FCC Multicast Must-Carry Public Interest Rules Seen Likely
Broadcasters, poised to win multicast must-carry rules at next week’s FCC agenda meeting (CD June 15 p13), may rue that victory, said industry sources. To win a unanimous vote on the item, Chmn. Martin, leading what may be his most contentious meeting yet, may agree to subject digital multicasts to public interest obligations, they said. And cable operators have ample grounds to appeal the rules, on grounds they violate the First and Fifth Amendments, said sources.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
“You should be careful about what you wish for,” said a broadcast executive dubious on whether multicast must-carry would survive a court challenge. Public interest obligations sought by Comrs. Adelstein and Copps and media activists may be burdensome, said the source. “Must-carry hangs by a Constitutional thread,” said another executive, citing the 5- 4 Supreme Court ruling upholding analog must-carry in Turner vs. FCC. “Its head is in a noose when it’s multichannel digital” partly because earlier arguments about programming scarcity now hold little water, added the source.
The FCC should require that TV stations regularly inform viewers how they're meeting public interest requirements media activists support, Benton Foundation Pres. Gloria Tristani said. “We can hope that the piece we are advocating for will be adopted,” the former commissioner said: “The order isn’t final yet… I am cautiously optimistic.”
Martin faces an uphill battle on the 8th floor with the multicast item, a broad media ownership inquiry and another controversial order that would subject VoIP to universal service contributions. “This may be the most important meeting of Kevin Martin’s tenure,” U. of Colo. School of Law Prof. Phil Weiser said: “This is going to be a major test for Chairman Martin.” Analysts agreed, citing the fractious nature of a wide-ranging notice of proposed rulemaking that Martin has described as “neutral.”
“Ownership is probably the most controversial issue the Commission deals with, so even at the notice stage there is bound to be some level of disagreement,” Stanford Washington Research Group’s Paul Gallant said: “There is room for compromise between the chairman and the Democrats on multicast and public interest obligations. A key question is whether the Commission will impose those new obligations next week or seek further comment.” The FCC immediately should impose such rules because it first sought comment on them in 1999, said Tristani.
Some broadcasters are ready for public interest requirements, industry attorney Gregg Skall said: “I don’t suspect from what I have heard that they will object to public interest obligations… I don’t think they will have all that big a problem, providing it doesn’t turn out to be a handicap for them.”