[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 1084, THE COMMERCIAL ADVERTISEMENT LOUDNESS MITIGATION ACT (CALM);
H.R. 1147, THE LOCAL COMMUNITY RADIO ACT OF 2009; AND H.R. 1133, THE
FAMILY TELEPHONE CONNECTION PROTECTION ACT OF 2009
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, TECHNOLOGY, AND THE INTERNET
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 11, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-47
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
73-746 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California JOE BARTON, Texas
Chairman Ranking Member
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan RALPH M. HALL, Texas
Chairman Emeritus FRED UPTON, Michigan
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
BART GORDON, Tennessee JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
ANNA G. ESHOO, California ROY BLUNT, Missouri
BART STUPAK, Michigan STEVE BUYER, Indiana
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
GENE GREEN, Texas JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado MARY BONO MACK, California
Vice Chairman GREG WALDEN, Oregon
LOIS CAPPS, California LEE TERRY, Nebraska
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
JANE HARMAN, California SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
TOM ALLEN, Maine JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
HILDA L. SOLIS, California MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
JAY INSLEE, Washington PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
JIM MATHESON, Utah
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
JOHN BARROW, Georgia
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
DORIS O. MATSUI, California
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
Islands
KATHY CASTOR, Florida
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
JERRY McNERNEY, California
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio
BRUCE BRALEY, Iowa
PETER WELCH, Vermont
(ii)
Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts FRED UPTON, Michigan
BART GORDON, Tennessee Ranking Member
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
ANNA G. ESHOO, California CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
BART STUPAK, Michigan NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
JAY INSLEE, Washington HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina Mississippi
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana VITO FOSELLA, New York
BARON P. HILL, Indiana GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
DORIS O. MATSUI, California MARY BONO MACK, California
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin GREG WALDEN, Oregon
Islands LEE TERRY, Nebraska
KATHY CASTOR, Florida MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
JERRY McNERNEY, California
PETER WELCH, Vermont
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Rick Boucher, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Virginia, opening statement.................... 1
Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida, opening statement.................................. 3
Hon. Michael F. Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 5
Hon. Lee Terry, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Nebraska, opening statement.................................... 6
Hon. Jerry McNerney, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 6
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 7
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 8
Hon. G.K. Butterfield, a Representative in Congress from the
State of North Carolina, opening statement..................... 9
Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, prepared statement.............................. 200
Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, prepared statement.............. 202
Witnesses
Frank W. Krogh, Esquire, Morrison and Foerster LLP............... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Curtis Hopfinger, Director of Government & Regulatory Affairs,
Securus Technologies........................................... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 24
David Goad, National Sheriffs' Association....................... 37
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Joel Kelsey, Policy Analyst, Consumers Union..................... 45
Prepared statement........................................... 47
David Donovan, President, The Association for Maximum Service
Television, Inc................................................ 52
Prepared statement........................................... 54
Jim Starzynski, Principal Engineer and Audio Architect, NBC
Universal, Advanced Engineering................................ 66
Prepared statement........................................... 68
Peter Doyle, Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission...................................... 77
Prepared statement........................................... 79
Caroline Beasley, Executive Vice President and CFO, Beasley
Broadcast Group................................................ 89
Prepared statement........................................... 91
Cheryl A. Leanza, Policy Director, United Church of Christ,
Office of Communications, Inc.................................. 115
Prepared statement........................................... 118
Submitted Material
Letter of June 10, 2009, from 100 Black Men of Omaha, Inc. to
Subcommittee, submitted by Mr. Terry........................... 206
Letter of June 4, 2009, from Jefferson Public Radio to Mr.
Walden, submitted by Mr. Walden................................ 207
Letter of June 3, 2009, from WVTF Public Radio to Subcommittee,
submitted by Mr. Boucher....................................... 210
Letter of June 9, 2009, from American Correctional Association to
Subcommittee, submitted by Mr. Boucher......................... 214
Editorial entitled, ``Innocent Victims the State is Gouging
Inmates' Families,'' by Errol Louis, November 16, 2004,
submitted by Mr. Weiner........................................ 204
Editorial entitled, ``Dial R for Ripoff Gov Must End Prison Phone
Monopoly that Bilks Inmates' Kin,'' by Errol Louis, November
15, 2005, submitted by Mr. Weiner.............................. 205
H.R. 1084, THE COMMERCIAL ADVERTISEMENT LOUDNESS MITIGATION ACT (CALM);
H.R. 1147, THE LOCAL COMMUNITY RADIO ACT OF 2009; AND H.R. 1133, THE
FAMILY TELEPHONE CONNECTION PROTECTION ACT OF 2009
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications, Technology,
and the Internet,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in
Room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Rick
Boucher (chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Boucher, Rush, Eshoo,
Stupak, Doyle, Weiner, Butterfield, McNerney, Stearns, Walden,
and Terry.
Staff present: Roger Sherman, Chief Counsel; Shawn Chang,
Counsel; Liz Eraker, Intern; Amy Levine, Counsel; Sarah Fisher,
Special Assistant; Pat Delgado, Chief of Staff (Waxman); Amy
Bender, Minority Detailee; Neil Fried, Senior Minority Counsel;
Sam Costello, Minority Legislative Analyst; and Amanda
McGreevy, Minority Legislative Intern.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK BOUCHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Boucher. Good morning to everyone. Before addressing
the matters that are pending before the subcommittee today, I
want to note that after years of planning, the digital
television transition will take place tomorrow. I want to take
this moment to thank the members of the staff of the FCC, to
thank the personnel at NTIA and the broad range of stakeholders
ranging from the broadcasters and cable to satellite companies,
retailers and the manufacturers of converter boxes for all of
their effective work that will help to assure a smooth digital
transition. While some viewers remain unprepared, the Nielsen
Survey reported this week that fully 97.5 percent of Americans
are now fully prepared and ready for tomorrow's transition. The
FCC's call centers are staffed and ready to provide assistance
to viewers who have difficulties connecting. I have every
confidence that the transition will be uneventful for the vast
majority of Americans.
Today the subcommittee considers three stand-alone
measures, the first of which is H.R. 1084, the Commercial
Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act otherwise known as the
CALM Act, introduced by our colleague from California, Ms.
Eshoo, in order to address a leading consumer complaint, the
volume of advertisements on television. All of us have had the
experience of enjoying a favorite program only to find
ourselves scrambling for the remote control when at the
commercial break the volume of the television seems to double.
I have cosponsored the CALM Act and I suspect that if enacted
this measure will become as popular as the legislation that
created the do not call list, and I look forward to learning
why the phenomenon of loud commercials exist and what we can do
as policymakers in order to address that phenomenon.
H.R. 1133, the Family Telephone Connection Protection Act
introduced by Chairman Rush would address the serious matter of
the rates that are paid by prison inmates for collect calling
services. Inmates are literally a captive audience and they
typically have no option for using the telephone to contact
family and legal counsel other than making their calls from a
prison payphone and the rates that are charged for those
services are enormous and include not only a high per-minute
rate for the service but also per-call connection fees that can
be as high as $4 per call. The burden of these charges often
falls on those who are least able to afford the charges, the
inmates who have virtually no income and the members of their
families who frequently face their own financial hardships.
Phone service for inmates is a necessity. It is not a luxury.
It is often their only link to family and attorneys and
therefore, we hope that this morning the witnesses will tell us
what may be done to ensure that prison inmates have access to
this very necessary service at rates that are reasonably
affordable.
The third bill that we are hearing this morning is H.R.
1147, the Local Community Radio Act introduced by our
colleagues Representatives Doyle and Terry. It would provide
additional opportunities for low-power FM radio stations by
allowing their operation on third adjacent channels to full-
power radio stations. LPFM stations are typically community-
based, nonprofits and they operate usually at 100 watts or less
of broadcast power and have a broadcast reach of only a few
miles. They play a truly unique role in our media firmament.
They are more likely then their full-power counterparts to be
owned by women or by minorities. They are an important forum
for local clergy, for politicians, for civil rights focused
programs and community leaders who seek to weigh in on local
matters of public interest. They are also commonly found at our
institutions of higher education across the United States.
While expanding opportunities for more low-power FM stations is
desirable, we must be certain that expanded low-power FM
service is implemented in a way that does not jeopardize
existing broadcast services including noncommercial, full-power
FM stations. This morning we are interested in how low-power FM
stations on third adjacencies can protect existing services
including FM radio, emerging HD radio and radio reading
services.
I want to welcome our witnesses and thank them for their
attendance here this morning. We will turn to your testimony
shortly.
But at this time, I am pleased to recognize other members
of the subcommittee for their own statements and I will call on
the gentleman from Florida, the ranking Republican on our
subcommittee, Mr. Stearns.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Stearns. Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman and
thank you for having this hearing. We have nine alert, ready-
to-go witnesses and it is quite impressive.
As you mentioned, we have three distinct pieces of
legislation we are looking at. I will go with one that you sort
of mentioned in the last which is H.R. 1133, the Family
Telephone Connection Protection Act. As mentioned, it would
require the FCC to regulate telephone services to inmates in
correctional facilities. Typically, a single carrier is
selected through a competitive bidding process to provide the
prisoner his phone service and although services and rates vary
by State or facility, inmates are often limited to making a
collect call and the rates charged are frequently a bit higher
to help pay for these collect calls nationwide.
Supporters of this legislation argue that prison call fees
are too high costing families too much to keep in touch with
their relatives in jail and making it harder to rehabilitate
criminals. Our nation's sheriffs have a unique perspective
however since over 80 percent of the nation's local jails are
simply under the jurisdiction of the sheriffs so it is very
good, Mr. Chairman, we have them here to testify to give their
side.
This bill could lead to a prohibition on a payment of
commissions to the correctional facilities by providers of the
phone service. These commissions go to providing security
measures to monitor non-privilege calls, to prevent elicit
activities and to pay for the cost of the telephone system
itself. Without the commissions, these correctional facilities
will either have to ask taxpayers to front the cost of the
phone system or completely dismantle the program.
In addition, these commissions are a main source of funding
for many beneficial inmate programs such as adult education,
any recidivism programs, jail ministries and substance abuse
programs. For example, in New York some funding from telephone
commissions were used to provide free bus rides to the
facilities for inmate family members. I certainly understand
the hardship that many inmates' families have to endure
however, and frankly as local and State budgets get tighter and
tighter not allowing these commissions might force correctional
facilities to eliminate many important programs.
Mr. Chairman, the second bill under discussion is H.R.
1147, the Local Community Radio Act. The FCC created low-power
FM station service in 2000 to promote local programming. At the
end of 2000, Congress restricted how close low-power stations
may operate to full-power stations due to chiefly the
interference concerns. As a result, fewer low-power stations
can be authorized. This bill would simply repeal the statutory
limits. I support the idea of allowing more low-power stations
to be licensed however, such a sweeping policy change needs to
balance the potential impact on full-power FM stations, namely
interference.
Third, adjacent protection exists for a reason, to guard
against such interference. There is a policy already in place
to allow low-power FM stations to operate in the FM band with
third adjacent protection. The FCC has licensed more than 865
low-power operators with more having been granted construction
permits or that have applications that are pending. As we
consider H.R. 1147, we need to fully examine the impact on
full-power FM stations and the issue of interference. A broad
blanket policy change may be unnecessary at this time. I hope
to work with the sponsors of this bill as we move forward.
And last, Mr. Chairman, we are examining H.R. 1084, the
Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act and I will
compliment the author of the bill with the word CALM Act. I am
sure they worked hard to get that to come together. This bill
would require the FCC to mandate rules within one year
prohibiting commercials from being excessively noisy or
strident. The issue is more complex than it appears. Many
different entities are responsible for producing and
distributing the content consumers see and hear today. Each
element may be recorded and provided at different volume
levels. Moreover, shows and movies have a dynamic sound range
to cover everything from a quiet scene to an explosion.
Commercials, meanwhile, tend to have a narrow sound range.
Volume levels are typically set for the programming which can
throw off the volume levels for commercials. Two years ago, the
Advanced Television Systems Committee established a subgroup on
digital television loudness. This subgroup consists of the
leading experts on audio technology from all the major
broadcast networks, cable, production and post-production,
manufacturing and education in the United States of America.
Since it was established, these audio technology experts have
crafted a hard-fought consensus on the recommended practices
that should be employed across the TV industry to deal with TV
loudness concerns.
Mr. Chairman, I trust the collective wisdom of these
technical experts to craft a solution to the TV loudness issue.
The subgroups hard work should not be undone by legislation.
One suggestion would be to revise the bill simply so that the
FCC rulemaking only commences if industry has not addressed the
issue within a certain amount of time. So I think we have,
perhaps, a solution to our problem which is Advanced Television
Systems Committee and all the hard work they have done in this
area.
So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the hearing, the
witnesses and I welcome again the opportunity to ask them
questions. Thank you.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Stearns, for a very
thoughtful statement. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Doyle, is recognized for five minutes. I am sorry, for two
minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this legislative hearing that includes the bill I
introduced with my good friend, Lee Terry, H.R. 1147, the Local
Community Radio Act.
You know, it is appropriate to hold this hearing this
morning. I heard on the radio today that today is the 74th
anniversary of the first FM broadcast. Students of that story
know that the dominant AM broadcaster, RCA, successfully
lobbied the FCC to move the FM band, obsoleting the inventor's
burgeoning radios, destroying his company, leading the
inventor, Edward Armstrong, to suicide and delaying FM's role-
out for decades. We are almost full circle here today but this
story starts a decade ago. In 2000, the Federal Communications
Commission, started to create new community radio stations run
by local schools, churches, community groups and governments.
They did this because their missions from Congress is not to
help entrench lobbies but to make sure as many Americans as
possible have access to the public's airwaves to fulfill a
basic human need, the right to communicate. Thousands of
peoples and groups wanted these new stations and applied.
Almost immediately, incumbent broadcasters warned this
subcommittee that these new community radio stations would
create and I quote ``oceans of interference harming listeners
efforts to listen to the stations they already know and
enjoy.'' So in response to the broadcasters' concern, Congress
called timeout and asked for an independent study to examine
this issue. The premise of Congress' decision to order the
study was that if the study confirmed the FCC's findings,
Congress would remove it's prohibition on the FCC and allow it
to fully implement community radio.
Well, the study came back, agreed with the FCC that these
stations can be created without harming listeners and through
two unanimous bipartisan votes the FCC has twice now
recommended to Congress to do so. I am asking Congress to keep
its part of the bargain today.
After Congress limited community radio in 2001, several
groups in my district, the City of Pittsburgh and some working-
class suburbs lost their chance to go on the air. I will point
out that late last month, Mr. Chairman, Pittsburgh's only
minority-owned station and the city's only hip-hop and R and B
station sold for $9 million. The new owners plan a format
change and now no one else can connect with urban radio
listeners in my district. It is almost like incumbent
broadcasters wrote the line that William Shakespeare actually
wrote in Hamlet. ``Give every man his ear but few his voice.''
Mr. Chairman, we need to make sure that more Americans get
a chance to exercise their voice. We must pass this bill and we
must bring low-power back to the people.
I yield back.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Doyle. The gentleman
from Nebraska, Mr. Terry, is recognized for two minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LEE TERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
Mr. Terry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing. I appreciate my friend, Mr. Doyle, and associate
myself with your Shakespearean opening statement. And I would
also like to take this opportunity to thank several that have
worked hard for this bill like Candace Asman, Cory Hoffman and
Pete Tridish of Prometheus Radio, Michael Bracy of the Future
of Music Coalition, the band Okay Go and our very own witness
today, Cheryl Leanza with the United Church of Christ.
There are numerous benefits by low-power radio stations to
smaller communities and what I mean by smaller communities is
both in an urban sense in a suburban and even a rural sense. It
gives people a voice to their particular community that they
may not have now. And as Mike pointed out, the studies have
shown that we can technically do low-power FM without stepping
on the signals of the higher power stations.
Now, with that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into
the record the 100 Black Men of Omaha who are interested as an
organization of providing low-power FM within the African
American community of Omaha to provide a platform for
discussion of community issues. I ask unanimous consent that I
can submit that for the record.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Boucher. Without objection.
Mr. Terry. And with that, once again thank you but I can't
resist on 1133 to say that is this the definition of a captive
customer.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Terry. The
gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, is recognized for two
minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MCNERNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing and thank you to the witnesses for coming forth today.
I am a cosponsor of 1147, the Local Community Radio Act. I
believe that it is important that the Federal Communication
Commission provide equitable rules for low-power FM stations.
Our smallest stations deserve to be heard to be able to provide
community focus programming that serves all of our listeners'
needs.
Concerning the CALM Act, we have all experienced unpleasant
sudden volume changes during TV programming. The problem was
identified more than 50 years ago and many other nations are
already adopting standards. Now, there is one experience I had
as a young boy. I was a teenager. One of the very Sunday
afternoons that my father allowed me to watch TV which wasn't
every Sunday afternoon, I was watching a horror show in the den
and he was out barbequing and the advertisement came on and he
came running in and wanted to know what was happening because
it was so loud he could hear all the screaming outside. It was
somebody selling furniture. So I have experienced this. It will
be interesting to see what we can do about it.
So with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. McNerney. The gentleman from
Oregon, Mr. Walden, is recognized for two minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate the opportunity to get the testimony today from the
witnesses on these various bills.
I would like to submit for the record a letter I received
from Jefferson Public Radio with regards to H.R. 1147 and some
issues that they are raising and I think they are very
legitimate.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Boucher. Without objection.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Jefferson Public Radio probably has more translators
covering a more rigorous mountain environment providing public
broadcasting in southern Oregon then probably anywhere else in
the country and they are concerned about the effect that H.R.
1147 would have regarding displacement of their translators.
They are further concerned about the language in H.R. 1147
which would give authority to the FCC to go even further than
the third adjacent channel relaxation in the rulemakings. And
so these are issues that I think the committee needs to look at
very carefully. Having been in the broadcast business for more
than 21 years, I am not now a licensee, I share the concern of
many who want to make sure that as you move forward on adding
additional signals in the marketplace that there isn't
disruptive interference especially too, looking at old
receivers versus new receivers. There are legacy radios that
aren't as selective as some of the new ones in terms of
listening quality and differentiating among the signals. And so
I think these are issues we need to look at carefully before we
move forward.
I finally add to the record too, just a note that I hope
the FCC is doing proper and appropriate oversight over LPFMs.
They are not supposed to be commercial stations and it would be
interesting to know just kind of the oversight you are doing to
see are they operating in some cases as if they were a for-
profit commercial because I don't think that was the intent of
LPFM nor is it, I am sure, the sponsors' of this legislation
that they would merge into a full commercial operation.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the
testimony.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Walden. The gentleman
from Michigan, Mr. Stupak, is recognized for two minutes.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am going to be
in and out all day but I did want to have a few comments
especially on H.R. 1147. In all honesty, I am not real excited
about that legislation that is authored by my good friend from
Pittsburgh, Mr. Doyle. I understand why this low-power
legislation is so important to him. It is probably because it
reminds him of his Pittsburgh Penguin front line of Malkin and
Crosby. That is the low-power line they have in hockey and I am
sure if for some reason, some bad calls, my Red Wings come up a
little bit short, I am sure Mr. Doyle will be in full-power
telling me about it on Friday and Saturday.
I have a minute left if you care to respond here, Mr.
Doyle.
Mr. Walden. Will the gentleman yield? I think you are just
going to get interference from him.
Mr. Stupak. It will be interference.
Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania. I just want to say to my friend
that on Monday I will buy the beer for you to cry in.
Mr. Stupak. It will take more than beer, Doyle.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Stupak. The gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Rush, chairman of the subcommittee on consumer
protection is recognized for two minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really am delighted to
be here and I am also delighted not to have some consensus in
the previous discussion. The Blackhawks have been low-power for
a long time now.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding today's
hearing on these important bills.
I would like to limit my limited time on remarks on H.R.
1133. I introduced this bill with the sincerest concerns for
those innocent families and close friends of those individuals
who find themselves incarcerated in our jails and prisons. Like
you and me, they are telephone services consumers having the
same needs when it comes to hearing their loved ones' voices
and maintaining regular contact with their families just as you
and I are and many in this room are. Their personal lives,
their households and their budget affairs are complicated by
having to choose accepting a collect phone call from a loved
one in prison which can cost up to five times as much as the
same call that you and I would have to make. They have to live
with the real life consequences of their choice which could
mean missing a car or rent or a mortgage payment or not having
enough money to buy groceries.
There are typically three ways that an inmate can make and
complete a telephone call in most State and county correctional
institutions. Either collect, prepaid collect or prepaid by the
inmate which in most cases is paid indirectly by the inmate's
family through a deposit into their prison debit account. For
collect calls, the billed party is usually in charge of billing
calls recovery fee of so many dollars for each month that
collect call charges are paid. Or prepaid collect accounts the
inmate telephone services provide a collector fee usually
between $5 and $10 in order to process credit card and check
payments over the phone, and for a prepaid inmate call, the
inmate telephone services providers charging in the
neighborhood of $1 for each completed interstate telephone
call.
Mr. Chairman, it is patently unfair that family and friends
of incarcerated individuals should have to pay these inflated
amounts. Revenue sharing agreements entered in by inmate
telephone service providers and the correctional authorities
they service are the primary cause of this egregious disparity.
Some States are collecting commissions from providers of inmate
telephone services at rates that are as high as 40 to 65
percent of gross bills inmate telephone revenues. These
commissions continue to have the effect of substantially
inflating rates for collect, prepaid collect and debit
interstate and intrastate telephone calls. Simply put, they
represent a pass through of calls from the correctional
facility and the jails to the inmates and his or her families.
Accordingly and most notably, my bill H.R. 1133 focuses on
these commission arrangements. It would prohibit the payment of
commissions to administrators of correctional institutions and
departments of correction. It would also require the FCC to
promulgate rules that ensure interstate rates for calls that
incarcerated individuals make while in confinement are just,
reasonable and nondiscriminatory. Finally, it would require
providers of inmate telephone services to offer both collect
calling and debit account services which is a cheaper option
according to paid telephone service providers because it
mitigates the risk of bad debt associated with collect calling.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for holding this
hearing and I am glad to have the witnesses here to testify on
behalf of my bill. Thank you and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Rush. The gentleman
from North Carolina, Mr. Butterfield, is recognized for two
minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
convening this hearing and I particularly want to thank
Chairman Rush for introducing the legislation. This is not the
first Congress in which he has introduced this bill. He has
done it in Congresses past and I thank him for his sensitivity
to this issue.
As most of you know, I served as a trial judge in my State
for many years before coming to Congress. I sat on the highest
trial bench in my State and presided over felony cases and very
serious crimes. As a consequence of my work, there were many
people that I had the unfortunate and unpleasant task of
incarcerating. But I want to tell you from personal experience
that the telephone system between the jails and the prisons and
communities is really in need of revamping. It would break my
heart when mothers and grandmothers and family members would
call me from time-to-time and tell me that they had--these are
poor people, who would have $300 and $400 telephone bills
because their loved ones would call collect from the jail. And
what does a grandmother say when her grandchild is calling her
collect from the jail? The only thing she knows to do is to
accept the charges.
And so this legislation that we have before us today is
certainly a step in the right direction. It is not the ideal
legislation. I wish we could do more. I have always said that
one remedy for the problem would be to create a debit card just
like we have here in the cafeteria. Whenever I want to go get a
meal, I go downstairs and I put this debit card in and I get my
meal. Now, we could do this in the jails and make it very
effective.
The other thing that we could do would be have cell phones
in the prisons and in the jails that would be controlled. Not
unlimited cell phones but the prisoners could get cell phones
for 30 minutes a day and use those cell phones and at the
conclusion of the call, they could turn in the cell phones and
they could be locked up and kept away from the prisoners.
So thank you, Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having
this hearing today. This is a step in the right direction.
I yield back.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Butterfield.
We turn now to our panel of witnesses and again thank each
of them for their attendance here this morning. Without
objection, your prepared written statement will be made a part
of the record and we would welcome your oral presentation. And
in the interest of time given the large number of witnesses who
have joined us this morning, we would ask that your oral
statements be kept to approximately five minutes.
I will just say a brief word of introduction about each of
our witnesses. Mr. Frank Krogh is an attorney with the firm of
Morrison and Foerster representing Citizens United for the
Rehabilitation of Errants. Mr. Curtis Hopfinger is Director of
Government and Regulatory Affairs at Securus Technologies. Mr.
David Goad is the Sheriff of Allegany County, Maryland and
President of the National Sheriffs' Association. And each of
those witnesses will be testifying with respect to H.R. 1133,
the Family Telephone Connection Protection Act.
Testifying on the Commercial Advertisement Loudness
Mitigation Act is Mr. Joel Kelsey, Policy Analyst at Consumers
Union, Mr. David Donovan, President of The Association for
Maximum Service Television and Mr. Jim Starzynski, Principal
Engineer and Audio Architect for NBC Universal.
Testifying on the Local Community Radio Act is Mr. Peter
Doyle, Chief of the Audio Division of the Media Bureau of the
Federal Communications Commission, Ms. Caroline Beasley,
Executive Director and CFO of Beasley Broadcast Group and Ms.
Cheryl Leanza, Policy Director of the United Church of Christ,
Office of Communication.
We welcome each of you and, Mr. Krogh, we will pleased to
begin with you and you will need to turn your microphone on and
move it as close as possible to you and we can hear you much
better.
STATEMENTS OF FRANK W. KROGH, ESQUIRE, MORRISON AND FOERSTER
LLP; CURTIS HOPFINGER, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT & REGULATORY
AFFAIRS, SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES; DAVID GOAD, NATIONAL SHERIFFS'
ASSOCIATION; JOEL KELSEY, POLICY ANALYST, CONSUMERS UNION;
DAVID DONOVAN, PRESIDENT, THE ASSOCIATION FOR MAXIMUM SERVICE
TELEVISION, INC., JIM STARZYNSKI, PRINCIPAL ENGINEER AND AUDIO
ARCHITECT, NBC UNIVERSAL, ADVANCED ENGINEERING; PETER DOYLE,
CHIEF, AUDIO DIVISION, MEDIA BUREAU, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION; CAROLINE BEASLEY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND CFO,
BEASLEY BROADCAST GROUP; AND CHERYL A. LEANZA, POLICY DIRECTOR,
UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
STATEMENT OF FRANK W. KROGH
Mr. Krogh. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I am
Frank Krogh, an attorney with the firm of Morrison and Foerster
which represents the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil
Rights and Urban Affairs in a proceeding before the Federal
Communications Commission addressing prison inmates' long
distance telephone service rates. We also have been
coordinating closely in that proceeding with Citizens United
for the Rehabilitation of Errants or CURE.
Charlie and Pauline Sullivan, the co-directors of CURE, are
here with me today and they have asked me to testify in support
of H.R. 1133, the Family Telephone Connection Protection Act of
2009. On behalf of CURE, I want to thank Subcommittee Chairman
Boucher and Congressman Rush, the sponsor of H.R. 1133, for
their leadership in trying to solve this problem of
unaffordable inmate telephone rates.
The long distance telephone rates charged prison inmates
and their families are exorbitant and make it harder for
inmates to maintain the critical family and community
connections that are needed for their rehabilitation. H.R. 1133
would ensure that the FCC addresses this issue forcefully.
As Chairman Boucher and Congressman Rush explained, prison
inmates and their families pay some of the highest long
distance rates in the country. The problem arises from the
bidding process to win these exclusive service contracts. The
competing service providers generally are expected to offer
generous commissions to the prison administrator or state
correctional agency or the treasury for the right to provide
the exclusive service to the facilities for the prison system.
The winning bidder is typically the service provider that
offers the highest commission payment not the lowest service
rate. So then the winning bidder then has to charge excessive
rates for the inmate calls in order to cover these huge
commission payments of 40 to 65 percent.
As a result, you have got these tremendous collect call
charges often as high as $3.95 for a service charge plus a per-
minute charge of 89 cents. And I have even seen inmate collect
rates of $4.28 plus 98 cents a minute as opposed to the typical
rate available to residential subscribers or calling card
customers of a few pennies per minute. At current rates, one
hour of conversation a week can run up a monthly phone bill of
$300 which is a huge financial burden for the innocent
families, low-income families and loved ones receiving and
paying for inmate collect calls. These rates deprive inmates
and their family members of their most reasonable means,
sometimes the only possible means of communication and strain
the family and community rehabilitative ties that reduce
recidivism, preserve families and ease prison tensions.
The need to act on this issue has become widely recognized.
The American Bar Association, the American Correctional
Association and a report released in 2006 by a diverse national
prison reform commission which included correctional officials,
all recommend that inmate telephone rates be drastically
reduced in order to reinforce family and community ties.
Now, as Congressman Stearns pointed out, in some cases this
commission revenue is used for prisoner welfare programs but
that cannot justify the charging of unreasonable rates. You
can't violate Federal Law on the grounds that the profit is
going to charitable purposes. This is a regressive tax on some
of the poorest people in America and this also means that these
programs, these prisoner welfare programs are not free at all.
They are being fully funded right now by the prisoners and
their families. Those families and prisoners should have a
choice of having fewer programs and more communication. I think
if you gave them that choice, they would choose more reasonable
telephone rates so they could communicate more. They should not
be deprived of that choice through a regressive tax on their
telephone calls.
Now, H.R. 1133 confirms the need to reduce inmate telephone
rates and would require that the FCC consider imposing maximum
interstate inmate calling rates, a requirement that inmate
telephone service providers offer a debit calling option which
is cheaper than and lower cost than collect calling and a
prohibition of commission payments. The ABA has endorsed the
proposed legislation as have leading newspapers. Some of the
remedies specified in H.R. 1133 are also proposed in the
pending FCC petition filed by Martha Wright, the grandmother of
a former prisoner, and other petitioners. The Wright
petitioners have demonstrated that it is entirely feasible for
interstate long distance telephone services to be provided
profitably to prisoners at rates far below those prevailing at
most prison facilities.
For example, interstate inmate long distance rates in
Florida, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire and New York
correctional facilities are way below typical interstate inmate
rates. Before New York eliminated its 57.5 percent commission
rate in 2007, the interstate collect rate for prisoners in New
York correctional facilities was 16 cents a minute plus a $3
connection charge, which is equivalent to 41 cents a minute for
a 12-minute call. Now, with no commission payment, the rate is
6.8 cents per minute plus $1.28 connection charge which is
equivalent to 17.5 cents a minute for a 12-minute call.
Michigan previously had an interstate rate equivalent to
$1.16 per minute for a 15-minute collect or debit call. Now,
the debit and collect rates are 12 cents and 15 cents per
minute respectively, with no per-call charge. So it is quite
possible to have much lower rates and have the service provided
at a profit which the service providers are quite eager to do.
Mr. Boucher. Mr. Krogh, let me ask if you could wrap up.
Your time has expired.
Mr. Krogh. Oh yes, I think that H.R. 1133 would ensure that
the FCC consider the remedies proposed by the Wright
petitioners at the FCC and reaffirms the FCC's authority to
impose those remedies. The bill would therefore help bring
about prison inmate telephone service reform and CURE urges its
swift passage.
Thank you for your time. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Krogh follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.008
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Mr. Hopfinger.
STATEMENT OF CURTIS HOPFINGER
Mr. Hopfinger. Good morning, Chairman Boucher and members
of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to speak here today
regarding inmate telecommunications and H.R. 1133.
My name is Curt Hopfinger and I am the Director of
Regulatory and Government Affairs for Securus Technologies.
Securus is a Dallas, Texas based company that provides inmate
telecommunications through our wholly owned subsidiaries to
correctional institutions in 44 States. We serve approximately
2,600 locations that include county, city and state-operated
facilities. In addition, Securus is one of the leading
providers and patent holders of technologies necessary to
provide robust, reliable and above all secure inmate
telecommunications.
My remarks will be brief. My aim is to provide the
committee with further contacts and information regarding this
highly specialized industry and the role that inmate telephone
communications providers play in assisting law enforcement in
meeting the demands in the correctional setting.
Today Securus is in a highly competitive industry. Today we
compete with numerous providers of inmate telecommunication
services for contracts with correctional authorities that are
put out for public bid. It is not uncommon for as many as eight
different correctional service providers to bid for the same
contract. This bidding process which is governed by the
procurement codes and regulations applicable to the area in
which the correctional facility is located, forces all
participants to present their very best menu of technologies,
security feature and above all telephone call prices in order
to secure a contract.
As many law enforcement officials have explained to the FCC
and elsewhere, the inmate telephone system is a critical tool
for maintaining security both inside and outside the
correctional environment. Today our industry provides law
enforcement with a greater choice and quality of investigative
tools than ever before.
I will provide just one example of how inmate telephone
systems have assisted law enforcement officials in preventing
crime and protecting the public. My written testimony has
another. This example comes from one of our counties that is
served by Securus Technologies. Grant County has informed us
that the Federal Bureau of Investigation routinely listens to
the recordings of Grant County inmate calls to assist in
finding Al-Qaeda terrorist cells. Thus, even at the county
level, secure inmate calling platforms are providing the
necessary tools for assisting in preserving homeland security.
All of the features and services I have described above, of
course come at a cost. In this specialized corner of the
telecommunication's industry, those costs are large in absolute
figures and also in terms of the proportion of revenue that
these costs represent. The requirement to provide customized
products to law enforcement and correctional institutions
causes inmate telephone service providers to incur substantial
costs. In addition, it prevents our industry from enjoying the
real economies of scale like local exchange companies and long
distance companies that serve the general public.
I am pleased to tell you that in 2007, Securus began
deploying a system called the Secure Call Platform or SCP which
is a centralized system that requires less reliance on hardware
and software at the correctional facility itself. Now that SCP
has been deployed, our network efficiencies have improved and
our calling rates have decreased significantly at several
locations.
I must however make it clear that SCP is neither
appropriate or feasible at all correctional facilities. The
multi-million dollar investment by Securus that made this new
technology possible is however indicative of the fact that the
industry is competitive and that law enforcement, inmates and
families of inmates are in fact reaping the benefits.
Having given you this brief background on inmate telephones
and how they work and are deployed, I would like to say a few
words about H.R. 1133. Securus is concerned that H.R. 1133 will
have the unintended consequences of hindering competition,
compromising security and actually decreasing the availability
of telephone service for inmates. In brief, this legislation
would make it more difficult for Securus and all inmate
telephone service providers to compete, to innovate and to even
maintain their existence in the inmate telephone service
market.
First, the legislation would require the FCC to set a
federal rate cap. Securus is concerned that a federal rate cap
would inevitably impose below cost rates for some facility
locations and certainly for facility locations in high cost
areas. In addition, a mandatory rate cap could leave such a
slender margin of return that for many contracts few service
providers could risk putting in a bid.
Second, the legislation would impose facilities-based
competition at the individual facility sites. This mandatory
unbundling could require installation and maintenance of two or
more redundant inmate calling platforms at every facility. This
multi-provider scheme would lead to a host of administrative
and security problems. In addition, it would increase the cost
to the service providers and the facilities themselves. These
increased costs would have to be recovered by those paying for
inmate telephone calls.
Third, the legislation would require an inmate telephone
service provider to complete calls to persons regardless of
whether the provider has any billing agreement with the called
party or the called party's local carrier. I assure the
committee that Securus and the industry as a whole are making
great efforts to establish billing relationships with called
parties whether through their local residence exchange carrier
or via billing arrangements directly with the called parties. A
federal mandate requiring the completion of all inmate calls
however, will discourage both inmates and called parties from
allowing Securus to setup billing relationships with them. The
result would be an unprecedented situation in which a telephone
company is forced to give away service for free.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hopfinger follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.021
Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Hopfinger. Your time has
expired. Sheriff Goad.
STATEMENT OF DAVID GOAD
Sheriff Goad. Good morning, Mr. Chairman Boucher, Ranking
Member Stearns and members of the committee.
My name is David A. Goad and I am currently the Sheriff of
Allegany County, Maryland and President of the National
Sheriffs' Association. The National Sheriffs' Association
represents 3,000 elected sheriffs across the country and more
than 20,000 law enforcement professionals, making us one of the
largest law enforcement associations in the nation. I am
pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss our strong opposition to H.R. 1133, the Family
Telephone Connection Protection Act of 2009 and the negative
and potentially dangerous effect this legislation will have on
jails and prisons throughout the United States.
As you may be aware, sheriffs play a unique role in the
criminal justice system. Over 99 percent of the sheriffs are
elected and oftentimes serve as the chief law enforcement
officer of their respective counties. In addition to providing
traditional policing within their respective counties, sheriffs
also manage local jails and provide court security.
Consequently, we have a keen understanding of the needs of the
criminal justice system as well as our local communities we
serve.
Currently, over 80 percent of the nation's local jails are
under the jurisdiction of sheriffs. While operating our
nation's jails, sheriffs must process thousands of arrests and
are responsible for detaining tens of thousands of inmates
nationwide on any given day. The amount of time, effort,
resources and funding necessary to manage these jails is quite
substantial. Furthermore, sheriffs need to work with the
knowledge that the safety of the public, as well as their
deputies, is always guarded and held in the highest priority.
Therefore, it is necessary for sheriffs to have control over
and to have the ability to monitor the activities that
transpire within our jails including the communication that
inmates have with their connections outside of the facility.
The Family Telephone Connection Protection Act of 2009
would alter a jail's inmate telephone service procedures and
amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require the FCC to
prescribe rules regulating inmate telephone service. While the
bill requires that these regulations do not jeopardize
``legitimate security and penological interests,'' it indicates
that a reduction or elimination of revenue derived by
corrections institutions from the receipt of commissions does
not constitute jeopardizing or affecting legitimate security
standards or penological interests. H.R. 1133 also indicates
that no provider or inmate telephone services may block or
refuse to carry a call placed by an inmate on the grounds that
the provider has no contractual or other arrangement with the
local carrier servicing the call recipient.
The National Sheriffs' Association believes that this
legislation would severely hamper the ability of all the
sheriffs and law enforcement officials to effectively manage
our nation's jails. Under H.R. 1133, correctional institutions
would be required to provide inmates with a choice of carriers
while placing telephone calls. This proposal would amount to
nothing less than the complete dismantling of the existing
system of inmate phone service.
Under the current system one inmate phone service provider
is contractually committed to monitoring and of course control
inmate calling for security and law enforcement purposes.
Carrier choice would cause the facility to lose control over
the monitoring and tracking of inmate calling which frequently
results in criminal activity and massive fraud. Moreover,
carrier choice would severely hamper the provider's ability to
assist law enforcement officials with ongoing criminal
investigations and of course to monitor the phone calls of
suspected terrorists.
These are dangerous individuals who will continue to
conduct criminal activities and operations on the outside via
phone while they are incarcerated in local jails. Such
activities could also include threats against any testifying
witness or against any law enforcement personnel and their
families. Consequently, the inability to monitor such calls
could have a detrimental and potentially deadly impact. It
could place unsuspecting individuals in danger and could
prevent witnesses from coming forward to testify. Therefore,
sheriffs' ability to easily and effectively monitor inmate
telephone calls not only assists law enforcement in criminal
investigations but significantly reduces the harm to law-
abiding citizens throughout the community.
During the 110th Congress and in the current 111th
Congress, there has been strong emphasis on rehabilitating
incarcerated offenders and ensuring their successful reentries
into society. Local jails are attempting these efforts. However
as sheriffs' offices budgets have been significantly reduced or
tightened in recent years, sheriffs have been unable to utilize
funding for anything other than personnel and necessary
equipment and technology. Therefore, sheriffs rely on various
services such as inmate telephone commissions to bring in
revenue to fund and operate jailhouse treatment, rehabilitation
and reentry programs.
I would like to interject a few examples such as in the
State of Maryland that has to do with this revenue advantage.
As correctional administrators we realize a significant funding
loss. My facility which is a 225-bed facility in Western
Maryland has realized approximately $64,000 a year, other
facilities such as Harford County, $170,000 and Washington
County in the State of Maryland approximately $134,000 in lost
revenue. Funds generated from commissions on inmate telephones
are not a source of income for correctional administrators as
we are only allowed to spend such funds on matters related to
inmate welfare providing undergarments, socks and so on for
inmates and so on. I would add that these commissions on phone
calls are not unlike a sales tax. In this instance, the
proceeds are entirely devoted to the betterment of the citizen
population and in this instance, it is our inmates. I further
wish to state that cutting such funds will have a negative
effect on inmates in every correctional facility across the
United States.
Sheriffs recognize that maintenance of communications with
family is a positive influence for the inmate's integration
back into the larger society after release. As such, the
National Sheriff's Association endorses fair and reasonable
rates for inmate calls and would expect all sheriffs to require
service providers to adhere to FCC rate guidelines.
Furthermore, the National Sheriffs' Association continues to be
an advocate for reentry initiatives proposed by Congress.
However, we strongly oppose the proposals within H.R. 1133 as
they would compromise public safety, put additional burdens on
taxpayers and force correctional institutions to eliminate
reentry programs and access to telephones for inmates.
Mr. Boucher. Sheriff Goad, thank you.
Sheriff Goad. I would like to thank you for the opportunity
to be here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goad follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.026
Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Sheriff Goad. Mr. Kelsey.
STATEMENT OF JOEL KELSEY
Mr. Kelsey. Chairman Boucher, Ranking Member Stearns and
esteemed members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you for the first time today on
behalf of Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer
Reports.
While I am here to offer consumer viewpoints on H.R. 1084,
the CALM Act, I would be remiss if I did not also take this
opportunity to highlight Consumers Union's support of the Local
Community Radio Act. The current cost of starting up an FM
radio station is close to $2.5 million dollars. This financial
hurdle often places the station licenses outside of the reach
of local hands at a time when consumers are craving more local
information then ever before. Efforts to support the LPFM bill
are efforts to support the families, workers and places of
worship that are the anchors in our communities.
The CALM Act, introduced by Representative Eshoo, addresses
a widespread consumer complaint, the abrupt loudness of
television advertisements. Representative Eshoo's legislation
will go a long way towards preventing advertisements from
screaming at consumers in their own living rooms. Specifically,
the Act would enable the Federal Communications Commission to
monitor the volume of advertisements in television programming
and determine acceptable levels. This would ensure that the
volume levels of commercial breaks are consistent with the
volume level of the programming which it brackets.
For years consumers have noticed that when a television
program cuts to commercial breaks, the volume of the television
suddenly rises to a shout, far beyond the average level of the
television program it follows. We have often wondered are
advertisers trying to scare us into remembering the names of
their products.
This abrupt, sometimes shocking change in volume during
advertisements is not a new phenomenon. In fact, consumer
complaints about loud commercials began streaming into the FCC
in the 1960s. At that point, the agency contended that there
was no way to measure the volume level of commercials but did
conclude loud commercials were contrary to the public interest
and should be avoided. Throughout the next two decades, the
Commission launched several fact-finding proceedings,
ultimately concluding that although technology to measure the
volume of commercials now exists, the perceived loudness of
commercials is subjective and would vary from listener to
listener. In 1984, the FCC commented, ``As more is learned
about loudness, it is likely that more sophisticated control
devices will be developed and used by broadcasters. Such
actions should begin to eliminate complaints of objectionable
loudness.''
25 years later, complaints continue to flood the
Commission. In fact, in the 25 quarterly reports that the FCC
releases on consumer complaints, 21 of them have listed
complaints about loud commercials as among the top consumer
grievances in radio and television broadcasting. We believe
this widespread consumer issue, which has spanned 45 years is a
result of more that just the arbitrary or subjective perception
of consumers. Rather, it is a real consumer grievance that
deserves a new approach in the new era of digital broadcasting.
The current FCC guidance regarding loud commercials mostly
points consumers towards equipment that they can purchase to
stabilize the volume during transition to commercials. However,
not every consumer can afford to purchase TV sets with smart
sound nor should they have to. Advertisers simply do not have
the right to scream at consumers in their own living rooms and
consumers should not have to pay to experience peace and quiet
in the sanctity of their own home.
There are several complexities that accompany this action
by the agency. In particular, there are differences in the
compressed audio levels of television shows and commercials.
While the audio of a television show usually matches natural
sound more closely, the audio of a commercial has less
distinction between loud and soft sounds resulting in
everything seeming much louder. We recommend the FCC focus in
on this question in particular and develop an approach that is
consistent with the 1979 Notice of Inquiry. In that Notice, the
agency concedes that a dynamic range of volume is desirable
with regard to broadcasting but at some point the amount of
deviation from that average audio level begins to conflict with
the public's sensibilities.
Placing a national standard on the loudness of commercials
in not without an international precedent. In fact, the Library
of Congress has noted that legislation addressing this matter
has already been adopted in Australia, Brazil, France, Israel,
Russia and the United Kingdom. In addition, the International
Telecommunications Union has adopted standards that offer
guidance to measure the audio levels of different programs.
In conclusion, the CALM Act provides an elegant and
commonsense solution to finally ending a 45-year consumer
complaint in the United States. Consumers Union endorses the
CALM Act as a solid step towards protecting consumers from
unduly loud commercial advertisement, commends Representative
Eshoo for championing this legislation and urges lawmakers to
bring this measure forward.
Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelsey follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.031
Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Kelsey. Mr. Donovan.
STATEMENT OF DAVID L. DONOVAN
Mr. Donovan. Thank you, Chairman Boucher, Ranking Member
Stearns and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity
today regarding broadcasters efforts to resolve variations in
volume between regular programming and commercials in digital
television. And I also want to thank Representative Eshoo for
the introduction of the CALM Act.
MSTV is a nonprofit trade association representing
television broadcast stations across the country. In effect, we
are the engineering arm of the television broadcast industry
and our mission is to ensure that American consumers have the
highest quality, interference-free local television. We have
been actively involved in the digital television transition
since the 1980s. Working with the FCC, we helped develop the
digital TV table of allotments. We helped design the digital
converter box that is the backbone of the transition and we
have also been actively involved in dealing with the question
of loud commercials.
At the outset, MSTV and the broadcast industry want the
committee to understand that we fully recognize the problem. We
get it. The future of our business, of digital television in
particular depends in part, depends in large measure on
consumer satisfaction. Unexpected changes in volume can ignore
consumers and disrupt the viewing experience. The television
broadcast industry has every interest in ensuring in the
digital age that consumers are not subject to such
frustrations. As a matter of pure economics, we do not want to
lose viewers. Our revenue depends on viewers watching programs
and commercials. If viewers skip advertisements or shut off
their television altogether, we lost revenue.
To this end, I think there is one important element why
digital is different from analog and it is extremely important.
The Advanced Television Systems Committee standard employs a
Dolby 5.1 digital sound system. The dynamic range of the
system, i.e., the highs and the lows of volume allows for
theater-quality sound. In fact, digital television has more
than two times the dynamic range of an average analog
television set. Consumers who have purchased large screen
television sets in digital now expect the in-home theater
experience. Thus, when developing a solution for loud
commercials, it is important not to impair the audio range of
those sets that have been purchased.
In many respects you now have motion picture production
sound quality in the living room. Unfortunately, the noise in
most of our living rooms have not changed over the years so you
want to make sure you can enjoy the programs without having
problems with the loud commercials.
And the industry has made significant progress together and
let me just talk about two things in the context of digital.
First, the technical parameters are established by our primary
programming providers. In this regard, the major television
broadcast networks in effect help create a norm for the entire
industry and ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX have each individually
implemented policies in the context of digital, policies to
attempt to control loud commercials in the context of digital
television.
Moreover, the entire industry including ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX,
all local stations began addressing this issue back in 2007
when the ATSC established the digital loudness subgroup. Now,
Jim Starzynski, who has worked on that extensively, will go
into detail. Let me just say here that the progress of that
subgroup has been remarkable. In many respects, it has resolved
more issues in the last two years then the government was able
to solve in decades and we are now on the cusp of resolving
this issue. Importantly, when ATSC adopts its recommended
practice it will have the salutary effect of providing guidance
for all local televisions for local advertising, local
programming, syndicated programming, national spot but also
influence both cable and satellite systems which have similar
technologies.
I would ask the committee to consider just one word of
caution. This system has been worked on now for nearly two
years. Engineers by and large are problem solvers. That is what
they do and we are on the cusp of resolving this issue. Our
concern with the bill if enacted will send to the FCC for one
year and require a resolution within one year, in effect it
creates or may create a jump ball in which once the lawyers get
involved, you end up starting the process over in the context
of a regulatory environment. And this may have the unintended
consequence of actually delaying a solution rather than
fostering it. Nonetheless, we think the bill is important.
Certainly the bill has focused our attentions and helped
accelerate the process but we are concerned that there may be
some unintended consequences here.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to
testify before you today and I want to thank Representative
Eshoo for sponsoring the bill and I am prepared to answer any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Donovan follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.043
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Donovan. Mr.
Starzynski.
STATEMENT OF JIM STARZYNSKI
Mr. Starzynski. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Stearns,
thank you for inviting me to testify in H.R. 1084 and for the
opportunity to discuss how NBC Universal and the TV industry
generally are addressing the TV loudness issue.
I am here today representing NBC Universal, which I serve
as principal engineer and audio architect. I have been working
in the TV industry for 25 years and have focused on digital TV
for the past 12. I also serve as chairman of the subgroup on
digital television loudness within the advanced television
systems committee, the technical standard organization for over
the air digital TV.
Though digital TV greatly enhances audio quality, if not
properly managed it also creates the opportunity for excessive
variations in loudness. This can be especially apparent when
transitioning from programs to commercials. The TV understands
and shares the concerns about variations in volume levels. We
want to give our audience the best possible listening
experience and we know that experience is not currently
optimal. Congress has also heightened our awareness of the
problem and helped galvanize industry action on this issue. As
a result, we have invested significant effort and resources in
voluntary action to address the situation. This hearing is
especially timely because we are on the cusp of offering a
solution.
Our experience at NBC Universal provides an example of a
possible solution. Early on we recognized that the digital
transition would require a culture change in our management of
audio programs and commercials. Whether produced internally or
obtained from outside suppliers, TV programs and commercials
come from hundreds of different sources. The sheer number and
diversity of program sources contribute to uneven volume levels
unless properly managed. Thus, our goal of providing a cinema-
quality sound experience also created a risk of excessive
variation. Fortunately, the ATSC's current digital standard as
adopted by the FCC incorporates the necessary technology to
eliminate variation in loudness during program to commercial
transitions. And although the ATSC standard generally applies
only to over-the-air broadcasting, the standards and
technologies used by cable, satellite and telecom operators are
all closely related. Therefore, NBC Universal required our in-
house productions, external show suppliers and advertising
customers to provide soundtracks compatible with our in-place
ATSC audio practices. We require all of our content to be
produced and delivered at a consistent loudness and we set our
broadcast equipment to properly operate at this loudness level.
These practices are generally sufficient to ensure consistent
audio level across NBC programs and networks.
To address content delivered with loudness outside the
range of our spec, WNBC-DT in New York is about to test new
technology that will automatically normalize the loudness
levels. This technology simply adjusts the volume of disparate
content before transmission much like adjusting the sound with
a remote control at home. If successful, if the test if
successful at WNBC, we plan to apply the technology to all NBCU
television services.
Now, let me discuss the broader issue and the industry
status. In April of 2007, the ATSC recognized that the emerging
digital TV loudness problem deserved more attention across the
industry so it created the ATSC subgroup that I chair which is
DTV loudness experts from all over the major broadcast networks
as well as cable, production and postproduction, manufacturing
and education.
Our goal was to identify the impediments to providing good
DTV audio at consistent volume levels, then discuss and
document solutions for those problems. This process ultimately
led to the development of a recommended practice which
addresses five areas concerned and those areas are the first,
contemporary sound measurement. The second, establishing the
correct sound monitoring environment. The third is an
explanation of how to properly manage DTV's metadata element.
The fourth is management of dynamic range and the fifth,
methods to effectively control program-to-interstitial loudness
or programs to commercials.
This recommended practice is a comprehensive, effective and
easy-to-read resource that covers all issues from content
creation through distribution and transmission to the consumer
experience. This ATSC recommended practice can become the
roadmap for all TV professionals, no matter their industry
segment or level of technical sophistication.
In terms of timing, the ATSC recommended practice is in
final review by the audio experts group and scheduled for
submission to our parent group in July on the 22nd with release
of a final document anticipated for September. After release of
the finished recommended practice, the industry will be well-
positioned to resolve concerns over TV loudness.
Because the industry is on the cusp of taking action to
address TV loudness concerns, legislation on this matter is,
for the moment, inadvisable. Legislation may slow or stall
widespread implementation of the recommended practice while the
industry waits for Congressional and subsequent agency action.
Further legislation might result in sub-optimal technical
solution or require adherence to a technical standard that has
already become obsolete.
I understand a self-regulatory approach may not provide
some with the same level of assurance as a legislative solution
however I can assure you that the industry is motivated to act.
Once again, thanks for inviting me to address this issue. I
would be happy to take your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Starzynski follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.052
Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Starzynski.
Mr. Starzynski. Thank you.
Mr. Boucher. Mr. Doyle.
STATEMENT OF PETER H. DOYLE
Mr. Doyle. Good morning, Chairman Boucher, Ranking Member
Stearns and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today.
I am Peter Doyle and I will be presenting testimony on
behalf of the Federal Communications Commission. I am chief of
the media bureau's audio division. My staff and I are
responsible for all terrestrial radio broadcast station
licensing.
The Commission authorized the low-power FM radio service in
January 2000. In establishing the first new radio station in
more than 30 years, the Commission sought to respond to a broad
and deep interest in creating outlets for highly local radio
stations grounded in their communities. 859 LPFM stations are
currently licensed and operating.
The Commission initially declined to adopt third-adjacent
channel minimum distance separation requirements. They
concluded that such requirements would unnecessarily restrict
the number of LPFM stations and would not cause unacceptable
levels of interference.
In December 2000, Congress passed the 2001 DC
Appropriations Act, legislation which directed the Commission
to impose third-adjacent channel protection requirements. The
media bureau thereafter dismissed 462 applications which could
not be amended to comply with the Act's spacing requirements.
In accordance with the Act, the Commission selected the
Mitre Corporation to conduct interference tests. Mitre
delivered its Phase I Report in June 2003. Mitre substantially
agreed with the Commission's conclusions finding that third-
adjacent channel LPFM transmissions would have little impact on
incumbent full-power stations. In February 2004, the Commission
submitted its report to Congress and recommended that Congress
eliminate LPFM third-adjacent channel requirements.
I would like to make two specific comments about the Local
Community Radio Act. First, the Commission's FM translator
licensing experience, since the delivery of the 2004 report
further confirms the agency's initial determination that LPFM
stations would not cause unacceptable levels of interference.
The FM translator service has by far the most flexible rules to
engineer in a low-power FM station in a mature radio market.
These rules permit an FM translator to co-locate with a third-
adjacent channel full-power station on the basis of a
Commission approved, no actual interference methodology.
On the other hand, a translator station must cease
operations if a single listener complaint of actual
interference remains unresolved. Since 2004, the audio division
has granted approximately 4,400 new translator station licenses
with approximately 1,800 of these relying on a no-actual
interference processing standard with regard to a nearby or co-
located second or third-adjacent channel station, a perfect,
real world test of the Commission's FM interference prediction
methodology.
There has been no discernable increase in interference
complaints during this licensing process, a substantial
vindication of the Commission's technical conclusions.
Accordingly, we remain confident that the impact from LPFM
stations which generally operate at lower power levels then
translator stations would be extremely modest.
The second point I would like to make is that the failure
to repeal current third-adjacent channel requirements could
significantly restrict the future growth of the LPFM service.
In 2007, the Commission announced a processing policy to
consider second-adjacent channel spacing waivers from LPFM
stations at risk of displacement from encroaching full-power
stations. Last Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals denied the
Broadcasters challenge to this processing policy thereby saving
approximately 40 stations at risk of displacement. Enactment of
H.R. 1147 would permit the Commission to expand this processing
policy to permit third-adjacent channel waivers.
The audio division currently anticipates enormous applicant
interest in the next LPFM window. It is difficult to develop
definitive projections regarding the preclusive impact of the
2001 DC Appropriations Act with both applicant demand and
supply unknown until an LPFM window opens. Nevertheless, the
audio division has done some research and has reached a few
general conclusions. Beginning with cities of approximately
500,000 or less, our analysis shows that current requirements
materially limit channels for LPFM stations sometimes for
closing use of the only channel or channels otherwise available
for LPFM use. Channels would be widely available for
communities of less than 50,000 if current spacing requirements
were eliminated.
The Commission's extensive experience in FM translator
licensing refutes the claim that elimination of third-adjacent
channel protection requirements would result in pervasive
interference. The Commission has twice unanimously requested
that Congress lift these restrictions. As chief of the audio
division and on behalf of the division's expert engineers who
prudently safeguard the technical integrity of the radio
spectrum and who are responsible for ensuring interference-free
service by over 16,000 FM stations daily, I wholeheartedly
support that request.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Doyle follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.062
Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Doyle. Ms. Beasley.
STATEMENT OF CAROLINE BEASLEY
Ms. Beasley. Good morning, Chairman Boucher, Ranking Member
Stearns and subcommittee members.
My name is Caroline Beasley. I am the executive vice
president and chief financial officer of the Beasley Broadcast
Group, a family-owned company which owns and operates 44 radio
stations in 11 markets. I am testifying today on behalf of the
National Association of Broadcasters where I serve as vice
chair of the NAB radio board.
My main message today is that full-power FM stations and
low-power FM stations can coexist. There is a role for each to
play within their communities and there is a process in place
to continue licensing LPFM at the FCC. That being said, it is
important to maintain interference guidelines that protect
listeners to both services.
The hallmark of full-power radio broadcasting is service to
our communities. Broadcasters provide unequaled community
service and contribute millions of dollars locally through
direct fundraising, charitable giving and donated airtime. We
air a wide range of music and entertainment, provide local
news, act as a lifeline in times of crisis, heighten awareness
of important issues and inform voters. In times of emergencies,
local radio broadcasters rise to the occasion. Local
broadcasters will break from regular programming and stay on
the air to reach the public and share essential information.
In 2008, as the wildfire ravaged southwest Florida, Beasley
responded as five of our stations helped raise funds for
families that lost homes. When an explosion occurred at a sugar
refinery in Georgia, a neighboring Beasley station acted as a
communications center between the public and officials dealing
with the disaster. The station was flooded with offers of help
and assistance for victims of the explosion. Listeners have
come to expect this involvement from their local broadcasters
and we will always be there for them.
In serving our local communities, broadcasters are
concerned about interference. Simply, a listener that
experiences interference is a lost listener, one who will
change the channel and stop tuning in. This is a person we may
not reach at a critical time during an emergency. The
engineering study commissioned by the FCC and the subsequent
recommendations to Congress address the subject of
interference. The common perception of the report is that
interference is simply not a problem and the policy should be
changed. The study however showed that interference did in fact
result from an LPFM station operating on a third-adjacent
channel. At various test sites, significant degradation was
found during listening. Some full-power FM programs had static.
Some were not heard at all and at others time a different
program could be heard in the background. These factors were
not present when the LPFM test station was turned off but
subsequently occurred when the LPFM station was turned on.
In view of these findings, the study recommended
consideration of a formula or a way in which to mitigate the
interference. The NAB's analysis was that harmful interference
would be far more prevalent then the government's report and
our objections to that report were documented at length.
Moreover, it is significant to note that even the government's
commission report did not recommend a wholesale elimination of
third-adjacent channel protection. There is a process in place
at the FCC for approving low-power FMs and to date, 865
stations have been licenses. Under existing rules, there is
also a great deal of capacity remaining for the licensing of
additional low-power FM stations. Nationwide, there is room for
tens of thousands of additional LPFMs. This is possible under
the existing third adjacent channel protection policy.
Interference is a real concern for local broadcasters and
buffer protections are necessary and make sense.
Any policy discussion to remove third adjacent channel
protection, should carefully balance interference risks to both
full-power and low-power FM services. Even with third adjacent
protections in place, there are examples of harmful
interference caused by LPFM, stations that are not adhering to
existing technical regulations. Enforcement remains an issue
and increasing the chance of interference through a policy
change affects all listeners and may increase the likelihood of
a lost listener at a time of need or emergencies.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify and
thank you, Mr. Doyle, for the chance to discuss your
legislation. I appreciate your interest in providing greater
opportunity and diversity in radio and I hope we can work
together to further that goal.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Beasley follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.086
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Ms. Beasley. Ms. Leanza.
STATEMENT OF CHERYL A. LEANZA
Ms. Leanza. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Thank you
for keeping your attention on this long, long panel. I really
appreciate your time. I know it is a lot of information and I
am going to try to be brief and hopefully interesting for you.
I want to thank Chairman Boucher and Ranking Member Stearns and
members of the subcommittee.
And I am here today to support the Local Community Radio
Act of 2009, H.R. 1147. First, I want to extend my sincere
gratitude to Congressman Doyle and Congressman Terry for their
leadership on this issue, as well as the bipartisan group of
legislators on this subcommittee for bringing this issue
forward. In particular, as a quick side note want to articulate
UCC support for the other bills that are being considered this
morning and I have a letter with me today from 20 media justice
organizations in support of Congressman Rush's bill.
But I am here to talk about low-power radio. I am going to
describe the service. I am going to describe the problem. I am
going to give you a couple of examples. I am going to hit the
technology for a little bit and hopefully we will get out of
here with time to spare, at least in my five minutes, right.
So what is low-power radio? They are small FM stations.
They are 100 watts. They reach five to seven miles in diameter.
They are really small. They fit in between the cracks and they
use spectrum that is not used right now.
We do have 800 stations on the dial. We know something
about them and there are an incredible diversity of stations. I
couldn't begin to describe them all to you today but encourage
you to look at my written testimony and go back into your home
districts and find out about what is going on there because it
really is incredible.
But as I said, we are not here today about the stations
that are on the air. We are about the people who are left
behind because although we have 800 stations on the air, there
is one station in the top 50 markets in this country. That is
140 million people that have virtually no opportunity to hear
about low-power radio. Hundreds and thousands of organizations
are waiting, waiting for Congress to act, waiting for this bill
to pass. Organizations like Southwest Virginia Community
College that submitted an application to the FCC. Everything
was 100 percent right. The previous legislation passed and
their hopes were smashed away.
In contrast, if we pass this legislation, just about every
community in this country would get three or four LPFM
stations. They are all waiting for Congress to act to pass this
bill.
So there are a lot of stories I could tell you about low-
power radio but since it is June and it is the beginning of
hurricane season, I am going to talk a little bit about some
good examples. I want to assure you that although I don't know
who is going to win the hockey finals this season, that LPFM
radio is going to win the Stanley Cup overall.
Let me give you some examples, Coalition of Immokalee
Workers is in central Florida. During Hurricane Wilma they
saved almost 300 people through their broadcast. What is
different about this radio station? They don't just broadcast
in Spanish. They broadcast in indigenous languages like Mixe
and Zapotec. This is not stuff you hear on the radio now. When
you get information in your native language, it is much easier
to respond in an emergency.
Similarly in Hancock County, Mississippi, during Hurricane
Katrina, QRZ was able to stay on the air. Why? They were small
enough they could pick up the transmitter, move it to higher
ground and operate the entire time using a car battery. That
doesn't happen with regular full-power radio.
Finally, I want to tell you about somewhere that they wish
they had low-power radio, Citrus County, Florida. During
Hurricane Frances, they were desperate for information, local
information. Well certainly, there was a lot of information on
the radio about Hurricane Frances in that region. It was all
emanating out of Tampa and directed towards Tampa. The Citrus
County officials were so desperate for attention that they
actually announced in 2004 they were going to try to get a low-
power radio station but they are still waiting. Congress needs
to act.
So I need to spend about 60 seconds to make three points
about the technical issues about low-power radio because you
keep hearing this is a great service. It is a great idea but
there are technical problems. I understand that. I understand
the desire to study but let me make a few points to you.
First, we know low-power radio is safe because there are
thousands of translator stations on the air now run by full-
power broadcasters that are the same size, the same distance
apart, exactly the same. In fact, some of them are closer than
low-power radio stations and they are working fine. Mr. Doyle
said it in technical terms. I am telling you in layman's terms,
these are the same. They are on the air. They don't cause
interference. The only difference between those stations and
LPFM is who owns them. Are they a member of the NAB or are they
not?
My second point, we have a 2.2 million Congressionally-
ordered independent study. Not a government study, not a
private sector study, an independent study. It confirms all of
the analysis of many other studies that have come before it. I
need to say to you today, one of the organizations that I am
representing is the National Federation of Community
Broadcasters. They are 200 full-power, noncommercial
broadcasters on the air. The organization is 25 years old. They
support this service. They support the legislation. They care
incredibly about signal integrity. They would not be here today
supporting this legislation if there was a danger to the
service.
Finally, I need to point out to you that incumbents do not
have a sterling track record when it comes to technical
questions about new entrants, whether it was an AM radio
broadcaster trying to keep out that newfangled FM service in
the 1930s or it was Ma Bell telling you that it was absolutely
impossible for you to buy a telephone in the store and hook it
up to the network without causing the entire network to fall
down. Incumbents protect their territory and this situation is
no different. We can certainly study the issue to death and we
can study it more. We can create an entire stimulus package for
just studying this issue but thousands of stations, thousands
of applicants around the country have been waiting and waiting
and we have put a lot of resources into it and we know the
answer. The record is clear.
So in closing, I want to share a quick experience with you,
one of my favorite parts of working on low-power radio. I often
get the chance to ask people, what would you do if you had a
radio station? What would it sound like if your community were
in control and all of a sudden their eyes light up because the
wheels in their head are turning. Oh my gosh, we would
broadcast the local high school football game. We would find
out what exactly is going on at city council or the school
board and what about that river on the other side of the
county? Is that safe? Can my kids walk in it and wade in it?
And the music, the band down the corner that they just heard
for the first time that they're sure is going to make it, the
cherished songs from the homeland that they like to share with
their children and their grandchildren. There is nothing like
this on radio today.
So I am bringing with you a potent example of why this
service is so popular. These are 20,000 signatures. The public
interest community has collected 20,000 signatures only since
the end of February, since this legislation was introduced this
year. This is just the tip of the iceberg. These 20,000 people
are asking you all to move this legislation ahead and I hope
that you will listen to them.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to answering
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Leanza follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.144
Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Ms. Leanza. Thanks to each of the
witnesses for your testimony here today.
I have two letters that are addressed to me which I am
going to ask unanimous consent to be placed in the record. They
are commentary on various items of legislation pending before
us this morning. Without objection, those will be placed in the
record.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Boucher. And, Mr. Doyle, let me begin my questions with
you with respect to low-power FM.
One of the letters that I just placed in the record is from
the public radio station that serves the western part of the
State of Virginia. It serves my congressional district as well
as two neighboring congressional districts and I think Mr.
Walden had raised similar kinds of concerns to those raised in
this letter during the course of his opening statement.
This is a public radio station that has a main signal and
that main signal then is picked up by a whole group of
translators that are located in our very mountainous region and
we have two mountain ranges in my congressional district alone.
And for communities that are down in the valleys that are well
away from the main signal, these translators are the way that
public radio service gets propagated out across a very large
area. And this is the principal public radio station for the
entire western half of the State of Virginia. It probably
covers something close to 30 counties. That coverage is largely
through the translator facilities.
The concern that has been expressed to me comes from that
public radio station. So in this instance, it is a public
station that is a bit concerned about opening the panorama of a
potential for more public radio broadcasting, in this case
truly local broadcasting. Not because they oppose it but
because they are worried about interference. You made brief
reference in your statement to which I listened very carefully,
about the studies that you have done relative to translator
facilities and I want to ask you to amplify on that a bit.
The concern expressed to me is that the translator facility
receiving a signal from the main broadcast tower is getting
what is in effect a fairly weak signal because it is a long way
away, and around that translator facility, having to pick up a
very weak signal, if there is any local interference that
interference can materially degrade that main signal coming
into the translator and effectively impair the receipt of this
public radio programming through most of the serviced
territory. And that strikes me as a legitimate question if not
a legitimate concern so what I am asking you is how legitimate
is the concern and what have your studies shown about the
ability of these translators to pick up very weak signals if
there is any kind of interference in the area.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, that is a legitimate concern. We do have a rule that
protects what we call the input signal of a FM translator
station and it is protected in the same way that stations
signals are protected.
Mr. Boucher. So this is a protection that would be specific
to the translator itself and the area around the translator?
Mr. Doyle. Right, right, correct.
Mr. Boucher. No, I understand.
Mr. Doyle. I could look up the rule section number for but
we do have that in place.
Mr. Boucher. What do you conclude about the potential for
third adjacency low-power FM within the immediate area of that
translator?
Mr. Doyle. Well, that is exactly the qualification, within
the immediate area of the translator there would be the
potential for interference.
Mr. Boucher. Right and so how do we guard against that?
Mr. Doyle. Well, we the commission has developed a rule to
protect stations in that situation.
Mr. Boucher. If Mr. Doyle's bill passes, can your rule
still stand?
Mr. Doyle. It is complementary, yes, it would still stand.
Mr. Boucher. It is complementary.
Mr. Doyle. Yes.
Mr. Boucher. I would like for you to submit for our record
if you would, a more detailed explanation of how that rule
works and answer directly the question of how that rule can
coexist with Mr. Doyle's bill in the event that it is enacted.
Mr. Doyle. We would be happy to do that.
Mr. Boucher. OK, thank you.
Mr. Donovan and Mr. Starzynski, you refer in your testimony
with respect to volume controls on commercials on television
programs to a forthcoming recommended practice. I believe you
said that will be forthcoming in September and that your
practice will address squarely the need to make sure that the
volume on commercials is not excessive as compared to the
regular broadcast programming for volumes?
Mr. Starzynski. That is right, Mr. Chairman, yes.
Mr. Boucher. To what extent do you anticipate that this
practice will be adopted by television broadcasters once it is
published and I would ask you to make that projection based on
whatever past experience you have with similar kinds of
standards that have been recommended to the broadcast industry,
Mr. Starzynski.
Mr. Starzynski. Oh OK.
Mr. Boucher. Or Mr. Donovan, do you want, whoever.
Mr. Donovan. I think it is a general matter when you have a
recommended practice that has gone through the industry
standard-setting body which is what ATSC is and in fact in many
instances there is more technical detail in that standard than
in others that we will refer to such as England and other
countries.
Mr. Boucher. I understand that it will be technically
detailed but the question is to what extent will it be put into
practice and adopted by the local broadcasters?
Mr. Donovan. I think it will be. I think it clearly becomes
the norm for the industry and the industry.
Mr. Boucher. Is that based on past experience?
Mr. Donovan. It is based on past experience as working
through the ATSC and industry standards.
Mr. Boucher. Is there any enforcement to make sure that
that happens?
Mr. Donovan. The enforcement becomes self-enforcing, in
other words you have.
Mr. Boucher. Is there any monitoring that takes place to
make sure that it is being complied with by those who at least
in principle adopt it?
Mr. Starzynski. Absolutely there is monitoring that
happens.
Mr. Boucher. Who does the monitoring?
Mr. Starzynski. We do it internally. I can speak for NBC
and it happens at the point at which the content comes into the
building so it gets monitored extensively and the thing that it
also does is it applies a contemporary monitoring device. One,
you may remember the FCC said we can't go farther with this a
whole bunch of years ago because we don't have the technology
to do it. We have it now so that technology is an international
standard. It works very well and it can't be gamed so there is
no issue where you may have someone trying to game the system.
It really reads it and it works the way our ears work this
time. It is not dealing with just the electronics. It is
dealing with perceptual levels and we have every reason to
apply this and to move forward with it because we agree with
you, the problem is out there. We need to fix it.
Mr. Boucher. All right. Well, you have confidence that your
standard will be followed, that it will be monitored, that it
can be effective.
Mr. Starzynski. Yes, I do. Yes, sir.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you for those answers.
Let me take just a moment to address the question of
payphone rates that are imposed in correctional institutions. I
am exceeding my time. The chair will be very generous with
other members in terms of their time to ask questions, also.
Mr. Hopfinger, let me pose a question to you. You have
heard Mr. Krogh testify that sometimes the successful bidder in
contracts to provide these telecommunication services to
inmates will be the bidder who offers the highest commission to
the correctional authority, not the bidder who offers the
lowest priced service. Is that correct and if it is correct how
is that justified?
Mr. Hopfinger. Well, Chairman Boucher, I would say that
today that is not necessarily the case. As the sheriffs'
associations and the other associations have put forth mandates
or recommendations that rates for inmates be just and
reasonable for the inmates and for the people that are paying
for these calls. I will tell you in the bidding systems today
the majority of our bids, one of the criteria is for low rates
but low rates in anticipation with all the other safety and
security requirements that the system is needed. And, Mr. Krogh
mentioned a few States where the rates are lower. I will say
that in addition to the States that Mr. Krogh mentioned, there
are additional States where rates are in fact coming down and
that is as a result of the way system is working today.
Mr. Boucher. All right. Mr. Krogh, let me ask you to
respond if you like to the answer Mr. Hopfinger just provided
and additionally if you would, Sheriff Goad in his testimony
talked about the fact that the commissions that are received by
correctional authorities are often applied toward services for
inmates just as rehabilitative services. What is your view
about whether those services should be financed by the
commissions on telephone calls as compared perhaps to
government simply providing through direct appropriations the
money necessary for those essential services?
Mr. Krogh. Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is true just turning to
Mr. Hopfinger's comments first. It is true that in some States
the rates have come down as a result of decisions made by
either the State legislature or correctional authorities but
the point is that the majority of States, you still have and
other jails and prison systems, you still have exorbitant rates
where the bidding system has not been reformed and so you have
violations of in all these other States, violations of the
Communications Act because they are charging unreasonable
rates.
Mr. Boucher. OK. Come to the second part if you would.
Mr. Krogh. And in terms of the prison welfare programs, I
really do think that there is no justification for imposing a
regressive tax on the users of those programs which is what the
commission rates are. If there is a necessary program, it
really ought to be funded out of the budget.
Mr. Boucher. Out of the government's budget.
Mr. Krogh. Yes.
Mr. Boucher. Under which the facility is operating.
Mr. Krogh. Yes and I think things that are more voluntary
that are more discretionary really the problem as I said is
that you are taking the choice away from the prisoners and
their families as to whether they would rather have reasonable
rates.
Mr. Boucher. That's fine. Thank you very much, Mr. Krogh.
Mr. Krogh. Yes.
Mr. Boucher. My time is expired. The gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Stearns.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kelsey, in your opening statement you had mentioned
that Australia, Brazil, France, Israel, Russia and the United
Kingdom have already adopted legislation to control this burst
of sound that comes from advertisements. How has it worked, do
you know? And first of all, how long ago did they adopt this
legislation? How long ago did they adopt it?
Mr. Kelsey. I believe most of the countries in the last few
years and I highlight in particular in Australia, the trade
group that represents the broadcasters there went a step
further and offered technical assistance to broadcasters and
many in Australia and UK's law in particular are very similar
to the measure that Representative Eshoo has put forth.
Mr. Stearns. OK. And have they been successful?
Mr. Kelsey. I don't know that. I can get back to you, yeah.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Starzynski, so the argument is okay we
have adopted legislation, we don't know if it will solve the
problem. It is similar to what the gentlelady from California
has authored. So the question is when would you think that you
would have the solution here, you said September?
Mr. Starzynski. Well, we have the recommended practice that
will be voted on by the membership this summer and released in
September. We think that will go well and that is through the
ATSC and we have got a lot of technology happening as we speak.
I cited some new technology we are putting on the air at WNBC.
Hopefully, fingers crossed, within the next couple of days that
will apply a technical solution to the problem without having
the creative folks who are very concerned about the quality of
the sound get back to us with kind of a backlash and us
altering their sound. So technology has gotten us to a point
where we can apply good loudness practices but not alter the
creativity of our suppliers.
Mr. Stearns. Well, the gentlelady's legislation has urged
you on here and given a little bit more incentive to do it.
Mr. Starzynski. There is no question that it has. The
awareness level in the industry right now is tremendous.
Mr. Stearns. And with that in mind, perhaps the way to
solve this problem is because Mr. Kelsey is saying these
countries adopt it but they couldn't do anything without the
technical advice of people like yourself, so the legislation
might pass but nothing is going to happen without you folks. So
you folks are on the issue right now so it looks like you are
ready with a solution and then that would be sometime this year
you would have a solution and then we could assume that would
be promulgated throughout the broadcast industry?
Mr. Starzynski. That is right as I have said before.
Mr. Stearns. And what assurance would we have that after
you have the solution that everybody would adopt it
Mr. Starzynski. With the level of awareness that we have
right now and we are all--we are not disputing the fact that
there is a problem out there. We all know it. We want to fix
it.
Mr. Stearns. No, no, but the question is after you have a
solution, how soon would everybody adopt your solution and what
assurance would we have that they would without legislation?
Mr. Starzynski. The assurance is they definitely want to
solve the problem and to answer your timeframe on this.
Mr. Stearns. Yes.
Mr. Starzynski. It is going to vary based on the
sophistication of the broadcast group or the operator that you
are speaking about. In terms of NBC Universal with all of our
resources, we have been able to attack this for the past couple
of years directly but it is taking us a little while to get
there because we require technology to let us do it. And you
also need to understand the proper ways to apply the standard.
I think that the rollout will be a little bit different across
the board as it pertains to different levels of sophistication
in the industry only because of budgets and that kind of thing
but the key to all of it now is we have a roadmap that will be
in place to help everyone out with this and there is no more
ambiguity.
Mr. Stearns. OK. So if you were writing this legislation,
you say okay give us a little hiatus here. How long before we
can say okay you haven't done anything. We are going to pass
this legislation.
Mr. Starzynski. Oh, I hope that it never comes to that. I
hope that what happens you find that we self-regulate this and,
you know, somebody said this before and I think it is really
true, engineers want to solve problems and I think the experts
are on it and they want to solve this issue for you guys for
all of America.
Mr. Stearns. OK. Mr. Doyle and Ms. Beasley, the question is
that the FCC went out and hired an independent contractor, the
Mitre Corporation, to determine if there was harmful
interference. If low-power FM stations don't cause harmful
interference is what basically this independent report said,
then the question is why do we need section five of the bill
which requires the FCC to retain third adjacent channel
protection for full-power, noncommercial FM stations that
broadcasting services via a sub-carrier frequency. So I mean if
you have an independent report that says it is no big problem,
why would we need section five? I mean you dispute the
independent Mitre disputed?
Ms. Beasley. We believe that there are flaws within the
Mitre report?
Mr. Stearns. Do you have an independent report of your own.
Ms. Beasley. The industry has provided a report that
outlines the flaws in the Mitre report.
Mr. Stearns. OK.
Ms. Beasley. That being said if I may go on.
Mr. Stearns. Oh sure.
Ms. Beasley. My report, I am not an engineer but based on
my understanding the Mitre report reviewed seven sites and we
can just take away two of the sites if you will because one
site was related to a reading service and one task related to
translators so there were five other sites and there was
significant interference found at these five sites relative to
Walkmans and boom boxes. Now, Ms. Leanza, referred to south
Florida stations, people, you know, going through, riding
through hurricanes if you will. I am from south Florida. I was
there.
Mr. Stearns. I understand.
Ms. Beasley. I was there when Hurricane Wilma was and as
well as Hurricane Charley and it is important to note that
people do not go out and they don't listen to their car radios.
Mr. Stearns. No, I understand the case. I understand. We
are just trying to understand if the FCC has an independent
contractor that says there is no big problem why suddenly you
are disputing it.
Ms. Beasley. Well we do and it is on record that we have
and there is a report.
Mr. Stearns. OK. Let me just go then.
Mr. Doyle. Excuse me, could I provide some FCC input into
this?
Mr. Stearns. Sure, Mr. Doyle.
Mr. Doyle. Radio reading services are delivered on sub-
carrier frequencies. These tend to be more fragile then the
main transmission and in fact the Mitre report did find limited
amount of interference to the sub-carriers that a radio reading
service would be carried on. And the commission, on it's own in
developing these rules imposed this requirement on low-power
stations to ensure that this vital service would not be
degraded by low-power stations.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you. Mr. Krogh, I guess a standard
question in this issue is it a constitutional right for an
inmate to have access to a phone? Is that yes or no? I don't
know. Does an inmate have to have access to a phone, just yes
or no, do you know?
Mr. Krogh. I--that really hasn't played a role in the FCC
proceedings and so I don't really don't have a answer on that.
Mr. Stearn. OK. And is it the right that they have to have
rates that are low? I mean I think we would all like them have
rates but it is, you know, generally when I go out to buy
something it is what the market will bear and so what we are
doing as the government is dictating that the rates have to be
low to give inmates this right to have access to the phone. The
families don't have to accept these collect calls. They can
come in and see them or perhaps if they are geographically a
long ways away perhaps they could restrict their calls because
if you make it a lot cheaper they are going to call more and
perhaps it might even be the same rate. So this $400, this $395
a month you talk about, if the rates a lot cheaper, perhaps
they are going to make more calls and they will still rack up
to $395 so at some point somebody is going to have to make a
consumer decision we don't want to pay this.
Sheriff Goad, your argument is basically that you use these
excessive funds for rehabilitation and services to help the
inmates. In your opinion, I think the chairman touched on it,
do you believe that the government should provide these or do
you think that it should be done the way you are doing it?
Sheriff Goad. Well, I think it should be done the way we
are doing it. I think in these hard economic times we are
constantly being cut on budgets. We find that these funds allow
us to provide many of these indigent inmates with the services
they need along with undergarments, socks, Bibles.
Mr. Stearns. Your biggest argument I thought was the
security.
Sheriff Goad. Yes.
Mr. Stearns. When you talked about that you are saying if
these somehow the government stepped in and prevented you from
having the rates that you feel are appropriate then you would
not be able to provide the survey, the recording, the watch on
terrorists lists and things like that.
Sheriff Goad. Correct, criminal investigations.
Mr. Stearns. Criminal investigations which is part of our
national security.
Sheriff Goad. Absolutely.
Mr. Stearns. And depending upon the inmate, whether he is
there for the severity of the crime would impact how much
attention you have to do for that inmate and his telephone
call.
Sheriff Goad. Yes, sir, they even circumvent some of our
phone systems where they actually do three-way calling. They
will call someone outside the facility, get several people on
lines, a party call and proceed to conduct business as usual.
Mr. Stearns. Yeah, a lot of these calls are not shall we
say, felicitous calls. These are calls with intent to perhaps
commit more crime or to do witness tampering and things like
that, is what you are saying.
Sheriff Goad. Correct, we have had intimidation of
witnesses. We have also had other crimes.
Mr. Stearns. You have got to have the funds to do that
security survey in effect or we are really putting our citizens
at danger.
Sheriff Goad. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Mr. Stearns. OK. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Weiner [presiding]. Just to yield myself a brief moment
or two just to clarify a couple of things on the record.
This notion of a free market, I don't know who can answer
this. A free market, will that dictate that if someone has a
calling charge, collect call charge 630 percent higher then the
market, tell me a little bit about what the family can do to
shop around for a lower rate when someone is making a collect
call to them from a prison. Perhaps, Mr. Krogh, maybe you can
explain how the free market works in this instance.
Mr. Krogh. Well, there is no free market in prison calling.
There is the exclusive service provider who provides all the
call and you have no choice and so because of that if we are
going to continue with exclusive service contracts, the rates
have to be regulated. The FCC has broad authority to regulate
interstate telecommunications including and there are no
exceptions for prisoners. Section 201(b) of the Act requires
that rates be just and reasonable with no exceptions and the
families who are paying for these collect calls should have the
benefit of that Federal Law as much as anyone else.
Mr. Weiner. Right. I think that most members of this
committee and apparently the gentleman from Florida would agree
that we should have the free market. Let's let market forces be
brought to bear. Let's let more than one operator. Let's let
800 numbers function and I think that that is the point.
Mr. Doyle, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Terry. Parliamentary inquiry. Don't we go back and
forth?
Mr. Weiner. Certainly, we do.
Mr. Terry. Well, you just spoke.
Mr. Weiner. Was that a line of questioning? I thought it
was just a point of clarification.
Mr. Terry. I think he asked his question.
Mr. Weiner. If the gentleman insists, the gentleman from
Nebraska is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Terry. Thank you. Let me start with the three on this
side and just work down the table. Let me just give an
editorial comment more than a question and certainly I think
the least sympathetic characters are the ones that are in
prison but there is something distasteful about taking
advantage of them, too, which I think is the underlying premise
for this act. Mr. Hopfinger, you made a good point and that
sheriff, that there are security concerns and technologies that
have to be woven in here that add to the expense. I think that
is extremely fair and a good point. I guess the issue is then
how much of a gap is there when you add in the cost of this
additional technologies where it is just becoming the in
essence, I guess, the slush fund for the jails or the prisons.
Mr. Krogh, I will give you about 15 seconds because I got a
couple of other things.
Mr. Krogh. Yes, I think Mr. Hopfinger has been unduly
modest. I would like to put in a plug for Securus. Securus, for
example, in Florida is able to provide collect calling,
interstate collect calling for 4 cents a minute plus a
connection charge of $1.20 which is equivalent to 14 cents a
minute for a 12-minute call and they do that elsewhere so they
can do it. They can cover all of the these expensive security
functions and all the other monitoring and everything else that
they have been talking about at those very reasonable rates.
Plus, in Florida, they are paying out of that low rate, a 35
percent commission. So in Florida you can have it all.
Mr. Terry. All right. Well, I will take my time back and I
will just say I think this does a raise a concern and my
message back to Sheriff Goad is perhaps to communicate that you
have been on a conservative, pro-justice side, there is
concerns about the telephone rates.
The next group on audio sound, it is a real concern. You
guys know that. Mr. Starzynski, close enough. I will follow up
on Cliff's notes, the public demands this. They want action
from us so the message back, Mr. Donovan, is and to you, is and
NAB and everyone else that is involved in here, the sooner the
better. If this doesn't get cleared up, if you guys will vote
and address this issue in September. If we come back here this
same time next year and most of the TV stations haven't
resolved this, this is going to pass. That is my message to
you. In our household it is so annoying that the habit that we
have is when the commercials come on we just hit mute, not
because we don't want to hear the commercial but the decibel
level goes up significantly.
Mr. Starzynski. Right and that is not a good place for us
to be.
Mr. Terry. And that is not a good place. It is self-
defeating.
Mr. Starzynski. Right.
Mr. Terry. Last, let us go to my major issue with Mr. Doyle
and, Mr. Doyle, who is no relation to the author of this bill,
just that I would.
Mr. Doyle. That is correct. My side is not really good at
breeding that much so we.
Mr. Terry. Too much information but there was a suggestion
that in the Mitre study not only was it the reading but five of
seven of the other sites had interference? That is not my
understanding. Is that accurate?
Mr. Doyle. The Mitre study showed that if we threw out one
outlier case that there was no interference at distance for LP
hundred stations, your basic low-power station at distances
greater than 333 meters. That interference became common under
250 meters and severe within 100 meters of the LPFM transmitter
site. It has never been the commission's position that there
would be no interference but as I tried to explain in my test
imony, we have ample experience with translators to figure out
how to make this work.
Mr. Terry. All right.
Ms. Leanza. Mr. Terry, would you mind if I just?
Mr. Terry. You have 21 seconds.
Ms. Leanza. The area of interference we are talking on the
ground of a low-power radio station, we are talking .0013 of
the geographic area of a full-power radio station so tiny area.
If you are next door to a low-power radio station in the same
building as a low-power radio station, you might not be able to
hear one of the radio stations. Other then that, there is not
an issue.
Mr. Weiner. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, is
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania. Thank you. Mr. Doyle, and we are
not related for the record. So 10 years ago the committee heard
the fears from broadcasters that if the FCC license these low-
power FM stations on third adjacent that the dial was going to
be drenched in oceans of interference. So when we passed the
Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act on an appropriations rider,
Mr. Doyle, I take it to mean that all low-power FM broadcasting
has stopped on those third adjacent frequencies?
Mr. Doyle. Well, yes and no. We certainly have carefully
followed the directions from Congress and not licensed so-
called low-power FM stations. On the other hand, what I have
tried to explain is that FM translators are technically
indistinguishable from low-power FM stations and that for
example, in the chairman's own district, the station he was
concerned about, eight translator stations operate without
effective breach.
Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania. Right and I am looking at page
five of your testimony where the FCC says there is 1,800 of
these translators already broadcasting right now on the same
frequencies that there noncommercial groups want to broadcast
on, is that correct?
Mr. Doyle. Well, most of these translators are actually in
the non-reserved band, the 92 to 108 as opposed to the 88 to 92
part where noncommercial stations simply broadcast. Most low-
power licensing has occurred in the part of the band where
there are not noncommercial stations. There are some but by and
large, that is not the problem.
Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania. But we have translators on third
adjacent?
Mr. Doyle. Absolutely.
Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania. OK. So, Ms. Beasley, does your
organization or are you personally, are you advocating for the
elimination of these translators?
Ms. Beasley. We do not have or use translators within our
company so it is the NAB's position that it is my understanding
that full-power FM stations use translators for fill-in to
cover the mass.
Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania. But NAB is not advocating that
we eliminate translators and do you think these translators
cause oceans of interference?
Ms. Beasley. I can't speak to that because I personally do
not, we do not have translators.
Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania. I don't think that is the NAB's
position. I guess, Ms. Leanza, who owns and operates the
translators?
Ms. Leanza. By and large, most full-power broadcasters have
some sort of translators. It depends on what type of service
they are providing.
Ms. Beasley. We do not.
Ms. Leanza. Right, not no, certainly you don't but many,
many do. It is a widespread use. It is not an atypical, unusual
use.
Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania. So if they don't cause
interference and they are technically identical and these
translators don't have some special magical power to work then
surely these translators must be less powerful then an LPM
broadcast.
Mr. Doyle, full-power FM stations sometimes run up to
100,000 watts, while a noncommercial FM station can run up to
100 watts so I am assuming these translators must be less
powerful then that. How powerful are these translators that
don't cause interference when they are at third adjacent from
another station?
Mr. Doyle. Our rules permit a translator up to 250 watts.
Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania. 250 watts so two and a half
times more powerful then any LPFM station so what you are
telling me is and I hope my colleagues will listen to this, is
that what we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet
but when it comes to FCC and the big broadcasters this name is
critical. Translators that serve the interest of big
broadcasters work just fine on these third adjacent channels
and there is no complaints and no issues about interference but
when a low-power station run by community groups, schools,
churches, local governments cause interference, somehow in the
same adjacent channel these somehow cause interference. I just
hope once and for all we can sort of eliminate this doubletalk
that has been taking place for years.
I want to talk about interference, too. Now, Ms. Beasley,
in your statement you referenced the Mitre report and you said
that there was interference caused by low power FM stations. I
read that study and in the most extreme circumstance it was
found that the interference was .13 percent of the population
inside the protected zone of a full-power station. Just for my
note now, you find that to be an unacceptable level of
interference?
Ms. Beasley. What I read last night was there was
significant degradation at these five sites when you are
testing with boom boxes and Walkmans.
Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania. .13 percent but you found that,
you think that is unacceptable?
Ms. Beasley. It is significant such that well if you can't
get a signal, if you can't hear the programming, if there is
static and if you are operating when there is a hurricane going
through your area and we are providing information to the
masses and we, yes.
Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania. So I take that as a yes, okay. I
am curious I see that the NAB has pushed for allowing
broadcasters to put HD radio stations next to and along with
their analog broadcast but the engineers found that an average
of .6 percent of the population inside the protected zone could
have their listening effective. Now, that is not a worse case
scenario like low-power's .13 percent. That is an average
finding .6 percent, so that is a lot more interference then the
low-power stations would cause even in a worse case scenario.
So, Mr. Doyle, let me make sure I understand this
correctly. The NAB has endorsed this .6 level of interference
as acceptable for HD radio?
Mr. Doyle. I don't really understand.
Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania. Has the NAB filed a request to
multiply the power of these digital signals by 1,000 percent?
Mr. Doyle. No, they asked to increase it by tenfold from 1
percent to 10 percent of the analog power level. The issue
there, Mr. Doyle, I think is different. That is a question of
digital into analog and I am not sure that it correlates to the
analog into analog technical dispute that is your bill is
focused on.
Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania. So let me ask you one final
question, Mr. Doyle. You are the expert at the FCC. You have
studied this issue backwards and forwards. Twice the FCC and
bipartisan votes have recommended that Congress lift this
prohibition of third adjacent channel. Do you think that
passing this bill will in anyway hurt public radio stations
like my friend, Mr. Walden, is concerned about or this will
cause any interference of a major proportion outside that 100-
foot zone that you thought? I mean what basically happens so
that finally communities like mine who can't get LPFM, can't
get an LPFM station in the City of Pittsburgh. There are a lot
of places in this country, 140 million people don't have access
to this valuable service because of this rule which apparently
doesn't seem to cause--do you see any harmful effects by
allowing us to use third adjacent for LPFM?
Mr. Doyle. The commission's judgment was not that there
would be no interference. It was that the interference would be
tightly limited to the immediate environment of the LPFM
transmitter site and looking at the significant benefits of an
expanded LPFM service, decided that the benefits far outweighed
the very, very limited interference that would occur typically
within 100 or 200 meters of the LPFM transmitters.
Mr. Weiner. Thank you, Mr. Doyle
Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania. Thank you very much.
Mr. Weiner. Mr. Walden is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doyle, I had a question for you. Do LPFM applicants
have priority on frequency over existing translators?
Mr. Doyle. LPFM has priority over no one right now. The
priority relationship between translators and LPFM stations is
a first-come, first-served rule so they are coequal so that
today.
Mr. Walden. So one can't bump the other?
Mr. Doyle. That is correct.
Mr. Walden. OK. Talk to me about the requirements on LPFM.
Do they have to have a main--do they fall under the main studio
rule?
Mr. Doyle. They do not have a main studio rule. They must
be local. We don't have staffing requirements for them. We
don't have public inspection files.
Mr. Walden. So they are--I want to go back to that. So low-
power FM, do they have a requirement to serve their community
like commercial broadcasters do and how do they identify their
compliance with that if they don't have a public file or a main
studio? What does the FCC require?
Mr. Doyle. Well, every station must be licensed; must be
held by a local community organization.
Mr. Walden. Understood.
Mr. Doyle. It must be operated on a noncommercial basis.
Mr. Walden. And how do you monitor that point because I
have heard from people that they are out basically selling
advertising. Are they allowed to do that?
Mr. Doyle. No, they are not.
Mr. Walden. And do you take enforcement actions?
Mr. Doyle. Not my division directly.
Mr. Walden. Could you provide me with enforcement actions
you have taken and complaints you have received, for the
record?
Mr. Doyle. We would be very happy to do so and there have
been some related to violations of our underwriting rule so you
are correct on that.
Mr. Walden. I thought so. I want to go back though as a
citizen I have the right to go into any commercial radio
station. I assume public broadcast, as well, and look at their
public file to see how they are addressing the issues that are
important to their community. What is the requirement for an
LPFM? What is my right as a citizen to go in and see what they
have identified as their community issues and how they are
addressing them? Do I have right to a public file?
Mr. Doyle. When the commission created this service they
decided that it would work best with very limited reporting and
filing responsibilities and they do not have.
Mr. Walden. Do they have to do community ascertainment? Do
they have to decide what is important to their community?
Mr. Doyle. No, but certainly.
Mr. Walden. OK.
Mr. Doyle. Like every other station, every eight years
their license comes up for renewal and the public is welcome to
comment on whether the station is operating in the public
interest.
Mr. Walden. And that public interest though for other
broadcasters, that is pretty well spelled out. They have to
serve their community, right? So you are telling me these LPFMs
don't have to serve their community? How do I know? I mean they
don't have to identify?
Ms. Leanza. They have the same obligations.
Mr. Walden. Oh, they do. So they do have a public file
requirement?
Ms. Leanza. There is not a public file.
Mr. Walden. And they have a main studio requirement where I
can go in and look?
Ms. Leanza. But they are licensed also under the
Communications Act. They have an obligation to serve the
public.
Mr. Walden. I don't think your mike is on, by the way as an
old radio guy, or just get real close to it. So but I am trying
to get to this point of they can come into--the public can go
into any radio, commercial or public broadcast station and look
in the public file. My question is do LPFMs have to have a
public file?
Ms. Leanza. Currently, under the rules, they do not.
Mr. Walden. And do they have to identify what the issues of
concern are in their community and address those issues?
Ms. Leanza. They do generally speaking because they are
subject to the same public interest standard that all
broadcasts are subject to.
Mr. Walden. So, Mr. Doyle, is that correct? They have to
identify community interests on a quarterly basis and speak to
how they address them or not?
Mr. Doyle. The quarterly issues program requirement does
not apply to low-power stations.
Mr. Walden. So how do you ever measure them when it comes
up to license renewal whether they have served their community?
What is the standard you apply?
Mr. Doyle. Well, while listeners would not have the ability
to review a station's issues programs list, they have the same
opportunities as listeners of any station to come to the
commission with their concerns about the programming that they
have heard on the station during the prior license term.
Mr. Walden. Are the LPFMs required to have the Emergency
Alert System capabilities too to notify their listeners in the
event of an emergency?
Mr. Doyle. They do have an EAS requirement.
Mr. Walden. OK. And they are not a priority station, though
I assume?
Mr. Doyle. I don't think any.
Mr. Walden. None are primaries. OK. All right.
Ms. Leanza. But they do most of them are setup automated so
they can transmit through that signal automatically at any
time.
Mr. Walden. Yeah, they are allowed to do unattended
operation as well, right? Is there any requirement of local
programming on those LPFMs or could they just download
satellite programming and rebroadcast it?
Mr. Doyle. Our licensing criteria favor those stations that
pledge to do at least eight hours of locally originated
programming but there is no local program origination
requirement.
Mr. Walden. All right. Thank you.
Ms. Leanza. That there is on any other station. There is
not such obligation.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Weiner. Thank you. Mr. Rush, there is less than a
minute left on the clock on the floor. Would you like to try to
squeeze in now or do you just want to be the first when we come
back? We are going to recess until about 12:25. I appreciate
your patience when we do promptly. There is nine of you. Maybe
you can go play baseball or something. The committee is in
recess until approximately 12:30.
[Recess.]
Mr. Weiner. The committee has returned from recess. The
gentlewoman from California is recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Eshoo. I thank the chairman. It is nice to see you in
the chair and I apologize both to committee members and to the
witnesses that are here today, especially those that have an
interest in the CALM Act which I am the author of. I have three
places that I needed to be at the exact same time today and all
of them important, so I apologize for being late. I would like
to submit my opening statement for the record.
Mr. Weiner. We have got to get you one of those translator
devices they were talking about. You can be everywhere at once.
Ms. Eshoo. Yeah, I would like to submit my statement for
the record and I would like to take this opportunity to thank
not only members of the committee that are cosponsors of the
CALM Act but also point to Chairman Boucher because he has had
a commitment to the bill and we wouldn't be a part of this
hearing, this bill would not be part of the hearing today.
I think unless someone has said this, this is the bill. It
is essentially a one-page bill. This is not complicated and
while I don't think I need to reemphasize why the change is
needed, it is worth saying that I think consumers have waited
too long for this change to be made.
I am thrilled that there is technology and the confidence
that there is technology that will address this. I come from
the technology capital of the United States of America, Silicon
Valley. I have no doubt that technology can take care of this
and the technologists need to work hand-in-hand with the FCC.
You are ready to go. This bill passes and is signed into Law,
then you will have a key role in that. I don't find the bill
menacing, most frankly, because all it does is instruct the FCC
within a year of enactment to come up with a solution.
There were hearings in the '60s. There were hearings in the
'70s. There were hearings in the '80s. It is now the 21st
century. There is no reason for people to have to hit their
mute buttons. There just isn't. I think it is a disadvantage to
advertisers who pay a lot of money and how the broadcasters
really keep themselves going, the programming and the networks.
So I have to say in 16 and a half years in Congress, I have
never had a bill that was so embraced by so many. I don't even
get to finish my sentence about what the bill would accomplish
but people say absolutely. Good luck. We need to do this. It is
a great source of irritation to me. So while this is a
profoundly sobering time in the history of our nation, I by no
means see the CALM Act as being something that is going to
resolve, you know, huge, daunting, national problems. It,
frankly, is way down the list when we examine the great
challenges that America has but I do think that it is something
that we should and that we can take care of.
I think consumers have had it. Newspapers have
editorialized in different parts of the country. Consumers know
what this is. You mention it. It is bipartisan. It is a
bipartisan irritant. Let me put it that way. So to the
technologists, I am very pleased that you are taking this
seriously and than you think that the answer is around the
corner. You can take that great message to the FCC and I look
forward to this bill passing with huge support in both the
House and in the other body and I want to thank everyone that
has been involved in this and those that have supported it and
as well as those that have questions. I think that you should
take a deep breath, stay very calm, if you don't mind my using
the title of the bill and that this one-page bill will bring
some relief, a lot of relief to a lot of people across the
country.
With that, I will yield back the balance of my time. Mr.
Chairman, thank you and I am going to return to my other
committee and look forward to great vote on this. Thank you
very, very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Eshoo follows:]
Mr. Weiner. The chair yields himself five minutes.
If we could return a moment to the Family Telephone
Connection Protection Act, in the conversation between Mr.
Stearns and I think the sheriff and maybe Mr. Hopfinger. There
was the position posited that perhaps telephone contact with
the outside world is problematic. There is plans to sharing of
information that might be deleterious. That is contrary to what
other findings that we have seen that say that frankly keeping
connection not just inside the jail but having a connection
outside with the world is actually salutary to their
rehabilitation.
Mr. Krogh, do you want to weigh in on that discussion and
then, Mr. Hopfinger, I will give you another chance to expound
on what you were saying.
Mr. Krogh. Yes, the studies have uniformly demonstrated
that maintaining these communications is very important for
rehabilitation and especially in situations where you have got
inmates who are very far away from their families, sometimes in
other States. And it is crucial to have reasonable rates so
that they can maintain these ties with the community and their
families. And you can also have good security. Securus, as I
mentioned, provides all of these security functions in a number
of States and apparently they are able to do this and still
make a profit at very reasonable rates. Florida and New Mexico
are two examples. So there is no inconsistency between having
reasonable rates so you have plenty of ties between maintaining
these ties between the prisoners and their families.
Mr. Weiner. Is there any evidence that the Federal
Government, the Federal Penal System which has an 800 number
for which families pay I think 7 cents a minute? Is there any
sign that those are less safe, any signs that there is any more
sharing of information, any more witness tampering? Is there
any evidence at all to support the thesis that maybe having
barriers to people making phone calls like a 600 percent
additional cost compared to what the Federal Government
charges? Is there any evidence at all to support the theory
that that somehow reduces recidivism or it reduces witness
tampering or anything like that? Is there any evidence that you
have seen in your experience that shows that?
Mr. Krogh. I haven't seen anything that shows that there
are problems in the Federal system which has debit calling and
at a fairly reasonable rate and again, if you have got--you can
have all of the security functions so you can keep control over
that call and still have a reasonable rate.
Mr. Weiner. Mr. Hopfinger, do you want to take the contrary
position?
Mr. Hopfinger. Let me say, we concur that contact with the
outside world by inmates is certainly appropriate. We wouldn't
be in business if that contact didn't occur but every system
that we install must be customized and looked at on an
individual basis. Mr. Krogh has discussed large Department of
Correction facilities where there are low rates. The Federal
facilities that have a large number of inmates where there are
low rates. Those things don't necessarily fit especially in the
city and small county jails because just simply the volume of
calls is not there in which to recover the cost.
We absolutely want to provide as much service and complete
as many calls as we can but it must be done so on a secure
basis. Our concern with the bill is it would mandate something
that would not fit in many of the facilities. Plus, the fact
the bill goes well beyond talking about just rates. It mandates
other issues that would in fact actually increased the cost to
both our services and to the correctional facilities. So that
is our concern.
Mr. Weiner. Thank you. Let me just move on briefly to the
CALM Act. I am curious why this is such a difficult
technological fix. Certainly, that if someone wants to
advertise on a local TV station that they are told that they
have to provide the advertisement in a certain format. It has
got to be on a certain size disc or a certain size tape. I am
sure they are told that it has to be of a certain length, a
certain duration and it has to be of a certain quality in
order. Why can't you just say it has got to be no louder than
X? Why don't you say as a standard for what you are going to
accept for advertising, you have got to be in this category?
They play the tape, if it is not you say you have got to go
back to your shop and fix it. Tell me why that intuitive
reaction to this problem is technologically difficult. Mr.
Donovan, fire away?
Mr. Donovan. I think essentially you are correct and which
is why you are seeing policies that have been established by
the major networks, for example, that have precisely that in
which they would like their advertising and their programming
to be sent to them in a certain way. You do have a variety of
program suppliers and advertisers and what have you bringing in
the inputs. You have local advertising. You have national spot
advertising, syndicated programming, network programming but
that is all, candidly, it is all being worked out. The networks
have established a policy to do that so conceptually, you are
right. This is something that needs to be done and is being
done. Where it got a little bit tricky here, and I will let Jim
go into detail on this but where it got tricky is that you want
to make sure that while you are controlling the advertising
aspects in terms of loudness and what have you. You don't want
to squelch the benefits of the digital system, i.e., the Dolby
5.1 which has tremendous dynamic range for consumers that
bought surround sound, theater sets and what have you because
if you just put a level right across the board, not only would
you hit the advertising but you would also hit the program. So
that is what has made it a little bit tricky as we move forward
with digital which is why, I mean we have been working on this
since 2007 and I think that Jim will tell you we are there. I
mean you are literally several months away from actually
working out an ATSC standard that will resolve it. But the
concern we have now, sir, is that as I said, engineers are
problem solvers and we are there. Once you create a--and there
are winners and losers whenever you have these engineering
battles. Once you create a new venue, which is okay now we are
going to kick it over to the FCC for a rule, what you sometimes
do and it is true in any standard setting issue that gets
kicked over to the commission, you create a jump ball.
Mr. Weiner. I understand that and I heard that in the
testimony but if you look at our punch list of the reasons
people comment opposed legislation like one of the general
reasons is we agree, we are on it, got you covered, no need to
pass any legislation and it doesn't--it strikes some of us who
obviously are not technology people like you are.
Mr. Donovan. Right.
Mr. Weiner. That it seems like a relatively easy fix was
coming and it never arrived.
Mr. Donovan. And so it is here.
Mr. Weiner. I know, I hear you. Mr. Starzynski, maybe you
can just answer why you can't just say look, here is your
checklist of things, the requirements you need to have and
being excessively loud when you are selling.
Mr. Starzynski. You have hit the critical part of the
issue. So we publish a content specification, a delivery spec
that goes out to all of our suppliers. It doesn't matter if
they are program suppliers or if they are commercial suppliers.
We ask them to hit a target level like I said in my testimony.
The issue has been that with the digital transition and moving
off of analog and going to digital with all this great range
that we have been speaking about, there is the opportunity
there to have problems with controlling your loudness if you
don't understand the new techniques that are involved or if you
don't own the equipment that is necessary that I spoke about
before, which kind of changes the game in the way all of this
is done through the ITU standard and which the gentleman from
Consumer Reports spoke about.
So the ATSC recommended practice goes right to the heart of
that and it says you will use this standard to measure your
sound and you will take those readings and you will deliver
your content as asked in the program spec. And we all put this
in there but I think what you are getting at is the issue is
that, you remember I spoke a little bit before about the
culture change. We have had a lot of folks mixing sound with
old analog techniques for a very long time using meters that
protected the electronics, not meters, contemporary meters like
the ones that work like your ears do. So we get this out in the
industry. We have got a roadmap on where we need to go with
this. Technology is catching up on this. Things are becoming
cheaper and the bill that is out in front of us today really
has raised such a level of awareness across the industry that
it is like a no-brainer that this is got to happen. We are not
disputing that there is a problem here. We got to fix the
problem and again and this just rains true, the engineers that
are kind of working on this whose living is based on this, want
to go out there and fix this and make it right for the public.
Is that helpful?
Mr. Weiner. It was. Thank you.
Mr. Kelsey. Can I just quickly add, I think one of the
things that we saw with the DTV transition is that many
broadcasters are different and I think that the broadcasters
that step up and adopt the standard should definitely be
commended for changing this but, you know, a standard is one of
the key way to make sure that listeners in Dallas experience
the same type of viewing as listeners in New York. And so, you
know, I would urge the committee and also the FCC.
Mr. Weiner. We are used to a higher volume in New York but
what can I do about that? Do you have one final you want to?
Mr. Donovan. One final point on that is because when the
ATSC standard was adopted it includes a number of voluntary
components to that standard, and to Chairman Boucher's initial
comment, question, even though they are voluntary, they are
adopted throughout the industry. So it is not a question that
you have to have this or something won't get done. This will
get adopted and disseminate throughout the entire industry.
Mr. Weiner. Thank you. And before I yield to Mr. Rush, just
would request unanimous consent that two editorials about the
high cost of phone service being charged to inmates by Errol
Louis of The Daily News be included in the record. Without
objection, so ordered not.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Weiner. Mr. Rush, you are recognized for such time as
you may need.
Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Boy oh boy oh boy, I
think I have heard it all. Mr. Chairman, let me just start by
first of all I want to thank you for obtaining support 20 media
justice organizations around the country in support of this
bill. Would you please express my thanks and gratitude to all
of them, please?
I want to also, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
subcommittee, announce that my bill H.R. 1133 has been urged to
be adopted by the American Correctional Association in support
of the goals in this legislation ensuring access and reasonable
rates for telecommunication services.
Now, I want to, Mr. Hopfinger, you have really kind of
stretched the issue so thin, I don't really know how to express
how preposterous I think it is. Are you trying to tell me that
this grandmamma who got a grandson that she been trying to
raise in the poor community. She is on a fixed income. Are you
trying to tell me that your company has a right to snatch her
hard, her dollars first of all, she is on a fixed income, to
pay for you gouging her grandson who is the inmate and somehow
you justify it by saying that you are on the lookout for Al-
Qaeda or Al-Qaeda operatives? Are you trying to tell this
subcommittee that that is a part of your rationale?
Mr. Hopfinger. Congressman, we are not trying to gouge
anyone. Our rates try to be compensatory in offering the
services we do and we offer those services in a manner that we
hope protects the public and the safety of the inmates. The
rates are higher in most correctional institutions because of
those requirements.
Mr. Rush. All right. All right. Sheriff Goad.
Sheriff Goad. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rush. You have indicated that you have some services
that are paid for, a lot of programs that are paid for by these
exorbitant rates, these excessive rates that inmates are being
charged.
Sheriff Goad. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rush. Can you give us an idea of some of those
services?
Sheriff Goad. Yes, sir. The inmate, a lot of it is inmate
welfare funds.
Mr. Rush. What do you mean by that?
Sheriff Goad. Underwear, socks, toothbrushes, toothpaste.
Mr. Rush. In the absence of these funds, in the absence of
this business arrangement between this company or whatever
company they are.
Sheriff Goad. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rush. Are you saying that your inmates would be forced
to run around naked? Is that what you are saying?
Sheriff Goad. No, sir, I would not.
Mr. Rush. All right. Well then what alternatives are there?
Sheriff Goad. In the past prior to some of the things that
are in place now with the resources that we have, a lot of your
community people provided these issues to such as underwear and
socks and some other things to our inmates.
Mr. Rush. And are you saying that there is no
responsibility first and foremost by the government of Maryland
to provide these kinds of items for the inmates?
Sheriff Goad. No, sir, I would not say that.
Mr. Rush. OK. And so then the little old grandmammas or
these single mothers who have small children and one or two who
might be incarcerated, are you saying then that they should be
taking food off their table to pay for underwear that really is
the responsibility of the State of Maryland? Is that what you
are telling this committee?
Sheriff Goad. No, on that note I would not say that. I
would say that we are providing a service to the inmates and of
course that service is not.
Mr. Rush. What other laudable program besides making sure
that the inmates, you know, have Michael Jordan underwear, what
other laudable programs you got?
Sheriff Goad. We do anti-recidivism programs. We have age
education, basic adult education which is GED, substance abuse
programs along with child.
Mr. Rush. And what percentage are these commissions go
toward those programs?
Sheriff Goad. Most all of the commissions that we receive
is generated back into our facility.
Mr. Rush. OK. For your exemplary employees that you might
have, do you have exemplary employees in your?
Sheriff Goad. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rush. And do you give them a bonus?
Sheriff Goad. No, sir, I do not.
Mr. Rush. Are you aware of any State prison, board or
prison system that gives its employees bonuses?
Sheriff Goad. Currently, sir, I do not have that
information.
Mr. Rush. You don't have that information so you are saying
then that most of the--that there are no--none of these
commissions go toward bonuses for your employees?
Sheriff Goad. Can I say that specifically, no sir, but I
don't have that information in front of me currently.
Mr. Rush. OK. Let me make sure you understand? All right.
You are the sheriff of what county?
Sheriff Goad. Allegany County.
Mr. Rush. Allegany County. Is there any employees in
Allegany County that receive a bonus?
Sheriff Goad. No, sir.
Mr. Rush. That is no, okay.
Sheriff Goad. No, sir.
Mr. Rush. OK. How does the bidding process, how did you
select and what company do you have to give?
Sheriff Goad. What company do we have?
Mr. Rush. Yeah, do you use?
Sheriff Goad. We use a company with Securus.
Mr. Rush. Securus, okay, how did you select them, Securus?
Sheriff Goad. We actually put out a RFB.
Mr. Rush. And what did you make that decision based on?
What did you make the decision based on?
Sheriff Goad. Based on the software, their security
equipment.
Mr. Rush. OK. How much influence did the cost of that or
your remuneration or your commission, what percentage had an
influence on your--let me ask the question correctly. How much
bearing did the cost that or the commission that you were going
to receive, how much bearing did that have on your decision to
hire Securus?
Sheriff Goad. Not a large bearing?
Mr. Rush. But some bearing, is that correct, some bearing?
Sheriff Goad. Based some bearing, yes, sir.
Mr. Rush. OK. And if in fact you did not have this
organization or have this kind of arrangement then you would
be--where would you get the money to make up the hole in your
budget? Where would you get that money from?
Sheriff Goad. If we failed, if the resources were
terminated we would have to go back to the county and look at
the burden on the taxpayers.
Mr. Rush. OK. Explain to me how you think that your program
creating and charging these families, not necessarily the
inmates how does that have an effect on the recidivism issue in
your county?
Sheriff Goad. Well, our recidivism for some in higher than
others. Some of our recidivism is very low. I think again as I
mentioned in my testimony, I think communication is very
essential.
Mr. Rush. Are you elected to office?
Sheriff Goad. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rush. OK. And so in your past campaign for office have
you ever ran on--had a part of your--how long have you been a
sheriff first of all?
Sheriff Goad. I am on my 15th year, my fourth term.
Mr. Rush. So you ran three times or four times?
Sheriff Goad. Four times.
Mr. Rush. OK. And have you ever included in your campaign
material for reelection that you are able to justify to your
voters or highlight to your voters that because you have high
cost telephone service that you have these and this
arrangements with this company that you are able to have a
detrimental effect on recidivism rate?
Sheriff Goad. Have I ever? No, sir, I have not.
Mr. Rush. OK. And so that is not a claim that you might,
that you would promote?
Sheriff Goad. No.
Mr. Rush. Do your voters know that they are being gouged or
being overly charged on these rates that that is a policy?
Sheriff Goad. Well, I can't speculate on that but I do know
that the majority of the public isn't familiar with our rates.
Mr. Rush. All right. Mr. Krogh, you mentioned in your
testimony that a few States have taken action to require that
the cost be the dominant factor in determining which bidder
wins an exclusive contract with the State correctional facility
and the price includes permitted charges and connection
charges. Do you have any other information on the effects such
decisions have had on these services?
Mr. Krogh. Well, generally just simply that the higher the
rate, the less calling there is and the less communication that
there is by the prisoners and the families often have to refuse
calls.
Mr. Rush. Right. Can you respond if you will to Mr.
Hopfinger and Mr. Goad that maximum security is dependent on
Mr. Hopfinger's company charging excessively for phone service
for inmates and Sheriff Goad's agency organization receiving
high commissions from the actions of Mr. Hopfinger's
organization? Can you comment on that fact?
Mr. Krogh. Yes, as I have mentioned, Securus and other
service providers are able to provide these services with all
of the required security functions.
Mr. Rush. No, I am not talking about the security functions
in that regard in terms of instrumentality. I am talking about
the maximum security?
Mr. Krogh. Well, I mean to the extent that the telephone
service has any impact on national security one way or the
other, they can meet whatever Securus security requirements are
imposed on them by the correctional department or the
authorities, they can meet those all those requirements at very
reasonable rates and so they shouldn't be charging higher than
that.
Mr. Rush. Yes, so am I to believe or the members of the
subcommittee to believe that those State and those counties
that don't have exorbitant rates that they are somehow less
concerned about national security than the ones who charge
exorbitant rates?
Mr. Krogh. No, I don't think that we can draw that
conclusion. The Federal Bureau of Prisons has reasonable debit
rates for prisoners. I am sure they are the state of the art in
terms of the security, all the security functions that you need
and these States have the reasonable rates there is a variety
of States, Florida, New Mexico, Nebraska, New York, all of
these States I am sure are just as they are focusing on these
security functions especially New York as much as any other
correctional authorities in other State and they have come to
the conclusion they don't need to charge these exorbitant rates
to maintain all the security functions they need.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Chairman, well let me just ask one additional
question here. Sheriff Goad, what equipment do you use for
monitoring and tracking inmate calls?
Sheriff Goad. The equipment is provided through Evercom
with Securus Communication.
Mr. Rush. OK. And where is it located at?
Sheriff Goad. In my facility.
Mr. Rush. In your facility. Okay. Does that equipment
provide you additional security measures?
Sheriff Goad. It provides me the ability to monitor those
inmates that I have in my facility, yes, sir.
Mr. Rush. OK. It provides--so lacking that equipment you
couldn't monitor your inmates?
Sheriff Goad. No, sir.
Mr. Rush. OK. Is there any other equipment available to you
off the shelf?
Sheriff Goad. I have, no, not off the shelf but I also have
video cameras is the only other use of security equipment that
we use but they are not audio. They are just video.
Mr. Rush. OK. If you had multiple carriers and the inmates
had a choice, would your ability to monitor your inmates, would
that be hindered at all?
Sheriff Goad. I am not a technical person but I don't know
how that would work.
Mr. Rush. You don't know how that would work.
Sheriff Goad. I am not sure how multiple carriers would
actually work if you had numerous providers.
Mr. Rush. OK. But you don't--so you are not sure whether or
not it would be a hindrance?
Sheriff Goad. Right.
Mr. Rush. Right, now is that what your answer indicates?
Sheriff Goad. To me and again I am not a technical person.
Mr. Rush. Right.
Sheriff Goad. It seems to me if the more providers I had it
would be a hindrance to us trying to provide each inmate with
each particular provider that they so chose.
Mr. Rush. OK.
Mr. Weiner. Would the gentleman yield for a moment? Is
there any reason you can't just have a series of different 800
numbers that people can dial and then the surveillance
equipment is all just on the hardware? I mean why couldn't you
have a choice of five or six different 800 numbers you can
dial?
Sheriff Goad. Can I defer to Mr. Hopfinger?
Mr. Weiner. Certainly.
Sheriff Goad. Technically, I do not know.
Mr. Weiner. I hear you now. Go ahead, Mr. Hopfinger.
Mr. Hopfinger. Yes, what happens is when an 800 number is
called the system loses all track of where the call actually
terminates. All we know is an 800 number was called and then
there is a series of numbers dialed after that. The system
wouldn't know where that call actually terminated, who received
that call, whether it was a call next door or across the
nation.
Mr. Weiner. And that failure of knowing who the inmate is
calling provides a security risk you say?
Mr. Hopfinger. Absolutely.
Mr. Weiner. Got you. Thank you, Mr. Rush.
Mr. Rush. Yeah, and my final question, how much--so your,
Mr. Hopfinger, your business activities is centered on
exclusively incarcerating individuals in a jail system. That is
your market? That is your niche in the market, is that right?
Mr. Hopfinger. Yes, Congressman Rush. We are exclusively an
inmate telecommunication service provider.
Mr. Rush. OK. So you actually have a captive audience. That
is what you, I mean, you are saying you have a captive
audience, right?
Mr. Hopfinger. Well, I wouldn't consider it a captive
audience because I have a lot of other competitors out there
that want so business so I don't get all that business.
Mr. Rush. It is very lucrative, right?
Mr. Hopfinger. No, sir, it is not. If you will look at our
SEC filings, we actually operated at a loss in 2008 and most of
the inmate telephone service providers, I met with two
presidents last week and they are hoping for a low single digit
return on their investment this year.
Mr. Rush. OK. Well, thank you. I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. Weiner. I thank you, Mr. Rush, the author of the bill.
Hopefully, we will have quieter TV commercials, we will have
community broadcasters be able to tell everyone that
information without interference and then I guess prisoners
will be able to call home and brag about it less expensively.
I ask unanimous consent to keep the record open for an
appropriate period of time for members to submit opening
statements and questions for the record. I thank--without
objection, so ordered and I thank all of the witnesses for
their patience and their excellent testimony. The committee is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.160