I consider this an important development. C-SPAN & C-SPAN2 delivers
critical information about a variety of topics and issues. Please make a
personal effort to follow and stay informed on these developments.
F. Leon Wilson
----------------------------------------------------------
FCC Rules Could Force C-SPAN & C-SPAN2 Off Your Cable System
The Federal Communications Commission is now in the process of writing
rules that could give every local broadcast station a second channel on
your cable system. If that happens, cable operators would be forced to
eliminate many cable programming services, including C-SPAN and C-SPAN2, in
order to make room for each broadcast station's extra channel.
Broadcasters would be given the extra cable channel as part of the plan for
the nation's transition from current television technology to the new
"digital" television, which includes the promise of the much talked about
High Definition Television, or HDTV.
C-SPAN believes the proposal for a second channel is both unnecessary and
unconstitutional. A so-called "digital must carry" rule from the FCC would
violate the First Amendment because it would prevent the C-SPAN Networks
from being able to "speak" to literally millions of American households as
one or the other, or even both of the networks would be dropped from your
cable system under such a rule.
The C-SPAN Networks have vigorously opposed the recently proposed second
channel for broadcasters, and in fact, have opposed all forms of such "must
carry" rules for several years. Most recently, C-SPAN's CEO Brian Lamb
testified to a Senate committee in opposition to the second channel proposal
for broadcasters.
C-SPAN CEO Testifies Against `Digital Must Carry'
On Wednesday, July 8th C-SPAN's chief executive Brian Lamb testified before
the Senate Commerce Committee as part of a panel of witnesses to discuss the
nation's transition from analog to digital television. Mr. Lamb's written
testimony, reproduced below, focused on the proposal that cable operators be
forced to give each local broadcaster a second channel on the cable system.
Lamb criticized this "digital must carry" rule as unfair, unnecessary and
unconstitutional.
C-SPAN's Counsel Claims "Digital Must Carry" Unnecessary and
Unconstitutional.
On Friday, July 24th C-SPAN's Corporate Vice President and General Counsel
Bruce Collins participated in a panel discussion in Washington on digital
television sponsored by Georgetown University. In his opening remarks Mr.
Collins argued that the transition to digital television would be
accomplished most effectively through the free market, and that a "digital
must carry" rule would be unnecessary and unconstitutional.
Watch or listen to Mr. Collins' remarks Watch or listen to the entire panel
discussion
Letter to Capitol Hill Warns of Dangers to C-SPAN
On May 22, C-SPAN told Congress that an impending FCC policy change could
result in the loss of C-SPAN and C-SPAN 2 in millions of households. The
message was in a letter from C-SPAN Chairman and CEO Brian Lamb to the
congressional leadership and to the two communications committees. In the
letter he warned that if the FCC issues a rule requiring cable operators to
carry the new digital signals soon to be launched by local broadcasters,
C-SPAN and C-SPAN 2 will be seriously harmed.
The issue is relevant now because the FCC is in the process of writing a
rule that will describe exactly how cable operators will have to treat these
new digital channels. In the meantime, the first such digital channels are
expected to be launched in some big markets in November, with others coming
in May of next year.
Read C-SPAN's letter to Members of Congress and the response of the
National Association of Broadcasters.
Learn More and How to get Involved
<http://www.c-span.org/about/mustcarrymoclist.htm>
Contact the FCC.
<http://www.c-span.org/about/mustcarryfcc.htm>
Archive: C-SPAN's Record on the 'Must Carry' Rule." C-SPAN has opposed the
so-called 'must carry' rule in all its forms since it was proposed as a part
of the 1992 Cable Act. Read C-SPAN's statements on 'must carry' since 1991.
Summary of Position, June 1998:
<http://www.c-span.org/about/dmc/summary.htm>
The key points of C-SPAN's position on `digital must carry' is summarized
in this one-page document.
Comments to the FCC, July 1996:
<http://www.c-span.org/about/mc2.htm>
C-SPAN argues that the 'must carry' rule should not be applied to digital
broadcast services because it violates C-SPAN's First Amendment rights and
because a recent Supreme Court case supports the idea that the rule should
not be applied automatically to new technologies.
Affidavit in Lawsuit, February 1993:
<http://www.c-span.org/about/mc1.htm>
C-SPAN was a plaintiff in the Supreme Court case that challenged the
constitutionality of the 'must carry' rule. As part of that lawsuit,
C-SPAN's Lisa Kerr filed an affidavit citing several examples of how the
rule led to carriage of C-SPAN and C-SPAN 2 being eliminated or reduced
Written Testimony of Brian Lamb, June 1991:
<http://www.c-span.org/about/lamb062791.htm>
C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb testified before the House Subcommittee on
Telecommunications & Finance as the 1992 Cable Act was being written. In
his testimony he warned Congress that if the 'must carry' rule became law,
C-SPAN would become a "second class" citizen and that the public would be
the losers.
Watch or Listen to Lamb's Actual Testimony, June 1991: C-SPAN Chairman
Brian Lamb appeared on a panel of witnesses with other television industry
executives before the House subcommittee (see above item) to discuss many
aspects of the pending communications law, including the must carry rule. In
this 6 minute excerpt from the hearing Lamb warns that the rule will hurt
the CSPAN Networks, yet urges Congress not to treat CSPAN differently or to
grant it any special favor.
Related Site:
FCC Digital TV Site
<http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/>
==========================================================================
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without
permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment,
scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal
copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of
the copyright owner.
FLW
==========================================================================
|
