[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 26, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4211-4217]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1794]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 99-360; FCC 99-390]


Public Interest Obligations of Television Broadcast Licensees

AGENCY:  Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:  Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY:  This document solicits comments on how broadcasters can best 
serve the public interest as they transition to digital transmission 
technology. The document is guided by several proposals the Commission 
has received and other recommendations that have been made in recent 
years.

DATES:  Comments are due on or before March 27, 2000; reply comments 
are due on or before April 25, 2000.

ADDRESSES:  Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, Room 
TW-A306, SW, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Eric Bash, Policy and Rules Division, 
Mass Media Bureau (202) 418-2130, TTY (202) 418-1169.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  This is a summary of the Commission's 
Notice of Inquiry (``NOI ''), FCC 99-390, adopted December 15, 1999; 
released December 20, 1999. The full text of the Commission's NOI is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Dockets Branch (Room TW-A306), 445 12 St. SW, Washington, DC. 
The complete text of this NOI may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services 
(202) 857-3800, 1231 20th St., NW, Washington, DC 20036.

Synopsis of Notice of Inquiry

I. Introduction

    1. Television is the primary source of news and information to 
Americans, and provides hours of entertainment every week. In 
particular, children spend far more time watching television that they 
spend with any other type of media. Those who broadcast television 
programming thus have a significant impact on society. Given the impact 
of their programming and their use of the public airwaves, broadcasters 
have a special role in serving the public. For over seventy years, 
broadcasters have been required by statute to serve the ``public 
interest, convenience, and necessity.'' Congress has charged the 
Federal Communications Commission with the responsibility of 
implementing and enforcing this public interest requirement. Indeed, 
this is the ``touchstone'' of the Commission's statutory duty in 
licensing the public airwaves. Under the Communications Act of 1934, 
the Commission may issue, renew, or approve the transfer of a broadcast 
license only upon first finding that doing so will serve the public 
interest.
    2. There has been considerable debate over the years about how the 
Commission should carry out this statutory mandate. Currently, 
broadcasters must comply with a number of affirmative public interest 
programming and service obligations. For example, broadcast licensees 
must provide coverage of issues facing their communities and place 
lists of programming used in providing significant treatment of such 
issues in their public inspection files. Broadcasters must also comply 
with statutory political broadcasting requirements regarding equal 
opportunities, charges for political advertising, and reasonable access 
for federal candidates. In addition, television broadcasters must 
provide children's educational and informational programming under the 
Children's Television Act of 1990. In terms of programming obligations, 
broadcasters are also prohibited from airing programming that is 
obscene, and restricted from airing programming that is ``indecent'' 
during certain times of the day. Similarly, broadcasters also have 
obligations regarding closed captioning, equal employment opportunity, 
sponsorship identification, and advertisements during children's 
programming.
    3. The discussion of television broadcasters' public interest 
obligations has been renewed by their transition from analog to digital 
television (DTV) technology. This is due in part to the new 
opportunities DTV provides. DTV holds the promise of reinventing free, 
over-the-air television by offering broadcasters new and valuable 
business opportunities and providing consumers new and valuable 
services. DTV broadcasters will have the technical capability and 
regulatory flexibility to air high definition TV (HDTV) programming 
with state-of-the-art picture clarity; to ``multicast'' by 
simultaneously providing multiple channels of standard digital 
programming and/or HDTV programming; and to ``datacast'' by providing 
data such as stock quotes, or interactive TV via the DTV bitstream.
    4. In establishing the statutory framework for the transition to 
DTV, Congress directed the Commission to grant any new DTV licenses to 
all existing television broadcasters. Congress stated in section 336 of 
the Communications Act that ``[n]othing in this section shall be 
construed as relieving a television broadcasting station from its 
obligation to serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity.'' 
Likewise, in implementing section 336 in the 5th Report and Order in 
the DTV proceeding (62 FR 26966, May 16, 1997), the Commission 
reaffirmed that digital TV broadcasters remain public trustees and must 
serve the public interest, and that existing public interest 
obligations continue to apply to all broadcast licensees.
    5. The Commission also indicated, however, that ``[b]roadcasters 
and the public are also on notice that the Commission may adopt new 
public interest rules for digital television.'' Commenters in the DTV 
proceeding adopted different views on this issue, with some arguing 
that broadcasters' public interest obligations in the digital world 
``should be clearly defined and commensurate with the new opportunities 
provided by the digital channels broadcasters are receiving,'' while 
others contended that ``current public interest rules need not change 
simply because broadcasters will be using digital technology to provide 
the same broadcast service to the public.'' The Commission declined to 
resolve the

[[Page 4212]]

issue in the DTV proceeding, instead choosing to issue a notice to 
consider all views at a later point.
    6. We undertake that task with this NOI. In doing so, we are guided 
by several proposals and recommendations made in recent years. Among 
the most significant of these are the recommendations of the 
President's Advisory Committee on the Public Interest Obligations of 
Digital Television Broadcasters (``Advisory Committee''). The Advisory 
Committee was comprised of a broad cross-section of interests, 
consisting of twenty-two members chosen by the President from ``the 
commercial and noncommercial broadcasting industry, computer 
industries, producers, academic institutions, public interest 
organizations, and the advertising community.'' On December 18, 1998, 
the Advisory Committee submitted a report, which contains ten separate 
recommendations on the public interest obligations digital television 
broadcasters should assume. On October 20, 1999, Vice President Gore 
submitted a letter to Chairman Kennard asking the Commission to focus 
on several of the Advisory Committee's recommendations in particular.
    7. In addition to the Advisory Committee's recommendations, on June 
3, 1999, People for Better TV filed a petition for rulemaking and a 
petition for notice of inquiry. People for Better TV also includes a 
number of diverse groups. People for Better TV argues that the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the Commission to determine the 
public interest obligations of DTV broadcasters, that the advent of DTV 
requires the Commission to consider public interest obligations anew, 
and to clarify whether existing guidelines apply, and that both 
broadcasters and the public need a basic set of public interest 
standards. The group contends that the Commission should initiate a 
rulemaking proceeding to determine the public interest obligations of 
digital broadcasters. People for Better TV also urged the Commission to 
issue a notice of inquiry and hold hearings on the public interest 
obligations of digital television licensees, focusing on a variety of 
categories. On November 16, 1999 People for Better TV submitted a 
letter to Chairman Kennard reiterating its request that the Commission 
initiate a proceeding to determine the public interest obligations of 
DTV broadcasters.
    8. We are also guided by the thoughts and work of other advocates 
regarding broadcasters' public interest obligations, including those 
proposals that are not as closely tied to the new opportunities 
inherent in digital technology. The conversion from analog to digital 
is a long transition, and both analog and digital broadcasters must 
operate consistently in the public interest during the transition. At 
the same time, we acknowledge that many broadcasters have served the 
public interest in numerous ways over the years. According to a report 
of the National Association of Broadcasters published in 1998, the 
nation's broadcasters provided $6.85 billion in community service in 
1996. Therefore, by this NOI, we are asking broadcasters and members of 
the public to present their views or ideas on how best to implement the 
public interest standard during the transition. As the courts have 
acknowledged, and the transition to DTV reinforces, the public interest 
standard is ``a supple instrument'' designed to be flexible enough to 
accommodate the ``dynamic aspects of radio transmission,'' and we 
believe that it is an appropriate time to create a forum for public 
debate.

II. Areas of Inquiry and Request for Comments

    9. At this the advent of the digital age, we seek comment on how 
broadcasters can best serve the public interest during and after the 
transition to digital technology. We seek comment on challenges unique 
to the digital era, how broadcasters can meet their public interest 
obligations on both their analog and digital channels during the 
transition period, and on various proposals and recommendations that 
have been made on how broadcasters could better serve their communities 
of license. We welcome other proposals, and request parties to 
articulate legal bases for their proposals, and explain how they would 
serve the public interest.

A. Challenges Unique to the Digital Era

    10. More than 100 DTV stations are currently on the air. These 
broadcasters, as well as all television licensees upon the conversion 
to DTV, have the flexibility either to ``multicast,'' to provide HDTV, 
or to ``multiplex'' DTV programming and ``ancillary and supplementary 
services'' at the same time. Both the Act and the Commission's 
implementing actions make it clear that DTV broadcasters must continue 
to serve the public interest. We seek comment on how to define these 
obligations. We are especially interested in specific proposals 
addressing whether and how existing public interest obligations should 
translate to the digital medium.
    11. In implementing section 336, the Commission required that 
broadcasters air ``free digital video programming service the 
resolution of which is comparable to or better than that of today's 
services, and aired during the same time period that their analog 
channel is broadcasting.'' In doing so, the Commission stated that 
``broadcast licensees and the public are on notice that existing public 
interest requirements continue to apply to all broadcast licensees.'' 
It is thus clear that DTV broadcasters must air programming responsive 
to their communities of license, comply with the statutory requirements 
concerning political advertising and candidate access, and provide 
children's educational and informational programming, among other 
things. But as People for Better TV ask, how do these obligations apply 
to a DTV broadcaster that chooses to multicast? Do a licensee's public 
interest obligations attach to the DTV channel as a whole, such that a 
licensee has discretion to fulfill them on one of its program streams, 
or to air some of its public interest programming on more than one of 
its program streams? Should, instead, the obligations attach to each 
program stream offered by the licensee, such that, for example, a 
licensee would need to air children's programming on each of its DTV 
program streams? The Advisory Committee Report contemplates that, under 
certain circumstances, a digital broadcaster should not have 
nonstatutory public interest obligations imposed on channels other than 
its ``primary'' channel. A majority of the members of the Advisory 
Committee believe that the FCC should prohibit broadcasters from 
segregating candidate-centered programming to separate program streams, 
because they believe that would violate candidates' reasonable access 
and equal opportunities. We seek comment on these approaches. In 
addition, how should we take into account the fact that DTV 
broadcasters can choose either to multicast multiple standard 
definition DTV program streams or broadcast one or two HDTV program 
streams during different parts of the day? In addressing these issues, 
commenters should discuss the requirements of section 336(d) of the 
Act, which states that a ``television licensee shall establish that all 
of its program services on the existing or advanced spectrum are in the 
public interest.''
    12. People for Better TV propose several other ways that digital 
broadcasters might better serve the nation's children, such as setting 
aside a minimum number of hours each week to provide educational 
programs or

[[Page 4213]]

services, which might include data transmission for schools. In 
addition, PBTV suggests that the increased information capability of 
digital technology could improve the current voluntary ratings system. 
We seek comment on these ideas. In addition, should the ratings of 
programs promoted by broadcasters be consistent with the rating of the 
program during which the promotions run? We also ask commenters to 
address how the policies set forth in the Children's Television Policy 
Statement should be applied in the digital environment.
    13. By definition, ancillary and supplementary services, such as 
datacasting or paging, are services other than free, over-the-air 
services. Do a licensee's public interest obligations apply to its 
ancillary and supplementary services? In addressing these issues, 
commenters should discuss the relevance of several sections of section 
336. People for Better TV contends that ``the public interest standard 
attends to all DTV uses of the spectrum,'' and points out that section 
336(a)(2) states that the Commission ``shall adopt regulations that 
allow the holders of [DTV] licenses to offer such ancillary and 
supplementary services on designated frequencies as may be consistent 
with the public interest, convenience, and necessity.'' We note that 
section 336(e) requires the Commission to collect fees from DTV 
broadcasters that offer ancillary and supplementary services, which 
fees must ``recover for the public an amount that, to the extent 
feasible, equals but does not exceed (over the term of the license) the 
amount that would have been recovered had such services been licensed 
pursuant to the provision of section 309(j) of this Act and the 
Commission's regulations thereunder.'' In addition, section 336(b)(3) 
simply requires the Commission to ``apply to any other ancillary and 
supplementary service such of the Commission's regulations as are 
applicable to the offering of analogous services by any other person.'' 
The Advisory Committee Report recommends that ``[b]roadcasters that 
choose to implement datacasting should transmit information on behalf 
of local schools, libraries, community-based organizations, 
governmental bodies, and public safety institutions.'' The Advisory 
Committee Report suggests that ``[t]his activity should count toward 
fulfillment of a digital broadcaster's public interest obligations,'' 
without indicating which regulations are applicable to ancillary and 
supplementary services. We seek comment on this proposal. How would 
datacasting count toward the DTV broadcasters' public interest 
obligations? We also seek comment more generally on whether the public 
interest obligations should apply to ancillary and supplementary 
services, and if so, how.

B. Responding to the Community

    14. One of a broadcaster's fundamental public interest obligations 
is to air programming responsive to the needs and interests of its 
community of license. Another of its most basic obligations in 
responding to the public's informational needs is to air emergency 
information. Technological advances, including digital technology, may 
allow broadcasters to fulfill these obligations better. In addition, 
broadcasters might make information about their programming more 
accessible, and therefore more responsive, to their communities of 
license through posting such information on websites on the Internet. 
As broadcasters move forward with their transition to digital 
technology, we seek to find ways to help them serve their communities 
better and more fully.
1. Disclosure Obligations
    15. People for Better TV states that DTV broadcasters should 
``disclose their public interest programming and activities on a 
quarterly basis, matched against ascertained community needs,'' 
gathered by reaching out to ``ordinary citizens and local leaders'' and 
sought through ``postal and electronic mail services as well as 
broadcast announcements.'' The Advisory Committee Report recommends 
that DTV broadcasters ``should be required to make enhanced disclosures 
of their public interest programming and activities on a quarterly 
basis, using standardized check-off forms that reduce administrative 
burdens and can be easily understood by the public.'' The Advisory 
Committee Report explains that effective self-regulation requires 
broadcasters to make available to the public adequate information about 
what they are doing. The Committee notes that the Commission already 
requires all TV broadcasters to place in their public files separate 
quarterly reports on their non-entertainment programming responsive to 
community needs and on their children's programming, and recommends 
that the Commission require broadcasters to augment these reports. The 
enhanced disclosures ``should include but not be limited to 
contributions to political discourse, public service announcements, 
children's and educational programming, local programming, programming 
that meets the needs of underserved communities, and community-specific 
activities.'' The Committee also recommends that digital TV 
broadcasters take steps to distribute public interest information more 
widely, through newspapers and websites. We seek comment on these 
recommendations.
    16. Our rules currently require commercial TV broadcasters to 
include in their public file, among other things, citizen agreements, 
records concerning broadcasts by candidates for public office, annual 
employment reports, letters and e-mail from the public, issues/
programming lists, records concerning children's programming commercial 
limits, and children's television programming reports. Should 
broadcasters provide the additional types of public service information 
proposed by the Advisory Committee Report and People for Better TV? 
Should they provide information in addition to, or in lieu of, that 
proposed by the Advisory Committee and People for Better TV? Should the 
public file contain information on what programming has closed 
captioning and video description? We seek comment on the extent to 
which the Advisory Committee's and People for Better TV's proposals 
parallel the Commission's previous ascertainment requirements, which 
the Commission repealed in the 1980s, and we ask parties to address 
whether the Commission's reasons for eliminating those requirements 
apply to our consideration of these proposals. These ascertainment 
guidelines set forth specific standards for broadcasters on consulting 
with community leaders, identifying and responding to community needs 
and problems through programming, and maintaining and making available 
various records on their ascertainment procedures.
    17. We currently allow licensees to maintain their public 
inspection file in computer databases, and encourage licensees that 
elect this option to post their public file on any websites they 
maintain. We seek comment on how many broadcasters provide their public 
file in this format, and the costs and benefits of doing so. In 
particular, we seek comment on how broadcasters could use the Internet 
to ensure that they are responsive to the needs of the public. We seek 
comment on whether broadcasters should be required to make their public 
files available on the Internet, and whether those broadcasters that 
maintain a station website on the Internet could or should use the 
Internet to interact directly with the public, perhaps by establishing 
forums in

[[Page 4214]]

which the public could post comments and engage in an ongoing dialogue 
about the broadcaster's programming. How could these websites and 
forums be made accessible to persons with disabilities? In addition, we 
seek comment on whether it would promote responsiveness to the 
community to require the disclosure of certain information (e.g., the 
individual ultimately responsible for a program's airing or content) 
that would enable public input more easily and meaningfully.
2. Disaster Warnings
    18. The Advisory Committee Report recommends that ``[b]roadcasters 
should work with appropriate emergency communications specialists and 
manufacturers to determine the most effective means to transmit 
disaster warning information. The means chosen should be minimally 
intrusive on bandwidth and not result in undue additional burdens or 
costs on broadcasters. Appropriate regulatory authorities should also 
work with manufacturers of digital television sets to make sure that 
they are modified to handle these kinds of transmissions.'' The 
Advisory Committee Report explains that digital technology will provide 
innovative and new ways to transmit warnings, such as pinpointing 
specific households or neighborhoods at risk, and suggests that DTV 
broadcasters take advantage of these technological advances. The 
Advisory Committee Report also states that most of these innovations 
will require only minimal use of the 6 MHz bandwidth allocated to 
digital broadcasters.
    19. We seek comment on the Advisory Committee Report's 
recommendation. One of broadcasters' fundamental public interest 
obligations is to warn viewers about impending disasters and keep them 
informed about related events. What unique capabilities does digital 
technology give broadcasters to deliver disaster-related information? 
What role should the Commission play to encourage broadcasters to 
deploy such technology to deliver enhanced disaster information? How 
can we facilitate the realization of the Advisory Committee's goals? We 
note that the Commission recently adopted its ``Emergency Alert 
System'' requirements, set forth in part 11 of the Commission's rules. 
Should the Commission adopt any different requirements for DTV 
broadcasters?
3. Minimum Public Interest Obligations
    20. The Advisory Committee Report recommends that ``[t]he FCC 
should adopt a set of mandatory minimum public interest requirements 
for digital broadcasters * * * that would not impose an undue burden on 
digital broadcast stations, * * * should apply to areas generally 
accepted as important universal responsibilities for broadcasters,'' 
and should be phased in over several years.
    21. We seek comment on the Advisory Committee Report's 
recommendations regarding minimum public interest requirements. Many 
members of the Advisory Committee were concerned that not all 
television broadcasters would adopt voluntary measures, while other 
members strongly opposed Commission-imposed minimum public interest 
requirements as unnecessary, preferring to give television broadcasters 
maximum flexibility and discretion in meeting their public interest 
obligations. Other parties have argued in our DTV proceeding that the 
Commission should adopt more specific public interest programming 
requirements given the new opportunities broadcasters will have in 
converting to DTV. They also express the concern that television 
broadcasters are not airing a sufficient amount of public interest 
programming, including local public affairs programming.
    22. We invite comment on this debate. Should the Commission 
establish more specific minimum requirements or guidelines regarding 
television broadcasters' public interest obligations? Would this make 
the license renewal process more certain and meaningful by spelling out 
the public interest standard in more detail? How would such minimum 
requirements be defined? What additional costs, if any, would those 
requirements impose? Are there sufficient marketplace incentives to 
ensure the provision of programming responsive to community needs, 
obviating the need for additional requirements?

C. Enhancing Access to the Media

    23. One of the Commission's long-standing goals in the area of 
broadcast regulation is to enhance the access to the media by all 
people, including people of all races, ethnicities, and gender, and, 
most recently, disabled persons. Congress emphasized this goal when it 
amended section 1 of the Communications Act in 1996 to refine this 
agency's mission to make available ``to all people of the United 
States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, 
national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-
wide wire and radio communication service * * * .'' It further 
highlighted this goal when it added provisions to the Act concerning 
people with disabilities, such as section 713 relating to closed 
captioning and video description. Given the efficiencies of digital 
technology, DTV broadcasters will be able to ``multicast'' and air 
several programs at the same time, as well as provide more information 
within the signal of each programming stream. We seek comment on the 
ways broadcasters can use this technology to provide greater access to 
the media.
1. Disabilities
    24. Digital technology offers great possibilities for broadcasters 
to make their programming more accessible to persons with disabilities. 
For example, digital technology could enable viewers to change the size 
of captions in order to see both captions and the text appearing on a 
TV screen. In addition, digital technology permits broadcasters to 
provide several different audio programs, which could make video 
description more widely available.
    25. In urging that the Commission issue this NOI, People for Better 
TV ask that the Commission emphasize, among other things, the 
``expansion of services to person with disabilities.'' The group 
specifically suggests that a ``digital broadcast station should provide 
closed captioning and description services for the blind of PSAs, 
public affairs programming, and political programming.'' It urges that 
``[c]aptioning and descriptions in these areas should be phased in over 
the first 4 years of a station's digital broadcasts, but should be 
completed no later than 2006.'' Similarly, the Advisory Committee 
Report recommends that digital TV broadcasters ``take full advantage'' 
of new digital technologies to provide ``maximum choice and quality for 
Americans with disabilities, where doing so would not impose an undue 
burden on the broadcasters.'' The Committee specifically enumerates 
closed captioning, video description, and disability access to 
ancillary and supplementary services. The Committee asks broadcasters 
to take full advantage of digital closed captioning technology that 
will enable viewers to change the size of captions to see both the 
caption and text otherwise behind the caption, and also calls on 
broadcasters to expand gradually captioning on PSAs, public affairs 
programming, and political programming. The Committee also requests 
digital broadcasters to allocate sufficient bandwidth among their 
multiple audio channels to make expanded use of video description 
technology feasible. The Committee further suggests that any digital 
broadcaster that provides ancillary and supplementary services not 
impinge on

[[Page 4215]]

the 9600 baud bandwidth currently set aside for closed captioning, and 
encourages broadcasters to explore new digital technologies to expand 
access to such services to persons with disabilities, such as offering 
text options for material presented orally and an audio option for 
material presented visually. The Committee finally recommends that the 
Commission and other regulatory authorities work with set manufacturers 
to ensure that modifications in audio channels, decoders, and other 
technical areas are designed to ensure the most efficient, inexpensive, 
and innovative capabilities for disability access.
    26. We seek comment on these proposals. We note that the Commission 
has adopted closed captioning rules to implement section 305 of the 
1996 Act. These closed captioning rules require broadcasters (both 
analog and digital TV broadcasters, among other video programming 
distributors and providers) to caption new programming gradually, 
according to a phase-in schedule, and to caption 75% of ``pre-rule'' 
programming by 2008. Our rules also require broadcasters to pass 
through the captioning provided by program suppliers, unless it 
requires reformatting. Certain types of programming and providers, 
however, are exempt from these requirements. Should the Commission 
impose different requirements on DTV broadcasters? We note that we have 
recently proposed to adopt technical standards for the display of 
closed captioning on DTV receivers, and to require the inclusion of 
closed captioning decoder circuitry in DTV receivers.
    27. With respect to video description, we note that the Commission 
has submitted two reports to Congress, pursuant to section 305(f) of 
the 1996 Act (codified as section 713(f) of the 1934 Act), and recently 
proposed limited rules to phase video description into the marketplace. 
In both of its reports to Congress, the Commission noted that, since 
digital technology does not have the capacity limitations of analog, 
its more widespread deployment will, in turn, make more widespread 
video description available. The Commission therefore suggested that 
any phase-in schedules should take into account the transition to DTV. 
In the Video Description Notice, we thus proposed limited rules for 
analog broadcasters, but made clear our intention to extend video 
description to digital broadcasters. We seek comment on how the 
Commission could encourage DTV broadcasters to take advantage of the 
enhanced capabilities of the technology to provide more video 
description.
    28. The Advisory Committee Report also recommends that DTV 
broadcasters make ancillary and supplementary services available to 
persons with disabilities. We seek comment on what types of ancillary 
and services broadcasters might provide, and on how they could be made 
accessible to persons with disabilities.
2. Diversity
    29. Diversity of viewpoint, ownership, and employment have long 
been and continue to be a fundamental public policy goal in 
broadcasting. In section 309(j) of the Act, Congress directed the 
Commission to prescribe competitive bidding rules to promote ``economic 
opportunity for a wide variety of applicants, including small 
businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by members 
of minority groups and women.'' In part, to fulfill that mandate, we 
offered a bidding credit to new entrants in our recent auction of 
broadcast licenses. Prior to the adoption of section 309(j), and 
throughout its history, the Commission has also pursued a number of 
initiatives to diversify broadcast station ownership and employment. 
For example, the Commission identified ``diversification of control of 
the media of mass communications'' as ``a factor of primary 
significance'' in its comparative licensing processes, and adopted 
diversity and minority ``preferences'' in certain of its random 
selection processes. In addition, we are currently conducting a number 
of studies to evaluate the barriers to acquisition of broadcast 
licenses, and barriers to entry or growth, that small, minority-, and 
women-owned businesses face, as well as to examine the impact of our 
multiple ownership rules on broadcast station ownership, and the impact 
of small, minority, and women ownership of broadcast stations on 
service. The Commission has also adopted equal opportunity rules that 
are designed to foster opportunity in the broadcast industry for 
minorities and women. The outreach portion of these rules was struck 
down on constitutional grounds by the D.C. Circuit. However, we issued 
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (63 FR 66104, December 1, 1998) 
proposing new EEO rules, and expect to issue an order in the near 
future.
    30. Broadcasters have voluntarily pursued a number of initiatives 
to foster diversity. Most recently, broadcasters created an investment 
fund, with current initial cash commitments of $175 million and 
ultimate purchasing power of possibly $1 billion, to spur ownership of 
television and radio by minorities and women. In addition, many 
broadcasters have made voluntary commitments to abide by equal 
opportunity principles, whether required by law to do so or not.
    31. People for Better TV ask that DTV broadcasters exploit digital 
technology to reflect the diversity of their communities, through any 
number of practices. The group explains that network programming cannot 
respond to diverse needs of each community, and so local stations must 
come to know and provide service to diverse communities. It asks that 
broadcasters support the goal of diversity and report quarterly on 
their efforts.
    32. The Advisory Committee Report states that ``[d]iversity is an 
important value in broadcasting, whether it is in programming, 
political discourse, hiring, promotion, or business opportunities 
within the industry.'' As such, it recommends that ``broadcasters seize 
the opportunity inherent in the digital television technology to 
substantially enhance the diversity available in the television 
marketplace.'' Many of the Advisory Committee's other recommendations 
bear on its goal of diversity in broadcasting. For example, the 
Advisory Committee Report advocates flexibility in multiplexing so that 
broadcasters can create new opportunities for minority entrepreneurship 
through channel-leasing arrangements, partnerships and other creative 
business arrangements. In addition, the Advisory Committee Report 
recommends that, out of the returned analog spectrum one new 6 MHz 
channel for each viewing community be reserved for noncommercial 
purposes, including educational programming directed at minority groups 
and other underserved segments of the community. The Committee also 
recommends that ``broadcasters voluntarily redouble their individual 
and collective efforts during the digital transition to encourage 
effective participation by minorities and women at all levels of the 
industry,'' including hiring and promotion policies that result in 
significant representation of minorities and women in the decision-
making positions in the broadcast industry. The Committee hopes that 
all of the recommendations will help independent producers provide new 
programming. We note that several major civil rights organizations, 
including NAACP and La Raza, have raised similar concerns about the 
lack of cultural diversity on network programming.
    33. The Advisory Committee Report generally does not contain 
separate,

[[Page 4216]]

stand-alone recommendations on how to achieve diversity in 
broadcasting; its recommendations are largely contained within other 
portions of the report on which we have sought comment above. In 
addition, as indicated, the Commission currently has a number of 
initiatives underway designed to diversify broadcast ownership and 
employment. What other ways could and should the Commission encourage 
diversity in broadcasting, consistent with relevant constitutional 
standards? We seek comment on innovative ways unique to DTV that the 
Commission could use to encourage diversity in the digital era, and 
encourage commenters to submit specific proposals.

D. Enhancing Political Discourse

    34. The Commission has long interpreted the statutory public 
interest standard as imposing an obligation on broadcast licensees to 
air programming regarding political campaigns. The Supreme Court 
likewise has recognized the impact television broadcasting has on our 
political system: ``Deliberation on the positions and qualifications of 
candidates is integral to our system of government, and electoral 
speech may have its most profound and widespread impact when it is 
disseminated through televised debates. A majority of the population 
cites television as its primary source of election information, and 
debates are regarded as the `only occasion during a campaign when the 
attention of a large portion of the American public is focused on the 
election, as well as the only campaign information format which 
potentially offers sufficient time to explore issues and policies in 
depth in a neutral forum.' '' We seek comment on ways that candidate 
access to television and thus the quality of political discourse might 
be improved. We propose no rules or policies in this NOI. Rather our 
goal in this NOI is to initiate a public debate on the question of 
whether, and how, broadcasters' public interest obligations can be 
refined to promote democracy and better educate the voting public. This 
debate will greatly assist the Commission and Congress in determining 
what, if any, further steps should be taken on these important issues.
    35. We note that some broadcasters have devoted many hours of 
program time to political coverage. According to a report recently 
issued by the National Association of Broadcasters (``NAB Report''), in 
the 1996 election cycle broadcasters valued the time they voluntarily 
devoted to political campaigns at $148.4 million. This programming took 
the form of coverage of debates, conventions and issue fora. Many more 
hours of news programming not accounted for in these figures have been 
dedicated to covering local and national campaigns. In addition, during 
the 1996 elections, the Fox, PBS, and ABC networks voluntarily provided 
free airtime to the major presidential candidates using a variety of 
formats. For example, during the last six weeks of the 1996 
presidential campaign the Fox television network offered each major 
presidential candidate free airtime, including the opportunity to make 
ten one-minute position statements that were broadcast in prime time. 
The PBS and ABC television networks also set aside free airtime for 
presentations by the major presidential candidates, and the A.H. Belo 
Corporation provided free airtime in selected federal congressional 
elections and gubernatorial races. The Commission exempted these 
efforts from the equal opportunity requirements, finding that the 
proposals qualified as on-the-spot coverage of a bona fide news event. 
We seek comment on what the Commission can do to encourage these kinds 
of voluntary efforts by television broadcasters.
    36. On the other hand, we note that there are indications that many 
television broadcasters are providing scant coverage of local public 
affairs, and what coverage there is may be shrinking. For instance, a 
1998 study by the University of Southern California Annenberg School 
for Communication found that only 0.31% of local news focused on the 
California governor's race, compared to a figure of 1.8% in 1974. 
Similarly, an April 1998 Joint Report by the Media Access Project and 
the Benton Foundation found that, in the markets examined, 35% of the 
stations provide no local news, and 25% offer neither local public 
affairs programming nor local news.
    37. The Advisory Committee Report recommends that television 
broadcasters provide five minutes each night between 5:00 p.m. and 
11:35 p.m. (or the appropriate equivalent in Central and Mountain time 
zones) for ``candidate-centered discourse'' thirty days before an 
election. The Committee envisions maximum flexibility for broadcasters, 
allowing them to choose the candidates and races--federal, state, and 
local--that deserve more attention. The Committee envisions that 
stations could choose formats, which might include giving candidates 
one minute of airtime, conducting mini-debates, or doing brief 
interviews, or including the ``discourse'' in newcasts. We seek comment 
on this idea. More generally, are there steps the Commission can take 
to promote voluntary efforts to enhance political debate and the 
information the public receives concerning candidates?
    38. Others have proposed that the Commission adopt rules requiring 
broadcast licensees to provide time to candidates. Although the 
Advisory Committee Report proposed voluntary efforts, thirteen members 
of the Committee--a majority--contend that the Committee's 
recommendations do not go far enough, and that the Commission should, 
among other things, require television broadcasters to provide some 
airtime for national and local candidates. In addition, former FCC 
General Counsel Henry Geller, on behalf of himself and others, ask the 
Commission to require television broadcasters to provide political 
candidates a reasonable amount of time each day in advance of a general 
election. More specifically, Geller et al. propose that the Commission 
require television broadcasters to provide twenty minutes of airtime 
each day thirty days before a general election in even-numbered years, 
and fifteen days before in odd-numbered years, when there are fewer 
elections. Geller et al. suggest that the Commission give television 
broadcasters the flexibility to decide how to provide the total of 
twenty minutes, except that the time should be provided between 6:00 
a.m. to midnight, with at least five minutes in prime time. Geller et 
al. further suggest that the Communications Act requires the Commission 
to leave the selection of the races to be covered to the licensees. 
Geller et al. contend that the Commission's public interest authority 
extends to requiring broadcasters to provide time. We seek comment on 
these approaches, and on the Commission's authority to require 
broadcasters to provide airtime to political candidates. We also seek 
comment on the Advisory Committee's recommendation that the Commission 
should prohibit television broadcasters from adopting blanket bans on 
the sale of airtime to state and local candidates.

IV. Administrative Matters

    39. Comments and Reply Comments. Pursuant to applicable procedures 
set forth in Secs. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 
1.415 and 1.419, interested parties must file comments on or before 
March 27, 2000, and reply comments on or before April 25, 2000. 
Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing 
System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of 
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24,121 (1998).

[[Page 4217]]

    40. Comments filed through ECFS can be sent as an electronic file 
via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Generally, 
only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. In completing 
the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, 
Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking 
number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment via e-mail. To 
get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an 
e-mail to [email protected], and should include the following words in the 
body of the message, ``get form your e-mail address>.'' A sample form 
and directions will be sent in reply.
    41. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and 
four copies of each filing. All filings must be sent to the 
Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., TW-A325, 
Washington, D.C. 20554.
    42. Parties who choose to file paper should also submit their 
comments on diskette. These diskettes should be addressed to: Wanda 
Hardy, Paralegal Specialist, Mass Media Bureau, Policy and Rules 
Division, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., 
2-C221, Washington, D.C. 20554. Such a submission should be on a 3.5 
inch diskette formatted in an IBM compatible format using Word 97 or 
compatible software. The diskette should be accompanied by a cover 
letter and should be submitted in ``read only'' mode. The diskette 
should be clearly labeled with the commenter's name, proceeding 
(including the lead docket number in this case (MM Docket No. 99-360), 
type of pleading (comment or reply comment), date of submission, and 
the name of the electronic file on the diskette. The label should also 
include the following phrase ``Disk Copy--Not an Original.'' Each 
diskette should contain only one party's pleadings, preferably in a 
single electronic file. In addition, commenters must sent diskette 
copies to the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription 
Service, Inc., 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., CY-B402, Washington, D.C. 
20554.
    43. Comments and reply comments will be available for public 
inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 
Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., CY-A257, 
Washington, D.C. 20554. Persons with disabilities who need assistance 
in the FCC Reference Center may contact Bill Cline at (202) 418-0270, 
(202) 418-2555 TTY, or [email protected]. Comments and reply comments also 
will be available electronically at the Commission's Disabilities 
Issues Task Force web site: www.fcc.gov/dtf. Comments and reply 
comments are available electronically in ASCII text, Word 97, and Adobe 
Acrobat.
    44. This document is available in alternative formats (computer 
diskette, large print, audio cassette, and Braille). Persons who need 
documents in such formats may contact Arminta Henry at (202) 4810-0260, 
TTY (202) 418-2555, or [email protected].
    45. Ex Parte Rules. Pursuant to the provisions of 47 CFR 
1.1204(b)(1) this is an exempt proceeding. Ex parte presentations to or 
from Commission decision-making personnel are permissible and need not 
be disclosed.

IV. Ordering Clause

    46. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 303(g), 
303(r), 336 and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 154(i), 303(g), 303(r), 336, and 403, this Notice of Inquiry is 
adopted.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-1794 Filed 1-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P