**REPORT TO CONGRESS**

**on the Public Interest Obligations**

**of Television Broadcasters**

**as They Transition to Digital Television**

**William E. Kennard**

**Chairman, Federal Communications Commission**

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

PREFACE [1](#preface)

THE POWER OF TELEVISION [1](#the-power-of-television)

THE PUBLIC INTEREST STANDARD [2](#the-public-interest-standard)

PRINCIPLES OF BROADCASTING IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
[5](#principles-of-broadcasting-in-the-public-interest)

Local Issue-Oriented Programming [5](#local-issue-oriented-programming)

Public Service Announcements [9](#public-service-announcements)

Communication with Communities [10](#communication-with-communities)

Enriching Children [14](#enriching-children)

Protecting Children [20](#protecting-children)

Enhancing Democracy [24](#enhancing-democracy)

Disaster and Emergency Information
[27](#disaster-and-emergency-information)

Consumer Privacy [29](#consumer-privacy)

Diversity [30](#diversity)

Disabilities Access [33](#disabilities-access)

Technology and the Public Interest
[36](#technology-and-the-public-interest)

CONCLUSION [36](#conclusion)

# PREFACE

On May 25, 2000, Senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Robert Byrd, and
Sam Brownback wrote to the Federal Communications Commission
("Commission" or "FCC"), expressing their concern about the declining
standards of broadcast television, in particular the increasing amount
of sexually-oriented and violent content.[^1] The Senators stated:

> The denials and excuses we routinely hear today from the industry
> raise serious questions about the commitment of many broadcasters to
> serving the public interest, as they are obligated to do by law. We
> must remember that broadcasters are trustees of a public resource
> worth billions of dollars, which they get access to for free, in
> return for a pledge to act as responsible stewards of the airwaves.
> The license they receive is a legally-binding contract, an especially
> important one given television's immense influence on our children and
> our culture. And much to our dismay, the evidence presented in this
> letter strongly suggests that many licensees, along with their network
> parents, are breaching this public trust, and harming rather than
> serving the public interest.[^2]

Consequently, the Senators stated that "the time has come for the
Commission to engage in a broad reexamination of the public interest
standard, and the license renewal process, to determine if in fact the
broadcasters are serving 'the public interest, convenience, and
necessity,' and whether the standard of service we expect of
broadcasters should be clarified."[^3] The Senators noted the
Commission's pending *Notice of Inquiry* on the public interest
obligations of television broadcasters, and asked the Commission to use
its inquiry to study the issues raised in their letter. The Senators
specifically asked the Commission "to comment on the advisability of
resurrecting an industry-adopted code of conduct to protect against
further erosion of the broadcasting standards and to provide a broader
platform for self-regulation," and "to review and rearticulate the
Commission's indecency standard."[^4]

This report is designed to provide a broad examination of television
broadcasters' public interest obligations. This report is especially
timely because television broadcasters are in the process of
transitioning to digital television, which offers them new opportunities
and ways to serve the public. Many of the principles described below,
however, apply in the analog context as well. Guided by the record in
the Commission's pending proceeding on the public interest obligations
of television broadcasters, including an all-day hearing held this past
October, this report attempts to distill a number of broad principles
for broadcasters that, if followed, would go a long way toward serving
the public interest. In doing so, the report tries to minimize burdens
on broadcasters and maximize service to the public, all the while
mindful of First Amendment freedoms and limitations. The report is
intended to be a useful tool for the public to continue a dialogue with
broadcasters over how they serve the public interest.

# THE POWER OF TELEVISION

Television is the most dominant and powerful medium of our time. More
than 100 million American households -- over 98 per cent -- have
television sets,[^5] and more than 75% of television households have
more than one television set.[^6] Broadcast television is available at
no charge in these households. Indeed, on average nearly 85% of American
TV households watch the top three major broadcast networks each week,
and over 75% watch the fourth.[^7] Television reaches more Americans
than any other medium, and Americans spend more time with TV than any
other medium.[^8]

Given its widespread distribution and popular appeal, the impact of
television on culture and public opinion is unmatched. Families spend
more of their time together watching television than doing almost
anything else.[^9] The average household watches over seven hours of
television per day,[^10] and children spend an average of three hours a
day watching television.[^11] Television programs are of course a source
of entertainment -- watching television is the primary source of
entertainment in American households.[^12] But TV programs also are a
source of news and information -- more Americans find out about world
events from television than from all other sources combined.[^13] These
statistics hold even in the age of the Internet.[^14] In short,
television, more than any other medium, has the power to educate,
enrich, entertain, and inform Americans. It also has the power to harm,
especially children.

For over seventy years, broadcasters have had a legal obligation to use
this powerful medium in a manner that serves "the public interest,
convenience, and necessity."[^15] Broadcasters make an in-kind exchange
with the public -- broadcasters use the public spectrum in exchange for
serving the public interest. The Commission is charged with ensuring
that broadcasters fulfill their end of the bargain. Reliance on
marketplace forces is not always adequate to ensure that broadcasters
serve the public interest because the television marketplace is unusual.
Broadcasters do not function as producers to sell programming to viewers
as consumers. Rather, as a business model, it is more accurate to
characterize broadcasters as producers that sell viewers to advertisers
as consumers.[^16] In sum, marketplace forces may ensure that commercial
broadcasters serve advertisers, but they do not in and of themselves
ensure that they serve the viewing public.

Broadcast television is in transition from analog to digital
transmission technology. Digital technology supports up to six times
more data than conventional television signals, offers the possibility
of providing at least twice the picture resolution, and provides for
spectrum efficiencies. Digital television (DTV) thus offers broadcasters
new opportunities to serve the public. 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
definition TV (SDTV) programming; and to provide other services, such as
data transmission, interactive TV, pay-per-view TV, and paging services.
For example, a broadcaster could transmit a news program consisting of
four separate SDTV programs for local news, national news, weather, and
sports, while interrupting that programming with a single HDTV
commercial with embedded data about the product; or it could transmit a
motion picture in HDTV, while simultaneously using excess capacity for
data unrelated to the movie. The spectrum that broadcasters will use to
take advantage of such opportunities has been valued at as much as \$70
billion.[^17] DTV broadcasters should use the flexibility of DTV to
serve the public in exchange for, and in ways that are commensurate
with, the value of the spectrum they use. Given DTV's unknown potential,
and unprecedented flexibility, the Commission needs to find ways to
ensure that broadcasters harness their new opportunities to serve the
public interest, and enrich children's lives.

# THE PUBLIC INTEREST STANDARD

Communications law has required for over seventy years that broadcasters
serve the public interest. The Commission has taken a variety of actions
over time to ensure that broadcasters comply with that obligation, and
the broadcast industry has taken a variety of actions to serve the
public and regulate itself.

[Actions of the Commission]{.underline}. The Commission has adopted a
variety of policies and rules over the years to define the public
interest standard. These have evolved from the statements of the
Commission's predecessor, the Federal Radio Commission,[^18] to the
Commission's 1946 "Blue Book,"[^19] to its 1960 *en banc* programming
inquiry report,[^20] to the adoption of various ascertainment and
reporting requirements, and processing guidelines.[^21] These guidelines
examined, at the time of renewal, whether the broadcaster had aired a
certain percentage of non-entertainment programming.[^22]

Currently, the Commission's rules require broadcasters to air
programming responsive to "issues of concern" to their communities,[^23]
and to maintain and make available to the public records on such
programming.[^24] Consistent with explicit statutory mandates, the
Commission's rules also require broadcasters to provide "equal
opportunities" to candidates for public office and "reasonable access"
to candidates for federal elective office, and to charge no more than
certain rates for candidate access.[^25] In addition, to implement the
Children's Television Act of 1990, the Commission's rules also require
broadcasters to air programming to serve children's educational and
informational needs, and to limit advertising during children's
programming.[^26] To implement still other laws, the Commission's rules
prohibit broadcasters from airing obscene programming, and restrict them
from airing indecent programming during certain times of the day.[^27]
Commission rules also prohibit discrimination in employment,[^28] and
require broadcasters to provide some programming with closed captions
and, beginning in 2002, video description, to enhance the accessibility
of video programming to persons with disabilities.[^29]

Congress in drafting the Telecommunications Act, and the Commission in
establishing service rules for DTV licensees, reaffirmed the
longstanding principle that broadcasters must operate in the public
interest.[^30] But exactly how they must do so in the digital age has
not been resolved. The Commission began to consider that issue in
December 1999 when it issued a *Notice of Inquiry*.[^31] The *NOI* was
guided by several proposals and recommendations made in recent years.
Among the most significant of these were the recommendations of
President Clinton's Advisory Committee on the Public Interest
Obligations of Digital Broadcasters ("Advisory Committee") and the
petition for rulemaking and notice of inquiry filed by People for Better
TV ("PBTV"). The Advisory Committee consisted of twenty-two members from
"the commercial and noncommercial broadcasting industry, computer
industries, producers, academic institutions, public interest
organizations, and the advertising community."[^32] PBTV also includes a
number of diverse groups.[^33] In December 1998, the Advisory Committee
released a report, which contains ten separate recommendations on the
public interest obligations DTV broadcasters should assume.[^34] In June
1999, PBTV filed a petition for rulemaking and petition for notice of
inquiry, which also contained a variety of proposals. In the fall of
1999, Vice President Gore formally asked the Commission to focus on
several of the Advisory Committee's recommendations,[^35] and PBTV
renewed its request for the Commission to begin a proceeding to
determine the public interest obligations of DTV broadcasters.[^36]

Since release of the *NOI*, the Commission has received hundreds of
formal and informal comments from a wide variety of sources. These
include members of Congress, broadcasters and their trade associations,
public interest groups, and members of the public, such as parents,
students, and teachers. These comments have formed, in many ways, the
basis of two proceedings the Commission recently initiated. The first of
these explores ways to ensure that broadcasters fulfill the mandate of
the Children's Television Act in the digital age.[^37] For example, the
Commission's current policies on children's programming include a
processing guideline pursuant to which a broadcaster can receive staff
level approval of the CTA portion of its renewal application if it airs
three hours of children's educational and informational programming
weekly. In the *DTV Children's Notice*, the Commission asks such
questions as, how does the processing guideline apply to DTV
broadcasters that multicast? The other recent proceeding that grew out
of the *NOI* comments explores ways to enhance and standardize how
broadcasters disclose their public interest activities to their
communities, in order to make sure that they fulfill their fundamental
obligation to air programming responsive to their communities.[^38]

In order to continue a dialogue with the public on the obligations that
broadcasters should assume as they transition to DTV, the Commission
also conducted an *en banc* hearing on October 16, 2000. The hearing
comprised panels on three different subjects: how DTV broadcasters
should serve children in a digital world, how they should protect
children from the effects of sexually explicit or violent programming,
and how they can use the new medium to better serve local communities.
Each of the panels included six or seven participants who offered
different views through prepared remarks and responses to questions from
the Commissioners.[^39]

[Actions of the Broadcast Industry]{.underline}. Over the years, the
broadcast industry itself has also undertaken a number of initiatives to
define the public interest standard. One of the most significant of
these was adopting a voluntary code. The NAB created a code for
television in the 1950s, which included various advertising and program
standards.[^40] In the late 1970s, the U.S. Department of Justice
challenged, on antitrust grounds, a number of the advertising standards,
and the case was ultimately settled.[^41] Although the Department of
Justice's lawsuit challenged only three of the code's many advertising
standards, and did not challenge any of the code's program standards,
the NAB abandoned the entire code in 1982. The program standards had
encouraged broadcasters to demonstrate responsibility and responsiveness
to all segments of their community, especially children, and to handle
sex and violence in programming in appropriate ways. The program
standards also encouraged broadcasters to use good journalistic
techniques in the treatment of news and public events.

In 1990, in response to "public concern about certain serious societal
problems, notably violence and drug abuse," the NAB adopted a statement
of principles that it believed reflected "generally-accepted standards
of America's radio and television broadcasters."[^42] The principles
addressed program content and children's programming, and encouraged
broadcasters to exercise their artistic freedom responsibly.[^43] The
principles also addressed drug and substance abuse, sexually-oriented
material, and violence. Some of the concepts for these programs echoed
those in the earlier NAB code.

Members of Congress have encouraged broadcasters to adopt an updated
code. In their letter of May 25, 2000, Senators McCain, Lieberman, Byrd,
and Brownback propose "resurrecting an industry-adopted code of conduct
to protect against the further erosion of broadcasting standards and to
provide a broader platform for self-regulation."[^44] They note that
"\[t\]his idea, beyond having a longstanding and practical precedent,
enjoys broad bipartisan support,"[^45] and that both the House and the
Senate have approved legislation encouraging the industry to adopt a
code.[^46] Senator Brownback has added that "\[t\]he articulation of
such a code would be especially useful as the digital spectrum is
apportioned. It would certainly be in the public's interest to know what
a licensee's standards are, how high they will aim and how low they will
not go, and what criteria are used for programming choices. Such
information will make it easier for parents and consumers to make wise
decisions for their families."[^47] Other Congressmen have also
suggested model principles for the broadcast industry, and encouraged
the Commission to consider them.[^48]

The Senators favoring a renewed code noted that the Advisory Committee
also called for an updated code.[^49] The Advisory Committee encouraged
the NAB to adopt a code "to highlight and reinforce the public interest
commitments of broadcasters."[^50] The Advisory Committee believed that
"\[a\] new set of standards can help counteract short-term pressures
that have been exacerbated by the incredibly competitive landscape
broadcasters now face. . . . Those competitive pressures can lead to
less attention to public issues and community concerns. A renewed
statement of principles can make salient and keep fresh general
aspirations that can easily be lost in the hectic atmosphere and
pressures of day-to-day operations."[^51] The Advisory Committee
proposed a code, which includes ideas on broadcasters' responsibility
toward children; covering elections; treatment of news, public events,
and emergencies; community responsibility; controversial public issues;
special program standards on drugs and substance abuse,
sexually-oriented programming, and violence, among other things; and
responsibility toward disabled persons.[^52]

The broadcast industry, however, has not yet adopted the proposed code,
or any other code. Although some broadcasters appear to support
resurrecting a code of conduct,[^53] others -- and the NAB itself --
disagree strongly.[^54] These broadcasters appear to believe that
marketplace incentives obviate the need for a code.[^55]

# PRINCIPLES OF BROADCASTING IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Congress has charged the Commission with responsibility for ensuring
that broadcasters serve the public interest. The *NOI* in this
proceeding served as a catalyst for a debate about how the Commission
can best meet its responsibility. A wide variety of parties --
including, for example, parents, children\'s advocates, members of
Congress, religious organizations, and broadcasters -- have shared with
the Commission their views as to how broadcasters can best serve the
public interest. Based on those comments, and the views expressed at the
public interest hearing, this report identifies eleven major principles
on how broadcasters could fulfill their statutory duty to serve the
public interest. Under each of these broad principles, the report also
identifies various ways that broadcasters could satisfy the public
interest goal behind the principle. Some of these principles reiterate
existing Commission requirements. Others are recommendations, gleaned
from the record, as to additional standards broadcasters should
consider. Still others are the subjects of ongoing rulemaking
proceedings. Although some of the principles relate to digital
broadcasting, many of them do not depend upon digital technology and can
be fully implemented on broadcasters\' analog channels. This set of
principles is not an exhaustive list of ways that broadcasters can serve
the public interest, and licensees are urged to consider innovative
approaches to serving the needs of their communities. Identification of
this set of principles is intended to promote thoughtful discussion
among broadcasters and between broadcasters and their communities.

## Local Issue-Oriented Programming

**Broadcasters must air programming that covers issues that are
important to their local communities.**

> "*Broadcast television does next to nothing to serve local
> communities. Local news, some public service announcements, and
> occasional promotion of a fundraising effort. Local production just
> does not exist, except for news . . . . You learn very little about a
> community through your television. . . . A television station is
> little better than a car dealership in service to its community. It is
> mainly a conduit for products coming in from outside the
> community.*"[^56] -- Mark Nordstrom
>
> *"Providing news and information to their communities is what local
> broadcasters do best. Like the town hall of old, the local radio or
> television station often is the place where the community comes
> together to talk about important issues and concerns."*[^57] --
> National Association of Broadcasters

Our broadcasting system is licensed on a local basis, and only a limited
number of licenses exist, which in most cases are assigned to private
entities and individuals. In order to ensure that the several television
broadcasters in each community use their stations to cover the wide
variety of issues that are important to their viewers, the Commission
requires broadcasters, as their most fundamental public interest
obligation, to air programming that addresses their communities'
interests and needs.[^58] Although the Commission has abandoned its
former ascertainment guidelines, which contained detailed metholodogies
on how broadcasters should determine community interests and needs, the
Commission has never modified the underlying obligation of broadcasters
to air programming responsive to the issues of concern to their
communities.[^59] Set forth below are a variety of ways that
broadcasters could fulfill this fundamental obligation as they
transition to DTV.

-   **Air local public affairs programming daily in addition to news
    coverage.**

One way broadcasters could fulfill their obligation to air programming
that addresses community concerns is to air public affairs programming
daily. The Commission has previously defined public affairs programming
as that "dealing with local, state, regional or international issues or
problems, documentaries, mini-documentaries, panels, roundtables and
vignettes, and extended coverage (whether live or recorded) or public
events or proceedings, such as council meetings, congressional hearings,
and the like."[^60] This is contrasted with news, which the Commission
has defined as programming "dealing with current local, national and
international events, including weather and stock reports, and
commentary, analysis, or sports news when they are an integral part of a
news program."[^61]

The Advisory Committee recommended that the Commission adopt minimum
requirements in the area of public affairs programming.[^62] It
suggested that "\[a\] minimum commitment to public affairs programming
should be required of digital television broadcasters, . . . with some
emphasis on local issues and needs. Such programming should air in
visible time periods during the day and evening. Public affairs
programming can occur within or outside regularly scheduled newscasts,
but is not defined as coverage of news itself."[^63] Although the
Advisory Committee could not agree on what the specific standards should
be, half of its members recommended that the Commission adopt a
processing guideline, pursuant to which a broadcaster could receive
automatic approval of the part of its renewal application that addresses
local programming, if it airs three hours per week of local news, and
three hours per week of locally originated or locally oriented
educational and public affairs programming outside of local news.[^64]
In the *NOI*, the Commission noted that this issue of minimum public
interest standards has been controversial, and invited comment on the
debate.[^65]

In response to the *NOI*, the Benton Foundation commissioned a study to
examine the level of public affairs programming during a two-week period
by more than 100 television broadcast stations in approximately 25
randomly selected markets. The study revealed that the commercial
television broadcast stations in these markets devoted an average of 1.1
hours per week (or less than one half of 1% of their total time) to
local public affairs programming, and that competitive conditions,
market demographics, and stations characteristics did not significantly
affect how much local public affairs programming was aired.[^66] Thus,
the Benton Foundation concluded that the Commission should require
broadcasters to air a minimum level of public affairs programming if the
public wants to have more of such programming than its study revealed.

The NAB argues that the Commission need not adopt minimum standards for
public interest programming because the marketplace ensures that
broadcasters provide sufficient non-entertainment programming, and
because any such standards will encroach on their editorial
discretion.[^67] A number of commenters, however, do want broadcasters
to provide more public affairs programming than they currently provide.
PBTV's comments include viewers' complaints about their broadcasters'
lack of local public affairs programming,[^68] and PBTV says that "we
have heard this complaint hundreds of times over the past year from
citizens from all walks of life from across the country."[^69] PBTV
states that local broadcasters are failing to address local needs, that
the Commission should adopt minimum standards to correct the problem,
and that these standards should require broadcasters to address the
needs of all groups within their communities and should prohibit them
from substituting news for public affairs programming.[^70] In terms of
specific solutions, PBTV, along with Congressman Brady of Pennsylvania,
recommend that DTV broadcasters air one hour of public affairs
programming per day on each channel.[^71] UCC recommends that the
Commission adopt the three-hour-per-week processing guideline suggested
by a majority of the Advisory Committee.[^72]

One way broadcasters could fulfill their requirement to air programming
that addresses community needs is to air a minimum amount of local
public affairs programming on a daily basis (*i.e*., one hour per day).
The one-hour-per-day recommendation amounts to approximately four per
cent of a twenty-four hour broadcast day -- making this the functional
equivalent of the DBS four per cent set-aside for noncommercial
educational or informational programming.[^73]

-   **Use good journalistic practices in covering local issues of public
    concern so as to present conflicting viewpoints and give persons
    attacked a reasonable right of reply.**

In carrying out their obligation to air programming that addresses
issues of concern to their communities, broadcasters should also follow
sound journalistic practices, including presenting conflicting views on
issues of public concern and giving those who are accused of wrongdoing
a reasonable opportunity to respond. These principles are enshrined in
journalists' own codes of conduct.[^74] That does not mean, however,
that each news story or each program must present differing viewpoints
on a particular issue, only that the licensee's overall programming
needs to make some provision for the discussion of opposing viewpoints.
A licensee should not be allowed to use a public resource (*i.e.*, the
airwaves) to advance a purely private or one-sided agenda.

It has now been thirteen years since the Commission stopped enforcing
the fairness doctrine. Far from seeing a rebirth of public affairs
programming, the past thirteen years have witnessed a continuing slide
in the amount of time licensees devote to public discourse. For
instance, a study submitted in this proceeding by the Benton Foundation
and PBTV found that only 0.3% of total programming qualified as local
public affairs programming, and that adding local news to the equation
only raised the total to 1.06% of total broadcast hours.[^75] This
compares with the period from 1973 to 1979, when rules requiring the
presentation of differing viewpoints were in effect, when local public
affairs programming made up on average 4.6% of total programming.[^76]
Similarly, a study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs found that
the coverage of political campaigns by TV network news continues to
decline -- down 44% from 1995 to 1999.[^77]

On October 26, 2000, in response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals\'
order in *Radio-Television News Directors Association v. FCC*
(*RTNDA*),[^78] the Commission repealed the political editorial and
personal attack rules.[^79] These rules provided a right of reply in
certain circumstances involving political editorials and personal
attacks.[^80] In the repeal order, the Commission emphasized the
court\'s statement that \"\[o\]f course, the Commission may institute a
new rule-making proceeding to determine whether, consistent with
constitutional constraints, the public interest requires the personal
attack and political editorial rules.\"[^81] In a separate statement
appended to the repeal order, the Mass Media Bureau was directed "to
prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to explore these issues in the
larger context of broadcasters\' obligation to serve the public
interest." As a result of this NPRM, the Commission might choose to
reinstate these two rules, or otherwise to require broadcasters to
provide balanced treatment of issues. Regardless of whether or not the
Commission imposes such a requirement, however, it is simply good
journalistic practice for broadcasters to present conflicting viewpoints
and to give persons attacked a reasonable right of reply.

-   **Set aside airtime for expression for local community groups.**

As a way to air programming that addresses issues of concern in their
communities, broadcasters could also provide airtime to local civic
groups and organizations. Sister Mary Parks, a former television
broadcaster and a panelist at the Commission's *en banc* hearing,
explained how a former employer, a broadcast station, used to air public
service programming, which included daily non-news programming targeted
to particular community interests, as well as public service
announcements. She also explained, however, that the station is no
longer accessible to its community in the same way.[^82] The United
States Catholic Conference similarly explains, with much anecdotal
support, that today it is much more difficult for religious
organizations to persuade the broadcasters in their communities to air
their programming, either with or without payment, and those that do air
such programming do so at times when few people are watching.[^83] The
United States Catholic Conference asks the Commission to require
broadcasters to set aside a minimum amount of time for groups and
organizations free of charge.[^84]

In terms of DTV, the Advisory Committee suggested that multicasting
broadcasters "could dedicate one of their multicasted channels to
noncommercial public interest purposes, which would have to include a
commitment to provide robust programming and access for local voices, or
lease one such channel at below market rates to an unaffiliated
programmer who is local and has no financial or other interest in a
broadcast station."[^85] A commenter in the *NOI* proceeding similarly
suggests that broadcasters set aside bandwidth for a "public
space."[^86]

As a way to air programming that addresses issues of concern to their
communities, broadcasters, both before and after they transition to
digital technology, could provide airtime to local groups and
organizations. Digital broadcasters, in particular, will have
multichannel capacity, and therefore it should be easier for them to
offer airtime to local groups. Such a use of the airwaves would be
analogous to the requirement that cable operators set aside some of
their multichannel capacity for public, educational, or governmental
use.[^87]

-   **Use the flexibility of digital technology to improve service to
    communities, such as multicasting to provide localized
    programming.**

DTV broadcasters could also use their multichannel capacity to serve
more niche audiences within their communities, in a manner somewhat
analogous to their multichannel video programming distributor
counterparts. For example, DTV broadcasters could produce programming
that is targeted to particular groups or localities within their
communities. By way of illustration, the television market for
broadcasters in the national capital area includes the District of
Columbia and counties in three states -- Maryland, Virginia, and West
Virginia. In producing programming that addresses issues of concern to
their community, broadcasters in this market have a greater incentive to
cover issues of concern to viewers in Washington, DC and its suburbs
than to cover issues of concern to viewers in outlying areas, such as
West Virginia. With their multichannel capacity, DTV broadcasters could
produce more programming targeted to particular areas within their
service areas.

## Public Service Announcements

**Broadcasters should exercise their best efforts to attract and air
local public service announcements during peak viewing hours.**

> "*We collaborate with our local stations to air public service
> announcements that promote prevention messages about alcohol, tobacco
> and other drug abuse*. *Over the past five years, we have seen a
> dramatic decrease in the actual amount of airtime that is devoted to
> PSAs. Previously, we were able to consecutively air :60 \[second\]
> spots. . . . The seriousness of these community health issues has not
> decreased. Unfortunately, the available airtime has decreased by up to
> 50%..*"[^88] -- Susan Hilts Grover
>
> "*Out of the 169 PSAs, 143 announcements (85%) were generated by NBC,
> WMAQ, or the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. While
> these messages may have a public service component, it appears that
> the station is using them as a vehicle for self-promotion. Any public
> service message would be more credible coming from a reputable local
> nonprofit organization\...*"[^89] -- Mary Ellen Guest

Public service announcements (PSAs) are another way in which
broadcasters can provide programming responsive to their
communities.[^90] Just as the Advisory Committee recommended that the
Commission adopt minimum public affairs programming requirements, it
also suggested that "\[a\] minimum commitment to public service
announcements should be required of digital television broadcasters,
with at least equal emphasis placed on locally produced PSAs addressing
a community's local needs. PSAs should run in all day parts including in
primetime and at other times of peak viewing."[^91]

Panelists at the Commission's *en banc* hearing indicate that the amount
of time available for PSAs has been decreasing, and that PSAs are often
aired after peak viewing hours. Sister Mary Parks explains that, when
she first began working in broadcasting in the 1970s, her employer
provided a tremendous number of PSAs, and that she read many of them on
air. By contrast, she explains that stations now use many unsold time
slots to promote their own news coverage, and that she witnessed this
change at her own station in the 1980s. Since leaving the station in
1990, and notwithstanding her "home field advantage" in a smaller
television market, she says that her local broadcast stations will not
air any PSAs for her religious organization without charge (except in
the middle of the night), and she has not seen PSAs for any other
organizations.[^92] Vicky Rideout, a vice president at the Kaiser Family
Foundation and another panelist at the Commission's *en banc* hearing,
also indicates that the amount of time available for PSAs has been
decreasing, and that any PSAs that do appear occur well after
midnight.[^93]

The NAB contends that broadcasters have donated billions of dollars in
airtime for PSAs, including locally produced PSAs, and that therefore
"marketplace incentives are clearly sufficient to insure the provision
of very substantial amounts of . . . PSAs."[^94] A number of commenters,
however, echo the *en banc* panelists' concerns, and believe that
broadcasters should air more PSAs, particularly during peak viewing
hours. PBTV's comments include several letters indicating that
broadcasters have drastically reduced the number of PSAs they air, and
that they show the few that they do provide at non-peak times. Thus,
Congressman Brady and PBTV propose that the Commission require
broadcasters to provide a certain amount of PSAs, such as one public
service announcement (PSA) for every four commercials, with at least
equal emphasis placed on independent and locally produced PSAs
addressing a community's local needs.[^95] They also believe that
broadcasters should air PSAs during all day parts, including prime time
and other times of peak viewing.[^96]

Given the importance of PSAs to their communities, broadcasters should
exercise their best efforts to attract and then air locally produced
PSAs. Airing these announcements during peak viewing hours will ensure
that such PSAs have maximum exposure for maximum service to the
community.

## Communication with Communities

**Broadcasters should gather information from their communities about
their interests and needs and engage in an ongoing dialogue with all
segments of their communities about those interests and needs.**

> *On March 7, 2000, I visited one of my local broadcasting stations in
> Columbia, South Carolina to inspect the public files and was not
> allowed to see the files. These are some of the reasons why I was told
> I could not inspect the public files: I needed to file a Freedom of
> Information Act request; I needed to explain exactly what I was
> looking for in the files; I needed to go to different areas in the
> building to inspect the files; staff was very busy and needed to know
> exactly how much time I would need to inspect the files; a staff
> member had a death in his family; and I needed to make an appointment
> to see the files*. -- Dorothy Garrick[^97]

In order for a broadcaster to fulfill its fundamental public interest
obligation to air programming responsive to the needs and interests of
its community of license,[^98] broadcasters must first identify those
needs and interests. In previous years, the Commission established
formal ascertainment guidelines for gathering information about what
types of programming would meet a community's needs and interests. The
guidelines set forth methods for gathering demographic information on a
station's community of license, consulting with community leaders and
members of the general public, identifying and responding to community
needs and problems through programming, and making various records
available on their information-gathering procedures.[^99] The Commission
later repealed the guidelines based on its belief that market forces
would require broadcast stations to remain familiar with their
communities.[^100] The Commission affirmatively retained, however, the
underlying obligation to air programming responsive to the needs and
interest of their communities of license.[^101]

In the *NOI*, the Commission sought comment on certain recommendations
to enhance the ways in which broadcasters inform the public about any
efforts made to provide community-responsive programming. For example,
PBTV suggested that DTV broadcasters should match their public interest
programming "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."[^102]
The Commission specifically sought comment on the extent to which the
proposals paralleled its formal ascertainment guidelines, and on the
extent to which its reasons for eliminating those guidelines applied to
consideration of the enhanced disclosure recommendations.[^103]

The United States Catholic Conference argued that the Commission should
impose clear enforceable requirements that DTV broadcasters ascertain
the needs and interest of their communities of license,[^104] and Benton
contended that the needs of the communities must be ascertained and
addressed by fair, balanced and ample programming.[^105] In its Report,
the Advisory Committee recommended requiring licensees to provide
information on efforts taken to identify the programming needs of
various segments of their communities.[^106] NAB and the State
Broadcasters Associations opposed any proposal to require broadcasters
to assess community needs because, in their view, the costs outweigh the
benefits and market incentives ensure that licensees remain familiar
with their communities.[^107] Contending that new information sharing
technologies would make ascertainment requirements less
burdensome,[^108] however, PBTV argued that the Commission should
require broadcasters to seek out the needs and interests of a community
because the market alone does not guarantee that all segments of the
community will be served.[^109]

On September 14, 2000, in response to comments filed in this *NOI*
proceeding, the Commission adopted a *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*
(*Disclosure Notice*) proposing to standardize and enhance the ways in
which television broadcasters make information available to the public
on how those broadcasters are meeting their obligation to provide
community-responsive programming.[^110] The Commission specifically
invited comment on requiring broadcasters to provide information
regarding how they gather information from their communities. Regardless
of what the Commission ultimately decides in that proceeding,
broadcasters should provide as much information as possible on those
efforts, including how community needs are identified. In particular,
licensees should provide the public with a narrative description of the
actions they have taken, in the normal course of business, to assess a
community's programming needs and interests. Making information
available regarding how a television broadcast station identifies a
community's needs and interests will further promote discussion between
the licensee and its community about those needs and affirm or possibly
improve the level of local programming aired in that community.

-   **Use web-based forums such as "chat rooms" to have ongoing and
    regular contact with communities.**

    While broadcasters may already interact with the public through
    telephone calls and visits in person to assess a community's
    programming needs and interests, the Commission sought comment in
    the *NOI* on whether DTV broadcasters should use Internet websites
    to ensure that they are responsive to the needs of the public.[^111]
    NAB opposed any mandatory requirement asserting that the proposal
    raised practical and legal issues[^112] and found the suggestion to
    interact with the public via websites "puzzling ... given the
    Commission's apparent belief about the inaccessibility of the
    Internet to certain communities."[^113] PBTV suggested using the
    Benton Foundation's Debate America project as an example of how
    local television stations might consult with community leaders over
    the Internet.[^114] PBTV described the Benton project as
    "map\[ping\] community issues, provid\[ing\] context, and
    facilitat\[ing\] discussion through an Internet Web-based program"
    where discussion leaders could "select participants or allow for a
    wide field of discussants, and allow for a wide range of discussion
    styles."[^115] TDI explained that allowing disabled persons to
    interact through chat rooms, for example, also provides management
    with a reliable mechanism for determining whether their station's
    policies and practices are responsive to the disabled community as a
    whole.[^116]

    As the Commission stated in the *Disclosure Notice*, licensees could
    make effective use of the Internet to maintain a continuous dialogue
    with their communities. Citing research conducted by NAB in 1998,
    PBTV stated in comments filed in response to the *NOI* that
    approximately two-thirds of television stations in the top 100
    markets had websites.[^117] DTV broadcasters should continue to
    interact with the public through telephone calls and personal visits
    to the stations and also to use their websites to conduct on-line
    discussions with, for example, community leaders and minority or
    disabled communities to discuss and disseminate information on
    community opinions and needs. On-line discussions would be a
    relatively inexpensive supplement to current methods of
    communication with the public and a web-based forum would allow the
    public to access a broadcaster's website to provide immediate
    feedback about programming.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Provide information back to communities about how the broadcaster
    has attempted to serve local needs.**

    Broadcasters also should provide as much information as possible to
    the public on what types of programming it has aired in response to
    identified community needs. Currently, to make information available
    to the public on how broadcasters are meeting the obligation to
    provide community-responsive programming, broadcasters maintain
    certain documents in each station's public inspection file. For
    example, television broadcasters create lists of the programs aired
    each quarter that they believe significantly addressed issues facing
    their communities (issues/programs lists). The issues/programs list
    then is placed in the station's public inspection file.[^118] Based
    upon the comments in response to the *NOI*, however, it appears that
    members of the public are not easily accessing information under
    these existing procedures. For example, individuals wanting to
    review information from a station's public file might be denied
    access or required to go to different areas in a building to inspect
    the public files.[^119] Even when members of the public are
    permitted to review documents in a station's file, they have found a
    "lack of consistency and uniformity about what is in the files, even
    within the same community."[^120]

    In the *NOI*, the Commission sought comment on the Advisory
    Committee's recommendation that broadcasters use a standardized form
    to provide public interest programming and activities information to
    the public.[^121] The Commission also sought comment on whether
    public files should contain information on programming aired with
    closed captioning and video description.[^122] Broadcasters
    generally opposed the proposals in the *NOI*, contending, for
    example, that existing disclosure obligations are neither inadequate
    nor ineffective.[^123] NMTV stated that existing public inspection
    file requirements already cover information on children's
    programming and lists of programs aired to meet community needs and
    interests.[^124] The Media Institute asserted that the entity
    selecting the programming categories for any standardized form
    "exerts subtle but real pressure on broadcasters' editorial
    choices."[^125] With respect to closed captioning, NAB stated that
    the Commission "previously rejected requests to adopt recordkeeping
    or reporting requirements."[^126]

    The majority of commenters, however, generally supported requiring
    licensees to use a standardized form to provide public interest
    programming information that is more specific than is required under
    current rules.[^127] As the Commission noted in the *Disclosure
    Notice*, the current issues/programs lists provide such an
    assortment of information that the public may have difficulty
    determining the extent to which the station is serving the public
    interest.[^128] As noted above, PBTV has described problems with the
    "lack of consistency and uniformity" of information contained in
    public inspection files. Concerned about these problems, the
    Commission tentatively concluded in the *Disclosure Notice* that
    broadcasters should complete a standardized form that would allow
    them to describe their efforts to provide programming responsive to
    the community. Regardless of what the Commission decides in that
    proceeding, broadcasters should replace the issues/programs list
    with a form that includes more detailed information than provided in
    those lists today.

    In the *NOI*, the Commission also sought comment on whether
    broadcasters should be required to make their public inspection
    files available on the Internet.[^129] NAB opposed mandatory use of
    websites, stating that converting a station's public file into an
    electronic format would constitute a "not insubstantial burden,
    especially for small broadcasters" and providing public files on the
    Internet would offer "little additional public benefit."[^130] NAB
    supported voluntary use, finding no reason to alter the Commission's
    decision to encourage licensees to maintain public files on a
    computer database.[^131]

    The majority of commenters, however, supported requiring DTV
    broadcasters to make public interest information available on their
    websites.[^132] UCC argued that it is "relatively simple and
    inexpensive" to require licensees to post public files on their
    websites,[^133] and, as already noted, according to PBTV,
    approximately two-thirds of television stations in the top 100
    markets already have websites. Commenters also asserted that the
    public is much more likely to monitor a station's public interest
    obligations if that information can be accessed over the
    Internet.[^134] Finally, TDI and WGBH urged the Commission to ensure
    that broadcasters design and maintain their websites in a manner
    that is accessible to persons with disabilities.[^135]

    In the *Disclosure Notice*, the Commission tentatively concluded
    that broadcasters should provide information regarding their efforts
    to provide programming responsive to the community on their
    station's websites, or in the alternative, the licensee's state
    broadcasters association's website. Again, regardless of what the
    Commission ultimately decides in that proceeding, broadcasters
    should make public interest information available on the Internet.
    Licensees should also make the websites accessible to persons with
    disabilities. As the Commission stated in the *Disclosure Notice*,
    making the information available on the Internet would provide
    24-hour access to it and, therefore, greatly increase public access
    to information on actions a station has taken to meet its public
    interest obligation. To the extent individuals do not have access to
    the Internet or do not want to access the information over the
    Internet, however, they would still have the option of contacting
    the station's main studio.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Ensure that the station's public file is accessible to the
    community and that personnel are trained to respond to the public's
    request for access.**

    Members of the public must contact a station's main studio to review
    information maintained in that station's public inspection
    file.[^136] As already noted, it appears from comments received in
    response to the *NOI* that members of the public are unable to
    access information easily from public files. For example,
    individuals wanting to review information from a station's public
    file might be required to go to different areas in a building to
    inspect different parts of a public file,[^137] while others have
    been refused access to information because they had not made an
    appointment.[^138] These types of problems are inconsistent with the
    Commission's existing procedures, which require station personnel to
    make the file available to the public at any time during regular
    business hours and to allow members of the public to make copies of
    documents from the file.[^139]

    Whether to comply with Commission rules or simply to maintain a good
    relationship with its community, station personnel should be
    properly trained to respond to the public's request for information
    kept in a station's public inspection file. Making public inspection
    files available on a station's website would not only increase
    public access to information in those files, but could decrease the
    amount of time station personnel spend helping members of the public
    research information from the file.

-   **Use on-air announcements to encourage the public to provide
    feedback.**

    Certain parties that commented on the proposals set forth in the
    *NOI* also suggested that DTV broadcasters might make public
    interest information available to the public through on-air
    notifications,[^140] or in newspapers and local-programming
    guides.[^141] In addition to making information accessible in as
    many ways as possible, DTV broadcasters should let a community know
    through on-air announcements how to access that information. DTV
    broadcasters could use on-air announcements to explain how to access
    public inspection files, as well as any chat rooms or standardized
    reports that the broadcaster provides. These on-air announcements
    would improve the potential for feedback from the station's
    community.

## Enriching Children

**Broadcasters should air and take reasonable steps to promote
programming that enriches children.**

> *"I think that local broadcasters should be required to set aside an
> hour a day of educational programs for children on all the channels
> they broadcast . . . and parents should get the information they need
> to make decisions about the programs their children are
> watching."*[^142] -- Doshia Harris

Serving the needs of children is an essential part of broadcasters'
public interest obligations. Recent data show that American children
spend, on average, almost three hours a day watching television.[^143]
Because of the significant role that television plays in the lives of
children, this medium has great potential to benefit society by
contributing to children's development. As Congress has stated, "\[i\]t
is difficult to think of an interest more substantial than the promotion
of the welfare of children who watch so much television and rely upon it
for so much of the information they receive."[^144]

Data confirms that children can benefit substantially from viewing
educational television. In enacting the Children's Television Act of
1990 ("CTA"), Congress cited research demonstrating that television
programs designed to teach children specific skills are effective.[^145]
In the Commission's 1996 *Report and Order* strengthening its rules
implementing the CTA, the Commission cited a number of studies that show
that children can learn from high-quality educational programming.[^146]
More recently, Pat Nugent, who represented PBS at the Commission's *en
banc* hearing on public interest obligations, noted that early research
demonstrates that exposure to just four weeks of one of the network's
new series has helped kindergarten students improve their reading skills
significantly.[^147]

For over 30 years, the Commission has recognized that, as part of their
obligation as trustees of the public's airwaves, broadcasters must
provide programming that serves the special needs of children.[^148] As
early as 1974, the Commission called on broadcasters to increase the
number of programs aimed at children in specific age groups.[^149] Later
in the 1970s, finding that the industry had failed to respond to its
earlier call for improvements, the Commission considered formal
regulation.[^150] In 1984, however, the Commission decided not to
establish quantitative program requirements for broadcasters, relying
instead on market forces to ensure a sufficient supply of educational
programming for children.[^151] Following this decision, the amount of
children's educational programming aired by commercial television
stations decreased markedly.[^152]

In 1990, citing the need to increase the amount of educational and
informational programming for children on television, Congress enacted
the Children's Television Act of 1990 ("CTA").[^153] While recognizing
that commercial television did provide some "meritorious" programming,
Congress stated that "when viewed as a whole, there is disturbingly
little educational or informational programming on commercial
television."[^154] Congress also noted that market forces alone had not
worked to increase the educational and informational programming
available to children on commercial television. To accomplish this
objective, Congress placed on each licensee an obligation to provide
such programming, including programming specifically designed to educate
and inform children, and required the FCC to enforce that obligation.

The CTA requires the Commission, in its review of each television
broadcast license renewal application, to "consider the extent to which
the licensee ... has served the educational and informational needs of
children through the licensee's overall programming, including
programming specifically designed to serve such needs.[^155] In August
1996, the Commission adopted its current educational programming rules
enforcing the CTA.[^156] The Commission's rules include several measures
to improve public access to information about the availability of
programming "specifically designed" to serve children's educational and
informational needs (otherwise known as "core" programming). These
measures include a requirement that licensees identify core programming
at the time it is aired and in information provided to publishers of
television programming guides.[^157] Licensees are required to designate
a children's liaison at the station responsible for collecting comments
on the station's compliance with the CTA.[^158] Licensees must also
prepare and place in their public inspection files a quarterly
Children's Television Programming Report identifying their core
programming and other efforts to comply with their educational
programming obligations.[^159]

In addition, the Commission's rules establish a definition of "core"
programming. "Core" programming is defined as regularly scheduled,
weekly programming of at least 30 minutes, aired between 7:00 a.m. and
10:00 p.m., that has serving the educational and informational needs of
children ages 16 and under as a significant purpose.[^160] The program
must be identified as core programming when it is aired and in
information provided to program guide publishers.[^161]

Finally, to provide certainty to broadcasters about how to comply with
the CTA and to facilitate fair and efficient processing of the CTA
portion of broadcasters' renewal applications, the Commission also
adopted a processing guideline. Under this guideline, a broadcaster can
receive staff-level approval of the CTA portion of its renewal
application by airing at least three hours per week of programming that
meets the definition of "core" educational programming.[^162]
Alternatively, a broadcaster can receive staff-level renewal by showing
that it has aired a package of different types of educational and
informational programming that, while containing somewhat less than
three hours per week of core programming, demonstrates a level of
commitment to educating and informing children that is at least
equivalent to airing three hours per week of core programming.[^163]
Licensees not meeting these criteria will have their license renewal
applications referred to the Commission.[^164]

Some studies suggest that, since the Commission's revised rules
implementing the CTA became effective in 1997, there has been
improvement in the quality and quantity of educational programming for
children. The Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of
Pennsylvania, which issues an annual report on broadcaster compliance
with the CTA, recently found that approximately 80% of the "core"
programs evaluated complied with the requirements of the core
programming definition, and that one-third of these programs could be
considered "highly educational."[^165] However, the report also found
that more than one-fifth of the programs claimed to be "specifically
designed" to educate children had "little or no educational value" and
failed to meet other FCC requirements. According to another recent
assessment conducted by PBTV of programming offered by local stations,
some stations are claiming programs with little or no obvious
educational value as "core" programs.[^166]

Thus, while there have been improvements since implementation of the
Commission's revised educational programming rules, concerns remain
regarding the educational value of a significant amount of the
programming relied upon by broadcasters to meet their obligation under
the CTA. Concerns also remain about the failure of many stations to
adequately promote their core programming, and the lack of awareness on
the part of parents of the availability of educational
programming.[^167] Finally, commenters have raised concerns about the
lack of sufficient core programming directed to very young children and
have called on broadcasters to provide a range of educational
programming directed to different age groups.[^168] Set forth below are
specific ways that broadcasters can improve their efforts to enrich
children through educational and informational programming.

-   **Air programming that serves the educational and informational
    needs of children of different ages and in different stages of
    cognitive and psycho-social development.**

    The CTA, and the Commission's implementing regulations, apply to DTV
    broadcasters. Thus, all digital television broadcasters must serve
    the educational and informational needs of children. However, it is
    not clear how the existing requirements apply to digital
    broadcasters who, for example, choose to multicast or to provide
    ancillary or supplementary services, such as fee-based subscription
    television. Does the three-hour processing guideline apply to only
    one digital broadcasting program stream, to more than one program
    stream, or to all program streams the broadcaster chooses to
    provide? In addition, does the guideline apply only to free
    broadcast services, or also to services offered for a fee? The
    Commission posed these questions among others in the *NOI* and, more
    recently, in the *DTV Children's Notice*.[^169] This latter
    proceeding seeks comment on a wide range of issues associated with
    the application of the existing children's programming rules to DTV
    broadcasters. It focuses both on the obligation of commercial
    television licensees to provide educational and informational
    programming for children and on the requirement that commercial
    television licensees limit the amount of advertising in children's
    programs.

    Most commenters that specifically addressed the issue of application
    of the children's programming guideline to the digital environment
    suggested that the amount of programming required of DTV
    broadcasters should increase, beyond the current
    three-hours-per-week guideline, in light of the additional program
    capacity made possible by digital technology. For example, one
    approach for adapting the guideline to a multicast environment,
    suggested by Children Now and PBTV, is that each digital broadcaster
    be required to provide an amount of weekly core programming that is
    proportional to the three-hour-per-week quantitative guideline.
    Specifically, these commenters propose that DTV broadcasters devote
    three percent of their programmable broadcast hours per week to core
    educational programming. As a corollary, these commenters also
    suggest that the Commission could adopt a "Pay or Play" model
    allowing broadcasters a choice of meeting their children's
    programming obligation either through their own programming or by
    paying other networks or channels to air these hours for them, or a
    combination of both.

    Other commenters, including the Center for Media Education, Peggy
    Charren, the National Education Association, the National PTA, the
    American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the
    American Psychological Association (collectively referred to as
    "CME"),[^170] suggest that digital broadcasters meet their
    children's programming obligation by providing, at their option,
    some combination of the following: (1) additional "core" educational
    and informational programming; (2) broadband or datacasting services
    to local schools, libraries, or community centers that serve
    children; or (3) support for the production of children's
    educational programming by local public stations or other
    noncommercial program producers. CME would not require that DTV
    broadcasters air core programs on each of their program streams, but
    instead would permit the creation of specialized channels where core
    programming could be more easily located by children and parents.
    Finally, another approach, described by the Advisory Committee
    Report, would be to require digital broadcasters to air no less than
    1 hour of children's educational programming each day on the
    broadcasters' main channel.[^171]

    The issue of exactly how the existing three-hour-per-week processing
    guideline should be adapted to reflect the digital environment will
    be decided in the *DTV Children's proceeding*. Nonetheless, it is
    clear that DTV broadcasters, like analog broadcasters, are required
    by the CTA and the Commission's rules to air programming that serves
    children's educational and informational needs, including
    programming "specifically designed" to serve such needs.
    Broadcasters, whether analog or digital, should comply with both the
    letter and the spirit of the existing rules, by ensuring that they
    identify core programming at the time it is aired, identify the
    target age group of the program, and ensure that their core
    programming is of significant educational value. Broadcasters should
    also air a variety of programming directed not only to children's
    social and emotional needs, but also to their intellectual and
    cognitive development. Finally, broadcasters should target core
    programs to different age groups, and offer some programming that
    serves the educational and informational needs of very young
    children.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Air children's educational and informational programming at
    appropriate and consistent times.**

    In the *DTV Children's Notice*, the Commission also seeks comment on
    how to treat preemptions of core programs by digital broadcasters.
    As noted above, the Commission required that programming must be
    "regularly scheduled" to qualify as "core" for purposes of the
    three-hour-per-week core programming guideline. This requirement was
    based on the fact that programming that is aired on a regular basis
    is more easily anticipated and located by viewers, and therefore
    more likely to be seen by its intended audience. Although
    acknowledging that preemption of core programs might occur, in its
    1996 ruling strengthening its children's programming rules the
    Commission expected that preemption of core programs would be rare.
    The Mass Media Bureau staff has determined, however, that the
    average preemption rate by stations affiliated with the largest
    networks during the past two years is nearly 10%, and has been as
    high as 25%. Given this level of preemption, the Commission asked in
    the *DTV Children's* *Notice* whether it should adopt another
    approach to preemptions to ensure that its preemption policy does
    not thwart the goals of the CTA. DTV broadcasters will have the
    option of airing multiple streams of programming simultaneously,
    thus increasing their flexibility either to avoid preempting core
    programs or to reschedule such programs to a regular "second home."
    Given this capability, the Commission asked whether there are ways
    in which it could revise its preemption policies to simplify or
    eliminate the need for networks to seek approval of their planned
    preemption and rescheduling practices for each television season.
    Commenters were also asked to address the kind of rescheduling
    practices and promotion of rescheduled programs that the Commission
    could require from digital broadcasters consistent with the goal of
    ensuring that viewers can anticipate and locate the rescheduled
    program. While the Commission will review its preemption policies
    more fully in the *DTV Children's Notice* proceeding, broadcasters,
    whether analog or digital, in the meantime should air their
    children's educational and informational programming at appropriate
    and consistent times to ensure that the purpose of the CTA, and the
    Commission's implementing rules, is fulfilled.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Limit the amount of commercial advertising in children's
    programming and the use of direct links to commercial websites.**

    In addition to directing broadcasters to air educational and
    informational programming for children, the CTA also imposed limits
    on the amount of time that can be devoted to commercial matter in
    children's programming. Specifically, commercial television
    broadcast licensees and cable operators must limit the amount of
    commercial matter that may be aired during children's programs to
    not more than 10.5 minutes per hour on weekends and not more than 12
    minutes per hour on weekdays. The Commission has determined that the
    statutory children's programming commercial limits apply to programs
    originally produced and broadcast for an audience of children 12
    years old and under. Apart from the limits on the amount of time
    devoted to commercial matter in children's programming, the
    Commission also requires broadcasters to comply with its
    longstanding policies on program length commercials, host selling,
    and separation between programs and commercials in children's
    programs.[^172] As with the educational and informational
    programming requirements, the children's television advertising
    limits and policies also apply to both digital and analog television
    broadcasters.

    The *DTV Children's Notice* seeks comment on several issues related
    to application of the advertising limits and policies to DTV
    broadcasters. By converging Internet capabilities with broadcasting,
    digital television permits a new level of interactivity among
    broadcasters, advertisers, and viewers. This capability offers great
    potential for enhancing the educational value of children's programs
    by, for example, permitting children to click on icons that appear
    on the screen during the program which take them to websites with
    more in-depth information about the topics covered in the program.
    However, the interactive capabilities of DTV also allow for the
    direct sale of goods and services over the television. This
    capability presents marketers with new opportunities to reach
    children, which raises concerns in light of the difficulty young
    children have in distinguishing commercials from programming and the
    particular vulnerability of children to advertising.

    CME urged the Commission to adopt safeguards to protect children
    from the dangers of excessive and unfair advertising in digital
    programming. CME expressed the view that the existing advertising
    restrictions, including the separations, host-selling, and
    program-length commercial policies, should apply to all digital
    programming directed to children ages 12 and under, regardless of
    the program stream on which they are offered. Thus, CME would apply
    these policies when children are watching video programs, regardless
    of whether the channel is free or pay. CME also expressed concern
    that the difficulty children have in distinguishing content from
    commercials is even more pronounced in the digital environment where
    a child could be transported to a commercial Internet site by a
    simple click of the computer mouse. To address this issue, CME also
    proposes that the Commission prohibit all direct links to commercial
    websites during children's programming.

    The Commission also sought comment in the *DTV Children's Notice* on
    a broader question related to the children's advertising limits.
    This is an issue that arises with respect to both analog and digital
    broadcasting. Under current policy, the limitation of 10.5 minutes
    per hour on weekends and 12 minutes per hour on weekdays applies to
    "commercial matter." "Commercial matter" is defined to exclude
    certain types of program interruptions from counting toward the
    commercial limits, including promotions of upcoming programs that do
    not contain sponsor-related mentions, public service messages
    promoting not-for-profit activities, and air-time sold for purposes
    of presenting educational and informational material.[^173] The
    Commission has observed that there is a significant amount of time
    devoted to these types of announcements in children's programming.
    As a result, the amount of time devoted to actual program material
    is often far less than the limitation on the duration of commercial
    matter alone might suggest. The Commission sought comment in the
    *DTV Children's Notice* on whether it should revise its definition
    of "commercial matter" to include some or all of these types of
    program interruptions that do not currently contribute toward the
    commercial limits.

    Although the *DTV Children's proceeding* will resolve specific
    questions about application of the current children's advertising
    limits and policies to the digital environment, broadcasters, both
    analog and digital, have an obligation to comply with these limits
    and policies. Broadcasters must limit the amount of commercial
    advertising in children's programming as set forth in the CTA and
    the Commission's rules, and, as they develop new applications, such
    as creating direct links in their programming to websites,
    broadcasters' activities should be consistent with the underlying
    purposes of the CTA and the Commission's implementing rules.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Work with local community organizations and newspapers to inform
    parents about the availability and nature of children's educational
    and informational programming by, for example, ensuring that the
    station's educational programming line-up is identified in newspaper
    program guides and distributing information about the station's
    educational programs at locations and functions throughout the
    community where parents can be reached.**

The Commission\'s children's programming rules include several measures
to improve public access to information about "core" programming. These
measures require TV broadcasters to: (1) identify core programming at
the time it is aired and in information provided to publishers of
television program guides; (2) designate a children\'s liaison at their
stations to collect comments on the station\'s compliance with the CTA;
and (3) complete and place in the station's public inspection file
quarterly a report that identifies, among other things, the educational
and informational programs aired by the licensee over the previous
quarter, the days and times these programs were regularly scheduled, the
age of the target child audience for each program, and the average
number of hours per week of core programming broadcast over the past
quarter. Stations are required to publicize the existence and location
of the reports and must also file the reports electronically with the
Commission, which posts the reports on the FCC\'s Internet home page
where the public can readily access them. The Commission also encourages
broadcasters to make these reports available on their own
websites.[^174]

These public information initiatives are an integral part of the
children\'s programming rules. They are intended to ensure that the
public, and especially parents, have access to information on
educational programming in order to select programming for their
children to watch. As noted above, however, studies show that most
parents still are not aware of the availability of educational
programming and do not know which programs carry educational
labels.[^175] To address this problem, broadcasters should work with
local community organizations and newspapers to educate parents better
about the availability of educational programming and how to locate it.

Despite the fact that broadcasters are required to provide information
about their educational programming to program guide publishers, most
newspapers do not include the symbols identifying core programs in their
television listings. Broadcasters and newspaper publishers should work
together to ensure that this information is made available in local
newspapers as, for example, either part of the program listings or as a
separate section identifying educational programs and the date and times
they are aired.

Broadcasters should also work with others in the local community to
spread the word about the core programs they air. Broadcasters could,
for example, help develop pamphlets showing their educational
programming line-up, and have them distributed at grocery stores,
back-to-school nights, and elsewhere in the community. The children's
television liaison or other station employees could also get involved by
speaking to schools, parent organizations, and others about the
educational programs the station airs. Finally, stations should also
make a greater commitment to promoting their educational programs during
times of high viewership, such as during prime time or other popular
programs. These efforts would benefit broadcasters as well as the public
by helping to increase the audience for, and commercial success of,
educational programs.

-   **Use the flexibility of digital technology to serve children in
    dynamic, innovative ways, such as datacasting and interactive
    video.**

    As noted above, DTV offers broadcasters the flexibility to multicast
    more than one programming stream, and to provide other new,
    including even nonbroadcast, services. Commenters and panelists at
    the Commission's *en banc* hearing offered a number of ideas about
    how DTV broadcasters could use the technology to serve children in
    new ways.

    CME expresses concern with ensuring that children benefit from DTV.
    As noted above, they urge the Commission to adopt children's
    guidelines that impose additional obligations on broadcasters, but
    provide them with flexibility to use digital technology in different
    ways to serve children. CME explains that "\[d\]igital capacity
    could be used in a variety of ways, including high quality streaming
    video to schools, high-speed Internet access for local libraries and
    community centers, as well as new interactive programming for
    children that demonstrates the power of digital media to educate,
    engage, and inform."[^176] Children Now notes that the enhanced
    video and audio quality of digital technology can be used to provide
    higher quality programming that engages children and encourages
    further learning. The datacasting and interactivity made possible by
    DTV can also improve children's programming by, for example,
    permitting viewers to download additional information on topics
    covered in the program or by permitting viewers to interact with
    educational programs to reinforce the lessons and skills they
    convey. PBTV proposes that DTV broadcasters set aside a minimum
    number of hours each day to provide educational programs or
    services, which might include data transmission.[^177]

    At the *en banc* hearing, Disney, owner of ABC, expressed the view
    that DTV has enormous potential for service to children and
    families. Disney states that it intends to develop not only quality
    children's programming with a substantive educational base, but also
    web extensions for the programming that involve children and their
    parents in deeper communication and learning.[^178] PBS last year
    launched a twenty-four hour noncommercial DTV channel called PBS
    Kids on which it airs only educational programming for children, and
    also tested interactive DTV programming for children with an
    enhanced version of a wildlife series.[^179] PBS also offers at its
    website additional content for each of its major children's series
    to enable children to dig deeper into their favorite programs.[^180]
    In short, assuming adequate funding, PBS intends its children's
    programming to include a full complement of interactive learning
    experiences.[^181]

    These are just some of the ways that digital technology could be
    used to enhance the quality of educational and other programming for
    children. Broadcasters should use the flexibility inherent in
    digital technology to help educate and inform children in these and
    other innovative ways.

## Protecting Children

**Broadcasters should do more to protect children from potentially
harmful program content.**

*"\[F\]rustration and anger about falling standards have been voiced for
some time by millions of American parents, who are fed up with the
rising tide of glorified violence and increasingly explicit content
flooding into their homes through their television."* -- Senators John
McCain, Joseph Lieberman, Robert Byrd, and Sam Brownback

Just as television can enrich children, it can also harm them. Parents,
academics, child professionals, and others have expressed increasing
concern about the prevalence of violent, vulgar, and explicit sexual
content in television programming and its effects on children and
American culture in general. It is incumbent upon broadcasters to
respond to this growing concern by exercising greater discretion in
selecting the content of the programming and advertisements they choose
to air to audiences that include a significant number of child viewers,
and by making greater efforts to inform parents about tools available to
them to help protect their children from harmful program content.

Studies confirm that violence is widespread in television programming.
The American Psychological Association estimates that the average
twelve-year-old has seen 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence on
network television.[^182] The National Television Violence Study, a
comprehensive three-year study conducted by a dozen of the nation's
leading media effects researchers, shows that 60% of all television
programs sampled contained some form of violence. More than half of
these shows contained lethal acts, and one in four depicted the use of a
gun.[^183] The study also demonstrates that most violence is presented
in a fashion that increases its risk of harmful effects on young
audiences. Specifically, most portrayals of violence fail to show
realistic harm to victims and many violent acts are performed by
attractive role models who suffer no remorse, criticism, or penalty for
their violent behavior.[^184]

The general consensus among researchers is that media violence is
harmful to children. The body of research shows that media violence not
only increases aggression among young viewers, it breeds a callousness
toward violence directed at others.[^185] In a joint statement released
in July 2000, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of
Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists,
and the American Academy of Family Physicians concludes that "\[w\]ell
over 1000 studies ... point overwhelmingly to a causal connection
between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children. The
conclusion of the public health community, based on over 30 years of
research, is that viewing entertainment violence can lead to increases
in aggressive attitudes, values and behavior, particularly in
children."[^186] This view was confirmed by Joanne Cantor, a professor
and researcher on media effects, in her presentation at the Commission's
*en banc* hearing. Dr. Cantor explained that exposure to violence on
television is cause for concern because children often imitate what they
see on television, such exposure increases hostility levels, and such
exposure often induces intense fears in children such as
nightmares.[^187]

Although discussion and debate about the impact of television
programming on children has focused mainly on violent content, studies
also show television includes a substantial amount of sexual content and
that TV's sexual messages play an important role in the information
adolescents receive about sex and can influence their behavior. A recent
study conducted by Dale Kunkel and other researchers at the University
of California for the Kaiser Family Foundation indicates that 56% of
programs in a one-week sample and 67% of network primetime shows
contained some sexual material consisting of either talk about sex,
sexually-related behavior, or both.[^188] The study also revealed that
8% of all programs contained some sexual content -- either talk or
behavior -- involving teenagers. Of these shows, only 18 percent made
reference to possible risks or responsibilities related to sexual
activity. Another recent study, conducted by the Parent's Television
Council, comparing primetime network programming from 1989 to such
programming in 1999, shows that the amount of sexual material increased
by more than 300%, and the use of vulgar language increased by more than
500%, to nearly five instances for every hour of programming. This study
also shows that the dialogue and sexual depictions in television
programming became more explicit over this decade.[^189] The PTC also
demonstrates that television networks are broadcasting increasingly
explicit and frequent depictions of sexuality, profanity, and violence
between 8 and 9 p.m., during the so-called "family hour," when many
children are still in the television audience.[^190]

Evidence indicates that the sexual messages on television are an
important part of adolescent sexual socialization.[^191] Vicky Rideout,
vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation and a panelist at the
Commission's *en* *banc* hearing, states that many surveys conducted by
her foundation demonstrate that television is an important source of
ideas and information about sex for teens.[^192] For example, studies
show that one in four teens say they have learned "a lot" about
pregnancy and birth control from TV shows and movies, and 40% say they
have gotten ideas for how to talk to their boyfriend or girlfriend about
sexual issues from these sources.[^193] Although more direct evidence of
the effects of media portrayals of sex is somewhat limited, the evidence
available is highly consistent with the hypotheses that such content
generates effects on young audiences. For example, studies show
correlations between watching television programs high in sexual content
and the early initiation of sexual intercourse by adolescents as well as
less negative judgements by teens of casual sexual encounters.[^194]

Existing federal law restricts the broadcast of sexually-oriented
programming. Specifically, broadcasters may not air "obscene"
programming at any time, or "indecent" programming between 6:00 a.m. and
10:00 p.m., the period during which children are presumed to be in the
viewing audience. [^195] In addition, "V-chip" technology now exists to
help parents block television programming that contains certain kinds of
content. In 1997, the broadcast, cable television, and motion picture
industries adopted a voluntary ratings system to identify the age group
for which a particular program is appropriate and to indicate whether
the program contains certain subject matter.[^196] In 1998, the
Commission found this ratings system acceptable, and required TV set
manufacturers to include in certain new sets the "V-Chip" technology
that will screen programming based on these ratings.[^197] The V-chip
and the ratings system are designed to be powerful tools to help parents
control the exposure of their children to media violence.

Thus, there are laws and mechanisms currently in place that permit
parents and others to control to some extent the type of program content
to which children are exposed. However, in light of the evidence of the
impact that violent and sexual program content can have on children,
broadcasters must do more to ensure that the programming aired for child
audiences is not harmful. In addition, broadcasters should address
certain shortcomings in the way the current TV ratings system is being
applied and promoted in order to ensure that the V-chip and ratings
system serve their intended purpose of allowing parents to screen for
inappropriate program content.

-   **Strive to ensure that violent or sexual content is limited or is
    presented responsibly in programming directed to children or with a
    significant child audience.**

    Broadcasters should make a positive effort to ensure that the
    content of programming directed to children, or with a significant
    child audience, does not contain inappropriate violence, language,
    or sexual content. It is broadcasters in the first instance who
    choose to include violent and sexual content in their programming.
    Broadcasters also choose to present much of this violence and sexual
    content in glamorized formats and without conveying the real-life
    consequences of actions. As noted above, studies confirm that this
    pattern increases the risk that inappropriate material will harm
    child viewers. Broadcasters should accept their responsibility to
    exercise care in the selection of program subjects and themes to
    ensure that the treatment and presentation of sexual or violent
    situations are made not merely for purposes of sensationalism.

    In this regard, many programs that contain violent or sexual content
    portray these themes in responsible ways that are intended to
    enlighten and inform. The focus is not on these types of programs,
    but rather on programs containing gratuitous sex and violence with
    no redeeming purpose aired when a significant number of children are
    watching. Broadcasters should reconsider the content of such
    programming, and strive to air programming more consistent with
    their duty to serve the public interest.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Refrain from airing programming that is inappropriate for children
    when a significant number of children are reasonably be expected to
    be in the audience.**

    The restrictions on obscene and indecent programming, and the
    industry ratings system, apply to both analog and digital
    programming. Thus, DTV broadcasters may not air "obscene"
    programming, and may air "indecent" programming only between the
    10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. "safe harbor." Robert Peters, a panelist at
    the Commission's *en banc* hearing representing Morality in Media
    called for strict enforcement of the indecency standard.[^198] DTV
    broadcasters should expect the Commission to consider carefully
    complaints received from the public about objectionable broadcast
    material.

    The indecency standard restricts the broadcast of sexually-oriented
    program content, but does not apply to violent program content.
    Nonetheless, broadcasters (and other distributors of TV programming)
    should refrain from airing all types of programming that is
    unsuitable for children when a significant number of them are
    reasonably expected to be in the audience. While V-chip technology
    may be used to screen programming based on the industry ratings
    system, not all households have TV sets with V-chips. Thus, the
    television industry should not air programming that is not rated as
    suitable for children during times that a significant number of them
    are reasonably expected to be in the audience.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Improve application of the existing program ratings system and air
    public service announcements or other on-air announcements to
    educate parents about the ratings system and the V-chip.**

    Digital broadcasters should strive to ensure that the voluntary
    ratings system works as well as possible. In this regard, it should
    be noted that a recent study conducted on behalf of the Kaiser
    Family Foundation shows that, although the entertainment industry
    appears to apply the age-based ratings in an accurate fashion,[^199]
    the industry is not applying the content-descriptor "V" for violence
    appropriately. Specifically, the study shows that the "V" descriptor
    was not applied to 79% of programs that contain violence.[^200]
    Since a separate study reveals that a majority of parents believe
    that blocking "V" programs will block all programs containing
    violence,[^201] the omission of the content descriptor means that
    the V-chip may not be fulfilling its intended purpose. Given the
    effects of such programming on children, the television distribution
    and production industries should work to apply the "V" content
    descriptor to all programs that contain violence to ensure that the
    ratings system works as effectively as possible to empower parents
    to control what their children view on television.

    In addition, the success or failure of the V-chip and ratings system
    is ultimately tied in large part to parents' awareness of their
    existence. During the Commission's *en banc* hearing, Dr. Joanne
    Cantor stated that a recent study indicated that only about half of
    parents are aware that there is a TV ratings system, and a much
    smaller percentage know how to interpret the ratings.[^202] To
    combat this problem, broadcasters should air public service
    announcements (PSAs) during times a significant number of parents
    are expected to be watching to help educate parents about the TV
    ratings system and the V-chip.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Refrain from airing ads for motion pictures, programming, and
    products that are not appropriate for children when a significant
    number of children would reasonably be expected to be in the
    audience.**

    The obscenity and indecency standards apply to advertising, but the
    ratings systems does not. In the *NOI*, the Commission asked whether
    the ratings of programs promoted by broadcasters should be
    consistent with the ratings of a program during which the promotions
    are aired.[^203]

    The Federal Trade Commission released a report indicating that the
    motion picture, recording, and computer and video game entertainment
    industries routinely market to children under the age of 17 products
    that their own labeling and rating systems state are inappropriate
    for children or warrant parental caution due to their violent
    content.[^204] Television is an important, if not the most
    important, medium for these marketing strategies. For example, the
    FTC Report indicates that motion picture studios advertised films
    rated R for violence on television that were the highest rated among
    teens or where teens comprised the largest percentage of the
    audience.[^205] In addition, the studios advertised films rated
    PG-13 during the afternoon and Saturday morning cartoon
    programs.[^206] The recording and video game industries also
    promoted their products that their ratings claim are inappropriate
    for children during programs that are most popular with teens.[^207]
    Comments and complaints the Commission has received from the general
    public provide further evidence that programs viewed by children
    contain promotions that parents think are not suitable for their
    children.[^208]

    In the *DTV Children's Notice*, the Commission asked whether it
    could take steps to ensure that programs designed for children and
    families do not contain promotions for broadcast, cable, or theater
    movies or other product promotions that are not appropriate for
    children to watch.[^209] The Commission noted that one option would
    be to require that promotions be rated and encoded so they could be
    screened by V-chip technology. The Commission also stated that
    another option would be to require that promotions be rated and that
    programs with a significant child audience contain only promotions
    consistent with the rating of the program in which they
    appear.[^210] Notwithstanding the pendency of the *DTV Children's
    Notice*, and any actions the Commission might take, broadcasters --
    and other distributors of TV programming -- should not air
    advertisements for motion pictures, programming, and products that
    are not appropriate for children when a significant number of
    children can reasonably be expected to be in the audience.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Exercise good judgment on the use of new applications, such as
    interactive television, during children's programming.**

    DTV offers broadcasters a platform not just to air programming one
    way to the viewer, but also to interact with the viewer. This
    capability raises the issue of the inappropriate collection of
    personal information from children without their parents' knowledge
    or consent. As suggested by CME, in developing uses for digital
    technology, broadcasters must ensure that the privacy of children is
    protected, and that information is not solicited from children
    without the consent of their parents. Broadcasters' public interest
    obligation to protect children's privacy is discussed more fully
    below. As discussed above, broadcasters should also follow
    long-standing policies that protect children from the consequences
    of blurring commercial and entertainment content. As indicated
    above, the Commission is exploring in the *DTV Children's Notice*
    how its commercial policies and rules will apply in the DTV
    environment. Finally, broadcasters should take care in designing
    their digital services to ensure that children are not inadvertently
    exposed to age-inappropriate material through, for example, Internet
    links.

## Enhancing Democracy

**Broadcasters should air programming that covers political candidates
and events of significance to their communities.**

> *Stations that earn massive and rapidly escalating revenue from
> political advertising, yet devote only minimal time to substantive
> political coverage are doing the public, and indeed, our democracy a
> great disservice. We urge the FCC to establish firm guidelines
> requiring broadcasters using the digital spectrum to meet at least the
> minimum recommendation of broadcasting five minutes a night of
> candidate-centered discourse in the 30 days preceding a primary or
> general election.*[^211] -- Cynthia Carey

As noted above, television is a powerful tool not only for
entertainment, but also for education and information. Indeed,
television is the American public's most popular source of news and
information. As public trustees of the airwaves, broadcasters have a
special obligation to use the power of their medium to promote an
informed electorate. For that reason, the Commission has long
interpreted the public interest standard to impose an obligation on
broadcast licensees to air programming regarding political
campaigns.[^212] Broadcasters must continue to uphold their industry's
historic obligation, and do so in dynamic, innovative ways.

Some broadcasters devote many hours of program time to political
coverage. In the *NOI*, the Commission noted that, according to an NAB
report, broadcasters valued the time they devoted to campaigns at
\$148.4 million in the 1996 election.[^213] The Commission also observed
that, during that time, ABC, Fox, and PBS also offered free airtime to
major presidential candidates.[^214] Most recently, ABC, CBS, PBS, and
many NBC affiliates carried the 2000 Presidential and Vice Presidential
debates.

However, other data indicate that such coverage is not extended to
non-Presidential races. For example, according to a University of
Southern California Annenberg School of Communications report, only
0.31% of local news focused on the California governor's race in
1998.[^215] In addition, the Fox network chose to carry entertainment
programming instead of the three Presidential and one Vice Presidential
debates in 2000, marking the first time ever that a major broadcast
network opted to air entertainment programming instead of the
debates.[^216] Moreover, NBC originally intended to carry sports
programming instead of the first and last of the 2000 Presidential
debates, and then ultimately offered its affiliates the alternative of
carrying that programming or the debates.[^217] Approximately one-third
of NBC's 222 affiliates chose to air the first debate live.[^218]

-   **Cover political conventions, and local and national debates.**

The public relies heavily on watching and listening to candidate debates
in making decisions about who will govern on both the local and national
level. The Supreme Court recently noted the critical role that
television coverage of campaigns -- particularly debates -- plays in our
democratic process: "\[d\]eliberation 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.'"[^219] It is therefore in the public
interest for broadcasters, as public trustees of the airwaves, to cover
political events. Broadcasting is the one medium that reaches virtually
everyone free of charge, which makes its role in elections even more
important.[^220]

Broadcast television coverage of conventions and debates, however, has
been declining, on both a local and national level. Of the twenty-two
televised debates that were held during primary season this year, only
two aired on a broadcast network, and none aired at prime time.[^221] In
addition, as noted above, two of four networks chose, for the first time
in history, not to air a general election Presidential debate.[^222]
Additionally, the three largest broadcast networks are reported to have
reduced by two-thirds the hours they devoted to this year's conventions
than they devoted in 1988, the last time an open-seat Presidential
election was held.[^223] The decrease in coverage of these events is
particularly frustrating, given that when they are broadcast, the public
watches in large numbers. For example, more than forty-six million
viewers watched the Presidential debate on October 3, 2000, more than
thirty-seven million watched the October 11 and 17 debates, and more
than twenty-eight million viewers watched the Vice Presidential
debate.[^224] Broadcasters that take seriously their responsibility to
provide election coverage should be applauded; for example, Hearst-
Argyle has begun a "Commitment 2000" project which has as its goal the
enhancement of public participation in the voting process.[^225]

All broadcasters should cover political conventions and local and
national debates. There are few public interest obligations as important
as the obligation to inform and enhance the democratic process.
Broadcasters' unique position to provide widespread nonpartisan
information is a privilege to broadcasters, and with that comes the
obligation to serve its viewers with the most informative messages about
national and local candidates: words from the candidates themselves.

-   **Devote at least five minutes each night for thirty days before an
    election to candidate-centered discourse.**

Broadcasters should also follow the proposal of the Advisory Committee
to devote at least five minutes each night for thirty days before an
election to candidate-centered discourse.[^226] CBS and NBC stated that
all of their owned-and-operated stations agreed to follow the Advisory
Committee's recommendation for the 2000 general election. Starting
October 2, and continuing through November 7, CBS' seventeen stations
committed to air a unique five minute segment per day produced by the
local stations and broadcast between 5:00 PM and 11:35 PM within
existing local news broadcasts, including a wide range of information of
importance to voters in federal, state, and local elections and
candidate-centered discourse and issue-related features and
forums.[^227] NBC's thirteen stations committed to air at least five
minutes of candidate discourse, including interviews, debates, and
issues discussions, from 4pm newscasts to the end of late local
newscasts.[^228] In addition, other stations, including those owned by
Capitol Broadcasting and the twenty-four owned by the Hearst-Argyle
Television Group -- for a total of approximately eighty-three stations
nationwide -- committed to follow the Advisory Committee's
recommendation.[^229] Alliance for Better Campaigns, a leading advocate
of requiring broadcasters to improve their performance in the area of
political programming, supports the Advisory Committee's initiative, as
do its honorary co-chairs, who include former Presidents Carter and
Ford, and Walter Cronkite. But the Alliance also asks, if some networks
and station groups can support the initiative, why can't others?[^230]
Indeed, according to Paul Taylor, the executive director of the Alliance
and a panelist at the Commission's recent hearing, most stations have
cut back on the amount of time they are devoting to candidate-centered
discourse this year.[^231] The Commission has licensed more than 1600
broadcast television stations, and the Alliance for Better Campaigns
believes that other stations should follow the Advisory Committee's
recommendation.

Belo believes that broadcasters should be encouraged to consider, on a
voluntary basis, a broad range of programming and other options to
elevate political discourse.[^232] Broadcasters should provide coverage
by station news staff and/or political commenters with respect to
candidates for national and local office, their positions, record of
service, and campaign issues. Broadcasters would enjoy maximum
flexibility to structure such discourse, choosing the candidates to
cover and the formats to use, as suggested by former FCC General Counsel
Henry Geller *et al*.[^233] Moreover, given the interactive
possibilities of DTV, stations could invite their viewers to participate
in the discourse, and incorporate citizen feedback in shaping the
discussion over the thirty days before election. A vigorous discussion
of the issues vital to viewers would no doubt increase the station's
audience for such broadcasting.

-   **Do not impose "blanket bans" on the sale of airtime available to
    state and local candidates.**

The Advisory Committee recommended that "the FCC should prohibit
broadcasters from adopting blanket bans on the sale of time to State and
local political candidates."[^234] The Advisory Committee does not
expect that television stations would necessarily give non-federal
candidates the same reasonable right of access as federal candidate,
which is required by statute. Rather, it simply suggests that
broadcasters not refuse categorically to sell airtime to all non-federal
candidates. Broadcasters that adopted the Advisory Committee's
recommendation would enhance democracy, because they would provide
non-federal candidates access to the powerful mass medium of television
to communicate with and inform the electorate. Voters may be especially
interested in educating themselves about the positions of state and
local candidates because these political races may have the greatest
impact on voters' lives.

-   **Use digital technology to enhance democracy in innovative ways.**

Digital broadcasting will offer broadcasters new opportunities to cover
political conventions and local and national debates, and reverse recent
trends toward less coverage. Particularly with respect to local
political events, broadcasters will be able to tailor their coverage to
events of specific interest to the various political subdivisions
encompassed in their community of license. Several public TV stations
are planning to take advantage of DTV's multicasting possibility by
providing gavel-to-gavel coverage of state legislatures, and the ability
to download the texts of proposed bills, while other public TV stations
plan to devote one of four DTV channels to cover local, city and county
government meetings.[^235] Such plans illustrate the possibilities of
using DTV capacity to reach out to and educate station viewers so that
they may truly participate in the election process and the legislative
proceedings of their government.

## Disaster and Emergency Information

**Broadcasters should make use of DTV's enhanced capabilities to provide
the best disaster and emergency information possible.**

Providing emergency information is one of the fundamental public
interest obligations of a broadcast station. Broadcasters have always
been vital sources of emergency and disaster-related information in
their communities. Indeed, one of Congress' stated purposes in enacting
the Communications Act and establishing the Commission was "for the
purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire
and radio communication."[^236]

In 1995, the Commission adopted rules to replace the Emergency Broadcast
System (EBS)[^237] with the Emergency Alert System (EAS). The Commission
adopted a standard EAS protocol and new digital codes to facilitate use
of the new system. It also streamlined procedures so that more
participants can work together effectively during emergencies. The EAS
rules require all broadcast stations and cable systems to install and
operate new equipment for national alerts.[^238] Broadcasters have
indicated that they take seriously their fundamental public interest
responsibility to warn viewers about impending natural disasters and to
keep them informed about disaster-related events.[^239]

Digital technology offers many new and innovative ways for broadcasters
to transmit warnings to members of their community who might be at risk.
For example, digital transmission could enable broadcasters to pinpoint
specific households or neighborhoods at risk. The Advisory Committee
suggested that DTV broadcasters should take full advantage of these
technological advances to serve their communities in times of
crisis.[^240] The Advisory Committee also recommended that broadcasters
work with appropriate emergency communications specialists and
manufacturers to determine the most effective means to transmit disaster
warning information without unnecessarily intruding on bandwidth or
resulting in additional burdens or costs on broadcasters.

One of broadcasters' fundamental public interest obligations is to warn
viewers about impending disasters and keep them informed about related
events. In the *NOI*, the Commission requested comment on what unique
capabilities digital technology gives broadcasters to deliver
disaster-related information, and what role it should play to encourage
broadcasters to deploy such technology to deliver enhanced disaster
information and help realize the Advisory Committee's goals. The
Commission noted that it recently adopted the EAS requirements and asked
whether it should adopt any different requirements specific to DTV
broadcasters.[^241]

-   **Develop new ways to provide disaster and emergency information
    needs, such as pinpointing specific households or neighborhoods that
    are at risk.**

The Advisory Committee and a number of commenters believe that digital
technology will provide innovative and new ways to transmit disaster
warnings and emergency information, and that DTV broadcasters should
take full advantage of these technological advances.[^242] The Advisory
Committee noted that even such detailed emergency information, such as
to pinpointing specific households or neighborhoods at risk, will
require only minimal use of the 6 MHz bandwidth allocated to digital
broadcasters and should not result in undue additional burdens or costs.
[^243] Some commenters disagree, however, arguing that there are no
capabilities unique to digital transmission that can be used to enhance
the delivery of disaster-related information. They note that EAS
currently is capable of being targeted to specific geographic
areas,[^244] and that other communications technologies are as well, or
even better, suited to this task.[^245] Given that providing emergency
information is one of the fundamental public interest obligations of a
broadcast station, and that improving disaster and emergency warnings
will become easier and more efficient with digital technology, DTV
broadcasters should develop and deliver such enhanced warnings to their
communities of license. Broadcasters, whether transmitting in analog or
digital, should use their capabilities to enhance the delivery of
disaster-related information. DTV broadcasters, in particular, should
use digital technology in new and innovative ways to transmit
disaster-related warnings and emergency information.

-   **Implement disaster warnings and emergency information in a way
    that accounts for the needs of persons with disabilities.**

Some commenters argue that the full range of DTV capabilities should be
used to transmit disaster warnings and emergency information in a way
that considers the needs of persons with disabilities. For example, some
argue that DTV broadcasters should be prohibited from impinging on the
9600 baud bandwidth currently set aside for closed captioning in order
to prevent emergency and disaster information from covering the
captions.[^246] As discussed elsewhere in this report, the transition to
digital broadcasting will foster rather than impede services developed
to allow persons with disabilities to have access to television
programming, such as captioning and video description. Broadcasters
should ensure that the implementation of enhanced disaster and emergency
warnings be fully accessible to persons with disabilities but also take
care not to undermine other services that allow them access to
television programming.

-   **Make disaster and emergency information available in a variety of
    languages.**

Disaster and emergency information is usually communicated only in
English even in areas where significant portions of the population speak
either limited or no English. Some commenters suggest that broadcasters
should be required to make emergency and disaster related information
available in a variety of languages appropriate to the increasingly
diverse communities they are licensed to serve.[^247] All broadcasters
should determine how best to serve their communities' disaster
information needs. Digital broadcasters should fully utilize their
digital capacity to transmit disaster warnings in the languages most
commonly used in their communities of license. The increased digital
capacity will enable broadcasters to pinpoint specific portions of a
community in need of warnings in languages other than English and to
transmit those additional warnings.

-   **Work with appropriate emergency communications specialists and
    manufacturers to determine the most effective means to transmit
    disaster warnings and emergency information.**

The Advisory Committee and a few commenters maintain that the Commission
should work with appropriate emergency communications specialists and
manufacturers to determine the most effective means to transmit such
disaster warnings and emergency information.[^248] In addition, these
methods should be minimally intrusive on bandwidth and not result in
undue or additional burdens for broadcasters. Although television
receivers should be able to handle effectively such EAS warnings, it is
not the Commission's role to determine the technical requirements for
such transmissions. Broadcasters should therefore work together with
equipment manufacturers to develop and employ the technology necessary
to implement enhanced emergency information and disaster warnings.

## Consumer Privacy

**Broadcasters should protect the privacy of their viewers, especially
children, if and when they collect personally identifiable
information.**

> *The drive to fill more advertising space and sell more products over
> the digital communications network and the ability of that network to
> gather information in an interactive context raises concerns about the
> use of private information for marketing. . . . The result will be an
> electronic "direct mail on steroids" pumped up by the ability of
> viewers to click through digitally inserted advertising for
> purchases.* -- Consumer Federation of America[^249]

While digital television will enhance consumers' viewing experiences,
the potential for interactivity and convergence of media could threaten
their legitimate privacy interests. Interactive applications that use
the DTV spectrum enable companies to collect information about
consumers, and has raised new questions about protecting consumer
privacy across all media. Consumers should be able to protect themselves
from the collection and use of personally identifiable information
without their consent or knowledge. As broadcasters develop dynamic and
innovative uses of the DTV spectrum, they should be sensitive to these
privacy issues.

While the Commission did not raise the issue of privacy in the *NOI*,
several commenters pointed out that with newly available technology,
broadcasters and advertisers will be able to gather data on consumers'
viewing habits, purchase patterns, and information requests.[^250]
Broadcasters and advertisers might then distribute this personal or
sensitive information to third parties, or use it for targeted
advertising.

Given the real financial incentives in the digital age for collecting
personal information, broadcasters should create privacy protections for
their viewers. Initially, broadcasters should widely distribute
information on their policies for protecting consumer privacy. One
suggestion would be to provide notice that a company is collecting
personal information before or at the time the information is collected,
describing, at a minimum: (1) what information will be collected, (2)
who is collecting the information; (3) how the information will be used;
(4) who will have access to the information; and (5) the consumers'
choices regarding the collection and use of the information.[^251] This
notice should be provided in a conspicuous manner.

Second, broadcasters should provide viewers with meaningful choices if
those viewers do not want their personal information used for any other
purpose beyond that for which the information is being collected. For
example, viewers should be able to prevent anyone from using their
personal information in subsequent direct marketing activities.

Third, broadcasters should provide viewers with reasonable access to any
personal information collected and an opportunity to correct any errors.
For example, consumers should be able to link, with a secure password,
to information about their shopping habits, income, or any other
information that has been collected. They can then correct or remove the
information with a phone call or an electronic message to the
broadcaster or advertiser. Broadcasters should provide consumers with an
"800" number to check and correct collected information.

Fourth, broadcasters should maintain adequate security to protect
viewers' personal information. The industry should, as others have,
adopt an encryption standard for securing information. Information that
a consumer sends to a broadcaster or an advertiser should be
inaccessible to third parties while it is in transit.

Fifth, broadcasters should take additional steps to protect the privacy
of children by complying, to the extent possible, with the Children's
Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA). COPPA prohibits operators
of online services that are directed to children from collecting
personal information from a child without: (1) providing notice on the
website of what information is collected from that child, how the
information will be used, and the operator's disclosure practices; and
(2) obtaining verifiable parental consent for the collection, use or
disclosure of personal information from the child. Under COPPA, on
request from a parent, the operator must provide: (1) a description of
the types of personal information collected from the child; (2) the
opportunity to refuse to permit the operator's further use or
maintenance of the child's personal information; and (3) a means by
which the parent can obtain any personal information collected from the
child. An operator is also prohibited from conditioning a child's
participation in a game on the child's providing more personal
information than is reasonably necessary for the game.[^252]

As digital television evolves, privacy issues will unfold and the
Commission should continue to monitor and suggest remedies where it
finds potential threats to consumer privacy.

## Diversity

**Broadcasters' activities should reflect the diversity of their
communities.**

> *"The freedom gained with the technological advance from analog to
> digital broadcasting is accompanied by a corresponding responsibility
> to reach out to the entire community served by broadcasters. The
> expanded capabilities in digital broadcasting should result in ways to
> address the wider variety of people within the broadcaster's community
> of license."*[^253] -- Human Rights Campaign
>
> "LULAC is concerned that there are not enough Latinos in
> decision-making positions within the broadcast industry and that local
> broadcasters are not sufficiently responsive to Latino concerns,
> issues and interests."[^254] -- League of United Latin American
> Citizens

Given the power of television, and the fact that broadcasters must serve
their local communities of license, it is important that broadcasters'
activities reflect the diversity in their communities. As the nation's
population becomes increasingly diverse, this policy goal becomes more
and more significant. In 1960, just over 5% of the nation's population
was foreign born, and 75% of those came from Europe. By contrast, in
1990, nearly 8% of the nation's population was foreign born, and over
70% came from Latin America and Asia. This trend is expected to
continue. One consequence is that more and more households speak a
language other than English.[^255] Broadcasters' activities must reflect
the increasingly diverse populations in their communities. Digital
technology in particular will enhance opportunities for broadcasters to
fulfill this goal.

-   **Assess programming to determine whether it reflects the changing
    society of the 21^st^ century and meets the needs of all
    communities.**

The Advisory Committee stated that "\[d\]iversity is an important value
in broadcasting, whether it is in programming, political discourse,
hiring, promotion, or business opportunities within the industry."[^256]
It recommended that "broadcasters seize the opportunity inherent in the
digital television technology to substantially enhance the diversity
available in the television marketplace."[^257] PBTV also asked DTV
broadcasters to exploit digital technology to reflect the diversity of
their communities through a variety of practices, and stated that
network programming cannot respond to the diverse needs of each
community.[^258] In the *NOI*, the Commission sought comment on ways
unique to DTV that the Commission could encourage diversity in the
digital era, consistent with relevant constitutional standards.[^259]

Commenters and panelists stated that some broadcasters do not serve
specific groups within their communities. In 1999, Children Now
conducted a survey entitled *Fall Colors*, which examined diversity of
all primetime television shows across six broadcast networks.[^260] The
study revealed that certain groups are almost invisible, and those that
are visible are depicted in stereotypical ways.[^261] According to
Children Now, broadcasters should air more diverse, inclusive
programming, because it sends strong messages to children, by telling
children that their group is important, by making them feel included,
and by providing role models.[^262] Consistent with Children Now, the
Human Relations Foundation of Chicago believes that broadcasters should
improve representation of minorities in commercials and televisions
shows, both in terms of the numbers of minorities in these roles and
also the manner in which they are portrayed.[^263] A number of NOW
members also assert that their local broadcasters do not fairly
represent women.[^264] LULAC expresses the same concern with respect to
Latinos.[^265] Based on these concerns, broadcasters should assess their
programming to ensure that it serves their diverse constituencies.

Some commenters explain how broadcasters could use digital technology to
realize that goal. For example, the Communications Technology Policy
Council and LULAC suggest that DTV broadcasters could multicast to serve
the needs of underserved communities.[^266] AAPTS notes that some public
television stations are planning to do just that: several stations plan
to broadcast a channel devoted to serving non-English speakers and other
minorities, and another plans to create a separate multicast
international channel designed to enrich its mix of ethnic language
programming.[^267] PBTV also promotes a "flexibility model," whereby
multicasting broadcasters could devote channel space to underserved
audiences.[^268] Broadcasters should use the flexibility and
opportunities in DTV in manners such as these to ensure that they serve
all segments of their communities.

-   **Reach out to all segments of communities when filling job
    openings.**

The Commission adopted a new equal employment opportunity (EEO) rule
that reaffirmed the Commission\'s long-standing anti-discrimination rule
and emphasized broad outreach to all qualified job candidates for
positions at broadcast stations.[^269] The new rule responded to a D.C.
Circuit Court of Appeals' decision that held certain aspects of the
Commission\'s previous broadcast EEO program requirements
unconstitutional.[^270] That rule prohibited discrimination on the basis
of race, religion, color, national origin or gender, and required
broadcasters to disseminate information widely about job openings to all
segments of the community to ensure that all qualified applicants,
including minorities and women, have sufficient opportunities to
compete. The rule gave broadcasters flexibility in choosing their EEO
program by providing two recruitment options. Under both options,
broadcasters were to use recruitment sources sufficient to ensure wide
dissemination of information concerning each vacancy filled at the
station. Under the first option, broadcasters also were to: (1) send job
vacancy announcements to recruitment organizations that request them;
and (2) implement a specified number of non-vacancy specific outreach
initiatives, such as job fairs, internships programs, and interaction
with educational and community groups. Under the second option, a
broadcaster could design its own outreach program but was to monitor the
effectiveness of its program in achieving broad outreach by maintaining
records concerning the recruitment sources, and race, ethnicity and
gender of its applicants. The rule also required broadcasters to place
annually an EEO report in their public file providing specified
information concerning their outreach efforts.

Several parties challenged the new rule, even though many television
broadcasters support the Commission's EEO efforts. For example, after
the court struck down the former rule, more than fifteen major media
companies announced their intention to abide by EEO principles in their
job recruitment efforts on a voluntary basis.[^271] Many public interest
groups, including the Minority Media Telecommunications Council and the
National Urban League, also applauded the new rules.[^272] However, on
January 16, 2001, the D.C. Circuit vacated the Commission's new EEO
rule, holding that the rule "put\[s\] official pressure upon
broadcasters to recruit minority candidates, thus creating a race-based
classification that is not narrowly tailored to support a compelling
government interest and is therefore unconstitutional."[^273]

In the *NOI*, the Commission sought comment on ways unique to DTV that
it could encourage diversity in the digital era, consistent with
relevant constitutional standards. The Commission noted that the
Advisory Committee recommended 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."[^274]

Some commenters encouraged the Commission to strengthen its EEO policies
for DTV broadcasters. For example, UCC *et al*. argues that, in light of
DTV's new opportunities, the FCC and the industry should explore new
ways to increase the participation of minorities in the broadcast
industry.[^275] Likewise, the Human Relations Foundation of Chicago
believes that the FCC should require broadcasters to employ a diverse
workforce.[^276] DTV broadcasters should use the opportunities they have
been given with the DTV spectrum to create opportunities to diversify
their workforce.

The NAB, however, argues that, given constitutional difficulties with
respect to FCC\'s previous diversity efforts, the most effective methods
may include voluntary industry efforts or incentive programs requiring
congressional action, such as tax credits for sale of broadcast
properties to minorities or women.[^277] Belo likewise supports
voluntary industry initiatives to increase opportunities for
participation in the media by minorities, women, and small businesses.
It notes that broadcasters, including itself, have created an investment
fund with \$175 million current initial cash commitment and ultimate
purchasing power of possibly \$1 billion to spur broadcast ownership by
minorities and women.[^278] DTV broadcasters should pursue these and
other methods to increase diversity in the broadcast industry, and
should continue to follow EEO principles in their job recruitment
efforts.

## Disabilities Access

**Broadcasters must make their services accessible to persons with
disabilities.**

> *"Media is the language of our time, and those who are not fluent risk
> isolation, even virtual exclusion from their own culture. . .
> ."*[^279] -- American Foundation for the Blind

As an audio/visual medium at present, television is not fully accessible
to persons with hearing and/or visual disabilities. There are as many as
22 million American with hearing disabilities, and as many as 10 million
Americans with visual disabilities. These numbers will increase as the
population ages. Measures must be taken to enable individuals to benefit
from the medium of television. DTV offers broadcasters new capabilities
to serve disabled segments of their communities. DTV broadcasters should
take advantage of these capabilities to provide enhanced closed
captioning, video description, and accessible ancillary and
supplementary services.

-   **Take advantage of DTV's capabilities to expand and enhance closed
    captioning.**

Closed captioning refers to the textual display of the audio portion of
a program. It is designed to make TV programs more accessible to persons
with hearing disabilities. In 1997 the Commission adopted closed
captioning rules.[^280] These rules require broadcasters (among other
video programming distributors and providers), by January 1, 2006 and
continuing thereafter, to caption 100% of "new" programming (defined as
programming first published or exhibited on or after January 1, 1998),
and to meet certain interim benchmarks in the meantime.[^281] The rules
also require broadcasters (and others), by January 1, 2008 and
continuing thereafter, to caption 75% of "pre-rule" programming by
2008.[^282]

Certain types of programming are exempt from the captioning
requirements, such as, among other things, promotional or public service
announcements (PSAs) of ten minutes or less duration, and locally
produced educational programming or non-news programming with no repeat
value.[^283] As a result, this programming is not accessible to persons
with hearing disabilities. Thus, the Advisory Committee, as well as
commenters in the *NOI* proceeding, encourage broadcast stations to
caption PSAs, public affairs programming, and political
programming.[^284] PBTV suggested that they should do so over the first
four years of a station's DTV operation, completed no later than
2006.[^285] Some commenters[^286] point out, however, that the
Commission did not exempt from its captioning rules political and public
affairs programming as a class. As a result, such programming already
must be captioned in accordance with the general rules and schedules,
unless it falls into another category that is exempt, such as
promotional announcements of less than ten minutes, or locally produced
educational or non-news programming. Given the importance of political
programming, however, broadcasters should caption such programming, even
if it is otherwise exempt.

One problem with current captioning technology is that it sometimes
covers other printed material, such as speaker's names, on a viewer's
television screen. As a result, this information is not necessarily
accessible to persons with visual disabilities. Digital technology,
however, enables programmers to provide more advanced and flexible
captioning that resolves these problems. For example, the technology can
be used to permit viewers to change the size of captions to see both the
caption and the text behind the caption. The Advisory Committee
encouraged DTV broadcasters to take full advantage of digital
technology, as did a number of commenters in the *NOI* proceeding.[^287]

The Commission has recently adopted rules to require certain DTV
receivers to be equipped with the capability for consumers to change the
color, font, and size of captions, and to choose between multiple
streams of captioning (such as alternative language or "easy
reader").[^288] The Commission also required programmers and
distributors to provide captions in a format that is compatible with DTV
receivers, but did not require them to provide all of the advanced
capabilities that it required the receivers to decode. DTV broadcasters
should provide these capabilities, however, in order to ensure that
closed captioning will be accessible to the greatest number of people.

-   **Take advantage of DTV's enhanced audio capacity to provide
    programming with video description.**

Video description refers to the description of key visual elements of a
program, inserted during natural pauses in the dialogue of the program.
It is designed to enhance the accessibility of video programming for
persons with visual disabilities. The Commission adopted initial,
limited video description rules.[^289] These rules require the largest
television broadcasters and multichannel video programming distributors
to provide fifty hours per calendar quarter of children's or prime time
programming with video description. Because of a variety of differences
between closed captioning and video description, the Commission adopted
rules to phase video description into the commercial marketplace.
However, the Commission excluded DTV broadcasters from the rules,
because it wished to gain greater experience with both DTV and video
description before applying the rules to DTV. The Commission indicated,
however, that it intended ultimately to extend its rules to DTV.

Digital technology enables programmers to provide video description more
easily because of enhanced audio capabilities. For example, in the
analog environment, a distributor typically can provide only two audio
tracks, the main audio and a second audio program, such as an alternate
language or video description. But digital technology enables
programmers to provide multiple audio programs at the same time, and
therefore make their programming accessible to persons with visual
disabilities.

The Advisory Committee asked DTV broadcasters to allocate sufficient
bandwidth among their multiple audio channels to expand the use of video
description.[^290] PBTV suggested that DTV broadcasters should provide
video description of PSAs, public affairs programming, and political
programming, and that they should do so over the first four years of
their DTV operation, but complete this process no later than 2006.[^291]
Several commenters argued that the Commission should amend the DTV
standard to designate bandwidth for video description,[^292] and fashion
rules to require video programming distributors to provide programming
with video description.[^293]

In order to ensure that any video description that DTV broadcasters
provide is capable of being received by viewers' TV sets, commenters
also encouraged the Commission to address DTV receiver
specifications.[^294] The American Foundation for the Blind stated that
the Commission should require manufacturers of DTV receivers to design
equipment to support simultaneous multi-channel audio-decoding
capability so that video description can be delivered separately from
the main audio of a program.[^295] WGBH stated that the Commission
should require equipment and services to be designed and offered in a
manner that is accessible to persons with disabilities (*e.g*., remote
controls and on-screen menus should be designed to be accessible to
persons with disabilities).[^296] Some commenters generally opposed the
Commission mandating that DTV broadcasters provide any more service to
persons with disabilities than is presently required.[^297] Even without
such a mandate, broadcasters should take advantage of digital
technology's enhanced audio capacity to ensure that video description
will be available to the greatest number of people.

-   **Make ancillary or supplementary services, and web-based services,
    accessible to persons with hearing and visual disabilities.**

The Advisory Committee recommended that DTV broadcasters that provide
ancillary or supplementary services not impinge on the 9600 baud
bandwidth currently set aside for closed captioning, and encouraged DTV
broadcasters to explore new digital technologies to expand access to
such services to persons with disabilities, such as offering text
options for material presented aurally and an audio portion for material
presented visually.[^298] The Commission sought comment on the type of
ancillary or supplementary services DTV broadcasters intend to provide,
and how they could be made accessible to persons with
disabilities.[^299]

Broadcasters did not provide much information on the types of ancillary
or supplementary services that DTV broadcasters provide or intend to
provide. PBTV, however, suggested that DTV broadcasters' public interest
obligations should attach to all such services.[^300] Telecommunications
for the Deaf states that the Commission should require DTV broadcasters
to explore new digital technologies to expand access to persons with
disabilities, such as offering text options for material presented
orally, and audio options for material presented visually.[^301] UCC
states that the Commission should explore ways of ensuring disability
access to any new service that DTV broadcasters provide.[^302] UCC and
WGBH state that the Commission should ensure that ancillary or
supplementary services do not interfere with the bandwidth currently set
aside for closed captioning, including requiring that broadcasters do
not use the bandwidth even when it is temporarily available.[^303]
Although NAB argues that the Commission should not consider any rules at
this time, since DTV broadcasters do not currently offer ancillary and
supplementary services,[^304] DTV broadcasters that offer such services
should make them available to persons with disabilities.

As noted in the *Enhanced Disclosure Notice*, TDI and WGBH ask the
Commission to ensure that broadcasters design and maintain their
websites in a manner that meets the World Wide Web Consortium's Web
Accessibility Initiative guidelines.[^305] These guidelines explain how
to make websites accessible to persons with a variety of disabilities in
a cost-effective manner. Given that broadcasters are encouraged to use
their websites to interact with members of their communities -- which
include persons with disabilities -- they are also encouraged to make
the content of their websites accessible to persons with disabilities so
that they can contribute to the process.

-   **Assess the needs of persons with disabilities in deploying new
    services.**

Perhaps an overarching principle for broadcasters in terms of enhancing
the accessibility of their services to persons with disabilities is to
consider the needs of such persons as broadcasters develop new services.
Television broadcasters should be mindful of the power and ubiquity of
their medium, and periodically re-evalute business strategies and
technological development to ensure that they are serving the needs of
the segment of their communities that includes persons with
disabilities.

## Technology and the Public Interest

**Broadcasters should periodically reassess how new technologies can be
used to enhance service to their local communities.**

The current reexamination of the public interest standard has been
occasioned by the transition from analog to digital transmission
technology. As explained above, digital technology offers broadcasters
new and improved ways to serve their communities, and they should take
advantage of these opportunities in order to best serve the public
interest. In the same vein, broadcasters should take advantage of
technologies that will be developed in the future that will enable them
to improve their level of service to their communities still more. Such
a broad, fluid approach to the "supple instrument" of the public
interest standard is most consistent with the purposes it was designed
to serve -- to ensure that the relative few who are licensed to use the
technology of the broadcast medium do so in a manner that best serves
the public interest.

# CONCLUSION

It is important for broadcasters to provide a level of service to their
communities that is consistent with the value of the spectrum they use.
The above principles attempt to identify ways that broadcasters can
serve their communities, and in turn serve the public interest, as the
Communications Act requires them to do.

**NOTES**

[^1]: Letter from Hon. John McCain, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee;
    Hon. Joe Lieberman, Ranking Minority Member, Senate Governmental
    Affairs Committee; Hon. Robert C. Byrd, Ranking Minority Member,
    Senate Appropriations Committee; Hon. Sam Brownback, Member, Senate
    Commerce Committee to William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (May 25,
    2000) ("McCain *et al.* Letter"). This letter can be found in the
    record of the Commission's pending proceeding on the public interest
    obligations of television broadcasters, MM Docket No. 99-360.

[^2]: McCain *et al.* Letter, *supra* note 1, at 4.

[^3]: *Id*.

[^4]: *Id*.

[^5]: Television Bureau of Advertising, *TV Basics: Television
    Households* (visited Feb. 17, 2000)
    \<[www.tvb.org/tvfacts/tvbasics/basics1.html\>](http://www.tvb.org/tvfacts)
    (citing Nielsen Media Research).

[^6]: Nielsen Media Research, *2000 Report on Television* 13 ("*2000
    Report on Television*").

[^7]: Television Bureau of Advertising, TV Basics: *Television Reach:
    Broadcast vs. Cable* (visited Feb. 17, 2000)
    \<[www.tvb.org/tvfacts/tvbasics/basics19.html](http://www.tvb.org/tvfacts/tvbasics/basics19.html)\>
    (citing Nielsen Media Research).

[^8]: Television Bureau of Advertising, *TV Basics: Time Spent & Daily
    Reach by Major Media* (visited Feb. 17, 2000)
    \<[www.tvb.org/tvfacts/tvbasicsbasics21.html](http://www.tvb.org/tvfacts/tvbasicsbasics21.html)
    \>.

[^9]: Roper Starch, *America's Watching: Public Attitudes Toward
    Television* 12 (1997) ("*America's Watching*").

[^10]: *2000 Report on Television*, *supra* note 6, at 14.

[^11]: Kaiser Family Foundation, *Kids & Media @ the New Millennium* 20
    (1999) ("Kaiser Report").

[^12]: *America's Watching*, *supra* note 9, at 9-10.

[^13]: *Id*. at 3.

[^14]: *Id*. at 4, 10.

[^15]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 307(a), 309(a). *See also* 47 U.S.C. § 307(c)(1)
    (renewals of licenses), 47 U.S.C. § 310(d) (transfers of licenses).
    This has been a bedrock principle of broadcast regulation, dating
    back to the Radio Act of 1927, 44 Stat. 1162.

[^16]: *See* C. Edwin Baker, Advertising and a Democratic Press (1994).

[^17]: Federal Management of the Radio Spectrum: Advanced Television
    Services: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Telecomm. and Fin. of the
    House Comm. on Commerce, 104^th^ Cong. 82 (1996) (statement of
    Robert M. Pepper, Chief, Office of Plans and Policy, FCC) (stating
    that an auction would bring between \$11 to \$70 billion in
    revenue).

[^18]: For example, in 1928 the FRC emphasized the need for a licensee
    to present a balanced fare of programming, and expressed its belief
    that it was "entitled to consider the program service rendered by
    various applicants, to compare them, and to favor those which render
    the best service." Federal Radio Commission, Annual Report to
    Congress 161 (1928). The FRC's broadcast license renewal forms
    sought information on past programming, including the average
    amounts of time devoted to entertainment, religious, commercial,
    educational, agricultural, and fraternal programs.

[^19]: *See* Federal Communications Commission, Public Service
    Responsibility of Broadcast Licensees (1946). The Blue Book was one
    of the first major FCC policy statements on programming. It equated
    the public interest with "well balanced" programming and stated that
    the Commission would consider certain types of programming in its
    public interest evaluation (*i.e*., local and network programming
    carried on a sustaining \[noncommercial\] basis, local live
    programs, programming devoted to a discussion of public issues, and
    stations efforts to limit the amount of commercial advertising).

[^20]: *See* Report & Statement of Policy Res: Commission *En Banc*
    Programming Inquiry, 44 FCC 2303 (1960) ("*En Banc Programming
    Inquiry Report*"). This report stated that the public interest, in
    part, required that licensees ascertain the needs and interest of
    the service areas and "reasonably attempt to meet all such needs on
    an equitable basis." *Id*. at 2314. It listed fourteen elements of
    programming that would usually be necessary to meet the public
    interest: (1) opportunity for local self-expression, (2) the
    development and use of local talent, (3) programs for children, (4)
    religious programs, (5) educational programs, (6) public affairs
    programs, (7) editorialization by licensees, (8) political
    broadcasts, (9) agricultural programs, (10) news programs, (11)
    weather and market reports, (12) sports programs, (13) service to
    minority groups, and (14) entertainment programs. The Commission
    stated that these elements were "neither all-embracing nor constant"
    and accorded great weight to the licensee's "honest and prudent
    judgment" in meeting its public interest obligations. *Id.*

[^21]: Amendment of Section IV (Statement of Program Service) of
    Broadcast Application Forms, Docket No. 13961, *Report and Order*, 5
    FCC 2d 175 (1966); Primer on Ascertainment of Community Problems by
    Broadcast Applicants, Docket No. 18774, *Report and Order*, 27 FCC
    2d 650 (1971); Ascertainment of Community Problems by Renewal
    Applicants, Docket No. 19715, *First Report and Order*, 57 FCC 2d
    418 (1975) ("*Ascertainment First Report and Order*"), *recon
    granted in part*, 61 FCC 2d 1 (1976). The ascertainment requirements
    contained detailed methodologies for ascertaining the problems,
    needs, and interests of a broadcaster's community, some of which
    were to be addressed by programming.

[^22]: Under the guidelines, broadcast license renewal applications
    containing entertainment programming proposals falling below a
    certain percentage benchmark could not receive routine staff
    processing, but would instead be referred to the full Commission for
    review.

[^23]: Revision of Programming and Commercialization Policies,
    Ascertainment Requirements, and Program Requirements for Commercial
    Television Stations*, Report and Order*, 98 FCC 2d 1076, 1077 (1984)
    ("*TV Deregulation Order*").

[^24]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.3526(a)(8)-(9), 73.3527(a)(7).

[^25]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 312(a)(7), 315; 47 C.F.R. § 73.1941 (equal
    opportunities); 47 C.F.R. § 73.1942 (candidate rates), 47 C.F.R. §
    73.1944 (reasonable access).

[^26]: Children's Television Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-437, 104 Stat.
    996-1000, *codified at* 47 U.S.C. §§ 303a, 303b, 394; 47 C.F.R.
    73.670 (advertising), 47 C.F.R. § 73.671 (educational and
    informational programming).

[^27]: 18 U.S.C. § 1464; 47 C.F.R. § 73.3999.

[^28]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.2080.

[^29]: 47 C.F.R. Part 79.

[^30]: 47 U.S.C. § 336(d) ("Nothing in this section shall be construed
    as relieving a television broadcast station from its obligation to
    serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity."). *See also*
    Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact Upon the Existing
    Television Broadcast Service, MM Docket No. 87-268, *Fifth Report &
    Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 12810, 12830, ¶ 50 (1997) (*Fifth Report &
    Order*) (stating that "existing public interest requirements
    continue to apply to all broadcast licensees" and that "the
    Commission may adopt new public interest rules for digital
    television").

[^31]: Public Interest Obligations of TV Broadcast Licensees, MM Docket
    No. 99-360, *Notice of Inquiry*, 14 FCC Rcd 21,633 (1999) ("*NOI*").
    A copy of the *NOI* is attached to this report. Comments and reply
    comments filed in response to the NOI are referred to in this report
    in the following manner: "\[Name of Commenter\] Comments at \[page
    number\]" and "\[Name of Commenter\] Reply Comments at \[page
    number\]."

[^32]: Exec. Order No. 13,038, 62 Fed. reg. 12,065 (1997). The original
    executive order stated that the Committee would consist of not more
    than fifteen members, but subsequent executive orders ultimately
    amended that number up to twenty-five. *See* Exec. Order No. 13,062,
    62 Fed. Reg. 51,755 (1997); Exec. Order No. 13,065, 62 Fed. Reg.
    55,329 (1997).

[^33]: For example, PBTV's steering committee members include Children
    Now, Civil Rights Forum on Communications Policy, Communications
    Workers of America, Consumer Federation of America, League of United
    Latin American Citizens, National Association for the Deaf, National
    Organization for Women, National Urban League, Project on Media
    Ownership, and U.S. Catholic Conference.

[^34]: The Advisory's Committee report is entitled *Charting the Digital
    Broadcasting Future: Final Report of the Advisory Committee on
    Public Interest Obligations of Digital Television Broadcasters*
    ("Advisory Committee Report"). The Report has been filed in this
    docket, and is available through the Internet at
    \<[www.benton.org/PIAC](http://www.benton.org/PIAC)\> or
    \<[www.ntia.doc.gov/pubintadvcom](http://www.ntia.doc.gov/pubintadvcom)\>.

[^35]: Letter from Vice President Gore to William E. Kennard, Chairman,
    FCC (Oct. 20, 1999). A copy of this letter has been placed in the
    record of this proceeding.

[^36]: Letter from PBTV to William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (Nov. 16,
    1999). A copy of this letter has been placed in the record of this
    proceeding.

[^37]: Children's Television Obligations of Digital Television
    Broadcasters, MM Docket No. 00-167, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*,
    FCC 00-344 (adopted Sept. 14, 2000) ("*DTV Children's Notice*"). A
    copy of the *DTV Children's Notice* is attached to this report.

[^38]: Standardized and Enhanced Disclosure Requirements for Television
    Broadcast Licensee Public Interest Obligations, MM Docket No.
    00-168, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, FCC 00-345 (adopted Sept.
    14, 2000) ("*Enhanced Disclosure Notice*"). A copy of the *Enhanced
    Disclosure Notice* is attached to this report.

[^39]: A transcript of the hearing (as well as the panelists' prepared
    written statements) have been made a part of the record in this
    proceeding. Panelists' written statements are referred to in this
    report in the following manner: "\[Name of Panelist\] FCC Hearing
    Statement at \[page number\]."

[^40]: The NAB had created earlier voluntary codes for radio.

[^41]: *United States v. NAB*, 536 F. Supp. 149 (1982).

[^42]: The principles, entitled "Statement of Principles of Radio and
    Television Broadcasting," are set forth in the Advisory Committee
    Report, *supra* note 34, at 127-129.

[^43]: *Id*. at 127-129.

[^44]: McCain *et al.* Letter, *supra* note 1, at 4.

[^45]: *Id*.

[^46]: *Id*. at 5.

[^47]: Statement of Senator Sam Brownback, FCC Hearing, at 4 (Oct. 16,
    2000).

[^48]: *See, e.g.,* Letter from Hon. Robert A. Brady, U.S. House of
    Representatives, to William Kennard, Chairman, FCC (Sept. 26, 2000)
    ("Brady Letter").

[^49]: McCain *et al.* Letter, *supra* note 1, at 5.

[^50]: Advisory Committee Report, *supra* note 34, at 46.

[^51]: *Id*.

[^52]: *Id*. at 106-114. The Advisory Committee believes that the
    antitrust laws do not present an obstacle to the proposed code.
    *See* *id*. at 120-121. This is supported by an interpretation from
    the Department of Justice. *See* Letter from Sheila F. Anthony,
    Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Dep't of Justice, to Hon. Paul
    Simon, U.S. Senate (Nov. 29, 1993) (set forth in Advisory Committee
    Report, *supra* note 34, at 123-126).

[^53]: *See, e.g.,* Advisory Committee Report, *supra* note 34, at 80-81
    (Statement of Robert W. Decherd, Harold C. Crump, & William F.
    Duhamel) (supporting industry code in some manner), at 86 (Statement
    of James F. Goodman) (stating that "\[a\] voluntary code should be
    put in place to encourage higher than minimum standards for the
    broadcast industry"), at 90 (Statement of Paul A. LaCamera)
    (supporting industry voluntary code).

[^54]: Television Digest, *Democrat Pleas for New TV Code Fall on Deaf
    Ears at NAB* (Aug. 14, 2000) (noting that "after dozens of personal
    and telephone contacts with TV executives -- including several on
    NAB TV board -- not a single one said they would advocate new
    program standards. As one put it: 'That idea doesn't have as much as
    a snowball in hell does of surviving.'")

[^55]: Advisory Committee Report, *supra* note 34, at 92 (Separate
    Statement of Newton Minow) (noting that when the Advisory Committee
    asked NAB whether it would revive its code if Congress exempted it
    from antitrust law, the answer was no and that the marketplace is
    the solution).

[^56]: E-mail from Mark Nordstrom to Rachel Anderson (Apr. 24, 2000)
    (attached to Benton Reply Comments, Appendix A at 1).

[^57]: NAB, *A National Report on Local Broadcasters' Community Service*
    64 (April 2000).

[^58]: *TV Deregulation Order*, 98 FCC 2d at 1091.

[^59]: *Id*. at 1077.

[^60]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.1810(d)(1)(iv) (repealed in 1984).

[^61]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.1810(d)(1)(iii) (repealed in 1984).

[^62]: The Advisory Committee recommended that the Commission adopt
    minimum requirements in the areas of community outreach,
    accountability, public service announcements, public affairs
    programming, and closed captioning. Advisory Committee Report,
    *supra* note 34, at 48.

[^63]: *Id*.

[^64]: *Id*. at 72. To ensure that local public affairs programming is
    available to the most people, these Advisory Committee members also
    recommended that the Commission require broadcasters to air a
    significant amount of such programming during peak times, and
    prohibit them from airing any programming to fulfill the requirement
    during over night hours. *Id*. at 73.

[^65]: 14 FCC Rcd at 21642-21643, ¶¶ 20-21.

[^66]: Benton Comments at 2-3.

[^67]: NAB Comments at 33-38.

[^68]: PBTV Comments at 16-18 (describing complaints of citizens in
    Arizona, California, and Massachusetts about lack of local public
    affairs programming).

[^69]: *Id*. at 17.

[^70]: *Id*. at 16-23.

[^71]: Brady Letter, *supra* note 48, at 2; PBTV at 4-6.

[^72]: UCC Comments at 15-16. UCC also recommended that the Commission
    regulate the time of day during which broadcasters may show local
    public affairs programming to fulfill the processing guideline.
    *Id*. at 15.

[^73]: 47 U.S.C. § 335(b)(1); 47 C.F.R. § 100.5.

[^74]: *See e.g.,* Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional
    Journalists (1996) ("Journalists should . . . Diligently seek out
    subjects of news stories to give them an opportunity to respond to
    allegations of wrongdoing . . . Support the open exchange of views,
    even views they find repugnant. Give voice to the voiceless . . .").

[^75]: *See* Benton Comments at Attachment A; PBTV Comments at Tab B-1.

[^76]: *See TV Deregulation Order*, 98 FCC 2d at 1081.

[^77]: *See* UCC Comments at 19.

[^78]: 229 F.3d 269 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

[^79]: Repeal or Modification of the Personal Attack and Political
    Editorial Rules, MM Docket No. 83-484, *Order*, FCC 00-386 (adopted
    Oct. 26, 2000).

[^80]: The political editorial rule provided that if a licensee ran an
    editorial supporting or opposing a legally qualified candidate for
    an elective office, the licensee was required to inform all other
    qualified candidates of the editorial and provide a reasonable
    opportunity for the candidate or the candidate\'s spokesperson to
    respond over the licensee\'s facilities. 47 C.F.R. § 73.1930 (now
    repealed). The personal attack rule provided that if an attack was
    made on someone\'s character, honesty, integrity or like personal
    qualities during a presentation of views on a controversial issue of
    public importance, the licensee was required to inform that person
    or group of the attack and provide a reasonable opportunity for
    response over the licensee\'s facilities. News coverage and
    statements made in political campaigns were generally exempt. 47
    C.F.R. § 73.1920 (now repealed).

[^81]: *RTNDA*, 229 F.3d at 272.

[^82]: Sister Mary Parks FCC Hearing Statement at 1-2.

[^83]: United States Catholic Conference Comments at 1, 3-9.

[^84]: *Id*. at 1.

[^85]: Advisory Committee Report, *supra* note 34, at 55.

[^86]: Alexandra Kol Comments at 3.

[^87]: 47 U.S.C. § 531.

[^88]: Letter from Susan Hiltz Grover, Executive Director, Prevention
    Coalition of Southeast Michigan, to William Kennard, Chairman, FCC
    (attached to PBTV Comments at Tab D-3b).

[^89]: Letter from Mary Ellen Guest, Executive Director, Working in the
    Schools, to William Kennard, Chairman, FCC (March 22, 2000)
    (attached to PBTV Comments at Tab D-3b).

[^90]: *See Television Deregulation Order*, 98 FCC 2d at 1091.

[^91]: Advisory Committee Report, *supra* note 34, at 48.

[^92]: Sister Mary Parks FCC Hearing Statement at 1-2.

[^93]: Victoria Rideout FCC Hearing Statement at 4. Ms. Rideout also
    reports that the Kaiser Family Foundation is currently conducting a
    major study of public service advertising, and that more data will
    be available on this topic when that study is completed *Id*.

[^94]: NAB Comments at 35.

[^95]: Brady Letter, *supra* note 48, at 2; PBTV at 23-24.

[^96]: Brady Letter, *supra* note 48, at 2; PBTV at 23-24.

[^97]: Letter from Dorothy Garrick to William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC
    (Mar. 7, 2000) (attached to PBTV Comments at Tab D-2b).

[^98]: *TV Deregulation Order*, 98 FCC 2d at 1091.

[^99]: *Ascertainment First Report and Order*, 57 FCC 2d at 441-46 App.
    B; *TV Deregulation Order*, 98 FCC 2d at 1097.

[^100]: *TV Deregulation Order*, 98 FCC 2d at 1098-1101.

[^101]: *Id.* at 1077.

[^102]: 14 FCC Rcd at 21640, ¶ 15.

[^103]: *Id*. at 21641, ¶ 16.

[^104]: United States Catholic Conference Comments at 1.

[^105]: Benton Comments at 7.

[^106]: Advisory Committee Report, *supra* note 34, at 105.

[^107]: NAB Comments at 25-26; State Broadcasters Associations Comments
    at 3, 5.

[^108]: PBTV Comments at 31.

[^109]: *Id*. at 24-26.

[^110]: *Enhanced Disclosure Notice*, FCC 00-345.

[^111]: 14 FCC Rcd at 21641, ¶ 17.

[^112]: NAB Comments at 29. NAB asked whether stations would be required
    to respond to electronic mail messages, alter their programming in
    response to any messages objecting to certain programs, and if so,
    how would its compliance with such requirements be measured? *Id*.
    at n.53.

[^113]: *Id*. at 29.

[^114]: PBTV Comments at 27.

[^115]: *Id*.

[^116]: TDI Comments at 6.

[^117]: PBTV Comments at 29 (citing Brian Savoie, Summary of Web
    Activity of Television Stations at
    \<[www.nab.org/Research/webbriefs/WebActiv.html](http://www.nab.org/Research/webbriefs/WebActiv.html)\>
    (visited Jan. 26, 2000)).

[^118]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.3526(e)(11)(i), 73.3527(e)(8). Broadcasters must
    also maintain information on children's programming, 47 C.F.R. §
    73.3526(e)(11)(ii) and (iii), political discussions, 47 C.F.R. §§
    73.3526(e)(6), 73.3527(e)(5), and documents on station operations
    and management, 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.3526(e), 73.3527(e), in each
    station's public inspection file.

[^119]: *See* PBTV Comments at 28.

[^120]: *Id*. at 30.

[^121]: 14 FCC Rcd at 21640, ¶ 15 (citing Advisory Committee Report,
    *supra* note 34, at 45-46). For example, the Commission sought
    comment on the Advisory Committee Report's recommendation that the
    enhanced disclosures "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." *NOI*, 14 FCC Rcd at 21640, ¶ 15 (citing Advisory
    Committee Report, *supra* note 34, at 45-46).

[^122]: 14 FCC Rcd at 21641, ¶ 16.

[^123]: NAB Comments at 24. *See* State Broadcasters Associations at 4
    (stating that the Commission should not impose additional
    requirements on "the new and rapidly developing digital
    technology").

[^124]: NMTV Comments at 4.

[^125]: Media Institute Comments at 32.

[^126]: NAB Comments at 24-25.

[^127]: Benton Comments at 14; PBTV Comments at 24-31; TDI Comments at
    6; UCC Comments at 24; United States Catholic Conference Comments at
    3; WGBH Comments at 5-6.

[^128]: *Enhanced Disclosure Notice*, FCC 00-345, at ¶ 13.

[^129]: 14 FCC Rcd at 21641, ¶ 17.

[^130]: NAB Comments at 27-28.

[^131]: *Id*. at 27 and 30. The Commission currently allows licensees to
    maintain their public inspection file in computer databases and
    stations that maintain the file in a computer database must also
    make a computer terminal available to the public at the location of
    the file. 47 C.F.R. § 73.3526(c)(1).

[^132]: Benton Comments at 14; TDI Comments at 6; UCC Comments at 24;
    WGBH Comments at 5.

[^133]: UCC Comments at 25.

[^134]: *See* PBTV Comments at 27-29; R. Jackson Pope Comments at 6-7.

[^135]: *See* TDI Comments at 6 and WGBH Comments at 6 (stating that
    websites should be designed to meet the World Wide Web Consortium's
    Web Accessibility Initiative guidelines).

[^136]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.3526(b) (requiring commercial broadcast
    licensees to maintain public inspection files at a station's main
    studio).

[^137]: *See* PBTV Comments at 28.

[^138]: *See id*.

[^139]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.3526(c)(1). Stations may also maintain all or
    part of the file in a computer database as long as a computer
    terminal is made available to the public at the location of the
    file. *Id*. Licensees that maintain a station's main studio and
    public file outside its community of license must provide
    photocopies of documents to persons within the station's geographic
    service area by mail upon telephone request. *Id*. § 73.3526(c)(2).

[^140]: UCC Comments at 25.

[^141]: Advisory Committee Report, *supra* note 34, at 46; Benton
    Comments at 14.

[^142]: Letter from Doshia Harris to William Kennard, Chairman, FCC
    (Feb. 28, 2000) (attached to PBTV Comments at Tab D-2a).

[^143]: Kaiser Report, *supra* note 11, at 20.

[^144]: S. Rep. No. 227, 101^st^ Cong., 1^st^ Sess. 17 (1989) ("CTA
    Senate Report").

[^145]: *See* CTA Senate Report at 5-9.

[^146]: *See* Policies and Rules Concerning Children's Television
    Programming, Revision of Programming Policies for Television
    Broadcast Stations, MM Docket No. 93-48, *Report and Order*, 11 FCC
    Rcd 10660, 10664-10665 (1996) ("*Children's Television Report and
    Order*").

[^147]: Pat Nugent FCC Hearing Statement at 2.

[^148]: *En Banc Programming Inquiry Report*, 44 FCC 2303 (1960)
    (stating that children are one of the several groups whose
    programming needs television licensees must meet to fulfill their
    community public interest responsibilities).

[^149]: Petition of Action for Children's Television (ACT) for
    Rulemaking Looking Toward the Elimination of Sponsorship and
    Commercial Content in Children's Programming and the Establishment
    of a Weekly 14-Hour Quota of Children's Television Programs, Docket
    No. 19142, *Children's Television Report and Policy Statement*, 50
    FCC 2d 1 (1974) ("*Children's Television Report and Policy
    Statement*"), *affd*., *Action for Children's Television v. FCC*,
    564 F.2d 458 (D.C. Cir. 1977).

[^150]: Children's Television Programming and Advertising Practices,
    Docket No. 19142, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 75 FCC 2d 138
    (1979). The 1979 *Notice* proposed to require that all commercial
    television stations provide five hours per week of educational
    programming for preschool children (ages two to five) and two and
    one-half hours per week of educational programming for school age
    children (ages six to twelve). *Id*. at 148.

[^151]: Children's Television Programming and Advertising Practices, MM
    Docket No. 19142, *Report and Order*, 96 FCC 2d 634 (1984), *aff'd*,
    *Action for Children's Television v. FCC*, 756 F.2d 899 (D.C. Cir.
    1985).

[^152]: Ellen Wartella, Katherine Heintz, Amy Aidman, and Sharon
    Mazzarella, *Television and Beyond: Children's Video Media in One
    Community*, Communication Research (1990); Dennis Kerkman, Dale
    Kunkel, Alethea Huston, John Wright, and Marites Pinon, *Children's
    Television Programming and the "Free Market" Solution*, Journalism
    Quarterly (1990).

[^153]: Children's Television Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-437, 104
    Stat. 996-1000, *codified at* 47 U.S.C. §§ 303a, 303b, 394. The
    Senate Report on the CTA cited the Commission's 1984 decisions as
    precipitating factors in the enactment of the CTA. *See* Senate
    Report at 4-5.

[^154]: CTA Senate Report, supra note 144, at 7.

[^155]: 47 U.S.C. § 303b.

[^156]: *See Children's Television Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 10660.
    The Commission first adopted rules implementing the CTA's
    educational programming mandate in 1991. These rules included a very
    flexible definition of educational programming, did not establish
    quantitative guidelines regarding the amount of educational
    programming licensees were required to provide, and did not include
    measures designed to inform the public about educational
    programming. Within a few years after these initial rules took
    effect, questions began to be raised regarding the effectiveness of
    the new rules, and in particular about the content of the programs
    stations claimed were educational.

[^157]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.673.

[^158]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.3526(a)(11)(iii).

[^159]: For an experimental period of three years after the effective
    date of the 1996 rules, the Reports were required to be filed with
    the Commission on an annual basis, and can be accessed by the public
    through the FCC's children's television webpage. The Commission has
    adopted a *Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking* today that extends indefinitely the requirement that
    Children's Television Programming Reports be filed with the
    Commission, requires that they be filed quarterly rather than
    annually, makes certain changes to the form, and seeks comment on
    whether to require that broadcasters post the reports on their own
    websites. *See* Extension of the Filing Requirement for Children's
    Television Programming Reports (FCC Form 398), MM Docket No. 00-44,
    *Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, FCC
    00-343 (rel. Oct. 5, 2000) ("*Form 398 Report and Order*" and "*Form
    398 Further Notice*").

[^160]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.671(c).

[^161]: *Id*.

[^162]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.671, Note 2.

[^163]: *Id*. In this regard, specials, public service announcements
    (PSAs), short-form programs, and regularly scheduled non-weekly
    programs with a significant purpose of educating and informing
    children can count toward the three-hour processing guideline. *Id*.

[^164]: *Id*. At a Commission-level review, licensees can demonstrate
    compliance with the CTA by relying, in part, for example, on
    sponsorship of core programs on other stations in the market that
    increases the amount of core educational and informational
    programming on the station airing the sponsored program or on
    special nonbroadcast efforts which enhance the value of children's
    educational and informational programming. *Id*.

[^165]: Kelly L. Schmidt, *The Three-Hour Rule: Is It Living Up To
    Expectations?*, The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University
    of Pennsylvania (1999) ("*1999 Annenberg Three-Hour Review*").

[^166]: Children Now Comments at 30-31. In addition, the PBTV assessment
    of local station compliance shows that stations are not consistently
    labeling their core programming as required by the Commission's
    rules, and that some stations are not identifying the target age
    group for which the program is designed.

[^167]: *1999 Annenberg Three-Hour Review*, *supra* note 165.

[^168]: Children Now Comments at 39-41.

[^169]: *DTV Children's Notice*, FCC 00-345*. See also NOI*, 14 FCC Rcd
    at 21638, 21639, at ¶¶ 11, 13.

[^170]: These groups filed joint comments responding to the *NOI*, along
    with Junkbusters, the National Alliance for Non-Violent Programming,
    Privacy Times, and Public Advocacy for Kids.

[^171]: Advisory Committee Report, *supra* note 34, at § IV.

[^172]: *See Children's Television Report and Policy Statement*, 50 FCC
    2d 1.

[^173]: Policies and Rules Concerning Children's Television Programming,
    MM Docket No. 90-570, Revision of Programming and Commercialization
    Policies, Ascertainment Requirements, and Program Log Requirements
    for Commercial Television Stations, MM Docket No. 83-670, *Report
    and Order*, 6 FCC Rcd 2111, 2112 (1991).

[^174]: The Commission recently adopted a *Further Notice of Proposed
    Rule Making* seeking comment on the tentative conclusion that
    commercial broadcast television licensees that maintain a website be
    required to post their quarterly Children's Television Programming
    Reports on these sites. *See Form 398 Further Notice*, FCC 00-343.

[^175]: *See, e.g.,* Amy B. Jordan, *Is the Three-Hour Rule Living Up to
    Its Potential? An Analysis of Educational Television for Children in
    the 1999/2000 Broadcast Season*, Annenberg Public Policy Center of
    the University of Pennsylvania, 2000.

[^176]: Kathryn Montgomery FCC Hearing Statement at 3.

[^177]: 14 FCC Rcd at 21638, ¶ 12.

[^178]: Anne Sweeney FCC Hearing Statement at 1.

[^179]: Pat Nugent FCC Hearing Statement at 2.

[^180]: *Id*.

[^181]: *Id*. at 3.

[^182]: American Psychological Association, *Big World Small Screen*
    (1992).

[^183]: Dale Kunkel FCC Hearing Statement at 3 (summarizing the
    *National Television Violence Study*; University of California,
    Santa Barbara; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; University
    of Texas, Austin; University of Wisconsin, Madison; Mediascope Inc.
    (1994-1995)).

[^184]: Dale Kunkel FCC Hearing Statement at 3-4.

[^185]: S. Robert Lichter, Linda S. Lichter, Dan Amundson,
    *Merchandizing Mayhem, Violence in Popular Culture*, Center for
    Media and Public Affairs, September 1999, at 2.

[^186]: Donald E. Cook, MD, President, American Academy of Pediatrics;
    L. Michael Honaker, PhD., Deputy Chief Executive Officer, American
    Psychological Association; Clarice Kestenbaum, MD, President,
    American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry; Dr. E.
    Ratcliffe Anderson, Jr., MD, Executive Vice President, American
    Medical Association; Bruce Bagly, MD, President, American Academy of
    Family Physicians; and Daniel B. Bornstein, MD, President, American
    Psychiatric Association; *Joint Statement on the Impact of
    Entertainment Violence on Children*, Congressional Public Health
    Summit, July 26, 2000.

[^187]: Joanne Cantor FCC Hearing Statement at 1-2.

[^188]: Dale Kunkel, PhD, Kirstie M. Cope, Wendy Jo Maynard Farinola,
    Erica Biely, Emma Rollen, Edward Donnerstein, PhD, *Sex on TV, A
    Biennial Report to the Kaiser Family Foundation*, (1999) ("*Sex on
    TV*").

[^189]: *What a Difference a Decade Makes*, Parents Television Council
    (2000).

[^190]: *The Family Hour, Worse Than Ever and Headed for New Lows*,
    Parents Television Council (August 1999).

[^191]: *Sex on TV*, *supra* note 188, Key Findings at 2.

[^192]: Victoria Rideout FCC Hearing Statement at 2. This information
    can also be educational. For example, Kaiser Family Foundation
    surveys suggest that as many as five million viewers learned about
    the existence of emergency contraception after watching an *ER*
    episode, and that a significant number of viewers investigated
    sexual health issues after watching programs on BET and MTV. *Id*.
    at 3-4.

[^193]: *Sex on TV*, *supra* note 188, Executive Summary at 1.

[^194]: *Id*.

[^195]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.3999 (implementing 18 U.S.C. § 1464, the criminal
    law relating to transmission of obscene and indecent material).

[^196]: For programs designed solely for children, the ratings
    categories are: TV-Y (suitable for all children), TV-Y7 (directed to
    children 7 and above). For programs designed for the entire
    audience, the ratings categories are: TV-G (general audience), TV-PG
    (parental guidance suggested -- program contains material parents
    may find unsuitable for younger children), TV-14 (parents strongly
    cautioned - program may contain material unsuitable for children
    under 14), TV-MA (mature audience only -- program is designed to be
    viewed by adults and therefore may be unsuitable for children under
    17).

[^197]: Section 551 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Video
    Programming Ratings, CS Docket No. 97-55, *Report and Order*, 11 FCC
    Rcd 8232 (1998).

[^198]: Robert Peters FCC Hearing Statement at 3.

[^199]: Dale Kunkel FCC Hearing Statement at 4. The age-based ratings
    are TV-G, TV-PG, TV-14, TV-MA.

[^200]: *Id*. at 5. The four content descriptors for general audience
    programs are "V" for violence, "S" for sex, "D" for sexual dialogue,
    and "L" for language. Another content descriptor for children's
    programming is "FV" for fantasy violence.

[^201]: *Id*.

[^202]: Joanne Cantor FCC Hearing Statement at 3.

[^203]: 14 FCC Rcd at 21639, ¶ 12.

[^204]: FTC, *Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children: A Review of
    Self-Regulation and Industry Practices in the Motion Picture, Music
    Recording, & Electronic Game Industries* (2000) ("FTC Report").

[^205]: *Id*. at 14-15.

[^206]: *Id*. at 15.

[^207]: *Id*. at 32-33, 48-49.

[^208]: *See, e.g., DTV Children's Notice*, FCC 00-344. Separate
    Statement of Commissioner Gloria Tristani at 1 (setting forth e-mail
    from viewer expressing concern that Discovery Channel aired ads
    shown during program identified as "Discovery Kids" on Sunday
    morning); Letter of James C. Jones, President & Chief Executive
    Officer, ChildServ to William Kennard, Chairman, FCC (set forth at
    PBTV at Tab D-3a) (expressing concern that local broadcast station
    aired ads for adult programs during its Saturday morning lineup).

[^209]: *DTV Children's Notice*, FCC 00-344, at ¶ 35.

[^210]: *Id*. at ¶ 36.

[^211]: Letter from Cynthia Carey, Director, Illinois Campaign for
    Political Reform, to William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC, Feb. 28,
    2000 (attached to PBTV Comments at Tab D-3a).

[^212]: *See, e.g.,* Licensee Responsibility as to Political Broadcasts,
    15 FCC 2d 94 (1968).

[^213]: 14 FCC Rcd at 21647, ¶ 34 (citing NAB, *Broadcasters Bringing
    Community Service Home: A National Report on the Broadcast
    Industry's Community Service* 2 (April 1998).

[^214]: 14 FCC Rcd at 21648, ¶ 34.

[^215]: *See* University of Southern California Annenberg School of
    Communications Report, *TV News Coverage of the 1998 California
    Governors Race* (Jan. 22, 1999). In addition, more recently, the
    University of Southern California found that the typical local
    television station devoted 39 seconds a night to candidate discourse
    in the month preceding the 2000 primaries in its market, and the
    University of Pennsylvania found that the three largest broadcast
    networks devoted on average 36 seconds a night to candidate-centered
    discourse in the month preceding Super Tuesday. *See* Statement of
    Paul Taylor at 1.

[^216]: Jim Rutenberg, *TV Notes: Fox Decides Against Debates*, N.Y.
    Times, Sept. 27, 2000 (available at
    \<[www.nytimes.com/2000/09/23/politics/23DEBA.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/23/politics/23DEBA.html)\>).

[^217]: Howard Kurtz, *NBC Tosses Debate Choice to Affiliates: Stations
    Can Pick Between Politics and Playoffs*, Washington Post, Sept. 30,
    2000, at C-1.

[^218]: Kathy Chen, *Fox, NBC Get Static for Not Airing Debate Live*,
    Wall Street Journal, Oct. 4, 2000 at A-28. Although more NBC
    affiliates ultimately showed the debate via tape-delay,
    approximately one-fourth of NBC's affiliates never showed the debate
    at all. Nicholas Kulish, *The Homestretch*, Wall St. Journal, Oct.
    5, 2000 at A-28.

[^219]: *Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes*, 523 U.S.
    666, 676 (1998) (quoting Congressional Research Service, Campaign
    Debates in Presidential General Elections, summ. (June 15, 1993).

[^220]: Alliance for Better Campaigns *et al.* Comments at 2.

[^221]: Paul Taylor FCC Hearing Statement at 2.

[^222]: NBC elected to allow its affiliates to choose whether to show
    baseball or the debate.

[^223]: Paul Taylor FCC Hearing Statement at 3.

[^224]: Jim Rutenberg, *The 2000 Campaign: The Viewers*, N.Y. Times,
    Oct. 19, 2000, at A28.

[^225]: Paul LaCamera FCC Hearing Statement at 3.

[^226]: *See* Advisory Committee Report, *supra* note 34, at § III.6(b).
    The Advisory Committee recommends airing the discourse between 5:00
    p.m. and 11:35 p.m. (or the appropriate Central and Mountain time
    zones). Henry Geller, a former general counsel to the Commission,
    and a panelist at the Commission's recent hearing, supports
    requiring broadcasters to provide a small amount of time dedicated
    to candidate-centered discourse for a fixed number of days before an
    election. *See* Petition for Rulemaking, filed by Henry Geller *et
    al.* on October 21, 1993 ("Geller *et* *al*. Petition").

[^227]: Press Release, *CBS Television Announces Unprecedented
    Commitment to Political Coverage and Candidate-Centered Discourse:
    Five Minutes To Air Daily Within News Broadcasts On CBS Television's
    Stations During Final Weeks of the 2000 Election Campaign* (Sept.
    28, 2000).

[^228]: Alliance for Better Campaigns, *NBC Stations Join CBS in Nightly
    Commitment to Candidate Discourse: ABC, Fox are Holdouts on Public
    Interest Standard for Five Minutes a Night*
    (\<[www.bettercampaigns.org/documents/rele10400.html](http://www.bettercampaigns.org/documents/rele10400.html)\>)
    (visited Oct. 6, 2000).

[^229]: Alliance for Better Campaigns, *Greedy TV: The Greedies & Good
    Guys: The Good Guys*
    \<[www.greedytv.org/greedies/goodguys.php3](http://www.greedytv.org/greedies/goodguys.php3)\>
    (visited Oct. 6, 2000). *See also* Paul LaCamera FCC Hearing
    Statement at 2-3 (noting that Boston Hearst-Argyle station WCVB was
    the first station in the country to commit to airing five minutes of
    candidate-centered discourse 30 days before an election, and that
    all twenty-four Hearst-Argyle stations have now committed to doing
    so).

[^230]: Alliance for Better Campaigns, *Alliance for Better Campaigns
    Applauds CBS For Committing to Air Nightly Candidate Issue Forums*
    \<[www.bettercampaigns.org/documents/rele92800.html](http://www.bettercampaigns.org/documents/rele92800.html)\>
    (visited Oct. 4, 2000).

[^231]: Paul Taylor FCC Hearing Statement at 2.

[^232]: Belo Comments at 33-34.

[^233]: *See* Geller *et al.* Petition, *supra* note 225.

[^234]: Advisory Committee Report, *supra* note 34, at 60.

[^235]: AAPTS Comments at 10-12.

[^236]: 47 U.S.C. § 151.

[^237]: By the early 1960\'s the development of missile guidance systems
    made the two-channel limitation obsolete. In 1963 President John F.
    Kennedy established the Emergency Broadcast System (EBS), which
    allowed stations to transmit on their normal frequencies during an
    emergency. In the mid‑1970\'s the Commission amended its rules to
    replace the CONELRAD signaling technique with the existing EBS audio
    signal. Technically, EBS was an analog transmission system that
    included an audio/analog two‑tone alerting signal that relied upon
    operator control. In 1976, a Memorandum of Understanding between the
    Commission, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather
    Service endorsed EBS for use in state and local emergencies. *See*
    Memorandum of Understanding (June 28, 1976; revised April 21, 1982).

[^238]: The new rules relaxed some requirements for noncommercial
    educational Class D FM stations and low power television stations,
    and encouraged satellite, direct broadcast satellite (DBS),
    telephone and cellular carriers, and other service providers to
    voluntarily participate. Amendment of Part 73, Subpart G, of the
    Commission's Rules Regarding the Emergency Broadcast System, FO
    Docket No. 91-301, 91-171, *Report and Order and Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, 10 FCC Rcd 1786 (1994).

[^239]: *See* Benton Comments at 15; Bernal Comments at 15. *See also*
    AAPTS Comments at 12-13.

[^240]: Most innovations will require only minimal use of the 6 MHz
    bandwidth allocated to digital broadcasters. *NOI*, 14 FCC Rcd at
    21642, ¶ 18 (quoting Advisory Committee Report, *supra* note 34, at
    § III.7)

[^241]: 14 FCC Rcd at 21642, ¶ 19.

[^242]: *See, e.g.*, Belo Comments at 28-29; Telecommunications for the
    Deaf Comments at 4-5.

[^243]: 14 FCC Rcd at 21642, ¶ 18 (quoting Advisory Committee Report,
    *supra* note 34, at § III.7).

[^244]: NAB Comments at 30-31.

[^245]: Media Institute Comments at 33.

[^246]: Telecommunications for the Deaf Comments at 4-5.

[^247]: Community Technology Council Comments at 11-12; PBTV Comments at
    35.

[^248]: Advisory Committee Report, *supra* note 34, at 60; Belo Comments
    at 28-29. *See also* NAB at 31-32.

[^249]: Consumer Federation of America Comments at 4-5.

[^250]: *See, e.g., id.* *passim*.

[^251]: Federal Trade Commission, *Privacy Online: Fair Trade Practices
    in the Electronic Marketplace* (May, 2000).

[^252]: Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998, 15 U.S.C. §
    6501 *et seq*.

[^253]: Human Rights Campaign Reply Comments at 2.

[^254]: LULAC Comments at 4.

[^255]: *See, e.g.,* Community Technology Policy Council Comments at
    4-8.

[^256]: 14 FCC Rcd at 21646, ¶ 32 (quoting Advisory Committee Report at
    § III.9).

[^257]: *Id*.

[^258]: *Id*., ¶ 31.

[^259]: *Id*. at 21647, ¶ 33.

[^260]: Lois Salisbury FCC Hearing Statement at 4.

[^261]: *Id*.

[^262]: *Id*. at 2-3.

[^263]: Human Rights Campaign Comments at 1-2.

[^264]: *See, e.g.,* Letter from Greater Boston NOW Board to William E.
    Kennard, Chairman, FCC (March 2, 2000) (attached to PBTV Comments at
    Tab D-1a).

[^265]: LULAC Comments at 4.

[^266]: *Id*. at 4-5.

[^267]: AAPTS Comments at 14-15.

[^268]: *Id*. at 34-35.

[^269]: Review of the Commission's Broadcast and Cable Equal Employment
    Opportunity Rules and Policies and Termination of the EEO
    Streamlining Proceeding, MM Docket Nos. 98-204, 96-16, *Report and
    Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 2329 (2000). The *Report and Order* also adopted
    an EEO rule applicable to cable entities.

[^270]: *Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod v. FCC*, 141 F.3d 344 (D.C.
    Cir. 1998), *pet. for reh'g denied*, 154 F.3d 487, *pet. for reh'g
    en banc denied*, 154 F.3d 494 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ("*Lutheran
    Church*").

[^271]: News Release, *FCC Chairman Applauds Media Companies'
    Commitments to EEO Principles* (July 30, 1998).

[^272]: Benton Foundation, *Broadcasting and Equal Employment
    Opportunities, Digital Beat Extra -- Media & Society* (Feb. 10,
    2000).

[^273]: *Maryland/District of Columbia/Delaware Broadcastsers Ass'n v.
    FCC*, Nos. 00-1094 & 00-1098, 2001 WL 32786, at \*1 (D.C. Cir. Jan.
    16, 2001).

[^274]: 14 FCC Rcd at 21647, ¶ 32 (quoting Advisory Committee Report,
    *supra* note 34, at § III.9).

[^275]: UCC Comments at 22-23.

[^276]: Human Rights Campaign Comments at 1-2.

[^277]: *Id*.

[^278]: Belo Comments at 32-33.

[^279]: American Foundation for the Blind Comments at 1-2.

[^280]: Closed Captioning and Video Description of Video Programming,
    Implementation of Section 305 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
    Video Programming Accessibility, MM Docket No. 95-176, *Report and
    Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 3272 (1997), *recon. granted in part and denied
    in part*, 13 FCC Rcd 19973 (1998).

[^281]: 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(b)(1). This rule applies to "new" English
    language programming. Video programming distributors must caption
    100% of new Spanish language programming by 2010, and meet other
    benchmarks before that time. 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(b)(3).

[^282]: 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(b)(2). Again, this rule applies to "pre-rule"
    English language programming. Video programming distributors must
    caption 75% of pre-rule Spanish language programming by 2012. 47
    C.F.R. § 79.1(b)(4). Pre-rule programming is defined as that first
    published or exhibited after January 1, 1998. 47 C.F.R. §
    79.1(a)(6).

[^283]: 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(d).

[^284]: Advisory Committee Report, *supra* note 34, at 61-62; Capital
    Broadcasting Comments at 10. *See also* Telecommunications for the
    Deaf Comments at 7 (arguing that DTV broadcasters should take steps
    to ensure that hard of hearing persons can participate in the
    discourse of public opinion); UCC at 20-22 (arguing that DTV
    broadcasters should caption all public interest programming).

[^285]: *NOI*, 14 FCC Rcd at 21643-21644, ¶ 25.

[^286]: CBS Comments at 48-49; NAB Comments at 39-40.

[^287]: Advisory Committee Report, *supra* note 34, at 61.

[^288]: Closed Captioning Requirements for Digital Television Receivers,
    ET Docket No. 99-254, Closed Captioning and Video Description of
    Video Programming, Implementation of Section 305 of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996, Video Programming Accessibility, MM
    Docket No. 95-176, *Report and Order*, FCC 00-259 (adopted July 21,
    2000).

[^289]: Video Description of Video Programming, MM Docket No. 99-339,
    *Report and Order*, FCC 00-258 (adopted July 21, 2000) (*Video
    Description Report & Order*).

[^290]: Advisory Committee Report, *supra* note 34, at 62.

[^291]: PBTV Letter at 3.

[^292]: American Foundation for the Blind Comments at 1; Benton Comments
    at 11; WGBH Comments at 7-8.

[^293]: WGBH Comments at 8.

[^294]: American Foundation for the Blind Comments at 2; NAB Comments at
    42; WGBH Comments at 8.

[^295]: American Foundation for the Blind Comments at 2.

[^296]: WGBH Comments at 8.

[^297]: AAPTS Comments at 15-16; Belo Comments at 30-32; CBS Comments at
    47-50; Media Institute Comments at 33-35. CBS also stated that
    mandated video description involves significant issues of Commission
    authority, copyright law, and program production, and that the
    Commission must resolve these issues. The Commission addressed each
    of these issues in the *Video Description Report and Order*.

[^298]: Advisory Committee Report, *supra* note 34, at 62.

[^299]: *NOI*, 14 FCC Rcd at 21645, ¶ 28.

[^300]: PBTV Comments at 6-7, 31-34.

[^301]: Telecommunications for the Deaf Comments at 8.

[^302]: UCC Comments at 41-42.

[^303]: *Id*.; WGBH Comments at 9.

[^304]: NAB Comments at 42-43.

[^305]: *Enhanced Disclosure Notice*, FCC 00-345 at ¶ 32 (citing TDI
    Comments at 6; WGBH Comments at 6).