1 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 6 NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS 7 AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION 8 9 10 11 MEETING OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE 12 ON PUBLIC INTEREST OBLIGATIONS 13 OF DIGITAL TELEVISION BROADCASTERS 14 15 16 17 Commerce Auditorium 18 14th Street & Constitution Avenue 19 Washington, D.C. 20 Wednesday, October 22, 1997 21 22 2 1 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: 2 LESLIE MOONVES, Co-Chair President, CBS Television 3 NORMAN J. ORNSTEIN, Co-Chair 4 Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute 5 CHARLES BENTON 6 Chairman and CEO, Benton Foundation and Public Media, Inc. 7 FRANK M. BLYTHE 8 Executive Director, Native American Public Telecommunications, Inc. 9 PEGGY CHARREN 10 Visiting Scholar, Harvard University Graduate School of Education 11 Founder, Action for Children's Television 12 HAROLD C. CRUMP Vice President, Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. 13 FRANK M. CRUZ 14 Board Member, Corporation for Public Broadcasting 15 President, Cruz & Associates, Inc. 16 ROBERT W. DECHERD Chairman, President and Chief Executive 17 Officer (CEO), A.H. Belo Corporation 18 WILLIAM F. DUHAMEL, Ph.D. 19 President and General Manager, Duhamel Broadcasting Enterprises 20 ROBERT D. GLASER 21 Founder and CEO, RealNetworks 22 3 1 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT (CONT'D.): 2 JAMES FLETCHER GOODMON President and CEO, Capitol Broadcasting 3 Company, Inc. 4 PAUL A. LA CAMERA Vice President and General Manager, WCVB-TV 5 NEWTON N. MINOW 6 Professor, Communications Policy and Law, Northwestern University 7 Counsel, Sidley & Austin 8 SHELBY SCOTT President, American Federation of 9 Television and Radio Artists 10 GIGI B. SOHN Executive Director, Media Access Project 11 KAREN PELTZ STRAUSS 12 Supervising Attorney, National Association of the Deaf 13 CASS SUNSTEIN 14 Professor, University of Chicago Law School 15 JAMES YEE Executive Director, Independent Television 16 Service 17 ALSO PRESENT: 18 KAREN EDWARDS Designated Federal Officer, National 19 Telecommunications and Information Administration 20 21 * * * * * 22 4 1 C O N T E N T S 2 PAGE 3 Opening Remarks and Welcome 5 Secretary William M. Daley 4 Keynote Address 8 5 Vice President Albert Gore 6 General Committee Session 26 7 Discussion of Organization and 63 Structure of Committee 8 Briefing I: Evolution of the 112 9 Public Interest Standard in Broadcasting 10 Briefing II: Relevant Provisions 187 11 of Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the FCC's 12 Implementation Efforts 13 Committee Discussion of Future 200 Agenda 14 Public Comment, Questions 234 15 and Answers 16 17 * * * * * 18 19 20 21 22 5 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 (9:50 a.m.) 3 OPENING REMARKS AND WELCOME 4 MR. IRVING: Ladies and gentlemen, 5 Vice President of the United States Al Gore 6 accompanied by Secretary of Commerce William 7 Daley. 8 MR. DALEY: Good morning. I would 9 like to thank and welcome each of you to the 10 Department of Commerce, and thank you for 11 joining the first Digital Television Advisory 12 meeting. We are obviously pleased and honored 13 that the Vice President is with us today. 14 Forty-five years ago, Edward R. 15 Murrow said of television, "This instrument can 16 teach, it can illuminate, and it can even 17 inspire, but only if human beings are willing 18 to use it to those ends." 19 We are here today to talk about 20 public interest obligations for digital TV 21 broadcasters. Members of the committee are 22 leaders from both the public and also the 6 1 private sectors. We believe that working 2 together, and with generous input from all 3 concerned, they can offer a real vision of 4 where we can go as an industry and as a nation 5 in this new era. 6 We stand in a unique position with 7 respect to digital television. We have a 8 history of analog television from which to 9 learn. And we have a glimpse of the potential 10 that digital TV holds. 11 President Clinton and Vice President 12 Gore rightly feel that now, the beginning of 13 this new initiative, is an opportune time to 14 reexamine public interest obligations and to 15 determine what should be retained, repealed or 16 added. 17 Traditionally, in exchange for 18 exclusive rights to use scarce electromagnetic 19 spectrum, broadcasters have had certain public 20 interest obligations. And I should note that 21 the Commerce Department has had an historic 22 role in communications policy stemming back 7 1 from the early century when ships were using 2 the wireless. Today, our National 3 Telecommunications and Information 4 Administration, which will be serving as the 5 Committee's secretariat, helps address the 6 diverse technical and policy questions that a 7 responsible national telecommunications policy 8 demands. 9 Your challenging assignment is to 10 look hard at the current public interest 11 obligations to determine if and how they will 12 serve our nation's future goals in this new 13 era. You will be balancing very important 14 values. Television has been called the most 15 powerful social force in the world's most 16 powerful nation. We look to you to help make 17 it the instrument of good that Edward R. Murrow 18 spoke of. 19 We are extremely fortunate to have as 20 our helmsman on this journey a statesman, a 21 parent, a visionary leader with the remarkable 22 ability to see how both tradition and advanced 8 1 technologies can be combined in ways to 2 strengthen our great nation. Vice President 3 Gore's outstanding leadership in promoting 4 government reinvention, a safe and healthy 5 environment, science and technology's position 6 in our country for a prosperous and a peaceful 7 21st century. 8 Ladies and gentlemen, it is with 9 great pleasure and honor that I introduce 10 someone who I consider a friend, a man of 11 tremendous intelligence, drive, integrity, the 12 Vice President of the United States. 13 KEYNOTE ADDRESS 14 VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Thank you very 15 much, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you. Thank 16 you very much. And Secretary Daley, I 17 appreciate those overly generous words. 18 And to you ladies and gentlemen who 19 have agreed to serve on this commission, 20 profound thanks from the President and myself 21 and from millions of Americans who will learn 22 of your work in the results of what comes out 9 1 of your deliberations. 2 But I want to again thank Secretary 3 Daley not only for his kind words, but also for 4 his leadership and for giving us this critical 5 forum here today. And among those who have 6 agreed to serve on the Advisory Committee, I 7 want to especially thank the co-chairs, Norm 8 Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute 9 and Les Moonves of CBS Television. They are 10 lending their time and talent to this important 11 enterprise, and we are very grateful. 12 And I want to thank each and every 13 single member of the Committee. Their names 14 were formally announced this morning. And 15 those of you who are following the creation and 16 then the deliberations of this Advisory 17 Committee have been given the information and 18 background on each of these men and women. 19 Suffice it to say, it is a very 20 distinguished and talented group. You bring to 21 this work not only a broad and deep expertise 22 and all of the challenges of modern 10 1 broadcasting, but also a commitment to serving 2 the public. And I am very grateful that you 3 have chosen to serve. 4 I want to thank all those who have 5 played a part in assembling this group and in 6 charting its course. I want to thank Larry 7 Irving, the Assistant Secretary of Commerce, 8 who has worked so long and hard on this issue, 9 and of course the staff of NTIA, as Secretary 10 Daley mentioned, will serve as the secretariat 11 for the Advisory Committee. I want to thank 12 Don Gips and Jim Kohlenberger on my staff and 13 others who have worked extremely hard to make 14 this day possible. 15 We are here today to formally begin a 16 study of one of the most important questions of 17 our time: how to ensure that one of our most 18 precious public properties continues to serve 19 the public's needs, not just for entertainment, 20 but for enlightenment, education and civic 21 debate as well. 22 Almost 60 years ago, after seeing an 11 1 early demonstration of television, E.B. White 2 predicted, and I quote, "We shall discover 3 either a new and unbearable disturbance of the 4 general peace or a saving radiance in the sky." 5 The truth is neither has come to pass, but E.B. 6 White was right in one important sense: The 7 broadcast medium is what we make of it. And it 8 can be a saving radiance shining through, but 9 only when we provide it. 10 For this reason, America's 11 broadcasters are really the trustees of a 12 critical public resource. When you consider -- 13 and I am always surprised freshly when I look 14 at these statistics about how much we Americans 15 watch television -- but when you consider that 16 the average 70-year-old will have spent a full, 17 solid 10 years watching television, that's 18 amazing. And when you consider that a typical 19 child will watch 25,000 hours of television 20 before his or her 18th birthday, you begin to 21 realize the magnitude of the public interest 22 obligation. 12 1 Fortunately, as far back as the Radio 2 Act of 1912, the United States of America has 3 understood and acted on those obligations. It 4 was in 1952 when TVs still looked like this one 5 here (indicating), the 1946 television to my 6 right, it was way back then in 1952 that the 7 FCC set aside a full 12 percent of all TV 8 channels for educational, noncommercial use. 9 It was in 1967 that President Johnson 10 won passage of the Public Broadcasting Act, 11 making public television a part of our daily 12 lives. Thanks to many of the people in this 13 room, we have expanded children's programming 14 and made it easier also for federal candidates 15 to have equal and affordable access to 16 broadcast time. 17 Well, we are here today because that 18 tradition of trusteeship must continue in the 19 future. And of course, we are now on the cusp 20 of a new era in which television is going 21 through the greatest transformation in its 22 history, one that is truly an awful lot bigger 13 1 than the shift from black and white to color 2 that many of us remember, bigger than the 3 expansion of the size of the screen, bigger 4 than all of the other changes that have come 5 before. I am talking about the move from 6 analog to digital broadcasting. It is like the 7 difference between a one-man band and a 8 symphony. 9 (Video presentation) 10 VICE PRESIDENT GORE: I don't know 11 from that distance if you can see the startling 12 clarity of that picture on the screen. But 13 none of us can predict exactly what this new 14 technology will bring, whether it will be 15 high-definition or multicast; whether it will 16 broadcast to TV screens, to computers, or to 17 digital TVs, or to all three; whether it will 18 bring dramatic changes in content and 19 programming or just a wider range of channels 20 and choices. 21 We do expect that we will see even 22 more entertainment, and education -- more and 14 1 better educational and children's programming, 2 and we also hope and expect to see free TV time 3 for candidates for public office. David Broder 4 remembers that one pretty well. 5 (Video presentation) 6 VICE PRESIDENT GORE: In any event, 7 we also know that digital broadcasting will be 8 more dynamic and more flexible, more 9 competitive and more interactive, and 10 potentially much more responsive to the needs 11 and interests of the American people, if we 12 prepare for it in the right way. 13 The fact that it is so limitless, the 14 fact that so many of our present rules and 15 expectations will not apply, makes digital 16 broadcasting the Wild West of the television 17 age. If we don't map out some of that terrain 18 for public purposes, if we don't carve out 19 meaningful public space on our newest public 20 airwaves, we could lose that opportunity for 21 good. 22 This is a little bit like the Lewis 15 1 and Clark expedition to the future of digital 2 television, to bring us back the maps of what 3 is out there, let us know what opportunities 4 are there to be used for the good of the 5 American people. 6 We know that the digital spectrum is 7 a valuable asset that will bring an explosion 8 of opportunities for broadcasters. But what we 9 have asked for in return and what we must get 10 in return is a significant commitment to the 11 public interest. 12 We all know what the critical needs 13 are: the need to educate and inform our 14 children; the need to protect them from harmful 15 influences, or more precisely to give their 16 parents and guardians the tools necessary to 17 exercise their judgment and allow them to 18 protect them from influences that they don't 19 think are appropriate for young children; and 20 also the need for free and open political 21 debate driven not by dollars and sound bytes, 22 but by issues and ideas. 16 1 The challenge we now face is meeting 2 those needs, protecting our oldest values in 3 the face of new and changing technology. 4 That's why President Clinton and I created this 5 Advisory Committee, and that is why the report 6 you submit to me next June will be such a 7 critical road map for the new broadcast medium. 8 Of course, your paramount obligation 9 must be to sustain and strengthen the First 10 Amendment freedoms that are so critical to all 11 media. We cannot allow or condone censorship 12 of any kind. We must respect the free 13 enterprise approach that has always governed 14 our airwaves. But we must also recognize that 15 broadcasting is not a right, but a privilege, 16 and one that confers great responsibilities. 17 I expect the work of this Committee 18 to be broad, and I certainly don't want to 19 prejudge or preordain its outcome. But with 20 your permission, I would like to begin this 21 first meeting with a discussion of first 22 principles, some of the challenges that the 17 1 President and I believe must be met if we are 2 to truly harness the new media for the good of 3 all Americans. 4 The first is children's programming 5 on our airwaves, and there are really two sides 6 to this equation: helping parents screen what 7 they believe to be inappropriate for their own 8 children, and also giving them more of what we 9 know to be good, more of what they want. 10 You all know how hard President 11 Clinton and I have worked with the broadcast 12 industry, with Congress and with parents groups 13 to achieve both of these goals: requiring the 14 V chip, for example, so that parents have the 15 power to block what they as parents find 16 objectionable for their own children; bringing 17 together the majority of the broadcast industry 18 to launch voluntary TV ratings, so that parents 19 have an early warning system when it comes to 20 content that they find objectionable, and that 21 they have information that they can use 22 hand-in-glove with the V chip, even when they 18 1 are off at work and their children are watching 2 television not in their presence. 3 This is an achievement that we are 4 all committed to continuing in the digital age. 5 And I certainly hope that NBC will soon join in 6 this voluntary effort as well. 7 These ratings will serve us well in 8 the digital age. They are overwhelmingly 9 popular with parents for a good and simple 10 reason: Parents understand that they have been 11 given false choices in the past. One group has 12 said, well, just turn off the TV and unplug it 13 and throw it out the window if you do not like 14 what is on. 15 But that's not practical, and most 16 everybody knows it. There are a few families 17 that take that approach, and far be it from me 18 not to recommend it. We haven't been able to 19 do it, and most families aren't able to take 20 that option. 21 But the second option that has been 22 offered in the past is also a false choice, and 19 1 that is to lecture parents on the fact that it 2 is their responsibility to sit there every 3 minute of every day and personally watch 4 everything that their children are watching. 5 With two or more televisions in most 6 households now, with one or both parents 7 working in most households now, with kids 8 watching so much television, that, of course, 9 is patently ridiculous. Parents cannot take 10 that option, and pretending that they can is 11 really no solution to the problem. 12 So this third path of having 13 information provided to supplement what the 14 consumer knows about the product that he or she 15 is consuming and giving parents the ability to 16 exercise their role as parents, this is an 17 approach that the American people really do 18 want to see work. 19 Now, in addition, we fought for and 20 won passage of the three-hour rule: requiring 21 broadcasters to air a minimum of three hours of 22 genuine, high-quality, educational programming 20 1 each week. It was no accident that President 2 Clinton's letter to the FCC urging them to pass 3 this rule was the very first such letter ever 4 sent by a President of the United States to the 5 Federal Communications Commission. 6 Well, now our challenge with the 7 birth of digital broadcasting is to translate 8 these rules into the digital age. We must 9 provide families with more quality educational 10 programming from which to choose. 11 I personally will never forget the 12 hours I spent with my own children watching 13 Sesame Street, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, or 14 more recently documentaries on the Civil War, 15 baseball, et cetera, and new educational shows 16 such as Science Court. That's one of my 17 favorites. We want to create more of those 18 experiences, not fewer, in the digital age. 19 The other critical issue and one 20 which is especially important to the president 21 and me is the need for free TV time for 22 candidates for public office, to create a 21 1 meaningful public forum that does not require 2 an endless steeplechase to raise and spend 3 campaign contributions. You know, our current 4 system has candidates for every office raising 5 tons of money and then spending it to buy 6 television time. 7 The television time which belongs to 8 the public is given away for free and then 9 purchased back in 30-second chunks with these 10 campaign funds that are raised in the current 11 system. If we can change that and recognize as 12 part of the public interest obligations that 13 broadcasters have the providing of free time 14 for the discussion of ideas critical to the 15 survival of our self-government, then we can 16 solve several problems all at the same time. 17 Some of you may know that I don't 18 come new to this issue. I introduced the very 19 first free TV legislation in the Senate exactly 20 nine years ago this past Saturday: October 18, 21 1988. Sadly, nine years later, little has 22 changed in our system for financing campaigns. 22 1 Candidates still raise and spend too much 2 money, mostly to buy those 30-second slivers of 3 TV time to put on their commercials. And too 4 many candidates still don't have access to the 5 airwaves, which means they often don't have 6 access to the voters. 7 As this Committee deliberates and 8 defines the public interest in the digital age, 9 I urge you to pay special attention to the need 10 for TV time to be set aside free for the 11 survival of our democracy, and please come 12 forward with a serious proposal to provide it 13 if you can find consensus on such a proposal. 14 Beyond these two central issues 15 related to content, the needs of our children 16 and the needs of our democracy, there are other 17 issues that I urge you to explore. In all of 18 your recommendations, you should strive to 19 design rules and principles that are flexible 20 enough for a technology that will change very 21 rapidly and is still wildly unpredictable. At 22 the same time, you will have to struggle with 23 1 how to establish a clear and meaningful public 2 interest obligation. 3 For this new media, that may mean 4 something different than a number of hours or a 5 percentage of broadcast time. It may mean 6 specifying a portion of the megabits of 7 information that will flow through tomorrow's 8 digital airwaves. I hope you will consider 9 creative ways to map out such goals as we 10 strive to make public interest obligations 11 real. 12 There are, of course, many other 13 issues to consider, and what we are asking 14 above all is that you provide us with your best 15 judgment and best assessment. What should a 16 broadcaster's obligations be in areas such as 17 public service announcements, closed-captioning 18 and video description? 19 Let me close by saying that we are 20 very, very lucky to have such a talented and 21 diverse membership on this Committee. It 22 includes leading broadcasters and producers, 24 1 academics and executives from a variety of 2 fields, and members of the public interest 3 community. Together as a group you must be the 4 guardians of the public interest, and America 5 is counting on your counsel and leadership. 6 The broadcast spectrum, worth untold 7 billions of dollars, is not a mere commodity; 8 it is a public trust. There is a reason that 9 so many democratic nations have established 10 state-run TV networks to harness its power to 11 educate and inform, and there is a reason that 12 so many autocratic nations have harnessed it 13 for less noble purposes and propaganda. 14 We in America chose a far different 15 course. We chose a system that is privately 16 run, but publicly regulated; one that grants 17 tremendous freedom to the market, 18 appropriately, but bestows obligations that are 19 just as great. 20 It is not a perfect system. A 21 perfect system doesn't exist anywhere. But for 22 more than a half century, the United States of 25 1 America has had the vision to believe that 2 broadcasting could be better, that the industry 3 could uphold the public interest and live up to 4 the obligations of such an enormous 5 trusteeship. 6 It is that same vision and commitment 7 that must be summoned again today as we shape 8 and create a new broadcast technology for the 9 electromagnetic spectrum. In some ways, the 10 challenge is exactly the same, but all of us in 11 this room know that the job could be done 12 better. Let's commit ourselves to that simple 13 goal. Let's believe in TV's ability to educate 14 and inspire and challenge us and chart new 15 terrain, and let us resolve to make the digital 16 age the true golden age for this crucial 17 medium. 18 So thank you, and I look forward to 19 working closely with you in the months ahead. 20 Thank you very much. 21 (Recess) 22 GENERAL COMMITTEE SESSION 26 1 MR. MOONVES: My name is Leslie 2 Moonves. I am president of CBS Television. 3 First of all, I am pleased and 4 honored to serve as co-chairman of this 5 Committee. I would like to thank Vice 6 President Gore, Secretary Daley, Assistant 7 Secretary Larry Irving, and Anne Stauffer and 8 Karen Edwards from the NTIA for setting all of 9 this up. 10 Needless to say, we have a very 11 difficult task ahead of us in the coming year. 12 I think this Committee is already two meetings 13 behind, being as we are supposed to turn in a 14 report, I believe, in June. We may have to 15 change that calendar. A little bit later we 16 will get into some of the housekeeping duties. 17 I would like to say a few introductory remarks 18 and then my co-chairman, Norman Ornstein, will 19 be doing the same. And then we would like each 20 one of you, in the form of an introduction of 21 yourself or anything you would like to say, to 22 talk for about a minute so that we can all get 27 1 to know each other better as we get through the 2 day. 3 As I said, we do have an extremely 4 difficult task ahead of us. Like each of you 5 on the Committee, I was appointed, at least in 6 part, to bring to this Committee a viewpoint 7 based on experience and interest about what 8 role the federal government should play in the 9 broadcasting industry and what role 10 broadcasters have in providing public service 11 to the American people. 12 Collectively, these diverse 13 viewpoints will be vital as we work through our 14 agenda over the coming weeks and months, 15 hopefully not years. To be successful, 16 however, it is essential that we agree to look 17 at these complex issues with a fresh 18 perspective and be open to findings that 19 challenge conventional wisdom and 20 preconceptions. 21 As a result, I urge all of us to keep 22 open minds to assure that the public policy we 28 1 recommend is not only in the public interest, 2 but takes into account that there are differing 3 opinions on what is appropriate. And we will 4 see those opinions from various members of the 5 Commission as well as certain outside people. 6 For example, there continues to be a 7 great deal of speculation about what shape the 8 digital world will take, and many different 9 viewpoints about the worth of digital channels. 10 There are some who are convinced that the world 11 known as "multiplexing" holds the promise of 12 huge incremental revenues for television 13 station owners. We have heard the word 14 "billions" thrown around. 15 Others believe that a more likely 16 scenario is that stations will air a single 17 HDTV channel that will not generate any 18 additional revenue. As one broadcaster said to 19 me, "Ten years from now we may have a prettier 20 picture, but I don't know if advertisers will 21 pay any more for that." We will hear later on 22 from experts on both multiplexing and HDTV 29 1 options in future meetings. 2 There are also questions to be 3 explored about what broadcasters are already 4 doing to fulfill their public interest 5 obligations: What is effective, what is not, 6 how much is fair, how much is not. And this 7 pertains not only to the large broadcasters, 8 like the ones I represent, but also the 9 hundreds of local stations reaching every city 10 and town in America. 11 And obviously, there are questions 12 about the role of broadcasters in political 13 campaigns. I believe that a vast majority of 14 the American people support campaign finance 15 reform, as do many broadcasters, but don't we 16 all want reform that is comprehensive in 17 nature? In that regard, this Committee has 18 been set up to deal with public interest 19 obligations of broadcasters. 20 Yet it appears that in certain 21 circles it is claimed that the only issue we 22 are going to be dealing with is free airtime 30 1 for political candidates. It is incumbent upon 2 us to look at a much more comprehensive list of 3 issues facing broadcasters, including 4 children's television, public service 5 announcement requirements, closed-captioning, 6 and the support of national and local causes, 7 among others. 8 I learned long ago that there is no 9 black and white in the entertainment business 10 or in government, and there are no easy answers 11 to issues as complex as these. Our challenge 12 is to develop a public policy that is founded 13 in the realities of today with the flexibility 14 to meet the circumstances of a future none of 15 us can accurately predict today. 16 Like all of you, I care deeply about 17 our country and the intrinsic link between 18 broadcasting and the cultural and political 19 life of America. I look forward to working 20 with this Committee and all who come before us 21 in a constructive and positive manner, and I am 22 hopeful that the result of our efforts will be 31 1 recommendations that provide a foundation for 2 continued public benefits to the American 3 people in a fair and constructive manner. 4 As you contemplate your personal 5 points of view, please remember: This group 6 must try to reach a consensus that all parties 7 can feel satisfied with, otherwise it will not 8 be a successful Commission. 9 Thank you. Norm? 10 DR. ORNSTEIN: Thanks very much, Les. 11 It is a pleasure and an honor to be a part of 12 this Advisory Committee and to be a co-chair 13 along with my longtime friend, Leslie Moonves. 14 I, too, want to thank Vice President Gore, 15 Secretary Daley, Assistant Secretary Irving and 16 our able staff. And we should acknowledge 17 right here that Anne Stauffer and Karen Edwards 18 have been working extremely long hours, 19 including into the wee hours of the morning, to 20 provide us with the materials we have gotten 21 and all of the other things that make a meeting 22 come together. 32 1 For those of you who don't know, I am 2 Norman Ornstein. I am a resident scholar at 3 the American Enterprise Institute and sometime 4 analyst on CBS News, among other things. 5 Vice President Gore mentioned this 6 morning that our task was perhaps the 7 modern-day equivalent of Lewis and Clark. I 8 turned to my co-chair and said, "I feel more 9 like Lewis and Martin." 10 But I hope we can cover new ground as 11 both of those teams managed to do. 12 As I see it, we have two 13 complementary roles here. The more I look at 14 the executive order that created our Advisory 15 Committee, a simple and relatively brief one, 16 the more I realize how difficult and vast the 17 tasks are. 18 This is the Advisory Committee on the 19 Public Interest Obligations of Digital 20 Television Broadcasters. We know, of course, 21 that there are a number of -- Les Moonves 22 mentioned many of them -- public interest 33 1 obligations for analog television broadcasters 2 now. One of our tasks, one of our charges, is 3 to look at systematically what this new 4 technology will mean -- a different form of 5 communicating to people -- and seeing how 6 existing public interest obligations for analog 7 television ought to apply, if they should, to 8 digital television. 9 At the same time, we have another 10 task. We have new responsibilities because of 11 this valuable spectrum -- I, too, have heard 12 the term "billions." Actually, I think it was 13 more the Carl Saganesque "billions and 14 billions" of value. 15 And none of us knows what the 16 additional commercial value of this spectrum 17 will be, but what we do know is that certainly 18 by the simple reality that the competitors of 19 broadcasters were not allowed to compete for 20 this particular spectrum, something of value 21 was created here. And Congress and other 22 government agencies have made it clear that we 34 1 need to consider some public interest in return 2 for that. And we will have, no doubt, some 3 sizable discussion of what all of that means. 4 We have a tough task in both cases 5 and in a more general way, because the frank 6 reality is that none of us knows what this new 7 technology will mean or provide, and what we do 8 know is that the technology and multiple 9 technologies are changing every minute as we 10 speak. And we are finding that separating out 11 broadcasters from other forms of communication, 12 that determining who broadcasters are, even, is 13 changing daily, even as we speak. The whole 14 world of communications is changing. 15 We have an elusive and moving target 16 here, and in the span of several months, one 17 obviously very important part of this effort is 18 one that my co-chair alluded to, which is as 19 broadcasters begin to think about the simple 20 questions of high-definition television versus 21 multiplexing. But that is only one part of 22 where the digital age may take digital 35 1 television broadcasters. We have to try to 2 make some projections ahead to what kind of 3 communication might be there, and then decide 4 how to apply to a very different world some 5 standards. 6 We are going to have to look 7 systematically at the existing obligations, 8 from public service announcements and 9 must-carry through children's television and 10 education, and consider new ones including, of 11 course, as the Vice President said and as the 12 President said very clearly when he announced 13 the executive order creating the Committee and 14 when he announced in his Saturday morning radio 15 address that the two of us would be co-chairing 16 it, the question of campaign finance reform. 17 But I agree wholeheartedly with my 18 co-chair that that is one of a number of issues 19 that we have to consider. It is certainly not 20 the only one. 21 At the same time, I would suggest to 22 you, we have to look at innovative approaches 36 1 to what public interest obligations are or 2 should be. There are a number of them out 3 there. It is not necessarily the case that 4 simply defining an obligation in terms of 5 minutes or hours of time provided for a 6 particular purpose has to be done in this case. 7 And we may be able to do something 8 very valuable for the future, which is to 9 consider all kinds of additional approaches, 10 including a number of market-based approaches, 11 that might give us a better opportunity, in 12 fact, to serve the needs of everybody, public 13 broadcasters and other entities in this 14 process. We have to do that in a very short 15 period of time. And one of the things we will 16 start doing this morning, after our 17 preliminaries, is to work through how we will 18 be able to accomplish those tasks. And it is 19 something we will have to continue, no doubt, 20 this afternoon. 21 Just a brief word for the two of us 22 on what we had intended for today: In effect, 37 1 when Les and I talked about the first meeting, 2 we wanted to build a foundation, we decided, 3 for our future deliberations and work from the 4 title of our Commission. It is on the public 5 interest obligations of digital television 6 broadcasters. 7 So after we talk about organizing and 8 the future and some of the areas we will 9 consider and the roles that the members might 10 play, we will focus on public interest 11 obligations. We will have a presentation from 12 an individual who is extraordinarily 13 knowledgeable in this area, Erwin Krasnow, 14 about the history of public interest 15 obligations. We will have some discussion 16 among ourselves about the existing state -- 17 legal, constitutional and otherwise -- of them. 18 We will then move to the link, which 19 is the Telecommunications Act of 1996, between 20 public interest obligations and digital 21 broadcasters. Our own Karen Edwards will give 22 us a sense of what that Act itself says, and we 38 1 will have some discussion. 2 And then, finally, perhaps some this 3 afternoon but certainly more tomorrow morning, 4 we will begin to look at what exactly or 5 approximately digital television broadcasting 6 is and what its future might hold. 7 So we are going to lay a foundation 8 out this morning. And through the rest of this 9 meeting that will, I hope, lead us into the 10 future areas of deliberation that we will have. 11 And we will discuss those in a short while. 12 Perhaps it is a good time now. We 13 are going to have a briefing from Karen Edwards 14 on the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Should 15 we have the members, I think, introduce 16 themselves first? 17 MR. MOONVES: Yes. 18 DR. ORNSTEIN: If you could each take 19 just a minute or two, no more, to say who you 20 are and also what you expect this service on 21 our Advisory Committee will provide. And we'll 22 start. 39 1 MR. BENTON: First of all, I want to 2 say how delighted I am to be here. And I want 3 to introduce my colleague, Kevin Taglang, who 4 is in the audience here, at the Benton 5 Foundation. He is a policy analyst, has been 6 providing the e-mail service, abstracting both 7 the trade and public and consumer press, and 8 will be our Web site reporter. And you will 9 have a summary of these meetings on the Web 10 site, which he will provide for us. And that 11 is a service that we are very happy and proud 12 to provide. 13 A couple of points: From my 14 experience in philanthropy and the nonprofit 15 world and business and government, I think 16 win-win solutions are the best. And in 17 addition to the public service obligations, I 18 think we need to really focus on the public 19 service opportunities that broadcasters have, 20 opportunities to differentiate themselves from 21 their cable and telephone, the other 22 competition. So a win-win would focus on these 40 1 opportunities, and that is something I am 2 really looking forward to the discussion on. 3 A final quick point: In addition to 4 the excellent points that the Vice President 5 made this morning about children and about 6 democracy, I think the third dimension that 7 needs some real discussion is community. Sort 8 of the ABCs of public service are, as we see 9 it, the children, community and democracy. 10 And this, again, is where the 11 broadcasters from their community base have 12 great power, an opportunity to serve from the 13 local broadcast experience and in that 14 community service that is perhaps unique among 15 the broadcasters' potential for public service 16 contributions. So the ABCs are children, 17 community and democracy, and I hope we can 18 really focus on the community aspect. 19 MR. BLYTHE: I am Frank Blythe from 20 Lincoln, Nebraska, and working with a group, an 21 organization called Native American Public 22 Telecommunications. 41 1 I think in my point of view, I hope 2 this Committee will be able to create a more 3 broad-based awareness to the general public 4 about what public interest obligations are from 5 broadcasting. I just do not think they are 6 totally aware of it. 7 I have been asking people on the 8 street over the last two or three months if 9 they know anything about the conversion to 10 digital television and what impact it has in 11 their living room, and very few people know any 12 answers to that question. And I hope that this 13 will be one of the things where we can provide 14 some information that makes the public more 15 aware of what the impact is. 16 I think having a broadcast license is 17 sort of like having a driving license. It is a 18 privilege, but you also assume some obligations 19 when you are driving a car to obey certain 20 rules. You have obligations to your fellow 21 drivers. 22 I think broadcasters are in the same 42 1 seat: They are in the driver's seat. They get 2 a license from the FCC which carries some 3 obligations. And I hope this Committee here 4 will review what the past obligations are and 5 will try to project ahead: What is of value to 6 the public? And I think that is my main 7 interest here. 8 I was with commercial stations in the 9 early '80s when the FCC dropped the 10 ascertainment rule for community broadcasters, 11 and I saw a definite pull-back in public 12 interest programming and public service 13 programming from at least the commercial 14 station that I was working with at the time. I 15 do not know if that is a trend that happened in 16 the whole industry, and I do not know exactly 17 how public service programming is now tracked, 18 but I would certainly think it is an important 19 area that public broadcasters have an 20 obligation to serve in their communities. 21 MS. CHARREN: I am Peggy Charren, and 22 I am here because I started something called 43 1 Action for Children's Television 30 years ago. 2 I guess I am the grandma of the three hours of 3 educational programming. I would have been the 4 mother, but it took too long. 5 ACT had a three-part agenda. One was 6 very pro-choice in programming. We think the 7 way that you get communications to serve any 8 audience is to have the kind of choices you 9 have in a good library, and that means there is 10 some stuff you do not want to take off the 11 shelves, but you certainly do not want anybody 12 burning the books or taking them off for you. 13 So the other part of what we did was 14 act violently anti-censorship for all those 15 years, which is I think why the press kept 16 talking to me. Sometimes I think my tombstone 17 is going to say, "She was a sound byte." 18 I am also opposed to 19 overcommercialization of the medium, especially 20 as it relates to children. I use those seven 21 words, "serve the public interest, convenience 22 and necessity," which some broadcasters may 44 1 think are the seven dirty words. I use them as 2 the basis for everything I talked about in 3 television, and it is nice to be part of 4 something that is going to figure out what they 5 mean. 6 I think that I endorse everything 7 everybody has said about the role of electronic 8 communications in a democracy, and I think that 9 plus getting the message out are the most 10 important things we are doing here. 11 MR. CRUMP: My name is Harold Crump, 12 and I am a broadcaster. I feel very privileged 13 to have been appointed to this Committee. 14 I believe and I know that public 15 service is the foundation of successful 16 television stations. Professional broadcasters 17 were raised on this philosophy, and it has 18 proven successful, we think, through the years. 19 Technology has advanced and it has 20 changed, but our commitment to serving the 21 public has never wavered, and I personally 22 believe it never will. I have personally been 45 1 involved in continuing public service endeavors 2 for some 41 years now. In fact, since 1986 I 3 have had the privilege to be a member of the 4 Muscular Dystrophy Association Board of 5 Directors. 6 I really welcome this opportunity 7 that the Committee presents to me to have the 8 ability to engage in dialogue with all of you 9 as we do the work of this Committee. Many of 10 you I have not known personally, but I have 11 seen your pictures and I have read about you 12 over the years. And I think a good exchange of 13 ideas is very healthy and in the long run it 14 will prove successful. 15 MR. CRUMP: My name is Frank Cruz. I 16 am the vice chairman of the Corporation for 17 Public Broadcasting. Many of you know the 18 Corporation for Public Broadcasting is the 19 entity created by Congress back in 1967 to 20 ensure the development of public broadcasting 21 in America. 22 We are the largest, if you will, 46 1 single source of funds for what you commonly 2 know as public broadcasting on the television 3 side and National Public Radio, NPR, on the 4 radio side. We oversee, if you will, close to 5 1,000 public radio and television stations 6 across this country. 7 Personally, it is an honor to be on 8 the Commission, and I am also grateful to the 9 President and Vice President Gore for ensuring 10 that the voice of public broadcasting will be 11 heard on this Commission. Public broadcasting 12 has always had a great interest, perhaps a 13 little more so than the commercial side, in 14 ensuring that there are public interest 15 obligations that must be met by the industry of 16 ours as a whole. And from that particular 17 basis, I operate, and I am proud to represent 18 public broadcasting on this Commission. 19 MR. DECHERD: I am Robert Decherd, 20 chief executive officer of A.H. Belo 21 Corporation, based in Dallas, Texas. You could 22 describe our company, I think, as a traditional 47 1 broadcaster. We go back to 1922, when we first 2 were in the radio business in Dallas, and early 3 in television in 1950, when we signed on the 4 station or acquired the station in Dallas-Fort 5 Worth which has become the ABC affiliate, WFAA 6 Television. 7 Today, we are a much larger company 8 probably than any of us would ever have 9 imagined, partly because of changes in rules at 10 the federal level. We own and operate 17 11 network-affiliated television stations balanced 12 among the three traditional networks: CBS, ABC 13 and NBC. We also are in the newspaper 14 business. We own six daily newspapers 15 including the Dallas Morning News, the 16 Providence Journal-Bulletin, and the Press 17 Enterprise in Riverside, California. 18 I think that Leslie and Norm have 19 outlined a very challenging agenda for us, 20 because what we must do is anticipate a future 21 that is changing literally daily, certainly 22 from the technological standpoint, in an 48 1 industry that is consolidating at an 2 unprecedented rate, and where, as Norm pointed 3 out, content as we have known it historically 4 will be coming from many more sources including 5 ones which are just coming to be prominent. 6 And certainly the Internet has much 7 to do with that, but also the consolidation we 8 see in the cable industry and the many 9 offerings, networks and various programming 10 offerings, that are coming from that industry. 11 Maintaining an equilibrium between the public 12 interest obligations, which I think the best 13 broadcasters have always taken seriously and 14 performed upon; the constitutional questions 15 the Vice President raised; and the obvious 16 interest we all have in securing our democracy 17 for many, many generations to come is the most 18 important task we have at hand. 19 I think we can make progress. We 20 probably won't come up with final answers to 21 any of these questions, but this is a very 22 timely dialogue and we are privileged to be a 49 1 part of it. 2 MR. DUHAMEL: I am Bill Duhamel, and 3 I am from Rapid City, South Dakota. And I am 4 the president of Duhamel Broadcasting, which is 5 a family-owned radio and television group, very 6 small-market. My mother went into the radio 7 business back during World War II. So it is a 8 small-market family business. And then I am 9 the second generation. I have a daughter who 10 is the third generation in the business. 11 One of the things I just mention 12 there, they have my biography, but they 13 neglected to mention that along with other 14 things, I did have an academic career briefly 15 at Northwestern. I was at the Graduate School 16 of Business, and I was in quantitative methods 17 in those days, and then I also was an 18 econometrician along the way too. 19 But I have been in the broadcast 20 business, well, 30 years continuously. I 21 started actually when I was in high school back 22 in the 1950s. 50 1 And having come from a small market, 2 I have grown up with both localism and 3 community, both of which are important. And I 4 am well aware of the public service obligations 5 in the past, and we have taken these very 6 seriously. 7 The other side that I do have a 8 concern that just the cost for our company to 9 convert to digital television is going to be 10 about 50 percent of the value of our company. 11 That is just the cost of doing it, and that is 12 not operating cost. I am talking about the 13 physical cost. And that is a scary thing in 14 the small markets. Everybody thinks about New 15 York, Los Angeles, Chicago, but you have got to 16 think about Billings, Casper, Bismarck, Rapid 17 City. And that is a concern out here. 18 I guess that is probably about all I 19 would say for the moment. Thank you. 20 MR. GLASER: Hi. I am Rob Glaser, 21 founder and CEO of RealNetworks. We started 22 our company about three and a half years ago, 51 1 and our focus is basically turning the Internet 2 into a broadcast medium for audio and video 3 delivery. Our software is used by 20 million 4 or 25 million consumers around the world to 5 listen to broadcasts from tens of thousands, 6 hundreds of thousands of broadcasters. 7 What I hope to contribute to this 8 Committee -- and again, I am honored to join 9 the esteemed colleagues here, distinguished 10 colleagues -- is thinking a little bit about 11 not just the technology -- hopefully I can help 12 there a little bit -- but also how what we are 13 learning about the early days of basically 14 digital broadcast on the Internet might inform 15 this discussion. 16 These different worlds that are going 17 digital -- be it traditional broadcast, be it 18 satellite or cable, or be it the Internet -- 19 all have things that they can teach each other. 20 And certainly, the public interest tradition of 21 traditional broadcasting has a lot that it can 22 teach these other worlds. And hopefully, this 52 1 Committee can play a role in bringing those 2 together. Thanks. 3 MR. GOODMON: My name is Jim Goodmon. 4 I am president of Capitol Broadcasting Company 5 in Raleigh. We are a family-owned broadcasting 6 company. I am the third-generation president 7 of the company. 8 I would like to say I think we are 9 working on the right thing here, and I am 10 excited about the opportunity to talk about 11 this. I hope we do not spend any time talking 12 about whether there should be public interest 13 obligations of broadcasters, because that is a 14 perfectly sensible notion. I hope we come out 15 of this -- you asked us what we hope to come 16 out with, and I hope we come out with a 17 recommendation as to what those public interest 18 obligations ought to be. 19 Insofar as your charge that we be 20 open-minded, we have been operating an HDTV 21 station for a year and a half, and I think it 22 is the greatest thing that ever happened. And 53 1 I think everybody should do HD and there 2 shouldn't be any multicasting, and that is my 3 story and I am sticking to it. 4 But on every other thing I will be 5 open-minded. So I look forward to our 6 deliberations. 7 MR. LA CAMERA: I am Paul La Camera, 8 the general manager of WCVB-TV in Boston, which 9 is that city's ABC affiliate, although it is 10 owned by First Argyle Television. The station 11 is only 25 years old and has a somewhat unique 12 history, but over that period, it has worked 13 hard and consistently to try to distinguish 14 itself as a community force, not only in our 15 city, but in the industry itself. 16 On a personal level, I have had the 17 good fortune of being there through its entire 18 history. I rose up from the ranks of community 19 service and local programming, and so would 20 describe myself as an old-school broadcaster 21 who still deeply believes in the traditional 22 public interest standard that is defined by 54 1 public service initiative and local programming 2 service. 3 I obviously look forward to trying to 4 apply or contribute to applying those historic 5 principles to the future of what our business 6 will be. Thank you. 7 MR. MINOW: I am Newton Minow from 8 Chicago. Vice President Gore said this morning 9 when a person reaches 70 on average he has 10 spent 10 years with television. In my case, I 11 would bring up the average very materially. 12 I have spent the last 36 years deeply 13 involved in every conceivable aspect and 14 perspective in this communications world. I 15 have been blessed and privileged to serve as a 16 board member of a major network, CBS; as 17 chairman of the Public Broadcasting Service, 18 PBS; as a member of the board of the largest 19 independent broadcaster, the Tribune Company; 20 as a director of a major advertising agency; 21 chairman of the presidential debates. 22 I have been very lucky. And also 55 1 served in the government as chairman of the 2 FCC; and in the classroom as a teacher of law 3 and journalism students. I have seen every 4 side of the elephant. 5 And I am particularly pleased to have 6 the opportunity to deal with these issues, 7 because I don't think there is any institution 8 in America or in our civilization that has a 9 greater impact on our future than the 10 communications industry. 11 MS. SCOTT: I am Shelby Scott, also 12 from Boston, but I worked for a different 13 station than Paul's as a news broadcaster. But 14 I am really here as president of the American 15 Federation of Television and Radio Artists, 16 which represents many of the people you see 17 delivering the news, writing the news, 18 reporting the news, and entertaining you on 19 television. 20 Our members have a great concern 21 about just what is public interest and what are 22 our bosses telling us is public interest. We 56 1 are the faces that have to deliver the message 2 to you. And we are concerned that perhaps we 3 are not doing it quite correctly yet, and want 4 a voice in the future of what we see is a very 5 exciting future for the whole communications 6 business. 7 MS. SOHN: Good morning. My name is 8 Gigi Sohn. I am the executive director of the 9 Media Access Project. For those of you who 10 don't know what MAP does, we are a public 11 interest telecommunications law firm that 12 represents the public at the FCC and in the 13 courts. 14 First, I want to thank the Vice 15 President and the White House not only for 16 placing me on this distinguished panel, but 17 also for recognizing the importance of trying 18 to formulate appropriate public interest 19 obligations for digital television. 20 I have spent the vast majority of my 21 career representing the public's First 22 Amendment right to receive access to diverse 57 1 viewpoints from diverse sources. In the last 2 few years, I have toiled for many, many hours 3 on the particular issue of digital television. 4 Now, I am sure some people might have 5 some preconceived notions of how I am going to 6 vote or how I am going to think about these 7 public interest obligations, but I want to make 8 one thing very clear: that I approach this, to 9 repeat a cliche again, with a very open mind. 10 I look forward to having spirited discussions 11 and debates with my fellow panelists, many of 12 whom, I think all of whom I have already met 13 and spoken with at some length. And I think 14 this is going to be a terrific experience. 15 And I do expect that we are going to 16 have some very interesting and imaginative and 17 outside-the-box thinking, recommendations to 18 make to the Vice President and to the FCC. 19 Thank you. 20 MS. PELTZ STRAUSS: Hi, I am Karen 21 Peltz Strauss and I am a legal counsel for 22 telecommunications policy at the National 58 1 Association of the Deaf. Prior to that time, I 2 spent about 11 or 12 years at Gallaudet 3 University's National Center for Law and 4 Deafness. 5 For most of the people in this room, 6 television is the norm, but for the population 7 that I represent it is still a fairly new 8 medium. And until the 1980s, my constituency 9 didn't even have access to television. 10 Fortunately, now, thanks to many of our 11 broadcasters sitting around this table, a 12 significant amount of broadcast television is 13 closed-captioned. For the blind community, 14 however, video description has not come about. 15 That is a technology that supplements the 16 soundtrack for blind and visually impaired 17 people. 18 As the digital age comes about, I am 19 here to try to make sure that this 20 distinguished panel takes into consideration 21 the access needs of people with disabilities, 22 so that as these new technologies come about, 59 1 the needs of these people are not forgotten at 2 the outset. And I, too, want to thank the 3 President and the Vice President for putting me 4 on this panel and for bringing 5 closed-captioning to the forefront of these 6 issues. 7 MR. SUNSTEIN: My name is Cass 8 Sunstein. I am a professor at the University 9 of Chicago Law School, and I teach 10 constitutional law and the law of free speech. 11 This is a very exciting committee, in 12 part because our constitutional law is in flux 13 right now, and I think we can contribute a fair 14 bit to the nation's understanding of free 15 speech issues. The Court and the nation are 16 caught between two simple ideas, one of them 17 captured by a recent head of the FCC who said 18 that television is just another appliance. It 19 is a toaster with pictures. 20 That understanding sees unregulated 21 speech markets as the First Amendment's goal 22 and takes the metaphor of a marketplace in 60 1 ideas very, very seriously. 2 The alternative idea is a lot older. 3 James Madison, our Constitution's most 4 important founder, saw the First Amendment as 5 associated with democratic self-government and 6 thought that the notion of "We the people" was 7 the lens through which the free speech 8 principle should be viewed. 9 On the Madison view, some controls on 10 speech markets can actually promote the 11 purposes of the First Amendment by ensuring 12 more in the way of democratic self-government. 13 We might be able to bring together the 14 marketplace view with Madison's view by looking 15 toward market-oriented, flexible, innovative 16 techniques, and I hope that is what we will 17 look toward, views that incorporate incentives 18 rather than government commands. 19 In any case, with respect to 20 constitutional law, we are very much in a 21 crossroads period. We can contribute a great 22 deal to the nation's understanding of what the 61 1 First Amendment is about. 2 I hope that we will see free speech 3 issues and public interest obligations through 4 the ideas of Justice Louis Brandeis, Madison's 5 heir, who said that the greatest menace to 6 freedom and democracy is an inert people and 7 who wrote that the purpose of the First 8 Amendment is to ensure the development of human 9 capacities. 10 MR. YEE: My name is James Yee. I am 11 the director of the Independent Television 12 Service based in San Francisco. 13 Gee, what can I say? I do feel that 14 this is an opportunity afforded to us, really 15 not just to reaffirm the whole notion of public 16 interest and public service, nor should digital 17 television and the technology that comes with 18 this be the tail that wags the discussion here. 19 It is an opportunity to be educated and to 20 learn, and it is really to broaden our 21 understanding of what this country is about in 22 terms of how public interest can serve all of 62 1 us. 2 As someone who funds and distributes 3 programs onto public television and works with 4 stations, I am struck by how important public 5 service is, but we interpret it very 6 differently. To me it is something we give to 7 our citizens. We do not look at it from a 8 point of just a consumer-based discussion. 9 We are going to be talking about 10 marketing strategy. It should be in the form 11 of how can we serve the citizens, not just 12 looking at it as just a consumer-based 13 discussion. 14 I do feel like this Committee is 15 charged with an opportunity to examine, to be 16 educated, but to also take some risks in terms 17 of broadening this vision of public interest 18 and public service. And I look forward to our 19 stimulating, provocative discussion on that. 20 MR. MOONVES: Thank you. I have to 21 tell you, I am very impressed with the group 22 that has been put together here. I think we 63 1 have a diversity of backgrounds and opinions 2 and thoughts. And I think the members of this 3 group are pretty spectacular, so I think we are 4 going to have an interesting year together. 5 There are a few other members that 6 are either not here or have not been cleared 7 yet, so this is not the entire group. There 8 will be a few more members joining us, 9 hopefully by the time we have the next meeting. 10 Now I would like to turn it over to 11 Karen Edwards, who is going to give us an 12 overview of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 13 guidelines for our group, letting us know what 14 we can and cannot do and what our 15 responsibilities are. 16 So, Karen? 17 DISCUSSION OF ORGANIZATION 18 AND STRUCTURE OF COMMITTEE 19 MS. EDWARDS: I am really excited to 20 be working with all of you. You know by now 21 that I work here at the Department of Commerce 22 in the National Telecommunications Information 64 1 Administration, or NTIA for short. NTIA is 2 pleased to serve as the secretariat for this 3 Committee. And functioning as the secretariat 4 means that we will provide for the Committee, 5 to the extent our resources permit, 6 administrative and logistical support. 7 I wanted to take a moment to call 8 your attention to a handout in your briefing 9 materials that we titled "Advisory Committee 10 Basic Operating Guidelines." It seemed to make 11 sense, before you get started here, to 12 highlight a few of the most important rules of 13 the road, so to speak. 14 As you know, the Committee operates 15 under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and 16 that Act is all about public access to, and to 17 the extent practicable, public participation in 18 the deliberations of this Committee. This way 19 the Committee can benefit from the expertise of 20 the members of the public and they can be privy 21 to your discussions. 22 This means no closed-door meetings, 65 1 is simply what it means. You operate in the 2 sunshine. All of the meetings are public 3 meetings, as this one is, unless they fit into 4 a narrow exception that allows us to close 5 them. For example, if privileged information 6 is going to be disclosed, then we might seek to 7 close that part of the meeting. 8 Notices of the meeting must be 9 published in the Federal Register. And we 10 actually included the notice that we issued for 11 this meeting, so you have a sense of what is 12 going out. We try to publish these, or must 13 publish these 15 days in advance of the 14 meeting, so last-minute changes are difficult 15 for us. 16 The public can comment on our agenda, 17 and probably will. Written comments may be 18 submitted to the Committee at any time. In 19 fact, in your briefing materials today, we gave 20 you the first set of public comments. I am 21 sure you will be receiving a lot more of those, 22 and we will facilitate getting those to you. 66 1 So what qualifies as a meeting of the 2 Advisory Committee that's subject to these open 3 meeting requirements? Well, under the Federal 4 Advisory Committee Act, when committee members 5 gather, how you determine whether that 6 gathering is a meeting is based on the content 7 of what happens, sort of the nature of the 8 communications that you have. So any fact 9 gathering or sharing of facts or administrative 10 or social functions, those are not meetings, 11 and those do not have to be open to the public. 12 However, a meeting happens when there 13 is any effort to reach consensus, when you 14 deliberate, when you hammer out a compromise. 15 That is a meeting, and those things have to be 16 done in the open and in a publicly accessible 17 forum. 18 I think the only other thing I want 19 to mention now, and I would just refer you to 20 the handout that sort of lays all of this out, 21 is that when you are trying to determine 22 whether a meeting is taking place and whether 67 1 that has to be open or not, the content 2 guideline that I just described applies 3 regardless of the communications vehicle that 4 you use. 5 So for example, if you are talking on 6 the telephone or whether the communication is 7 via fax or e-mail, the content guideline still 8 applies. If you start getting into 9 deliberations or discussions about the 10 substantive work that the Committee has to do, 11 stop. That has to be done in the public eye. 12 I want to remind you, of course, that 13 any reports that you get from other agencies or 14 from other sources outside of NTIA, I need to 15 get a copy so I can make those available to the 16 public as well. They have, the public has, 17 access to your working papers and drafts and 18 transcripts and minutes and all of that 19 material, so they can participate in your work. 20 I look forward to working with all of 21 you. I would be happy to answer any questions 22 now or you can catch me later on in the day. 68 1 Thanks. 2 DR. ORNSTEIN: Let me just clarify, 3 Karen. The activities not covered by the 4 Federal Advisory Committee Act, as you have 5 written down here, meetings of two or more 6 Advisory Committee members or subcommittee 7 members solely to gather information or to 8 conduct research, analyze, draft position 9 papers for the committee. 10 So if there is a substantive 11 discussion among members, but it is to gather 12 research and facts and talk about drafting 13 something that ultimately goes to the full 14 Committee in an open sense, that is okay? That 15 is not covered? 16 MS. EDWARDS: Exactly. 17 DR. ORNSTEIN: So talking substance 18 is okay as long as it is not coming to 19 conclusions that would not be ventilated before 20 the full committee; correct? 21 MS. EDWARDS: Right. I think you 22 have the technical requirement. I think, of 69 1 course, there is always the spirit and the 2 letter of the law problem. So the idea is to 3 try to keep as many of the discussions as 4 possible open to the public. But you are 5 correct, Dr. Ornstein. 6 DR. ORNSTEIN: So if we create 7 working groups that are designed to help 8 structure our plan for the next meeting, for 9 example, those working groups can communicate 10 among themselves without being subject to the 11 Open Meetings Act? 12 MS. EDWARDS: Right. As long as all 13 of the members come from this group, which I 14 assume they would. 15 DR. ORNSTEIN: Yes. 16 MS. EDWARDS: There is no problem 17 there. 18 DR. ORNSTEIN: Okay. Good. 19 MR. MOONVES: Any other questions, 20 anybody, of Karen? 21 Thank you. 22 DR. ORNSTEIN: Okay. We are running 70 1 a little bit late, but we have some time now 2 before we break for lunch, which we really do 3 need to begin the discussion of our agenda and 4 the future. 5 We have a big calendar up there of 6 1998, and you also have some at your places, 7 some calendar sheets which we will come back 8 to. But let me suggest this to all of us: At 9 the moment, at least, we have a deadline for 10 issuing a report to the Vice President of 11 June 1, 1998. Now, admittedly that is a 12 deadline that was established when the 13 President initiated this executive order some 14 eight months ago, I think probably anticipating 15 that the wheels of justice and the nominating 16 process would move somewhat more quickly than 17 they have and that we would be meeting 18 beginning before now. 19 But we have to operate under the 20 assumption that we have that June 1 deadline, 21 and we then go out of business 30 days 22 thereafter. We need to work back from that, at 71 1 least at the moment. And that makes our task, 2 frankly, considerably more daunting, given what 3 we know now to be our vast mandate. I do not 4 think Lewis and Clark could have crossed the 5 country in quite that length of time. Maybe we 6 need Stephen Ambrose on our committee to help 7 us along. 8 The practical reality, I think, is 9 that we have to look towards a final meeting 10 for the purpose of coming up with whatever 11 recommendations that will then be translated 12 into a written report that will be circulated 13 among the members probably around April of next 14 year. Maybe we can push this to the middle of 15 April, but we need to work back from that. 16 And I would just suggest to you, at 17 least at the outset, a number of things that we 18 need to accomplish, at least in our public 19 deliberations. We are going to need to have 20 one or more opportunities for some voices to be 21 heard in a hearing kind of process. Now, that 22 will start, I think, with the dominant voices 72 1 out there in these particular deliberations, 2 and that means broadcasters and probably the 3 public interest community. We need to talk 4 about all of that. And then there are lots of 5 others, but I think we can hold that until a 6 later point. 7 We will begin to discuss the 8 technology tomorrow, but the reality is we are 9 barely going to scratch the surface of what 10 digital is, and we really do need to, because 11 it is so critical to our functioning to figure 12 out where this technology differs from analog 13 broadcasting, in terms of what delivery is 14 there, spend more time on it. 15 So we are going to have to have at 16 least an intensive period where we look at 17 something that may begin with the questions of 18 high-definition television versus multiplexing, 19 but also gets to many of the questions that Rob 20 Glaser would raise, given what he does, and 21 others will as well. 22 We clearly have two larger mandates 73 1 that the Vice President mentioned that I think 2 we all would agree on as well. One, we could 3 put under the broad rubric of education. It 4 includes the children's focus as well. The 5 other, which will take some extensive 6 discussion, no doubt, is the question of free 7 time and the political discourse. 8 We have many other areas that include 9 closed-captioning, public service 10 announcements, all of the other elements that 11 have been public interest obligations or 12 charges and others, perhaps small, perhaps 13 large, that will be mentioned along the way 14 that we will have to consider either together 15 as a group or perhaps in some separate way. 16 I believe we need a session in which 17 we can really explore innovative approaches 18 that go beyond the fairly narrow way in which 19 we have defined those obligations for analog. 20 And that will be preceded, I hope, by some 21 serious thinking on the part of us and perhaps 22 others outside. If we can come up with 74 1 something new, that itself would be an enormous 2 public service. 3 And clearly, we are going to need a 4 session in which we actually talk about and 5 hammer out the recommendations that will be the 6 backbone of whatever report we issue to the 7 Vice President. That is at least seven or 8 eight separate things. Clearly, we could spend 9 two days on each of them. Clearly, we are not 10 going to have eight meetings between October 11 and April of next year. 12 So we are going to have to figure out 13 ways of dividing our labor and also combining 14 into full-day or day-and-a-half sessions. And 15 I think my own judgment is that the practical 16 reality is that anything more than a day and a 17 half is just not workable. We won't be able to 18 maintain any level of focus and intensity 19 beyond that. And for the most part, we will 20 probably try to do what we can in a long day 21 with maybe two half days on this. 22 But we need to have some discussion 75 1 of those things, and we need to have some 2 consideration of whether and how we apply 3 working groups to provide some backing for what 4 we are doing. 5 Let me suggest, and then see what Les 6 thinks, and we will open things up, just a 7 couple of other things. We had talked among 8 ourselves about a date for the next meeting and 9 wanted to try an option out on you to see if it 10 works for most of you, and that is looking 11 ahead to December. 12 MR. MOONVES: December 4. 13 DR. ORNSTEIN: December 4, which is a 14 Thursday, or as an option December 5, which is 15 a Friday. 16 MR. CRUMP: I have a Muscular 17 Dystrophy Association board meeting on the 4th 18 in Miami. I could easily make the 5th. 19 DR. ORNSTEIN: Okay. Peggy? 20 MS. CHARREN: The 5th is easier, but 21 I could make something on the 4th. 22 DR. ORNSTEIN: Is the 5th all right 76 1 for people? Okay. Why don't we then just 2 settle on the 5th of December, and count on a 3 full-day meeting that will probably run from 4 either -- 5 MR. MOONVES: We are never going to 6 get everybody into every meeting. 7 DR. ORNSTEIN: No. No, that is 8 simply a reality. But we wanted to set one 9 date now if we could. Let's count on the 5th 10 and assume that it is a meeting that will go 11 probably from 8:00 or 8:30 until 5:00. 12 MR. LA CAMERA: Will all of them be 13 in Washington, D.C.? 14 MS. CHARREN: That is what I was 15 going to ask too. 16 MR. MOONVES: Well, that is something 17 else we have to discuss. Karen, is that in the 18 charter or is there any rule on that? 19 MS. EDWARDS: I think there is a 20 rule, and I think they need to be here in D.C. 21 DR. ORNSTEIN: They have to be in 22 D.C.? 77 1 MR. DECHERD: At the NII task force 2 meetings, they had six in D.C. but they had 3 several others. 4 MS. CHARREN: Yes. Right. 5 MS. EDWARDS: I am looking. 6 DR. ORNSTEIN: While Karen is 7 looking, let me suggest something else: What 8 we have done is to provide you with calendars 9 here for future months. Starting in January, 10 would you please -- if you can today; if not, 11 get it to us -- just mark off on those 12 calendars days you know you cannot make. And 13 what we will do is take those and try to work 14 up a meeting schedule that has as few conflicts 15 as possible, looking down the road. In the 16 meantime, we will see where we can hold the 17 meetings. 18 I think the practical reality is we 19 should look towards a meeting in December and 20 probably monthly meetings, something like one 21 meeting a month during a month in the period 22 that follows. We will work on the assumption 78 1 that each of those meetings will be a full day 2 and possibly, if needed, spilling over to a 3 second morning as we are doing this time 4 around. Knowing that for many of you it is a 5 long distance to travel, we might as well do it 6 as efficiently as we possibly can to reduce the 7 costs. 8 And by the way, just for everybody 9 out there who is paying attention to this, you 10 should know that all of the members here are 11 paying their own expenses, so there is an added 12 element of cost to the public service which is 13 being provided here. 14 MS. CHARREN: Did we decide about -- 15 DR. ORNSTEIN: December 5. 16 MS. CHARREN: No. Other places? 17 MR. MOONVES: Karen is going to check 18 on that. 19 DR. ORNSTEIN: We are checking on 20 that. 21 MS. EDWARDS: A quick update here: 22 In the charter for the Advisory Committee, it 79 1 says that meetings are expected to be held in 2 the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. And I 3 think one of the reasons for that is because 4 there is no appropriation for travel. So, for 5 example, members of the secretariat would have 6 difficulty traveling to other places. It's not 7 in the executive order, but it is in the 8 charter. 9 DR. ORNSTEIN: Okay. And the 10 secretariat has to travel -- we have no funds 11 to cover the cost for the staff going someplace 12 else, or is that possible? We need to explore 13 our possibilities here. 14 MS. EDWARDS: I think we can 15 certainly explore them. 16 DR. ORNSTEIN: Yes. 17 MS. EDWARDS: My sense is that funds 18 are at a premium here. 19 DR. ORNSTEIN: It would clearly be 20 desirable, if we could, to have at least one 21 meeting outside of Washington. 22 MR. CRUMP: For what it's worth, I am 80 1 with Hubbard Broadcasting, as you know, in 2 corporate management there, and we would be 3 happy to -- we are happy to extend an 4 invitation to this Committee to meet in 5 Minneapolis/St. Paul. 6 We would be happy to host dinners, 7 lunches, breakfasts, and we would be happy to 8 provide the meeting place. This is right in 9 the middle of the country, if this made it 10 easier for people from the two coasts to come 11 together. And we would be happy to do this any 12 month, but I would add to that, you would 13 probably be happier in April or May. 14 MS. CHARREN: May I just add that 15 since there are some public interest people 16 here who pay their own bills, in contrast to 17 some corporate corporations that may help out, 18 if all of us are on the East Coast, the closer 19 we stay to the East Coast would help our bank 20 accounts. 21 MR. MOONVES: There are some of us on 22 the West Coast. 81 1 MS. CHARREN: Yes. 2 MR. MOONVES: There are people from 3 all over the country here. 4 MS. CHARREN: Yes, but I mean -- 5 DR. ORNSTEIN: It is worth exploring 6 some different venues, and it may be that we 7 could pick places where the airline costs are 8 not that considerably greater than the cost 9 between Boston and Washington, or we could find 10 ways of accommodating that. I mean, it would 11 certainly be nice to get outside. 12 MR. BENTON: May I add something to 13 what you said for consideration only? 14 DR. ORNSTEIN: Yes. 15 MR. BENTON: And that is, when we 16 talk about airline costs, if we were willing to 17 meet over a weekend, where you had a Saturday 18 night stay, the cost would be reduced 19 considerably. 20 DR. ORNSTEIN: Yes. Bill? 21 MR. DUHAMEL: That was the point I 22 wanted to make, because the cost for me to come 82 1 in here was outrageous, and I've got to pay for 2 it. And that's because there was no advance 3 notice and no Saturday night stay. And like a 4 Friday, I mean, I will just spend Saturday 5 night here, because, I mean, it's the only way 6 I can afford to do this thing. That is why I 7 was going to say at least Friday or Monday, but 8 a weekend would help. 9 MR. MOONVES: Well, how does the 10 Committee feel about meeting on a Saturday, per 11 se? 12 MR. DUHAMEL: They would probably 13 prefer it. 14 DR. ORNSTEIN: Yes. 15 MR. DUHAMEL: Certainly on a Friday 16 or a Monday. 17 MR. MOONVES: I certainly would. 18 DR. ORNSTEIN: Why don't we establish 19 a principle here that we will, wherever we can, 20 try to meet on Friday or Monday or on a 21 Saturday if it turns out to be a workable 22 process, so we give people the option, at 83 1 least, of fairly easily making it a Saturday 2 night stay. 3 MR. MOONVES: Yes? 4 MS. EDWARDS: I just wanted to remind 5 you that the Federal Advisory Committee Act 6 requires us to try to hold all meetings during 7 normal business hours. So unfortunately, 8 Saturday does not count. 9 MR. MOONVES: Okay. So Saturday is 10 out. 11 DR. ORNSTEIN: Okay. 12 MR. GOODMON: I was going to say, I 13 work every Saturday, so that is a normal 14 business day for me. 15 DR. ORNSTEIN: Yes. Well, I want to 16 make a point here that Karen probably would not 17 make herself, which is that she is a 18 Seventh-Day Adventist and cannot work on 19 Saturdays, from Friday sundown until Saturday 20 sundown, and she is our designated federal 21 officer. And to whatever degree we can, we 22 should be very sensitive to that. So if we do 84 1 Fridays or Mondays, we can work around that 2 particular constraint. 3 MR. SUNSTEIN: Norman, if you are not 4 here, can you participate by telephone? 5 DR. ORNSTEIN: That is an interesting 6 question. I suppose we could probably work out 7 a hookup to make that operate. I am not sure 8 you want to sit there for a whole day, but I 9 think we should do everything we can to make 10 sure -- maybe the digital technology. We will 11 get Rob working on this. We will find 12 innovative ways of videoconferencing here, 13 perhaps. 14 MR. MOONVES: It shouldn't be that 15 hard to do. 16 DR. ORNSTEIN: Yes. 17 MR. MOONVES: I mean in terms of the 18 telephone, anyway. 19 MR. YEE: Excuse me. As we try to 20 figure out these housekeeping details, I just 21 want to remind us, as costly as it was for us 22 to get here, it is also costly for those who 85 1 wish to testify or speak to us if we are not 2 going to be, shall we say, traveling around the 3 country to hear other voices beyond just the 4 usual, with all due respect, just the Beltway 5 ones. Because I do feel that other voices, 6 other people, wish to participate and to be 7 heard. And I think it is part of the 8 educational process. 9 I do believe that while there may be 10 some constriction in terms of budget in the 11 Department of Commerce, since we are all paying 12 the bill and making dedicated time, I would 13 duly expect some flexibility of that 14 interpretation. And I think if the secretariat 15 is serving the will of this Committee we should 16 make it so. 17 DR. ORNSTEIN: That is certainly 18 sensible, although I do want to suggest to us 19 that we are probably simply not going to have 20 the time and resources to be able to do 21 extensive public hearings including field 22 hearings. Part of the reason that our 86 1 Committee is 23 members as opposed to the 2 original executive order limit of 15 was to try 3 to incorporate some of those voices inside. 4 And we have other innovative ways of 5 having voices heard. We have an Internet site, 6 and we have already gotten some communications 7 on that. We may want to think about a hearing 8 that is teleconferenced in which we can, in 9 fact, bring in voices from a number of 10 different places around the country. That is 11 something we ought to put on our agenda. And 12 we can probably find the digital industry 13 willing to help us do this in the most 14 innovative way imaginable. 15 MR. GLASER: I can offer the offer 16 that we would provide, at no charge to the 17 government or anybody, the ability to broadcast 18 outward over the Internet whatever proceedings 19 we would want to do that way. 20 DR. ORNSTEIN: And that, I think, is 21 a terrific idea. What we do in house, my 22 understanding -- tell me if I am right, 87 1 Karen -- is if the members provide services to 2 the Committee, that is okay; if others do, then 3 it becomes a more difficult problem under the 4 Gift Act. 5 MS. EDWARDS: I think you are right. 6 As a general matter, if the members give a gift 7 to the Committee, that is okay. Each of those 8 gifts, however, need to be approved, because we 9 want to make sure that we have the appearance 10 of impartiality, and propriety is taken care 11 of. It is really an appearance issue. We want 12 to make sure that the public has trust in the 13 recommendations that eventually come out of the 14 Committee. 15 DR. ORNSTEIN: Yes. 16 MS. EDWARDS: I don't know if makes 17 sense to suggest that we sort of explore a 18 couple of the things you mentioned here, one, 19 the possibility of having these meetings in 20 other cities. Honestly, I don't know sort of 21 the history of this provision in the charter. 22 I would want to explore that a little bit. We 88 1 can certainly explore the teleconferencing 2 option. 3 And I would just add: The Committee, 4 when we say that the Committee welcomes public 5 comment, that is very true. We are going to 6 try to make sure that written comments can be 7 submitted any time, and we will get them to 8 each of you. If people call your offices to 9 ask, "How can we participate?" we have the 10 high-tech ways, but we also have sort of the 11 paper ways too. 12 DR. ORNSTEIN: Why don't we make sure 13 that as soon as we can, we can get out to the 14 Committee, if it is possible before we are done 15 with our deliberations, the word on those 16 questions, travel outside and also things like 17 the teleconference. 18 But I do want to emphasize that we 19 need to figure out ways of bringing in other 20 voices, while recognizing the practical reality 21 here that we simply are not going to be able to 22 hold a lot of meetings. We are not like a 89 1 congressional committee that is going to go 2 around doing field hearings and hearing people 3 in the formal fashion. 4 I think, realistically, we have to 5 limit that as much as we can to the things that 6 are most important to us now and handle the 7 other public input through us as 8 representatives of interests and through other 9 venues, because we just are not going to have 10 the time or the capacity to have more than a 11 handful of meetings in this process together. 12 MR. MOONVES: Karen, can we deal with 13 the date when the supposed paper is due? Are 14 we being entirely unrealistic to think that we 15 really can, being it is October 20, prepare 16 something by June 1; that we are going to have 17 to recommend a paper by April to have it to us 18 in May to go over for June? It seems like we 19 are going to have three meetings and then have 20 to do recommendations. I think that is going 21 to be awfully fast. 22 MR. BENTON: That causes me great 90 1 concern. 2 DR. ORNSTEIN: Yes. 3 MR. MOONVES: What? 4 MR. BENTON: The fact that we would 5 have to rush so. 6 MR. MOONVES: I agree. 7 MR. BENTON: The point is that the 8 President and the Vice President felt it was 9 important enough to create enough this 10 situation, and we know that there have been 11 some delays along the way. I would certainly 12 like to see us ask for an extension. 13 MR. MOONVES: Yes. I am wondering if 14 we shouldn't make it a calendar year and 15 literally present the paper one year from 16 today, something like that. 17 DR. ORNSTEIN: Right. 18 MS. CHARREN: I second the motion. 19 DR. ORNSTEIN: The only question I 20 would have is whether -- I think realistically 21 there is no way we can operate under this 22 deadline. The only question is whether we 91 1 start with the assumption we operate under this 2 deadline that keeps us focused and moving and 3 then change it as we move closer, or move it to 4 a calendar year, in which case we will expand 5 our operations and deliberations more. And I 6 am neutral on that; I just raise it. 7 MR. DECHERD: My preference would be 8 to change the schedule exactly once and do it 9 up front, and then build a schedule based on 10 that and discipline ourselves and hold 11 ourselves to that. 12 DR. ORNSTEIN: Yes. 13 MR. MOONVES: I agree. 14 DR. ORNSTEIN: Okay. 15 MR. DECHERD: And that would 16 basically help us buy into collectively 17 understanding how to get to our goals, whether 18 it is a calendar year or not. 19 DR. ORNSTEIN: And does a calendar 20 year make sense to everybody? 21 PARTICIPANTS: Yes. 22 MS. SOHN: But even with the extra 92 1 couple of months, we are still going to have to 2 operate on a very tight schedule or in a year 3 we are not going to reach our goals. 4 DR. ORNSTEIN: Yes. Sure. Yes, and 5 the reality is we are going to have some 6 slippage in the summer as well. 7 MS. PELTZ STRAUSS: Yes. And we may 8 still want to have as our goal a draft of what 9 we are going to be producing by June, for 10 example, because the summer months are quieter. 11 DR. ORNSTEIN: We are probably going 12 to have some areas where we won't be able to do 13 that, but certainly there are parts of the 14 report that we will want to produce. I am 15 hopeful. 16 We are issuing a report to the Vice 17 President, but this is also a report that ought 18 to serve as a guide to all kinds of other 19 communities out there, not just the 20 policymaking community, about the nature of 21 public interest obligations, about the 22 transition from analog to digital, about what 93 1 that future might hold, that will have a longer 2 shelf life. 3 And so the longer we wait to at least 4 get some even better assessment of where the 5 technology might take us, the better off we 6 are. But some of that we can do, we can even 7 begin thinking about now, and soon we may even 8 begin to charge some people with particular 9 responsibilities in this area. 10 We need to, then, talk about some 11 blocking out of the schedule for future 12 meetings, and we need to talk about task forces 13 or whether we are going to divide our labor up 14 so that we can maximize the potential here. I 15 don't know whether we should do that now or -- 16 MR. MOONVES: Yes, I think we can get 17 into that. We talked about on our next meeting 18 in December beginning our hearings with two 19 different groups, one from the broadcasting 20 side and one from the public interest side, and 21 literally ask three people to prepare 22 presentations for each one. And this is all, 94 1 obviously, open for debate -- about five 2 minutes apiece for the three people and then 3 open it to the panel for questioning. 4 As I said, one broadcasting panel, 5 because there are a lot of broadcasters who we 6 obviously have heard from, and there are a lot 7 of public interest people who would like to 8 appear before us. And I am wondering if there 9 is anyb