November 20, 2007

Robert M. McDowell
Commissioner
Federal Communications Commission

445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

Dear Commissioner McDowell,

In a speech you delivered yesterday to the Media Institute Luncheon, you noted that the Commission has been considering lifting the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban for some 11 years. You asked, “If anyone knows of an FCC proceeding where there has been more opportunity for debate over an 11-year period, please let me know.” We write to take you up on your invitation.

For over 12 years, the Commission has recognized the importance of addressing the public interest obligations of digital television broadcasters, but has failed on the legal mandate to do so despite recommendations from a Presidential Advisory Committee, public interest groups, the Commission’s own Consumer Advisory Committee and broadcasters themselves.

As you noted in your speech, the Commission may move as early as next month to change media ownership rules and allow local newspaper owners to purchase radio and TV stations in the same community. Critics of this move -- including Members of Congress, public interest groups, as well as a prominent broadcaster and newspaper owner -- have asked the Commission to delay this decision.
In part, these critics argue that the FCC should first complete a proceeding began in 1995[1] that would define what programming "in the public interest" means in the age of digital television, which officially begins in February 2009.

Chairman Kevin Martin's proposed change to media ownership rules is intended to offer opportunities for new owners of US television stations. Before unleashing a wave of television ownership deals, the Commission should first clearly define what will be expected of these new owners. But, more importantly, the American public deserves to know how television broadcasters will fulfill their role as public trustees of the airways in the digital age. We write today to urged the FCC to issue clear guidelines to ensure that broadcasters adhere to the law and serve the local educational, informational, civic, minority, disability and security needs of the children and adults in the communities that TV stations are licensed to serve.

The obligation of broadcasters to serve local educational, informational, civic, minority, disability and security needs of the public has been created by statute and upheld by the courts. Further guidance from the FCC is necessary to clarify how these public interest obligations apply to DTV broadcasters and to answer outstanding questions raised by the increased technological capabilities of the digital medium. To move ahead on allowing new companies to become owners of TV stations without first defining their public interest responsibilities is a bad deal for local communities.

Attached please find our August 2007 filing in the FCC’s Third Periodic Review of the Commission’s Rules and Policies Affecting the Conversion To Digital Television. In this filing, we outline 1) the legal mandate that broadcasters serve the public interest, convenience and necessity; and 2) the Commission’s failure to address the public interest obligations of digital television broadcasters.

As long-time commercial broadcaster James “Jim” F. Goodmon, President and CEO of Capitol Broadcasting, puts it:

The broadcast company is fulfilling a contract between itself as the user of a public asset and the public body that owns the asset. As with all contracts, both parties to the agreement need to know exactly the responsibilities that they have to each other. With minimum standards spelled out, there is no question. As a broadcaster, I would like to know what is expected of me in serving the public interest. Required minimum standards and a voluntary code provide the benefit of certainty to broadcasters. I like to know what the rules are.

Both broadcasters and the American public deserve to know what is expected of television licensees who use our valuable spectrum. Please move to end this long debate – and do so before deciding on the newer cross-ownership debate.

Sincerely,

Charles Benton Meredith McGehee
Chairman & CEO Policy Director
Benton Foundation Campaign Legal Center

[1] In the Matter of Advanced Television Services and Their Impact Upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service (MM Docket No. 87-268). Adopted July 28, 1995 (see http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1995/fcc95315.txt).