Statement of James F. Goodmon Supporting Minimum Standards for Digital Television Broadcasters

The consensus Report of the Advisory Committee takes a moderate position regarding digital broadcast "regulation." It goes something like this:

(1) In lieu of paying money for a digital broadcast license, the licensee will agree (in effect, enter into a contract) to “serve the public interest” through the operation of its station.

(2) What does “serve the public interest” mean? Good question—the Advisory Committee views this as a three-step process:

(a) All stations should be required to meet certain minimum standards of public interest performance. These minimum standards should be broad and flexible.

(b) A voluntary code of conduct should be put in place to encourage higher than minimum standards for the broadcast industry. (The NAB did a good job with this in the past.)

(c) All stations should be required to report quarterly on their public interest activi- ties.

The devil, of course, is in the details, and the Advisory Committee encourages the FCC to work with broadcasters and public interest groups to hammer out the specifics. The Advisory Committee Report, with its attachments, includes some specific suggestions regarding minimum standards, the voluntary code, and quarterly reporting.

To my comments I am attaching the “Minimum Public Interest Requirements for Digital Television Stations” submitted by the Working Group on Minimum Public Interest Standards.(1) I chaired this Working Group. I need to point out that this is not a consensus proposal from the Working Group, although I do believe that a majority of the Advisory Committee supports its contents.

A suggested voluntary code is included in the full Advisory Committee report. (See Appendix B.) A suggested quarterly reporting format is included in the Advisory Committee Report. (See Appendix A.)

Our consensus Report necessarily avoids two widely divergent positions regarding broadcast “regulation.” It is interesting that both poles of the argument use the “free market” principle (profit motive) as the basis for their positions. One states that there should be no regulation because the “free market” will (by definition) cause the stations to operate in the public interest. That is, the only way to make a profit is to operate in the public interest. Their argument is that regulation in any form is costly, stifles creativity, is onerous, outdated, and unnecessary. This leads, quickly, to the rejoinder that if broadcasters will not commit, in a meaningful and quantifiable way, to serve the public interest in return for the free use of public spectrum then their licenses should be auctioned in the “free market” to the highest bidder. Again, it is my feeling that the Advisory Committee Report takes a sensible middle road between the two extremes.

As a broadcaster, I do not view these minimum standards as regulation. In return for a license to use a public asset for private financial gain, a broadcaster agrees to serve the public interest. The broadcast company is fulfilling a contract between itself as the user of a public asset and the public body that owns the asset. As with all contracts, both parties to the agreement need to know exactly the responsibilities that they have to each other. With minimum standards spelled out, there is no question.

As a broadcaster I would like to know what is expected of me in serving the public interest. Required minimum standards and a voluntary code provide the benefit of certainty to broadcasters. I like to know what the rules are.

Report of the Working Group on Minimum Public Interest Standards:

Minimum Public Interest Requirements for Digital Television Stations

With Attachment

www.benton.org/PIAC/goodmonltr.html
Posted 01/21/99