[opendtv] Re: News: Fox Says Mandated PSAs Would Be Illegal

I suppose Fox is just trying to get some compensation. So much for public service. What I dont get is why the broadcasters arent out there trying to get new customers given their new-found bandwidth. They seem to be all over mobile broadcast, but when it comes to DTV - you just get blank stares and shrugged shoulders. 

Manfredi, Albert E wrote:

I'm sure the Fox position makes sense to broadcasters. No one wants
government mandates shoved down his throat.

But it sure makes no sense to me. It's no mystery that TV broadcasters
(and retailers and equipment vendors) have kept the DTV transition as
hidden from the public as they have been given latitude to do, for the
past 10 years, just about.

Bob Miller said, "One Percent of US households receive HD via OTA DTV
after ten years of trying." Trying? Trying how?

As far as I can tell, the only way a consumer wanting to buy into HDTV
would ever consider the OTA pipe as the source of HD content is if this
consumer is ambitious enough to have done his own homework. The same
holds for DTT in general.

If the Congress and the FCC had not mandated a date certain for the end
of the transition, and had not mandated TV labeling in stores, I am
absolutely positive that the buying public would be totally in the dark
about any of this.

To a non-broadcaster, the Fox position sounds very disingenuous.

Bert

-------------------------------------------------
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 11/12/2007 2:33:00 AM

While broadcasters have argued generally against FCC mandates for DTV
education public service announcements, Fox has weighed in strongly
against them, calling them unnecessary, beyond the FCC's authority and
an infringement on free speech.

Since broadcasters have already launched a PSA campaign as part of a
multi-pronged education effort, the push back on FCC Chairman Kevin
Martin's proposal for some mandatory schedule of the spots and general
reporting requirements has received fairly gentle opposition.

But in a comments to the FCC last week as part of its inquiry into the
mandates, Fox ramped up the opposition.

First, said Fox counsel Clark Wadlow, the mandates are unnecessary in
light of voluntary efforts. For example, he said, between Oct. 22 and
Oct. 31, the network had aired five PSA's in prime time, and that its
owned and operated stations had aired hundreds more.

Second, said Fox, the FCC can't use its general regulatory authority to
justify dictating broadcast program content. And third, compelled speech
would be unconstitutional. Quoting the case of Hurley Vs Irish-America
Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston, Fox said said "[T]he
fundamental rule of protection under the First Amendment is that a
speaker has the autonomy to choose the content of his own message."

If the government wants to spur the educational effort beyond
broadcasters' voluntary campaign, said Fox, "it is of course free to
adopt its own public education campaign, or to purchase spots on local
broadcast and cable channels."

Echoing arguments cable has made against multicast must-carry, Fox also
said that compelled PSA's would implicate the takings clause since the
government would be compelling broadcasters to deliver a government
message that it would otherwise have to pay millions for.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org 
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
unsubscribe in the subject line.





----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org 
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
unsubscribe in the subject line.

Other related posts: