House Hearing with the FCC

[Peter Loge]

On Tuesday, July 24 the five members of the FCC are slated to appear before the US House Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee. The hearing is scheduled to start at 9:30a EDT and will probably run until around noon. These hearings are typically webcast, and depending on what else is happening then it may be on CSPAN as well. More information on the hearing is is at http://energycommerce.house.gov/membios/schedule.shtml.

This is the second time this year that the FCC is appearing before the Subcommittee. Members of the Subcommittee will likely ask about a range of issues from broadband availability, to the proposed XM/Sirius merger, to the digital TV transition, to rules around wireless phone companies, to network neutrality, to media ownership, and more.

The Caucus is reaching out to the Subcommittee staff and encouraging them to raise the issue of vertical media integration, and also reaching out to other interest groups and allies who are working on ownership issues.

[Greg Strangis]

Peter, is the House likely to act on any FCC issues--

--before the summer break?

--while Iraq is so front and center on the agenda?

--during this protracted election cycle?

Oh, and thanks for the legislative update:)

[Peter Loge]

When it comes to issues of television ownership and content the short answer is no. The long answer is almost certainly not.

The House is going to break in a couple of weeks and come back in September - the odds of anything signifant getting done before that on almost any issue are vitually zero. Legislators are consumed with appropriations, the Farm Bill and other issues that have to be dealt with sooner rather than later. Anything that does not have to be done and that is complicated and controversial will likely be punted until at least the fall (and in many cases until 2009).

And even if the House acts it is unlikely the Senate will - and if they both act they still have to work out differences between the two bills, each body has to pass the resulting compromise, and then the president has to sign it. That's a lot to do in a short amount of time.

One reason the FCC is before the Telecomm Subcommittee for the second time in six months is because they weren't before the Subcommittee at all for a long time before the Democrats took the House back. The Democrats are leaning heavily into oversight, calling agencies before Congress and grilling them on a variety of issues. This grilling helps set the agendas for the agencies, helps shape the debate around future legislation, and of course helps score political points. But it does not pass legislation in the short-term.

Tuesday's hearing will likely focus on a handful of areas:
The 800 MHz band
The digital television transition
The Universal Service Fund
Television content (esp. around childhood obesity and possibly around the Senate Committee vote).

These hearings are important as agenda setting tools, can steer FCC actions, and help set up future bills, they have a lot of meaning in the larger context of policy making. But they do not themselves do anything.

It is also important to bear in mind that TV is only a small part of what the FCC does. If something sends a signal over the airwaves, from your garage door opener to XM Radio, the FCC has a piece of it. As such their attention is necessarily often elsewhere, which may not be a bad thing given the makeup of the FCC and the policy interests of the independent producers, writers and directors.

[Greg Strangis]

Tuesday's hearing will likely focus on a handful of areas:
The 800 MHz band
The digital television transition
The Universal Service Fund
Television content (esp. around childhood obesity and possibly around the Senate Committee vote).
So, at least in the near term, reviving a version of the Fairness Doctrine is off the table?

Cool.

[Peter Loge]

A couple members of the US House regularly talk about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, but that's as far as it gets.

Some Republican Senators and Representatives inserted language in several pieces of appropriations legislation saying that the FCC cannot spend any money enforcing the Fairness Doctrine next year - which isn't terribly meaningful because there is no Fairness Doctrine to enforce. It's like telling your 12 year old son he can't spend any of his allowance on gas for the car.

The chances of the Fairness Doctrine coming back in this session of Congress, which closes at the end of 2008, are somewhere between slim and none.

[Greg Strangis]

Ok.

Hi, Peter.

Hi.

[Greg Strangis]

As much of a legislative longshot as it might be, there seems to be something in the air.

From today’s LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fairness23jul23,1,1341831.story?coll=la-headlines-business), emphasis mine:

Some in Congress pushing for reinstatement of Fairness Doctrine
The influence wielded by conservative talk show hosts draws calls to reinstate the policy.
By Jim Puzzanghera, Times Staff Writer
July 23, 2007

WASHINGTON — It was the decision that launched a thousand lips.

In 1987, the Federal Communications Commission stopped requiring broadcasters to air contrasting views on controversial issues, a policy known as the Fairness Doctrine. The move is widely credited with triggering the explosive growth of political talk radio.

Now, after conservative talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage helped torpedo a major immigration bill, some in Congress have suggested reinstating the Fairness Doctrine to balance out those powerful syndicated voices.

That has unleashed an armada of opposition on the airwaves, Internet blogs and in Washington, where broadcasters have joined with Republicans to fight what they call an attempt to zip their lips.

Opponents of the Fairness Doctrine said it would make station owners so fearful of balancing viewpoints that they'd simply avoid airing controversial topics — the "chilling effect" on debate that the FCC cited in repealing the rule two decades ago.

"Free speech must be just that — free from government influence, interference and censorship," David K. Rehr, president of the National Assn. of Broadcasters, wrote to lawmakers.

There's little chance the fairness doctrine will return in the near future, as FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin publicly opposes it and the White House wrote to broadcasters last week assuring them that Bush would veto any legislation reinstating it. But the issue has renewed debate about how far the government should go in regulating the public airwaves.

Some Democrats say conservative-dominated talk radio enables Republicans to mislead the public on important issues such as the Senate immigration reform bill.

"These are public airwaves and the public should be entitled to a fair presentation," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who is considering whether the Fairness Doctrine should be restored.

Republicans say that the policy would result in censorship and warn that it could return if Democrats win the White House in 2008.

"This is a bad idea from a bygone era," Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) said at a news conference last week with five other Republicans announcing legislation to block reenactment of the policy.

The FCC enacted the Fairness Doctrine in 1949 to ensure the "right of the public to be informed" by presenting "for acceptance or rejection the different attitudes and viewpoints" on controversial issues. The policy was upheld in 1969 by the Supreme Court because the public airwaves were a "scarce resource" that needed to be open to opposing views.

Broadcasters disliked the rule, which put their federal station license at risk if they didn't air all sides of an issue. Michael Harrison, who hosted a weekend talk show on the former KMET-FM in Los Angeles from 1975 to 1985, said the policy kept him from giving his opinions on controversial topics.

"I would never say that liberals were good and conservatives were bad, or vice versa. We would talk about, "Hey, all politicians are bad," or "It's a shame that more people don't vote," said Harrison, who publishes Talkers magazine, which covers the talk radio industry. "It was more of a superficial approach to politics."

The Fairness Doctrine ended during the Reagan administration. In a 1985 report, the FCC concluded the policy inhibited broadcasters from dealing with controversial issues and was no longer needed because of the growth of cable television.

"Many, many broadcasters testified they avoided issues they thought would involve them in complaints," recalled Dennis Patrick, who was chairman of the FCC in 1987 when it repealed the policy. "The commission concluded that the doctrine was having a chilling effect."

The decision was controversial. Congress passed a law in 1987 reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but Reagan vetoed it.

Shortly afterward, Limbaugh, then a little-known Sacramento disc jockey, emerged as a conservative voice on radio stations nationwide. Another failed congressional attempt to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in 1993 was dubbed the "Hush Rush" bill.

A 1997 study in the Journal of Legal Studies found that the percentage of AM radio stations with a news, talk or public affairs format jumped to 28% in 1995 from 7% in 1987. Liberal talk radio efforts, such as Air America, have struggled to get ratings.

The Fairness Doctrine seemed dead and buried. Then in January, Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), who is running for president, announced that with Democrats back in the House majority, he planned to hold hearings on reviving the policy because media consolidation has made it harder for some voices to be heard.

And this spring, conservative talk show hosts unleashed a campaign against the Senate immigration bill, which would have given the nation's 12 million illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. Their listeners flooded the Capitol with complaints, and the bill failed last month on a procedural vote.

Bill supporters immediately lashed out at talk radio.

"Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with the problem," said Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.). And Sens. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said they favored restoring the Fairness Doctrine.

"We have more power than the U.S. Senate and they know it and they're fuming," conservative talk show host Savage said in an interview. The liberal bent of the mainstream media more than compensates for conservative dominance of AM talk radio, he said.

"We're going to have government snitches listening to shows," he said. "And what are they going to do, push a button and then wheel someone into the studio and give their viewpoint?"

But Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (D-N.Y.) said the rest of the media presented a balanced view of controversial issues, and the Fairness Doctrine would simply reimpose that requirement on talk radio.

Hinchey is readying legislation to reinstitute the doctrine as part of a broad package of media ownership reforms.

"It's important that the American people make decisions for themselves based upon the ability to garner all the information, not just on what somebody wants to give them," he said.

Republicans have seized on comments like that.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), a former radio talk show host, proposed an amendment last month prohibiting the FCC from spending money to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine. It passed 309 to 115 after a parade of Republicans took to the House floor to blast calls to restore the policy. Democrats branded the vote a political stunt. Republicans tried to propose a similar amendment in the Senate last week, but Democrats blocked it .

Republicans vow to continue pressing the issue.

"The American people love a fair fight, and so do I," Pence said. "But there's nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine."

[Peter Loge]

Those interested in the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet's hearing with the FCC tomorrow (Tues, 7/24) can get the link to watch it online here:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/membios/schedule.shtml

[Peter Loge]

There is indeed a lot of talk of the Fairness Doctrine, and there are bills to bring it back. The debate is worth paying attention to, and advocates on both sides are worth tracking.

But as the LA Times notes,

"There's little chance the fairness doctrine will return in the near future, as FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin publicly opposes it and the White House wrote to broadcasters last week assuring them that Bush would veto any legislation reinstating it."

It's just not going to happen in this session of Congress, and I doubt in the next.

[Peter Loge]

The House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet just completed a four-hour hearing with the five members of the FCC.

The room was full, and an overflow room was needed for everyone who wanted to attend. Most of those who got seats in the hearing itself had spots in line held for more than 18 hours.

The hearing focused on the auction of the 700 Megahertz spectrum, with a signficant amount of discussion around public safety, consumer protection and access. Other topics included the portability of phones when consumers switch wireless provders and the related issue of early termination fees, and the Universal Service Fund.

FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein mentioned media ownership rules as part of an answer to a question about diversity in the telecommunications industry broadly (most of the hearing focused on the spectrum auction so it was good he was able to extend the issue).

The only comments concerning television came from US Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) who was concerned about minority and women-owned media, US Rep. Ed Townes (D-NY) who discussed diversity, US Rep. Hilda Solis who mentioned the sale of the Los Angeles Times, US Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) who talked about the need for localism, and US Rep. Lois Capps who talked about the links between food advertising and childhood obesity. With the exception of Rep. Eshoo and Rep. Capps, the comments were in the context of a larger discussion about broader issues. Issues facing the television industry were present, but took a (way) back seat to other topics.

One other item to note - the next FCC public hearing on localism will be in Chicago in September, date and location to be announced.