the institution of public broadcasting can best be understood as a social dividend of technology, a benefit fulfulling needs that cannot be met by "In less than a dozen years, among the most turbulent and pivotal in " Indeed public broadcasting can be likened to the national parks for forest preserves, or the National Gallery of Art--national resources for all of our citizens. Our concern is that 3 percent of air time for commercials will lead to 6 percent next year and 12 percent the next. Already, in an unrelated move, two public television stations in Phoenix and Buffalo have asked the FCC for experimental authorization to run 6 minutes of commercials per night. Once the latch is lifted, the door will likely swing wide open. It will be next to impossible to monitor or police a limited formula of percentages and time allotments. We must point out at least one side effect of the proposal to permit commercials on public broadcasting. This could backfire with the public who have become accustomed to commercial-less television and could express their disapproval by withholding their annual contributions to public broadcasting. We have already had strong negative feedback from some of our members who have supported public broadcasting for years. If commercials are permitted, public broadcasting might well find an erosion of citizen support. Perhaps the most serious objection to commercials on public television is the effect this will have on the types and quality of programs which constitute public broadcasting fare. Advertisers will insist on sponsoring those programs that entice the largest number of viewers. The specialized audience programs will either decrease or go begging because of lack of sponsors. We must not allow public tele vision to be caught up in the same ratings madness that is causing a near panic in commercial television networks today--with networks switching programs from one time slot to another in a frantic effort to win a higher percentage share of the audience at a given time. Obsession with the numbers game will inevitably lead to conservative non-imaginative programming where producers are afraid to take a chance lest they offend the advertiser paying for program. Public broadcasting must not be allowed to go the way of commercial broadcasting. If this occurs, public television's one eye will be on profits while the other eye--quite naturally--will also be on profits! While we recognize that public broadcasting remains undernourished despite a wide variety of program funding efforts, the Subcommittee has, in our judgment, moved forthrightly in proposing the $1.50 per resident authorization which would give public broadcasting approximately twice the amount it now gets. In future years, Congress will undoubtedly need to increase the per capita amount to allow for continued growth of this valuable public service. ALA therefore urges you to re-examine your proposal and to delete the provision which permits use of commercials in public broadcasting. In summary, the American Library Association, believing that an informed citizenry is basic to the national interest and recognizing that marketplace forces alone are not sufficient to achieve this goal, recommends an integrated approach to telecommunications technology and information policy developments. We urge that the basis of federal action of these interrelated matters be the "public interest, convenience and necessity." We appreciate this opportunity to present to the Subcommittee the views of the American Library Association. COMMENTS OF THE INTERCOLLEGIATE BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. (IBS) Introduction The Intercollegiate Broadcasting System, Inc. (IBS) is a nonprofit association of radio stations based at schools and colleges across the U.S. with membership rolls currently including some 400 noncommercial educational FM licensees. Additionally, we represent another approximately 200 closed-circuit carrier-current and cable FM stations. Most of these stations are staffed by student and community volunteers. Most operate with limited budgets, particularly in comparison with those stations aided by Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) funding and National Public Radio (NPR) interconnect programming. For the most part, our stations have not been considered eligible to participate in these federal support programs because of limited power, and/or insufficient number of full-time professional staff members and/or insufficient amounts of annual budgets. It is as a representative of our stations and with deep concern for the public interest that we offer these comments on this proposed legislation. Though the proposed bill involves many aspects of communications regulation, we will confine our remarks primarily to those sections dealing with our areas of concern. Marketplace Forces vs Public Interest Standard The proposed legislation seeks to substitute marketplace forces for government regulation as a basis for communications law, except "where it has been determined that marketplace forces are deficient, the Congress finds that Government regulation in the public interest is necessary and appropriate." In this sense, you have equated government regulation with protection of the public interest, in contrast with marketplace forces which may or may not do so. We agree. Marketplace forces currently have little validity in protecting the public interest, and we feel the public interest is much too important to be left to the haphazard machinations of marketplace forces for its protection, Therefore, IBS supports the retention of the public interest, convenience, and necessity standard as the basis for communications regulation as it has been since the Communications Act of 1934. However, in continuing the public interest standard, one must also have some basis for performance judgement. The new Act eliminates the necessary performance criteria for radio while extending the station license for an indefinite period. However, more concern is expressed with regard to television performance where some programming standards are maintained along with some reasonable license term limitations. We believe that the general programming standards involving news, public affairs, controversial issues programming, and equal opportunity for political candidates as proposed in Sections 462 and 463 for television be made to apply to radio broadcasters as well. The Section 462 requirements are certainly reasonable, and we agree with Section 463's elimination of automatic access to a broadcast station for political candidates, except where another candidate for the same office has been given time outside the context of regularly scheduled news programs. Combination of Construction Permit and License Applications The proposed Section 412 (b) (2) combines the applications for a station construction permit and license. We believe this a practical and workable idea whose time is long overdue. The basis for license qualification has already been established with the grant of a construction permit, and this second step seems to have little meaning. If the Commission had doubts, it would not issue the construction permit in the first place. Once that permit is issued, unless major deviations are made from the original proposal, a license should be automatic once the facility's construction is completed. Perhaps a simple notice of completion could be sent by the licensee to the Commission to indicate that the new facility is complete and operating. Spectrum Use Fee IBS agrees that a spectrum use fee is appropriate for commercial users of the spectrum, although the specific formula used to determine that fee may be open to further discussion with those parties directly affected. We agree that the proceeds of this fee should revert to the General Fund and should not necessarily be earmarked for any particular use, such as support of noncommercial broadcasting. Such specification could lead to understandable resentment on the part of commercial broadcasters and could foster an unnecessary breach in relations between the two groups. |