Hearing of the Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee: Advancing the DTV Transition: an Examination of the FCC Media Bureau Proposal

HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE SUBJECT: ADVANCING THE DTV TRANSITION: AN EXAMINATION OF THE FCC MEDIA BUREAU PROPOSAL

CHAIRED BY: REPRESENTATIVE FRED UPTON (R-MI)

WITNESSES:

W. KENNETH FERREE, CHIEF, MEDIA BUREAU, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; EDWARD O. FRITTS, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS; ROBERT SACHS, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL CABLE & TELECOM ASSOCIATION; RICHARD DALBELLO, PRESIDENT, SATELLITE BROADCASTING & COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION;

GARY SHAPIRO, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CONSUMER ELECTRONICS ASSOCIATION;

GLORIA TRISTANI, MANAGING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF COMMUNICATION, THE UNITED CHIEF OF CHRIST, INC.; THOMAS LENARD, SENIOR FELLOW AND VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH, THE PROGRESS & FREEDOM FOUNDATION

LOCATION: 2123 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

BODY:
REP. EDWARD J. MARKEY (D-MA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much, and I would like to commend you for having this very important hearing and all the key players in this discussion here with us today. In critical ways, this subcommittee was instrumental in beginning the transition to high definition TV for the country and certainly in shifting the debate from analog HDTV format to a digital one.

For me, the odyssey that began with an analog HDTV-began with an HDTV broadcast in this very room in 1987, and that was a big, big day in the history of this subcommittee when we had a live Canadian HDTV broadcast come right into this room. And most of the members were then asking, when can I get one of those TV sets. To me it's a little bit scary if this is the end of the beginning and the beginning started in 1987. I hope that we're slightly further along than that.

With the computer industry, the telephone industry, the cable industry, wireless industry all going digital, it was important for economic growth and job creation to move the broadcast industry to digital as well. Because it is a licensed industry and one which had tens of millions of consumers with analog TV sets, it was clear that we needed a transition. Broadcasters were lent additional spectrum for transitional purposes, and the law requires that when the transition is over, they give back their analog spectrum. Because broadcasters were special in that they had a responsibility to use their licenses in the public interest, it furthered the public interest to move them into the digital age so that they could continue their free over-the-air public interest mission in local communities around the country.

At the same time, we were having our flurry of HDTV hearings. Congress was also passing the must-carry/retransmission consent provision of the 1992 Cable Act. These provisions also reflected the fact that broadcasters had a special role in our national media mix. And I know from firsthand experience that such broadcasters certainly hold a special place in Boston's media marketplace. Simply put, the grants of additional spectrum for free, as well as the government's requirement that cable operators carry broadcast signals and under must-carry require the carriage to be free of charge, represents extraordinary involvement in the marketplace on behalf of broadcasters.

We do this because we hold valuable-they hold valuable licenses to the public airwaves and because they are duty-bound to use those licenses in the public interest. Without such public interest obligations, in other words, there would be little justification for must-carry rights of free spectrum.

Since 1997, I have asked various broadcast witnesses at a series of hearings about their public interest commitment for the digital era. To their credit, each broadcast witness that I asked agreed that because their service would be enhanced in the digital format, their public interest commitment would similarly rise and be commensurate with the increased power and versatility of the digital medium. Each witness, however, resisted any articulation or quantification of what that digital public interest commitment would be. In addition, we are now four years into the FCC's regulatory proceeding on the public interest commitment of digital broadcasters with no end apparently in sight.

For those of us in the policymaking realm who are prepared to endorse significant must-carry policy options, including so-called multicast must-carry, the lack of industry and regulatory progress on establishing public interest commitments is a concern. The FCC Media Bureau proposal doesn't speak to this type of public interest obligation at all. It does have what seems to be a "Hail Mary" pass proposal to end the DTV transition and get to the end zone sooner.

Getting spectrum back sooner has obvious public interest and economic benefits to offer both consumers and taxpayers alike. Importantly, even freeing up the upper portion of the broadcast spectrum for public safety would be a significant public interest achievement that has also alluded regulators for some years. Integral to the Media Bureau plan, however, is the notion that cable operators would take the digital signals of broadcasters and down-convert that signal to analog.

In other words, cable consumers would receive their local digital TV broadcasters in analog format to bring the DTV transition to a more rapid conclusion. Due to the likelihood of broadcasters multicasting and splitting their signal into several digital feeds and the lack of any requirement that broadcasters actually broadcast in HDTV, over time we have tended in our policy discussions to drop the letter H. We typically now talk about DTV, not HDTV.

My concern with the Media Bureau proposal is that it seems to portend the dropping of the letter D. That would certainly be an "Oh Henry" ending to the HDTV policy. We started 17 years ago with analog HDTV, moved the commission to a digital HDTV format, then Congress allows multicasting and many broadcasters move to the notion of simply DTV, only to have the Media Bureau turn around and bring us back to analog TV over cable systems.

I understand that some think the marketplace will resuscitate the D for digital TV over time on cable systems, but I'm skeptical that it would work across the nation. We must admit that at its core, the DTV transition represents a government-driven policy, not a purely market- driven phenomenon, and it is therefore imperative that government create the condition and environment for policy successes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.