PIAC Legacy Project: Statement of Frank H. Cruz, in which Frank M. Blythe and Newton N. Minow join

Statement of Frank H. Cruz, in which Frank M. Blythe and Newton N. Minow join

Under the Chairs’ leadership, we have crafted a document that will help guide broadcasting’s future as it transitions into the digital age. However, I must register my strong concern that the Report does not go far enough in securing the role for public broadcasting in the digital future. My concerns center around the lack of an endorsement for public broadcasting as the entity that operates the new educational public interest channel, and the fact that the Report does not discuss cable television’s carriage of a public service broadcaster’s digital signal. To begin, I wanted to commend the Report for recognizing the vitality of equal opportunities for all Americans in broadcast ownership, employment, and programming. As the Report acknowledges, opportunities for women and minorities should be fostered at all levels of broadcasting. The rationale for this policy is simple. America is enriched by a diversity of voices broadcasting their opinions over the airwaves. A diverse pool of broadcasters and programming is one of the best ways to ensure that an abundance of views are shared with the public. Digital television will provide numerous opportunities for entrepreneurial enterprises in station operation and programming. All Americans should reap the benefits of the digital revolution; the best way to ensure universal benefit is by promoting equal opportunities. Next, I am glad that the Report recognizes that, as a first priority, Congress must secure long-term, stable, adequate funding for public broadcasting. Public broadcasters’ record is unparalleled in public interest service. Although channels and choices will multiply in the digital age, most will be commercially supported, and any public services that commercial channels offer will necessarily be subordinate to their central need to return revenues to shareholders. Therefore, it is essential to the public interest that we support public broadcasting, whose sole mission is nonprofit public service. The Report acknowledges the vital nature of public broadcasting by urging Congress to create a trust fund to ensure permanent and adequate funding.

I am disheartened by the fact that the Report only presents public broadcasters as one option for operating the new educational channel. The Report should have rewarded public broadcasting for its long and accomplished public service history by recommending that public broadcasting stations be given the first opportunity to be entrusted with the special educational channel. Through giving local public television stations the first opportunity to operate each educational channel, the Report would have recognized that one of the prime benefits of digital technology is that it will revolutionize the educational process, particularly for those now underserved by information resources. Public broadcasters are dedicated and mandated to provide educational programming to all Americans. It simply makes sense that the Report recommend allowing public broadcasting to put its experience and expertise to use. Public broadcasters are already well advanced in their plans to deploy digital spectrum in the public interest, and stand ready to create and deliver abundant digital content. The educational channel would allow public broadcasting to truly fulfill its universal public service mandate. The Report should recommend that such a result be guaranteed.

Of course, I presume that any operation of the educational channel would be free from editorial control of Government entities. The role of the Department of Education and Federal Communications Commission must be explicitly defined so that the Government will not be involved in programming decisions, as this is not an appropriate role for it. The Report does not recommend that Government entities be removed from editorial decision making, and it should.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not express my disappointment that the Report did not more fully address mandatory cable carriage of local broadcasters’ digital signal (also known as “must-carry”). The Report does a disservice to digital signal must-carry obligations by merely endorsing must-carry as a concept, but shying away from recommending any sort of imple- mentation scheme. At a minimum, the Report should have recommended that the FCC require that the digital signal(s) and all accompanying digital enhancements of nonprofit educational stations be carried by cable systems under any implementation scheme as soon as they begin digital broadcasts. More specifically, instead of “throwing its hands up” at an implementation schedule, the Advisory Committee should have urged the FCC and Congress to adopt regulations that require a cable operator to carry both the analog and digital signals (with enhancements) of public television stations and other operators of newly designated nonprofit educational channels such as the educational channel described herein, if different from public broadcasters.

Without must-carry obligations for the digital signals of public broadcasting stations, the public will be deprived of the opportunity to experience the expanded and enhanced public interest services made possible by this new technology, services that have been supported by tax dollars and direct contributions. Despite my feeling that the Advisory Committee should have gone farther in recognizing and strengthening the contributions of public broadcasting, I think the overall Report is something of which we, and all Americans, should be proud. It is the beginning of a blueprint for broadcasting’s new millennium, an era that promises to be full of opportunities for public service and the entrepreneurial spirit.