
17    putting up Sputnik, the Federal Government putting up
18    money for math, science, and foreign languages, literally
19    the first major Federal legislation since the Land Grant
20    College Act in Lincoln's Administration -- so I mean that
21    was 100 years later.
22              But the secret of the National Defense Education
23    Act was the idea of a matching grant.  The government puts
24    up half the money, but the other half's got to come out
25    locally.  So that smoked out all the innovators that were

 1    interested in getting on board with new ways of teaching
 2    math, science, and foreign languages, teaching and
 3    learning.
 4              It was a brilliant idea.  I think we need this
 5    kind of thinking that would really address some big
 6    national problems that we all know are national problems
 7    and they're not being addressed adequately now, given the
 8    infrastructures that are trying to piecemeal look at them. 
 9    I just couldn't resist throwing that out before we
10    adjourned.
11              MR. MOONVES:  Once again, thank you to the
12    panel.  Thank you, Peggy.  It was a very good afternoon. 
13    Thanks very much.
14              Let's take a 15-minute break.
15              (Recess.)
17              MR. MOONVES:  All right, we'll begin discussion. 
18    We have reversed the order on our agenda.  We're going to
19    talk about our future agenda first and then we'll do the
20    public comment questions and answers.
21              So our next meeting is going to be in L.A. and
22    we have to decide on an agenda.  Norm, you want to jump in
23    on some of the thoughts you were sharing with us at
24    lunchtime?
25              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Sure.  Let me say, too, Les, that

 1    we should at least have a few minutes, some of the members
 2    have suggested, about those future dates and have some
 3    discussion about what we can possibly work out there. 
 4              MR. MOONVES:  Sure.
 5              MR. ORNSTEIN:  When we discussed the agenda last
 6    time we talked about continuing basically our deliberative
 7    and factfinding process, where we would focus the next
 8    meeting on the political process.  Having now decided for
 9    a whole host of reasons that we would go to Los Angeles
10    for the next meeting, it doesn't seem to make a great deal
11    of substantive sense to discuss the political process out
12    there. 
13              At the same time, as our discussion of the last
14    15 or 20 minutes of this panel indicates to me at least,
15    we are now among ourselves starting to float a lot of
16    interesting and innovative ideas about where we go, and it
17    is not necessary in any way, intellectually or otherwise,
18    for us to defer discussion of ideas for solution until we
19    have finished gathering facts and having discussions of
20    some of these substantive areas.
21              So I would suggest that we take at least the
22    afternoon of our day in Los Angeles to have, without a
23    panel of outside people, for discussion among ourselves,
24    where we begin to talk about and go back and forth on some
25    of the ideas that we have raised indirectly or directly or

 1    others that emerge, and begin to move at least on a
 2    parallel track towards some framework for the public
 3    interest obligations in the digital era and see where we
 4    go.
 5              I suggest this in part as well, frankly, because
 6    whatever time frame we have, with whatever extension we're
 7    able to get, we're clearly not going to be able to sit
 8    down in one meeting and hammer out those ideas, and we
 9    clearly want to start thinking about our report long
10    before the report is written, and we're going to have to
11    share drafts among ourselves as well.
12              Now, the next question is whether we want to do
13    that for the whole day or take advantage of our location
14    in Los Angeles or simply for other reasons and have in the
15    morning continuing deliberation or discussion of one of
16    the areas we've talked about.  There was some suggestion
17    earlier that -- the National Association of Broadcasters
18    is in the midst of doing a survey of its members on what
19    in fact all of the stations now do for the public
20    interest.  We thought about perhaps having some
21    presentation and discussion there, but it turns out that
22    the timing will not work for Los Angeles.
23              So we're going to have to -- let's open up for
24    some discussion of whether there's another idea, whether
25    there's something that would be particularly suited for a

 1    West Coast location -- it doesn't have to be -- or what
 2    else we might do with that day that we have out there. 
 3    Why don't we see if there are ideas.
 4              MR. CRUZ:  Norm, can I ask a question?  Is it
 5    possible -- let me ask it this way and backtrack.  In
 6    terms of the political process of the thing that we want
 7    to discuss in the political arena, the campaign funding
 8    and so forth, is it possible to do some of it out there on
 9    the West Coast?  Would the panels be sufficient enough to
10    do some out there and some out here?
11              MR. ORNSTEIN:  I think that we could probably
12    have some discussion of the political process out there,
13    and we might very well not only draw on some resources
14    that are already out on the West Coast, but very likely
15    some of the people we might want to have involved who are
16    not on the West Coast would be willing to make the
17    terrible sacrifice of coming to Los Angeles in March. 
18    That's certainly one possibility.
19              MR. MOONVES:  Yes.
20              MR. DUHAMEL:  I was going to say one of the
21    things might be what the broadcasters political
22    obligations are right now, because every time I look it
23    seems to be getting worse.
24              MR. ORNSTEIN:  But that's what I think the
25    National Association of Broadcasters study -- 

 1              MR. DUHAMEL:  No, that's public interest.  I'm
 2    talking about in political, just the political area.
 3              MR. CRUMP:  That's part of that study, too.
 4              MR. DUHAMEL:  Oh, is it?
 5              MR. LA CAMERA:  So they will be prepared to
 6    deliver that to us?
 7              MR. MOONVES:  They will do that the following
 8    meeting, here in Washington.
 9              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Not in April.
10              VOICE:  The question Mr. Duhamel raised on what
11    the political rules are now is not part of the public
12    interest survey.  It's an interesting question, but the
13    public interest survey asks for things like debates and
14    not what the Commission's rules are.
15              MR. ORNSTEIN:  No, no, I think that's what Bill
16    is saying.  This is what people are doing now.
17              MR. DUHAMEL:  No, no.  I was saying what their
18    obligations are under the present rules, because they get
19    confused.  I get confused with them every --
20              MS. SOHN:  Didn't we get that already in our
21    papers in the first meeting?
22              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Yes, we did that in our first
23    meeting.  We did the inventory of what those obligations
24    are.
25              MS. SOHN:  We went over all that already.

 1              MR. ORNSTEIN:  You actually have a paper that I
 2    think outlines all of those from our first meeting.
 3              MR. DUHAMEL:  Oh, from what's his name.
 4              MS. SOHN:  Kraznik.
 5              MS. CHARREN:  Maybe we could do what you
 6    suggested for the afternoon, which is a continuation of
 7    where we started today, do that in the morning, and use
 8    the afternoon as a real outreach thing to hear from people
 9    who live out there.  People are complaining that they
10    can't get here.  There's a lot of people who might want to
11    say something to us and we could use part of the afternoon
12    to let them say it.
13              MR. MOONVES:  They always have that opportunity,
14    but I think we --
15              MS. CHARREN:  But they don't come.
16              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Well, we certainly want to make
17    sure we have a significant period for public comment and
18    to have it stretched a little bit more is a possibility
19    out there because it's an opportunity away from
20    Washington.
21              MS. CHARREN:  Could we have the programmers, the
22    people?  There's a lot of people out there who are the
23    creative community.
24              MS. SOHN:  Jim Yee might -- I think we should
25    talk to Jim about whether there are some programmers.

 1              MS. CHARREN:  Right.
 2              MS. SOHN:  One of the points that I brought up
 3    in the last panel is the lack of access even in an "age of
 4    abundance."  I guess I'd like to hear some programmers
 5    talk about getting on, their possibilities for getting
 6    their product out.
 7              I'd actually like to hear from Les, since he's
 8    the Hollywood guy, how he thinks being out there could
 9    benefit us.
10              MR. MOONVES:  Where are my sunglasses?
11              MS. SOHN:  Suntan.
12              (Laughter.)
13              MS. CHARREN:  Take advantage of who's out there.
14              MS. SOHN:  I think Peggy's right.  I think
15    hearing from the programming community would be a terrific
16    idea.
17              MR. MOONVES:  About what?  I'm not quite sure. 
18    I'm not being facetious.  What do you mean about from the
19    programmers?  What would you like to hear from them?
20              MS. SOHN:  What I'd like to hear from them is
21    whether they believe that they can get their programming
22    on broadcasting now and what they see the possibilities
23    for digital television are.  If we're talking about
24    diversity and abundance, is there really an opportunity
25    for alternative voices to get on now and will there be an

 1    opportunity in a digital era?  That's what I'd like to
 2    hear.
 3              MS. CHARREN:  And are they thinking about how
 4    the digital opportunity can change their ability to be
 5    creative?
 6              MR. MOONVES:  Who are "they"?  Who are you
 7    talking about, mainstream programmers?
 8              MS. SOHN:  Independent programmers, like Jim
 9    Yee.
10              MS. CHARREN:  It's just an idea.
11              MS. SOHN:  It's just an idea.
12              MR. MOONVES:  That's fine, that's fine, yes.
13              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Well, it would make sense if --
14              MS. SOHN:  It could be anybody.
15              MR. ORNSTEIN:  -- whether we do this for a
16    lengthy period or even take an hour, it certainly makes
17    sense.
18              MS. CHARREN:  Just take five minutes.
19              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Actually, you know, what might
20    make sense is to have somebody who represents one of the
21    larger studios, somebody who represents an alternative or
22    independent, just talk about whether they're thinking
23    about the digital age or what differences may be there. 
24    It wouldn't be bad to do that for an hour or so.
25              Let me just suggest this, that if it's all right

 1    with the rest of you, if you have other ideas let us know. 
 2    And then, if you're willing, let Les and I with our staff
 3    talk about what is logistically feasible and come up with
 4    an agenda.
 5              MR. MOONVES:  Because I think Norm's right, I
 6    think we should plan on having an agenda in the morning
 7    and in the afternoon let's start getting into some
 8    preliminary deliberations and bring up some of the issues.
 9              MS. SOHN:  Yes, we need to start getting down to
10    brass tacks and start talking about specifics. 
11              MR. MOONVES:  That's correct.  That's what the
12    afternoon will be about.  I think to do it the whole day
13    probably -- I think that's right, Norm.  Let's hear from
14    all of you.  Why doesn't everybody think about it for a
15    few days and send us faxes about ideas, suggestions. 
16    Getting programmers is not a difficult thing to do if we
17    feel it's relevant and valid.  That's fine, that's fine. 
18    Okay.
19              So we'll be hearing from you.
20              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Yes, so just let us know what you
21    think.
22              We need to -- there are at least a few people
23    that -- it's always difficult to set schedules -- who are
24    quite concerned that, having set our schedule, we not
25    change our schedule.  But we need to hash that one out. 

 1    Obviously we do not want to cause great discomfort for
 2    people.
 3              The Tuesday meeting -- certainly we tried to set
 4    meetings so that they would cover over a Saturday night
 5    stay, but --
 6              MS. EDWARDS:  And garner the largest group of
 7    members as well.
 8              MR. MOONVES:  Obviously we missed this time.
 9              MR. ORNSTEIN:  And believe me, when we looked at
10    all of the calendars it becomes a very difficult task to
11    find a date where the bulk of people were available to
12    come.
13              Now, we can do this in a couple of ways.  We can
14    -- maybe the easiest thing is for us to go back to those
15    calendars, which I hope have not changed materially since
16    then, and see if there is another acceptable date around
17    that time frame, and then get in touch with you to see if
18    that still works.  We can try and find one that is better.
19              MS. CHARREN:  Could you ask now if at least the
20    bunch sitting here look like they're free on the 17th?
21              MR. MOONVES:  Two months ago we each sent in
22    calendars and that's why we set it out and compared all
23    the schedules.
24              MS. CHARREN:  Yes, I know.  I did, too.
25              MR. CRUZ:  Yes, I want to make reference to

 1    that, because I think Karen Edwards and the other young
 2    lady, whose name escapes me -- Anne -- I know they went
 3    out of their way.  We sent these calendars in and we were
 4    pretty explicit on dates back and forth, and I think it
 5    would be unfair to a lot of us to have to remodify that
 6    now if it went in that way.  And I say that in all due
 7    respect to religious holidays.
 8              MR. DUHAMEL:  See, the thing is, in two months
 9    your calendars may have changed.  If Karen could just
10    repoll us.
11              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Yes.  Well, we can --
12              MR. MOONVES:  We can re-look at calendars.
13              MR. ORNSTEIN:  I guess what we could do is, the
14    one thing we could do that might work here -- it's going
15    to be extremely difficult, I think, to find another date. 
16    The 17th, for example, doesn't work for me because I'm out
17    on the West Coast.
18              MS. CHARREN:  Well, try and get Easter moved.
19              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Yes.
20              MR. MOONVES:  Good idea, Peggy.
21              MS. SOHN:  Appeal to a higher source.
22              (Laughter.)
23              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Why don't we have Easter moved
24    through one of those channels late at night and then we
25    can just have it any time you want.

 1              MR. LA CAMERA:  With public broadcasting. 
 2              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Perhaps what we could do is have
 3    our staff canvas everybody for the dates that are
 4    available in April and see if we can find a date that
 5    still fits the other objectives that we have of making
 6    sure it's sensitive to the Saturday night stay.  And if we
 7    can't find another date we're just going to have to live
 8    with what we've got.
 9              At every one of these meetings we have some
10    people who can't make it, for one reason or another, and
11    it may be that the inability to get away for Easter is
12    just one of those reasons that we have to accommodate.  I
13    hope we can find a date that doesn't discomfort people,
14    but we'll try.
15              MS. EDWARDS:  Are we agreeing, then, that all
16    the members will send in to me and Anne the list of dates
17    when you are available in the month of April?
18              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Yes, let's do that. 
19              MR. SUNSTEIN:  Well, then you'll have to fax us,
20    I'm sorry to say, one of those calendars again.
21              MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  We could also write it out
22    before we leave and give it to you.  It sounds old-
23    fashioned, but --
24              MS. EDWARDS:  We can certainly provide the
25    calendars again.  That's not a problem. 

 1              MS. CHARREN:  Cass, there are 30 days in April.
 2              MR. SUNSTEIN:  Are you sure?
 3              MS. CHARREN:  Positive.
 4              MR. SUNSTEIN:  It changes every year.
 5              MR. MOONVES:  Can we move on?  Have we got any
 6    other housekeeping?  Go ahead.
 7              MS. EDWARDS:  I have one other housekeeping
 8    thought.  Anne and I have a proposal and I don't know sort
 9    of what your thinking about it would be, but we've
10    discussed with Les and Norm the possibility of creating a
11    LISTSERV for the members, a LISTSERV, in other words, so
12    you can communicate with each other via E-mail and
13    everybody would get the same messages.  It's one bite at
14    the apple and everyone's in on the conversation.
15              I wanted to get a sense from you of whether
16    that's worthwhile.  Here are the two complications:  One,
17    everyone is not on E-mail, although that's not very hard
18    to fix, I guess, if everybody thought it was worthwhile. 
19    Two, some of the E-mail addresses we have don't work.
20              So I wanted to raise the question and find out
21    whether or not it's something you wanted to pursue as you
22    get more into the sort of discussion, debate.
23              MS. CHARREN:  And the report, too.
24              MR. ORNSTEIN:  As we move, it's clear as we move
25    closer to the process where we're going to be discussing

 1    among ourselves solutions, this would be a very convenient
 2    way to have a larger discussion.  So you ought to at least
 3    see what your E-mail situation is.
 4              I just wanted to make one comment before we move
 5    on to the next phase of the program and maybe before Karen
 6    leaves, to reiterate for the record what a wonderful job
 7    the staff has done.  They were here late last night. 
 8    Putting all this together logistically is very difficult,
 9    and for Karen, Anne, Cheree, Jonathan, and others -- we
10    have others as well.  This is a very small staff for what
11    is a very big operation.
12              MS. CHARREN:  And Anne.  I talked to Anne every
13    day for the last four weeks.
14              MR. MOONVES:  He said Anne.
15              (Applause.)
16              MR. MOONVES:  Charles, did you have something
17    else?
18              MR. BENTON:  Yes.  I noticed the letter you
19    passed out.  I may have missed this, but on the October
20    1st deadline, I know that some of us felt that it would be
21    better to have a deadline for getting the report in after
22    the election as opposed to before.  Was this considered
23    and are we really fixed on this October 1st deadline, or
24    can we go to December 31st?
25              MR. ORNSTEIN:  The original plan that was

 1    created in the executive order was a year, and there was a
 2    pretty strong suggestion from the White House that this
 3    was not to take longer than a year.  So we're actually
 4    talking about somewhere in the range of a year here.  So I
 5    think there is little likelihood --
 6              MR. BENTON:  So there's no wiggle room on this?
 7              MR. ORNSTEIN:  No.
 8              MR. MOONVES:  Yes.  I don't think the election
 9    should be a problem. 
10              Yes, Karen?
11              MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  I had a question about
12    whether or not you have any idea of what the agenda is
13    going to be at the June meeting as well.  The reason I ask
14    is that we have a very limited budget and I'm not sure I
15    can make two out of town meetings in the spring and I may
16    have to choose between the two.  So has any thought been
17    given to that far in advance?
18              MR. CRUMP:  St. Paul is a lot more fun than L.A.
19              MR. MOONVES:  I beg your pardon.  You haven't
20    gone to the right places.
21              MR. CRUMP:  I'll go with you.
22              (Laughter.)
23              MR. MOONVES:  We haven't gotten that far.  My
24    guess is we will get heavier into our discussions in June. 
25    Hard to say.

 1              MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  Okay.
 2              MR. ORNSTEIN:  My guess is that as we move -- it
 3    is very hard to say.  Clearly, as we move along we are
 4    going to be probably emphasizing more tapping into
 5    expertise of people who have ideas that we're raising for
 6    solutions.  Where we get by June is going to depend on
 7    where we are in March and April.  So you'll have to make a
 8    gaming judgment here, conditional probability.
 9              MR. MOONVES:  Any other housekeeping?
10              MR. BENTON:  This will be the last meeting,
11    then, and the rest will be on our report?
12              MR. MOONVES:  No.
13              MR. ORNSTEIN:  No.  I think we just didn't want
14    to plan -- I would think that what we want to do probably
15    in Los Angeles is then begin to think about, the end of
16    that day we want to begin to think about where we are,
17    make an assessment, especially after we have some
18    discussion of possible ideas and what future meetings we
19    want to schedule.
21              MR. MOONVES:  Public comments, questions,
22    answers.  The microphone is now open.
23              MS. PUHAR:  Hi.  My name is Annamarie Puhar. 
24    I'm Executive Director of The Television Project, which is
25    a nonprofit that promotes healthy television viewing

 1    habits for families.
 2              Mr. Benton gave me my segue, because I came down
 3    here to ask you to really consider media literacy as an
 4    important obligation that we have to our children.  We
 5    need media literacy and we need it nationally, and it
 6    needs to be funded for research and curriculum development
 7    and implementation, and so we start a campaign.
 8              Thank you. 
 9              MR. MOONVES:  Thank you. 
10              MR. DINGMAN:  Hi.
11              MR. MOONVES:  Hi.
12              MR. DINGMAN:  My name is Jim Dingman.  I was
13    here last meeting, and I wanted to just give you a follow-
14    up on that paper that we gave you on a public interest
15    obligation to show missing children.  
16              I urge members of the commission to call the
17    National Center for Missing and Exploited Children at 1-
18    800-THE-LOSS, because they cannot come here today --
19    they're an agency under the Department of Justice -- but
20    we had long discussions about how a system like this could
21    operate, and a lot of thought is now being put to it
22    around the country by the different missing children's
23    clearinghouses in the different states.  And by your March
24    meeting, we hope to give you a more developed paper on how
25    a system like this would look.  

 1              But the people over there asked me to ask you to
 2    call them up.  Nancy Hammer is one of the legal counsels
 3    there and she wants to help.  And I can certainly feed and
 4    give you names of other folks.  Dianne Vigars, who is the
 5    Manager of the clearinghouse in the State of New York --
 6    again the problem is these are employees of state
 7    governments and in the case of Nancy Hammer she's under
 8    the Department of Justice, so they cannot necessarily
 9    advocate and lobby these things.
10              But they want to talk to you about these things
11    because they're very excited with the possibility of some
12    system being set up.  One idea that they suggested was in
13    terms of stranger abductions, that shows with high Nielsen
14    ratings, that there be sort of an emergency system
15    implemented where a child who's a victim of a stranger
16    abduction, alongside perhaps a daily show or a daily
17    airing of kids in the different categories that we talked
18    about -- stranger abductions, runaways, parental kidnaps,
19    et cetera -- that those shows which have the largest
20    blanket appeal to people, where they are seen by Nielsen's
21    ratings of 20 and 18, et cetera, that those shows be
22    prioritized to be vehicles for children who are seriously
23    in danger of being killed.
24              That we can certainly see as a public interest
25    obligation, and this is something we're going to petition

 1    the FCC for a rule change on.  But those are the kind of
 2    considerations we wanted to bring to you.
 3              Again, just as a sidebar, I think that community
 4    broadcasters -- and I'm talking now about all the
 5    different FM and AM radio stations and TV stations -- they
 6    don't have a clue about the impact of this technology on
 7    them.  I think it would be interesting to ask some of them
 8    to come in and give commentary on it, because they've not
 9    thought carefully about this or have they thought about
10    their public interest obligations in response to this
11    digital technology, and they really are as ignorant as
12    most of us are in trying to comprehend it.
13              Thank you. 
14              MR. MOONVES:  Thank you. 
15              Anybody else?
16              (No response.)
17                         CLOSING COMMENTS
18              MR. MOONVES:  Norm.
19              MR. ORNSTEIN:  I would point out to our members
20    simply that we have gotten other public feedback through
21    the web site and through letters.  You have copies of
22    those things and some of them are quite interesting.  We
23    should read them.
24              MS. CHARREN:  I would like to just call the
25    attention of the committee to two pages in the Electronic

 1    Media, the issue of January 12th, which has two pages of
 2    web sites.  I don't think we're on it.  You might want to
 3    write a letter to the editor of Electronic Media just to
 4    add ours to this list.  
 5              But there are two pages of web sites on digital
 6    television that would be interesting for us to pull down
 7    and see what they're saying.  Some of them are public,
 8    some are government, and some are industry.  But it was 25
 9    web sites.
10              MS. SOHN:  Can I ask a question?  Actually, it's
11    for Les.
12              MR. MOONVES:  Yes.
13              MS. SOHN:  Have the folks at Annenberg given you
14    any indication of how they might publicize this? 
15              MR. MOONVES:  They really haven't.  Jeff Cowan,
16    who is an acquaintance, who is the dean of the school,
17    called me up and I said, write me a letter.  And then it
18    happened that I got the letter the day I came back from
19    the last meeting or soon after, and he by the letter said: 
20    "The issue the committee is examining is of intense
21    interest to students, faculty, and graduates of USC."
22              So I think they'll get the word out.  They'll
23    get the word out among the L.A. community, as well as we
24    can certainly send out a press release that goes into the
25    trade papers there, Electronic Media and those things. 

 1    And we'll see if we can get some of those people from the
 2    community.
 3              Once again, anybody -- and I'm open to ideas --
 4     that you guys would like to hear from from that
 5    community, I certainly can get them there. 
 6              MS. EDWARDS:  I would just add to that, I spoke
 7    with Jeff Cowan yesterday, Gigi, and I think that he is
 8    still casting about to figure out what the publicity of
 9    this would be like and looking to us for a bit of
10    guidance.  So if you have some ideas about what they might
11    do, you could definitely funnel them through me because I
12    will be talking with him a fair amount next week.
13              MR. ORNSTEIN:  And once we get an agenda set,
14    that'll have some impact on that. 
15              I would just throw in one more small thing. 
16    Judd French, who is a very, very strong technical person
17    from Harris, did a little exploration.  I had asked him
18    about the emergency notification business, and what I
19    asked him was:  If we're talking about this 9600 baud,
20    which is basically I think the equivalent of the width of
21    a human hair across an eight-lane highway in terms of the
22    space that it takes up, what does that really mean? 
23              He just made a couple calls and gave us some
24    interesting notes.  Where it becomes a question is if you
25    have a 24-hour service, including the problems that may

 1    exist for stations that aren't on 24-hours, where you'd
 2    have to be talking about turning it on; and also simply
 3    the power needs for television sets, where you have to use
 4    at least a reduced power if you're even going to have --
 5    if it's off, to be able to turn it back on; that there are
 6    some questions raised here in terms of energy usage and
 7    otherwise, not so much for any of the purposes that are
 8    directly related to us, because actually mandating this is
 9    nothing in terms of the actual usage.  But there are other
10    questions.
11              We'll maybe type this up and send it out to you,
12    but it's just one of those -- this is one of those little
13    areas that we really need to think about.  But it raises
14    questions and Judd did some very nice stuff for us, for
15    which I thank him.
16              MR. MOONVES:  Thank you all.  See you next month
17    or the month after.
18              (Whereupon, at 4:13 p.m., the meeting was
19    adjourned.)