Abby Kenigsberg, Executive Director, L.I. Coalition for Fair Broadcasting, Inc., opposed H.R. 3333, partly because there is little local news coverage for Long Island even under present regulations, and local communities need strengthened regulation to protect local interests. William Ott, Student, Department of Communications, Hunter College, urged that there be strengthened regulation to meet the need for fewer and more informative commercials, educational programming in prime time and a more realistic depiction of minorities. Cathy Ganim, a concerned citizen from the audience, opposed Barbara Jones, Black Citizens for Fair Media, opposes H.R. 3333, because just as citizens have begun to have some impact on the media, their right to access is being taken away. Marty Lukas, City Crisis Film Group, stated opposition to Keith Crandell, speaking for Tom Stokes, former candidate for Congress, opposed H.R. 3333, partly because the broadcast media must be operated for the good of the people and not for the corporations that own the media. Jerry Spriggs, Community Liason, District 1, General Coordinator, Martin Luther King Poor Peoples Convention. 1979, Commission for the Elimination of Racism, Council of Churches of New York, opposes H.R. 3333 partly because the consumer must have some control over programs. Julie Reed, Woman for Socialized Medicine, opposed H.R. 3333 because there is a need for greater media coverage of unpopular positions. Roberta Presser, reading statement from Women's Division, Emma Bowen, President, Black Citizens for Fair Media, expressed anger at the failure of major radio and t.v. stations to cover the issue of deregulation. She wants to file a Fairness Doctrine complaint. Statement NATIONAL RADIO BROADCASTERS ASSOCIATION The National Radio Broadcasters Association ("NRBA") is a nonprofit trade association representing some 1,200 AM and FM stations located throughout the United States. The NRBA believes the proposed Rewrite Bill (H.R. 3333) provides a workable base which with certain changes would provide for meaningful deregulation of the broadcast industry especially the AM and FM segment of that industry improved service to the public. - - and The purpose for government regulation of the broadcast industry was conceptually to provide a set of standards dedicated to ensuring that broadcast stations operated in the public interest whatever such a phrase should be interpreted - to mean. Government regulation may well have been justified in the early days of broadcasting when stations were few. However, given the proliferation of broadcast stations as well as the competition afforded by other communications media, the need for regulation has long since passed. If competition cannot ensure operation by a broadcast station in the public interest a broadcast station needs the approval and attention of the public in order to survive and accordingly must serve its public in order to secure its attention and approval rules and regulations and policies evolving out of Washington, D. C., albeit with the best of intentions, cannot ensure such operation. The passage of H.R. 3333, with certain necessary revisions, offers the best hope of removing government from - then the broadcaster/public equation so as to enable the interplay of competitive forces to ensure a flexible and meaningful service to the public. It is by removing government from the equation that the goal of entrusting the public airways to the public will best be achieved -- through natural competition, not artificial government fiat. As noted above, the NRBA is in favor of the overall approach of H.R. 3333, with certain exceptions. Those portions of the proposed Bill which we feel should be revised or excised out of the Bill entirely will be discussed below. 1. Spectrum resource fee In a free society, care must be taken by all citizens not to allow systems to be set up or philosophies adopted which could be perverted by future generations. The payment of anything of value in exchange for the right of any communications medium to operate, whether that payment be styled a tax or a fee, is a highly dangerous The NRBA is unalterably opposed to the spectrum fee. principle. 2. Ownership restrictions The NRBA believes there should be a limitation on the right of any one entity to secure unlimited AM, FM and TV properties. Unlimited ownership would provide the basis for possible misuse of economic strength by a broadcast monolith. We would support a limitation such as 10 AM, 10 FM, 5 VHF television and 5 UHF television stations. On the other hand, we do not think there should be any restriction on the crossownership of AM/FM/TV's and/or newspapers in the same market. Therefore, we are in tacit agreement with that portion of the proposed Bill which allows for the ownership of an AM, FM and TV station in the same market, but feel that the scope of the Bill should be broadened to include newspapers. 3. Encouragement of minority ownership The NRBA certainly agrees that there is a need for increased minority ownership of broadcast stations. However, as the ownership interests of minority groups in broadcast properties increase, the need for encouragement to be engraven in the Bill would no longer exist. Therefore, we do not feel that it is necessary to include such provision amongst the goals of the Bill. This does not mean we are against provisions and/or rules which may ultimately be adopted by the Communications Regulatory Commission ("CRC") to encourage increased minority ownership. Along these same lines, we do not feel it is fair to provide în perpetuity that a minority applicant for a newly assigned frequency is to be represented twice in the random selection process. Therefore, we suggest that the double representation of minorities in such random selection be limited to a period of four years from the effective date of the Act. 4. Revocation of licenses based upon criminal violations The proposed Bill provides for revocation of licenses for violations of Title 18, Sections 1304, 1343 and/or 1464 of fraud, obscenity and profanity and the United States Code - lotteries. Violation of each of these sections constitutes a crime for which criminal penalties are assessed. It is unfair to expose a broadcast licensee to the criminal penalties and also empower the CRC to enforce these statutes civilly. If the criminal laws are actively and effectively enforced, there should be no need to provide for revocation of licenses for the same derelictions a form of double jeopardy. Also, the double enforcement would enable the CRC to evaluate program content judgments, a dangerous area and the very area about which the deregulatory efforts should be most concerned. 5. Petitions to revoke The NRBA understands the need for the Rewrite Bill to contain a provision for petitions to revoke licenses. However, we feel that in addition to granting the right to file such petitions, the Bill should contain strict governing standards. There should be a provision against repetitive filings, so that, for example, if a petition to revoke is denied, a period of two years must elapse before the petitioner or its alter ego can file again for revocation. Also, the Bill should set forth requirements with respect to the contents of petitions to revoke, requiring that factual allegations must be supported by affidavits or citations to official records, before they will be given any credence whatsoever. The Bill should also provide for sanctions so that petitioners who file to revoke licenses without any |