Monday, November 9, 1998

The Ronald Reagan Building and
International Trade Center
Polaris Room, Concourse Level
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004

Transcript of the afternoon session

(Click here to view part one of the morning session)
(Click here to view part two of the morning session)

                         AFTERNOON SESSION
                                              (2:18 p.m.)
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  We will begin this process,
    I think, this afternoon by trying to, as quickly as we can
    resolve the remaining issues on this question of minimum
    public interest requirements.  
              MR. CRUMP:  Might I make a suggestion to the
    group, that all this minimum public interest requirements
    that we have written under section number 4, that we would
    agree that we would accept the verbiage as written here in
    this presentation with the exception of the last sentence
    of paragraph 2, where we talk about including appendix B,
    but instead that we eliminate appendix B and in its place
    we put another sentence that would incorporate the titles
    of all the various paragraphs as they are lettered in
    appendix B and leaving out those titles which are
    addressed in other portions of our report, and that we
    would include them, saying that these titles are what we
    were talking about, in the proper verbiage here, as being
    where the minimum standards should be.
              That's the suggestion.
              MS. SCOTT:  I'm not opposed to that idea.  On
    the sentence, I don't know if you mean literally one

              MR. CRUMP:  No, however many sentences it takes
    to get them all in.  But I wouldn't think -- I think we
    can get them all in in one. 
              MS. SCOTT:  I'd leave that to the drafters of
    the report, but I would like -- some of them might need a
    little explanation of just what we mean.  I'm not saying
    you use all the verbiage that's here, but I think we might
    have to explain.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  So the suggestion is that we
    incorporate into the body of the report brief explanations
    of these areas, that we think that minimum requirements
    should include community outreach and a little description
    of that, accountability and so on, just to be sure. 
              MR. CRUMP:  As long as we don't -- not to
    address those topics which are addressed in other
    sections.  Why double up here again, just like the
              MS. CHARREN:  I can't really fight the
    description with that sentence until I read the sentence.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Sure. 
              MS. CHARREN:  But I'd like to put forth an
    alternate proposal, that the mandatory requirements minus
    the last page in what's called attachment A I would like
    to see stay just as it is, including anything that is also

    discussed in the report, since I feel that listing it as a
    mandatory minimum is different than just having it in the
    body of the report.
              But I'm willing to give up that last page as
    long as we keep the other stuff as is.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Richard, then Karen. 
              MR. MASUR:  I just wanted to point out, as was
    pointed out earlier, there are two, at least two, sections
    that really don't conform to what's in the report.
              MS. CHARREN:  Oh, I would fix that. 
              MR. MASUR:  And if I may, one of them which
    doesn't conform is the free political programming, which
    as it's stated in the report probably doesn't belong in
    the mandatory minimum requirements at this point, because
    in the report we're making an effort to link it to a much
    broader action by Congress, and I would suggest possibly
    letting that out.
              The other thing is, on the multicasting, if that
    language can be made to conform in a concise way then I
    would support that. 
              MS. CHARREN:  If there's some way we could get
    in the idea that linkage, that if there is the, blah,
    blah, blah, then the broadcaster should have to do that. 
    Is it enough to leave it in the report? 
              MR. MASUR:  I think that's absolutely apparent

    in what we've asked for. 
              MS. CHARREN:  Okay.
              MR. RUIZ:  And therefore, if Congress does take
    action that would be part of the action that they take, I
    would think.
              MS. CHARREN:  I certainly think you have to keep
    the report from saying two different things. 
              MR. BENTON:  Just on this last point here,
    before we find closure on this I think we ought to discuss
    section 6 here, the political discourse, and then come
    back to this.  I think the exchange between Barry and Les
    this morning on the political discourse, the challenge --

              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Speak into the mike, please.
              MR. BENTON:  I think the challenge, the
    discussion at the very end of this morning's meeting
    between you and Barry on the political discourse thing was
    wonderful, and we should not -- we should revisit the free
    political programming on these minimum standards after
    that discussion because it needs a larger context.  What
    you all were saying this morning I think was very
              So let's come back to it. 
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Once again, Peggy, I do have
    to comment, to disagree with Mr. Diller, and he's not here

    right now to defend himself, although he did very well
    this morning.  I have a problem with the redundancy of
    things that are covered in other areas and I feel very
    strongly they should not be included in the minimum
    standards, which we dealt with, such as accountability,
    which we dealt with, such as multicasting, which we've
    dealt with, such as diversity, which we are going to deal
    with, such as free political programming, which is going
    to get its own area in our report.
              Now, once again, I think there should be a very
    minor number of, in terms of length, not in terms of
    import, on what we deal with as an appendix to this.  So I
    respectfully disagree with putting that whole thing in.
              Once again, as you recall -- and I will repeat
    myself -- part of this is a give and take.  To agree to
    what's here, I need something in return. 
              MR. MASUR:  Can I ask a question, Les?
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Yes. 
              MR. MASUR:  Is your objection to having it
    restated in one combined way, does that have to do with
    the fact that it may not be clear in the body here --
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  No.
              MR. RUIZ:  -- that it's a mandate?
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Not at all.
              Richard, you have to understand something.  Just

    the words "minimum public interest requirement" are
    lightning rods.  We will have included political
    discourse.  We will have included accountability.  To list
    this under the demand that broadcasters must have is
    something that will really pour salt on the wounds.
              I'm trying to put a compromise here. 
              MR. MASUR:  I'm trying to get this straight for
    myself.  So you're suggesting that some of these areas
    like accountability not be mandated?
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  They are mandated in another
              MS. SOHN:  I'm fine with removing the
    duplication if we make clear recommendations, if indeed
    that is the consensus, on accountability that we want it
    to be a mandate.  If indeed we want to have some extra
    multiplexing obligation, if that's what we decide, as long
    as it's made clear in the body it doesn't need to be here
    as well. 
              MS. STRAUSS:  I think that part of the confusion
    here is the fact that section four is entitled "Minimum
    Public Interest Requirements" as if those are the only
    public interest requirements.  In fact, what I hear
    everybody saying is that there are public interest
    requirements or, to use the executive order term,
    obligations elsewhere in the report.

              Maybe what we should be doing is coordinating
    what's contained in the appendix that's already in the
    report, making sure that there's no duplicity, and then
    having a section that says "Other minimum public interest"
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Duplication.
              MR. DUHAMEL:  Duplication, not duplicity. 
              MS. STRAUSS:  I'm sorry, duplication.  I'm
    sorry.  Freudian slip.
              But do you understand what I'm saying?  It seems
    to me that we're just saying -- some of us are saying --
    what you're saying, Peggy, is put it in the mandated
    minimum requirements because it's mandated, and then what
    you're saying is, well, it already is mandated elsewhere.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Karen, I will not sign onto
    this if it enables every other section to put further
    handcuffs on broadcasters.  I'm trying to compromise, but
    if you're saying by this that we're going to strengthen
    the language in all the other paragraphs I'm going to have
    a problem with that, which is why I won't vote on anything
    until I see what it actually says before I sign my name on
              That's the problem.  I am trying to deal with a
    compromise.  I am trying to agree on something called
    "minimum public interest requirements," which by the way

    will probably make me a pariah in the broadcasting
    community.  I'm willing to accept that in exchange for
    certain things.
              If you can't give it to me that's fine and maybe
    Gigi's right, we will write a dissenting report.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Yes, Charles. 
              MR. BENTON:  I have a new thought here.  Cass
    Sunstein in his I think very thoughtful report, point
    number one -- maybe this is a way out because we're now
    struggling with the form, I think, of this more than the
    substance.  His point number one, which I think is a great
    idea, says -- maybe this is already contemplated, but
    wouldn't it be helpful to have in bold letters a one-
    sentence or two-sentence summary of recommendations for a
    short overview and also before each discussion of each
              That is, I would suggest we have a short summary
    of our recommendations in bold as a separate document and
    also that each recommendation is preceded by a short
    summary in the body of the report.  As it stands, the
    recommendations are a bit hard to follow and the reader
    has to work to get the specific sense of what we're
              That I think is a very good idea, and maybe by
    doing this it would help to highlight what we are

    recommending, and maybe in Cass' form suggestion here,
    which is a good suggestion for the board in general, we
    can move beyond this impasse of form, because what I hear,
    Les, what I've been hearing you say, Les, which maybe I'm
    -- what I'm hearing you suggest, not say, but the
    implication of what your stance is:  I don't mind if this
    is sort of throughout the report and in general terms, but
    I don't want to have a two-page summary that can be picked
    up by the regulators, by the FCC, by the consumer folks,
    the public interest community, etcetera, to beat us over
    the head with. 
              This does sound like the industry in general,
    quite apart from your enlightened leadership of our group.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  You know what, Charles.  It
    doesn't make me feel better to say that we are good
    broadcasters and they are bad broadcasters.  That doesn't
    make me feel any better.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Let me frame this a
    different way.  I understand very much what Les is saying. 
    The whole concept of mandate here is a highly explosive
    concept.  We are making a huge step by recommending
    mandatory minimum requirements, period.  We need to be
    very careful about our language to make sure that we can
    maintain our breadth here.
              Some of these areas don't belong here, frankly. 

    Diversity, we are not recommending mandates here.  We
    can't recommend mandates, for a host of reasons.  In fact,
    what we have in this suggestion is encouraging the FCC and
    encouraging broadcasters.  So this doesn't belong here. 
    We will have a separate section on diversity.
              The areas of lowest unit rate and issue
    advertising, I resonate to these.  But frankly, these are
    not minimum requirements that we're building in here. 
    They're areas that we address elsewhere.  They don't
    particularly belong here.
              The same in many ways is true of multicasting as
    a separate area.  Some of these others, even where there
    may be some overlap but where we're talking about
    distinctions between mandates and suggestions, and even
    where we may have disagreements about which way we ought
    to go, make more sense.
              So we need to narrow this down anyhow, because
    in fact some of the areas that are in here don't really
    belong under mandated minimum requirements to begin with. 
              Then the question becomes, if people understand
    or agree with that, how can we best frame this so that we
    make it clear what it is that we're after.  My suggestion,
    Les, would be that we go through and clean that up in that
    fashion and then take this section without any specific
    numbers and include it as an appendix, with an addition,

    if it's desirable, that says:  There are some who think
    either that these areas or who believe that getting very
    specific, if this involves setting out specific numbers,
    is simply not the right way to go.
              If it's there in an appendix and what we have in
    the body of the report is what we have now, which is what
    everybody has agreed to, how would that satisfy you?
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  I think I'm fine, depending
    on the wording of it.  But it would be necessary to
    mention in the body of the report, this is what the
    appendix is --
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Yes.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  -- there are people who
    disagree with it, there are people who agree with it,
    there are people what want more, there are people who want
    less.  And people can feel free to write something that
    does mention that.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Yes.  
              How does that sit with people?  Okay.
              MS. CHARREN:  Depending on what it says, it sits
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Obviously it has to depend. 
    If the concept fits, we will immediately move to create
              MR. DUHAMEL:  Let me ask.  Before we called it

    "minimum public interest standards" and Cass in his letter
    calls them "standards" rather than "requirements." 
    "Standards" would, I'll tell you, go a long way towards
    making life easier in the broadcast community.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  I don't care if we change
    the word to "standards."  Fine.
              MR. DUHAMEL:  "Requirements" is a word --
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  That's done.  Now, I'm glad
    we resolved that issue.
              MR. DUHAMEL:  Can I just, one other thing.  On
    the public affairs programming, this is where it says that
    public affairs and news doesn't count.  Remember when Gigi
    was talking about her checkoff list this morning.  This
    one here, that's where the problem is.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  In the section on minimum
    public interest standards.
              MS. CHARREN:  Would you read it?  Read it.
              MR. DUHAMEL:  It's paragraph D, public affairs
    programming:  "Each broadcast station also should be
    required to devote a minimum amount of time to public
    affairs programming with an emphasis on local issues and
    needs."  The one I object to is:  "Segments within a
    regularly scheduled newscast should not be counted toward
    the minimum time requirements for public affairs

              That's the point that I keep making.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Well, by the way that should
    be removed, however, now that there are a number of PSA's
    that we're not specifying.  You know, I also think the
    time periods should be spelled out.  It's going to depend
    on how all this is worded on every one of these.  We're
    not going to put it on a prime time show at 9:00 o'clock.
              MR. CRUMP:  If I could butt in here just for a
    moment here.  I want to agree with Bill.  If you're not
    going to be able to count your news, where that's where
    you're doing your public service and you're doing it on
    purpose, and you're doing it in order that not only you'd
    have a good news program, but from the standpoint of
    delivering the information to the public, you're putting
    it in the programming that gets the highest audience, it
    looks like we're shooting ourselves in the foot to knock
    it out. 
              MR. MASUR:  Is this a misstatement possibly?  Is
    the intention of this sentence to say -- well, frankly, I
    don't understand it in the context in which it's written.
              MR. GOODMON:  We talked about this a long time
    and we couldn't -- there are some stations that don't do
    news, and the idea here is that a particular effort be
    made to produce local public affairs programming and that
    it run in various day parts.  And there are some stations

    that don't do news. 
              MR. CRUMP:  Well, those stations that don't do
    news, this doesn't hurt them at all.  They've got to do
    other programming then. 
              MR. GOODMON:  That was a -- we talked about that
    a long time as, what we're trying to do here is get some
    public affairs programming in separate times. 
              MR. MASUR:  I guess the question I'm getting to
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  I think it's very easy to
    change this section.
              MS. CHARREN:  I have a question.  When you were
    discussing this, were you considering public interest
    programming -- and for you, too -- public interest
    programming within the news as different from the newscast
    as public interest programming? 
              MR. DUHAMEL:  But there are segments that are
    embedded within the newscast.
              MS. CHARREN:  And that's the problem with this
    thing.  It's a little bit of a definitional problem.  You
    don't want to say if you do a newscast that's your half
    hour public service.  Or do you want to say?
              MR. DUHAMEL:  No, no.  But do I have a portion
    of it?
              MS. CHARREN:  Yes, certainly, it seems to me

    this should be one.  You know, it's hard, because it's
    content-sensitive, to write that so it's obvious that
    that's what you're talking about.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  But I don't think we even
    need to get to that level.  We're talking about the
    recommendation for a requirement in public affairs
    programming.  We don't want to suggest that if you do the
    news that anything you do within the news doesn't count.
              MS. CHARREN:  Right.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  We don't need to start
    getting into the details of what within that counts or
    doesn't count.  That's somebody else's job. 
              MR. GOODMON:  I agree with that.  The question
    that came up was could you fulfil your entire public
    service affairs programming commitment with news segments,
    and we sort of think, wait a minute, it ought to be a
    little bit more than that, it ought to be one public
    affairs program.  So we didn't know what to -- that's the
    reason for it. 
              MR. BENTON:  Just to bring some facts to the
    table from the most recent report about news, in general
    the analysis is that 39 percent of the news is on crime,
    mostly violent crime, 45 percent is on sports, weather,
    and commercials, leaving 15 or 16 percent for everything

              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  What is this, local news,
    network news?  What is it? 

              MR. BENTON:  This is local news.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Local news.  Let's not get
    into a debate now over content of local news. 
              MR. CRUMP:  Well, Charles is on our side,
    though.  He points out that all of that wouldn't be
    counted, so therefore you certainly should be able to
    count those portions that you do that fall under this. 
    Thank you, Charles.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Right, I don't think any of
    us disagree that if you do good public affairs
    programming, do any public affairs programming in the
    context of a news show, that counts.  We all agree with
              MS. CHARREN:  I agree with that. 
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Okay, let's move on.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Rob, you wanted to talk for a
    moment about datacasting.  You have a moment. 
              MR. GLASER:  I think probably the first person
    to talk with on this would be Charles, because Charles
    actually wrote some things in his memo that he sent out. 
    Why don't you start and then I'll chime in after with
    regard to sort of the notion of how much we treat

    datacasting and why it might be a separate beast.  Rather
    than me restating your words, why don't you start. 
              MR. BENTON:  No, please.  You are the expert.  I
    was coming in with rather obvious stuff in my memo. 
              MR. GLASER:  The general point is, in a digital
    spectrum world we have the ability collectively and
    broadcasters have the specific mandate to broadcast zeros
    and ones that are designed to be video or zeros and ones
    that are designed to be interpreted as zeros and ones for
    an incredibly broad range of purposes, be it sports
    scores, emergency weather information, textbooks,
    electronic textbooks -- anything you can possibly imagine.
              There is no public policy or public interest
    standard or regulatory regime or even sort of discussion
    of any kind of what we ought to try to do as a society
    with that capability.  It's not obvious to me, given that
    it's such a broad thing, what we would do as a committee,
    without spending dozens and dozens of hours and having
    lots of witnesses discuss all the different ways that this
    can be used.
              But I believe, as I think some other folks do,
    that we're missing a substantial opportunity by not
    calling out in a much stronger way than the report does
    that, insofar as this is a data delivery medium, that is
    using public spectrum, there is an affirmative public

    interest obligation to think through what the public
    interest uses of data broadcasting ought to be and what
    kind of provisions should be made for that data
              That's a fairly vague formulation, and if we
    talk about specific applications, like emergency weather
    information or educational information, I think we could
    probably generate a level of excitement or enthusiasm.
              My general proposal would be that, rather than
    having a conversation at this abstract level, a few of us
    very quickly, in the next couple of days, try to put
    together a section that addresses the public interest data
    broadcasting opportunity and needs as one of the
    recommendation sections of the report.  And I apologize
    for missing the previous meeting, which would have been
    the most logical time to make that broad a suggestion. 
    But that's something that I feel strongly about and I know
    from Charles' letter he does as well, and perhaps others
              MR. BENTON:  I'd like to second that and
    volunteer to work with Rob on the datacasting section, if
    that's okay with you.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Yes, absolutely.  And we
    reserve the right to review the document that you submit.
              MR. BENTON:  Of course, please.

              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  That would be terrific.  And
    obviously, the sooner you can do it so that we can
    circulate it to everybody, the better.  But it's going to
    have to be within the next three or four days. 
              MR. GLASER:  Right, that's fine.  Good.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  The next two days, Karen is
              MR. GLASER:  Are there others on the committee
    who would work with Charles and myself on this? 
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Yes, we'll take any
    volunteers to work on the datacasting section.  I believe
    this is very important.  Those of us who saw the PBS
    demonstration this morning, it becomes even more clear
    that one of the major advances in digital broadcasting is
    the tremendous opportunities that are going to be
    available for datacasting in combination with the
    broadcasting, and we have to address this in a significant
              Of course, Les and I will be happy to --
              MS. CHARREN:  I don't mind looking at it before
    it comes to the committee in terms of the educational
              MR. GLASER:  Given the rate at which we're
    moving, we may well pull you in on that in terms of the
    educational implications, Peggy.  That's great.

              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Good idea, and why don't you
    take the lead on this, Rob, if you would. 
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  We look forward to seeing
    your report, Rob.
              This morning I gave you a discussion on the
    diversity that we would like to include in the report.
              MR. CRUZ:  Are we through with 4?
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Yes. 
              MR. CRUZ:  What are we going to do with the
    must-carry part, which is the last two paragraphs of that
    number 4?
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  I don't think we should deal
    with must-carry.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Well, let's --
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  We can talk about it.  I
    would like to remove it. 
              MR. CRUZ:  It's the last two paragraphs of page
    8 and 9.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Yes.
              MR. RUIZ:  Les.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Yes.
              MR. RUIZ:  I didn't get that paper.  Can you fax
    it to me?
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Yes, yes, we can.  Karen, can
    we get one to Jose Luis?

              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  We'll get that right to you,
    Jose Luis. 
              MR. CRUMP:  I'm for leaving that last paragraph
              MR. RUIZ:  Last two paragraphs. 
              MR. CRUMP:  Last two paragraphs.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  That's the must-carry. 
    That's the must-carry part. 
              MR. CRUZ:  I can register a concern in reference
    to public broadcasting and I can get some words to David
    regarding that.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Well, let's deal with the
    larger question of whether we want to make this linkage.
              MR. CRUZ:  Well, a couple of questions.  First
    of all, is there any concern that, or should we not be
    concerned that, just to make this rhetorical, that since
    this was not actually part of our mandate, that it will
    just be ignored?  That's number one.
              Number two, if that's not the case and we're
    assuming that it will actually be paid attention to, is
    the sweetening of the pot potentially for the over the air
    broadcasters in our making this recommendation helpful in
    finding a way to the consensus?
              Those are the two questions.  And if it's not
    that meaningful to broadcasters, then we should probably

    stay out of it.  If it is meaningful to broadcasters and
    it will have no impact, it's probably not going to sweeten
    the pot that much.  But if it could have some impact and
    it is meaningful for broadcasters, then I'd say we should
    probably keep it in. 
              MR. CRUMP:  Richard, if I might, I think it's
    not only meaningful for broadcasters, I think it's
    meaningful to the public.  When you consider that 70
    percent of our signal comes in over cable, if we are not
    being carried all of this stuff that we are saying the
    broadcaster ought to do is not going to be seen.  And I
    think we should consider that. 
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Richard does bring up an
    interesting thing.  We may be stepping over the line in
    all sorts of places in this report.  Is this our respect,
    to bring this?  Newt? 
              MR. MINOW:  I don't think there's any question
    that it's helpful to the broadcasters.  The FCC is going
    to pay a great deal of attention to this.  If we come out
    with a report that says that broadcasters have an
    obligation to serve the public interest and we want that
    seen, we want it seen on cable, and it will be very
    effective in dealing with the FCC as it makes its decision
    on this question.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Peggy.

              MS. CHARREN:  And if that's part of our
    recommendations, not in an appendix, I'd like to suggest
    that it creates a marketplace for this committee to get
    the service to the public, which is the reason why you
    have must-carry as part of the report, too.  It's a kind
    of a quid pro quo.
              MS. SOHN:  I would only say that it's a service
    to the public if broadcasters are doing their public --
    engaging in their public interest obligations, including
    the mandatory minimums that were suggested.  I actually
    think that it's within our -- I can't imagine it's not
    within our mandate.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  We made a link here.  We
    didn't recommend it without making that link.  That's
    important to realize.
              Also we should note that we have heard from the
    National Cable Television Association.  We have heard from
    Brian Lamb of C-SPAN, who feels very, very strongly about
    these issues.  He's against must-carry.  
              And we ought to at least recognize that we've
    got two issues here.  One is must-carry once digital is a
    reality, a full reality.  If we think down the road to
    when the analog stations are given back, that's not much
    of an issue.  The issue is the transition period and the
    issue there is whether cable networks are going to be

    required to carry two full 6-megaHertz bites and with the
    digital carry all that goes with those. 
              MR. GOODMON:  That's important. 
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  It's an important
    distinction.  Obviously, partly what we're talking about
    is expediting the transition here.  But we do need to
    recognize that this is not a simple question, especially
    now, given the hardware.  If we moved immediately to a
    double must-carry, you're going to end up with in most of
    these cable systems a requirement that they take all kinds
    of stations that they now have on the air off the air.  So
    this is a tricky issue. 
              MR. MASUR:  But you've accounted for that -- I'm
    sorry.  But you've accounted for that in the language, and
    that's why I raise these questions.  I think the answers
    that have come back say basically it's a good idea for us
    to make this linkage.  In a way, right now the must-carry
    mandate for the analog if I understand it correctly has no
    public interest obligations theoretically attached to it,
    whereas here we're saying if these mandatory public
    interest requirements are part of this whole package then
    the must-carry should be linked, and that strengthens the
    possibility that that will happen as well, I think.
              So with that caveat that Norm put on, which is
    already included in the language of the report, I think

    it's good.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Robert. 
              MR. DECHERD:  I was just going to make a point
    of clarification.  We were talking a minute ago about the
    cable association and C-SPAN and so forth.  I think it's
    fair to say that the current proposal of the NAB, MSTV,
    TOC, and all other significant television licensee groups
    or groups representing them believe that must-carry is
    absolutely essential.
              And the proposal is not for immediate clearance. 
    It's a phased-in approach which recognizes that different
    systems have different technical capabilities and during
    the transition period to digital it's simply providing
    that as cable MSO's build out these systems toward their
    oft-described 500-channel universe that we take advantage
    of compression and all the technology associated with it
    to ensure that these digital signals are carried without
    causing any significant displacement to existing channels.
              But this is a very, very important issue, and
    the fact that NAB hasn't weighed in on that subject or TOC
    or MSTV does not mean that they are not very focused on
    this.  Quite the contrary, this is issue one with all of
    those groups.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  I think one of the issues
    also about that is that there are certain broadcasters. 

    Not every broadcaster wants must-carry.  I think we should
    put that language in that there's not an obligation for

              MS. SOHN:  Well, you have a choice, okay.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Go ahead, Gigi.
              MS. SOHN:  If I could be the lawyer here for a
    minute --
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Be my lawyer.
              MS. SOHN:  You have a choice under the law.  You
    can either opt for what they call retransmission consent,
    which means you can tell the cable operator:  You're not
    going to get my signal.  You want me, okay, but you're not
    going to get me unless you give me either some in-kind or
    money payments, okay.  And a station opts for one or the
              Now, those stations that know they can't extract
    that kind of concession, there's a:  The law says you must
    carry me, all right.  I'm not going to try to extract
    anything out of you, but you must carry me under the law. 
    The fact of the matter is I think the linkage is really,
    really critical because the stations most in need of must-
    carry are those probably also most in need of mandatory
    minima.  The large network affiliates, the network O and
    O's, they will be the ones that can opt for retransmission

              If anybody wants an extra school lesson
    afterwards, I won't give it to you.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Excellent.  Thank you. 
    That's why there should be no obligation whatsoever. 
              All right.  Are we done?
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Now you want to talk about
    the diversity?
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Yes.  We would like to
    include in the report, obviously, address the diversity
    issue.  It was originally included in the mandatory
    minimum requirements.  We think it warrants a section of
    its own.  We have drawn up some language.  Once again,
    it's a first pass, open for discussion from anyone.
              But we would like to include it in the report. 
    Comments, suggestions, criticisms? 
              MR. GOODMON:  What does it say?  Give us a
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  The staff developed this,
    four paragraphs.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Yes, our staff did.  It's
    about flexibility -- it's one page.  Read it.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Why don't we take two
    minutes for people to take a quick look at it.

              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Right.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  We can obviously amend this
    at a later stage, too.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  It's basically a statement of
              MR. MASUR:  Can I?  The one suggestion I'd like
    to make is, rather than "responds to the needs and
    interests of minorities," it should say "responds to the
    needs and interests of underserved communities."  The
    reason I say that is because women are not a minority, nor
    are people over 50, and both of them are severely
              MS. SOHN:  It's also less inflammatory from a
    constitutional viewpoint. 
              MR. MASUR:  Right.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Now that I'm over 50, I have
    to agree with you.  A good suggestion. 
              MS. SOHN:  Norm, I want to suggest again -- and
    maybe this goes in the multicast section, and hopefully it
    gets cross-referenced here -- the idea of, if a
    broadcaster chooses to do this as part of its public
    interest responsibilities, turning over one of its
    multicasted channels to a programmer who would serve

    underserved communities.  I could like language to that
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  What this says is:  "A
    multi-channel digital broadcast model could of course
    include program streams that are narrowcast, aimed at
    distinct audiences, including minority groups."  We could
    certainly add a sentence there that said something like: 
    If one channel were dedicated -- 
              MS. SOHN:  Right.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  -- to public interest
    purposes, that channel could either be run by -- 
              MS. SOHN:  I want to get away from the notion
    that the broadcaster necessarily controls every single
    multicast stream.  He or she could decide to lease it out
    to a minority or other programmer.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  We could say we encourage
    innovation in this area.
              MS. SOHN:  Exactly.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Why don't we add a sentence. 
    Okay, we'll work on drafting a sentence if everybody
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  That's fine.
              Anybody else?  Yes, Jose.
              MR. RUIZ:  Is there any way of doing something
    that would be monetary?

              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Such as?
              MR. RUIZ:  Taxes or something like that, like
    they had before with the sale of stations.
              MS. CHARREN:  What?  Taxes? 
              MR. BENTON:  You're referring to a tax credit,
              MR. RUIZ:  Some kind of credit that would be --
     I mean, if you want to encourage the broadcasters --
              MR. DUHAMEL:  Encouraging the selling of a
    station, to give tax credits to the person.
              MR. RUIZ:  Monetary, some kind of monetary gain
    for them.  That's more encouragement.
              MR. YEE:  Are you talking about some kind of
    economic incentives for the licensee?
              MR. RUIZ:  Some kind of economic incentive,
              MS. SOHN:  For the licensee to sell his station,
    like the minority tax certificate that was unfortunately
    repealed by Congress a couple years ago?  Or incentives to
    make, let's say, a multicast channel available, or both? 
              MR. RUIZ:  I think it's more an incentive for
    the multicast channel.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Recommending that Congress
    consider some kind of an incentive to make multicast
    channels available to minorities ought to be -- 

              MR. MASUR:  Underserved segments of the
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Excuse me, okay. 
              MR. CRUZ:  But can it include a recommendation
    not only in terms of employment and programming, but also
    ownership?  Are we alluding to that also in your comments,
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  I don't know. 
              MR. CRUZ:  My concern is that --
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  It will be for underserved
    communities and not run by them? 
              MR. CRUZ:  That we somehow or another think in
    terms of the possibility of opening up the entrepreneur
    possibilities to women and minorities and underserved
    communities, in light of the fact, the more I read in
    terms of what the digital revolution really may bring, the
    more I see where there may be 5, 6, 8, 20 extra channels. 
    What can we do either in leasing forms, partnership forms,
    or some kind of a creative entrepreneurial device there to
    encourage ownership or participation in that kind of a
              I'm greatly concerned as a minority on the great
    concentration in lesser and lesser hands of this
    particular medium and spectrum, and if we can do something
    to encourage in that direction, not only programming,

    employment, but also ownership possibilities, I think it
    would carry us to that extent, where I think we don't
    fully comprehend what the digital revolution has in store. 
    And if we don't work everyone in, in my estimation it will
    be a failed revolution, and I think we should. 
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  How about something that
    talks about incentives to make multicast channels
    available to underserved communities via leasing,
    partnership, or other creative means that would encourage
    or lead to broader ownership? 
              MR. GOODMON:  Ownership or participation.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Ownership or participation. 
    Is that okay with everyone? 
              MR. RUIZ:  Fine.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Yes? 
              MR. CRUZ:  I've got some.  I can submit it to
    Karen and she in turn can disburse it accordingly.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  It will have to be within a
    day or two, remember. 
              MR. CRUZ:  Yes. 
              MR. BENTON:  I was very taken by Jim Yee's paper
    here about the independent television service.  In
    England, of course Channel 4 is all aimed at minority
    audiences.  In fact, it's a commercial channel in England
    aimed at minority audience interests.  And I would hope

    that some of Jim's outstanding comments and suggestions
    could be integrated into this diversity statement, because
    -- I don't know, Jim; maybe you have some further thoughts
    about this.  But I just was taken by this paper.  I think
    it's great.
              MR. YEE:  But my only interest, my interest
    basically, is, using a more appropriate term, the
    underserved audiences and communities, because that would
    cover the whole swath of communities of people and color
    and gender as well.
              Really, Charles, Thank you, but I think it's all
    stated in the report.  It's a matter of trying to
    integrate some of those recommendations hopefully in the
    final draft.  Thank you. 
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Yes, Frank.
              MR. BLYTHE:  One of the other areas, too, that I
    think is not considered in here is you have an economic
    incentive for the broadcaster to offer the channel in some
    form, but also, more often than not minority communities
    don't have an economic power base from which to work from
    in developing programming or even buying facilities or
    broadcast operations or even leasing the channels.
              Is there -- we talk about different forms of
    funding for what we might call noncommercial broadcasting
    or noncommercial programming.  Could there be something in

    this language here that offers the opportunity for
    minorities to take advantage or underserved audiences to
    take advantage of some of the funding apparatus that we're
    sort of recommending in other areas of this report, the
    fees on the spectrum or something like that that are going
    to be allocated to a programming stream or a programming
    fund or even, maybe not so much the trust fund, but some
    of those ancillary fees that are floating around in these
    reports, which haven't been designated for anything like
    that, but should be open to minority communities to have
    access to?
              MS. CHARREN:  Well, that 10 percent appears. 
    Where was that, Gigi?
              MS. SOHN:  That's in the education section.  It
    talks about a portion of the --
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Yes, we dealt with that very
    explicitly in the education section by setting aside a
    portion of whatever moneys are there for underserved
    communities and independent programmers.
              MS. SOHN:  It's the paragraph on page 6 going on
    to 7.
              MS. CHARREN:  Right.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  We could make a reference to
    that here.
              MR. BLYTHE:  Yes, have some reference made in

    here that those two are connected.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Yes, Jim? 
              MR. GOODMON:  "To encourage effective
    participation, the Advisory Committee recommends that
    broadcasters voluntarily redouble their efforts."  Now, is
    this in a code, our suggestion for what should be in the
    voluntary code?
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  If it isn't now, we intended
    to put in the suggested standards of conduct a provision
    of this sort. 
              MR. GOODMON:  That's what you mean by that. 
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Yes. 
              MR. GOODMON:  Underserved participation.
              Let me just point out that in our minimum
    standards report we just talked about diversity in
    employment, not in programming, so I'm glad, Les, you
    added this.  We mentioned two things that I want to point
    out we're leaving out.
              One is that we believe that the FCC's EEO rules
    were very effective in terms of improving the employment
    numbers in the industry and that's good, and that we
    support their -- we support the Commission's work in the
    area of coming up with some way of ensuring
    nondiscrimination and participation by all in the process. 
    So we said that in here.  I would like to see it in here. 

    But we also said this should be part of the voluntary
    code.  So I'm just pointing out that we are throwing that
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Okay, good point.

              MS. SOHN:  Could I just, a point of
    clarification.  You had mentioned something about taking
    the diversity of employment stuff out of Jim's thing.  You
    were under the impression that it was -- you were talking
    about taking that out.  Are you still talking about taking
    that out?
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Yes, of course.  It's not a
    mandatory requirement. 
              MR. MASUR:  We put it in the body of the report.
              MS. SOHN:  Okay, I just wanted to clarify this,
    and also clarify that what the court struck down was not
    the reporting requirements, it was only the numbers
    requirements, just to be clear, and there's a letter on
    public representation mentioned in here.  I thought I
    recalled you saying something about it being
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  The idea is we aren't even
    recommending a mandatory thing there, so it belongs here.
              MR. GOODMON:  Right.  We were never recommending
    a mandatory.  Can we talk about supporting the

    Commission's efforts to finding a way to do this? 
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  I think we could all be in
    agreement on that.  Yes, absolutely.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Yes, fine.
              MS. CHARREN:  The 10 percent is in the paper I
    submitted relating to page 6, the last paragraph, which
    includes a sentence about independent and minority
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Thanks, Peggy. 
              MS. CHARREN:  Any time.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Anything else on diversity? 
    Any other comments, questions, or additions?
              (No response.)
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Let's move on.
              MS. CHARREN:  Would you like to talk about your
              MS. STRAUSS:  You mean on captioning?
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Yes. 
              MS. STRAUSS:  Sure.  Okay, I assume you're
    referring to the October 29th memo that I sent around?
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Yes. 
              MS. STRAUSS:  Actually, there's two documents. 
    One is October 29th and one is October 30th.  The October
    30th is just a revision of the history section.  I just
    wanted to clarify some of the points made.

              Really, there was nothing in there that is --
    it's basically just a clarification of the history of
    captioning, beginning with line 21 going on to the
    Television Decoder Circuitry Act and pretty much ending
    with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 obligations for
              I thought it would be helpful for the readers of
    the report to have a full understanding of what's required
    and what's not required, and in the last paragraph I also
    talked about video descriptions and how Congress has
    directed the FCC to have a report on video descriptions,
    but the FCC has chosen not at this time to require video
    descriptions.  That's the history of the issue.  Again,
    that was the October 30th memo.
              The October 29th memo, what I did basically was
    just to pull together the captioning and disability
    requirements seemed to be all over the place.  They were
    in the appendix, they were in the body, and there just
    wasn't any cohesiveness or continuity of thought.  So what
    I did was, I again started off with just a brief summary
    of what's required, the first couple of sentences, and
    then went on to say that the Television Decoder Circuitry
    Act requires that new television technologies, such as
    digital technologies, be capable of closed captions and
    that digital technology will open up new avenues to

    enhance and expand captioning, and then said that:  "The
    committee recommends that broadcasters take full advantage
    of new digital closed captioning technologies."
              This is nothing new.  We've said this before.  I
    believe we've reached consensus on this before.  Again, I
    just try to redo it just to make it smooth, just to have
    it be more smooth.
              The third paragraph talks about how the FCC's
    rules on captioning -- the FCC recently issued an order on
    reconsideration on captioning.  The FCC had issued its
    initial rules on captioning in August of 1997 and those
    rules were challenged.  Amongst the challenges was a
    challenge that had sought captioning of advertisements. 
    Just recently, just about a month ago, the FCC issued its
    final ruling on captioning and rejected captioning of
              What that means is that the various minimum
    requirements that Jim and Harold and I had talked about in
    the minimum public interest requirements relating to PSA's
    would not apply to captions.  They would not have to be
    captioned under the FCC's rules.  I didn't know this in
    prior meetings.  Now this is confirmed.
              So in our discussions it dawned on me that it's
    ridiculous to -- or unfair, I should say, to create these
    new public interest obligations on PSA's and public

    affairs programming and political programming and not have
    it apply to deaf and hard of hearing people.  So that's
    why in the mandated minimum requirements there is now
    another section on captioning.
              There really are two ways to do this.  One is to
    just say under each of the sections, the public service
    announcements and the political programming, that those
    should be captioned.  Another way to do it is to have a
    separate section and, and Jim opted for a separate
    section, so it seems to stand out.  But really it's just
    extending what applies to the general public to people who
    are deaf and hard of hearing.
              The third paragraph I put in to clarify why this
    other news section is now contained in the minimum
    mandated requirements.  So what it says is that the FCC's
    rules exempt certain categories of programming, including
    advertisements under five minutes and some other areas,
    and then I go on to say:  "The benefits derived from
    recommendations made elsewhere in this report on PSA's,
    public affairs programming, and political discourse may
    not reach deaf and hard of hearing viewers.  At least
    they're not required to do so."  
              And for that reason within that section, the
    minimum requirements, a new section is added for the
    gradual expansion of captioning on PSA's, public affairs

    programming, and political programming.
              Let me just say that, although the FCC has
    tentatively decided not to -- what they've decided is that
    programming by definition does not include advertising or,
    stated otherwise, advertisements are not programming.  I
    think about three of the Commissioners disagreed with this
    point of view.  The fourth Commissioner said that he would
    like to cover advertising, but he didn't find enough
    legislative authority.
              So this is basically just a recommendation from
    our committee, despite the FCC's ruling on this, to say
    that we recognize that it's very important that if we're
    going to require a minimum number of PSA's and access to
    political programming that this community not be
    forgotten.  And it's basically saying to the FCC, rethink
    what you're doing or go to Congress, and if we go to
    Congress this committee has made a recommendation to say
    this is very, very important.
              So I say that because I'm trying to preempt any
    arguments that say, well, the FCC said no, so why should
    we.  We should because we have been asked to give our
    recommendations and we should say that this is important.
              The next item under disability access to digital
    programming is the provision of video description.  Again,
    we've talked about that.  There's nothing new here.  All

    it says is that -- let me just go to the next page -- that
    broadcasters allocate sufficient audio bandwidth for the
    transmission and delivery of video description.  
              It's not as I would have liked, but we decided
    not to put forth any recommendations for a specific amount
    of video description.  This is just saying provide
    sufficient audio bandwidth.
              The next section talks about ancillary and
    supplementary services and specifically talks about how
    broadcasters should provide disability access to those
    services.  I've added a sentence that says "where doing so
    would not impose an undue burden."  I'm trying to make
    this parallel to other language in the Telecommunications
    Act, specifically section 255, which requires access to
    telecommunications products and services, and also make it
    parallel to the closed captioning section that says that
    captioning has to be provided unless there is an undue
    burden or an economic burden.
              Then finally -- again, none of this is new.  The
    only thing that's new here is the PSA's and public
    affairs.  I've already presented this many times.  It's
    just rewritten.
              Then the final section is just a general
    recommendation of our committee to have the FCC and other
    regulatory bodies work with set manufacturers so that

    modifications in audio channels, decoders, and other
    technical areas be built to ensure efficient disability
              I would tell you that I've been told that the
    first generation of television receivers in fact may not
    be capable of decoding closed captions.  So this is a
    particular concern.  The FCC is in the process now of
    creating -- or they will be proposing standards to have
    television receivers, digital television receivers, be
    capable of decoding the captions.  But apparently the
    first generation, there's some real question as to whether
    they will be able to.
              It shouldn't be a problem for a while because
    they will be simulcast in analog and digital, programs
    will be simulcast in analog and digital.  But it's still
    nevertheless troublesome that this didn't occur.  So that
    kind of takes care of that section. 
              MR. GOODMON:  One thing we talked about here
    was, on the notion of should we talk about must-carry, how
    this fits into that.  That is, if we're going to have
    these audio channels and these data channels to do this,
    then they need to be carried.  So this was another reason
    we talked about must-carry.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Ted.
              MR. DUHAMEL:  One question now.  On the PSA's

    and public affairs, you're saying also if it doesn't cause
    an undue burden?  Because I don't detect that there. 
              MS. STRAUSS:  I believe that that is not in the
    current draft.

              MR. DUHAMEL:  It should be.  It really should
              MS. STRAUSS:  Well, it's open to discussion. 
    Jim felt strongly that it shouldn't be and I agreed with
    him, so I would like to hear a discussion on it. 
              MR. DUHAMEL:  It's been there all the time until
    this draft. 
              MS. STRAUSS:  No.  The PSA's and public affairs
    wasn't on the table before. 
              MR. DUHAMEL:  But it's always had this undue
    burden deal, and now all of a sudden we're going to add a
    requirement and you pull that off. 
              MS. STRAUSS:  Well, it's just not there.  It's
    not that I pulled it off.  It's not there to begin with. 
              MR. GOODMON:  This is a very sizable part of the
    American community.  What we said -- we gave whole lots of
    time here and tried to go to where the FCC is.  So what we
    were trying to say is that this is really important. 
    Obviously, you can't do it right from the beginning.  You
    start small and grow and try to get to it by the mandated

    time the FCC has.
              As a statement of the importance of this, we
    said -- I couldn't decide what an undue burden is, if it
    costs this or if it costs that.  We just said I don't know
    what that is, and everybody ought to be able to get to
    this by 2006.
              MR. DUHAMEL:  I think the obligation is to prove
    that it's a burden, but leave the undue burden there and
    it gets in, because there are some real problems that you
    get into. 
              MR. GOODMON:  No, this requires a real
    commitment from broadcasters to do this, and we're going
    to have to step up on this one.  This is important.
              MR. DUHAMEL:  Well, the proposal in South Dakota
    that the hard of hearing or deaf tried to get in there two
    years ago would have cost South Dakota broadcasters a
    million dollars a year.  Now, to me that's a burden. 
              MS. STRAUSS:  I'm not familiar with that
              MR. DUHAMEL:  The response was nobody cared. 
              MS. STRAUSS:  I can tell you that the cost of
    captioning an advertisement is $200, just to let you know,
    just so you have a ballpark figure for a PSA.
              MR. DUHAMEL:  I'm not worried about that.  The
    PSA's aren't the problem.  In some of the live programs,

    it means everything we'd have to do, we'd have to call
    Colorado Springs or Washington and do everything in and
    out, and that's expensive.  That was a million dollars a
    year to do that. 
              And nobody cared.  They tried to pass a tax on
    the cable and the cable said:  What the hell are we doing
    with this thing? 
              MS. STRAUSS:  Most of that is required anyway
    now under the FCC rules.
              MR. DUHAMEL:  Well, then let's go by the FCC
              MS. STRAUSS:  This fills the gap.
              MR. DUHAMEL:  See, that's why I'm saying, at
    least we should -- you know, if there can be a million
    dollars a year in a small state, I think that at least we
    should leave the undue burden in there.  Then at that
    point if we can say it costs $200 and that's it, maybe
    that's not a big problem.  Now, $200 a day, it gets to be
    big money, too.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Karen, how do you feel about
    those words, "undue burden," because obviously you pulled
    it out. 
              MS. STRAUSS:  Well, Jim knows that -- 
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  You pulled it out. 
              MS. STRAUSS:  Yes, obviously I would like them

    to not be there.  I think that I have less of a problem
    with them being there than Jim. 
              MR. GOODMON:  I tell you what.  This is not much
    different than the rules.  One thing I learned about this,
    and Harold maybe, too, is what the rules are about this. 
    And this is in the rules anyhow.  I mean, we're adding to
    it a little bit. 
              MS. STRAUSS:  Let me clarify it.  We are adding
    to it.  We are adding to it because, as I said, the rules
    aren't covering advertisements, so they're not going to be
    covering political advertisements and they won't be
    covering PSA's.
              I don't have -- 
              MR. GOODMON:  For the most part. 
              MS. STRAUSS:  Right, for the most part. 
              MR. GOODMON:  For the most part. 
              MS. STRAUSS:  I have not as much problem with
    including undue burden because I think that it's so
    inexpensive.  I think that the technologies are changing
    at such a rapid pace that even live programs with speech
    recognition, the costs are going to just plummet. 
              MR. DUHAMEL:  If that happens, then there's no
    problem here. 
              MS. STRAUSS:  I would like it not in, but if it
    means not having it in, this section in or not, it's not

    essential that undue burden be left out. 
              MR. GLASER:  Just one clarification.  I do not
    accept the assertion that transparent speaker-independent
    speech recognition is going to happen any time in the next
    15 years in a way that would substitute for human
    transcript creation.  There are all kinds of footnotes and
    special cases and we can have a technical discussion like
    that.  But do not assume in your cost analysis that it
    becomes transparent speaker-independent in any short term.
              MS. STRAUSS:  Okay.  Well, even other -- there
    are still other technologies, captioning technologies,
    that are bringing down the costs, and captioning
    competition, because the new FCC rules have created so
    much competition. 
              MR. GLASER:  I'm a big fan of captioning for
    many, many reasons, but I just wanted to, on the technical
    point, to weigh in.
              MS. CHARREN:  When you say it doesn't apply to
    political advertising, you don't mean to political
    discourse speech as we've been encouraging it in this
              MS. STRAUSS:  Well, I think that some of the FCC
    rules will in fact cover political discourse. 
              MS. CHARREN:  Okay, because I think it's -- 
              MS. STRAUSS:  I think in fact most of them will.

              MS. CHARREN:  Because I think that's a real
    problem in a democracy, that they can see everything
    except -- 
              MS. STRAUSS:  The FCC rules will not cover
    political advertisements. 
              MR. RUIZ:  Karen. 
              MS. STRAUSS:  Yes.
              MR. RUIZ:  I have a concern that we have not
    addressed at all the Spanish language broadcaster who has
    the potential of reaching 24 million, 25 million people.
              MS. STRAUSS:  Jose, I have really good news on
    that.  One of the other things that we had challenged,
    that the National Association of the Deaf had challenged,
    was the failure of the FCC to require captioning on
    Spanish language programming, and we won.  So in fact
    there is a requirement in place.  It's an extended
    requirement.  It's over a 12-year period, a 12-year phase-
    in.  But given that there's virtually no captioning now,
    that's acceptable.
              So over the next 12 years, it will have to be
    actually 100 percent of Spanish language program captioned
    that's not exempt.  There are certain exemptions for late
    night programming and other categories.  But we won that
              We also increased the amount, just so you know. 

    The original rules had been 95 percent of all non-exempt
    programming and we're now up to 100 percent.  So it was a
    significant victory.  We just lost on the advertising.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Yes, Richard. 
              MR. MASUR:  I just wanted to ask one question. 
    Karen, do you have enough information about the FCC ruling
    to know whether or not there was a conversation that took
    place making a distinction between commercial advertising
    and PSA's? 
              MS. STRAUSS:  There's no distinction.  There are
    certain PSA's that are covered.  PSA's that are Federally
    funded or produced are covered under Title IV of the
    Americans with Disabilities Act, but there is no
    distinction drawn.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  What percentage of that? 
              MS. STRAUSS:  I would think that's a fairly
    small percentage.  So no, I don't think there's any
              MR. MASUR:  So in other words, I guess what I'm
    asking is, can one make the distinction or in approaching
    this do you open up the floodgates that if stations, for
    example -- are you mandating that the stations have to
    caption these or that the producers of the spots have to
    caption them? 
              MS. STRAUSS:  Typically the obligations fall

    onto the broadcasters and the cable networks, and then
    they can shift the responsibility to the producers. 
              MR. MASUR:  Because I would be very concerned if
    the FCC under the First Amendment or whatever takes the
    position that it's only a program produced of under a
    certain length, whether that's a commercial advertisement
    or a PSA, and they suddenly drop this enormous burden on
    the broadcasters.  There has to be some way to drop the
    burden on the producers of the product, not on the
    broadcasters in this situation. 
              MS. STRAUSS:  The FCC's reach is generally onto
    the broadcasters.  They can't reach the producers.  That's
    the problem.  Just so that you know, it is interesting. 
    They did actually draw that distinction.  Long commercial
    advertisements --
              MS. CHARREN:  Infomercials, you mean? 
              MS. STRAUSS:  Infomercials are covered.  It's
    only -- which makes one wonder why they drew this
              MS. CHARREN:  Since they're so creepy anyway. 
              MS. STRAUSS:  Well, I could get into political
    reasoning here, except that they just did it.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  There is a term that they use
    at the FCC, "undue burden." 
              MS. STRAUSS:  Yes, there is "undue burden" in

    the FCC.  It's written into the law, actually.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Are we done with --
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Okay, yes.  So we'll
    integrate these recommendations in. 
              MS. STRAUSS:  Thank you.  And the other
    recommendation, of course, is that it be pulled out of the
    appendix and be put right in the report.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  I think to be in fact
    consistent we'll leave some of the history.  I don't want
    to get into that in great detail. 
              MS. STRAUSS:  The history is in section 2 and
    the recommendations are in section 3.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  We'll figure out a way to
    make this work.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Peggy.
              MS. CHARREN:  I have -- this is I think a
    correction of fact which is fixed on the next page, so you
    have two statements that don't quite go along.  On page
    22, the third paragraph, talking about the children's --
              MS. SCOTT:  What section are you on, Peggy?
              MS. CHARREN:  This is part 2, not part 3. 
    Sorry.  It's the public interest standard in television
    broadcasting.  I just want to make sure I say this out
              MS. SCOTT:  What page, Peggy?

              MS. CHARREN:  22.  It's the third paragraph, the
    second sentence:  The Children's Television Act didn't
    exactly mandate three hours.  Three hours is a guideline
    and it's just an error of fact which I think we don't want
    to have, and it's fixed.

              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  We will change it.
              MS. CHARREN:  It's fixed on the next page, 23,
    because it talks about guidelines on the next page.
              Then there's something that I am just commenting
    on as a First Amendment supporter for a long time.  The
    second paragraph says, and this is something you may not
    want to touch, but I just want to go on record as saying I
    don't sort of love this.  The second paragraph says:  "The
    public interest in affirmatively serving children has had
    a number of other expressions."
              The next sentence to me is not really serving
    the public interest of children and since I'm going to
    sign this report I thought I might as well say that.  It
    says:  "Broadcasters are forbidden from transmitting any
    obscene, indecent, or profane language over the airways
    from 6:00 to 10:00 p.m."
              I didn't like the idea that the Congress and the
    FCC was moving in on indecent programming.  I filed on the
    other side of that.  I don't think it's a way of

    affirmatively serving children and I thought maybe we
    could just leave it out. 
              MS. SOHN:  Obscene programming is banned all the
              MS. CHARREN:  Yes, but indecent isn't.  Indecent
    is part of -- you can cross of "indecent" maybe and I'll
    feel better about it.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  I think we can take it out
    safely without in any way violating the intent or the
    thrust of what we're doing.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  That's fine.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  So we will take it out.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Feel better, Peggy?
              MS. CHARREN:  I think if you're going to take it
    out -- 
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  I was afraid of what kind of
    language you'd use if we didn't take it out.
              MS. CHARREN:  I can understand that. 
              MR. GOODMON:  Shouldn't we leave -- I mean, this
    is true.  Not the connection to children's, but --
              MS. CHARREN:  Well, I think that that's not
    true, the perception of whether or not this really serves
    the public interest in affirmatively serving children.  I
    think you take "indecent" out of there and you take sex

    education out of there.  You can leave the rest of it
              MR. GOODMON:  I'd suggest that we leave it, but
    we separate it because it's true that we have these codes,
    we have these things now.
              MS. CHARREN:  Otherwise you take out the first
    sentence and then you can say it. 
              MR. GOODMON:  Just disconnect them somehow.
              MS. CHARREN:  Right, that's all.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  We will work that through so
    that there is not a connection between children and

              MS. CHARREN:  And stopping indecent programming.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Except for my children.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  The last major heading that
    we have to discuss is political discourse.  Yes, Rob?
              MR. GLASER:  I am not expert in this topic, but
    I need to head out early, so I wanted to just add a
    comment or two on this -- 
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Please, weigh in.
              MR. GLASER:  -- and then unfortunately I have to
    leave.  I think this is a topic that, in terms of by
    number of syllables, the report spends probably more time
    on than any other single area.  I just would hope that we

    could take it a little bit from the "on the one hand, on
    the other hand" mode that it's in now, to at least be a
    little bit crisper about some of the things that we have a
    strong consensus on.
              I think earlier in today's session the statement
    that the broadcasters will sort of on a matching basis do
    their part in the context of overall reform.  I don't
    think that comes through as lucidly or as sharply as it
    needs to, and I think, while what it means for this
    industry to do its part may be amorphous, I don't want --
     I think we will not achieve as much of our goal as we
    could if we let that get lost and be seen as mealy-
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Fine.  Yes, Newt.
              MR. MINOW:  I know I'm in a clear minority on
    this, but for the record:  When we started out on this
    task, the then head of the National Association of
    Broadcasters, Eddy Fritz, made what in my opinion was a
    very sensible proposal.  He said:  We will provide a
    certain number of hours without charge to political
    candidates and in exchange the candidates will not buy any
    time on television.
              He quickly walked away from that proposal even
    though I supported it, and I still support it.
              MR. MASUR:  That's why he walked away, I think.

              MR. MINOW:  I do not think that simply providing
    5 minutes a night for 30 days prior to the election is
    going to deal at all with the fundamental problem of
    political discourse in this country.  We just finished an
    election where the lowest turnout was accompanied by the
    greatest expenditure for negative television commercials.
              So I believe we should go to the system which is
    true in many other countries, particularly in England,
    where a certain amount of time is provided to the parties
    and you cannot buy or sell time for a political purpose. 
    I intend to write that as a dissent.  I just wanted to go
    on the record and say that's what I think.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Thank you. 
              MS. CHARREN:  I like that. 
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Peggy, you can join in the
              MS. SOHN:  I'll join your dissent too, Newt. 
    But I also want to go on the record as saying that I'll be
    filing a separate statement.
              Number one, I want to agree with Rob 100 percent
    that we have to be really, really strong in endorsing
    comprehensive campaign financing reform legislation with a
    free time component and enumerate how the broadcasting
    industry is going to work with public interest advocates

    and campaign finance reform advocates in helping that get
              But because I'm a cynic and skeptical, I'm going
    to be filing a separate statement, to which I hope many of
    you will sign on, calling for the FCC to impose some
    mandate of free time as well if Congress indeed does not
    take our recommendation and goes ahead and passes campaign
    finance reform.
              I've seen too much in the last Congress to
    really, really believe -- I mean, I want to believe that
    if broadcasters join with us and really push on the Hill
    for this legislation that it'll happen.  I'm skeptical, so
    I'll be filing a separate statement.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Thank you. 
              Yes, Richard. 
              MR. MASUR:  As much as I agree with the aim that
    Gigi has here, I just also want to say for the record that
    I think -- and this is just an opinion; it's not holy writ
    by any means -- I think the best way to get movement is by
    not offering a way out.  I am glad that the consensus
    opinion is in this carrot without a stick mode, rather
    than the carrot and the stick, because I think the stick
    is a relatively fragile one.  it's not the stick that Mr.
    Minow is offering, which would be a big stick, but this
    stick is a relatively fragile one.  But the carrot could

    be enough of a rallying point, and I hope it will be, for
    broadcasters as well as for the many, many advocates that
    campaign finance reform has in this country to rally
    around and say:  Okay, someone has stepped up to the plate
    and put something on the table, just to mix my metaphors,
    and we have to force this issue, now the time has come.
              I hope that that -- I'm fairly cynical as well,
    but I hope Gigi's wrong about this and I hope that that
    will be sufficient to get some real movement in this
    Congress, which I think will not be the last Congress.  It
    will be a different Congress, one hopes.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Let me address your issue,
    Newt.  I yield to no one in my passion for doing something
    in this area, and long before Eddy Fritz made the
    statement about that that you quoted he performed the
    nonpolitical equivalent of calling me a putzhead.
              MR. MINOW:  You could have gotten elected.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  So let me say that I don't
    think what you're advocating can work in a system where
    there is a First Amendment.  It works where there isn't a
    First Amendment.  There is no effective way and no
    reasonable way of shutting off private political discourse
    through commercial advertising here, particularly since
    it's very easy to do if you simply frame it as issue
    advocacy.  But there's no way of doing that, and we're

    going to have to operate and will operate within a system
    in which there is private speech as well as some public
              It seems to me, to be realistic and effective,
    we have to look for ways of providing incentives and
    opportunities for candidates who have no voice in this
    process to be able to get some message across.  That's
    what we have tried to do here.
              I happen to believe that this one element -- we
    have two elements here.  One is where we have this very
    strong consensus that we want to suggest that where there
    is comprehensive -- a challenge grant to Congress.  The
    other is what you are pretty dismissive of, the 5 minutes
    and 30 days, and I would suggest my view is that if indeed
    we move in that direction it would have a profound effect.
              If all broadcasters provided 5 minutes in
    innovative forums every night for 30 nights, which means
    that you're talking about in most markets a whole lot
    more, obviously, you're going to give candidates who now
    have no message out there in races that matter, and with
    the freedom to broadcasters to choose the format, the
    candidates, and all the rest of it, so you're not really
    imposing here, a dramatic enhancement of discourse.
              It is one of the ways in which you can have a
    win-win situation, and it shouldn't be the only thing that

    we strive to do.  But realistically within the context of
    our political system, it I think is much more realistic
    than looking for a system in which there is all the time
    provided and nothing else.  I just don't think that's
              MR. MINOW:  I take and respect your point, but I
    would answer it this way.  No one has the constitutional
    right to be on television, even the President of the
    United States.  The President of the United States can ask
    the networks for time; they can say no.  Ross Perot found
    out in 1996 when he went to the networks with a check and
    said, I'd like to buy time.  He was told no.
              No one has a constitutional right to be on
    television.  Television is unique in that respect.  There
    is nothing -- radio as well.  There's nothing like it.  So
    it's a very different area.  We ought to take it to the
    Supreme Court and find out whether that's correct or not.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  I would take issue with you
    in this respect.  There is a statutory requirement that
    has been out there for a long time -- no one's suggested
    that it is unconstitutional -- that reasonable access be
    provided to candidates to buy time.
              MR. MINOW:  Because it's never been challenged.
    First of all, "reasonable access" has not been defined and
    it's never been challenged.

              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Frank. 
              MR. CRUZ:  The unique thing in this area that
    we're working in is that -- I understand the purity of the
    First Amendment arguments and I understand the
    significance of them and how important they are.  Yet the
    broadcast industry in the past has in some manner, way,
    shape or form said no to tobacco, in some manner, shape or
    form has said no to advertising to hard liquor.  Yet we
    modified --
              MS. SOHN:  Congress said no to tobacco. 
              MR. CRUZ:  What I'm saying is I'm not
    necessarily sure of the purity and the applicability in
    the pure legal sense of the First Amemdment to something
    like this, when you have an industry already that has had
    those kinds of impositions put on them and no one has
    said, hey, First Amendment, let me advertise all the
    tobacco I want, let me advertise all the condoms on the
    air that I want.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  The Supreme Court, Frank,
    has made very firm distinctions many times between
    commercial speech and political speech.  So there is a
    very real distinction to be made here. 
              MR. CRUZ:  But it's advertising.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Who else? 
              MR. GOODMON:  Let me make sure I understand

    that.  We included this as mandatory in our minimum
    standards and we're saying it's not going to be mandatory,
    it's voluntary, it's not going to be in the minimum
    standards.  Is that it?
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  I think what we'll do in the
    minimum standards is we'll try and work out a section that
    doesn't get into the specifics of a specific proposal, but
    talks about political discourse.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  No, I think we had agreed
    earlier on that we were going to take it out and it would
    have its own section.  That was my understanding. 
              MR. BENTON:  No, I think we postponed the
    discussion until we had this discussion.

              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  This is our last meeting. 
    When are we going to postpone it 'til? 
              MR. BENTON:  No, I mean earlier when you were
    trying to bring closure to it. 
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  I thought we determined that
    the areas that have their own sections would have their
    own sections.  If I'm mistaken in that, then we can
    reverse the whole thing.
              Yes, Richard. 
              MR. MASUR:  I think when we were discussing
    that, and maybe I was not paying close attention, I

    pointed out the fact that the way this was laid out in the
    body of the document was a recommendation that -- and I
    quote -- "this need not be mandated by the Federal
    Government; it can and should be a voluntary standard
    agreed to and promoted by the industry" for the 5 minutes
    for 30 days concept.
              And then there is the later concept which is the
    linkage between, which is, as Norm refers to it, as the
    matching grant offer, which is also certainly not a
    mandate at this point.  The concept being that if Congress
    were to act on campaign finance reform in a way that took
    into account the involvement of some kind of contribution
    by broadcasters to seeing that happen, that that would be
    incorporated into the law, there would be no need to have
    that as a mandate in here.
              I would like to recommend that we stick with
    that right now because I think it's been fairly clearly
    laid out that this is too complex an issue to incorporate
    into a short paragraph in any kind of meaningful way in
    the mandate section in the appendix, number one; and
    number two, frankly, that it creates sufficient problems
    for a sufficient number of people.  And I will point out
    that Shelby's one of them, and I might be one of them,
    too, based on the language that's incorporated in the body
    here, which unless we were to pick up that language almost

    in toto, which really would be dilatory and ridiculous --
     just to be redundant -- I think that we should probably
    leave it out of the mandate.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  When this Commission was
    formed, this probably was the most important issue that
    faced us at the time.  I've said this to some of you and I
    really believe this.  If this Commission is to have any
    legacy whatsoever, it will be tieing what we are doing
    here on political discourse to real meaningful campaign
    finance reform.
              If you want to put it in the mandatory minimum
    requirements, it waters it down, it becomes ridiculous,
    and I for one will not support it there.  I think here we
    have something that really can mean something, and it can
    mean something ten years from now, not two months from now
    when half of these reports are going to be thrown in the
    garbage by the people that read them.
              I really feel very passionately about this
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Charles. 
              MR. BENTON:  Two points.  First, I think Cass
    Sunstein's tenth point here is right on the mark and
    should be included.  Basically, Cass Sunstein's tenth
    point is right on the mark here.  He's essentially saying
    that the section that deals, our political discourse

    section, the context of it is campaign finance reform and
    to it should be added a section on democratic benefits of
    an informed citizenry, which he lays out in a very good
    paragraph here.  I think that should be included, very
              The second point.  Les, I hear what you're
    saying, but I'd like to test the theory here because we've
    kept talking about Jim's minimum public interest
    standards, not requirements, standards for digital
    television now.  And section E on page 2, I'd like to know
    what's wrong with this.  What do you not like about this? 
    Let's go specifically to the content.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  I just told you. 
              MR. BENTON:  What is wrong with this?  If you
    don't like anything here, then let's talk about it.  But
    let's go to the specific instead of just saying, I don't
    want to talk about it and I don't want anything mandatory. 
    I think this is irrational.  Let's look at the specifics. 
    If you don't like it, fine; let's talk about it.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  I've talked about it twice,
    Charles.  I'm not going to talk about it any more.  I've
    made my point about why I don't like it in there. 
              MR. BENTON:  Why? 
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  If you haven't heard it, then
    obviously you haven't heard it. 

              MR. BENTON:  But what's wrong with it?  What's
    wrong with the specifics here?  Deal with the specifics.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  I don't want it in the
    minimum mandatory requirements. 
              MR. BENTON:  Why? 
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  I don't. 
              MR. BENTON:  Why? 
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  I don't because it's
    offensive, okay. 
              MR. BENTON:  Offensive why?
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Charles -- 
              MR. MASUR:  If I may, it's at direct variance
    with what we have on the body of the report, which is not
    -- it's not a mandatory requirement. 
              MR. GOODMON:  It's not a mandatory requirement. 
    It's giving a choice, either this or that. 
              MR. MASUR:  No, no, no.  But if I may, Charles,
    this is minimum public interest standards, okay, and in
    the body of the report it's specifically laid out that the
    5 minutes over 30 days is meant to be a voluntary program. 
    So how can you include it in a minimum standard?  It's
              MR. GOODMON:  We need to reconcile the two, is
    the reason I brought it up.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  And it is the case that at

    this point if we include a mandatory standard in political
    discourse it dilutes if not undermines the broader notion
    of we want Congress to act in a comprehensive way and
    broadcasters will do their part.  There's no reason for
    them to do any part if you impose something mandatory, at
    least at that stage.
              So I'm very much inclined to not put this into
    the mandatory section. 
              MR. MASUR:  Can I ask a question to that,
    because Robert's here now, and if this would be
    comfortable for you to answer.  I'm operating under the
    assumption that there is interest in the broad broadcaster
    community, in the NAB and the wider broadcaster community,
    in promoting a better way of doing campaigns in this
    country, political campaigns.  Is it accurate, is our
    assumption accurate, that if Congress were to act in a
    comprehensive fashion on campaign finance reform, that
    broadcasters would come to the table to participate in
    that in a positive way, to try and throw something into
    the mix that would encourage Congress to move forward? 
    Would that be accurate or are we just blowing smoke here?
              And I know you can't, you're not empowered to
    speak for everybody on earth. 
              MR. DECHERD:  I'm empowered to speak for no one
    other than myself, which I think the challenge with

    everything we're discussing here is there is a presumption
    that the broadcast community is unified on all these
    subjects, that there is a consensus or a series of
    consensuses or consensi, whatever the plural is.  That's
    not the case, and I think it would be a real mistake for
    us to make any assumption or speculate about what a group
    of broadcasters, which does not necessarily mean the NAB -
    - there are other groups.  I have mentioned some of them.
              MSTV of course is mostly concerned with
    technical matters, but the Television Operators Caucus
    represents most of the large group operators.  There are
    certainly individual station owners.  There are smaller
    group owners, all of whom are very individualistic in how
    they view these matters and, depending on how campaign
    finance reform or any number of other things we're
    discussing are brought forward, would take more or less
    active roles depending on the framework in which these
    issues are brought forward and the manner in which
    broadcasters, broadly defined, are invited into a
              My concern, which I've said to the point of
    being tedious, is that there is in my mind an inverse
    relationship between the specificity of this committee's
    report and its likely impact.  The more specific we
    become, the more highly targeted issues we try to address,

    the more the word "mandate" or "expectation" or
    "requirement" is used, all of the aforementioned people
    are less likely to take this seriously.
              And I'm not talking about the NAB.  I'm talking
    about companies like ours and Harold's and Paul's and I
    think many others who are represented here.  But we're
    not, as you noted, empowered to speak for anyone.
              I'll only say this once today and I apologize
    for being late and missing the last meeting.  In terms of
    the impact of our work, the less said the better.  The
    fewer ideas, the broader the framework, that I believe
    will have an impact.  I think this is going to be an
    exercise I futility for many people here, and that's
    really my answer to your question.

              I can't tell you what happens if in a new
    Congress John McCain and all of the other people who have
    been so courageous about campaign finance reform bring
    forward the issue.  I don't know if the NAB will meet them
    halfway, no way, or some way, maybe later.  I don't know. 
    And I don't know what I would do until I see how the
    question's framed.
              But I know this, that if I'm hit over the head
    with this committee's report it's going to be a bad
    starting point.

              MR. MASUR:  Thank you. 
              MS. CHARREN:  Can I ask you a question, Robert. 
              MR. DECHERD:  Sure, of course. 
              MS. CHARREN:  That sounds like -- to take it
    away from campaign financing and just talk about
    requirements versus stepping up to the plate, why did it
    seem to take a requirement from the FCC to get the
    industry to start to step up to the plate in a significant
    way about children?  Because they're doing it now.  It's
    not all perfect and everybody isn't delighted, but things
    are a lot more interesting than they were for the previous
    30 years, and it's being said out loud by producers, who
    are finding a place that they didn't find before, not just
              Why did it take interest the case a very
    specific rule when they had a long time to get their act
    together on that? 
              MR. DECHERD:  Peggy, my opinion is that the
    FCC's rulemaking is one of several things that caused that
    to happen, and therein lies my anxiety about specificity
    in this case.  We're trying to anticipate an environment
    that is changing so fast that forces we don't even fully
    understand are going to cause there to be a greater
    interest in children's programming and I think far more
    diverse programming, and so forth and so on.

              Part of it's human behavior.  Part of it is how
    the industry had developed up to that point.  But since
    then the friendliness you're talking about I think has a
    lot to do with the marketplace generally, how people's
    standards and mores are changing.  We're all benefiting
    from more competition.
              MS. CHARREN:  But a lot of that was in place in
    a different way in the seventies and into the eighties,
    and it took a rule.
              MR. DUHAMEL:  Peggy, there was a chicken and egg
    problem there, because I tramped around two years at NAPE
    trying to find decent children's programming, and the crap
    they were trying to dump on me -- the supply wasn't there. 
    Now, I couldn't get it because there was no supply.  Now
    you're saying, well, the supply wasn't there because
    nobody demanded it.  But it was a chicken and egg thing.
              MS. CHARREN:  I hear you, but I don't sign onto
              MR. DUHAMEL:  Well, you should have been around
    NAPE with me.
              MS. CHARREN:  I was.  I was at NAPE every year. 
    I was even in the little plays they put on.
              MR. DUHAMEL:  And didn't you see all the crap
    that they were trying to pass off as children friendly?

              MS. CHARREN:  Yes, but there was other stuff
    that sort of didn't make it in the marketplace.
              Anyway, I didn't want to have too much about
    that, but I heard you and there's a part of me that wishes
    that was more true than I think it is, is all I was
    saying.  Thank you. 
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Anything further on political
              (Mr. Sunstein enters.)
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Cass, do you want to give us
    a --
              MR. SUNSTEIN:  President Gore will be taking
    office --
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  I hope you'd at least agree
    that talking to Dick Morris should be an impeachable
              MR. SUNSTEIN:  There was unanimous consent to
              MR. LA CAMERA:  Richard, just to respond from my
    singular perspective to your question.  While it's always
    uneven, I think the performance of broadcasters during
    this last election across the country was somewhat
    commendable, both in terms of special programming they
    offered and certainly debates in virtually each and every

    city, and also increasing examples of free political time
    being offered.  Again, this precedes our report and I
    think it's very encouraging for what's on your mind. 
              MR. MASUR:  I agree.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Anything further?  Yes,
              MR. BENTON:  I hope -- I don't know how we're
    going to put or talk about the things you and Barry were
    talking about this morning of putting our recommendations
    in the context of campaign finance reform.  The House
    passed the bill earlier this year.  Of course, it dies
    with this Congress.  Elections happen.
              I think it's astonishing to see this election,
    which has spent twice as much money in buying time, with
    the lowest turnout since 1934, the point that Newt has
    mentioned.  55 percent of all money being spent in
    national campaigns is money being spent buying back the
    public airways from the broadcasters for commercials.  The
    broadcasters obviously have a central role to play in the
    improvement of political speech, which is mentioned in the
    cable thing, political speech, their major legal
    obligations, in the addendum to the cable talk.
              I don't know how we can be more explicit and
    more provocative in rising above the forest in linking
    these issues in our report.  I think we can do better than

    we've done.  I'm not sure how to do it, but I just think
    we can do better than we've done on this. 
              It needs to be more compelling than what we've
    got here.  I'm not satisfied with the rhetoric, let alone
    the specifics.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Well, we'll go back and try
    and do what we can.  Then we'll see if we satisfy you. 
              MR. MASUR:  Just very quickly to that.  I want
    to point out that two other interesting things happened in
    this election.  Two states which are widely divergent from
    each other in terms of their politics and what have you,
    Arizona and Massachusetts, both passed clean money
    referenda which frankly go way beyond anything anybody's
    talked about in Congress or anyplace else.
              Also, Rus Feingold, running on the principles
    that he laid out, that are laid out in the McCain-Feingold
    bill, prevailed in his election, though different people
    are spinning that different ways depending on which
    station you happen to be tuning in to at any given moment.
              But I think there's definitely a signal that's
    being sent by people that they want something to change. 
    I think that will impact this Congress and I think a lot
    of this Congress is coming in with that at least in the
    back of their heads, if not in the front of their brains. 
    So I think it's a very opportune moment to put this kind

    of thing in front of them.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Well, there's one other
    development in this election and that is this was the
    first billion dollar Congressional election, but only a
    quarter of the money spent was spent by candidates.  We
    are seeing candidates becoming minor figures in the
    discourse of campaigns.  One of the major reasons that we
    are promoting the ideas that we are in this report is to
    find ways with broadcasters as partners to get candidates
    more of a voice in this process.  So we can hope that we
    can move that along.
              And if it doesn't move along, obviously then
    something else is going to happen and it isn't going to be
    anything that will satisfy either broadcasters or others
    in this process.  So that we need to remember.
              All right.  If there are other comments that
    people have.  Otherwise, we will go back and take into
    account all of these suggestions.
              I want to reiterate the timetable here.  We need
    to have work in this area done within the next three or
    four days, including the amendments and suggestions that
    people have made.  There are two weeks altogether and you
    should have at least a week having this next draft.  But
    you should begin now, obviously, with a pretty good clue
    as to what should be there, working on your own individual

    statements.  And the individual statements, I hope,
    including some in this area of campaign finance reform,
    will have some power themselves.
              Then we will move from there to make sure that
    what we have is what we've hoped to have, which is a
    consensus on the thrust of the report, with individual
    views in most cases I think confined to individual areas,
    but not necessarily in every case.  And we will move on
    from there. 
              We do want to show the cover if we have it.  I
    don't think we did that, just so people can see.
              MS. SOHN:  Could I just get back to substance
    just for a half a minute?
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Yes.
              MS. SOHN:  The section that Jim had in his
    appendix about issue advertising and improving the
    disclosure -- you just mentioned how most of the money is
    being spent on issue ads, third party ads.  Could that be
    moved?  It's not really controversial.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Yes, we can do that. 
              MS. SOHN:  At least by my standards.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Yes?
              MR. DUHAMEL:  On the date, you know Friday is
    the deadline for major edits.  Could we make that Monday,
    because I'm on the road.  There's a holiday this week and

    then I'm on the road until I get home this weekend.
              MS. STRAUSS:  Also, what you produce is going to
    be pretty different, at least in some areas, from what we
    have seen, and we haven't seen it yet.
              MR. MINOW:  He'll circulate the individual
    comments to all the committee?
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  I think we'll have to.  But
    remember that, given our time frame, that'll come after
    we've done all of this other work.
              MR. MINOW:  Yes, I understand.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Then obviously you can't
    change anybody else's comments.  But we'll definitely
    circulate everybody's comments as soon as we get them. 
              MR. DECHERD:  Norm, as a point of clarification
    -- and again, apologizing for not being here this morning
    -- what is the structure of this report?  Is it the four
    parts and appendices?  Was there any change? 
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  We have a new part. 
              MR. DECHERD:  I saw that, yes.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  The history of the
    committee, the history of digital television, the history
    of the public interest obligation, our recommendations,
    individual views, and then some appendices. 
              MR. DECHERD:  So that the structure is
    essentially what was distributed earlier, including

    section 2 and the appendices? 
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Yes. 
              MR. DECHERD:  All of the things that were
    distributed are in the appendices?
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Well, some of the appendices
    are going to change as a consequence of our discussion. 
              MR. DECHERD:  But for example the Aspen report?
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Will be in there as an
    appendix, yes.  It's just there to offer information. 
              MR. DECHERD:  Well, if I may, without engaging
    this whole conversation again, in the letter I sent in
    anticipation of this meeting I want to be very clear and
    be on record that many of us have a very different view of
    some of the points made in section 2 having to do with the
    public interest standard, red line, and so forth.  It's
    not time to debate them again.  I regret all of that's in
    there because it attempts to codify things that we do not
    believe to be exactly correct.
              I for one think there is no room in the
    appendices for third party reports which this committee
    did not solicit, unless we're going to put them all in
    there.  So if the Aspen report goes in, my question is
    where's the Media Institute and Ten Recruits?  I don't
    understand the purpose that's served there insofar as
    focusing the report on what we, the majority of us, have

    agreed should be the final report, and that's whether or
    not I subscribe to all of the report.
              I think it's a diversion.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  The basic reason for that,
    Robert, is that we had a very vigorous discussion last
    time on pay or play and agreed that we would basically
    offer alternatives so that people could see what the
    alternatives were without us as a committee taking a
    position on those.  So that was a part of the compromise,
    rather than force that. 
              MR. DECHERD:  Fine.  My point about structure is
    I think you can say in the report -- 
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  If you want to include
    something else in that area, that's fine. 
              MR. DECHERD:  Well, I'd go the other way.  I
    would say there was this discussion, there was a
    compromise, and this report was referenced.  But why do we
    have to attach it in the public record?  In today's techno
    world you can find that a thousand ways on line in a
              I just think it skews the work of the committee
    to have any third party organization playing a formal
    role, if you will, through the appendices.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  How many third party reports
    are in there right now? 

              MR. DECHERD:  None.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  That's the one. 
              MR. DECHERD:  That's it.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  But it basically, it doesn't
    take positions.  It lists options.
              MR. SUNSTEIN:  Would you like one of us to
    generate our own version of that, which would be simple
    and scaled down? 
              MR. DECHERD:  Yes.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Yes, I think that would be
    more appropriate, that there are no third parties.  That's
    a good point.
              MR. SUNSTEIN:  I volunteer.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  You're on.  If that's the
    price we have to pay to get Robert to sign onto the rest
    of the report, I say fine. 
              MR. DECHERD:  We clearly weren't communicating.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Let's show everybody the
    cover, just so you can see the goal toward which we are
    striving (indicating).
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Newt, we can vote on the
              MR. MINOW:  Les says we can vote on the cover,
    so put your hands up.

              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  I want you to know this is
    high definition. 
              MS. STRAUSS:  So Norm, when can we expect to see
    the revised version? 
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Well, let's see.  If we move
    to a Monday, what we have now is the last major edits or
    contributions, the major contributions here rather than
    the individual views or small comments, have to be to us
    by the 13th.  That's Friday. 
              MS. STRAUSS:  So when will we get the report,
    because we can't comment until we have it.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  We get that on Friday and
    basically we're going to -- 
              MS. STRAUSS:  Okay, so by Friday are the
    comments -- 
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  I think we have to leave
    several days.  That's Friday.  We will try by the 18th. 
    Would that be reasonable to get a draft?
              MR. SUNSTEIN:  Then we should have some days to
    get the last edits contributions. 
              MS. EDWARDS:  I think that's a little
    optimistic.  I'm happy to try to redo this a little bit to
    allow time for the committee to look at another version
    since so much has shifted around.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Why don't we say this.  We

    will give five days from the time you get the version of
    the report to the time you have to submit your final
    individual views, okay.  So five days from the time you
    receive the report to when your individual views are due.
    And you can give edits, obviously, any edits to this now. 
    Any suggestions that flow from our meeting you should give
              MS. STRAUSS:  And realistically, when do you
    think that five days will begin?  In other words, when do
    you think you'll be getting us the report?
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  I think we targeted the 18th
    or so, so we can hold to the deadline of the 23rd.  But if
    it slips by a day or two, then the other will slip by a
    day or two.
              MS. EDWARDS:  If I can just jump in here for a
    moment and say how absolutely tight the time line that I
    have distributed, with everybody's input here, is.  So
    that means when we say last edits by November 13th, that
    means received by that day.  It is absolutely imperative.
              MS. STRAUSS:  But those are edits on what we
    already have. 
              MS. EDWARDS:  Exactly.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Before we turn to our public
    comment period, since this may be the last meeting we have
    where we actually talk among ourselves -- the final

    meeting presumably is going to be where we provide the
    report to the Vice President -- I don't want to end, as
    long as most of us are here, without thanking Karen and
    the rest of the staff for what has been an enormous amount
    of work.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  I don't think most of you
    realize what an effort, while they have carried on other
    responsibilities, they have made to get everybody
    materials in a timely way, especially when we've had some
    difficulty getting the materials produced or agreed to
    ourselves.  And they've handled everything in a most
    professional manner.  We have been extremely well served
    by these public servants and we are all very appreciative.
              Yes, Charles. 
              MR. BENTON:  Norm, I wrote a two-page memo on
    the legacy project, which essentially is tracking the
    recommendations, helping to coordinate members'
    participation in public hearings, the Congress, the FCC,
    providing media kits, etcetera.  Maybe we could get
    reactions, either now or later, from the group on this. 
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  I will tell you my reaction:
    that if the Benton Foundation wants to take on a role
    tracking what we've done and seeing where it goes, I think
    it's entirely appropriate and we can all be happy that

    you'll do that.  There maybe others doing the same thing
    independently.  A thousand flowers can bloom, but I think
    it's terrific that you take on a specific role in this
              If there is no other reaction to that -- 
              MS. EDWARDS:  Before you do that, just following
    on this point on sort of time line and so forth, I'm going
    to be a bit of a bear on this.  I will and so will the
    staff that's working with me.  And on this point, I would
    suggest, either Les or Norm, if you'd sort of clarify your
    vision of what David is going to do so that the members
    are prepared to either get requests from him or receive
    materials from him. 
              I think it's very important to clarify his role
    at this point.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  That's fine.  We have
    several things that we're going to do from this point on. 
    First, we are going to go back and make sure that the
    different sections agree with one another and that they
    are integrated together better than they have been.  These
    have been done as separate individual stand-alone sections
    for the report.  We want to make them more chapters rather
    than separate stand-alone sections.
              We clearly have to go through and make a number
    of changes in the body of the report itself, which Les and

    I will take a sizable responsibility for along with some
    of the others on which you have all volunteered.
              In addition, we want to be prepared and we will
    work closely with David to make sure that all of those
    things are integrated together.  I hope you will all be
    available if as we go along either of us and-or David, and
    most particularly David, either needs something, needs
    clarification, or may need you to draft something that he
    can then use, to take his calls and respond very quickly.
              It is important to recognize that the process of
    turning this into a draft manuscript is tough enough.  The
    process of turning it from a draft manuscript into a
    nicely bound published report with this beautiful cover in
    a very short period of time is very, very tricky.  So the
    timing does become important here.
              MS. CHARREN:  If we are on the road can we use
    Karen as a place to send where we are and the fax numbers
    for where we are, so that if there's any kind of
    interchange we can do it through it? 
              MS. EDWARDS:  Absolutely.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Yes. 
              MS. EDWARDS:  We really need that. 
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Use Karen.  If you want to
    send things, if you can't send them to each of us
    individually, you can send them here and Karen will get

    them out to the rest of us.  And if you're not going to be
    around, then it is important that you let Karen know.  And
    if you need to reach somebody and can't, then presumably
    you can try through Karen.
              MS. CHARREN:  Norm, are we supposed to be here
    December 18th in Washington?
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  No, we have not set -- we
    have set that as the date that we will give the report
    over.  But we will work with the Vice President's office,
    I am assuming, to find a time, which may not happen until
    after the holidays, for a formal ceremony.  I think we
    want to have a formal ceremony and I think he would as
              MS. CHARREN:  How about a press conference?  No?
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  The same thing.  It's
    possible we will do something less formal before that.
              MS. CHARREN:  You're going to give it to him on
    the 18th and have a press conference afterwards?
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Giving it to him doesn't
    necessarily mean that that's the end of the process.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  If it's a press conference on
    the 18th nobody'll be there anyway.
              MS. CHARREN:  No, I don't mean that.  But
    everybody will have the report.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Read the paper on Christmas

              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  But having that happen and
    then follow it with a formal ceremony doesn't necessarily
    mean we get less attention.  It may very well mean we get
    more attention.  So we'll work this out in ways that fit
    everybody's schedule.
              MS. CHARREN:  Let me ask the question a
    different way.  When is this available to the public
    besides on the web?
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  It will appear in Barnes and
    Noble January 3rd for $2.95. 
              MS. EDWARDS:  We'll try to figure that out.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  We'll figure that out.
              MS. CHARREN:  Because that's important, dealing
    with the press.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Yes. 
              MR. CRUMP:  Since I erroneously thought that we
    would be coming back on the 18th and we have not asked
    anyone about our plans for the month of January, how soon
    will we know this so we can get squared away on a date in
    January?  Do we have any feel for that? 
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  I think the first thing
    we're going to do is get this together.  When we get it
    together in a form where we can then move it towards
    production and we have a pretty clear idea that in fact

    the 18th is a reasonable date or somewhere around that
    point, then it will be appropriate to communicate with the
    Vice President's office and get some alternative dates
              In this case his schedule is the most
    significant element. 
              MR. CRUMP:  I was thinking that we could meet
    him in London, you know. 
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  We'll get options.  We'll
    get options and we will then make sure that those options
              MR. BENTON:  So the 18th is not -- 
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  No, the 18th was not -- am I
    correct, Karen? 
              MS. EDWARDS:  I think what we should do is just
    have Les and Norm think about this a little bit, talk with
    the Vice President's office.  If there is a date that
    emerges, you know that we will call you and try to work
    out something that works for everyone.  We're happy to do
              MR. DUHAMEL:  Where did December 18th come from?
              MS. EDWARDS:  Well, December 18th comes because
    the next week is Christmas, so if we're going to get this
    out before the 31st, if we're actually going to have
    something printed and done, you have to do it before the

    week of Christmas.  You realize Christmas is the very next
              MR. DUHAMEL:  Yes.
              MS. CHARREN:  I would just like to put my two
    cents in.  When you get something out is when it's nice to
    talk about it, because if you wait to talk about it for
    two weeks everybody's out with it.  It becomes a very
    loose process that's not very pleasant, like you feel like
    you're leaking every time you open your mouth.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  We'll try and strike the
    right balance.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Yes, Frank. 
              MR. CRUZ:  Since this is our last public
    meeting, I think I would be remiss and I know all of us
    would if we didn't thank the two of you for your
    leadership and the hard work that you have done.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  And we've been very well
    compensated for it. 
              MR. CRUZ:  Right.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  And every moment's been a
    total joy for all of us.  I want to thank all of you.  It
    really has.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Should we open this up?  Is

    anybody ready, Norm?
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Yes, public commentary.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Anybody.  Please state your
    name and your affiliation.
              MR. HATCH:  David Hatch with Electronic Media
    Magazine.  A couple questions.
              Mr. Ornstein, you mentioned earlier that the
    mandate of this committee is to develop public interest
    requirements for digital broadcasters.  Yet you folks
    appear to be planning to recommend digital must-carry
    requirements for the cable industry.  I'm just wondering,
    how does that fit in with the mandate of this committee,
    and are you essentially overstepping your bounds making
    that type of recommendation?
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Well, we had some discussion
    of that this afternoon, actually, and whether it was
    within our bounds or not.  Of course, we do have a mandate
    that deals with digital television broadcasters.  Part of
    that mandate is figuring out ways in which digital
    television gets out and actually reaches the public, and
    we recognize fully that this involves intersecting circles
    and some of those circles are not within our specific
    mandate.  But inevitably in the world there's an
              Obviously, we put a recommendation out there in

    this case, A, linking must-carry to a set of other
    obligations and, B, recommending that this be done in a
    fashion that doesn't create the kinds of larger problems
    that could occur so that we can work through a smooth
    transition period.  And if people want to oppose them,
    including opposing them on grounds that we've overstepped
    our mandate, then they are free to do so.  They're just
    like all of our other recommendations; they're out there
    as advisory opinions. 
              MR. HATCH:  Well, is it fair to make a
    recommendation about an industry when you don't have
    direct representation of that industry on the committee?
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  We do have direct
    representation of that industry on the committee.  Barry
    Diller, as was pointed out several times today, has cable
              MR. HATCH:  But not interests in terms of a
    cable MSO.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Almost every recommendation
    that we make is going to involve people and interests that
    aren't on the committee.  That's the way these things go. 
    This is not an industry without a voice.  It is free to
    get out report and say whatever it wants vigorously about
    this, and they already have.  Indeed, they were out there
    very quickly with comments.  I got several calls from many

    people, maybe you included, David, before I'd even seen
    the letter, a couple days before I'd seen the letter.
              MR. HATCH:  Finally, just along the same note, I
    was wondering how your proposals to recommend that both
    the DBS industry and the cable industry adopt voluntary
    codes, how that fits within your mandate, or does that
    also not fit within it? 
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  I think you could answer it
    the same way.  It is important to recognize that even now,
    but especially as we move to the future, we're going to
    have fewer distinctions among and between these different
    elements of the spectrum, and that's going to make it
    harder and harder to make firm and clear distinctions
    between these different elements.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  David, also let me add to
    that.  The cable industry has no problem when they take
    shots at the broadcast industry.  We're trying to level
    the playing field a little bit and make them subject to
    the same rules and regulations as the rest of us are.
              MR. HATCH:  All right.  Thank you. 
              MR. MASHON:  My name is Mike Mashon.  I'm with
    the Motion Picture Broadcasting and Recorded Sound
    Division of the Library of Congress.  The Library has been
    leading the effort to preserve our, to use a kind of
    hackneyed phrase, our television heritage, which frankly

    is at great risk right now.
              Last year the Library released a report, a
    comprehensive report outlining the need for television
    preservation.  I have volume one here and would be
    delighted to send you a copy of the whole thing if you'd
              But I would like to respectfully submit to the
    committee a suggestion, if you would be amenable to
    recommending in your final report that perhaps a modest
    fraction of some of the funds as outlined in the
    multiplexing section of the draft report be dedicated to
    saving television history.  This is something that we feel
    very, very strongly about.  In a sense what we're asking
    is that "for preservation" replace the phrase "in some
    other fashion" here in the multiplexing section.
              Thank you very much.
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Thank you. 
              MR. DONOHUE:  My name is Hugh Donohue and I'm
    here from the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the
    University of Pennsylvania.  My question concerns what
    will happen with appendix E.  In the absence of third
    party entries, will the committee summarize the
    submissions of people who have put in recommendations or
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  I'm not sure -- for those who

    don't know, which includes most of us, appendix E was the
    Aspen paper.  So what you're asking, Hugh, is what's going
    to happen to all the public comments that have come in.
              MR. DONOHUE:  Well, I'm sure not all of them
    concerned that precise area.  The body of the report only
    mentions E under the rubric of number 9, "A new approach
    to public interest obligations."
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  Yes.
              MR. DONOHUE:  And Mr. Decherd just a few minutes
    ago very cogently and articulated indicated he didn't
    think third parties had any position in the report, and
    you folks have agreed.  Together with an associate of
    ours, a fellow named Nolan Bowie at the Kennedy School, we
    put in an idea, and I'm just curious.  Are they going to
    be summarized, are they going to be ignored? 

              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  What we'll try to do is to
    reframe that suggestion and others that have come in that
    relate to this area, all in a fashion that comes from one
    of our own members, so that they are there in the public
    record.  That will include that particular proposal.
              MR. DONOHUE:  Earlier in the morning I had some
    conversation with the NTIA staff that it might be useful
    for me to follow up the submission that I had put in
    electronically two or three weeks ago with a letter

    expressly encouraging its inclusion in E.  So now I assume
    the timely and appropriate gesture as someone from outside
    would be a letter urging its consideration in some form in
    appendix E and that I'd be remiss in not so doing.
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  I don't think it's
    necessary.  We have the proposal, it's here, and we'll be
    sure that that along with other ideas are incorporated
    into what we put in that appendix.
              MR. DONOHUE:  Thanks very much for your
    consideration.  We appreciate it.  And also, thank you
    very much because we did come in very late last month, and
    we know that a goodly amount of the thinking had been done
    well before. 
              CO-CHAIR MOONVES:  Anyone else?
              (No response.)
              CO-CHAIR ORNSTEIN:  If there is no other public
    comment, I wish to thank everybody for their diligence and
    we all need to get to work on it.
              (Whereupon, at 4:21 p.m., the meeting was

(Click here to view part one of the morning session)
(Click here to view part two of the morning session)