U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

73–746 2012

H.R. 1084, THE COMMERCIAL ADVERTISEMENT 

LOUDNESS MITIGATION ACT (CALM); H.R. 1147, 

THE LOCAL COMMUNITY RADIO ACT OF 2009; 

AND H.R. 1133, THE FAMILY TELEPHONE CONNECTION PROTECTION ACT OF 2009 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, 

TECHNOLOGY, AND THE INTERNET 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 11, 2009 

Serial No. 111–47 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Chairman 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

BRUCE BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

(II)


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, TECHNOLOGY, AND THE INTERNET

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Ranking Member 

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

VITO FOSELLA, New York 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Rick Boucher, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Virginia, opening statement ............................................................................ 1 

Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 3 

Hon. Michael F. Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 5 

Hon. Lee Terry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nebraska, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Hon. Jerry McNerney, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 6 

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 7 

Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 8 

Hon. G.K. Butterfield, a Representative in Congress from the State of North 

Carolina, opening statement ............................................................................... 9 

Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement .................................................................................. 200 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, prepared statement .................................................. 202 

WITNESSES

Frank W. Krogh, Esquire, Morrison and Foerster LLP ....................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Curtis Hopfinger, Director of Government & Regulatory Affairs, Securus 

Technologies ......................................................................................................... 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

David Goad, National Sheriffs’ Association ........................................................... 37 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40 

Joel Kelsey, Policy Analyst, Consumers Union ..................................................... 45 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

David Donovan, President, The Association for Maximum Service Television, 

Inc. ......................................................................................................................... 52 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 54 

Jim Starzynski, Principal Engineer and Audio Architect, NBC Universal, 

Advanced Engineering ......................................................................................... 66 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 68 

Peter Doyle, Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, Federal Communications 

Commission ........................................................................................................... 77 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 79 

Caroline Beasley, Executive Vice President and CFO, Beasley Broadcast 

Group .................................................................................................................... 89 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 91 

Cheryl A. Leanza, Policy Director, United Church of Christ, Office of Communications, Inc. ....................................................................................................... 115 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 118 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Letter of June 10, 2009, from 100 Black Men of Omaha, Inc. to Subcommittee, 

submitted by Mr. Terry ....................................................................................... 206 

Letter of June 4, 2009, from Jefferson Public Radio to Mr. Walden, submitted 

by Mr. Walden ...................................................................................................... 207 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

VI 

Letter of June 3, 2009, from WVTF Public Radio to Subcommittee, submitted 

by Mr. Boucher ..................................................................................................... 210 

Letter of June 9, 2009, from American Correctional Association to Subcommittee, submitted by Mr. Boucher ............................................................... 214 

Editorial entitled, ‘‘Innocent Victims the State is Gouging Inmates’ Families,’’ 

by Errol Louis, November 16, 2004, submitted by Mr. Weiner ........................ 204 

Editorial entitled, ‘‘Dial R for Ripoff Gov Must End Prison Phone Monopoly 

that Bilks Inmates’ Kin,’’ by Errol Louis, November 15, 2005, submitted 

by Mr. Weiner ....................................................................................................... 205 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

H.R. 1084, THE COMMERCIAL ADVERTISEMENT LOUDNESS MITIGATION ACT (CALM); 

H.R. 1147, THE LOCAL COMMUNITY RADIO 

ACT OF 2009; AND H.R. 1133, THE FAMILY 

TELEPHONE CONNECTION PROTECTION 

ACT OF 2009 

THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, TECHNOLOGY, AND THE INTERNET, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Rick Boucher 

(chairman) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Boucher, Rush, Eshoo, Stupak, Doyle, Weiner, Butterfield, McNerney, Stearns, Walden, and 

Terry. 

Staff present: Roger Sherman, Chief Counsel; Shawn Chang, 

Counsel; Liz Eraker, Intern; Amy Levine, Counsel; Sarah Fisher, 

Special Assistant; Pat Delgado, Chief of Staff (Waxman); Amy 

Bender, Minority Detailee; Neil Fried, Senior Minority Counsel; 

Sam Costello, Minority Legislative Analyst; and Amanda 

McGreevy, Minority Legislative Intern. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK BOUCHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF VIRGINIA 

Mr. BOUCHER. Good morning to everyone. Before addressing the 

matters that are pending before the subcommittee today, I want to 

note that after years of planning, the digital television transition 

will take place tomorrow. I want to take this moment to thank the 

members of the staff of the FCC, to thank the personnel at NTIA 

and the broad range of stakeholders ranging from the broadcasters 

and cable to satellite companies, retailers and the manufacturers 

of converter boxes for all of their effective work that will help to 

assure a smooth digital transition. While some viewers remain unprepared, the Nielsen Survey reported this week that fully 97.5 

percent of Americans are now fully prepared and ready for tomorrow’s transition. The FCC’s call centers are staffed and ready to 

provide assistance to viewers who have difficulties connecting. I 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

have every confidence that the transition will be uneventful for the 

vast majority of Americans. 

Today the subcommittee considers three stand-alone measures, 

the first of which is H.R. 1084, the Commercial Advertisement 

Loudness Mitigation Act otherwise known as the CALM Act, introduced by our colleague from California, Ms. Eshoo, in order to address a leading consumer complaint, the volume of advertisements 

on television. All of us have had the experience of enjoying a favorite program only to find ourselves scrambling for the remote control 

when at the commercial break the volume of the television seems 

to double. I have cosponsored the CALM Act and I suspect that if 

enacted this measure will become as popular as the legislation that 

created the do not call list, and I look forward to learning why the 

phenomenon of loud commercials exist and what we can do as policymakers in order to address that phenomenon. 

H.R. 1133, the Family Telephone Connection Protection Act introduced by Chairman Rush would address the serious matter of 

the rates that are paid by prison inmates for collect calling services. Inmates are literally a captive audience and they typically 

have no option for using the telephone to contact family and legal 

counsel other than making their calls from a prison payphone and 

the rates that are charged for those services are enormous and include not only a high per-minute rate for the service but also percall connection fees that can be as high as $4 per call. The burden 

of these charges often falls on those who are least able to afford 

the charges, the inmates who have virtually no income and the 

members of their families who frequently face their own financial 

hardships. Phone service for inmates is a necessity. It is not a luxury. It is often their only link to family and attorneys and therefore, we hope that this morning the witnesses will tell us what may 

be done to ensure that prison inmates have access to this very necessary service at rates that are reasonably affordable. 

The third bill that we are hearing this morning is H.R. 1147, the 

Local Community Radio Act introduced by our colleagues Representatives Doyle and Terry. It would provide additional opportunities for low-power FM radio stations by allowing their operation 

on third adjacent channels to full-power radio stations. LPFM stations are typically community-based, nonprofits and they operate 

usually at 100 watts or less of broadcast power and have a broadcast reach of only a few miles. They play a truly unique role in our 

media firmament. They are more likely then their full-power counterparts to be owned by women or by minorities. They are an important forum for local clergy, for politicians, for civil rights focused 

programs and community leaders who seek to weigh in on local 

matters of public interest. They are also commonly found at our institutions of higher education across the United States. While expanding opportunities for more low-power FM stations is desirable, 

we must be certain that expanded low-power FM service is implemented in a way that does not jeopardize existing broadcast services including noncommercial, full-power FM stations. This morning we are interested in how low-power FM stations on third 

adjacencies can protect existing services including FM radio, 

emerging HD radio and radio reading services. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

I want to welcome our witnesses and thank them for their attendance here this morning. We will turn to your testimony shortly. 

But at this time, I am pleased to recognize other members of the 

subcommittee for their own statements and I will call on the gentleman from Florida, the ranking Republican on our subcommittee, 

Mr. Stearns. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. STEARNS. Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman and 

thank you for having this hearing. We have nine alert, ready-to-go 

witnesses and it is quite impressive. 

As you mentioned, we have three distinct pieces of legislation we 

are looking at. I will go with one that you sort of mentioned in the 

last which is H.R. 1133, the Family Telephone Connection Protection Act. As mentioned, it would require the FCC to regulate telephone services to inmates in correctional facilities. Typically, a single carrier is selected through a competitive bidding process to provide the prisoner his phone service and although services and rates 

vary by State or facility, inmates are often limited to making a collect call and the rates charged are frequently a bit higher to help 

pay for these collect calls nationwide. 

Supporters of this legislation argue that prison call fees are too 

high costing families too much to keep in touch with their relatives 

in jail and making it harder to rehabilitate criminals. Our nation’s 

sheriffs have a unique perspective however since over 80 percent 

of the nation’s local jails are simply under the jurisdiction of the 

sheriffs so it is very good, Mr. Chairman, we have them here to testify to give their side. 

This bill could lead to a prohibition on a payment of commissions 

to the correctional facilities by providers of the phone service. 

These commissions go to providing security measures to monitor 

non-privilege calls, to prevent elicit activities and to pay for the 

cost of the telephone system itself. Without the commissions, these 

correctional facilities will either have to ask taxpayers to front the 

cost of the phone system or completely dismantle the program. 

In addition, these commissions are a main source of funding for 

many beneficial inmate programs such as adult education, any recidivism programs, jail ministries and substance abuse programs. 

For example, in New York some funding from telephone commissions were used to provide free bus rides to the facilities for inmate 

family members. I certainly understand the hardship that many inmates’ families have to endure however, and frankly as local and 

State budgets get tighter and tighter not allowing these commissions might force correctional facilities to eliminate many important programs. 

Mr. Chairman, the second bill under discussion is H.R. 1147, the 

Local Community Radio Act. The FCC created low-power FM station service in 2000 to promote local programming. At the end of 

2000, Congress restricted how close low-power stations may operate to full-power stations due to chiefly the interference concerns. 

As a result, fewer low-power stations can be authorized. This bill 

would simply repeal the statutory limits. I support the idea of alVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:14 Jun 30, 2012 Jkt 073746 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A746.XXX A746

rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

lowing more low-power stations to be licensed however, such a 

sweeping policy change needs to balance the potential impact on 

full-power FM stations, namely interference. 

Third, adjacent protection exists for a reason, to guard against 

such interference. There is a policy already in place to allow lowpower FM stations to operate in the FM band with third adjacent 

protection. The FCC has licensed more than 865 low-power operators with more having been granted construction permits or that 

have applications that are pending. As we consider H.R. 1147, we 

need to fully examine the impact on full-power FM stations and the 

issue of interference. A broad blanket policy change may be unnecessary at this time. I hope to work with the sponsors of this bill 

as we move forward. 

And last, Mr. Chairman, we are examining H.R. 1084, the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act and I will compliment the author of the bill with the word CALM Act. I am sure 

they worked hard to get that to come together. This bill would require the FCC to mandate rules within one year prohibiting commercials from being excessively noisy or strident. The issue is more 

complex than it appears. Many different entities are responsible for 

producing and distributing the content consumers see and hear 

today. Each element may be recorded and provided at different volume levels. Moreover, shows and movies have a dynamic sound 

range to cover everything from a quiet scene to an explosion. Commercials, meanwhile, tend to have a narrow sound range. Volume 

levels are typically set for the programming which can throw off 

the volume levels for commercials. Two years ago, the Advanced 

Television Systems Committee established a subgroup on digital 

television loudness. This subgroup consists of the leading experts 

on audio technology from all the major broadcast networks, cable, 

production and post-production, manufacturing and education in 

the United States of America. Since it was established, these audio 

technology experts have crafted a hard-fought consensus on the 

recommended practices that should be employed across the TV industry to deal with TV loudness concerns. 

Mr. Chairman, I trust the collective wisdom of these technical experts to craft a solution to the TV loudness issue. The subgroups 

hard work should not be undone by legislation. One suggestion 

would be to revise the bill simply so that the FCC rulemaking only 

commences if industry has not addressed the issue within a certain 

amount of time. So I think we have, perhaps, a solution to our 

problem which is Advanced Television Systems Committee and all 

the hard work they have done in this area. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the hearing, the witnesses 

and I welcome again the opportunity to ask them questions. Thank 

you. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Stearns, for a very 

thoughtful statement. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Doyle, is recognized for five minutes. I am sorry, for two minutes. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. DOYLE OF PENNSYLVANIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 

holding this legislative hearing that includes the bill I introduced 

with my good friend, Lee Terry, H.R. 1147, the Local Community 

Radio Act. 

You know, it is appropriate to hold this hearing this morning. I 

heard on the radio today that today is the 74th anniversary of the 

first FM broadcast. Students of that story know that the dominant 

AM broadcaster, RCA, successfully lobbied the FCC to move the 

FM band, obsoleting the inventor’s burgeoning radios, destroying 

his company, leading the inventor, Edward Armstrong, to suicide 

and delaying FM’s role-out for decades. We are almost full circle 

here today but this story starts a decade ago. In 2000, the Federal 

Communications Commission, started to create new community 

radio stations run by local schools, churches, community groups 

and governments. They did this because their missions from Congress is not to help entrench lobbies but to make sure as many 

Americans as possible have access to the public’s airwaves to fulfill 

a basic human need, the right to communicate. Thousands of peoples and groups wanted these new stations and applied. 

Almost immediately, incumbent broadcasters warned this subcommittee that these new community radio stations would create 

and I quote ‘‘oceans of interference harming listeners efforts to listen to the stations they already know and enjoy.’’ So in response 

to the broadcasters’ concern, Congress called timeout and asked for 

an independent study to examine this issue. The premise of Congress’ decision to order the study was that if the study confirmed 

the FCC’s findings, Congress would remove it’s prohibition on the 

FCC and allow it to fully implement community radio. 

Well, the study came back, agreed with the FCC that these stations can be created without harming listeners and through two 

unanimous bipartisan votes the FCC has twice now recommended 

to Congress to do so. I am asking Congress to keep its part of the 

bargain today. 

After Congress limited community radio in 2001, several groups 

in my district, the City of Pittsburgh and some working-class suburbs lost their chance to go on the air. I will point out that late 

last month, Mr. Chairman, Pittsburgh’s only minority-owned station and the city’s only hip-hop and R and B station sold for $9 million. The new owners plan a format change and now no one else 

can connect with urban radio listeners in my district. It is almost 

like incumbent broadcasters wrote the line that William Shakespeare actually wrote in Hamlet. ‘‘Give every man his ear but few 

his voice.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, we need to make sure that more Americans get 

a chance to exercise their voice. We must pass this bill and we 

must bring low-power back to the people. 

I yield back. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Doyle. The gentleman 

from Nebraska, Mr. Terry, is recognized for two minutes. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LEE TERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

I appreciate my friend, Mr. Doyle, and associate myself with your 

Shakespearean opening statement. And I would also like to take 

this opportunity to thank several that have worked hard for this 

bill like Candace Asman, Cory Hoffman and Pete Tridish of Prometheus Radio, Michael Bracy of the Future of Music Coalition, the 

band Okay Go and our very own witness today, Cheryl Leanza 

with the United Church of Christ. 

There are numerous benefits by low-power radio stations to 

smaller communities and what I mean by smaller communities is 

both in an urban sense in a suburban and even a rural sense. It 

gives people a voice to their particular community that they may 

not have now. And as Mike pointed out, the studies have shown 

that we can technically do low-power FM without stepping on the 

signals of the higher power stations. 

Now, with that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the 

record the 100 Black Men of Omaha who are interested as an organization of providing low-power FM within the African American 

community of Omaha to provide a platform for discussion of community issues. I ask unanimous consent that I can submit that for 

the record. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. BOUCHER. Without objection. 

Mr. TERRY. And with that, once again thank you but I can’t resist on 1133 to say that is this the definition of a captive customer. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Terry. The 

gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, is recognized for two 

minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MCNERNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and thank you to the witnesses for coming forth today. 

I am a cosponsor of 1147, the Local Community Radio Act. I believe that it is important that the Federal Communication Commission provide equitable rules for low-power FM stations. Our smallest stations deserve to be heard to be able to provide community 

focus programming that serves all of our listeners’ needs. 

Concerning the CALM Act, we have all experienced unpleasant 

sudden volume changes during TV programming. The problem was 

identified more than 50 years ago and many other nations are already adopting standards. Now, there is one experience I had as 

a young boy. I was a teenager. One of the very Sunday afternoons 

that my father allowed me to watch TV which wasn’t every Sunday 

afternoon, I was watching a horror show in the den and he was out 

barbequing and the advertisement came on and he came running 

in and wanted to know what was happening because it was so loud 

he could hear all the screaming outside. It was somebody selling 

furniture. So I have experienced this. It will be interesting to see 

what we can do about it. 

So with that, I yield back the balance of my time. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. McNerney. The gentleman from 

Oregon, Mr. Walden, is recognized for two minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

the opportunity to get the testimony today from the witnesses on 

these various bills. 

I would like to submit for the record a letter I received from Jefferson Public Radio with regards to H.R. 1147 and some issues that 

they are raising and I think they are very legitimate. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. BOUCHER. Without objection. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Jefferson Public Radio probably has more translators covering a more rigorous mountain environment providing public 

broadcasting in southern Oregon then probably anywhere else in 

the country and they are concerned about the effect that H.R. 1147 

would have regarding displacement of their translators. They are 

further concerned about the language in H.R. 1147 which would 

give authority to the FCC to go even further than the third adjacent channel relaxation in the rulemakings. And so these are issues 

that I think the committee needs to look at very carefully. Having 

been in the broadcast business for more than 21 years, I am not 

now a licensee, I share the concern of many who want to make sure 

that as you move forward on adding additional signals in the marketplace that there isn’t disruptive interference especially too, looking at old receivers versus new receivers. There are legacy radios 

that aren’t as selective as some of the new ones in terms of listening quality and differentiating among the signals. And so I think 

these are issues we need to look at carefully before we move forward. 

I finally add to the record too, just a note that I hope the FCC 

is doing proper and appropriate oversight over LPFMs. They are 

not supposed to be commercial stations and it would be interesting 

to know just kind of the oversight you are doing to see are they 

operating in some cases as if they were a for-profit commercial because I don’t think that was the intent of LPFM nor is it, I am 

sure, the sponsors’ of this legislation that they would merge into 

a full commercial operation. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the testimony. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Walden. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak, is recognized for two minutes. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am going to be in 

and out all day but I did want to have a few comments especially 

on H.R. 1147. In all honesty, I am not real excited about that legislation that is authored by my good friend from Pittsburgh, Mr. 

Doyle. I understand why this low-power legislation is so important 

to him. It is probably because it reminds him of his Pittsburgh 

Penguin front line of Malkin and Crosby. That is the low-power 

line they have in hockey and I am sure if for some reason, some 

bad calls, my Red Wings come up a little bit short, I am sure Mr. 

Doyle will be in full-power telling me about it on Friday and Saturday. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

I have a minute left if you care to respond here, Mr. Doyle. 

Mr. WALDEN. Will the gentleman yield? I think you are just 

going to get interference from him. 

Mr. STUPAK. It will be interference. 

Mr. DOYLE OF PENNSYLVANIA. I just want to say to my friend 

that on Monday I will buy the beer for you to cry in. 

Mr. STUPAK. It will take more than beer, Doyle. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Stupak. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, chairman of the subcommittee on consumer protection is recognized for two minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really am delighted to be 

here and I am also delighted not to have some consensus in the 

previous discussion. The Blackhawks have been low-power for a 

long time now. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding today’s hearing 

on these important bills. 

I would like to limit my limited time on remarks on H.R. 1133. 

I introduced this bill with the sincerest concerns for those innocent 

families and close friends of those individuals who find themselves 

incarcerated in our jails and prisons. Like you and me, they are 

telephone services consumers having the same needs when it comes 

to hearing their loved ones’ voices and maintaining regular contact 

with their families just as you and I are and many in this room 

are. Their personal lives, their households and their budget affairs 

are complicated by having to choose accepting a collect phone call 

from a loved one in prison which can cost up to five times as much 

as the same call that you and I would have to make. They have 

to live with the real life consequences of their choice which could 

mean missing a car or rent or a mortgage payment or not having 

enough money to buy groceries. 

There are typically three ways that an inmate can make and 

complete a telephone call in most State and county correctional institutions. Either collect, prepaid collect or prepaid by the inmate 

which in most cases is paid indirectly by the inmate’s family 

through a deposit into their prison debit account. For collect calls, 

the billed party is usually in charge of billing calls recovery fee of 

so many dollars for each month that collect call charges are paid. 

Or prepaid collect accounts the inmate telephone services provide 

a collector fee usually between $5 and $10 in order to process credit 

card and check payments over the phone, and for a prepaid inmate 

call, the inmate telephone services providers charging in the neighborhood of $1 for each completed interstate telephone call. 

Mr. Chairman, it is patently unfair that family and friends of incarcerated individuals should have to pay these inflated amounts. 

Revenue sharing agreements entered in by inmate telephone service providers and the correctional authorities they service are the 

primary cause of this egregious disparity. Some States are collecting commissions from providers of inmate telephone services at 

rates that are as high as 40 to 65 percent of gross bills inmate telephone revenues. These commissions continue to have the effect of 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

substantially inflating rates for collect, prepaid collect and debit 

interstate and intrastate telephone calls. Simply put, they represent a pass through of calls from the correctional facility and the 

jails to the inmates and his or her families. 

Accordingly and most notably, my bill H.R. 1133 focuses on these 

commission arrangements. It would prohibit the payment of commissions to administrators of correctional institutions and departments of correction. It would also require the FCC to promulgate 

rules that ensure interstate rates for calls that incarcerated individuals make while in confinement are just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory. Finally, it would require providers of inmate telephone services to offer both collect calling and debit account services which is a cheaper option according to paid telephone service 

providers because it mitigates the risk of bad debt associated with 

collect calling. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for holding this hearing 

and I am glad to have the witnesses here to testify on behalf of my 

bill. Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Rush. The gentleman 

from North Carolina, Mr. Butterfield, is recognized for two minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH 

CAROLINA 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing and I particularly want to thank Chairman 

Rush for introducing the legislation. This is not the first Congress 

in which he has introduced this bill. He has done it in Congresses 

past and I thank him for his sensitivity to this issue. 

As most of you know, I served as a trial judge in my State for 

many years before coming to Congress. I sat on the highest trial 

bench in my State and presided over felony cases and very serious 

crimes. As a consequence of my work, there were many people that 

I had the unfortunate and unpleasant task of incarcerating. But I 

want to tell you from personal experience that the telephone system between the jails and the prisons and communities is really in 

need of revamping. It would break my heart when mothers and 

grandmothers and family members would call me from time-to-time 

and tell me that they had—these are poor people, who would have 

$300 and $400 telephone bills because their loved ones would call 

collect from the jail. And what does a grandmother say when her 

grandchild is calling her collect from the jail? The only thing she 

knows to do is to accept the charges. 

And so this legislation that we have before us today is certainly 

a step in the right direction. It is not the ideal legislation. I wish 

we could do more. I have always said that one remedy for the problem would be to create a debit card just like we have here in the 

cafeteria. Whenever I want to go get a meal, I go downstairs and 

I put this debit card in and I get my meal. Now, we could do this 

in the jails and make it very effective. 

The other thing that we could do would be have cell phones in 

the prisons and in the jails that would be controlled. Not unlimited 

cell phones but the prisoners could get cell phones for 30 minutes 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

a day and use those cell phones and at the conclusion of the call, 

they could turn in the cell phones and they could be locked up and 

kept away from the prisoners. 

So thank you, Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having 

this hearing today. This is a step in the right direction. 

I yield back. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Butterfield. 

We turn now to our panel of witnesses and again thank each of 

them for their attendance here this morning. Without objection, 

your prepared written statement will be made a part of the record 

and we would welcome your oral presentation. And in the interest 

of time given the large number of witnesses who have joined us 

this morning, we would ask that your oral statements be kept to 

approximately five minutes. 

I will just say a brief word of introduction about each of our witnesses. Mr. Frank Krogh is an attorney with the firm of Morrison 

and Foerster representing Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of 

Errants. Mr. Curtis Hopfinger is Director of Government and Regulatory Affairs at Securus Technologies. Mr. David Goad is the Sheriff of Allegany County, Maryland and President of the National 

Sheriffs’ Association. And each of those witnesses will be testifying 

with respect to H.R. 1133, the Family Telephone Connection Protection Act. 

Testifying on the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act is Mr. Joel Kelsey, Policy Analyst at Consumers Union, 

Mr. David Donovan, President of The Association for Maximum 

Service Television and Mr. Jim Starzynski, Principal Engineer and 

Audio Architect for NBC Universal. 

Testifying on the Local Community Radio Act is Mr. Peter Doyle, 

Chief of the Audio Division of the Media Bureau of the Federal 

Communications Commission, Ms. Caroline Beasley, Executive Director and CFO of Beasley Broadcast Group and Ms. Cheryl 

Leanza, Policy Director of the United Church of Christ, Office of 

Communication. 

We welcome each of you and, Mr. Krogh, we will pleased to begin 

with you and you will need to turn your microphone on and move 

it as close as possible to you and we can hear you much better. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

STATEMENTS OF FRANK W. KROGH, ESQUIRE, MORRISON AND 

FOERSTER LLP; CURTIS HOPFINGER, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT & REGULATORY AFFAIRS, SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES; DAVID GOAD, NATIONAL SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION; JOEL KELSEY, POLICY ANALYST, CONSUMERS UNION; 

DAVID DONOVAN, PRESIDENT, THE ASSOCIATION FOR MAXIMUM SERVICE TELEVISION, INC., JIM STARZYNSKI, PRINCIPAL ENGINEER AND AUDIO ARCHITECT, NBC UNIVERSAL, 

ADVANCED ENGINEERING; PETER DOYLE, CHIEF, AUDIO DIVISION, MEDIA BUREAU, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; CAROLINE BEASLEY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT 

AND CFO, BEASLEY BROADCAST GROUP; AND CHERYL A. 

LEANZA, POLICY DIRECTOR, UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, 

OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 

STATEMENT OF FRANK W. KROGH 

Mr. KROGH. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I am 

Frank Krogh, an attorney with the firm of Morrison and Foerster 

which represents the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil 

Rights and Urban Affairs in a proceeding before the Federal Communications Commission addressing prison inmates’ long distance 

telephone service rates. We also have been coordinating closely in 

that proceeding with Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of 

Errants or CURE. 

Charlie and Pauline Sullivan, the co-directors of CURE, are here 

with me today and they have asked me to testify in support of H.R. 

1133, the Family Telephone Connection Protection Act of 2009. On 

behalf of CURE, I want to thank Subcommittee Chairman Boucher 

and Congressman Rush, the sponsor of H.R. 1133, for their leadership in trying to solve this problem of unaffordable inmate telephone rates. 

The long distance telephone rates charged prison inmates and 

their families are exorbitant and make it harder for inmates to 

maintain the critical family and community connections that are 

needed for their rehabilitation. H.R. 1133 would ensure that the 

FCC addresses this issue forcefully. 

As Chairman Boucher and Congressman Rush explained, prison 

inmates and their families pay some of the highest long distance 

rates in the country. The problem arises from the bidding process 

to win these exclusive service contracts. The competing service providers generally are expected to offer generous commissions to the 

prison administrator or state correctional agency or the treasury 

for the right to provide the exclusive service to the facilities for the 

prison system. The winning bidder is typically the service provider 

that offers the highest commission payment not the lowest service 

rate. So then the winning bidder then has to charge excessive rates 

for the inmate calls in order to cover these huge commission payments of 40 to 65 percent. 

As a result, you have got these tremendous collect call charges 

often as high as $3.95 for a service charge plus a per-minute 

charge of 89 cents. And I have even seen inmate collect rates of 

$4.28 plus 98 cents a minute as opposed to the typical rate available to residential subscribers or calling card customers of a few 

pennies per minute. At current rates, one hour of conversation a 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

week can run up a monthly phone bill of $300 which is a huge financial burden for the innocent families, low-income families and 

loved ones receiving and paying for inmate collect calls. These rates 

deprive inmates and their family members of their most reasonable 

means, sometimes the only possible means of communication and 

strain the family and community rehabilitative ties that reduce recidivism, preserve families and ease prison tensions. 

The need to act on this issue has become widely recognized. The 

American Bar Association, the American Correctional Association 

and a report released in 2006 by a diverse national prison reform 

commission which included correctional officials, all recommend 

that inmate telephone rates be drastically reduced in order to reinforce family and community ties. 

Now, as Congressman Stearns pointed out, in some cases this 

commission revenue is used for prisoner welfare programs but that 

cannot justify the charging of unreasonable rates. You can’t violate 

Federal Law on the grounds that the profit is going to charitable 

purposes. This is a regressive tax on some of the poorest people in 

America and this also means that these programs, these prisoner 

welfare programs are not free at all. They are being fully funded 

right now by the prisoners and their families. Those families and 

prisoners should have a choice of having fewer programs and more 

communication. I think if you gave them that choice, they would 

choose more reasonable telephone rates so they could communicate 

more. They should not be deprived of that choice through a regressive tax on their telephone calls. 

Now, H.R. 1133 confirms the need to reduce inmate telephone 

rates and would require that the FCC consider imposing maximum 

interstate inmate calling rates, a requirement that inmate telephone service providers offer a debit calling option which is cheaper 

than and lower cost than collect calling and a prohibition of commission payments. The ABA has endorsed the proposed legislation 

as have leading newspapers. Some of the remedies specified in H.R. 

1133 are also proposed in the pending FCC petition filed by Martha 

Wright, the grandmother of a former prisoner, and other petitioners. The Wright petitioners have demonstrated that it is entirely feasible for interstate long distance telephone services to be 

provided profitably to prisoners at rates far below those prevailing 

at most prison facilities. 

For example, interstate inmate long distance rates in Florida, 

Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire and New York correctional facilities are way below typical interstate inmate rates. Before New 

York eliminated its 57.5 percent commission rate in 2007, the 

interstate collect rate for prisoners in New York correctional facilities was 16 cents a minute plus a $3 connection charge, which is 

equivalent to 41 cents a minute for a 12-minute call. Now, with no 

commission payment, the rate is 6.8 cents per minute plus $1.28 

connection charge which is equivalent to 17.5 cents a minute for a 

12-minute call. 

Michigan previously had an interstate rate equivalent to $1.16 

per minute for a 15-minute collect or debit call. Now, the debit and 

collect rates are 12 cents and 15 cents per minute respectively, 

with no per-call charge. So it is quite possible to have much lower 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

rates and have the service provided at a profit which the service 

providers are quite eager to do. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Krogh, let me ask if you could wrap up. Your 

time has expired. 

Mr. KROGH. Oh yes, I think that H.R. 1133 would ensure that 

the FCC consider the remedies proposed by the Wright petitioners 

at the FCC and reaffirms the FCC’s authority to impose those remedies. The bill would therefore help bring about prison inmate telephone service reform and CURE urges its swift passage. 

Thank you for your time. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Krogh follows:] 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 73746A.001
15 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 73746A.002
16 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 73746A.003
17 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 73746A.004
18 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here 73746A.005
19 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 24 here 73746A.006
20 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 25 here 73746A.007
21 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here 73746A.008
22 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much. Thank you. 

Mr. Hopfinger. 

STATEMENT OF CURTIS HOPFINGER 

Mr. HOPFINGER. Good morning, Chairman Boucher and members 

of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to speak here today 

regarding inmate telecommunications and H.R. 1133. 

My name is Curt Hopfinger and I am the Director of Regulatory 

and Government Affairs for Securus Technologies. Securus is a 

Dallas, Texas based company that provides inmate telecommunications through our wholly owned subsidiaries to correctional institutions in 44 States. We serve approximately 2,600 locations that 

include county, city and state-operated facilities. In addition, 

Securus is one of the leading providers and patent holders of technologies necessary to provide robust, reliable and above all secure 

inmate telecommunications. 

My remarks will be brief. My aim is to provide the committee 

with further contacts and information regarding this highly specialized industry and the role that inmate telephone communications 

providers play in assisting law enforcement in meeting the demands in the correctional setting. 

Today Securus is in a highly competitive industry. Today we 

compete with numerous providers of inmate telecommunication 

services for contracts with correctional authorities that are put out 

for public bid. It is not uncommon for as many as eight different 

correctional service providers to bid for the same contract. This bidding process which is governed by the procurement codes and regulations applicable to the area in which the correctional facility is 

located, forces all participants to present their very best menu of 

technologies, security feature and above all telephone call prices in 

order to secure a contract. 

As many law enforcement officials have explained to the FCC 

and elsewhere, the inmate telephone system is a critical tool for 

maintaining security both inside and outside the correctional environment. Today our industry provides law enforcement with a 

greater choice and quality of investigative tools than ever before. 

I will provide just one example of how inmate telephone systems 

have assisted law enforcement officials in preventing crime and 

protecting the public. My written testimony has another. This example comes from one of our counties that is served by Securus 

Technologies. Grant County has informed us that the Federal Bureau of Investigation routinely listens to the recordings of Grant 

County inmate calls to assist in finding Al-Qaeda terrorist cells. 

Thus, even at the county level, secure inmate calling platforms are 

providing the necessary tools for assisting in preserving homeland 

security. 

All of the features and services I have described above, of course 

come at a cost. In this specialized corner of the telecommunication’s 

industry, those costs are large in absolute figures and also in terms 

of the proportion of revenue that these costs represent. The requirement to provide customized products to law enforcement and 

correctional institutions causes inmate telephone service providers 

to incur substantial costs. In addition, it prevents our industry 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
23 

from enjoying the real economies of scale like local exchange companies and long distance companies that serve the general public. 

I am pleased to tell you that in 2007, Securus began deploying 

a system called the Secure Call Platform or SCP which is a centralized system that requires less reliance on hardware and software 

at the correctional facility itself. Now that SCP has been deployed, 

our network efficiencies have improved and our calling rates have 

decreased significantly at several locations. 

I must however make it clear that SCP is neither appropriate or 

feasible at all correctional facilities. The multi-million dollar investment by Securus that made this new technology possible is however indicative of the fact that the industry is competitive and that 

law enforcement, inmates and families of inmates are in fact reaping the benefits. 

Having given you this brief background on inmate telephones 

and how they work and are deployed, I would like to say a few 

words about H.R. 1133. Securus is concerned that H.R. 1133 will 

have the unintended consequences of hindering competition, compromising security and actually decreasing the availability of telephone service for inmates. In brief, this legislation would make it 

more difficult for Securus and all inmate telephone service providers to compete, to innovate and to even maintain their existence 

in the inmate telephone service market. 

First, the legislation would require the FCC to set a federal rate 

cap. Securus is concerned that a federal rate cap would inevitably 

impose below cost rates for some facility locations and certainly for 

facility locations in high cost areas. In addition, a mandatory rate 

cap could leave such a slender margin of return that for many contracts few service providers could risk putting in a bid. 

Second, the legislation would impose facilities-based competition 

at the individual facility sites. This mandatory unbundling could 

require installation and maintenance of two or more redundant inmate calling platforms at every facility. This multi-provider scheme 

would lead to a host of administrative and security problems. In 

addition, it would increase the cost to the service providers and the 

facilities themselves. These increased costs would have to be recovered by those paying for inmate telephone calls. 

Third, the legislation would require an inmate telephone service 

provider to complete calls to persons regardless of whether the provider has any billing agreement with the called party or the called 

party’s local carrier. I assure the committee that Securus and the 

industry as a whole are making great efforts to establish billing relationships with called parties whether through their local residence exchange carrier or via billing arrangements directly with 

the called parties. A federal mandate requiring the completion of 

all inmate calls however, will discourage both inmates and called 

parties from allowing Securus to setup billing relationships with 

them. The result would be an unprecedented situation in which a 

telephone company is forced to give away service for free. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hopfinger follows:] 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
24 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 73746A.009
25 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 73746A.010
26 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 73746A.011
27 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 73746A.012
28 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 73746A.013
29 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 73746A.014
30 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 73746A.015
31 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 73746A.016
32 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 73746A.017
33 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 73746A.018
34 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 73746A.019
35 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 73746A.020
36 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 73746A.021
37 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Hopfinger. Your time has expired. 

Sheriff Goad. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID GOAD 

Sheriff GOAD. Good morning, Mr. Chairman Boucher, Ranking 

Member Stearns and members of the committee. 

My name is David A. Goad and I am currently the Sheriff of Allegany County, Maryland and President of the National Sheriffs’ 

Association. The National Sheriffs’ Association represents 3,000 

elected sheriffs across the country and more than 20,000 law enforcement professionals, making us one of the largest law enforcement associations in the nation. I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss our strong opposition 

to H.R. 1133, the Family Telephone Connection Protection Act of 

2009 and the negative and potentially dangerous effect this legislation will have on jails and prisons throughout the United States. 

As you may be aware, sheriffs play a unique role in the criminal 

justice system. Over 99 percent of the sheriffs are elected and oftentimes serve as the chief law enforcement officer of their respective counties. In addition to providing traditional policing within 

their respective counties, sheriffs also manage local jails and provide court security. Consequently, we have a keen understanding 

of the needs of the criminal justice system as well as our local communities we serve. 

Currently, over 80 percent of the nation’s local jails are under 

the jurisdiction of sheriffs. While operating our nation’s jails, sheriffs must process thousands of arrests and are responsible for detaining tens of thousands of inmates nationwide on any given day. 

The amount of time, effort, resources and funding necessary to 

manage these jails is quite substantial. Furthermore, sheriffs need 

to work with the knowledge that the safety of the public, as well 

as their deputies, is always guarded and held in the highest priority. Therefore, it is necessary for sheriffs to have control over and 

to have the ability to monitor the activities that transpire within 

our jails including the communication that inmates have with their 

connections outside of the facility. 

The Family Telephone Connection Protection Act of 2009 would 

alter a jail’s inmate telephone service procedures and amend the 

Communications Act of 1934 to require the FCC to prescribe rules 

regulating inmate telephone service. While the bill requires that 

these regulations do not jeopardize ‘‘legitimate security and penological interests,’’ it indicates that a reduction or elimination of revenue derived by corrections institutions from the receipt of commissions does not constitute jeopardizing or affecting legitimate security standards or penological interests. H.R. 1133 also indicates 

that no provider or inmate telephone services may block or refuse 

to carry a call placed by an inmate on the grounds that the provider has no contractual or other arrangement with the local carrier servicing the call recipient. 

The National Sheriffs’ Association believes that this legislation 

would severely hamper the ability of all the sheriffs and law enforcement officials to effectively manage our nation’s jails. Under 

H.R. 1133, correctional institutions would be required to provide inmates with a choice of carriers while placing telephone calls. This 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
38 

proposal would amount to nothing less than the complete dismantling of the existing system of inmate phone service. 

Under the current system one inmate phone service provider is 

contractually committed to monitoring and of course control inmate 

calling for security and law enforcement purposes. Carrier choice 

would cause the facility to lose control over the monitoring and 

tracking of inmate calling which frequently results in criminal activity and massive fraud. Moreover, carrier choice would severely 

hamper the provider’s ability to assist law enforcement officials 

with ongoing criminal investigations and of course to monitor the 

phone calls of suspected terrorists. 

These are dangerous individuals who will continue to conduct 

criminal activities and operations on the outside via phone while 

they are incarcerated in local jails. Such activities could also include threats against any testifying witness or against any law enforcement personnel and their families. Consequently, the inability 

to monitor such calls could have a detrimental and potentially 

deadly impact. It could place unsuspecting individuals in danger 

and could prevent witnesses from coming forward to testify. Therefore, sheriffs’ ability to easily and effectively monitor inmate telephone calls not only assists law enforcement in criminal investigations but significantly reduces the harm to law-abiding citizens 

throughout the community. 

During the 110th Congress and in the current 111th Congress, 

there has been strong emphasis on rehabilitating incarcerated offenders and ensuring their successful reentries into society. Local 

jails are attempting these efforts. However as sheriffs’ offices budgets have been significantly reduced or tightened in recent years, 

sheriffs have been unable to utilize funding for anything other than 

personnel and necessary equipment and technology. Therefore, 

sheriffs rely on various services such as inmate telephone commissions to bring in revenue to fund and operate jailhouse treatment, 

rehabilitation and reentry programs. 

I would like to interject a few examples such as in the State of 

Maryland that has to do with this revenue advantage. As correctional administrators we realize a significant funding loss. My facility which is a 225-bed facility in Western Maryland has realized 

approximately $64,000 a year, other facilities such as Harford 

County, $170,000 and Washington County in the State of Maryland 

approximately $134,000 in lost revenue. Funds generated from 

commissions on inmate telephones are not a source of income for 

correctional administrators as we are only allowed to spend such 

funds on matters related to inmate welfare providing undergarments, socks and so on for inmates and so on. I would add that 

these commissions on phone calls are not unlike a sales tax. In this 

instance, the proceeds are entirely devoted to the betterment of the 

citizen population and in this instance, it is our inmates. I further 

wish to state that cutting such funds will have a negative effect on 

inmates in every correctional facility across the United States. 

Sheriffs recognize that maintenance of communications with family is a positive influence for the inmate’s integration back into the 

larger society after release. As such, the National Sheriff’s Association endorses fair and reasonable rates for inmate calls and would 

expect all sheriffs to require service providers to adhere to FCC 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
39 

rate guidelines. Furthermore, the National Sheriffs’ Association 

continues to be an advocate for reentry initiatives proposed by Congress. However, we strongly oppose the proposals within H.R. 1133 

as they would compromise public safety, put additional burdens on 

taxpayers and force correctional institutions to eliminate reentry 

programs and access to telephones for inmates. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Sheriff Goad, thank you. 

Sheriff GOAD. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to be 

here today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goad follows:] 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
40 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here 73746A.022
41 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here 73746A.023
42 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 73746A.024
43 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here 73746A.025
44 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 73746A.026
45 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Sheriff Goad. Mr. Kelsey. 

STATEMENT OF JOEL KELSEY 

Mr. KELSEY. Chairman Boucher, Ranking Member Stearns and 

esteemed members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify before you for the first time today on behalf of Consumers 

Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports. 

While I am here to offer consumer viewpoints on H.R. 1084, the 

CALM Act, I would be remiss if I did not also take this opportunity 

to highlight Consumers Union’s support of the Local Community 

Radio Act. The current cost of starting up an FM radio station is 

close to $2.5 million dollars. This financial hurdle often places the 

station licenses outside of the reach of local hands at a time when 

consumers are craving more local information then ever before. Efforts to support the LPFM bill are efforts to support the families, 

workers and places of worship that are the anchors in our communities. 

The CALM Act, introduced by Representative Eshoo, addresses a 

widespread consumer complaint, the abrupt loudness of television 

advertisements. Representative Eshoo’s legislation will go a long 

way towards preventing advertisements from screaming at consumers in their own living rooms. Specifically, the Act would enable the Federal Communications Commission to monitor the volume of advertisements in television programming and determine 

acceptable levels. This would ensure that the volume levels of commercial breaks are consistent with the volume level of the programming which it brackets. 

For years consumers have noticed that when a television program cuts to commercial breaks, the volume of the television suddenly rises to a shout, far beyond the average level of the television 

program it follows. We have often wondered are advertisers trying 

to scare us into remembering the names of their products. 

This abrupt, sometimes shocking change in volume during advertisements is not a new phenomenon. In fact, consumer complaints 

about loud commercials began streaming into the FCC in the 

1960s. At that point, the agency contended that there was no way 

to measure the volume level of commercials but did conclude loud 

commercials were contrary to the public interest and should be 

avoided. Throughout the next two decades, the Commission 

launched several fact-finding proceedings, ultimately concluding 

that although technology to measure the volume of commercials 

now exists, the perceived loudness of commercials is subjective and 

would vary from listener to listener. In 1984, the FCC commented, 

‘‘As more is learned about loudness, it is likely that more sophisticated control devices will be developed and used by broadcasters. 

Such actions should begin to eliminate complaints of objectionable 

loudness.’’ 

25 years later, complaints continue to flood the Commission. In 

fact, in the 25 quarterly reports that the FCC releases on consumer 

complaints, 21 of them have listed complaints about loud commercials as among the top consumer grievances in radio and television 

broadcasting. We believe this widespread consumer issue, which 

has spanned 45 years is a result of more that just the arbitrary or 

subjective perception of consumers. Rather, it is a real consumer 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
46 

grievance that deserves a new approach in the new era of digital 

broadcasting. 

The current FCC guidance regarding loud commercials mostly 

points consumers towards equipment that they can purchase to 

stabilize the volume during transition to commercials. However, 

not every consumer can afford to purchase TV sets with smart 

sound nor should they have to. Advertisers simply do not have the 

right to scream at consumers in their own living rooms and consumers should not have to pay to experience peace and quiet in the 

sanctity of their own home. 

There are several complexities that accompany this action by the 

agency. In particular, there are differences in the compressed audio 

levels of television shows and commercials. While the audio of a 

television show usually matches natural sound more closely, the 

audio of a commercial has less distinction between loud and soft 

sounds resulting in everything seeming much louder. We recommend the FCC focus in on this question in particular and develop an approach that is consistent with the 1979 Notice of Inquiry. In that Notice, the agency concedes that a dynamic range of 

volume is desirable with regard to broadcasting but at some point 

the amount of deviation from that average audio level begins to 

conflict with the public’s sensibilities. 

Placing a national standard on the loudness of commercials in 

not without an international precedent. In fact, the Library of Congress has noted that legislation addressing this matter has already 

been adopted in Australia, Brazil, France, Israel, Russia and the 

United Kingdom. In addition, the International Telecommunications Union has adopted standards that offer guidance to measure the audio levels of different programs. 

In conclusion, the CALM Act provides an elegant and commonsense solution to finally ending a 45-year consumer complaint in 

the United States. Consumers Union endorses the CALM Act as a 

solid step towards protecting consumers from unduly loud commercial advertisement, commends Representative Eshoo for championing this legislation and urges lawmakers to bring this measure 

forward. 

Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelsey follows:] 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
47 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 73746A.027
48 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 73746A.028
49 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 73746A.029
50 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 73746A.030
51 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 73746A.031
52 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Kelsey. Mr. Donovan. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID L. DONOVAN 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, Chairman Boucher, Ranking Member 

Stearns and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity 

today regarding broadcasters efforts to resolve variations in volume 

between regular programming and commercials in digital television. And I also want to thank Representative Eshoo for the introduction of the CALM Act. 

MSTV is a nonprofit trade association representing television 

broadcast stations across the country. In effect, we are the engineering arm of the television broadcast industry and our mission 

is to ensure that American consumers have the highest quality, interference-free local television. We have been actively involved in 

the digital television transition since the 1980s. Working with the 

FCC, we helped develop the digital TV table of allotments. We 

helped design the digital converter box that is the backbone of the 

transition and we have also been actively involved in dealing with 

the question of loud commercials. 

At the outset, MSTV and the broadcast industry want the committee to understand that we fully recognize the problem. We get 

it. The future of our business, of digital television in particular depends in part, depends in large measure on consumer satisfaction. 

Unexpected changes in volume can ignore consumers and disrupt 

the viewing experience. The television broadcast industry has every 

interest in ensuring in the digital age that consumers are not subject to such frustrations. As a matter of pure economics, we do not 

want to lose viewers. Our revenue depends on viewers watching 

programs and commercials. If viewers skip advertisements or shut 

off their television altogether, we lost revenue. 

To this end, I think there is one important element why digital 

is different from analog and it is extremely important. The Advanced Television Systems Committee standard employs a Dolby 

5.1 digital sound system. The dynamic range of the system, i.e., the 

highs and the lows of volume allows for theater-quality sound. In 

fact, digital television has more than two times the dynamic range 

of an average analog television set. Consumers who have purchased large screen television sets in digital now expect the inhome theater experience. Thus, when developing a solution for loud 

commercials, it is important not to impair the audio range of those 

sets that have been purchased. 

In many respects you now have motion picture production sound 

quality in the living room. Unfortunately, the noise in most of our 

living rooms have not changed over the years so you want to make 

sure you can enjoy the programs without having problems with the 

loud commercials. 

And the industry has made significant progress together and let 

me just talk about two things in the context of digital. First, the 

technical parameters are established by our primary programming 

providers. In this regard, the major television broadcast networks 

in effect help create a norm for the entire industry and ABC, NBC, 

CBS and FOX have each individually implemented policies in the 

context of digital, policies to attempt to control loud commercials in 

the context of digital television. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
53 

Moreover, the entire industry including ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, 

all local stations began addressing this issue back in 2007 when 

the ATSC established the digital loudness subgroup. Now, Jim 

Starzynski, who has worked on that extensively, will go into detail. 

Let me just say here that the progress of that subgroup has been 

remarkable. In many respects, it has resolved more issues in the 

last two years then the government was able to solve in decades 

and we are now on the cusp of resolving this issue. Importantly, 

when ATSC adopts its recommended practice it will have the salutary effect of providing guidance for all local televisions for local 

advertising, local programming, syndicated programming, national 

spot but also influence both cable and satellite systems which have 

similar technologies. 

I would ask the committee to consider just one word of caution. 

This system has been worked on now for nearly two years. Engineers by and large are problem solvers. That is what they do and 

we are on the cusp of resolving this issue. Our concern with the 

bill if enacted will send to the FCC for one year and require a resolution within one year, in effect it creates or may create a jump 

ball in which once the lawyers get involved, you end up starting 

the process over in the context of a regulatory environment. And 

this may have the unintended consequence of actually delaying a 

solution rather than fostering it. Nonetheless, we think the bill is 

important. Certainly the bill has focused our attentions and helped 

accelerate the process but we are concerned that there may be 

some unintended consequences here. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify 

before you today and I want to thank Representative Eshoo for 

sponsoring the bill and I am prepared to answer any questions you 

may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Donovan follows:] 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
54 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 73746A.032
55 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 73746A.033
56 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 73746A.034
57 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 73746A.035
58 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 73746A.036
59 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 here 73746A.037
60 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 73746A.038
61 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 68 here 73746A.039
62 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 69 here 73746A.040
63 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 here 73746A.041
64 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 71 here 73746A.042
65 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 72 here 73746A.043
66 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Donovan. Mr. 

Starzynski. 

STATEMENT OF JIM STARZYNSKI 

Mr. STARZYNSKI. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Stearns, 

thank you for inviting me to testify in H.R. 1084 and for the opportunity to discuss how NBC Universal and the TV industry generally are addressing the TV loudness issue. 

I am here today representing NBC Universal, which I serve as 

principal engineer and audio architect. I have been working in the 

TV industry for 25 years and have focused on digital TV for the 

past 12. I also serve as chairman of the subgroup on digital television loudness within the advanced television systems committee, 

the technical standard organization for over the air digital TV. 

Though digital TV greatly enhances audio quality, if not properly 

managed it also creates the opportunity for excessive variations in 

loudness. This can be especially apparent when transitioning from 

programs to commercials. The TV understands and shares the concerns about variations in volume levels. We want to give our audience the best possible listening experience and we know that experience is not currently optimal. Congress has also heightened our 

awareness of the problem and helped galvanize industry action on 

this issue. As a result, we have invested significant effort and resources in voluntary action to address the situation. This hearing 

is especially timely because we are on the cusp of offering a solution. 

Our experience at NBC Universal provides an example of a possible solution. Early on we recognized that the digital transition 

would require a culture change in our management of audio programs and commercials. Whether produced internally or obtained 

from outside suppliers, TV programs and commercials come from 

hundreds of different sources. The sheer number and diversity of 

program sources contribute to uneven volume levels unless properly managed. Thus, our goal of providing a cinema-quality sound 

experience also created a risk of excessive variation. Fortunately, 

the ATSC’s current digital standard as adopted by the FCC incorporates the necessary technology to eliminate variation in loudness 

during program to commercial transitions. And although the ATSC 

standard generally applies only to over-the-air broadcasting, the 

standards and technologies used by cable, satellite and telecom operators are all closely related. Therefore, NBC Universal required 

our in-house productions, external show suppliers and advertising 

customers to provide soundtracks compatible with our in-place 

ATSC audio practices. We require all of our content to be produced 

and delivered at a consistent loudness and we set our broadcast 

equipment to properly operate at this loudness level. These practices are generally sufficient to ensure consistent audio level across 

NBC programs and networks. 

To address content delivered with loudness outside the range of 

our spec, WNBC–DT in New York is about to test new technology 

that will automatically normalize the loudness levels. This technology simply adjusts the volume of disparate content before transmission much like adjusting the sound with a remote control at 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
67 

home. If successful, if the test if successful at WNBC, we plan to 

apply the technology to all NBCU television services. 

Now, let me discuss the broader issue and the industry status. 

In April of 2007, the ATSC recognized that the emerging digital TV 

loudness problem deserved more attention across the industry so it 

created the ATSC subgroup that I chair which is DTV loudness experts from all over the major broadcast networks as well as cable, 

production and postproduction, manufacturing and education. 

Our goal was to identify the impediments to providing good DTV 

audio at consistent volume levels, then discuss and document solutions for those problems. This process ultimately led to the development of a recommended practice which addresses five areas concerned and those areas are the first, contemporary sound measurement. The second, establishing the correct sound monitoring environment. The third is an explanation of how to properly manage 

DTV’s metadata element. The fourth is management of dynamic 

range and the fifth, methods to effectively control program-to-interstitial loudness or programs to commercials. 

This recommended practice is a comprehensive, effective and 

easy-to-read resource that covers all issues from content creation 

through distribution and transmission to the consumer experience. 

This ATSC recommended practice can become the roadmap for all 

TV professionals, no matter their industry segment or level of technical sophistication. 

In terms of timing, the ATSC recommended practice is in final 

review by the audio experts group and scheduled for submission to 

our parent group in July on the 22nd with release of a final document anticipated for September. After release of the finished recommended practice, the industry will be well-positioned to resolve 

concerns over TV loudness. 

Because the industry is on the cusp of taking action to address 

TV loudness concerns, legislation on this matter is, for the moment, 

inadvisable. Legislation may slow or stall widespread implementation of the recommended practice while the industry waits for Congressional and subsequent agency action. Further legislation might 

result in sub-optimal technical solution or require adherence to a 

technical standard that has already become obsolete. 

I understand a self-regulatory approach may not provide some 

with the same level of assurance as a legislative solution however 

I can assure you that the industry is motivated to act. 

Once again, thanks for inviting me to address this issue. I would 

be happy to take your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Starzynski follows:] 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
68 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here 73746A.044
69 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here 73746A.045
70 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 78 here 73746A.046
71 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 79 here 73746A.047
72 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 80 here 73746A.048
73 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 81 here 73746A.049
74 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 82 here 73746A.050
75 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 83 here 73746A.051
76 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 84 here 73746A.052
77 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Starzynski. 

Mr. STARZYNSKI. Thank you. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Doyle. 

STATEMENT OF PETER H. DOYLE 

Mr. DOYLE. Good morning, Chairman Boucher, Ranking Member 

Stearns and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

I am Peter Doyle and I will be presenting testimony on behalf 

of the Federal Communications Commission. I am chief of the 

media bureau’s audio division. My staff and I are responsible for 

all terrestrial radio broadcast station licensing. 

The Commission authorized the low-power FM radio service in 

January 2000. In establishing the first new radio station in more 

than 30 years, the Commission sought to respond to a broad and 

deep interest in creating outlets for highly local radio stations 

grounded in their communities. 859 LPFM stations are currently licensed and operating. 

The Commission initially declined to adopt third-adjacent channel minimum distance separation requirements. They concluded 

that such requirements would unnecessarily restrict the number of 

LPFM stations and would not cause unacceptable levels of interference. 

In December 2000, Congress passed the 2001 DC Appropriations 

Act, legislation which directed the Commission to impose third-adjacent channel protection requirements. The media bureau thereafter dismissed 462 applications which could not be amended to 

comply with the Act’s spacing requirements. 

In accordance with the Act, the Commission selected the Mitre 

Corporation to conduct interference tests. Mitre delivered its Phase 

I Report in June 2003. Mitre substantially agreed with the Commission’s conclusions finding that third-adjacent channel LPFM 

transmissions would have little impact on incumbent full-power 

stations. In February 2004, the Commission submitted its report to 

Congress and recommended that Congress eliminate LPFM thirdadjacent channel requirements. 

I would like to make two specific comments about the Local Community Radio Act. First, the Commission’s FM translator licensing 

experience, since the delivery of the 2004 report further confirms 

the agency’s initial determination that LPFM stations would not 

cause unacceptable levels of interference. The FM translator service has by far the most flexible rules to engineer in a low-power FM 

station in a mature radio market. These rules permit an FM translator to co-locate with a third-adjacent channel full-power station 

on the basis of a Commission approved, no actual interference 

methodology. 

On the other hand, a translator station must cease operations if 

a single listener complaint of actual interference remains unresolved. Since 2004, the audio division has granted approximately 

4,400 new translator station licenses with approximately 1,800 of 

these relying on a no-actual interference processing standard with 

regard to a nearby or co-located second or third-adjacent channel 

station, a perfect, real world test of the Commission’s FM interference prediction methodology. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
78 

There has been no discernable increase in interference complaints during this licensing process, a substantial vindication of 

the Commission’s technical conclusions. Accordingly, we remain 

confident that the impact from LPFM stations which generally operate at lower power levels then translator stations would be extremely modest. 

The second point I would like to make is that the failure to repeal current third-adjacent channel requirements could significantly restrict the future growth of the LPFM service. In 2007, the 

Commission announced a processing policy to consider second-adjacent channel spacing waivers from LPFM stations at risk of displacement from encroaching full-power stations. Last Friday, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals denied the Broadcasters challenge to this 

processing policy thereby saving approximately 40 stations at risk 

of displacement. Enactment of H.R. 1147 would permit the Commission to expand this processing policy to permit third-adjacent 

channel waivers. 

The audio division currently anticipates enormous applicant interest in the next LPFM window. It is difficult to develop definitive 

projections regarding the preclusive impact of the 2001 DC Appropriations Act with both applicant demand and supply unknown 

until an LPFM window opens. Nevertheless, the audio division has 

done some research and has reached a few general conclusions. Beginning with cities of approximately 500,000 or less, our analysis 

shows that current requirements materially limit channels for 

LPFM stations sometimes for closing use of the only channel or 

channels otherwise available for LPFM use. Channels would be 

widely available for communities of less than 50,000 if current 

spacing requirements were eliminated. 

The Commission’s extensive experience in FM translator licensing refutes the claim that elimination of third-adjacent channel 

protection requirements would result in pervasive interference. The 

Commission has twice unanimously requested that Congress lift 

these restrictions. As chief of the audio division and on behalf of 

the division’s expert engineers who prudently safeguard the technical integrity of the radio spectrum and who are responsible for 

ensuring interference-free service by over 16,000 FM stations daily, 

I wholeheartedly support that request. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would be happy 

to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Doyle follows:] 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
79 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 88 here 73746A.053
80 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 89 here 73746A.054
81 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 90 here 73746A.055
82 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 91 here 73746A.056
83 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 92 here 73746A.057
84 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 93 here 73746A.058
85 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 94 here 73746A.059
86 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 95 here 73746A.060
87 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 96 here 73746A.061
88 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 97 here 73746A.062
89 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Doyle. Ms. Beasley. 

STATEMENT OF CAROLINE BEASLEY 

Ms. BEASLEY. Good morning, Chairman Boucher, Ranking Member Stearns and subcommittee members. 

My name is Caroline Beasley. I am the executive vice president 

and chief financial officer of the Beasley Broadcast Group, a familyowned company which owns and operates 44 radio stations in 11 

markets. I am testifying today on behalf of the National Association of Broadcasters where I serve as vice chair of the NAB radio 

board. 

My main message today is that full-power FM stations and lowpower FM stations can coexist. There is a role for each to play 

within their communities and there is a process in place to continue licensing LPFM at the FCC. That being said, it is important 

to maintain interference guidelines that protect listeners to both 

services. 

The hallmark of full-power radio broadcasting is service to our 

communities. Broadcasters provide unequaled community service 

and contribute millions of dollars locally through direct fundraising, charitable giving and donated airtime. We air a wide range 

of music and entertainment, provide local news, act as a lifeline in 

times of crisis, heighten awareness of important issues and inform 

voters. In times of emergencies, local radio broadcasters rise to the 

occasion. Local broadcasters will break from regular programming 

and stay on the air to reach the public and share essential information. 

In 2008, as the wildfire ravaged southwest Florida, Beasley responded as five of our stations helped raise funds for families that 

lost homes. When an explosion occurred at a sugar refinery in 

Georgia, a neighboring Beasley station acted as a communications 

center between the public and officials dealing with the disaster. 

The station was flooded with offers of help and assistance for victims of the explosion. Listeners have come to expect this involvement from their local broadcasters and we will always be there for 

them. 

In serving our local communities, broadcasters are concerned 

about interference. Simply, a listener that experiences interference 

is a lost listener, one who will change the channel and stop tuning 

in. This is a person we may not reach at a critical time during an 

emergency. The engineering study commissioned by the FCC and 

the subsequent recommendations to Congress address the subject 

of interference. The common perception of the report is that interference is simply not a problem and the policy should be changed. 

The study however showed that interference did in fact result from 

an LPFM station operating on a third-adjacent channel. At various 

test sites, significant degradation was found during listening. Some 

full-power FM programs had static. Some were not heard at all and 

at others time a different program could be heard in the background. These factors were not present when the LPFM test station was turned off but subsequently occurred when the LPFM station was turned on. 

In view of these findings, the study recommended consideration 

of a formula or a way in which to mitigate the interference. The 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
90 

NAB’s analysis was that harmful interference would be far more 

prevalent then the government’s report and our objections to that 

report were documented at length. Moreover, it is significant to 

note that even the government’s commission report did not recommend a wholesale elimination of third-adjacent channel protection. There is a process in place at the FCC for approving lowpower FMs and to date, 865 stations have been licenses. Under existing rules, there is also a great deal of capacity remaining for the 

licensing of additional low-power FM stations. Nationwide, there is 

room for tens of thousands of additional LPFMs. This is possible 

under the existing third adjacent channel protection policy. Interference is a real concern for local broadcasters and buffer protections are necessary and make sense. 

Any policy discussion to remove third adjacent channel protection, should carefully balance interference risks to both full-power 

and low-power FM services. Even with third adjacent protections 

in place, there are examples of harmful interference caused by 

LPFM, stations that are not adhering to existing technical regulations. Enforcement remains an issue and increasing the chance of 

interference through a policy change affects all listeners and may 

increase the likelihood of a lost listener at a time of need or emergencies. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify and 

thank you, Mr. Doyle, for the chance to discuss your legislation. I 

appreciate your interest in providing greater opportunity and diversity in radio and I hope we can work together to further that goal. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Beasley follows:] 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
91 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 73746A.063
92 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 101 here 73746A.064
93 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 102 here 73746A.065
94 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 103 here 73746A.066
95 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 104 here 73746A.067
96 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 105 here 73746A.068
97 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 106 here 73746A.069
98 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 107 here 73746A.070
99 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 108 here 73746A.071
100 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here 73746A.072
101 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 110 here 73746A.073
102 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 111 here 73746A.074
103 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 112 here 73746A.075
104 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 113 here 73746A.076
105 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here 73746A.077
106 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here 73746A.078
107 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here 73746A.079
108 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 73746A.080
109 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here 73746A.081
110 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here 73746A.082
111 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 120 here 73746A.083
112 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 121 here 73746A.084
113 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here 73746A.085
114 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 73746A.086
115 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Ms. Beasley. Ms. Leanza. 

STATEMENT OF CHERYL A. LEANZA 

Ms. LEANZA. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for 

keeping your attention on this long, long panel. I really appreciate 

your time. I know it is a lot of information and I am going to try 

to be brief and hopefully interesting for you. I want to thank Chairman Boucher and Ranking Member Stearns and members of the 

subcommittee. 

And I am here today to support the Local Community Radio Act 

of 2009, H.R. 1147. First, I want to extend my sincere gratitude to 

Congressman Doyle and Congressman Terry for their leadership on 

this issue, as well as the bipartisan group of legislators on this subcommittee for bringing this issue forward. In particular, as a quick 

side note want to articulate UCC support for the other bills that 

are being considered this morning and I have a letter with me 

today from 20 media justice organizations in support of Congressman Rush’s bill. 

But I am here to talk about low-power radio. I am going to describe the service. I am going to describe the problem. I am going 

to give you a couple of examples. I am going to hit the technology 

for a little bit and hopefully we will get out of here with time to 

spare, at least in my five minutes, right. 

So what is low-power radio? They are small FM stations. They 

are 100 watts. They reach five to seven miles in diameter. They are 

really small. They fit in between the cracks and they use spectrum 

that is not used right now. 

We do have 800 stations on the dial. We know something about 

them and there are an incredible diversity of stations. I couldn’t 

begin to describe them all to you today but encourage you to look 

at my written testimony and go back into your home districts and 

find out about what is going on there because it really is incredible. 

But as I said, we are not here today about the stations that are 

on the air. We are about the people who are left behind because 

although we have 800 stations on the air, there is one station in 

the top 50 markets in this country. That is 140 million people that 

have virtually no opportunity to hear about low-power radio. Hundreds and thousands of organizations are waiting, waiting for Congress to act, waiting for this bill to pass. Organizations like Southwest Virginia Community College that submitted an application to 

the FCC. Everything was 100 percent right. The previous legislation passed and their hopes were smashed away. 

In contrast, if we pass this legislation, just about every community in this country would get three or four LPFM stations. They 

are all waiting for Congress to act to pass this bill. 

So there are a lot of stories I could tell you about low-power radio 

but since it is June and it is the beginning of hurricane season, I 

am going to talk a little bit about some good examples. I want to 

assure you that although I don’t know who is going to win the 

hockey finals this season, that LPFM radio is going to win the 

Stanley Cup overall. 

Let me give you some examples, Coalition of Immokalee Workers 

is in central Florida. During Hurricane Wilma they saved almost 

300 people through their broadcast. What is different about this 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
116 

radio station? They don’t just broadcast in Spanish. They broadcast 

in indigenous languages like Mixe and Zapotec. This is not stuff 

you hear on the radio now. When you get information in your native language, it is much easier to respond in an emergency. 

Similarly in Hancock County, Mississippi, during Hurricane 

Katrina, QRZ was able to stay on the air. Why? They were small 

enough they could pick up the transmitter, move it to higher 

ground and operate the entire time using a car battery. That 

doesn’t happen with regular full-power radio. 

Finally, I want to tell you about somewhere that they wish they 

had low-power radio, Citrus County, Florida. During Hurricane 

Frances, they were desperate for information, local information. 

Well certainly, there was a lot of information on the radio about 

Hurricane Frances in that region. It was all emanating out of 

Tampa and directed towards Tampa. The Citrus County officials 

were so desperate for attention that they actually announced in 

2004 they were going to try to get a low-power radio station but 

they are still waiting. Congress needs to act. 

So I need to spend about 60 seconds to make three points about 

the technical issues about low-power radio because you keep hearing this is a great service. It is a great idea but there are technical 

problems. I understand that. I understand the desire to study but 

let me make a few points to you. 

First, we know low-power radio is safe because there are thousands of translator stations on the air now run by full-power broadcasters that are the same size, the same distance apart, exactly the 

same. In fact, some of them are closer than low-power radio stations and they are working fine. Mr. Doyle said it in technical 

terms. I am telling you in layman’s terms, these are the same. 

They are on the air. They don’t cause interference. The only difference between those stations and LPFM is who owns them. Are 

they a member of the NAB or are they not? 

My second point, we have a 2.2 million Congressionally-ordered 

independent study. Not a government study, not a private sector 

study, an independent study. It confirms all of the analysis of 

many other studies that have come before it. I need to say to you 

today, one of the organizations that I am representing is the National Federation of Community Broadcasters. They are 200 fullpower, noncommercial broadcasters on the air. The organization is 

25 years old. They support this service. They support the legislation. They care incredibly about signal integrity. They would not be 

here today supporting this legislation if there was a danger to the 

service. 

Finally, I need to point out to you that incumbents do not have 

a sterling track record when it comes to technical questions about 

new entrants, whether it was an AM radio broadcaster trying to 

keep out that newfangled FM service in the 1930s or it was Ma 

Bell telling you that it was absolutely impossible for you to buy a 

telephone in the store and hook it up to the network without causing the entire network to fall down. Incumbents protect their territory and this situation is no different. We can certainly study the 

issue to death and we can study it more. We can create an entire 

stimulus package for just studying this issue but thousands of stations, thousands of applicants around the country have been waitVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:14 Jun 30, 2012 Jkt 073746 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A746.XXX A746

rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
117 

ing and waiting and we have put a lot of resources into it and we 

know the answer. The record is clear. 

So in closing, I want to share a quick experience with you, one 

of my favorite parts of working on low-power radio. I often get the 

chance to ask people, what would you do if you had a radio station? 

What would it sound like if your community were in control and 

all of a sudden their eyes light up because the wheels in their head 

are turning. Oh my gosh, we would broadcast the local high school 

football game. We would find out what exactly is going on at city 

council or the school board and what about that river on the other 

side of the county? Is that safe? Can my kids walk in it and wade 

in it? And the music, the band down the corner that they just 

heard for the first time that they’re sure is going to make it, the 

cherished songs from the homeland that they like to share with 

their children and their grandchildren. There is nothing like this 

on radio today. 

So I am bringing with you a potent example of why this service 

is so popular. These are 20,000 signatures. The public interest community has collected 20,000 signatures only since the end of February, since this legislation was introduced this year. This is just 

the tip of the iceberg. These 20,000 people are asking you all to 

move this legislation ahead and I hope that you will listen to them. 

Thank you for your time and I look forward to answering your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Leanza follows:] 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
118 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here 73746A.087
119 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here 73746A.088
120 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 73746A.089
121 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here 73746A.090
122 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 132 here 73746A.091
123 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 133 here 73746A.092
124 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 134 here 73746A.093
125 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 135 here 73746A.094
126 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 136 here 73746A.095
127 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here 73746A.096
128 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 73746A.097
129 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 73746A.098
130 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 73746A.099
131 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 73746A.100
132 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here 73746A.101
133 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here 73746A.102
134 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 73746A.103
135 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 73746A.104
136 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 73746A.105
137 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 73746A.106
138 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 73746A.107
139 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 73746A.108
140 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 73746A.109
141 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 73746A.110
142 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 73746A.111
143 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 73746A.112
144 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here 73746A.113
145 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here 73746A.114
146 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here 73746A.115
147 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 here 73746A.116
148 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here 73746A.117
149 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 73746A.118
150 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here 73746A.119
151 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here 73746A.120
152 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 here 73746A.121
153 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 163 here 73746A.122
154 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 164 here 73746A.123
155 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 165 here 73746A.124
156 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 166 here 73746A.125
157 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 here 73746A.126
158 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 168 here 73746A.127
159 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 169 here 73746A.128
160 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 170 here 73746A.129
161 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 171 here 73746A.130
162 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 172 here 73746A.131
163 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here 73746A.132
164 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here 73746A.133
165 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here 73746A.134
166 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here 73746A.135
167 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 177 here 73746A.136
168 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 178 here 73746A.137
169 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 179 here 73746A.138
170 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 180 here 73746A.139
171 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 181 here 73746A.140
172 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 182 here 73746A.141
173 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 183 here 73746A.142
174 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 184 here 73746A.143
175 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 185 here 73746A.144
176 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Ms. Leanza. Thanks to each of the 

witnesses for your testimony here today. 

I have two letters that are addressed to me which I am going to 

ask unanimous consent to be placed in the record. They are commentary on various items of legislation pending before us this 

morning. Without objection, those will be placed in the record. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. BOUCHER. And, Mr. Doyle, let me begin my questions with 

you with respect to low-power FM. 

One of the letters that I just placed in the record is from the public radio station that serves the western part of the State of Virginia. It serves my congressional district as well as two neighboring 

congressional districts and I think Mr. Walden had raised similar 

kinds of concerns to those raised in this letter during the course 

of his opening statement. 

This is a public radio station that has a main signal and that 

main signal then is picked up by a whole group of translators that 

are located in our very mountainous region and we have two mountain ranges in my congressional district alone. And for communities 

that are down in the valleys that are well away from the main signal, these translators are the way that public radio service gets 

propagated out across a very large area. And this is the principal 

public radio station for the entire western half of the State of Virginia. It probably covers something close to 30 counties. That coverage is largely through the translator facilities. 

The concern that has been expressed to me comes from that public radio station. So in this instance, it is a public station that is 

a bit concerned about opening the panorama of a potential for more 

public radio broadcasting, in this case truly local broadcasting. Not 

because they oppose it but because they are worried about interference. You made brief reference in your statement to which I listened very carefully, about the studies that you have done relative 

to translator facilities and I want to ask you to amplify on that a 

bit. 

The concern expressed to me is that the translator facility receiving a signal from the main broadcast tower is getting what is in 

effect a fairly weak signal because it is a long way away, and 

around that translator facility, having to pick up a very weak signal, if there is any local interference that interference can materially degrade that main signal coming into the translator and effectively impair the receipt of this public radio programming through 

most of the serviced territory. And that strikes me as a legitimate 

question if not a legitimate concern so what I am asking you is how 

legitimate is the concern and what have your studies shown about 

the ability of these translators to pick up very weak signals if there 

is any kind of interference in the area. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Yes, that is a legitimate concern. We do have a rule that protects 

what we call the input signal of a FM translator station and it is 

protected in the same way that stations signals are protected. 

Mr. BOUCHER. So this is a protection that would be specific to the 

translator itself and the area around the translator? 

Mr. DOYLE. Right, right, correct. 

Mr. BOUCHER. No, I understand. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
177 

Mr. DOYLE. I could look up the rule section number for but we 

do have that in place. 

Mr. BOUCHER. What do you conclude about the potential for third 

adjacency low-power FM within the immediate area of that translator? 

Mr. DOYLE. Well, that is exactly the qualification, within the immediate area of the translator there would be the potential for interference. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Right and so how do we guard against that? 

Mr. DOYLE. Well, we the commission has developed a rule to protect stations in that situation. 

Mr. BOUCHER. If Mr. Doyle’s bill passes, can your rule still 

stand? 

Mr. DOYLE. It is complementary, yes, it would still stand. 

Mr. BOUCHER. It is complementary. 

Mr. DOYLE. Yes. 

Mr. BOUCHER. I would like for you to submit for our record if you 

would, a more detailed explanation of how that rule works and answer directly the question of how that rule can coexist with Mr. 

Doyle’s bill in the event that it is enacted. 

Mr. DOYLE. We would be happy to do that. 

Mr. BOUCHER. OK, thank you. 

Mr. Donovan and Mr. Starzynski, you refer in your testimony 

with respect to volume controls on commercials on television programs to a forthcoming recommended practice. I believe you said 

that will be forthcoming in September and that your practice will 

address squarely the need to make sure that the volume on commercials is not excessive as compared to the regular broadcast programming for volumes? 

Mr. STARZYNSKI. That is right, Mr. Chairman, yes. 

Mr. BOUCHER. To what extent do you anticipate that this practice will be adopted by television broadcasters once it is published 

and I would ask you to make that projection based on whatever 

past experience you have with similar kinds of standards that have 

been recommended to the broadcast industry, Mr. Starzynski. 

Mr. STARZYNSKI. Oh OK. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Or Mr. Donovan, do you want, whoever. 

Mr. DONOVAN. I think it is a general matter when you have a 

recommended practice that has gone through the industry standard-setting body which is what ATSC is and in fact in many instances there is more technical detail in that standard than in others that we will refer to such as England and other countries. 

Mr. BOUCHER. I understand that it will be technically detailed 

but the question is to what extent will it be put into practice and 

adopted by the local broadcasters? 

Mr. DONOVAN. I think it will be. I think it clearly becomes the 

norm for the industry and the industry. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Is that based on past experience? 

Mr. DONOVAN. It is based on past experience as working through 

the ATSC and industry standards. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Is there any enforcement to make sure that that 

happens? 

Mr. DONOVAN. The enforcement becomes self-enforcing, in other 

words you have. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
178 

Mr. BOUCHER. Is there any monitoring that takes place to make 

sure that it is being complied with by those who at least in principle adopt it? 

Mr. STARZYNSKI. Absolutely there is monitoring that happens. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Who does the monitoring? 

Mr. STARZYNSKI. We do it internally. I can speak for NBC and 

it happens at the point at which the content comes into the building so it gets monitored extensively and the thing that it also does 

is it applies a contemporary monitoring device. One, you may remember the FCC said we can’t go farther with this a whole bunch 

of years ago because we don’t have the technology to do it. We have 

it now so that technology is an international standard. It works 

very well and it can’t be gamed so there is no issue where you may 

have someone trying to game the system. It really reads it and it 

works the way our ears work this time. It is not dealing with just 

the electronics. It is dealing with perceptual levels and we have 

every reason to apply this and to move forward with it because we 

agree with you, the problem is out there. We need to fix it. 

Mr. BOUCHER. All right. Well, you have confidence that your 

standard will be followed, that it will be monitored, that it can be 

effective. 

Mr. STARZYNSKI. Yes, I do. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you for those answers. 

Let me take just a moment to address the question of payphone 

rates that are imposed in correctional institutions. I am exceeding 

my time. The chair will be very generous with other members in 

terms of their time to ask questions, also. 

Mr. Hopfinger, let me pose a question to you. You have heard 

Mr. Krogh testify that sometimes the successful bidder in contracts 

to provide these telecommunication services to inmates will be the 

bidder who offers the highest commission to the correctional authority, not the bidder who offers the lowest priced service. Is that 

correct and if it is correct how is that justified? 

Mr. HOPFINGER. Well, Chairman Boucher, I would say that today 

that is not necessarily the case. As the sheriffs’ associations and 

the other associations have put forth mandates or recommendations that rates for inmates be just and reasonable for the inmates 

and for the people that are paying for these calls. I will tell you 

in the bidding systems today the majority of our bids, one of the 

criteria is for low rates but low rates in anticipation with all the 

other safety and security requirements that the system is needed. 

And, Mr. Krogh mentioned a few States where the rates are lower. 

I will say that in addition to the States that Mr. Krogh mentioned, 

there are additional States where rates are in fact coming down 

and that is as a result of the way system is working today. 

Mr. BOUCHER. All right. Mr. Krogh, let me ask you to respond 

if you like to the answer Mr. Hopfinger just provided and additionally if you would, Sheriff Goad in his testimony talked about the 

fact that the commissions that are received by correctional authorities are often applied toward services for inmates just as rehabilitative services. What is your view about whether those services 

should be financed by the commissions on telephone calls as compared perhaps to government simply providing through direct appropriations the money necessary for those essential services? 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
179 

Mr. KROGH. Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is true just turning to Mr. 

Hopfinger’s comments first. It is true that in some States the rates 

have come down as a result of decisions made by either the State 

legislature or correctional authorities but the point is that the majority of States, you still have and other jails and prison systems, 

you still have exorbitant rates where the bidding system has not 

been reformed and so you have violations of in all these other 

States, violations of the Communications Act because they are 

charging unreasonable rates. 

Mr. BOUCHER. OK. Come to the second part if you would. 

Mr. KROGH. And in terms of the prison welfare programs, I really 

do think that there is no justification for imposing a regressive tax 

on the users of those programs which is what the commission rates 

are. If there is a necessary program, it really ought to be funded 

out of the budget. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Out of the government’s budget. 

Mr. KROGH. Yes. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Under which the facility is operating. 

Mr. KROGH. Yes and I think things that are more voluntary that 

are more discretionary really the problem as I said is that you are 

taking the choice away from the prisoners and their families as to 

whether they would rather have reasonable rates. 

Mr. BOUCHER. That’s fine. Thank you very much, Mr. Krogh. 

Mr. KROGH. Yes. 

Mr. BOUCHER. My time is expired. The gentleman from Florida, 

Mr. Stearns. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Kelsey, in your opening statement you had mentioned that 

Australia, Brazil, France, Israel, Russia and the United Kingdom 

have already adopted legislation to control this burst of sound that 

comes from advertisements. How has it worked, do you know? And 

first of all, how long ago did they adopt this legislation? How long 

ago did they adopt it? 

Mr. KELSEY. I believe most of the countries in the last few years 

and I highlight in particular in Australia, the trade group that represents the broadcasters there went a step further and offered technical assistance to broadcasters and many in Australia and UK’s 

law in particular are very similar to the measure that Representative Eshoo has put forth. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. And have they been successful? 

Mr. KELSEY. I don’t know that. I can get back to you, yeah. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Starzynski, so the argument is okay we have 

adopted legislation, we don’t know if it will solve the problem. It 

is similar to what the gentlelady from California has authored. So 

the question is when would you think that you would have the solution here, you said September? 

Mr. STARZYNSKI. Well, we have the recommended practice that 

will be voted on by the membership this summer and released in 

September. We think that will go well and that is through the 

ATSC and we have got a lot of technology happening as we speak. 

I cited some new technology we are putting on the air at WNBC. 

Hopefully, fingers crossed, within the next couple of days that will 

apply a technical solution to the problem without having the creative folks who are very concerned about the quality of the sound 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
180 

get back to us with kind of a backlash and us altering their sound. 

So technology has gotten us to a point where we can apply good 

loudness practices but not alter the creativity of our suppliers. 

Mr. STEARNS. Well, the gentlelady’s legislation has urged you on 

here and given a little bit more incentive to do it. 

Mr. STARZYNSKI. There is no question that it has. The awareness 

level in the industry right now is tremendous. 

Mr. STEARNS. And with that in mind, perhaps the way to solve 

this problem is because Mr. Kelsey is saying these countries adopt 

it but they couldn’t do anything without the technical advice of people like yourself, so the legislation might pass but nothing is going 

to happen without you folks. So you folks are on the issue right 

now so it looks like you are ready with a solution and then that 

would be sometime this year you would have a solution and then 

we could assume that would be promulgated throughout the broadcast industry? 

Mr. STARZYNSKI. That is right as I have said before. 

Mr. STEARNS. And what assurance would we have that after you 

have the solution that everybody would adopt it 

Mr. STARZYNSKI. With the level of awareness that we have right 

now and we are all—we are not disputing the fact that there is a 

problem out there. We all know it. We want to fix it. 

Mr. STEARNS. No, no, but the question is after you have a solution, how soon would everybody adopt your solution and what assurance would we have that they would without legislation? 

Mr. STARZYNSKI. The assurance is they definitely want to solve 

the problem and to answer your timeframe on this. 

Mr. STEARNS. Yes. 

Mr. STARZYNSKI. It is going to vary based on the sophistication 

of the broadcast group or the operator that you are speaking about. 

In terms of NBC Universal with all of our resources, we have been 

able to attack this for the past couple of years directly but it is taking us a little while to get there because we require technology to 

let us do it. And you also need to understand the proper ways to 

apply the standard. I think that the rollout will be a little bit different across the board as it pertains to different levels of sophistication in the industry only because of budgets and that kind of 

thing but the key to all of it now is we have a roadmap that will 

be in place to help everyone out with this and there is no more ambiguity. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. So if you were writing this legislation, you say 

okay give us a little hiatus here. How long before we can say okay 

you haven’t done anything. We are going to pass this legislation. 

Mr. STARZYNSKI. Oh, I hope that it never comes to that. I hope 

that what happens you find that we self-regulate this and, you 

know, somebody said this before and I think it is really true, engineers want to solve problems and I think the experts are on it and 

they want to solve this issue for you guys for all of America. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. Mr. Doyle and Ms. Beasley, the question is 

that the FCC went out and hired an independent contractor, the 

Mitre Corporation, to determine if there was harmful interference. 

If low-power FM stations don’t cause harmful interference is what 

basically this independent report said, then the question is why do 

we need section five of the bill which requires the FCC to retain 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
181 

third adjacent channel protection for full-power, noncommercial FM 

stations that broadcasting services via a sub-carrier frequency. So 

I mean if you have an independent report that says it is no big 

problem, why would we need section five? I mean you dispute the 

independent Mitre disputed? 

Ms. BEASLEY. We believe that there are flaws within the Mitre 

report? 

Mr. STEARNS. Do you have an independent report of your own. 

Ms. BEASLEY. The industry has provided a report that outlines 

the flaws in the Mitre report. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. 

Ms. BEASLEY. That being said if I may go on. 

Mr. STEARNS. Oh sure. 

Ms. BEASLEY. My report, I am not an engineer but based on my 

understanding the Mitre report reviewed seven sites and we can 

just take away two of the sites if you will because one site was related to a reading service and one task related to translators so 

there were five other sites and there was significant interference 

found at these five sites relative to Walkmans and boom boxes. 

Now, Ms. Leanza, referred to south Florida stations, people, you 

know, going through, riding through hurricanes if you will. I am 

from south Florida. I was there. 

Mr. STEARNS. I understand. 

Ms. BEASLEY. I was there when Hurricane Wilma was and as 

well as Hurricane Charley and it is important to note that people 

do not go out and they don’t listen to their car radios. 

Mr. STEARNS. No, I understand the case. I understand. We are 

just trying to understand if the FCC has an independent contractor 

that says there is no big problem why suddenly you are disputing 

it. 

Ms. BEASLEY. Well we do and it is on record that we have and 

there is a report. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. Let me just go then. 

Mr. DOYLE. Excuse me, could I provide some FCC input into 

this? 

Mr. STEARNS. Sure, Mr. Doyle. 

Mr. DOYLE. Radio reading services are delivered on sub-carrier 

frequencies. These tend to be more fragile then the main transmission and in fact the Mitre report did find limited amount of interference to the sub-carriers that a radio reading service would be 

carried on. And the commission, on it’s own in developing these 

rules imposed this requirement on low-power stations to ensure 

that this vital service would not be degraded by low-power stations. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you. Mr. Krogh, I guess a standard question 

in this issue is it a constitutional right for an inmate to have access 

to a phone? Is that yes or no? I don’t know. Does an inmate have 

to have access to a phone, just yes or no, do you know? 

Mr. KROGH. I—that really hasn’t played a role in the FCC proceedings and so I don’t really don’t have a answer on that. 

Mr. STEARN. OK. And is it the right that they have to have rates 

that are low? I mean I think we would all like them have rates but 

it is, you know, generally when I go out to buy something it is what 

the market will bear and so what we are doing as the government 

is dictating that the rates have to be low to give inmates this right 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
182 

to have access to the phone. The families don’t have to accept these 

collect calls. They can come in and see them or perhaps if they are 

geographically a long ways away perhaps they could restrict their 

calls because if you make it a lot cheaper they are going to call 

more and perhaps it might even be the same rate. So this $400, 

this $395 a month you talk about, if the rates a lot cheaper, perhaps they are going to make more calls and they will still rack up 

to $395 so at some point somebody is going to have to make a consumer decision we don’t want to pay this. 

Sheriff Goad, your argument is basically that you use these excessive funds for rehabilitation and services to help the inmates. In 

your opinion, I think the chairman touched on it, do you believe 

that the government should provide these or do you think that it 

should be done the way you are doing it? 

Sheriff GOAD. Well, I think it should be done the way we are 

doing it. I think in these hard economic times we are constantly 

being cut on budgets. We find that these funds allow us to provide 

many of these indigent inmates with the services they need along 

with undergarments, socks, Bibles. 

Mr. STEARNS. Your biggest argument I thought was the security. 

Sheriff GOAD. Yes. 

Mr. STEARNS. When you talked about that you are saying if these 

somehow the government stepped in and prevented you from having the rates that you feel are appropriate then you would not be 

able to provide the survey, the recording, the watch on terrorists 

lists and things like that. 

Sheriff GOAD. Correct, criminal investigations. 

Mr. STEARNS. Criminal investigations which is part of our national security. 

Sheriff GOAD. Absolutely. 

Mr. STEARNS. And depending upon the inmate, whether he is 

there for the severity of the crime would impact how much attention you have to do for that inmate and his telephone call. 

Sheriff GOAD. Yes, sir, they even circumvent some of our phone 

systems where they actually do three-way calling. They will call 

someone outside the facility, get several people on lines, a party 

call and proceed to conduct business as usual. 

Mr. STEARNS. Yeah, a lot of these calls are not shall we say, felicitous calls. These are calls with intent to perhaps commit more 

crime or to do witness tampering and things like that, is what you 

are saying. 

Sheriff GOAD. Correct, we have had intimidation of witnesses. 

We have also had other crimes. 

Mr. STEARNS. You have got to have the funds to do that security 

survey in effect or we are really putting our citizens at danger. 

Sheriff GOAD. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WEINER [presiding]. Just to yield myself a brief moment or 

two just to clarify a couple of things on the record. 

This notion of a free market, I don’t know who can answer this. 

A free market, will that dictate that if someone has a calling 

charge, collect call charge 630 percent higher then the market, tell 

me a little bit about what the family can do to shop around for a 

lower rate when someone is making a collect call to them from a 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
183 

prison. Perhaps, Mr. Krogh, maybe you can explain how the free 

market works in this instance. 

Mr. KROGH. Well, there is no free market in prison calling. There 

is the exclusive service provider who provides all the call and you 

have no choice and so because of that if we are going to continue 

with exclusive service contracts, the rates have to be regulated. 

The FCC has broad authority to regulate interstate telecommunications including and there are no exceptions for prisoners. Section 

201(b) of the Act requires that rates be just and reasonable with 

no exceptions and the families who are paying for these collect calls 

should have the benefit of that Federal Law as much as anyone 

else. 

Mr. WEINER. Right. I think that most members of this committee 

and apparently the gentleman from Florida would agree that we 

should have the free market. Let’s let market forces be brought to 

bear. Let’s let more than one operator. Let’s let 800 numbers function and I think that that is the point. 

Mr. Doyle, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. TERRY. Parliamentary inquiry. Don’t we go back and forth? 

Mr. WEINER. Certainly, we do. 

Mr. TERRY. Well, you just spoke. 

Mr. WEINER. Was that a line of questioning? I thought it was 

just a point of clarification. 

Mr. TERRY. I think he asked his question. 

Mr. WEINER. If the gentleman insists, the gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. Let me start with the three on this side 

and just work down the table. Let me just give an editorial comment more than a question and certainly I think the least sympathetic characters are the ones that are in prison but there is something distasteful about taking advantage of them, too, which I 

think is the underlying premise for this act. Mr. Hopfinger, you 

made a good point and that sheriff, that there are security concerns 

and technologies that have to be woven in here that add to the expense. I think that is extremely fair and a good point. I guess the 

issue is then how much of a gap is there when you add in the cost 

of this additional technologies where it is just becoming the in essence, I guess, the slush fund for the jails or the prisons. Mr. 

Krogh, I will give you about 15 seconds because I got a couple of 

other things. 

Mr. KROGH. Yes, I think Mr. Hopfinger has been unduly modest. 

I would like to put in a plug for Securus. Securus, for example, in 

Florida is able to provide collect calling, interstate collect calling 

for 4 cents a minute plus a connection charge of $1.20 which is 

equivalent to 14 cents a minute for a 12-minute call and they do 

that elsewhere so they can do it. They can cover all of the these 

expensive security functions and all the other monitoring and everything else that they have been talking about at those very reasonable rates. Plus, in Florida, they are paying out of that low rate, 

a 35 percent commission. So in Florida you can have it all. 

Mr. TERRY. All right. Well, I will take my time back and I will 

just say I think this does a raise a concern and my message back 

to Sheriff Goad is perhaps to communicate that you have been on 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
184 

a conservative, pro-justice side, there is concerns about the telephone rates. 

The next group on audio sound, it is a real concern. You guys 

know that. Mr. Starzynski, close enough. I will follow up on Cliff’s 

notes, the public demands this. They want action from us so the 

message back, Mr. Donovan, is and to you, is and NAB and everyone else that is involved in here, the sooner the better. If this 

doesn’t get cleared up, if you guys will vote and address this issue 

in September. If we come back here this same time next year and 

most of the TV stations haven’t resolved this, this is going to pass. 

That is my message to you. In our household it is so annoying that 

the habit that we have is when the commercials come on we just 

hit mute, not because we don’t want to hear the commercial but 

the decibel level goes up significantly. 

Mr. STARZYNSKI. Right and that is not a good place for us to be. 

Mr. TERRY. And that is not a good place. It is self-defeating. 

Mr. STARZYNSKI. Right. 

Mr. TERRY. Last, let us go to my major issue with Mr. Doyle and, 

Mr. Doyle, who is no relation to the author of this bill, just that 

I would. 

Mr. DOYLE. That is correct. My side is not really good at breeding 

that much so we. 

Mr. TERRY. Too much information but there was a suggestion 

that in the Mitre study not only was it the reading but five of 

seven of the other sites had interference? That is not my understanding. Is that accurate? 

Mr. DOYLE. The Mitre study showed that if we threw out one 

outlier case that there was no interference at distance for LP hundred stations, your basic low-power station at distances greater 

than 333 meters. That interference became common under 250 meters and severe within 100 meters of the LPFM transmitter site. 

It has never been the commission’s position that there would be no 

interference but as I tried to explain in my test imony, we have 

ample experience with translators to figure out how to make this 

work. 

Mr. TERRY. All right. 

Ms. LEANZA. Mr. Terry, would you mind if I just? 

Mr. TERRY. You have 21 seconds. 

Ms. LEANZA. The area of interference we are talking on the 

ground of a low-power radio station, we are talking .0013 of the geographic area of a full-power radio station so tiny area. If you are 

next door to a low-power radio station in the same building as a 

low-power radio station, you might not be able to hear one of the 

radio stations. Other then that, there is not an issue. 

Mr. WEINER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, is 

recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. DOYLE OF PENNSYLVANIA. Thank you. Mr. Doyle, and we are 

not related for the record. So 10 years ago the committee heard the 

fears from broadcasters that if the FCC license these low-power FM 

stations on third adjacent that the dial was going to be drenched 

in oceans of interference. So when we passed the Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act on an appropriations rider, Mr. Doyle, I 

take it to mean that all low-power FM broadcasting has stopped on 

those third adjacent frequencies? 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
185 

Mr. DOYLE. Well, yes and no. We certainly have carefully followed the directions from Congress and not licensed so-called lowpower FM stations. On the other hand, what I have tried to explain 

is that FM translators are technically indistinguishable from lowpower FM stations and that for example, in the chairman’s own 

district, the station he was concerned about, eight translator stations operate without effective breach. 

Mr. DOYLE OF PENNSYLVANIA. Right and I am looking at page 

five of your testimony where the FCC says there is 1,800 of these 

translators already broadcasting right now on the same frequencies 

that there noncommercial groups want to broadcast on, is that correct? 

Mr. DOYLE. Well, most of these translators are actually in the 

non-reserved band, the 92 to 108 as opposed to the 88 to 92 part 

where noncommercial stations simply broadcast. Most low-power licensing has occurred in the part of the band where there are not 

noncommercial stations. There are some but by and large, that is 

not the problem. 

Mr. DOYLE OF PENNSYLVANIA. But we have translators on third 

adjacent? 

Mr. DOYLE. Absolutely. 

Mr. DOYLE OF PENNSYLVANIA. OK. So, Ms. Beasley, does your organization or are you personally, are you advocating for the elimination of these translators? 

Ms. BEASLEY. We do not have or use translators within our company so it is the NAB’s position that it is my understanding that 

full-power FM stations use translators for fill-in to cover the mass. 

Mr. DOYLE OF PENNSYLVANIA. But NAB is not advocating that 

we eliminate translators and do you think these translators cause 

oceans of interference? 

Ms. BEASLEY. I can’t speak to that because I personally do not, 

we do not have translators. 

Mr. DOYLE OF PENNSYLVANIA. I don’t think that is the NAB’s position. I guess, Ms. Leanza, who owns and operates the translators? 

Ms. LEANZA. By and large, most full-power broadcasters have 

some sort of translators. It depends on what type of service they 

are providing. 

Ms. BEASLEY. We do not. 

Ms. LEANZA. Right, not no, certainly you don’t but many, many 

do. It is a widespread use. It is not an atypical, unusual use. 

Mr. DOYLE OF PENNSYLVANIA. So if they don’t cause interference 

and they are technically identical and these translators don’t have 

some special magical power to work then surely these translators 

must be less powerful then an LPM broadcast. 

Mr. Doyle, full-power FM stations sometimes run up to 100,000 

watts, while a noncommercial FM station can run up to 100 watts 

so I am assuming these translators must be less powerful then 

that. How powerful are these translators that don’t cause interference when they are at third adjacent from another station? 

Mr. DOYLE. Our rules permit a translator up to 250 watts. 

Mr. DOYLE OF PENNSYLVANIA. 250 watts so two and a half times 

more powerful then any LPFM station so what you are telling me 

is and I hope my colleagues will listen to this, is that what we call 

a rose by any other name would smell as sweet but when it comes 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
186 

to FCC and the big broadcasters this name is critical. Translators 

that serve the interest of big broadcasters work just fine on these 

third adjacent channels and there is no complaints and no issues 

about interference but when a low-power station run by community 

groups, schools, churches, local governments cause interference, 

somehow in the same adjacent channel these somehow cause interference. I just hope once and for all we can sort of eliminate this 

doubletalk that has been taking place for years. 

I want to talk about interference, too. Now, Ms. Beasley, in your 

statement you referenced the Mitre report and you said that there 

was interference caused by low power FM stations. I read that 

study and in the most extreme circumstance it was found that the 

interference was .13 percent of the population inside the protected 

zone of a full-power station. Just for my note now, you find that 

to be an unacceptable level of interference? 

Ms. BEASLEY. What I read last night was there was significant 

degradation at these five sites when you are testing with boom 

boxes and Walkmans. 

Mr. DOYLE OF PENNSYLVANIA. .13 percent but you found that, 

you think that is unacceptable? 

Ms. BEASLEY. It is significant such that well if you can’t get a 

signal, if you can’t hear the programming, if there is static and if 

you are operating when there is a hurricane going through your 

area and we are providing information to the masses and we, yes. 

Mr. DOYLE OF PENNSYLVANIA. So I take that as a yes, okay. I am 

curious I see that the NAB has pushed for allowing broadcasters 

to put HD radio stations next to and along with their analog broadcast but the engineers found that an average of .6 percent of the 

population inside the protected zone could have their listening effective. Now, that is not a worse case scenario like low-power’s .13 

percent. That is an average finding .6 percent, so that is a lot more 

interference then the low-power stations would cause even in a 

worse case scenario. 

So, Mr. Doyle, let me make sure I understand this correctly. The 

NAB has endorsed this .6 level of interference as acceptable for HD 

radio? 

Mr. DOYLE. I don’t really understand. 

Mr. DOYLE OF PENNSYLVANIA. Has the NAB filed a request to 

multiply the power of these digital signals by 1,000 percent? 

Mr. DOYLE. No, they asked to increase it by tenfold from 1 percent to 10 percent of the analog power level. The issue there, Mr. 

Doyle, I think is different. That is a question of digital into analog 

and I am not sure that it correlates to the analog into analog technical dispute that is your bill is focused on. 

Mr. DOYLE OF PENNSYLVANIA. So let me ask you one final question, Mr. Doyle. You are the expert at the FCC. You have studied 

this issue backwards and forwards. Twice the FCC and bipartisan 

votes have recommended that Congress lift this prohibition of third 

adjacent channel. Do you think that passing this bill will in anyway hurt public radio stations like my friend, Mr. Walden, is concerned about or this will cause any interference of a major proportion outside that 100-foot zone that you thought? I mean what basically happens so that finally communities like mine who can’t get 

LPFM, can’t get an LPFM station in the City of Pittsburgh. There 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
187 

are a lot of places in this country, 140 million people don’t have access to this valuable service because of this rule which apparently 

doesn’t seem to cause—do you see any harmful effects by allowing 

us to use third adjacent for LPFM? 

Mr. DOYLE. The commission’s judgment was not that there would 

be no interference. It was that the interference would be tightly 

limited to the immediate environment of the LPFM transmitter 

site and looking at the significant benefits of an expanded LPFM 

service, decided that the benefits far outweighed the very, very limited interference that would occur typically within 100 or 200 meters of the LPFM transmitters. 

Mr. WEINER. Thank you, Mr. Doyle 

Mr. DOYLE OF PENNSYLVANIA. Thank you very much. 

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Walden is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Doyle, I had a question for you. Do LPFM applicants have 

priority on frequency over existing translators? 

Mr. DOYLE. LPFM has priority over no one right now. The priority relationship between translators and LPFM stations is a firstcome, first-served rule so they are coequal so that today. 

Mr. WALDEN. So one can’t bump the other? 

Mr. DOYLE. That is correct. 

Mr. WALDEN. OK. Talk to me about the requirements on LPFM. 

Do they have to have a main—do they fall under the main studio 

rule? 

Mr. DOYLE. They do not have a main studio rule. They must be 

local. We don’t have staffing requirements for them. We don’t have 

public inspection files. 

Mr. WALDEN. So they are—I want to go back to that. So lowpower FM, do they have a requirement to serve their community 

like commercial broadcasters do and how do they identify their 

compliance with that if they don’t have a public file or a main studio? What does the FCC require? 

Mr. DOYLE. Well, every station must be licensed; must be held 

by a local community organization. 

Mr. WALDEN. Understood. 

Mr. DOYLE. It must be operated on a noncommercial basis. 

Mr. WALDEN. And how do you monitor that point because I have 

heard from people that they are out basically selling advertising. 

Are they allowed to do that? 

Mr. DOYLE. No, they are not. 

Mr. WALDEN. And do you take enforcement actions? 

Mr. DOYLE. Not my division directly. 

Mr. WALDEN. Could you provide me with enforcement actions you 

have taken and complaints you have received, for the record? 

Mr. DOYLE. We would be very happy to do so and there have 

been some related to violations of our underwriting rule so you are 

correct on that. 

Mr. WALDEN. I thought so. I want to go back though as a citizen 

I have the right to go into any commercial radio station. I assume 

public broadcast, as well, and look at their public file to see how 

they are addressing the issues that are important to their community. What is the requirement for an LPFM? What is my right as 

a citizen to go in and see what they have identified as their comVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:14 Jun 30, 2012 Jkt 073746 PO 00000 Frm 00193 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A746.XXX A746

rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
188 

munity issues and how they are addressing them? Do I have right 

to a public file? 

Mr. DOYLE. When the commission created this service they decided that it would work best with very limited reporting and filing 

responsibilities and they do not have. 

Mr. WALDEN. Do they have to do community ascertainment? Do 

they have to decide what is important to their community? 

Mr. DOYLE. No, but certainly. 

Mr. WALDEN. OK. 

Mr. DOYLE. Like every other station, every eight years their license comes up for renewal and the public is welcome to comment 

on whether the station is operating in the public interest. 

Mr. WALDEN. And that public interest though for other broadcasters, that is pretty well spelled out. They have to serve their 

community, right? So you are telling me these LPFMs don’t have 

to serve their community? How do I know? I mean they don’t have 

to identify? 

Ms. LEANZA. They have the same obligations. 

Mr. WALDEN. Oh, they do. So they do have a public file requirement? 

Ms. LEANZA. There is not a public file. 

Mr. WALDEN. And they have a main studio requirement where 

I can go in and look? 

Ms. LEANZA. But they are licensed also under the Communications Act. They have an obligation to serve the public. 

Mr. WALDEN. I don’t think your mike is on, by the way as an old 

radio guy, or just get real close to it. So but I am trying to get to 

this point of they can come into—the public can go into any radio, 

commercial or public broadcast station and look in the public file. 

My question is do LPFMs have to have a public file? 

Ms. LEANZA. Currently, under the rules, they do not. 

Mr. WALDEN. And do they have to identify what the issues of 

concern are in their community and address those issues? 

Ms. LEANZA. They do generally speaking because they are subject 

to the same public interest standard that all broadcasts are subject 

to. 

Mr. WALDEN. So, Mr. Doyle, is that correct? They have to identify community interests on a quarterly basis and speak to how 

they address them or not? 

Mr. DOYLE. The quarterly issues program requirement does not 

apply to low-power stations. 

Mr. WALDEN. So how do you ever measure them when it comes 

up to license renewal whether they have served their community? 

What is the standard you apply? 

Mr. DOYLE. Well, while listeners would not have the ability to review a station’s issues programs list, they have the same opportunities as listeners of any station to come to the commission with 

their concerns about the programming that they have heard on the 

station during the prior license term. 

Mr. WALDEN. Are the LPFMs required to have the Emergency 

Alert System capabilities too to notify their listeners in the event 

of an emergency? 

Mr. DOYLE. They do have an EAS requirement. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
189 

Mr. WALDEN. OK. And they are not a priority station, though I 

assume? 

Mr. DOYLE. I don’t think any. 

Mr. WALDEN. None are primaries. OK. All right. 

Ms. LEANZA. But they do most of them are setup automated so 

they can transmit through that signal automatically at any time. 

Mr. WALDEN. Yeah, they are allowed to do unattended operation 

as well, right? Is there any requirement of local programming on 

those LPFMs or could they just download satellite programming 

and rebroadcast it? 

Mr. DOYLE. Our licensing criteria favor those stations that pledge 

to do at least eight hours of locally originated programming but 

there is no local program origination requirement. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. Thank you. 

Ms. LEANZA. That there is on any other station. There is not such 

obligation. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WEINER. Thank you. Mr. Rush, there is less than a minute 

left on the clock on the floor. Would you like to try to squeeze in 

now or do you just want to be the first when we come back? We 

are going to recess until about 12:25. I appreciate your patience 

when we do promptly. There is nine of you. Maybe you can go play 

baseball or something. The committee is in recess until approximately 12:30. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. WEINER. The committee has returned from recess. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for five minutes. 

Ms. ESHOO. I thank the chairman. It is nice to see you in the 

chair and I apologize both to committee members and to the witnesses that are here today, especially those that have an interest 

in the CALM Act which I am the author of. I have three places 

that I needed to be at the exact same time today and all of them 

important, so I apologize for being late. I would like to submit my 

opening statement for the record. 

Mr. WEINER. We have got to get you one of those translator devices they were talking about. You can be everywhere at once. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yeah, I would like to submit my statement for the 

record and I would like to take this opportunity to thank not only 

members of the committee that are cosponsors of the CALM Act 

but also point to Chairman Boucher because he has had a commitment to the bill and we wouldn’t be a part of this hearing, this bill 

would not be part of the hearing today. 

I think unless someone has said this, this is the bill. It is essentially a one-page bill. This is not complicated and while I don’t 

think I need to reemphasize why the change is needed, it is worth 

saying that I think consumers have waited too long for this change 

to be made. 

I am thrilled that there is technology and the confidence that 

there is technology that will address this. I come from the technology capital of the United States of America, Silicon Valley. I 

have no doubt that technology can take care of this and the technologists need to work hand-in-hand with the FCC. You are ready 

to go. This bill passes and is signed into Law, then you will have 

a key role in that. I don’t find the bill menacing, most frankly, beVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:14 Jun 30, 2012 Jkt 073746 PO 00000 Frm 00195 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A746.XXX A746

rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
190 

cause all it does is instruct the FCC within a year of enactment 

to come up with a solution. 

There were hearings in the ’60s. There were hearings in the ’70s. 

There were hearings in the ’80s. It is now the 21st century. There 

is no reason for people to have to hit their mute buttons. There just 

isn’t. I think it is a disadvantage to advertisers who pay a lot of 

money and how the broadcasters really keep themselves going, the 

programming and the networks. 

So I have to say in 16 and a half years in Congress, I have never 

had a bill that was so embraced by so many. I don’t even get to 

finish my sentence about what the bill would accomplish but people 

say absolutely. Good luck. We need to do this. It is a great source 

of irritation to me. So while this is a profoundly sobering time in 

the history of our nation, I by no means see the CALM Act as being 

something that is going to resolve, you know, huge, daunting, national problems. It, frankly, is way down the list when we examine 

the great challenges that America has but I do think that it is 

something that we should and that we can take care of. 

I think consumers have had it. Newspapers have editorialized in 

different parts of the country. Consumers know what this is. You 

mention it. It is bipartisan. It is a bipartisan irritant. Let me put 

it that way. So to the technologists, I am very pleased that you are 

taking this seriously and than you think that the answer is around 

the corner. You can take that great message to the FCC and I look 

forward to this bill passing with huge support in both the House 

and in the other body and I want to thank everyone that has been 

involved in this and those that have supported it and as well as 

those that have questions. I think that you should take a deep 

breath, stay very calm, if you don’t mind my using the title of the 

bill and that this one-page bill will bring some relief, a lot of relief 

to a lot of people across the country. 

With that, I will yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, thank you and I am going to return to my other committee 

and look forward to great vote on this. Thank you very, very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Eshoo follows:] 

Mr. WEINER. The chair yields himself five minutes. 

If we could return a moment to the Family Telephone Connection 

Protection Act, in the conversation between Mr. Stearns and I 

think the sheriff and maybe Mr. Hopfinger. There was the position 

posited that perhaps telephone contact with the outside world is 

problematic. There is plans to sharing of information that might be 

deleterious. That is contrary to what other findings that we have 

seen that say that frankly keeping connection not just inside the 

jail but having a connection outside with the world is actually salutary to their rehabilitation. 

Mr. Krogh, do you want to weigh in on that discussion and then, 

Mr. Hopfinger, I will give you another chance to expound on what 

you were saying. 

Mr. KROGH. Yes, the studies have uniformly demonstrated that 

maintaining these communications is very important for rehabilitation and especially in situations where you have got inmates who 

are very far away from their families, sometimes in other States. 

And it is crucial to have reasonable rates so that they can maintain 

these ties with the community and their families. And you can also 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
191 

have good security. Securus, as I mentioned, provides all of these 

security functions in a number of States and apparently they are 

able to do this and still make a profit at very reasonable rates. 

Florida and New Mexico are two examples. So there is no inconsistency between having reasonable rates so you have plenty of ties between maintaining these ties between the prisoners and their families. 

Mr. WEINER. Is there any evidence that the Federal Government, 

the Federal Penal System which has an 800 number for which families pay I think 7 cents a minute? Is there any sign that those are 

less safe, any signs that there is any more sharing of information, 

any more witness tampering? Is there any evidence at all to support the thesis that maybe having barriers to people making phone 

calls like a 600 percent additional cost compared to what the Federal Government charges? Is there any evidence at all to support 

the theory that that somehow reduces recidivism or it reduces witness tampering or anything like that? Is there any evidence that 

you have seen in your experience that shows that? 

Mr. KROGH. I haven’t seen anything that shows that there are 

problems in the Federal system which has debit calling and at a 

fairly reasonable rate and again, if you have got—you can have all 

of the security functions so you can keep control over that call and 

still have a reasonable rate. 

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Hopfinger, do you want to take the contrary position? 

Mr. HOPFINGER. Let me say, we concur that contact with the outside world by inmates is certainly appropriate. We wouldn’t be in 

business if that contact didn’t occur but every system that we install must be customized and looked at on an individual basis. Mr. 

Krogh has discussed large Department of Correction facilities 

where there are low rates. The Federal facilities that have a large 

number of inmates where there are low rates. Those things don’t 

necessarily fit especially in the city and small county jails because 

just simply the volume of calls is not there in which to recover the 

cost. 

We absolutely want to provide as much service and complete as 

many calls as we can but it must be done so on a secure basis. Our 

concern with the bill is it would mandate something that would not 

fit in many of the facilities. Plus, the fact the bill goes well beyond 

talking about just rates. It mandates other issues that would in 

fact actually increased the cost to both our services and to the correctional facilities. So that is our concern. 

Mr. WEINER. Thank you. Let me just move on briefly to the 

CALM Act. I am curious why this is such a difficult technological 

fix. Certainly, that if someone wants to advertise on a local TV station that they are told that they have to provide the advertisement 

in a certain format. It has got to be on a certain size disc or a certain size tape. I am sure they are told that it has to be of a certain 

length, a certain duration and it has to be of a certain quality in 

order. Why can’t you just say it has got to be no louder than X? 

Why don’t you say as a standard for what you are going to accept 

for advertising, you have got to be in this category? They play the 

tape, if it is not you say you have got to go back to your shop and 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
192 

fix it. Tell me why that intuitive reaction to this problem is technologically difficult. Mr. Donovan, fire away? 

Mr. DONOVAN. I think essentially you are correct and which is 

why you are seeing policies that have been established by the 

major networks, for example, that have precisely that in which 

they would like their advertising and their programming to be sent 

to them in a certain way. You do have a variety of program suppliers and advertisers and what have you bringing in the inputs. 

You have local advertising. You have national spot advertising, 

syndicated programming, network programming but that is all, 

candidly, it is all being worked out. The networks have established 

a policy to do that so conceptually, you are right. This is something 

that needs to be done and is being done. Where it got a little bit 

tricky here, and I will let Jim go into detail on this but where it 

got tricky is that you want to make sure that while you are controlling the advertising aspects in terms of loudness and what have 

you. You don’t want to squelch the benefits of the digital system, 

i.e., the Dolby 5.1 which has tremendous dynamic range for consumers that bought surround sound, theater sets and what have 

you because if you just put a level right across the board, not only 

would you hit the advertising but you would also hit the program. 

So that is what has made it a little bit tricky as we move forward 

with digital which is why, I mean we have been working on this 

since 2007 and I think that Jim will tell you we are there. I mean 

you are literally several months away from actually working out an 

ATSC standard that will resolve it. But the concern we have now, 

sir, is that as I said, engineers are problem solvers and we are 

there. Once you create a—and there are winners and losers whenever you have these engineering battles. Once you create a new 

venue, which is okay now we are going to kick it over to the FCC 

for a rule, what you sometimes do and it is true in any standard 

setting issue that gets kicked over to the commission, you create 

a jump ball. 

Mr. WEINER. I understand that and I heard that in the testimony 

but if you look at our punch list of the reasons people comment opposed legislation like one of the general reasons is we agree, we are 

on it, got you covered, no need to pass any legislation and it 

doesn’t—it strikes some of us who obviously are not technology people like you are. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Right. 

Mr. WEINER. That it seems like a relatively easy fix was coming 

and it never arrived. 

Mr. DONOVAN. And so it is here. 

Mr. WEINER. I know, I hear you. Mr. Starzynski, maybe you can 

just answer why you can’t just say look, here is your checklist of 

things, the requirements you need to have and being excessively 

loud when you are selling. 

Mr. STARZYNSKI. You have hit the critical part of the issue. So 

we publish a content specification, a delivery spec that goes out to 

all of our suppliers. It doesn’t matter if they are program suppliers 

or if they are commercial suppliers. We ask them to hit a target 

level like I said in my testimony. The issue has been that with the 

digital transition and moving off of analog and going to digital with 

all this great range that we have been speaking about, there is the 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
193 

opportunity there to have problems with controlling your loudness 

if you don’t understand the new techniques that are involved or if 

you don’t own the equipment that is necessary that I spoke about 

before, which kind of changes the game in the way all of this is 

done through the ITU standard and which the gentleman from 

Consumer Reports spoke about. 

So the ATSC recommended practice goes right to the heart of 

that and it says you will use this standard to measure your sound 

and you will take those readings and you will deliver your content 

as asked in the program spec. And we all put this in there but I 

think what you are getting at is the issue is that, you remember 

I spoke a little bit before about the culture change. We have had 

a lot of folks mixing sound with old analog techniques for a very 

long time using meters that protected the electronics, not meters, 

contemporary meters like the ones that work like your ears do. So 

we get this out in the industry. We have got a roadmap on where 

we need to go with this. Technology is catching up on this. Things 

are becoming cheaper and the bill that is out in front of us today 

really has raised such a level of awareness across the industry that 

it is like a no-brainer that this is got to happen. We are not disputing that there is a problem here. We got to fix the problem and 

again and this just rains true, the engineers that are kind of working on this whose living is based on this, want to go out there and 

fix this and make it right for the public. Is that helpful? 

Mr. WEINER. It was. Thank you. 

Mr. KELSEY. Can I just quickly add, I think one of the things 

that we saw with the DTV transition is that many broadcasters are 

different and I think that the broadcasters that step up and adopt 

the standard should definitely be commended for changing this but, 

you know, a standard is one of the key way to make sure that listeners in Dallas experience the same type of viewing as listeners 

in New York. And so, you know, I would urge the committee and 

also the FCC. 

Mr. WEINER. We are used to a higher volume in New York but 

what can I do about that? Do you have one final you want to? 

Mr. DONOVAN. One final point on that is because when the ATSC 

standard was adopted it includes a number of voluntary components to that standard, and to Chairman Boucher’s initial comment, question, even though they are voluntary, they are adopted 

throughout the industry. So it is not a question that you have to 

have this or something won’t get done. This will get adopted and 

disseminate throughout the entire industry. 

Mr. WEINER. Thank you. And before I yield to Mr. Rush, just 

would request unanimous consent that two editorials about the 

high cost of phone service being charged to inmates by Errol Louis 

of The Daily News be included in the record. Without objection, so 

ordered not. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Rush, you are recognized for such time as you 

may need. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Boy oh boy oh boy, I think 

I have heard it all. Mr. Chairman, let me just start by first of all 

I want to thank you for obtaining support 20 media justice organiVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:14 Jun 30, 2012 Jkt 073746 PO 00000 Frm 00199 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A746.XXX A746

rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
194 

zations around the country in support of this bill. Would you please 

express my thanks and gratitude to all of them, please? 

I want to also, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, 

announce that my bill H.R. 1133 has been urged to be adopted by 

the American Correctional Association in support of the goals in 

this legislation ensuring access and reasonable rates for telecommunication services. 

Now, I want to, Mr. Hopfinger, you have really kind of stretched 

the issue so thin, I don’t really know how to express how preposterous I think it is. Are you trying to tell me that this 

grandmamma who got a grandson that she been trying to raise in 

the poor community. She is on a fixed income. Are you trying to 

tell me that your company has a right to snatch her hard, her dollars first of all, she is on a fixed income, to pay for you gouging 

her grandson who is the inmate and somehow you justify it by saying that you are on the lookout for Al-Qaeda or Al-Qaeda 

operatives? Are you trying to tell this subcommittee that that is a 

part of your rationale? 

Mr. HOPFINGER. Congressman, we are not trying to gouge anyone. Our rates try to be compensatory in offering the services we 

do and we offer those services in a manner that we hope protects 

the public and the safety of the inmates. The rates are higher in 

most correctional institutions because of those requirements. 

Mr. RUSH. All right. All right. Sheriff Goad. 

Sheriff GOAD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RUSH. You have indicated that you have some services that 

are paid for, a lot of programs that are paid for by these exorbitant 

rates, these excessive rates that inmates are being charged. 

Sheriff GOAD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RUSH. Can you give us an idea of some of those services? 

Sheriff GOAD. Yes, sir. The inmate, a lot of it is inmate welfare 

funds. 

Mr. RUSH. What do you mean by that? 

Sheriff GOAD. Underwear, socks, toothbrushes, toothpaste. 

Mr. RUSH. In the absence of these funds, in the absence of this 

business arrangement between this company or whatever company 

they are. 

Sheriff GOAD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RUSH. Are you saying that your inmates would be forced to 

run around naked? Is that what you are saying? 

Sheriff GOAD. No, sir, I would not. 

Mr. RUSH. All right. Well then what alternatives are there? 

Sheriff GOAD. In the past prior to some of the things that are in 

place now with the resources that we have, a lot of your community 

people provided these issues to such as underwear and socks and 

some other things to our inmates. 

Mr. RUSH. And are you saying that there is no responsibility first 

and foremost by the government of Maryland to provide these 

kinds of items for the inmates? 

Sheriff GOAD. No, sir, I would not say that. 

Mr. RUSH. OK. And so then the little old grandmammas or these 

single mothers who have small children and one or two who might 

be incarcerated, are you saying then that they should be taking 

food off their table to pay for underwear that really is the responsiVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:14 Jun 30, 2012 Jkt 073746 PO 00000 Frm 00200 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A746.XXX A746

rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
195 

bility of the State of Maryland? Is that what you are telling this 

committee? 

Sheriff GOAD. No, on that note I would not say that. I would say 

that we are providing a service to the inmates and of course that 

service is not. 

Mr. RUSH. What other laudable program besides making sure 

that the inmates, you know, have Michael Jordan underwear, what 

other laudable programs you got? 

Sheriff GOAD. We do anti-recidivism programs. We have age education, basic adult education which is GED, substance abuse programs along with child. 

Mr. RUSH. And what percentage are these commissions go toward those programs? 

Sheriff GOAD. Most all of the commissions that we receive is generated back into our facility. 

Mr. RUSH. OK. For your exemplary employees that you might 

have, do you have exemplary employees in your? 

Sheriff GOAD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RUSH. And do you give them a bonus? 

Sheriff GOAD. No, sir, I do not. 

Mr. RUSH. Are you aware of any State prison, board or prison 

system that gives its employees bonuses? 

Sheriff GOAD. Currently, sir, I do not have that information. 

Mr. RUSH. You don’t have that information so you are saying 

then that most of the—that there are no—none of these commissions go toward bonuses for your employees? 

Sheriff GOAD. Can I say that specifically, no sir, but I don’t have 

that information in front of me currently. 

Mr. RUSH. OK. Let me make sure you understand? All right. You 

are the sheriff of what county? 

Sheriff GOAD. Allegany County. 

Mr. RUSH. Allegany County. Is there any employees in Allegany 

County that receive a bonus? 

Sheriff GOAD. No, sir. 

Mr. RUSH. That is no, okay. 

Sheriff GOAD. No, sir. 

Mr. RUSH. OK. How does the bidding process, how did you select 

and what company do you have to give? 

Sheriff GOAD. What company do we have? 

Mr. RUSH. Yeah, do you use? 

Sheriff GOAD. We use a company with Securus. 

Mr. RUSH. Securus, okay, how did you select them, Securus? 

Sheriff GOAD. We actually put out a RFB. 

Mr. RUSH. And what did you make that decision based on? What 

did you make the decision based on? 

Sheriff GOAD. Based on the software, their security equipment. 

Mr. RUSH. OK. How much influence did the cost of that or your 

remuneration or your commission, what percentage had an influence on your—let me ask the question correctly. How much bearing 

did the cost that or the commission that you were going to receive, 

how much bearing did that have on your decision to hire Securus? 

Sheriff GOAD. Not a large bearing? 

Mr. RUSH. But some bearing, is that correct, some bearing? 

Sheriff GOAD. Based some bearing, yes, sir. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
196 

Mr. RUSH. OK. And if in fact you did not have this organization 

or have this kind of arrangement then you would be—where would 

you get the money to make up the hole in your budget? Where 

would you get that money from? 

Sheriff GOAD. If we failed, if the resources were terminated we 

would have to go back to the county and look at the burden on the 

taxpayers. 

Mr. RUSH. OK. Explain to me how you think that your program 

creating and charging these families, not necessarily the inmates 

how does that have an effect on the recidivism issue in your county? 

Sheriff GOAD. Well, our recidivism for some in higher than others. Some of our recidivism is very low. I think again as I mentioned in my testimony, I think communication is very essential. 

Mr. RUSH. Are you elected to office? 

Sheriff GOAD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RUSH. OK. And so in your past campaign for office have you 

ever ran on—had a part of your—how long have you been a sheriff 

first of all? 

Sheriff GOAD. I am on my 15th year, my fourth term. 

Mr. RUSH. So you ran three times or four times? 

Sheriff GOAD. Four times. 

Mr. RUSH. OK. And have you ever included in your campaign 

material for reelection that you are able to justify to your voters 

or highlight to your voters that because you have high cost telephone service that you have these and this arrangements with this 

company that you are able to have a detrimental effect on recidivism rate? 

Sheriff GOAD. Have I ever? No, sir, I have not. 

Mr. RUSH. OK. And so that is not a claim that you might, that 

you would promote? 

Sheriff GOAD. No. 

Mr. RUSH. Do your voters know that they are being gouged or 

being overly charged on these rates that that is a policy? 

Sheriff GOAD. Well, I can’t speculate on that but I do know that 

the majority of the public isn’t familiar with our rates. 

Mr. RUSH. All right. Mr. Krogh, you mentioned in your testimony 

that a few States have taken action to require that the cost be the 

dominant factor in determining which bidder wins an exclusive 

contract with the State correctional facility and the price includes 

permitted charges and connection charges. Do you have any other 

information on the effects such decisions have had on these services? 

Mr. KROGH. Well, generally just simply that the higher the rate, 

the less calling there is and the less communication that there is 

by the prisoners and the families often have to refuse calls. 

Mr. RUSH. Right. Can you respond if you will to Mr. Hopfinger 

and Mr. Goad that maximum security is dependent on Mr. 

Hopfinger’s company charging excessively for phone service for inmates and Sheriff Goad’s agency organization receiving high commissions from the actions of Mr. Hopfinger’s organization? Can you 

comment on that fact? 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
197 

Mr. KROGH. Yes, as I have mentioned, Securus and other service 

providers are able to provide these services with all of the required 

security functions. 

Mr. RUSH. No, I am not talking about the security functions in 

that regard in terms of instrumentality. I am talking about the 

maximum security? 

Mr. KROGH. Well, I mean to the extent that the telephone service 

has any impact on national security one way or the other, they can 

meet whatever Securus security requirements are imposed on them 

by the correctional department or the authorities, they can meet 

those all those requirements at very reasonable rates and so they 

shouldn’t be charging higher than that. 

Mr. RUSH. Yes, so am I to believe or the members of the subcommittee to believe that those State and those counties that don’t 

have exorbitant rates that they are somehow less concerned about 

national security than the ones who charge exorbitant rates? 

Mr. KROGH. No, I don’t think that we can draw that conclusion. 

The Federal Bureau of Prisons has reasonable debit rates for prisoners. I am sure they are the state of the art in terms of the security, all the security functions that you need and these States have 

the reasonable rates there is a variety of States, Florida, New Mexico, Nebraska, New York, all of these States I am sure are just as 

they are focusing on these security functions especially New York 

as much as any other correctional authorities in other State and 

they have come to the conclusion they don’t need to charge these 

exorbitant rates to maintain all the security functions they need. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, well let me just ask one additional 

question here. Sheriff Goad, what equipment do you use for monitoring and tracking inmate calls? 

Sheriff GOAD. The equipment is provided through Evercom with 

Securus Communication. 

Mr. RUSH. OK. And where is it located at? 

Sheriff GOAD. In my facility. 

Mr. RUSH. In your facility. Okay. Does that equipment provide 

you additional security measures? 

Sheriff GOAD. It provides me the ability to monitor those inmates 

that I have in my facility, yes, sir. 

Mr. RUSH. OK. It provides—so lacking that equipment you 

couldn’t monitor your inmates? 

Sheriff GOAD. No, sir. 

Mr. RUSH. OK. Is there any other equipment available to you off 

the shelf? 

Sheriff GOAD. I have, no, not off the shelf but I also have video 

cameras is the only other use of security equipment that we use 

but they are not audio. They are just video. 

Mr. RUSH. OK. If you had multiple carriers and the inmates had 

a choice, would your ability to monitor your inmates, would that be 

hindered at all? 

Sheriff GOAD. I am not a technical person but I don’t know how 

that would work. 

Mr. RUSH. You don’t know how that would work. 

Sheriff GOAD. I am not sure how multiple carriers would actually 

work if you had numerous providers. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
198 

Mr. RUSH. OK. But you don’t—so you are not sure whether or 

not it would be a hindrance? 

Sheriff GOAD. Right. 

Mr. RUSH. Right, now is that what your answer indicates? 

Sheriff GOAD. To me and again I am not a technical person. 

Mr. RUSH. Right. 

Sheriff GOAD. It seems to me if the more providers I had it would 

be a hindrance to us trying to provide each inmate with each particular provider that they so chose. 

Mr. RUSH. OK. 

Mr. WEINER. Would the gentleman yield for a moment? Is there 

any reason you can’t just have a series of different 800 numbers 

that people can dial and then the surveillance equipment is all just 

on the hardware? I mean why couldn’t you have a choice of five or 

six different 800 numbers you can dial? 

Sheriff GOAD. Can I defer to Mr. Hopfinger? 

Mr. WEINER. Certainly. 

Sheriff GOAD. Technically, I do not know. 

Mr. WEINER. I hear you now. Go ahead, Mr. Hopfinger. 

Mr. HOPFINGER. Yes, what happens is when an 800 number is 

called the system loses all track of where the call actually terminates. All we know is an 800 number was called and then there 

is a series of numbers dialed after that. The system wouldn’t know 

where that call actually terminated, who received that call, whether it was a call next door or across the nation. 

Mr. WEINER. And that failure of knowing who the inmate is calling provides a security risk you say? 

Mr. HOPFINGER. Absolutely. 

Mr. WEINER. Got you. Thank you, Mr. Rush. 

Mr. RUSH. Yeah, and my final question, how much—so your, Mr. 

Hopfinger, your business activities is centered on exclusively incarcerating individuals in a jail system. That is your market? That is 

your niche in the market, is that right? 

Mr. HOPFINGER. Yes, Congressman Rush. We are exclusively an 

inmate telecommunication service provider. 

Mr. RUSH. OK. So you actually have a captive audience. That is 

what you, I mean, you are saying you have a captive audience, 

right? 

Mr. HOPFINGER. Well, I wouldn’t consider it a captive audience 

because I have a lot of other competitors out there that want so 

business so I don’t get all that business. 

Mr. RUSH. It is very lucrative, right? 

Mr. HOPFINGER. No, sir, it is not. If you will look at our SEC filings, we actually operated at a loss in 2008 and most of the inmate 

telephone service providers, I met with two presidents last week 

and they are hoping for a low single digit return on their investment this year. 

Mr. RUSH. OK. Well, thank you. I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. WEINER. I thank you, Mr. Rush, the author of the bill. Hopefully, we will have quieter TV commercials, we will have community broadcasters be able to tell everyone that information without 

interference and then I guess prisoners will be able to call home 

and brag about it less expensively. 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
199 

I ask unanimous consent to keep the record open for an appropriate period of time for members to submit opening statements 

and questions for the record. I thank—without objection, so ordered 

and I thank all of the witnesses for their patience and their excellent testimony. The committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
200 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 210 here 73746A.145
201 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 211 here 73746A.146
202 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 212 here 73746A.147
203 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 213 here 73746A.148
204 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 214 here 73746A.149
205 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 215 here 73746A.150
206 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 216 here 73746A.151
207 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 217 here 73746A.152
208 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 218 here 73746A.153
209 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 219 here 73746A.154
210 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 220 here 73746A.155
211 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 221 here 73746A.156
212 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 222 here 73746A.157
213 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 223 here 73746A.158
214 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 224 here 73746A.159
215 


rfrederick on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 225 here 73746A.160