[Senate Hearing 109-531]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-531
DECENCY IN BROADCASTING, CABLE, AND OTHER MEDIA
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JANUARY 19, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
29-472 PDF WASHINGTON : 2006
_________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free
(866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail:
Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Chairman
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas Virginia
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada BARBARA BOXER, California
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BILL NELSON, Florida
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
Lisa J. Sutherland, Republican Staff Director
Christine Drager Kurth, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Kenneth R. Nahigian, Republican Chief Counsel
Margaret L. Cummisky, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Samuel E. Whitehorn, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General
Counsel
Lila Harper Helms, Democratic Policy Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on January 19, 2006................................. 1
Statement of Senator Allen....................................... 5
Statement of Senator Burns....................................... 3
Statement of Senator Inouye...................................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Statement of Senator Lautenberg.................................. 4
Statement of Senator Pryor....................................... 28
Statement of Senator Rockefeller................................. 3
Statement of Senator Stevens..................................... 1
Witnesses
Bozell, III, L. Brent, President/Founder, Parents Television
Council........................................................ 35
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Cohen, David L., Executive Vice President, Comcast Corporation... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Ergen, Charles W., Chairman/Chief Executive Officer, EchoStar
Communications Corporation..................................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Franks, Martin D., Executive Vice President, Planning, Policy and
Government Relations, CBS Corporation.......................... 41
Prepared statement........................................... 42
McIntyre, Jeff J., Legislative and Federal Affairs Officer,
Public Policy Office, American Psychological Association....... 49
Prepared statement........................................... 51
Reese, Bruce T., Joint Board Chairman, National Association of
Broadcasters; President/Chief Executive Officer, Bonneville
International.................................................. 31
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Rosenberg, Alan, President, Screen Actors Guild.................. 45
Prepared statement........................................... 47
Valenti, Jack, Former Chairman/CEO, Motion Picture Association of
America........................................................ 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Appendix
Cohen, David L., Letter, dated February 13, 2006, to Hon. Frank
R. Lautenberg.................................................. 72
Ergen, Hon. Charles W., Letter, dated February 13, 2006, to Hon.
Frank R. Lautenberg............................................ 71
Johnson, Kathleen, Vice President, Programming, Sky Angel,
letter, dated December 5, 2005, to Hon. Ted Stevens............ 62
Letter, dated January 18, 2006, from Jeannine Kenney (Consumers
Union), Mark Cooper (Consumer Federation of America), and Ben
Scott (Free Press) to Hon. Ted Stevens and Daniel K. Inouye.... 64
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Frank R.
Lautenberg to:
L. Brent Bozell, III......................................... 68
Martin D. Franks............................................. 67
Jeff J. McIntyre............................................. 66
Bruce T. Reese............................................... 65
Jack Valenti................................................. 70
Swann, Lanier, Director, Government Relations, Concerned Women
for America, prepared statement................................ 61
DECENCY IN BROADCASTING, CABLE, AND OTHER MEDIA
----------
THURSDAY, JANUARY 19, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in
room SD-562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
The Chairman. Thank you all for coming. Senator Inouye and
I announced a series of hearings, 15 in total, dealing with
issues related to communications. We are going to have a
continuation of the forum we started in the past, back in
November, and at that time we had family groups, broadcasters,
cable, satellite, radio, TV, artists, and videogaming
representatives. That forum was for the purpose of exploring
what we could do to stimulate some voluntary action, because it
is my opinion that we could go for the hard mandates. But if we
did opt for the hard mandates, those would be held up in court,
and it would take years before changes, which the American
public and family demand, take place. So, I am pleased that the
industry has responded.
We are going to hear today about some of the solutions in
terms of family tier offerings. I will leave it to you
gentlemen to announce what those are, but very clearly what we
have seen--yesterday I went down and visited the demonstration
of some of these new technologies, particularly the V-Chip and
the blocking technology.
From my point of view, the industry and Jack Valenti
personally are to be commended for their efforts to make it
easier for parents to control what their children watch. I
think that is the basic objective right now. I understand we
are going to hear today about a new initiative to educate
parents on how they can really govern what their children watch
and that they have the tools to do that if they can learn how
to use them. That initiative, also, we will be pleased to hear
about today.
There are still people who believe that mandatory
legislation may be necessary, and we are here today to hear
from different groups about what has happened so far and what
further legislation they may be interested in. We are going to
have to work with Members of our Committee to develop a
bipartisan consensus to get a bill to the floor as soon as we
can. These hearings will help us determine the outlines of
legislation that will be acceptable and will advance the
concepts that have already been explored, particularly by
Senators Brownback, Rockefeller, Wyden, and others.
I think I can speak for my Co-Chairman to say that we feel
that, with 85 percent of viewers today watching cable and
satellite, we should try to explore this voluntary option
first. The First Amendment does impose some restrictions,
constraints, on what Congress can mandate. As I said in the
beginning, whatever we mandate is going to go to court.
Whatever we work out in a consensus basis is going to happen
now, and I think we ought to find a way to respond as quickly
as possible to the requests of our family friendly audiences to
see if we can accomplish what was accomplished before with the
movie industry when they worked out the ratings system.
I know the FCC is working on an a la carte study and I
think we should proceed to see how these family tiers work and
wait for the FCC to act before we review or attempt to discuss
a la carte legislation. It is still out there and it will have
to be discussed some time, but I do believe these voluntary
efforts may result in the kinds of choice and kind of controls
that parents have requested and that family groups have
demanded.
Senator Inouye, do you have an opening comment?
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Senator Inouye. I thank you very much. As noted by you, we
continue this discussion we began in the past November. At this
juncture, I would like to thank Jack Valenti and Mr. McSlarrow
for the efforts they have undertaken to resolve this matter
before us. But, obviously, we have much more to do.
I would also like to commend Senator Rockefeller and
Senator Hutchison for the efforts they have made in drafting
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I have a much lengthier statement. May I have
that put in the record?
[The prepared statement of Senator Inouye follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, U.S. Senator from Hawaii
Today, we continue the discussion on broadcast decency. We have
seen some important developments since our November 29th forum, but we
still have work to do. We all appreciate the efforts that Jack Valenti
and Kyle McSlarrow have undertaken to address how best to protect our
families from viewing indecent and violent materials on TV.
We have a difficult task ahead of us, but one that must succeed in
many areas--indecency, violent content and sanctions.
The Kaiser Family Foundation's most recent study, released in
November, provided further evidence that racy TV programming remains
increasingly prolific. The networks have little incentive to reverse
this trend, as it continues to attract viewers and market share.
At a minimum, we hope to provide parents with the information and
tools to control the flood of materials they can view at home. We also
have a number of legislative proposals before the Committee that would
raise fines and impose other remedies.
While indecent content continues to receive the lion's share of
attention, violent content is an equal concern. Violent content has
proven to have a strong, negative, anti-social effect on young viewers,
so it is essential that we address TV violence as well. Senator
Rockefeller's and Senator Hutchison's legislation wisely emphasizes
this issue, and I am an enthusiastic cosponsor of their bill. I hope
that the Committee will consider their proposal in the near future.
I thank our witnesses for their continued participation in this
effort.
The Chairman. Yes, sir.
Senator Burns, do you have a comment?
STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Burns. I do. I will wait until the questioning
starts, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for this hearing though. We are
drifting into an area now where we have to deal with some
definitions one of these days, and we all define different
words differently. If we can do that, why, we can probably
solve some problems. So, I will withhold any kind of statement.
I know it is one that we hear every day from our constituents
and one that is a great concern of all of us. So, I will just
wait until I will sort of make my statement through the
questions that I ask.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Rockefeller.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Rockefeller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My statement
is short.
First, I have to not only thank you and the witnesses, but
also declare a substantial amount of guilt, because I have been
hoping for this hearing for a long time. We are having it,
courtesy of you and the Co-Chairman. We had a mine accident in
West Virginia where a number of lives were lost, and starting
at 10:30 we are having a whole series of briefings to get ready
for a trip down there tomorrow. So, I feel silly because this
amendment is something I have been pushing for and I cannot
stay for it.
Let me just say a couple of things. I think that any
programming option that gives consumers more choices is by
definition a good thing, and I think the companies that have
pledged to offer a family tier should be commended for taking
the step. But I do not believe that voluntary actions alone--
and it is not just mandatory versus voluntary, there are shades
of that description--but that voluntary actions alone are
sufficient to address the issue.
I know the Committee has spent a lot of time on this in
discussing it, examining the most appropriate manner to address
indecency issues, which I expand very much to include the
nature of violence. But I think it is time for the Committee to
take action, and hence, the legislation which the Co-Chairman
indicated.
I along with Senator Hutchison have introduced
comprehensive legislation about a year ago and it addresses
these issues that our witnesses are going to discuss. Our bill
would provide the tools--it is not mandatory in the way that I
think the Chairman mentioned it. Our bill would provide parents
the tools they need to protect children from indecent and
overly violent programming. I still believe that we need to
address the root cause of the issue, the ever-increasing level
of indecent, really absolutely extraordinarily indecent and
violent content that television is presenting, commercial
television is presenting to us. Each year it gets worse and
worse.
Creating tiers of programming is a good step, but I believe
it is not enough and that if we are going to make a substantive
change in what programming is actually shown, we have to do a
bit more. So, Mr. Chairman, we simply cannot declare victory in
addressing this significant problem. As I say, voluntary
actions alone will not serve the majority of my constituents,
as the cable companies in West Virginia who serve the vast
majority of consumers, obviously, have not adopted family
programming tiers as of yet.
I still maintain that my legislation, Senator Hutchison's
and my legislation, is compatible with the industry's voluntary
efforts. That is never the way, however, that it works when one
is considering the chemistry and karma of all of this. Our
legislation only requires that the FCC, which is not a Federal
law but an institution, to determine if existing technologies
are in fact effective or ineffective at protecting our
children. Is it too complicated? If it is not, is it doable? If
they determine that it is, then so be it.
But if they determine that it is not, that it does not
protect our children from offensive content, then the content
regulation of cable and satellite programming would occur. If
the industry's commitment to consumer awareness, technology
advancements, and new programming options are commercially
successful, the FCC may find that existing efforts to keep
children away from violent and indecent programming is working.
It will be up to them, not to us, and further regulation,
therefore would not be needed.
But let us have the FCC make this determination, not the
industry. We have tried decades of self-regulation in many
areas, in some to effect, many to little effect. One needs only
to look at the current spate of programming, as I have said, to
realize that television programming is not on the upswing in
terms of nobility.
Now, I recognize that we can get in trouble here because
people can always say you can always purchase the family tier
and this creates a problem, but it is something that we can
discuss today.
Again, I want to thank all of you witnesses for being here.
I hope that you will pay especially close attention to Jeff
McIntyre from the American Psychological Association. He is
going to speak about the effects of television violence--that
is my thing--on children. Television violence is a public
health hazard. I know people have read lots of things about it,
but Jeff speaks with great authority and I think this Committee
must absolutely address this issue along with indecency.
Television is such a huge part of our lives, we just cannot
pretend that it is just, do you prefer Tootsies or Milky Ways,
Tootsie Rolls or Milky Ways or M&Ms or whatever. This is a
very, very serious matter and we have to do the right thing for
the people who we represent.
So, I thank the Chairman. I apologize once again and I will
stay here as long as I possibly can.
The Chairman. Senator Lautenberg.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, I come
here with grandfatherly credentials, concerned about my
grandchildren, what they are seeing, looking at the dilemma
that we face as a society. Where do we cut off the flow of
information and where do we try to regulate behavior, adult
behavior, and conduct in their lives, when there is a pretty
hefty appetite for the material that is salacious, that has
violence connected with it?
On the violence side, not infrequently we hear about a
youngster, behavior by a youngster, violent behavior, who
suggests that he or she was stimulated by something he or she
saw on TV. The violence side is, I think, as dangerous to our
national health as is the prurient material that comes through.
Now, 3 years ago the FCC levied the largest fine in
history, $1.2 million, against FOX for an outrageous episode of
a television program called ``Married by America.'' FOX
protested the fine, and even argued that the FCC should not
have the right to regulate broadcast programming. A year later,
a coalition of groups called on the FCC to investigate FOX for
its show ``Boston Public,'' which also featured inappropriate
material in prime time.
Last year, the Parents Television Council, headed by one of
our witnesses today, filed another complaint about yet another
FOX program, ``The Inside.'' I want to point out that FOX is
not the only offender, just one that's really highlighted by
their choices.
Parents are fighting to protect their children. They need
help, and it is not enough to create the technology like the V-
Chip because we have to make sure that parents understand how
to use these tools to screen out the programs that can harm
young children.
The cable and satellite industries' proposal to create
packages of programming appropriate for family viewing is a
good first step, but there are some troubling aspects because
of what is included in the family package. For example, I
understand that the initial family packages will not include
sports programming; no ESPN if you want the family package.
Well, frankly, I do not know why a family has to choose between
protecting their children and being able to watch one of the
most interesting areas of attention, the sports action that we
see. No reason for it. It almost seems like an invitation to an
unmarketable package, and I think we have got to be very
careful.
Mr. Chairman, we do not have all the answers, but I know
that we have got to take steps to help parents stem the tide of
filth that threatens our children and our grandchildren. I
thank you for calling this hearing and I look forward to
hearing from our distinguished witnesses.
The Chairman. Senator Allen.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE ALLEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing, and I appreciate these outstanding gentlemen and
leaders who have shown great concern for this area in the past
and are trying to devise some appropriate measures for us as
parents. I speak not as a grandparent, but as a parent, and
trying to make sure on our cable and broadcast TVs that our
children are watching the right shows, they are not watching
shows that have inappropriate things for their eyes and ears.
I do think some of the voluntary approaches in the past
have helped parents make decisions, particularly in DVDs. When
you are looking at these DVDs, you see what they say about
them. The same with videogames, which I think is another area
that needs to be looked at, so far as violence and
inappropriate behavior, and how that might affect or stimulate
the minds of young people.
Regardless, the First Amendment is very important. It
protects our freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of----
The Chairman. Senator, allow me to interrupt.
Would you please turn off your cell phones. Thank you very
much.
Senator Allen. There are reasonable restraints on your
First Amendment rights of communications.
[Laughter.]
Senator Allen. This is reasonable and it is an appropriate
protocol. You do have a First Amendment right to express
yourself and petition your government, but you should not be
having interference with it.
We do have standards and there are some of us who feel like
the standards have been violated. When standards are violated,
you need appropriate penalties to deter such behavior.
I do think the responsibility first is on the part of the
parents as an individual. There also is a responsibility, and I
think all these gentlemen and others who are on this panel
recognize, there is a responsibility on, whether it is the
transmission of content or the creative content providers, to
empower or make sure that parents have these options and, for
that matter, all consumers have options to know what they are
purchasing or viewing.
I do think that the labeling and the parental control
technology has been an improvement, and it is voluntary and I
think there is a good demand for it. I do applaud what cable
and satellite providers have come up with. Mr. Chairman, it is
from that hearing when Kyle McSlarrow came in here and said:
All right, we are going to have this family tier. I rarely
agree with the Senator from New Jersey, the senior Senator from
New Jersey. To have a family tier and not have sports on it, in
our family it would not be proper family programming. So, you
are going to have to come up with a family tier plus sports.
As you put together these different packages, I think you
are going to find that the marketplace is going to want to have
that. If your kids are coming to visit Grandfather Frank,
whatever they call you----
Senator Lautenberg. That is what they call me.
Senator Allen. Do they?
Senator Lautenberg. Just leave out the ``Grandfather.''
Senator Allen. All right. Well, just ``Grand-Frank.''
They are going to be wanting to watch a basketball game,
West Virginia playing someone, or they are going to want to
watch a football game, and that should be part of it. But that
is something I believe that the marketplace should be
determining rather than the government determining it. I think
that whether it is EchoStar or whether it is Comcast, whether
it is Cox, whether it is Time Warner, they are going to find
consumers saying, this is what we would want, and I would hope
they would react as the free marketplace normally does to the
demands of consumers.
So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing the insight
from these three gentlemen and also those on the second panel
as to how we can effectuate these desires, that I think all of
us should share, to make sure that parents have the ability to
have control over the content that their children see and hear
over their television sets.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much.
I hope you all go down and see this demonstration at the
Hall of States, because when you do, you will find one of the
reasons you cannot include sports in those packages is that
sports programs are not rated. If you tell the family tier that
you want only those things that are rated for families, sports
are excluded because they are not rated. The simple thing is
that the people who are putting out sports programs are going
to have to rate them, and if they do, they are going to have to
take the liability if they provide something in a sports
program that offends families.
Our first witness is Jack Valenti. Delighted to have you
here as an old friend of all of us and the Committee. I again
thank you for your leadership in the meetings you have held
since we held our forum in November. Jack.
STATEMENT OF JACK VALENTI, FORMER CHAIRMAN/CEO, MOTION PICTURE
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
Mr. Valenti. Mr. Chairman, Senators: There takes place in
America the enterprise called surveys, polltaking. Over the
past several years a lot of polls have been taken and they ask
two significant questions that are much connected to this
hearing. One question is: Do you, Mr. and Ms. Parent, find many
or some TV programs that you think are unsuitable for viewing
by your children? The answer from 70 to 80 percent is yes.
Then they ask a second question: Do you believe that the
government ought to step in to fix this problem? The answer
with 70 to 80 percent is absolutely no.
So it seems to me that we need to listen to the people that
you around this dais today are attempting to help and to aid in
how they protect their children from that which they find to be
unsuitable. So, what I think the answer is that right now every
parent in America, with a few exceptions that does not have
television and does not have the problem, has the power, the
total power to control all television programming that is
dispatched to their home today. We do not have to wait for
legislation or any kind of government intervention.
So what I present to you today is something that is unique.
For the first time, an assembly of all the ingredients,
elements, people, enterprises, entities who make and dispatch
visual programming to American people, they have come together
for the first time. Their mission is to be able to pass along
to parents the easy, understandable ways they can use to
control that programming.
Now, here is our plan. First, we are bringing in the Ad
Council. The Ad Council, for those of you who do not know, is
the most respected element of its kind in this country. For
many years they have brought together the largest, most
successful and most effective advertising agencies and public
relations agencies in the country to offer to the public
information and educational material about issues that affect
this country.
They are now going to come in, and with their linkage to
all the advertising agencies and PR agencies in the country,
devise and create messages, simple and easy to understand, so
that parents recognize now that all the power they need to
control programming is in their hands and no one else.
Number two, all of the people involved in this assembly,
which are the makers of movies and television programs, cable
systems, direct broadcast satellite, individual television
stations, national networks broadcasting, as well as the makers
and sellers of consumer electronics products, for the first
time, are brought together. This has never happened before.
That makes it unique.
All of these people are going to air these messages over
and over and over and over again for a duration of at least 18
months.
Number three, for the first time, we are reaching out to
retail stores and makers of television sets, and the Consumer
Electronics Association is going to provide them all kinds of
materials which will tell people who come into a retail store:
this television set has a V-Chip and here is how it works.
Number four, the logo ratings that you see, Senators, on
these television programs are going to be shown not only at the
beginning of the program, but also after each commercial break,
so that parents are constantly informed as to the rating of
that particular program.
Finally, for the first time we are going to reach out to
churches and parents advocacy groups by sending them this kind
of educational material, which they can then duplicate and send
to their congregations and to their members.
So, what we have, we believe again for the first time, is a
well-coordinated program whose mission solely is to inform and
persuade the American people that they have this power in their
hands today. I urge you to confirm what the Chairman had just
said. If you just walk a couple of blocks, or however you get
there, by whatever conveyance, to watch these demonstrations of
the blocking mechanisms that are on EchoStar and all the other
broadcast satellites, on cable systems and on over-the-air
television, it is remarkable. It is simple, and even a
technological innocent like myself after a couple of times gets
the hang of it pretty easily.
This is what we are going to try to present to the American
public. The beauty of us, Mr. Chairman and Senators, is we do
not torment and torture the First Amendment. This is voluntary,
because you are dealing in extremely sensitive material here.
We all know that the best way to deal with this through
voluntary means.
I can tell you this. The motion picture industry 37 years
ago put in a voluntary film rating system, which today, in the
latest polls, as of last September, by the Opinion Research
Corporation of Princeton, New Jersey, found that 79 percent of
all the parents in this country with children under 13 found
these ratings very useful to fairly useful in helping them
decide the movie-going of their children.
I will be glad to answer any questions. I see this red
light, this Cyclopean eye over there, so I will listen to its
admonitions. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Valenti follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jack Valenti, Former Chairman and CEO, Motion
Picture Association of America
A Plan to Communicate to Parents That They Have the Power to Control
all TV Programs in Their Homes
Preface
This is a unique assembly of all the elements of creators and
distributors of visual programming in the Nation. Never before has such
a cooperative venture ever been attempted. Cable systems, national TV
networks, TV broadcast stations, makers of movies and TV programming,
direct broadcast satellite delivery systems, manufacturers of consumer
electronics--and the Ad Council--are all bound together in a tightly
coordinated mission. We will conduct research and create informational
and educational messages which in turn will be transported to parents
throughout the country. All distributors of visual entertainment, news,
and sporting events will exhibit these messages to homes in every
neighborhood in the land.
The ``uniqueness'' of this vast, national enterprise is confirmed
by a very simple fact. The scale and sweep of this effort, its
persistence, frequency, clarity, uniformity of message, are totally new
and completely different than any other nationwide mission yet
attempted.
Beginning with the ``go ahead'' to the Ad Council, we plan on one
year and a half for the duration of this effort.
Cost to the cooperating enterprises: Through the Ad Council and
through on-air message time, it is estimated the cost to the
cooperating enterprises will be between $250 to $300 million.
The Essence of the Mission
One: Enlist the Ad Council to create, supervise and monitor
Messages to Parents.
The Ad Council has for many years been the most prestigious,
respected and effective creators and conveyors of messages to the
public on issues that are of high importance to the Nation.
The Ad Council has a long, close, time-tested linkage to the
largest and most successful advertising and public relations agencies
in the country. From this reservoir of the Nation's finest creative
brains will come the work of devising messages for parents that are
clear, easy to understand, and persuasive.
These messages will let parents know without question or doubt that
they have total power, in their hands right now, to control every TV
program that enters their home by whatever method of delivery they have
chosen.
(Attached are some past national ``message campaigns'' the Ad
Council has constructed, to confirmed favorable results.) We must point
out that no previous campaign was equipped by the cooperative force
that fuels our mission.
Two: All the cooperating enterprises will offer air time so these
messages will be dispatched to all TV homes in the country.
This aspect of the mission is distinguished by its totality and
frequency of coverage, that is, these messages will be carried by every
distributor of programs in whatever form it comes into the home. This
means that over and over again, parents will be visited by simple,
easy-to-grasp instructions for use of the V-Chip as well as cable
blocking mechanisms. These instructions will be so simple that even the
most technology-innocent parent can, very quickly, get the hang of it,
without complications.
Three: The campaign will, in cooperation with other industry groups
in retailing, initiate a point of sale promotion. The Consumer
Electronics Association will distribute V-chip educational materials
such as pamphlets, labels and/or tags for TV set manufacturers and
retailers use on TV set cartons, on TV sets on display or in or along
with instruction manuals. The CEA will support a website on V-chip.
This is the first time any effort has been made to enlist the TV
set manufacturers and retail stores in an educational campaign.
We believe this has favorable prospects and we aim to energize this
program to the fullest.
Four: All the cooperating entities will have readable logos at the
start of every show, and coming out of every commercial break in
programs aired.
Our goal here is to make sure the logos are large enough to be
identified by parents, and their frequency of appearance is sufficient
to keep parents informed.
Five: We will reach out to religious and parents' advocacy groups
with information they can re-distribute to their congregations or
members to further inform and educate them about the power that parents
have to control TV programming in their homes.
We believe that this extra reach will reap additional benefits in
making it clear to parents that they need no longer feel helpless in
standing guard over what they want their children to see or not see in
the TV set in their home.
The Chairman. Did the red light come on? All right. Well,
thank you very much, Jack.
Our next witness is the Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer of EchoStar Communications, Charles Ergen. Mr. Ergen.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES W. ERGEN, CHAIRMAN/CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, EchoStar COMMUNICATIONS
CORPORATION
Mr. Ergen. Chairman Stevens and other distinguished Members
of the Committee: I appreciate the opportunity--let me turn
this on.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and other Members of the Committee.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify here today. You know, a
lot of people ask me how did EchoStar go from being an upstart
company to one of the largest pay TV providers today? The
simple answer is that we have just given consumers what they
want. Every day we hear from DISH Network subscribers and we
try to pay close attention. Our customers drive us to develop
cutting-edge technology, provide top-rated customer service,
and an extensive channel lineup, all for the best value.
Lately, customers have been requesting more and more
control over the content that is coming into their homes. They
are concerned about television's influence over their kids. I
am a parent of five tech-savvy kids and I understand firsthand
the issues that parents are grappling with in a world dominated
by media and entertainment.
In response to those concerns raised by parents, we have
developed easy-to-use parental controls from the very beginning
of our service. Our Adult-Guard software allows parents to
block access to one or more or entire channels and remove those
channels from the electronic program guide. The software also
provides consumers with the ability to block access to programs
based on the ratings of their content.
We have been pioneers in this technology, offering powerful
parental locks, ever since we launched our service in 1996, and
we will continue to educate parents about how to protect their
children from indecent and violent content.
Even with these parental controls, some of our customers
say they want more choice over the package they purchase. They
wonder why they pay for channels that they have to block out.
At DISH Network, we considered offering a family friendly tier
of programming in the past, but programmers have not been
willing to allow it. Thanks to the leadership of this
Committee, the chairman of the FCC, Chairman Martin, and other
Members who have increased awareness of this issue, programmers
have finally given us permission to launch a meaningful family
package.
I am pleased to announce that beginning February 1st DISH
Network will launch the DISHFamily package for the low price of
$19.99. We will provide about 40 family-friendly channels,
including many popular kids shows, as well as movies, a few
sports channels, religion, and other programming, and for $5
more customers can get their broadcast networks.
Because the system is 100 percent digital, the DISHFamily
Package will be available nationwide, including Alaska and
Hawaii, and including traditionally underserved rural areas.
And in the EchoStar-DISH Network tradition, the $19.99
DISHFamily package will be the most robust family tier in
America. This is not a promotional price and there is no costly
buy-through. It can be purchased on a stand-alone basis.
Moreover, there is no fee for the initial digital set-top
boxes.
We do not yet have a final lineup of all the channels
because we continue to meet some resistance from some
programmers who remain unwilling to unbundle some programming
or relax penetration requirements in existing contracts. We
hope these programmers will eventually work with us to make
their channels available on our DISHFamily package so we will
have an even more compelling choice for consumers.
While we are confident that our family package will meet
the needs of the average American family, we also recognize
that some consumers want even more flexibility. Some customers
want more sports or news and are unwilling to pay extra to
receive those channels.
At this point you may be asking yourself, why do pay
television providers not have more control over the way
programming is offered? The answer usually comes down to the
muscle of the largest programmers, particularly those who own
the large four networks. More than a decade ago, Congress
granted local broadcast stations the right to demand payment
from cable providers and ultimately satellite providers in
exchange for carriage. The rules have provided broadcasters,
who already benefit from monopoly rights in their local market
and the free spectrum from the government, extraordinary
leverage over pay television providers, who need to offer the
four networks as must-have programming for their customers.
These same broadcasters have accumulated other popular
programming. According to the FCC's 2005 report, the media
conglomerates--Disney, Viacom, NBC-Universal, and News
Corporation--are among the largest owners of local broadcast
stations and have approximately 60 percent of the top 20 pay
television networks. These large programmers use this leverage
to bundle their programming together and tell distributors like
DISH Network: If you want one, you have to take them all.
Before you know it, we are carrying channels that our customers
do not watch and do not want to pay for.
Programmers also force distributors to package family and
adult-oriented programming in the same package. Sometimes these
media conglomerates offer their local broadcast stations on a
stand-alone basis, but more often they do it at an astronomical
price that has no basis to the market.
Ironically, we have more success negotiating deals with
international programmers than we do on the domestic front.
Because we are not faced with the same anticompetitive bundling
practices, we are able to offer a la carte foreign programming
such as Arirang TV out of Korea or, if our customers prefer, a
bundle of Korean channels in a variety pack. We do not require
our international customers to purchase other costly domestic
packages in order to receive these programs if all they really
want is a single channel.
This leads one to wonder why it is that in America, a free
market economy, an entrepreneurial company like EchoStar cannot
deliver its customers the domestic packages of programming they
are asking for. We are willing to do it. Our systems are set up
to offer individual channels and specialized packages and we
have proven that in the international context it can be done.
It is time for Congress to fix this domestic problem.
Congress needs to pass legislation that provides unbundling of
the retransmission consent from other programming negotiations.
The legislation should include a binding arbitration process to
resolve disputes that include broadcast stations. Arbitration
would have the practical effect of unbundling the negotiation
of broadcast networks from other channels. During arbitration,
the programming in dispute would continue to be available,
thereby ensuring the consumers have uninterrupted access to the
most important channels.
Commercial arbitration is a pro-consumer way of resolving
these disputes without government involvement. It would enable
the Committee to avoid unnecessary rate or content regulation
that could trample First Amendment rights. Admittedly, it does
not go as far as legislation that would provide an a la carte
solution, as some advocate. But it would offset the leverage
that the largest programmers now wield in their retransmission
consent negotiations and it would result in more customized
program packages for America.
Chairman Stevens, I commend you on holding this important
hearing and we look forward to working with you on these
matters. At DISH Network we are proud to serve over 12 million
subscribers who rely on us every day as their pay television
provider and we will continue to promote consumer choice in the
pay TV market.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ergen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles W. Ergen, Chairman/Chief Executive
Officer, EchoStar Communications Corporation
Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye, and other distinguished Members
of this Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear today to
discuss this important matter. My name is Charles W. Ergen, and I am
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of EchoStar Communications
Corporation and its DISH Network.
A lot of people ask me, ``How did EchoStar grow to become the third
largest pay-TV company in the Nation? ''
The answer is simple: by giving consumers what they want.
Every day, we hear from DISH Network subscribers, and we pay close
attention. Consumers drive us to develop cutting-edge technology,
provide top-rated customer service, and offer an extensive channel
lineup, all for the best value in the industry.
Lately, consumers often say they want more control over the
television programming coming into their homes. They are concerned
about television's influence on their kids.
One way we've addressed these concerns is to provide our customers
with a number of easy-to-use tools to control the programming viewed in
their homes. All DISH Network set-top boxes come with ``Adult Guard''
software that allows parents to block entire channels and individual
programs based on multiple ratings and content criteria. We were
pioneers of this technology, offering powerful parental locks since we
launched our service in 1996.
Using the prompts on an onscreen menu, a DISH Network subscriber
can block access to one or more entire channels. Our software even
allows parents to completely remove the channel numbers from their on-
screen program guide. This technology not only prevents young family
members from accessing the programs; it also blocks access to the title
and descriptions of the program. We also developed a one-click ``Hide
Adult'' feature that automatically removes all adult channels, saving
our subscribers the time of selecting each network of adult
programming.
The ``Adult Guard'' feature also provides consumers with the
ability to block access to specific programs based on ratings, such as
PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17. In addition, the software can alternatively or
additionally blockout any programming that contains violence, language,
nudity, sexual content or any combination of these factors.
We also recognize that our subscribers must know the ``Adult
Guard'' functionality exists in order for the technology to be useful.
For this reason, we include information about the parental controls on
promotional channels available to all our customers. We also offer
information on Adult Guard on our website, and in our user guides,
product brochures, and periodically in our monthly bills. In addition,
we use some of the on-air ad time programmers make available to us to
promote the ``Adult Guard'' technology, and consumers can call our
customer service representatives for help in setting up the blocking
technology.
Even with parental controls, consumers often say they want more
choice over the programming they can purchase. They would like the
option of purchasing a family-friendly tier. At DISH Network, we've
considered offering such a package in the past, but programmers have
never allowed it.
Thanks to the leadership of this Committee, Chairman Martin, and
other Members who have increased awareness of this issue, I am pleased
to inform you that some programmers have finally given us carriage
rights to launch a family tier of programming.
On February 1, we will launch the ``DISHFamily'' programming tier.
For the low price of $19.99, this new package will provide consumers
with all-digital, all-family friendly programming--including many
popular networks. Unlike family tiers offered by other pay television
providers, the ``DISHFamily'' package will be available to consumers
nationwide, including traditionally underserved rural areas. And at
$19.99, with no costly ``buy throughs'' that other providers require,
``DISHFamily'' is the lowest-priced family tier in America.
Because we're still working with programmers on the stations that
will be included in the package, we cannot disclose the channel lineup
at this time. Unbelievably, we continue to meet resistance from some
who remain unwilling to unbundle or relax penetration requirements in
existing contracts. We hope that these programmers will eventually work
with us to make the ``DISHFamily'' package a compelling choice for the
consumer.
While we are confident that our family package will meet the needs
of the average American family, we also recognize that some consumers
want even more flexibility. There are always consumers who want more
sports or more news programming, than is offered in a particular tier.
And these consumers are willing to pay extra to receive these channels.
Unfortunately, the largest programmers, particularly those that own
a big 4 network, have the muscle to control the way that pay television
providers offer programming to consumers.
More than a decade ago, Congress granted local broadcast stations
the right to demand payment from cable providers, and then ultimately
satellite, in exchange for carriage. These rules have provided
broadcasters, who already benefited from monopoly rights in their local
market and free spectrum from the government, extraordinary leverage in
their negotiations with pay television providers who need to offer big
4 network programming to compete in the market.
In negotiations, the largest programmers use their leverage to
bundle their broadcast channels with other channels, forcing
distributors to charge customers for channels they do not want, and to
package family and adult-oriented programming in the same tier.
According to the FCC's 2005 Competition Report, the media conglomerates
of Disney, Viacom, NBC Universal, News Corporation, and Hearst-Argyle,
who are all among the largest owners of local broadcast stations, have
an ownership stake in 60 percent of the top 20 pay television networks.
And while these media conglomerates may offer their local broadcast
channels on a stand alone basis, they do so only at an astronomical
price that has no basis in the market.
We are not alone in our concerns. Our competitors in the cable
industry, such as small cable operators, represented by the American
Cable Association, and cable overbuilders, such as RCN, experience
similar problems with these programmers.
To get at this problem, Congress should create a binding
arbitration process to resolve disputes that involve broadcast
stations. It would have the practical effect of unbundling the
negotiation of broadcast networks from other channels. During
arbitration, the programming in dispute must continue to be available,
thereby ensuring that consumers have uninterrupted access to important
local content.
This proposal would enable this Committee to avoid unnecessary rate
or content regulation that could trample on the First Amendment rights
of either programmers or pay television providers. Admittedly, it does
not go as far as legislation that would provide an ``a la carte''
solution as some advocate, but it would immediately offset the leverage
the largest programmers now wield in their retransmission consent
negotiations and would result in more customized program packages for
American consumers.
Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye, I commend you for holding this
important hearing, and we look forward to working with you on these
matters. At DISH Network, we are proud that over 12 million subscribers
rely on us every day as their pay television provider, and we will
continue to promote consumer choice in the pay TV marketplace.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Our next witness is David Cohen, Executive Vice President,
Comcast Corporation. Mr. Cohen.
STATEMENT OF DAVID L. COHEN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, COMCAST
CORPORATION
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, and
Members of the Committee. We appreciate the invitation to
testify before the Committee today.
America's cable companies deeply value our relationship
with our customers. We want to provide them with the greatest
possible choice and control. At the same time, we want to run
our businesses in a sound economic manner so that we can
deliver the advanced services that our customers want and
deserve.
Today, Americans have access to a dizzying array of video
and interactive media choices. There is something for every
possible taste. But not everything in the marketplace is to
everyone's taste. So, as some of our customers have asked for
more alternatives to help manage family viewing, we have
listened to them. In reviewing our options, we have to deal
with some practical constraints. We must make decisions that
are economically sensible for us and for the companies that
provide content to us. We must honor our contractual agreements
with those program providers and we must develop approaches
that meet the needs both of our digital cable customers and our
customers who are receiving analog television signals.
As part of this effort, Comcast recently announced plans to
offer a new family tier. Subscribers will receive 35 to 40
channels, including many of the premier brand names in family
programming, such as Disney, Discovery, National Geographic,
and PBS Kids Sprout, which features quality programming chiefly
for pre-schoolers and young children. We carefully selected
channels on this tier that offer primarily content rated TV-G
in all parts of the day and channels with less programming that
is live and therefore more unpredictable than taped programming
that can be viewed in advance.
Comcast's Family Tier will retail for an average of about
$31 a month, including all the broadcast channels that are
available in local markets. It will soon be widely available on
our systems across the Nation. We have been very pleased by the
initial response to our family tier. The San Angelo Standard
Times in Texas called it ``a welcome development.'' The
Carlisle Sentinel in Pennsylvania said: ``This proposed family
tier is a good idea that appears to have a groundswell of
popular demand behind it.'' Faith and Family Broadcasting
Coalition said that our family tier is ``a welcome and
important step in the right direction.'' The Reverend Jerry
Falwell called it ``a welcome response to the concerns of
families.''
We believe that the family tier approach provides
additional choice in ways that make economic sense to us and
for our program providers, and we think it has none of the
downsides of the a la carte regime that some have advocated--a
regime that in the considered opinion of numerous economic
experts, scores of programmers, and hundreds of organizations
and opinion leaders, would raise prices and reduce consumer
choice.
Of course, we know that our Family Tier will not meet the
needs of every home. That is why we will keep working hard to
ensure that parents and caregivers know about and know how to
use cable's parental control tools. At Comcast, our digital
cable customers, and soon our Family Tier customers as well,
can press the guide button on their remote, select parental
controls, and with a few clicks make the programming choices
for their family and have them PIN-code-protected. As anyone
who will go to that demonstration that the Chairman has
referenced can see, this is really easy, and in my written
testimony for the record, I have also submitted just a screen
shot of what the parental control screen looks like so that you
can actually see how easy it is to set these controls.
Parents will be able to block specific programs or channels
or block programs based on their MPAA or TV rating, and they
can hide adult titles on the program guide. We are working on
other ways to make our parental controls and program guides
even more family-friendly, some of which are detailed in the
prepared statement that I have submitted for the record.
The cable industry wants every parent in America to know
about these tools and know how to use them. Between May and
November of 2005, basically a 6-month period, our industry has
already aired over $130 million worth of public service
announcements about these tools. Comcast alone in these 6
months has aired over 1.6 million PSAs to inform our customers
and your constituents about the availability and the
flexibility of parental control technologies.
Our industry has also conducted dozens of media literacy
workshops in cities across America, and we are pleased to
confirm that we are proud to join in the new pan-industry
informational campaign that Mr. Valenti talked about just a few
minutes ago.
Mr. Chairman, the cable industry's success depends upon
listening to our customers. Every day we compete for their
loyalty against Mr. Ergen's company, Rupert Murdoch's satellite
company, and now against the Bell companies. We want to offer
every home the widest possible range of video programming,
while giving parents the power to decide which programming best
meets the needs of their families.
We appreciate this Committee's interest in making sure that
our industry is listening. We know it is a longstanding
interest that did not just start today or even with the open
forum on indecency, but is longstanding and will continue in
the future. I want to promise you that we are listening to
those customers and to you.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cohen follows:]
Prepared Statement of David L. Cohen, Executive Vice President, Comcast
Corporation
Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, and Members of the Committee: Thank
you for the invitation to be here today.
It's a particular honor to share this panel with Charlie Ergen, one
of the great entrepreneurs of the communications industry, and with
Jack Valenti, who has done so much for so many years to help parents
make responsible choices for their children.
Cable Companies Are Listening to Their Customers
America's cable companies deeply value our relationship with our
customers. We want to provide them with the greatest possible choice
and control. At the same time, we want to run our businesses in a sound
economic manner so that we can deliver the advanced services that our
customers want and deserve.
Today, Americans have access to a dizzying array of video and
interactive media choices. There is something for every possible taste.
But not everything in the marketplace is to everyone's taste.
As the Nation's largest cable company, Comcast is sincerely
committed to ensure that our customers have all the choice they want,
and all the controls they need. So, as some have asked for more
alternatives to help manage family viewing, we have listened to them.
We have to deal with a few practical constraints, including the
laws of economics, contracts and physics. We need to make decisions
that are economically sensible for us and for the companies that
provide content to us. We must honor our contractual agreements. And we
need to come up with approaches that meet the needs of both our digital
cable customers and of our customers who use analog cable equipment.
A La Carte Violates the Laws of Economics, Contracts and Physics
While some consumer groups have advocated that cable and satellite
companies be required to make all of their channels available on an a
la carte basis, this would violate the laws of economics, contracts,
and physics.
First, a la carte services cannot be delivered to analog cable set-
top boxes. To offer a la carte would require the individual sale of all
of our channels, which would mean that 100 percent of television sets
in cable homes would have to be equipped with digital set-top boxes. At
the current state of technology, this would be prohibitively expensive
for us and for our customers.
Second, we have scores of complex programming contracts in which
cable networks have negotiated for the right to be carried on specified
tiers of cable service. In an a la carte world, all of these contracts
would have to be unwound or abrogated by force of law. This would be
hugely disruptive to our industries, extremely expensive, and
undoubtedly exceedingly litigious.
Third, after imposing all of those unnecessary costs and
complications, an a la carte regime would yield no consumer benefits.
Every independent analysis that has been conducted--from the Government
Accountability Office to the Federal Communications Commission's Media
Bureau, from Booz Allen to Bear Stearns, from Paul Kagan to various
academic economists--has concluded that an a la carte regime would lead
to consumers paying more and getting less.
An a la carte regime would guarantee that there will be fewer
programming choices and less diversity. Over 200 consumer and civil
rights organizations, elected officials, and others have gone on record
objecting to the devastating effects that a mandatory a la carte regime
would have on programming diversity. Dozens of creators of niche
networks, who know their success depends on their ability to reach the
greatest possible number of women, or African-Americans, or Hispanic-
Americans, or other specialized segments, have protested that a la
carte would sound their death knell.
Many analogies have been used to explain why a la carte is a bad
idea. I think the most compelling analogy is to a public library. All
of us pay for the maintenance of our libraries. Each library contains
thousands and thousands of volumes. Most people will never open most of
those volumes, but someone is likely to look at every volume at some
point. If we cared only about the volumes that most people wanted to
read most of the time, our libraries would look like The New York Times
best-seller list. But none of us would want to sacrifice the immense
diversity that our libraries contain, and all of us benefit from the
opportunity to browse and to find something that we didn't know about
before.
Cable and satellite television work much the same way. Everyone
pays about the same for basic service, and these fees (plus advertising
sales) help to support an incredible diversity of programming. Not
everyone who watches cable watches every channel, of course. But this
economic model, which puts scores of channels into customers' homes, is
a proven success.
If an a la carte regime were pro-consumer, then surely one of the
numerous competitors in the marketplace--Comcast, Time Warner, DIRECTV,
DISH Network, RCN, Knology, WideOpenWest, and dozens of others--would
have adopted that model by now to distinguish themselves from their
competitors. The fact that none of these companies has seriously
pursued an a la carte model speaks volumes about the lack of viability
of this concept in the marketplace.
Our Innovative ``Family Tier''
While we are firmly convinced that an a la carte requirement would
not be in the best interest of our consumers, program providers, or our
industry, we are nevertheless always exploring new ways to better serve
our consumers.
We are absolutely committed to meeting the needs of families. We
have shown this by providing flexible parental controls; by working
with PBS to create the PBS Kids Sprout Network, the premiere service
for young viewers; and by working with the cable and programming
industries to constantly improve the information available to parents
about how to manage the programming available in their homes.
As another step in that commitment, last month Comcast announced
our plans to offer a new ``Family Tier'' service.
Subscribers to the ``Family Tier'' will receive 35 to 40 channels,
including many of the premiere brand names in family programming, such
as Disney, Discovery, National Geographic, and PBS Kids Sprout.
Specific channel offerings include: Disney Channel, Toon Disney,
Discovery Kids, Nickelodeon or Nick Too, Nickelodeon Games and Sports
(GAS), PBS Kids Sprout, DIY (Do It Yourself Network), CNN Headline
News, The Weather Channel, C-SPAN, C-SPAN 2, Food Network, National
Geographic, Science Channel (Discovery), HGTV, and TBN (Trinity
Broadcasting Network).
We carefully selected channels that offer primarily TV-G content in
all parts of the day, and channels with less programming that is
``live''--and therefore unpredictable. Comcast's Family Tier will
retail for an average of about $31 a month. This includes our basic
cable service (which averages about $12 per month and which must, by
Federal law, be made available to all of our customers), 16 family
channels (at $14.95), and a digital cable box, which is required to
obtain this service (at an average regulated price of about $4.25).
We created our Family Tier in a way that is consistent with the
laws of economics, contracts and physics. We believe this is an
economically viable offering that gives families another affordable
choice and does not violate the reasonable expectations of cable
programmers. And while this service does require a digital set-top box,
we hope that it will encourage more penetration of digital services, a
goal shared by this Congress.
We have been pleased by the initial response to our Family Tier.
The San Angelo Standard Times in Texas called it ``a welcome
development.''
The Carlisle Sentinel in Pennsylvania said, ``this proposed
`Family Tier' is a good idea that appears to have a groundswell
of popular demand behind it.''
Faith and Family Broadcasting Coalition said it ``is a
welcome and important step in the right direction.''
And the Rev. Jerry Falwell called it a ``welcome response to
the concerns of families.''
This new service will be available to 99 percent of homes across
our cable footprint, and we will make sure that families interested in
this option know how to take advantage of it.
I would also note that several other cable companies also have
announced plans to launch a family tier, including Time Warner, Cox
Communications, and, most recently, Insight Communications.
Empowering Parents With Information and Technology
Of course, we know our Family Tier won't meet the needs of every
home. That's why we will still work hard to ensure that parents and
caregivers know about, and know how to use, cable's parental control
technologies.
At Comcast, our digital cable customers--and soon our Family Tier
customers as well--can press the ``Menu'' button on their remote,
select ``Ratings Locks,'' and with a few clicks make the programming
choices for their family and have them PIN-code-protected. They can
block specific programs or channels, they can block programs based on
their MPAA or TV rating, and they can hide adult titles on the program
guide. Attached is a ``screen shot'' of our parental controls feature.
We will continue to innovate to make our parental controls and
program guides even more useful to families. Later this year, we plan
to give parents the power to PIN-code-protect access to our On Demand
service. During 2007, we expect to roll out additional features
including the ability to lock out programming by content label (based
on TV ratings for violence, sexual situations, dialog or language),
displaying these content labels on our program information screens, and
offering family-friendly recommendations in our program guide. Our
developers are at work on all of these new capabilities right now.
As we've said many times, we realize that it's not enough to make
these features available. We want all of our customers to know about
these tools and to know how to use them. That's why Comcast has worked
closely with the National Cable & Telecommunications Association in its
``Cable Puts You in Control'' public information campaign.
Between May and November of 2005, the cable industry aired its
``Take Control'' public service announcements with an aggregate
commercial airtime value of $130 million--well on the way to the $250
million in airtime we committed to last spring. Comcast alone has aired
these PSAs over 1.6 million times.
In addition, about 30 Members of Congress have recorded public
service announcements promoting public awareness of parental controls,
and these are airing on cable systems across the Nation. And our
industry have held dozens of media literacy workshops across the
Nation, working with PTAs and other family organizations, and we plan
dozens more in 2006.
Like other cable companies, Comcast also communicates directly with
its customers about their options. We offer, on demand, a how-to video
to instruct parents on our parental control features. For almost two
years, we have provided one-click access to parental controls
information from the homepage of our website, www.comcast.com. And
nearly two years ago, we established a toll-free hotline (866-781-1888)
to answer any questions our customers may have about the Family Tier or
parental control features.
Finally, we are delighted to join with NCTA and our cable industry
colleagues as part of the new pan-industry informational campaign that
Jack Valenti announced today, and we are especially pleased to have
enlisted the creative talents of the Ad Council for this effort.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, every hour of every day, we compete for our
customers' loyalty against Mr. Ergen's company, Rupert Murdoch's
satellite company, and now against the Bell companies as they offer
competing cable services. To succeed, we must offer our customers
choice, control, convenience and good value. We want parents to think
of us as their partners. We want to offer every home the widest
possible range of video programming, but we also want to give them the
power to tailor their selections for the unique needs of each
household.
We always remain open to constructive ideas about ways to better
serve our customers. We think the competition we all face in the
multichannel television marketplace compels all of us to keep our eyes
and ears wide open.
We appreciate this Committee's interest in making sure that our
industry hears the needs of our customers, and I am glad to be able to
tell you, ``We are listening very carefully.'' Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you all very much.
Without objection--I hope there will be no objection--we
will limit ourselves to 5 minutes each. We have got another
panel later.
So, let me start it off. Mr. Valenti, when you look at this
problem--and I think Mr. Ergen has mentioned the problem--about
the programming and content, what do you say about, this group
of yours, will it include PTA participation, reach out to all
of those who deal with children and problems, children's
problems, in terms of the use of television?
Mr. Valenti. Mr. Chairman, as I said, we are going to reach
out for the first time to all advocacy groups, including the
PTA and others. The uniqueness of this is in the first time
this kind of unity, in which Comcast and Mr. Ergen and Mr.
Murdoch's groups and all the studios and all the television
stations and all the cable systems and all of the national
networks, as well as the consumer electronics industry. This is
the first time we have come together like this.
I am absolutely convinced that we are going to make a real,
real impression on the consciousness of American parents, to
give them more zeal and more ease in doing what they have the
power to do. By the way, we estimate the cost of this to be
somewhere between $250 to $300 million, and in my own judgment
that is a very conservative estimate. I am talking about the
cost of designing these messages and the air time cost of
putting them on. Every time that Mr. Ergen puts one of these
messages on his DISH company and Comcast, that costs money.
So, we are willing to put up these funds and to spend the
money that is requisite to doing this job.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ergen, on January 31, we will hold a hearing on video
content and we will take up your challenge to discuss with the
programmers what they will do to assist in making sure that we
meet this demand for American families.
Mr. Cohen, I want you to know that demonstration that you
put on last evening for the staff and for me, and it is
available to every Member, I think is very good. I have seen
some of the things on your Comcast broadcasts, the spots that
you are already running. I have got to tell you, being involved
in terms of the totality of that presentation yesterday, I know
a lot more about it now than I did looking at the spots. Now, I
am not criticizing the spots. You can only do so much in a 30-
to 45-second spot.
But I do think this total concept now of the public
awareness campaign to educate American families on what is
there now is very important, extremely important. I did not
know that all of that was available on the TV and is available
right in my own home.
In answer to my friend from New Jersey, I have got to say I
am blessed with some spouses of my children. They are really
getting the control, the family control they need. I have told
people before how I, as a father, tried to do it. I just said
no television in our house. About a month later, the Mayor
asked me what the hell were my kids doing in his house all
afternoon. We understand the problem and bought a television.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. So, it is a problem.
This afternoon's hearing will be on the problems of the
Internet and children's viewing. Last week I was told the
average child in grade school spends 4 hours a day on a
computer. The problems that are coming now, in terms of the
streaming of information, particularly pornography, over the
computer are overwhelming. So, this problem, I hope we can get
it solved voluntarily. That other one is an enormous problem to
deal with, and I invite people to be sure to be here this
afternoon.
Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. I thank you very much.
According to a recent study by the Parents Television
Council, this past September in prime time, people were able to
see 67 dead bodies. During the same period in 2004, 24 dead
bodies.
When I was a child--and I have been told that it still
continues--our teachers used to tell me: Read the newspapers,
listen to the radio, and, as we got older, watch news on
television, inform yourself about what is happening here and
abroad. Now, I do not know where these numbers came from, but
there are certain programs that I watch that are news, network
news. How are they going to cover Katrina without showing dead
bodies?
Are we concerned about that type of violence? I always tell
my son: Watch the History Channel or Discovery Channel, because
you may learn a few things about where you came from. These
past couple of days I have been watching the Civil War. Last
night it was the French-Indian War. I must say that there must
have been at least 500 dead bodies on that movie.
We seem to be concerned about Hollywood or the TV programs.
Should we be concerned about news and documentaries? Should we
be concerned about Aruba? My God, I have learned where Aruba is
now. It comes on every week. It is still coming on. Is that
good for our kids? I do not know what the attraction is. Then,
ever since they found the body in San Francisco Bay, it is
still coming along.
I think we should be looking into something like that. But
you do not control that with the V-Chip, do you? Do you knock
off news programs? Please, anyone?
The Chairman. Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. A couple of comments. I am happy to lead off
with a couple of comments.
First of all, in the documentary area, many documentaries
are rated. The Chairman made reference to the need for ratings.
So, for example, the History Channel offers a program, ``Band
of Brothers,'' a documentary based on a World War II book by
Steven Ambrose that is rated TV-14. So, if you have used
parental controls and blocked out TV-14 programming, then, even
though you have the History Channel, that programming would be
blocked out.
I think news is complicated because you do not want to not
offer news in a family tier or not offer news in a household.
My solution to that is a little bit of a different story, and I
think it goes to the way in which parents control the use of
television and watch television with their children or have
their children watch television.
I had the privilege of attending one of the media literacy
workshops that I mentioned in my oral testimony. By the way, we
co-sponsor those with local PTAs, in response to the Chairman's
initial question to Mr. Valenti. In that media literacy
workshop we actually teach parents how to watch television with
their kids. I remember a line which is so logical and I will
say it here, which is that television is not a babysitter. It
is not something you just turn on and put your kids or your
grandchildren in front of when you do not want to pay attention
to them.
I personally do not think we should block news out of
American households, but there is so much disturbing news that
maybe it is something you should watch with your children so
that you can talk them through things that they may see, such
as Katrina for example, and make sure they are not upset and
that they understand what is happening and why it is important.
Or, if the news is too disturbing for a particular family,
you may decide that you do not want your children to watch the
news, in which case you should tell them not to watch it and
enforce that in your own home.
So, those are a few thoughts in response to those comments.
The Chairman. Do either of you want to comment?
Mr. Valenti. Mr. Chairman, I just want to offer one thing.
When you live in a free and loving land, a democracy, it gets
messy at times. When you have a First Amendment, that means you
must allow unto the marketplace a lot of this I personally find
vile, profane, and just plain stupid. But that is the price you
pay for the freedoms that we enjoy.
I have a 4-year-old grandson, Senator Lautenberg. When he
gets to be about 10, I am going to take him, as I did my son,
to the Normandy country of France and show him that cemetery
there where 70 percent of the 9,387 buried there are between
the ages of 18 and 23. Then I am going to want to let him watch
Steven Spielberg's ``Saving Private Ryan'' so he understands
that in that cemetery these young men gave him the greatest
gift in the world. They gave him the gift of freedom, and I
want him to understand where it came from. So, I want him to
see what war is really like and why he will never have to, I
hope, test his own courage to see how he would react when the
dagger is at the Nation's belly and death stares him right in
the face.
So, I think there are some things that you want to show
your children. But that is the beauty of these blocking
mechanisms that both Comcast and Mr. Ergen have. It allows a
parent to block out what he or she does not want their children
to watch and leave there what their children can watch.
But I promise you this, and I have spent a lifetime, over
40 years, 42 years, in Washington and Hollywood, and I have
learned a couple of things. One is that you cannot block out
everything for your child. The church, the home and the school
is where you build a moral shield for that child. Sooner or
later, he is going to have to face the blandishments of his
peers in the mean streets. But if he has this kind of moral
shield built for him at home and in the church and school, he
will be able to navigate his way.
So, I am just saying to you there are some things that can
be done and some things that cannot be done. But I believe what
we are trying to offer is giving parents the power to do what
they think is right.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Jack.
Senator Burns.
Senator Burns. I wish I had the command of the English
language like Mr. Valenti, because I think you put it in great
words.
You write down all of these things about programming, a la
carte, family tiers, all of this. That may work in your home,
because every family has a different degree of acceptability.
We all differ, what we like to watch, what we permit to watch,
because our values change as houses do going down the block.
We have got to understand that for our children, everything
that they see is not at home. They have an opportunity to view
a lot of things that would be unacceptable to us in other
venues, whether it be at school or at a neighbor's house or
whatever, the friendships that they have. That is what makes
our problem even more difficult. I think the framers of the
Constitution understood that, too, and that is why that First
Amendment is there, because they did not want government to set
the standard for the whole society, and families do it, moms
and dads.
I have got to tell you that since the break that I became a
grandfather and I have got a new granddaughter. I can say
without mental reservation or equivocation whatsoever, she is
perfect.
I guess I want to talk mostly to programmers. Mr. Valenti,
you probably could answer this more than anything else. Are
there ever discussions with anybody that produces programming,
discussing what is acceptable and what is not in our society?
Does that discussion ever take place and then a corporate
decision says, we do not think we want to do this, or yes, it
is acceptable? Does that discussion ever go on in corporate
America? Or do they just look at bottom line?
I would like to have your view on that, sir.
Mr. Valenti. The answer is yes, it does. Keep in mind that
last year, the major studios put out about 211 movies, but
there were over 700 produced in this country. First, we do not
have enough gifted creative people to do 700 really first-class
movies. That is number 1. Number 2, because it is a free
country, you do not have to operate within any system. You can
make your own movie and then you can go out and try to sell it
to anybody who wants to buy it, or you can put it on the
Internet without barriers of any kind.
So, I am saying to you that, as you pointed out about
parents are different, all filmmakers are different. Some of
them have a very, very strenuous and stringent, I think,
honorable way of looking at it, and they make their own
revisions of their movie. Some of them do not, but that is part
of what I call the neighborhood of America. Everybody is
different.
So, you cannot lay down a stern gauge and say everybody
must fit this mold. But I am impressed by the kind of, I think,
corporate responsibility that goes into many of the companies
that I deal with every day.
Senator Burns. Now, as far as the distribution goes, do you
have those kinds of discussions, what you will air and what you
will not? Do you have any responsibility to society of what you
want to do and what you will push out of that satellite or down
that piece of glass?
Mr. Ergen. You know, Senator, from a DISH Network
perspective, we feel our job is to put up content and we put
all the--I think the industry you have heard here today has
done a great job of putting the controls in front of parents to
be able to lock out what they want to. Even if you are going to
use the TV as a babysitter, our system will allow you to make
sure that what people are watching, even if your kids are there
and you are not there, you can control.
Senator Burns. Sadly enough, though, there are some
televisions that are being used as babysitters.
Mr. Ergen. That is right, that is right. So, we have to
build a system that if you want to use it as a babysitter you
can feel safe in doing that, and you can do that with our
satellite system.
However, what our consumers complain about is the fact that
they have got to pay for things that they do not want to watch.
As you see on the board over there, the big conglomerates have
enough power to have you carry things that you may not want to
carry in a particular package. So, that is where our concern
is, we feel we do a great job as an industry to give parents
the tools to watch on television what they want, certainly
better than the Internet or any other form of video
distribution today.
But what we do not do a great job at as an industry is to
give customers those channels that they want to pay for and not
give them those channels that may have objectionable
programming that they are forced to pay for. That may be two-
thirds of the bill they pay every month is for channels they do
not watch. So, that is where we think the Congress can take a
further look at it.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Burns. I was going to have Mr. Cohen remark about
that, because he offers distribution, but in a different way.
Mr. Cohen. I will take only 30 seconds so the Chairman can
stay on schedule.
I basically agree with Mr. Ergen that as a distributor I
think we have a different feel to this, but the people who run
our companies are parents and grandparents too, and I think we
have all the same concerns that have been expressed here today.
So are the people who run the content companies and the
programmers. Certainly, over the past 12 to 18 months at least
there have been a lot of discussions between distributors and
programmers about the coarseness of programming and the trend
toward coarseness of programming. A lot of those discussions,
as Members of this Committee know, have taken place at the NCTA
level, where we have programmer members as well as distributor
members. I cannot tell you that we have reached any resolutions
that are helpful, but I think it is a matter of dialog today,
whereas maybe a few years ago it was not something that was
being talked about between the distribution and the programming
community.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry that
we do not have more time with these witnesses. There is a lot
of information that they bring to the table and it is very
interesting and certainly stimulating in terms of where we go
from here.
Jack Valenti we have all known a long time and we know that
Jack speaks with an authoritative voice and that the polling
data that you brought is very interesting. I wonder if it is
possible to get a copy of those polls on whether the government
involvement is unwelcomed, as it appears to be.
Senator Inouye raised an interesting question, the
definition of what stands as violence. When we look at Darfur
and we watch the news and you see the abuse that is heaped upon
children and women and men, that is disturbing. But, Jack, you
said it: in Democratic nations, the high communication
capability that we see now, you are going to see some things
you do not like. It is going to bring you closer to reality,
and reality is these things. No matter how much we want to
shield our children, I do not think we can do it.
When we talk about the value of the interest in sports--and
I asked the question before whether sports are included in the
family tier packages. Is news, Mr. Cohen, included in the
family package? Whose news do you produce?
Mr. Cohen. I would like to address both points. Let me
answer the question about news first and the answer is yes.
Senator Lautenberg. But quickly, because, even though he is
out of the room----
Mr. Cohen. Sure, the clock is still running.
The answer is yes. There are two types of news in the
Comcast Family Tier packaging. First, we carry all the
broadcast networks and therefore all the news that they carry
is part of the Family Tier. Second, we include CNN Headline
News as one of the channels in our Family Tier package.
On sports, I would like to say both to you and Senator
Allen, because we carry the broadcast networks and local
television networks, there is a vast amount of sports
programming that is on the Family Tier. Our problem with ESPN
is some of the non-sports programming, particularly the non-
live sports content that ESPN carries, like ``Playmakers,''
which was the controversial TV-MA rated series that ESPN ran,
and ``Tilt,'' which is a reality program about gambling in Las
Vegas, are not appropriate for children.
Senator Lautenberg. How about the sport of wrestling? Would
that be considered violent?
Mr. Cohen. Professional wrestling? I think that would be
considered theater.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. Not to the kid who imagines himself to
be Mr. Terrible.
But the dilemma that all of you face--Mr. Ergen, you said
something that was very significant and I think candid. That
is, give customers what they want. You have to understand what
people want. Some fellow I know who is an analyst in the
hospitality industry brought up some information to me about
the films that are requested in hotel rooms and he indicated
that, by far, the largest segment of interest is sexually
oriented.
Well, that tells you something about the public appetite,
and how can you deal with the public appetite? Talk to
Blockbusters, talk to any one of them, and I have, to see what
the largest portion of interest is in film rental.
So, we have to understand that there is an overriding
interest dictated by the popularity of ``Sex in the City'' and
``Desperate Housewives'' and things of that nature. The public
wants to have it for themselves. They do not want their kids to
have it. I do not want my grandchildren to have it.
So, how do you deal with that realistically? How about
things like commercial space, seductive ads for lingerie or
things? Is that OK or is it not OK? It is OK by me, but I do
not want my kids, my grandchildren, to be noticing that
particularly. My oldest is only 12, so we are safe for another
year.
So all of these things relate to the marketplace and how
you deal with it fairly without invading the ability, under the
First Amendment, under our freedoms, to communicate what people
want. I think that the notion that a rating ahead of a program
is going to make the difference is not really going to get you
a lot, because that means the parent has to stand by and watch
what is coming up and click it off. I think there has to be a
better response.
Mr. Cohen. Just really briefly again, not necessarily. If
you set up the parental controls in advance to block out TV-14
programming, the parent does not have to be present. When the
program comes on the TV, the technology in both of our systems
and with the V-Chip would automatically cut it off. Number two,
in terms of ads, again the issue here is, will the private
market--will the markets work to do this.
I think the attention and the focus that this Committee,
your counterparts in the House, the FCC has put on this issue--
we have already seen changes. So, for example, just a few weeks
ago the NFL stopped a relationship that they had with an
advertiser that raised some of these concerns. I think it was
Levitra, but not 100 percent sure. You will see that the dialog
around this and the discussion is causing behavior patterns to
change in some of these more difficult areas that cannot be
controlled with parental controls.
Senator Lautenberg. You do not really mean behavior
patterns changing. You mean viewing changes?
Mr. Cohen. I mean the people who are responsible for the
programming making changes in what it is they are putting on
the air.
Senator Lautenberg. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, before I
am cut out, that Jack Valenti--Jack was always a leader in
areas of communications, video, broadcast, etcetera. I think it
is a great idea to come up with in terms of advertising
parental responsibility, which is what you are essentially
saying.
The thing, however, one of the suggestions is that programs
be rated as they are ready to come on the air, and I think that
is going to be an awfully tough process to buy.
Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all.
The Chairman. Senator Allen.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Several questions. One of the things that we are all
grappling with, you used the word, Mr. Cohen, ``coarseness of
society,'' and those standards have changed throughout the
history of our country. It has changed from when we were kids
and that was different than when our parents were kids and
grandparents, and all the rest.
As a parent, about the only time that you really have any
control over what your kids are listening to or hearing is when
you are driving in the family vehicle and you change the music.
My kids get sick of listening to good music. They are not big
country music fans like I am. But sometimes you are listening
to talk shows and something is coming up, and it may be
conservative talk shows as well, and they will bring up things
and you just change the radio station. That is about the only
time you really are with your kids.
The rest of the time, you are not necessarily wanting to
watch what your kids watch, and the kids will watch MTV or
something like that, which I am not sure how that is rated one
way or the other, but that is a reflection of a certain
coarseness, I suppose, in people's views.
The questions that we have here affect broadcast, affect
cable. Broadcast is different than cable. Cable is a paid
matter. That is accorded all those First Amendment rights, just
like anything you would buy in magazines and all the rest.
Broadcast is different, and when broadcast--and broadcast
standards are different than cable standards.
So, whether you are watching a sporting event or you are
watching a concert or whether you are watching an awards
ceremony, and in the midst of that over-the-air broadcast there
is a violation of these standards--and I think we all agree
there should be standards for broadcasting--there is a concern
that the penalties and the fines for violations are
insufficient.
Would you like to comment on whether or not you think that
the fines for violation--this is broadcasting--are sufficient?
A lot of the measures that have been introduced in the last
several years, it seemed to have all started off with the half-
time show at the Superbowl a couple of years ago. Regardless,
do you find that increased fines would deter violations of
decency standards or do you think that we should just continue
the way it is?
Mr. Valenti, since you represent--the same with Mr. Ergen
and Cohen--I would like to hear your views on whether we should
be increasing fines. This is for broadcast. Cable I look at as
a completely different situation.
Mr. Valenti. I have always been quite nervous about being
indicted for a crime whose specifics are vague. It seems to me
that if you are going to be charged with violating indecency
standards, there ought to be some explicit and precise measure
of what is an indecency standard.
I have to say, in the interest of full disclosure, that the
idea that you would fine somebody enormous amounts of money for
a 1.5 seconds partial exposure of an artificial breast to me is
so absurd that I cannot even deal with it. Is that a standard?
Does the whole American culture collapse on one and a half
seconds on the Superbowl? I find it absurd.
But the idea that you entrust somebody to say what is the
standard--the Supreme Court today, Senator Allen, I need not
explain to you, cannot define pornography and obscenity. The
Miller standard is, well, it is community standards. Well, that
is a loophole you can drive seven Hummers through.
So, I find that before we ought to be assigning fines,
should we not as a matter of candor and logic and reason define
what it is that we are talking about?
Senator Allen. Well, when you are watching a half-time show
and if somebody disrobes, that will be offensive to those who
do not expect to see that. Or if you are watching some show and
certain words are used--and I think most will understand what
words, you can use the F-word and so forth--that if these words
are used this is not what you expect to be watching on family
programming.
In the event that people can get away with doing that,
saying, oh well, these standards are vague, I think most people
in a reasonable jury would say watching a half-time show you do
not expect that to happen. I do not think it is the end of
western civilization, either, nor maybe if certain words are
used or if certain things are demonstrated and so forth.
But there is an expectation on broadcast TV that certain
standards of decency--and this is one of the expectations. It
is one of the important aspects of why I generally support your
philosophy that parents are empowered to know what will be the
expectations, and when those expectations are breached that
ruins that credibility of us trying to find an approach. So
when people do breach what we can consider to be voluntary
standards of decency or coarseness, whatever phrase one would
want to use, there would be a punishment for it. And that--it
is typical of our legal system that if somebody violates a
certain standard or a contract or an agreement that there is a
penalty for it, and if there is not a penalty there will be no
reason, that added reason, for them to try to comply.
Since then, of course, the networks, they have these 5-
second delays, whether it is award shows and half-time shows
and whatever else is going on. There are the technologies to be
able to screen that out if one of the actors or actresses
violates those standards which are expected for broadcast
television.
That is my point from that.
Mr. Ergen--we have gone over time.
The Chairman. Another minute, Senator.
Senator Allen. You each get 30 seconds to answer that.
Although you all are not in the broadcast television, you
obviously transmit broadcast programming.
Mr. Ergen. I think all we can do from our perspective since
we are in the distribution business is control what we can
control. I think the fines would influence behavior. Fines have
been larger lately, so we will see how--maybe see some change
in behavior in broadcasters. But we put in place for the parent
or the family the controls that, if a broadcaster violates your
trust and your family, you can lock that channel out even if
the channels are not rated, and if the channels are rated we
give you different levels that you can lock out. So, our
industry has done a really great job under Jack's leadership.
Now, the thing that we have not done as well in the past is
to educate people how to use those controls. We have always had
those controls, but maybe we have not educated our customers as
well as we should. Now we are endeavoring to do that with
Jack's leadership, and I think that is going to be a big, big
step forward.
Mr. Cohen. Two quick comments. Number one, as the Senator
notes, normally I think we would be loathe to comment on a
regulatory issue affecting a different industry. We are pretty
consistent in not coming to government and say, help us with
another industry. We try and focus on the cable industry per
se.
But I do think that some of your follow-up comments to Mr.
Valenti make the most important point here, which is that it is
not necessarily the size of the fines that is changing the
behavior that you want to change; it is the spotlight on the
problem and in fact the moral suasion of there being fining
authority at any level.
As the Senator has pointed out, there has already been a
dramatic alteration in the approach of broadcasters to these
issues, even without any change in the fines. I think that has
been a positive development and I think the broadcasters would
agree that it has been positive.
Senator Allen. Thank you.
Thank you, gentlemen.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Again, I do
think that the Committee should congratulate you for these
initiatives and for this program you are going to work with the
Ad Council--oh, pardon me. We have Senator Pryor.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. We are getting in a hurry here, Senator. My
apology.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK PRYOR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS
Senator Pryor. That is OK, I understand. I will try to be
brief. But Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership on this
and continuing to keep the heat on as only you can. Thank you
for doing this very, very much.
Let me, if I can, focus on Comcast just for a few moments.
I know that you are trying to do the right thing, so please do
not take these questions in the wrong vein, because I know you
are trying to get there and trying to meet, not just what the
Committee wants, but I think what a lot of Americans want as
well.
Let me ask--I know you are in the process of announcing
this Family Tier and getting it up and running. Do you know
about your competitors? Are they doing the same thing?
Mr. Cohen. The answer is that, as of today, including Mr.
Ergen's announcement, there have been announcements from
Comcast, DIRECTV, EchoStar, Time Warner Cable, Cox, and Insight
to roll out a family tier. The interesting thing, we did a
little adding up last night, is that about 70 percent of the
multi-channel video customers in America today, with the
announcements that have already occurred, have the choice of
basically three family tiers: the DIRECTV family tier, the
EchoStar family tier, and their local cable company family
tier.
Senator Pryor. Let me ask you, at least from your
perspective, what do you like about family tier as opposed to a
la carte? Why do you want to go the family tier route as
opposed to a la carte?
Mr. Cohen. I think, as I briefly said, and in the amount of
time that we have here I am just going to summarize again, the
problem with a la carte according to the cable industry, the
programming community independent experts, including Bear
Stearns, Booz Allen, Paul Kagan, the Government Accountability
Office, the FCC Media Bureau study, and what hundreds of
organizations and advocacy groups believe is that the net
result will be less choice for the consumers, fewer channels,
at a greater cost.
In a nutshell, the reason for this is that, as you make
channels available a la carte the subscribers and the affiliate
fees go down, and the advertising rates go down. That requires
you to raise your per unit price, and for ESPN for example, you
might have to pay 10 to $12 a month a la carte to get ESPN. The
current bundling package that cable provides we believe is in
the best interests of consumers because it provides a cost-
efficient way for them to get the diversity of choice and
diversity of voices that we think consumers really like out of
their multi-channel video providers.
Senator Pryor. Well, I do not disagree with what you are
saying, but also I do think we need to recognize that the way
that the programmers, et cetera, bundle their channels has an
impact on that as well. If you want ABC, you have got to get--I
mean, I do not know how it works, ESPN, ESPN-2, ESPN Classic,
whatever, whatever, whatever. There are a lot of folks that do
not want all of that. They would like a la carte.
Mr. Cohen. A slightly different issue, which Mr. Ergen
talked about in his testimony.
Senator Pryor. We will save that for another day, because I
want to ask about on your service with your family tier. You
have to have the basic cable service?
Mr. Cohen. You have to have the basic cable service, as
required by Federal law.
Senator Pryor. I understand that. Then you have to have a
digital box?
Mr. Cohen. You do need a digital box to get the family tier
because it is a digital product. But the price that we have
given you, an average price of about $31, includes the cost of
the digital box. So, it is not an add-on cost to the price that
we have announced.
Senator Pryor. Why do you have to do it in digital? I know
that it is only $5, $6, $8. I do not know exactly, but it is
not a whole lot of money. But why do you have to do it in
digital?
Mr. Cohen. The problem is one of technology. When we
deliver signals analog to the house, beyond--after the basic,
what we call our broadcast basic tier--the next tier would be
called enhanced basic in our terminology, and that is the full
70- to 80-channel package that contains lots of programming
that everyone would agree is not family appropriate. There is
no technical way to block selective channels on that second
stream of enhanced basic carriage.
So, the only way to do this is you have to block the whole
stream, all of what is called B-2, and then you bring in
digitally through the digital box the channels that you want to
include on your digital tier that are then added to your B-1,
your basic, broadcast basic tier.
Senator Pryor. Right. I am out of time. And you have 16
that you are offering in your family tier? Others may have a
different lineup?
Mr. Cohen. That is correct, plus the broadcast basic. So we
have a total of 35 to 40 channels.
Senator Pryor. I notice that there is a channel called ABC
Family. ``ABC Family'' would imply that it is family friendly,
but it did not make your tier. Is there a reason for that?
Mr. Cohen. ABC Family actually has some TV-PG and a little
bit rougher programming at different times of the day. At prime
time and during most of the course of the day, it is all family
appropriate, but it does have some programming. And we looked
at that channel. That was the reason it did not meet our
standard, which was at least 70 percent, 70 percent of the
total programming being TV-G rated.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator. Again, my apologies.
Again, I thank you all for your help and look forward to
working with you further. As was just pointed out, we have a
series of hearings now going through the next month, and we
hope after those that we can get the Committee to find a time
to reach a consensus on many of the issues we are dealing with.
So, we may be back in touch with you.
Thank you all very much.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. We are now going to change to panel 2. We
hope that there will be an orderly transition and those of you
who are back there by the door allow these people an
opportunity to leave. Take a 5-minute break.
[Brief recess.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming and
for being willing to present your views on the subject. We are
just going to go right down the list from left to right as you
are at the table.
Our first witness is Mr. Bruce Reese, the Joint Board
Chairman of the National Association of Broadcasters and the
Chief Executive Officer of Bonneville International,
Washington, D.C. Mr. Reese.
STATEMENT OF BRUCE T. REESE, JOINT BOARD CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS; PRESIDENT/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Reese. Thank you very much, Chairman Stevens, Senator
Inouye, and Members of the Committee.
The Chairman. Do you want to push the button on your mike.
Thank you very much, Chairman Stevens, Co-Chairman Inouye,
and Senator Pryor. We appreciate the opportunity to be here
today. Bonneville International, the company that I head,
operates the NBC affiliate in Salt Lake City and 38 radio
stations around the country, including WTOP here in Washington.
I am also here, as the Chairman said, with my Joint Board
Chairman hat, as currently serving as the chairman of the board
of the National Association of Broadcasters.
Broadcasters acknowledge the concerns about programming
content and in particular how media affects children. At the
same time, as several Committee Members acknowledged at the
November forum and again today, very real First Amendment
issues are at stake when Congress considers venturing into
content regulation. Given this delicate balance between the
protection of children on the one hand and free speech on the
other, we would ask the Committee to consider four key points.
First, we would ask you to remember that the vast majority
of broadcasters have never been cited for airing indecent
material. In 2002, only 8 of the more than 15,000 stations
received a notice of apparent liability from the FCC relating
to indecent content. In 2003, that number was only 15. While in
2004, the number was up to 208 stations, 189 of those notices
could be attributed to two programs.
Last year in 2005, not a single station was cited for an
indecency violation. Overwhelmingly, local broadcasters err on
the side of caution when making content decisions. For the vast
majority of stations, these decisions are made on a local case-
by-case basis, with community tastes and standards in mind.
Speaking personally, I know those are hard decisions. I ran our
television station for a few years and I made some of those
calls and I was criticized in the national media for decisions
not to air programming that people thought they ought to be
able to see on our stations.
Second, just as the Committee must carefully consider the
size of the problem, it should also remember that in today's
media marketplace, viewers and listeners draw little
distinction between over-the-air free broadcaster's programming
and the programming of our satellite and cable competitors.
Yet, existing indecency rules and the proposed legislation
would not apply to the edgier content of cable and satellite
radio and television.
As Chairman Stevens noted at the November forum, the
argument that the ubiquitous nature of broadcasting justifies
singling out broadcasters as second-class citizens with regards
to the First Amendment simply does not make sense any more. In
a world in which 80 percent of households receive their
television signal via cable or satellite, one would think
broadcasters, cable, satellite TV, and satellite radio would
all be governed by the same framework.
Our third point, going forward, the Committee should be
mindful of any unintended consequences that might result from
increasing fines and penalties. For instance, some contemplated
changes to the indecency regime could have severe chilling
effect on free speech. Proposals requiring license revocation
proceedings are especially troublesome. License revocation is
the death penalty for a broadcaster and no broadcaster is
willing to run that risk.
Already, however, broadcasters have sacrificed compelling
programming to avoid even the risk of a violation. Broadcasters
have edited language used by soldiers on news reports coming
out of Iraq and many stations were reluctant to air the
acclaimed World War II film ``Saving Private Ryan'' on
Veteran's Day because of uncertainty about indecency
enforcement, concerns that the FCC later decided were
unwarranted. Mandating license revocation hearings will
exacerbate this problem.
Any changes to the indecency rules should also include
important culpability provisions. There are differences between
those who have a live slip-up after taking reasonable
precautions and those who purposefully push the envelope. In
short, most legislative proposals present as many grey areas
and complications as they offer solutions.
Our fourth point and one that has already been discussed at
length on the first panel is our belief that a key element,
perhaps the key element, in content issues is to empower
parents to make more informed choices and to facilitate their
implementation of those choices. In that vein, NAB has been a
proud collaborator in the unprecedented effort that Mr. Valenti
described to develop a plan that will educate the public about
the V-Chip and other blocking technologies.
Ultimately, Mr. Chairman, broadcasters believe this sort of
education, coupled with continued responsibility on the part of
broadcasters, is far preferable to targeting one media group,
broadcasters, with enhanced fines and greater penalties.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reese follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bruce T. Reese, Joint Board Chairman, National
Association of Broadcasters; President/Chief Executive Officer,
Bonneville International
Good morning, Chairman Stevens, Co-Chairman Inouye and Members of
the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you to
participate in this Hearing on Decency in Broadcasting, Cable and Other
Media.
My name is Bruce Reese. I am the President and CEO of Bonneville
International. Bonneville owns and operates the NBC affiliate in Salt
Lake City as well as 38 radio stations around the country, including
WTOP here in Washington.
I am also the Joint Board Chairman of the National Association of
Broadcasters. On behalf of NAB's member stations, I urge this Committee
to recognize that continuing to add new, stricter content regulations
that apply only to over-the-air broadcasting will not further the
government's goal of limiting the potential for children to be exposed
to indecent material. This is because broadcasting is but one of many
media available to the American public. As the lines between over-the-
air and other forms of content delivered to the home continue to blur
(and consumers have increasing difficulty distinguishing between them),
it is becoming even clearer that the current approach of applying
strict indecency regulation only to over-the-air broadcasting is
ineffective and unsustainable. And because the vast majority of
broadcasters do not violate the rules that are now applied to them,
additional regulation is warranted.
Making rules stricter for broadcasters alone will have little
impact on the overall programming delivered to consumers. I urge you to
focus on crafting fair and balanced legislation that applies equally to
all media and maximizes a parent's ability to use the tools available
to them to protect their children from any content they believe is
inappropriate.
In this Committee's Forum on Indecency last November, you invited
representatives from many different segments of the entertainment
business to talk about the issue of indecency. That you did so
demonstrates your understanding that children today have ready access
not just to broadcast programming, but to cable and satellite
programming as well. In such a world, to be effective, efforts to
protect children must be applied equally across media.
The ineffectiveness of regulations focused only on broadcasters is
even more apparent when one considers that the vast majority of
broadcasters have never had the FCC take any action against them for
airing indecent material. Consider these numbers: in 2002, only 8 of
more than 15,000 stations received a Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL)
from the FCC for airing indecent programming. In 2003, the number of
stations cited was only 15. While, in 2004, the FCC proposed fines
against a total of 208 stations, the proposed fines for 189 of the
stations grew out of two programs (20 Viacom-owned stations that aired
the Super Bowl and 160 FOX affiliates that aired ``Married by
America.'' Petitions for Reconsideration of these proposed fines are
still pending at the FCC).
It makes very little sense to pretend that regulating over-the-air
broadcasting alone furthers the government's goal of limiting the
likelihood that children will be exposed to indecent programming. Given
the remarkably rapid growth of cable and satellite television, the
Internet and now satellite radio, traditional over-the-air broadcasters
represent only a small portion of the content available to consumers.
See generally 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review, Report and Order, 18 FCC
Rcd 13620 (2003).
The Committee should also consider that of the many millions of
hours of programming aired by radio and television broadcasters, only
an infinitesimal amount has been the subject of an indecency complaint,
let alone an actual forfeiture. As former FCC Chairman Powell testified
in 2004 to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, of the 240,350
indecency complaints received by the FCC in 2003, 239,837 (or 99.79
percent) pertained to only nine programs. See, Letter from Michael K.
Powell, Chairman, FCC, to The Honorable John D. Dingell, Ranking
Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives
at Exhibit 1 (March 2, 2004). In 2004, some 1,405,419 complaints
related to only 314 programs out of all the many programs aired that
year.
While it is true that the FCC continues to receive complaints of
indecency, it is not clear that those complaints demonstrate a
widespread problem that warrants legislation, especially if it applies
only to over-the-air broadcasting. For instance: Broadcasting and Cable
magazine reported that of the over 23,000 indecency complaints that
were filed at the FCC in July, 2005, all but five of those came from
one entity. In the same vein, MediaWeek reported in December 2004, that
99.8 percent of all indecency complaints filed at the FCC in 2003 and
99.9 percent of the non-Super Bowl indecency complaints filed with the
agency through September 2004 were brought by the same group. Thus, one
can legitimately ask, is there a real problem or is there a perception
of a problem created by the ease with which complaints can be generated
in our modern technological world?
Another fact that came out in this Committee's Forum was that
widely available blocking technology offers parents a viable means of
screening the programming that comes into their home. Perhaps most
notable is the so-called V-chip, which was mandated by Congress as part
of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in order to empower parents to
control the video programming available to their children. See, Section
551, Telecommunications Act of 1996. See also, Statement of Senator
Burns, 142 Cong. Rec. S702 (daily ed. Feb. 1, 1996) (describing the
``V-chip technology as an aid for parents'' and as a ``tool for
parents'' ). By law, the V-chip is in every television set 13'' or
larger sold in America today. Coupled with the television ratings
system, this tool is a parental control device that spans across all
methods of video delivery.
The V-chip and program rating information provide tools that
parents can use, if they wish, to supervise their children's viewing
choices. According to a Fall 2004 survey by the Kaiser Family
Foundation, 50 percent of all parents report using television ratings
to ``help guide their children's television choices,'' and ``the vast
majority'' (88 percent) of those parents say that they found the
ratings ``useful.'' Parents, Media and Public Policy: A Kaiser Family
Foundation Survey at 4-5 (Fall 2004). Moreover, there are other
blocking tools available to parents such as the ``TV Guardian,'' which
automatically filters offensive language from pre-scripted television
shows (whether broadcast or subscription) and from VHS and DVD movies.
See http://tvguardian.com/gshell.php (last visited January 16, 2006).
And, as we enter the world of digital radio, blocking technologies are
also available for radio programming.
The fact that these tools exist cannot be blithely ignored. That
some parents may choose not to use the V-chip or other blocking tools
cannot diminish its significance to your deliberations on the issue of
indecency. Simply put, promoting the use of blocking technology is a
less restrictive means of accomplishing the government's goal of
limiting the possibility that children will be exposed to indecent
material. See, Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656 (2004). That is very
important to all who cherish the First Amendment protections that are
so important to our democracy.
As I know this Committee recognizes, draconian fines and other
threats against over-the-air broadcasters raise grave concerns about
broadcasters' right of free speech. The increased focus on indecent
programming has already had a significant chilling effect. Local
stations are concerned about broadcasting live from local events where
stations cannot completely control what observers and by-standers might
say or do. For example, television stations in Phoenix stopped
broadcasting the live memorial service for Army Corporal Pat Tilman,
who left a pro-football career with the Phoenix Cardinals and was
killed in Afghanistan, because of the language used by some of the
mourners, including family members. Broadcasters have also edited out
language used by soldiers in news reports from Iraq. And, many local
broadcasters were reluctant to air the WWII war movie Saving Private
Ryan because of uncertainty about FCC indecency enforcement.
Increasing fines and creating a greater possibility that alleged
indecency could affect station licenses will only exacerbate this
problem. Large fines for even inadvertent incidents could drive some
broadcasters, particularly those in small and medium markets, out of
business. It will also create an atmosphere of government censorship as
broadcasters are forced to avoid popular genres such as hip-hop because
government regulators find that programming tasteless or offensive.
For this reason, NAB submits that a new paradigm is necessary. It
is NAB's position that any indecency legislation must have clear
guidelines that are applied in a fair and consistent manner across all
media providers. Consumers should have the same expectations as to all
programming that comes into the home, and legislation should address
the fact that consumers do not readily distinguish between programming
that is provided over-the-air and other programming. Legislation should
also recognize the importance of technology in solving these issues in
a manner more consistent with the First Amendment. See, Ashcroft v.
ACLU, 542 U.S. 656 (2004).
NAB further submits that, if the Committee alters the indecency
regime, it should also build in culpability protections to provide
balance and avoid unintended consequences. Clearly a station's ability
to review and reject programming on a timely basis should be taken into
account. In addition, not all indecency violations are the same.
Unintended violations are not the same as flagrant violations of the
rules and should not be treated in the same manner. For example, a
station that has taken every reasonable precaution but still has a
slip-up on live programming should not be treated the same as another
that either purposefully or negligently violates the rules. Any regime
must build in guidelines to address the issue of culpability.
The challenge for you as lawmakers is to decide what to do in the
face of today's media realities.
As public licensees, broadcasters take seriously our obligation to
offer responsible programming that serves our local communities. We
understand the concerns of our communities and strive every day to
create compelling content that will interest, entertain and inform our
audiences. We look forward to working with you to help focus your
effort to address concerns about indecent programming in a fair and
balanced manner that will not chill free speech.
I thank you for this opportunity to appear before you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Our next witness is Brent Bozell. Welcome back. He is
President of the Parents Television Council of Alexandria,
Virginia. Mr. Bozell.
STATEMENT OF L. BRENT BOZELL, III, PRESIDENT/FOUNDER, PARENTS
TELEVISION COUNCIL
Mr. Bozell. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Stevens and
Co-Chairman Inouye and Senator Pryor. My name is Brent Bozell
and I am the founder and President of the Parents Television
Council, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that speaks on
behalf of the vast majority of Americans who are sick and tired
of the graphic sex, the ultra-violence, and the raunchy
language that is now pouring out from many quarters over the
public airwaves or on cable programs that the American public
is being forced to subsidize.
Mr. Chairman, the industry must abide by community
standards of decency while using the public airwaves. This is
not a proposal. This is law, well-settled law that was affirmed
by the Supreme Court 3 decades ago. Those who violate the
public trust are breaking that law and must be held
accountable.
Nearly 2 years ago, Congress promised swift action to put
an end to this raunch. Twice now, the House has passed
legislation to increase decency fines by an overwhelming
bipartisan margin, most recently by a vote of 389 to 38.
Despite genuine expressions of concern, of deep concern, from
so many in the Senate about protecting families from graphic
and indecent programming, here we sit again.
The Senate must pass the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act
immediately and should send it to the President for his
signature. We do not suggest a change in the indecency law,
only a change in the penalties for those who break that law.
You are being told that the TV rating system is enough to
protect children, that ultimately it is up to parents to do
something about the problem caused by Hollywood. This to me is
an amazing dodge. The rating system has been an inconsistent,
inaccurate, arbitrary and capricious mess, and now the industry
is sitting here before you and is telling you to believe that
it is going to be serious, this time it is going to be serious,
and responsible about a better rating system. But is that not
precisely what they promised you 9 years ago when they launched
it? Fool me once--you have heard that jingle, but let me amend
it now with respect to this Committee: Fool you twice, shame on
you.
Even if it were accurate, so what? It does nothing to stem
the raunch pouring out of the public airwaves, nothing at all.
Just over a year ago, Viacom agreed to a consent decree with
the FCC--and this addresses Senator Allen's point--to resolve
all the outstanding indecency complaints for what was a
relatively small sum for a company its size. Yet just weeks
later Viacom's CBS Network re-aired an episode of ``Without a
Trace'' that included a scene of a teenage orgy, the very same
episode and the very same scene which was addressed in the
consent decree.
Mr. Chairman, the penalties for breaking the law are
useless and must be increased and enforced, with revocation
hearings mandated for those who repeatedly, willfully break the
law. Let us be very clear about this. The only people affected
by this are those who are breaking the law.
Now to cable. Consumers must--I repeat, must--be free to
pick and choose and pay for only those cable networks they
want. The so-called expanded basic tier networks are airing
some of the most graphic and shocking content imaginable.
Several weeks ago, the FOX-owned FX Network aired a program
wherein a funeral home worker assembled various body parts from
cadavers, stitched them together, added his sister's head to
the body, and then had sex with this Frankenstein-like
creation. Call it incestuous necrophilia.
That same network also aired a different program featuring
a police captain who broke into a house to arrest two gang
members, and when the gang members prevailed one of them held a
gun to the kneeling police captain and forced him to perform
oral sex on him. The scene was revolting, with graphic dialogue
and the police captain gagging on the gang member's penis.
Over on Comedy Central, a Viacom-owned network, animated
grade school children masturbate a dog until it ejaculates.
They sit in a classroom while a teacher inserts a gerbil into
another man's rectum as part of a science experiment. The
children watch a competition called a ``whore-off,'' won by a
female character who inserts an entire pineapple into her
vagina.
Two weeks before Christmas, the same show featured a scene
with a statue of the Virgin Mary with blood pouring out of her
buttocks. When some declared this to be a miracle, they were
corrected by the pope-figure on the show, who declared: ``A
chick bleeding from her vagina's no miracle; chicks bleed out
of their vaginas all the time.''
Mr. Chairman, some may choose to watch and pay for this
content, but it is outrageous that 80 million other American
families who find this so morally offensive are being forced to
subsidize it if they want to watch the Disney Channel, the Golf
Channel, the History Channel, or a football game on ESPN.
Something can and must be done about this.
My time is up. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Co-Chairman, Senator
Pryor, I ask you this question with all due respect. Who are
you going to listen to in this debate?
I would like to add one final quick point. We have heard
all morning long, as I have heard for years now, everyone used
the words ``parental rights,'' ``parental empowerment,'' and
now ``parental responsibility.'' Everyone has used it. The
ultimate parental responsibility, parental right, parental
empowerment, is giving the parent the right and the authority
to choose what will be aired on his television set or her
television set.
I respectfully add that anyone who will give a speech
advocating parental rights, but will not agree to allow to give
parents rights, has lost the moral authority to talk about that
conversation. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bozell follows:]
Prepared Statement of L. Brent Bozell, III, President/Founder, Parents
Television Council
Good morning, Chairman Stevens, Co-Chairman Inouye and Members of
the Committee. My name is Brent Bozell and I am the founder and
president of the Parents Television Council, a non-profit, non-partisan
organization whose mission is to protect families from graphic sex,
violence and profanity in entertainment. Thank you for holding this
hearing today. Millions of Americans are looking to the Senate to
fulfill its promise to increase the financial penalty for those who
break the law which prohibits the broadcast of indecent material over
the public airwaves. They are also demanding you do something about a
system that is forcing them to subsidize cable content they find
morally offensive.
Mr. Chairman, there has been an awful lot of talk about this issue
over the past two years, with a number of ``solutions'' offered by the
broadcast and cable industries. I put the word ``solutions'' in quotes
because so much of this is feints, dodges and smokescreens that
ultimately does nothing--nothing--to correct the problem. There are
real solutions. Virtually every person testifying before you today
represents a vested special interest and will say, and spend whatever
it takes to protect their special interest. We speak on behalf of
another special interest altogether: the vast majority of Americans
sick and tired of the sewage pouring out of their airwaves, or on cable
programs they are being forced to underwrite.
After your ``Open Forum'' on November 29th, I wrote you and the Co-
Chairman a letter in which I proposed a three-point solution. I
formally submit this three-point solution to you and to the Committee
again today as a reasonable resolution to both the broadcast and cable
issues. Simply put, the three points are as follows: There must be real
penalties for those who violate broadcast indecency laws, therefore
fines must be increased. Second, if aired outside the so-called ``safe
harbor'' period, indecent material should be limited to cable. Third,
consumers should be free to pick and choose--and pay for--only those
cable networks they want.
Please allow me to explain this solution and elaborate on my
comments in that letter.
Mr. Chairman, the broadcast airwaves are public property. They
belong to the people. All the people. Broadcasters are given a
license--a temporary right--to use this public property in exchange for
a promise to serve the public interest. Not long ago, FCC Commissioner
Michael Copps testified before this Committee and noted that the term
``public interest'' appears 112 times in the Communications Act of
1934. Sometimes public interest and corporate interest go hand-in-hand.
And sometimes they do not. Some at this hearing confuse Nielsen
ratings, advertising revenue or even Emmy Award nominations with public
interest. That is an error in premise, Mr. Chairman, and it leads to
error in conclusion.
The industry must abide by community standards of decency while
using the public airwaves. This is not a proposal; this is law, well-
settled law that was affirmed by the Supreme Court three decades ago.
The airwaves must remain safe for families. Those who violate the
public trust are breaking the law and must be punished accordingly.
Nearly two years ago, the American people were outraged by a
striptease act during the Super Bowl's halftime show--the most-watched
television program of the year, beamed, to our shame, around the world,
and watched here at home by tens of millions of young children. In the
wake of that well-deserved outrage, the Congress promised swift action
to prevent a similar occurrence and the Administration promised to sign
the new legislation. The House quickly passed a bill to increase the
indecency fines by an overwhelming bipartisan margin. The Senate was
unable to bring similar legislation to the floor for a vote. At the end
of 2004 nothing had been achieved.
Early in 2005, the House again passed the Broadcast Decency
Enforcement Act with a huge and bipartisan majority, 389 to 38, to be
exact. And, yet, here we are again. All year long we heard how deeply
concerned this Committee and the Senate as a whole were about
protecting children from those who would use the public airwaves to
pollute our family's living rooms. And nothing was done.
So, the first point of my three-point solution is that the Senate
must pass the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act and immediately send it
to the President for his signature. We do not suggest a change in the
indecency law, only a change in the fines for those who break that law.
The existing fine structure is meaningless. Legislation that increases
the fine for violations to $500,000 per violation, per affiliate, with
a ``3 strikes'' license revocation hearing mandated for repeat
offenders, is a solution.
Now let me tell you what is not a solution. You are being told that
the entertainment industry bears no responsibility when it produces
``cutting edge'' material; that that the V-Chip, the TV ratings system
and parental control devices are enough to protect children; that
ultimately it's up to parents to do something about the problem caused
by Hollywood. But these are all dodges. The V-Chip is a dodge. It
relies on a reliable ratings system, but as the PTC publicly exposed
last year, the ratings system is inconsistent, inaccurate, arbitrary
and capricious, not just across the various networks but even within a
network. And understand why this is so: the networks themselves rate
their programs, and will not do so accurately because they cannot
suffer the consequences. If they rate the program too steeply--that is,
ascribing to it the correct adult warnings--many prominent advertisers
will not sponsor the program. There is an inherent and unmistakable
conflict of interest.
So long as the television rating system is a failure, the V-Chip
will continue to be a failure as well. But wait. Now the industry would
have you believe it is going to be serious--this time--and responsible
about a better ratings system. But isn't that precisely what they
promised you nine years ago when they launched it? They have been
mocking the public for nine years. ``Fool me once . . .'' you've heard
that jingle, but let me amend it with respect to this Committee: ``Fool
you twice, shame on you.''
Opponents of an indecency fine increase will also tell you that the
current fine structure is adequate deterrence to airing indecent
material. Do not be fooled by this. In spite of emotion-filled
Congressional testimony of network executives preaching zero-tolerance
policies for indecency violations, the truth is that the networks have
not lived up to the promises they made to you. Instead they waited for
the media attention to blow over and they went right back to doing what
they had been doing before. Here's just one example. Just over a year
ago, Viacom agreed to a Consent Decree with the FCC to resolve all of
its outstanding indecency complaints for what was a relatively small
sum for a company of its size. In that Decree, Viacom admitted to
airing indecent material and agreed to institute a company-wide policy
to ensure against the further violation of indecency law. However, just
weeks after signing that Consent Decree, Viacom's CBS network re-aired
an episode of Without a Trace that included a scene of a teen sex orgy.
This was the very same episode and the very same scene which was the
subject of an indecency complaint addressed in the Consent Decree.
Another example: A few short months ago CBS aired an episode of NCIS,
which began with the scene of a woman performing a striptease for a
voyeuristic Internet audience. During the course of her striptease the
woman was savagely murdered, graphically depicted as having her throat
slit--all before the opening credits even roll. As if a broadcast which
depicts Internet pornography and a throat-slitting isn't bad enough by
itself, this scene was aired at the top of the 8:00 p.m. hour--7:00
p.m. in the central and mountain time zones--when millions of children
were watching television.
It's not just CBS, Mr. Chairman, which is making a mockery of the
indecency laws. Although the concert was a noble idea, and despite
every assurance from the network, and even despite a several hour tape
delay, ABC aired an unedited F-bomb during its broadcast of the Live 8
concert. And this past summer, the FOX network aired an episode of The
Inside which highlighted a forced sodomy scene. Sadly there are many,
many more examples of the broadcast television networks' utter
disregard for the spirit and the letter of law.
Mr. Chairman, the fines for breaking the law must be increased.
Unless and until they are increased, the networks with their billions
of dollars will continue to break the law and flaunt the public's will.
Additionally, the network affiliates must be given the unfettered
ability to prescreen programming and, without the risk or fear of any
economic retribution by the network, the affiliates should be allowed
to preempt or edit programs which they believe may violate their
community standards.
I've used this metaphor with you before: Imagine that we are
talking about public highways, not public airwaves. If there's a
pothole in the middle of the road, do you solve the problem by putting
up signs, and arrows, and signal flares warning drivers about the
pothole, or do you fix the pothole? What the networks are proposing is
adding more signs. What they need to do is fix the pothole.
The second point of my proposed three-point solution is simply
this: if indecent material is to be aired outside the so-called ``safe
harbor'' period, then it should be relegated to the cable networks. We
hear many broadcasters complain that allowing indecent material on
cable, but not broadcast, creates an un-level playing field, putting
them at a competitive disadvantage with cable. Do not be fooled by this
smokescreen. Studies show that six companies--AOL Time Warner, Liberty,
ABC/Disney, CBS/Viacom, NBC/Universal and FOX/Newscorp control
approximately two-thirds of all viewers on television. In short, they
control both sides of the coin. In addition, doesn't it strike you as
odd that broadcasters never seem to feel the need to compete with the
positive programming on cable? Seven of the top ten most popular shows
on cable last week we're all on Nickelodeon. Broadcasters must be
reminded that their status as a broadcast licensee puts them in a
different position: one of public trust. If they feel the playing field
is not level, they have every ability not to use the public airwaves
and instead seek distribution via cable or satellite.
My third and final point is that consumers should be free to pick
and choose--and pay for--only those cable networks they want. This
ensures that indecent cable programming is indeed an ``invited guest''
into the home. Some call it ``Cable a la Carte,'' others call it
``Cable Choice.'' We don't suggest that the cable industry be
prohibited from selling programming in bundled tiers; we do suggest
that they must offer unbundled programming as one choice for their
subscribers.
Let me tell you why Cable Choice must--I repeat, must--happen. In
recent weeks and months, a number of the so-called expanded basic tier
networks have aired some of the most graphic and shocking content
imaginable. I'm not talking here about HBO or some sort of pay-per-view
channel; I'm talking about advertiser-supported basic and expanded
basic cable; what families are given to take when they subscribe to
this service.
Several weeks ago the FX network, owned by the News Corporation,
aired a program featuring a storyline wherein a funeral home worker
preserved his deceased sister's head. He assembled various body parts
from cadavers and stitched them together, adding his dead sister's
head. And then he had sex with his Frankenstein-like creation. Call it
incestuous necrophilia.
Not long ago that same network also aired a different program with
an episode featuring a police captain who broke into a house to arrest
two gang members. There was a struggle for a gun, and when the gang
members prevailed, one of the gang members held the gun to the head of
the kneeling police captain and forced him to perform oral sex on him.
The scene was revolting, with graphic dialogue and the police captain
gagging on the gang member's penis.
Over on Comedy Central, a Viacom-owned network, animated grade
school children masturbate a dog until it ejaculates. They sit in a
classroom while a teacher inserts a gerbil into another man's rectum as
part of a science experiment. And the children watch a competition
called a ``whore-off'' which is won by a female character who inserts
an entire pineapple into her vagina. Two weeks before Christmas this
same show featured a scene with a statue of the Virgin Mary, with blood
pouring out of her buttocks. When some declare this to be a miracle,
they are corrected by the pope-figure, who declares, ``A chick bleeding
from her vagina is no miracle. Chicks bleed out their vagina all the
time.''
Mr. Chairman, it would be one thing if these networks were
supported by subscribers who wanted to watch such filth. It is wholly
another thing for you, me, and 80 million other American families to be
forced to subscribe to these networks--to underwrite the production of
this material--in order to watch the Disney Channel, the Golf Channel,
the History Channel or a football game on ESPN.
The cable industry will say just about anything to prevent
consumers from their right to take and pay for only the programming
they want. First, they said that it was technically not feasible to
have a consumer-driven a la carte subscription model. That falsity was
quickly exposed by virtue of the rapid growth in digital set-top cable
boxes. Next, the industry said it would spend $250 million to educate
consumers how to block networks from coming into their homes. But
again, this was quickly exposed as a red herring, for customers had to
pay for the networks that they chose to block. The industry then
claimed program diversity would be ruined with an a la carte model.
Niche and targeted networks would go bankrupt, they said. But wait a
minute. Hasn't the industry for years defended its programming, even
its offensive programming as necessary to satisfy market demand? It
just can't have it both ways! The industry then struck fear into the
hearts of many by arguing that Cable Choice would cause consumer prices
to increase, not decrease, and would result in fewer channel
opportunities, not more. This is simply outrageous. First, when in the
history of commerce has increased competition resulted in higher
prices? And second, for more than a decade the industry itself has been
increasing consumer prices at three or four times the rate of
inflation, with all the proceeds going into its own pockets. The
industry is more than happy to feather its own nest at the expense of
the consumer, so long as they can do it without bringing undue
attention on their pricing scheme.
For instance, after NBC completed its recent acquisition of
Universal Studios, a quick look into the television program archive
vaults led to the creation of a new cable network called Sleuth,
comprised of police dramas. With its unfair negotiating leverage over
the cable distributors, NBC can assure carriage of Sleuth in most of
the 80 million cable homes in the U.S. Media reports state that NBC is
commanding 10 cents per subscriber per month for its newest cable
network. This translates into nearly $100 million in new annual revenue
to NBC but at a barely noticeable dime per month for most customers. To
paraphrase the old saw, a dime here and a dime there, and soon you're
talking real money.
Last November at the Open Forum, you heard representatives from the
American Cable Association, which represents nearly 900 small and
independent cable systems, and DISH Networks, the second-largest
direct-to-home satellite provider. Those two representatives told you
that they wanted to offer their customers Cable Choice but they were
prohibited by the networks from doing so. Clearly there is a ``cozy''
relationship between the networks which takes the form of an anti-
competitive and monopolistic practice. One wonders how much longer this
kind of behavior can last without an antitrust investigation.
In the weeks since your Open Forum last November, we have seen the
cable industry do something it said it would never do: offer a family
tier of programming as a prescription for increasingly raunchy cable
content. It sounded good, Mr. Chairman, but don't be fooled. There is
one reason and only one reason why a family tier of programming was
offered: it was offered to appease you; to throw you a bone in the hope
that it would table any potential action by your Committee. The family
tier solution is the last-ditch attempt by the cable industry to
prevent Cable Choice--the a la carte pricing system--from becoming
reality.
The cable industry's sudden embrace of the family tier model is
quite possibly its most cynical response yet. In fact, they have
designed these family tiers to fail, because they would like nothing
better than for the family tier concept to fail so they could claim
after the fact that no demand exists for a different way of doing
business in the cable industry.
The cable industry executives who have concocted this plan will be
hard pressed to find many consumers, even their own employees, to whom
the proposed family tier would hold any great appeal. After Time Warner
released its ``family'' tier lineup, we documented no less than 27
separate networks that are totally, or mostly family-friendly, that
didn't make the list. According to this company, no family wants to
watch sports, or movies, or religious programming: all networks devoted
to these themes were omitted. What Cox and Comcast have offered varies
slightly, but not much.
Another problem with the family tier approach involves the must-
carry ``basic'' tiers that customers will necessarily subscribe to in
order to get access to the family tier of programming. In all cases,
the basic tier would include the local broadcast stations, but in many
markets this basic tier includes some cable networks. For example, TBS
is carried as part of many cable distributors' most basic tier, and
carries the former HBO show Sex and the City several nights per week.
This show, as you likely already know, includes some of the most
shocking sexual and profane content imaginable, including references to
group sex, masturbation, sex toys, and fellatio.
Our position is clear: if FCC oversight of cable programming were
the only option to address raunchiness on cable, we would take it. But
there is a better way, and that is to provide cable channel choice to
America's families. It is the only option available that creates a real
free market in the cable industry.
The problem of indecency on television is a serious one. The public
is fed up with and appalled at the Senate's inability to address the
issue. Let us be very clear where the American people stand: According
to the Pew Research Center, 75 percent of the American public is
demanding tighter enforcement of government rules on broadcast content,
particularly when children are most likely to be watching. Sixty-nine
percent of the American public also are demanding higher fines for
media companies that violate the law. Where cable choice is concerned,
the numbers are no different. According to a Wirthlin poll conducted
for Concerned Women for America, 80 percent of the American people
disagree with the way the cable tier pricing system currently
functions. Sixty-six percent of cable subscribers--that's 2 out of 3--
say they prefer to choose for themselves the programming included in
their cable subscriptions. And here's another number that should factor
into the equation for everyone involved: when non-cable subscribers
were asked if they would be more likely to subscribe to cable if they
could choose the programming included in their cable package, 66
percent said they would be more likely to subscribe, 39 percent of that
number say they would be ``much more likely to subscribe.''
That is the market response. That is what the American people want.
Everything else you're hearing is the voices of special interest who
are forcing the American public, your constituents, to subsidize, for
their profit, what is on cable television, or to put up with an abuse
of the public trust by the constant, and often wretched abuse of the
public airwaves.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Co-Chairman, and Members of this Committee, I ask
this with all due respect: Who are you listening to? Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Our next witness is Martin Franks, the Executive Vice
President of CBS from New York City. Mr. Franks, nice to have
you back.
STATEMENT OF MARTIN D. FRANKS, EXECUTIVE VICE
PRESIDENT, PLANNING, POLICY AND GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS, CBS CORPORATION
Mr. Franks. Thank you, Senator Stevens, Senator Inouye,
Senator Pryor. Thank you for this opportunity to detail the
care CBS devotes to a role we take very seriously, that of a
guest in America's living rooms. The CBS Standards and
Practices Department, which reports to me, reviews each
program, each commercial, and each promotional announcement
before any one of them ever reaches our air. In the case of
prime time programs, that process involves careful scrutiny and
revision of at least multiple drafts of scripts, a video rough
draft, known as the rough cut, and the final air copy. From
that final air copy, standards determines the appropriate V-
Chip rating.
We do not assign those ratings on a wholesale basis. Each
show is reviewed and rated individually in order to help inform
parents as to that program's appropriateness for their
household. On any script with even a hint of possibly indecent
material, a separate review is performed by the CBS Law
Department. That show does not reach air until both the Law and
Standards Departments are convinced that it is free of indecent
content.
Every live entertainment program on CBS is now subjected to
an audio and a video delay system so we can delete offensive
language or video images. And while it may now be obvious to
you that we would put a live award or reality show on a delay,
last November the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade on CBS was
also on a delay, in case the random streaker or offensive sign-
bearer decided to try to take advantage of our air for their
own purposes. And while they could walk away without
repercussion, CBS and our affiliates would be subject to
millions of dollars in fines and potential license revocation.
Permit a word for those who say that more family-friendly
programming is the solution. In the mid to late 1990s, as a
conscious programming and business strategy, CBS offered
wonderful family friendly programming in the 8 o'clock hour:
``Touched by an Angel,'' ``Bill Cosby,'' ``Dr. Quinn,''
``Promised Land.'' And we got killed in the marketplace.
Advertisers and the audiences they covet made other viewing
choices in droves. Given a choice, the audience voted with
their remote controls for edgier fare.
Let me be clear. CBS would be happy to go back to the
three-channel era, when a family viewing hour was not subject
to counterprogramming pressure. But in today's world of
hundreds of channels, a state of affairs frequently praised in
other public policy debates as, ``viewer choice and
diversity,'' looking back lovingly at the past that cannot be
recreated will not guide us toward a solution for today.
So what can be done? As I told the Committee on November
29th, I am surprised that so many are ready to give up on the
V-Chip, a system already in place that can be used to block
unwanted programs. It is not perfect, but neither would any new
system be. It is a tool already in millions of television sets
today, and with the millions of new sets that will be sold as a
result of this Committee's proposed hard deadline for the
digital transition, many more millions of V-Chip-equipped sets
will enter the marketplace annually.
Moreover, in the month since the Committee last met on this
subject, under the remarkable leadership of Jack Valenti, the
entire television industry--broadcast, cable, satellite,
television set manufacturers, and Hollywood--has come together
in an unprecedented unified effort and has engaged the Ad
Council to guide us through a sustained industry-wide national
campaign to educate parents on the ready availability of
blocking technology in their sets, its ease of use, and how
they can use it to block unwanted programs from ever entering
their living rooms.
As strongly as I can, I urge the Committee to give this
effort a chance to take hold. In 20 years in the business, I
have never seen the industry come together in this fashion. It
is far from the norm. Frankly, I believe this campaign is the
best chance by far for both a near and a long-term solution to
helping parents supervise their children's television viewing.
If our mutual primary focus is to help parents, then by
comparison stiffer penalties for indecency will not help them
much at all.
Thousands of hours of television programming are available
each year and only a very few of those hours are even accused
of indecency, much less found guilty. But of those thousands of
hours, a great many may not be appropriate for children. A
fines bill will not help parents with that cascade of otherwise
perfectly legal programming coming into their homes. Only
helping parents understand that they already have effective
blocking technology that is easy to engage will help address
the real issue facing American parents.
It is my fervent hope that you will help us advance this
effort to help American parents, because this is much more
central to their everyday lives than what the penalty will be
for a small handful of programs found to be indecent.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Franks follows:]
Prepared Statement of Martin D. Franks, Executive Vice President,
Planning, Policy and Government Relations, CBS Corporation
Good morning Chairman Stevens, Co-Chairman Inouye and Members of
the Committee. I am Martin D. Franks, Executive Vice President,
Planning, Policy and Government Relations for the CBS Corporation. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today on the topic of
decency on television.
We at CBS know that we are a guest in viewers' living rooms. Thus,
aside from any legal regulatory requirements that govern our content,
we strongly believe that we have an obligation to remain attuned to our
audience and its needs, tastes, sensibilities and expectations.
One of my responsibilities is overseeing the CBS Television
Network's Standards and Practices Department which reviews all scripted
and reality programming, movies, commercial messages and promotional
announcements before they air. In the case of prime time programs, that
process involves careful scrutiny and revision of multiple drafts of
scripts, including the video first draft, known as the rough cut, and
the final air copy. From that final air copy, the Standards Department
determines and applies the appropriate TV ratings. We do not assign
those ratings on a wholesale basis. Each episode of each show is
reviewed and rated individually.
When any script contains even a hint of possibly indecent material,
a separate review is performed by the CBS Law Department, and such a
show does not reach air until it has passed muster by both CBS Law and
Standards and Practices.
For live entertainment programming, CBS for years has employed
delay equipment to make possible the deletion of unanticipated
offensive language. But this system is designed to catch only audio.
With respect to video, the first line of defense for our network, and
for that matter, the entire industry, at live news, entertainment and
sporting events, has been to ``cut away the camera,'' averting the
camera's eye away from inappropriate graphic subjects.
Given the history of broadcast television up until fairly recently,
deleting troublesome video has never been a concern, except perhaps for
the occasional streaker dashing across a sports field, a circumstance
we all have become fairly expert at avoiding.
Unfortunately, we now understand all too well that people in front
of a live camera--whether it be a celebrity on an awards show, a fan in
the stands of a sporting event, or even a bystander at the Macy's
Thanksgiving Day Parade--can push the limits of appropriateness and
yield ineffective the cut-away camera, our first line of video defense.
The consequences of serving our viewers by delivering to them in the
comfort of their living rooms live events for free that they are unable
to attend in person can be severe: We are liable for potentially heavy
monetary and licensing penalties for broadcasting video that contains
fleeting images of people who take advantage of our air for their own
purposes and without any liability on their part.
CBS has responded by implementing for all live entertainment
programming, an enhanced delay system for deletion of any inappropriate
audio and/or video footage, if needed. Developed by CBS engineers, and
first put in place for the 2004 Grammy Awards, the system is
groundbreaking, costly to operate and maintain, and requires skilled
operators able to work under extraordinary pressure. After all, a
baseball player who fails six times out of ten at the plate is a cinch
for the Hall of Fame, whereas the Standards Editor who bats only .999
is subject to Federal investigation as well as fines and license
revocation for his or her employer.
Despite our efforts to do everything technically, mechanically and
humanly possible to eliminate inappropriate language and behavior, we
do worry that anything more drastic could mean the elimination of live
programming in this country. That would not be a good outcome for
viewers of broadcast television, who are now able to access for free
major live sports and entertainment events.
As broadcasters, we have an obligation to operate in the public
interest. The FCC and the courts have consistently interpreted this to
require broadcasters to air programming that is responsive to the
interests and needs of our communities. Our public interest duty,
therefore, mandates that we serve a broad spectrum of America, and not
just one narrow group. We must strive to inform and entertain a diverse
population that forms the fabric of America. And we do: CBS offers
among the best in news, sports, and entertainment, as well as
educational and informational programming for children. Our
entertainment programming includes scripted comedies and dramas,
reality shows, original movies, and awards events. That this
programming appeals to a wide cross-section of American tastes is
demonstrated on the website of Parents Television Council. While I
disagree with them often, I compliment Brent Bozell and the PTC for
having the courage and intellectual rigor to be specific in their
criticisms and rejecting overbroad generalizations. One way they do so
is by singling out shows worthy of their praise, the ``best of'' list,
and those that are not, the ``worst of'' list. CBS shows seem to end up
on both of the PTC lists.
Millions of Americans, however, disagree with PTC's ``worst of''
categorization. Week after week, for years now, millions of homes, in
every market in the country--from Salt Lake City to New York City--tune
in to shows on the ``worst of'' list. Two of those shows, for example,
``CSI: Crime Scene Investigation'' and ``Without A Trace'' are among
the top ten most popular shows in America, with some one-quarter of all
households watching television making these programs their weekly
choices. These shows, we concede, contain some scenes inappropriate for
younger children (and they usually carry a V-Chip rating that reflects
that fact), but they do so in a way that is integral to the context of
an episode.
Context is everything. Catching the bad guys who break the law and
bringing them to justice is the theme of the forensic science program
``CSI.'' The program reportedly is inspiring hundreds of college
students to pursue a career in the field, in which at least one expert
estimates an additional 10,000 scientists are needed nationwide. \1\
``Without A Trace,'' a drama about the missing persons unit of the FBI,
necessarily recounts stories about the not-so-pretty disappearance of
people, and concludes each program with FBI-supplied information about
a real-life missing person. Just this past summer, a viewer responding
to one of these segments led to the recovery of two missing children.
\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``The CSI Effect,'' Nancy McGuire, http://www.chemistry.org/
portal/a/c/s/1/feature_ent.html?id=c373e9026ca0695f8f6a17245d830100,
the website of the American Chemical Society, March 7, 2005.
\2\ Federal Bureau of Investigation press release, July 25, 2005,
http://oklahomacity.fbi.gov/pressrel/2005/jul25_05.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a Nation with such diverse tastes and backgrounds, and where
only about one-third of the homes have children, policymakers cannot
and should not be deciding what Americans watch on television. These
are fundamental decisions for those capable of making such decisions--
adult viewers and parents of child viewers. And what is appropriate for
one viewer may not be for another. That is where the TV ratings and V-
Chip tools come in. The TV ratings system gives parents information
about the age-appropriateness and content of television programs. And
the V-Chip enables parents to automatically block programs by TV
ratings. Beginning six years ago this month, Federal regulations
mandated the manufacture of a V-Chip in all TV sets 13 inches and
larger sold in this country.
I am surprised that so many in Washington seem ready to give up on
these tools. It is not perfect, but neither would any new system be,
including a ``safe harbor'' for violent programming, which is
contemplated by S. 616, the bill introduced by Senators Rockefeller and
Hutchison. Defining violent programming and cordoning it off from
children who have not yet been tucked into bed is a near-impossible
exercise as evidenced by proposed solutions. For example, there are
strong advocates of restricting the airing of violent material during
certain hours who argue that league-sanctioned sponsored sports, such
as NFL, NBA and NHL games, should be exempt. Yet, these advocates would
not exempt professional wrestling, because it contains gratuitous
violence. \3\ Other advocates of limiting violence to a safe harbor
would carve out simulated war activities that are ``distant in time,''
as well as other combative activities, such as a ``shoot-out at the old
corral'' or a Star Wars-type laser gun confrontation. \4\ It is unclear
under these definitions whether ``Saving Private Ryan'' or
``Schindler's List'' could ever be shown during prime time. And news--
if it is not made exempt from any safe harbor, coverage of stories
involving war, crime and other potentially violent material would have
to be shunted to certain hours of the day. And perhaps the same is true
for traditional ``family-friendly'' nature programs, some of whose
episodes are entirely devoted to bloody shark and hyena attacks. These
are line-drawing activities meant for viewers and parents, not for
Congress or the FCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In the Matter of Violent Television Programming and its Impact
on Children, FCC's MB Docket No. 04-261, Comments of Pappas Telecasting
Companies, filed October 15, 2004.
\4\ Id., Comments of Morality in Media, filed September 7, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That brings us back to TV ratings and V-Chip. Broadcast and cable
programmers all label their product with the TV ratings, which can be
accessed and used by viewers without any additional technology
whatsoever. These ratings include descriptors alerting viewers that an
episode may contain violent or sexual content. And the V-Chip, as well
as cable and satellite blocking techonology, found in millions of
television sets and set top boxes today, can be programmed to block the
receipt of programming carrying designated TV ratings. With the
millions of new sets that will be sold as a result of this Committee's
proposed hard deadline for the digital transition to be completed, many
more millions of V-Chip-equipped sets will enter the market annually.
Critics of these tools argue that parents have no idea how the V-
Chip works or even know that their television set contains one. The V-
Chip is worthless, they say. We agree that there is work to be done on
educating consumers, and Jack Valenti came before this Committee today
to describe an unprecedented cross-industry plan for communicating to
parents about the power they have to control television in their homes.
We appreciate the role this Committee played late last year in urging
us all to act in unison. And we hope that you will all be patient as we
roll out this first-of-a-kind campaign about tools that were sanctioned
and enacted by Congress. It represents by far the best hope anytime
soon to help parents control their children's television viewing.
But let's not forget how far we have come already. Even back in
July 2001, a mere 18 months after the V-Chip mandate for television
sets became effective, The Henry Kaiser Family Foundation issued a
study that found that 36 percent of all parents who were aware of the
V-Chip used it to regulate their children's viewing habits. \5\ Of
those parents who used the V-Chip, the study reported, 86 percent said
it was useful for blocking shows. \6\ And of those parents who did not
use the V-Chip, 51 percent said it was because their children usually
watch TV with an adult in the vicinity, and 25 percent said it was
because they trust their children to make the right decisions. \7\ As
for the TV ratings associated with the V-Chip, 56 percent of parents in
the 2001 study reported using them to make decisions about what shows
their children watch. This is an impressively significant number for a
new system, particularly when compared with use of the movie ratings
system, which had been around for 33 years at the time and which 84
percent of parents reported using. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Parents and the V-Chip 2001: A Kaiser Family Foundation
Survey, Toplines,'' www.kff.org/entmedia/vchip.cfm, page 1.
\6\ Id. at 13.
\7\ Id. at 3.
\8\ Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, let me mention ``family-friendly programming.'' In the
1990s, as a conscious strategy, CBS offered several programs in that
genre in the 8 o'clock hour: ``Touched by an Angel,'' ``Cosby,'' ``Dr.
Quinn, Medicine Woman,'' and ``Promised Land.'' And we got killed in
the marketplace. More recently, the first half of CBS's widely
acclaimed ``Pope John Paul II'' miniseries was unable to capture even a
third of the viewers compared to ``Desperate Housewives'' and far less
than half that of ``Grey's Anatomy.'' And our ratings were only
slightly better than those garnered earlier that week by ABC's movie
version of the Pope's life. \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``Sunday Night Sinners Outshine CBS's `Pope','' The Hollywood
Reporter, www.hollywoodreporter.com, December 6, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me be clear, CBS would be happy to go back to the three-channel
era that I and many others recall fondly, but in today's world of
hundreds of channels--a state of affairs frequently praised in other
public policy debates as ``viewer choice and diversity'' --looking back
lovingly at the past will not guide us toward a solution for today.
Viewers now have the tools to respond to this amazing choice and
diversity, and we in the television industry stand ready to educate and
encourage them to actively use those tools.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Our next witness is Mr. Alan Rosenberg, the President of
the Screen Actors Guild of Los Angeles. Thank you for coming.
STATEMENT OF ALAN ROSENBERG, PRESIDENT, SCREEN ACTORS GUILD
Mr. Rosenberg. Thank you, Chairman Stevens, Co-Chairman
Inouye, Senator Pryor, and Members of the Committee. Thank you
for inviting me to participate in this hearing. My name is Alan
Rosenberg and I am the President of the Screen Actors Guild. I
am honored to be here today representing 120,000 proud members
of the Screen Actors Guild, just as former President Ronald
Reagan did. Founded over 70 years ago, and we are part of the
AFL-CIO. Throughout the world, our members are hired to perform
roles in television programs, motion pictures, commercials, and
interactive media, bringing countless hours of entertainment
and information to the global viewing public. We take great
pride in these ongoing creative contributions to America's rich
artistic, cultural, and entertainment landscape.
As professional performers, we want to ensure that the
artistic freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment of the
United States Constitution are treated as sacrosanct and not
sacrificed because of a couple of extremely isolated incidents.
As parents, we want to ensure that children are not exposed to
content not intended for them. Finding the proper balance
between protecting freedom of artistic expression and
protecting children from indecency is a tremendous challenge
and an enormous responsibility for Congress to undertake.
However, we believe that Congress can reach an effective
yet equitable balance between proceeding in a narrowly tailored
manner which deters broadcast indecency without discouraging
protected speech or disproportionately punishing individual
American citizens. American film and television is an integral
component of our popular culture, mirroring our history and our
national identity. Our stories must be portrayed sincerely and
without censorship. Sometimes angry language that I would never
use in my home is required in order to convey the reality of a
situation. Can we risk sugar-coating the artistic recreation of
events, news, and our own history in the pursuit of a decency
standard narrowly defined about what some people might find
objectionable? How will generations to come learn about the
hatred of racism or see the great works of William Shakespeare
come to life without using words or phrases that a small
minority of viewers might find indecent?
Societies often quell dissent through the media. Censorship
is a way to limit what facts are heard and to propagandize what
the public sees and hears. Is that the kind of media we want to
provide in this country?
Some of the most imaginative, thoughtful, and proactive
television shows of all time, from ``All in the Family'' to
``NYPD Blue,'' pushed age-old boundaries and offered the
viewing public something different. The history of free-flowing
creativity and dialog over our airwaves has been dependent upon
the principle of free expression without fear of government
retaliation.
However, the indecency fine increases passed by the House
of Representatives could significantly undermine this principle
by subjecting American citizens to financial ruin for
expressing their constitutionally protected rights. The House
legislation increases the fines individual Americans would pay
for broadcast decency violations by almost 5,000 percent, from
$11,000 to $500,000. It would eliminate the existing warning
requirement.
SAG members work primarily on scripted projects. We are
hired to perform a role. To be threatened with a half a million
dollars in fines for doing our jobs is incomprehensible. Any
actor on television could become the target of citizens who
disagree with the actor's religious or political beliefs. Well-
orchestrated campaigns urging FCC complaints could become the
norm if the extreme and disproportionate fine increases for
individuals become law.
Existing safeguards already protect the public's interest
and obviate the need for such extreme sanctions against
individual Americans. Live broadcasts are becoming increasingly
rare and our employers utilize a 7-second delay in such
instances. Additionally, nearly every actor's series contract
includes a morals clause prohibiting unbecoming behavior on and
off screen. So if an actor appeared on ``The Today Show'' and
unleashed a slew of expletives that somehow made it past the
network delay switch, such conduct would likely result in
getting fired from a hit TV series, losing lucrative
endorsement contracts, and jeopardizing future employment. This
is certainly not a risk that anyone I know is willing to take.
In addition, other safeguards exist to protect children
from indecent content. These include the new TV rating system
that Jack Valenti discussed, the cable industry's new family
tier, channel blocking technologies, the V-Chip, and public
service announcement campaigns. This growing web of safeguards
should be given an opportunity to work before the Senate enacts
an excessive fine regime for individual Americans.
While the fines contained in the House bill are often
referred to as performer fines, they are not limited to high-
profile stars. In actuality, they would apply to any American
citizen who inadvertently runs afoul of the ever-changing FCC
standards. Your constituents, whether they call in to a radio
station talk show, give a man on the street interview, or,
worse, are grief-stricken family members at the scene of a
crime or a funeral, could be subject to financial ruin for
exercising their constitutionally protected right of free
speech.
Even if fines were tempered by an individual's ability to
pay, the legal fees associated with defending a complex FCC
forfeiture proceeding could bankrupt many of our constituents--
your constituents, excuse me.
Unlike broadcast licensees, individual citizens, including
the members I represent here today, are not aware of the FCC's
vague and changing indecency standards. Should they really be
subject to half a million dollar fines without a warning? My
wife is an actress in the number one TV show, ``CSI.'' While
there is nothing indecent about the show, it is certainly not
something young children should watch, nor is it intended for
them. Crime scenes and autopsies are not the best choice for
kids. But the fact that provocative television shows like CSI
are not appropriate for children does not mean that they should
not be available for adults to watch. If all America's
entertainment output were to be distilled to a level that is
appropriate for children, every movie and program would be
rated G. While some groups out there might cheer this outcome,
it would drastically limit the entertainment industry's ability
to explore the full depth and diversity of the human
experience.
If you allow the content considerations of a single
demographic, be it children or some narrow segment of an adult
special interest group, to dictate the standards for what is
appropriate for the entire Nation, you suppress one of this
country's greatest assets, the diversity and creativity of the
American people. That is why the Senate should not only refrain
from fining individual citizens, it should also avoid revoking
station licenses for indecency violations. Increasing existing
broadcaster fine levels, as is proposed in Senator Brownback's
bill and the House legislation, will provide a sufficient
deterrent to airing indecency. Threatening a broadcaster's
license, which are in some cases worth hundreds of millions of
dollars, would result in a total clamp-down on all content,
even that which is not indecent. The best programs on the
airwaves, from local TV productions to hit network shows,
enjoyed by tens of millions of viewers, could go by the wayside
due to the threat of censorship through a station's license
revocation. This would have a devastating effect on our
Nation's artistic, cultural, and economic fabric. Bland
programming is safe, but it is not necessarily good. We believe
the American people deserve remarkable, innovative programming,
not bland.
I see my time is up and thank you very much for allowing me
to participate today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rosenberg follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alan Rosenberg, President, Screen Actors Guild
Mr. Chairman, Co-Chairman Inouye, and Members of the Committee,
thank you for inviting me to participate in this hearing. My name is
Alan Rosenberg and I am the President of Screen Actors Guild.
I am honored to be here today representing 120,000 proud members of
Screen Actors Guild, founded over 70 years ago and part of the AFL-CIO.
Throughout the world, our members are hired to perform roles in
television programs, motion pictures, commercials, and interactive
media, bringing countless hours of entertainment and information to the
global viewing public. We take great pride in these ongoing creative
contributions to America's rich artistic, cultural, and entertainment
landscape.
As professional performers, we want to ensure that the artistic
freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States
Constitution are treated as sacrosanct and not sacrificed because of a
couple of extremely isolated incidents. As parents, we want to ensure
that children are not exposed to content not intended for them.
Finding the proper balance between protecting freedom of artistic
expression and protecting children from indecency is a tremendous
challenge and an enormous responsibility for Congress to undertake.
However, we believe that Congress can reach an effective yet equitable
balance by proceeding in a narrowly tailored manner, which deters
broadcast indecency without discouraging protected speech or
disproportionately punishing individual American citizens.
American film and television is an integral component of our
popular culture, mirroring our history and our national identity. Our
stories must be portrayed sincerely and without censorship. Sometimes,
angry language that I would never use in my home is required in order
to convey the reality of a situation. Can we risk sugarcoating the
artistic re-creation of events, news, and our own history in the
pursuit of a ``decency'' standard narrowly defined by what some people
might find objectionable? How will generations to come learn about the
hatred of racism, or see the great works of William Shakespeare come to
life, without using words or phrases that a small minority of viewers
might find indecent?
Societies often quell dissent through the media. Censorship is a
way to limit what facts are heard and to propagandize what the public
sees and hears. Is that the kind of media we want to provide in this
country?
Some of the most imaginative, thoughtful, and proactive television
shows of all time--from All in the Family to NYPD Blue--pushed age-old
boundaries and offered the viewing public something different. The
history of free-flowing creativity and dialogue over our airwaves has
been dependent upon the principle of free expression without fear of
government retaliation.
However, the indecency fine increases passed by the House of
Representatives could significantly undermine this principle by
subjecting American citizens to financial ruin for expressing their
constitutionally protected rights. The House legislation increases the
fines that individual Americans would pay for broadcast decency
violations by almost 5,000 percent (from $11,000 to $500,000) and would
eliminate the existing warning requirement.
SAG members work primarily on scripted projects--we are hired to
perform a role. To be threatened with half a million dollars in fines
for doing our jobs is incomprehensible. Any actor on television could
become the target of citizens who disagree with the actor's religious
or political beliefs. Well-orchestrated campaigns urging FCC complaints
could become the norm if the extreme and disproportionate fine
increases for individuals become law.
Existing safeguards already protect the public's interest and
obviate the need for such extreme sanctions against individual
Americans. Live broadcasts are becoming increasingly rare, and our
employers utilize a seven-second delay in such instances. Additionally,
nearly every actor's series contract includes a morals clause
prohibiting unbecoming behavior on and off screen.
So if an actor appeared on the Today Show and unleashed a slew of
expletives that somehow made it past the network delay switch, such
conduct would likely result in getting fired from a hit TV series,
losing lucrative endorsement contracts, and jeopardizing future
employment. This is certainly not a risk that anyone I know is willing
to take.
In addition, other safeguards exist to protect children from
indecent content. These include the new TV ratings system that Jack
Valenti discussed, the cable industry's new family tier, channel
blocking technologies, the V-chip, and public service announcement
campaigns. This growing web of safeguards should be given an
opportunity to work before the Senate enacts an excessive fine regime
for individual Americans.
While the fines contained in the House bill are often referred to
as ``performer fines,'' they are not limited to high profile stars. In
actuality, they would apply to any American citizen who inadvertently
runs afoul of the ever-changing FCC standards. Your constituents--
whether they call in to a radio talk show, give a ``man on the street''
interview, or worse, are grief stricken family members at the scene of
a crime or a funeral--could be subject to financial ruin for exercising
their constitutionally protected right of free speech. Even if fines
were tempered by an individual's ability to pay, the legal fees
associated with defending a complex FCC forfeiture proceeding could
bankrupt many of your constituents.
Unlike broadcast licensees, individual citizens, including the
members I represent here today, are not aware of the FCC's vague and
changing indecency standards. Should they really be subject to half
million dollar fines without a warning?
My wife is an actress on the number one TV show, CSI. While there's
nothing ``indecent'' about the show, it's certainly not something young
children should watch, nor is it intended for them. Crime scenes and
autopsies are not the best choice for kids. But the fact that
provocative television shows like CSI are not appropriate for children
doesn't mean that they shouldn't be available for adults to watch. If
all of America's entertainment output were to be distilled to a level
that is appropriate for children, every movie and program would be
Rated G.
While some groups out there might cheer this outcome, it would
drastically limit the entertainment industry's ability to explore the
full depth and diversity of the human experience. If you allow the
content considerations of a single demographic (be it children or some
narrow segment of an adult special interest group) to dictate the
standards for what is appropriate for the entire Nation, you suppress
one of this country's greatest assets--the diversity and creativity of
the American people.
That's why the Senate should not only refrain from fining
individual citizens; it should also avoid revoking station licenses for
indecency violations. Increasing existing broadcaster fine levels, as
is proposed in Senator Brownback's bill and the House legislation, will
provide a sufficient deterrent to airing indecency. Threatening a
broadcaster's license (which are in some cases worth hundreds of
millions of dollars) will result in a total clampdown on all content,
even that which is not indecent.
The best programming on the airwaves--from local TV productions to
hit network shows enjoyed by tens of millions of viewers--could go by
the wayside due to the threat of censorship through a station's license
revocation. This would have a devastating effect on our Nation's
artistic, cultural, and economic fabric. Bland programming is safe, but
it is not necessarily good. We believe the American public deserves
remarkable, innovative programming. Not bland.
Mr. Chairman, this sort of national dialogue on the proper balance
between freedom of expression and protecting children is both healthy
and necessary in any democratic society, particularly one as rapidly
evolving as our own, whose entertainment and cultural output are so
widely exported around the world. Given the serious implications for
First Amendment freedom of speech posed by this debate, the Senate
should proceed in a narrowly tailored manner that neither discourages
protected speech nor disproportionately punishes individual American
citizens. The ``baby'' of free artistic expression on America's
airwaves is simply too important to be thrown out with the ``bath
water'' of indecency.
I applaud your leadership in this regard, and look forward to
working with you and Members of the Committee in striking the proper
balance.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak today.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Our last witness today is Jeff McIntyre, the Legislative
and Federal Affairs Officer of the Public Policy Office of the
American Psychological Association. Senator Rockefeller
mentioned your appearance. We are happy to have you here.
STATEMENT OF JEFF J. McINTYRE, LEGISLATIVE AND
FEDERAL AFFAIRS OFFICER, PUBLIC POLICY OFFICE,
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
Mr. McIntyre. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am honored to be
here today. I am honored to be here today on behalf of the
American Psychological Association. APA is the largest
organization representing psychology and has over 150,000
members and affiliates to advance psychology as a science, as a
profession, and as a means of health, education, and human
welfare.
My years of policy experience related to children and the
media include serving as a negotiator for the development of
the current television rating system, as an adviser to the
Federal Communications V-Chip Task Force, and as a current
member of the Oversight Monitoring Board for the television
rating system. I am also a co-chair of the Children's Media
Policy Coalition, a national coalition of public health, child
advocacy, and education groups, including the American Academy
of Pediatrics, Children Now, and the National PTA.
In the late 1990s, tragic acts of violence in our schools
directed our Nation's attention to the serious problem of youth
violence. School shootings in Paducah, Kentucky, Jonesboro,
Arkansas, Edinboro, Pennsylvania, Springfield, Oregon, and
Littleton, Colorado, brought about a national conversation on
the roots of youth violence and what we as parents, as
psychologists, and public policymakers could do to prevent more
incidents of youth violence.
Psychological research on violence prevention and child
development informs and continues to address this need. While
the foundation of acts of violence are complex and variable,
certain risk factors have been established in the psychological
literature. Among the factors that place youth at risk for
committing an act of violence are exposure to acts of violence,
including those in the media.
Foremost of the conclusions drawn on the basis of over 30
years of research contributed by American Psychological
Association members, as highlighted in the U.S. Surgeon
General's report in 1972, the National Institute of Mental
Health's report in 1982, and the 3-year National Television
Violence Study in the 1990s, shows that repeated exposure to
violence in the mass media places children at risk for
increases in aggression, desensitization to acts of violence,
and unrealistic increases in fear of becoming a victim of
violence, which results in the development of other negative
consequences and characteristics, such as a mistrust of others.
This research provided the foundation upon which
representatives of the Public Health Community, comprised of
the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of
Pediatrics, and the American Medical Association, issued a
consensus statement in the year 2000 regarding the state of the
science on the effects of media violence on children.
Certain psychological facts are well established in this
debate. As APA member Dr. Ronald Huesmann of the University of
Michigan stated before the Senate Commerce Committee here:
``Just as every cigarette you smoke increases the chances that
someday you will get cancer, every exposure to violence
increases the chances that someday a child will behave more
violently than he or she otherwise would.''
Now, hundreds of studies have confirmed that exposing our
children to a steady diet of violence in the media makes them
more violence-prone. The psychological processes here are not
mysterious. Children learn by observing others. Mass media and
advertising provide a very attractive window for these
observations.
Now, excellent pro-social programming for children, such as
``Sesame Street,'' and pro-social marketing such as that around
helmets for skateboarding, for instance, is to be commended and
supported. Psychological research shows that what is
responsible for the effectiveness of good children's
programming and pro-social marketing is that children learn
from their media environment.
Now, if children can learn positive behaviors via this
medium, they can learn harmful ones as well. Our experience
with the rating system merits some attention in this
discussion. There continues to be concern arising from the
ambiguity in the implementation of the current rating system.
The rating systems can be undermined by marketing efforts of
the very groups responsible for its implementation and
effectiveness, for instance marketing adult-rated programs to
children. This displays a significant lack of accountability
and should be considered when proposals for industry self-
regulation are discussed.
At the very least, the industry fails to actively promote
the rating system. I am hopeful that Mr. Valenti's suggestions
here may stem that somewhat.
Also undermined here are the interests of parents. As the
industry has shown a lack of accountability in the
implementation of the existing rating system, parents have
struggled to manage their family's media diet in the midst of
misleading and contradictory information. More information
regarding ratings and program content should be made available.
As with nutritional information, content labeling should be
available on the product and not hidden on websites or the
occasional public education pamphlet. Any move by the industry
to fix the current rating system by implementing a system with
less content-based information should be seriously questioned.
The Federal Trade Commission report on the marketing of
violence to children only heightens these concerns.
The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act enacted in
1998 established that parents have a right to protect their
children's privacy from unwanted solicitation of personal
information. I would argue that, based on the years of
psychological research in violence prevention and clinical
practice with children, parents also have the right to protect
their children from material that puts them at risk of harm.
With the considerations in place for children's privacy, the
precedent for protecting the safety and welfare of children in
a media environment is well established.
This is a la carte in reverse. A detailed content-based
rating system is a vital step toward giving parents the
information they need to make choices about their children's
media habits. Decades of psychological research bear witness to
the potential harmful effects for our children and our Nation
if these practices continue.
Chairman Stevens and Members of the Committee, thank you
for your time. Please regard me and the American Psychological
Association as a resource to the Committee in your
deliberations on this matter.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McIntyre follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeff J. McIntyre, Legislative and Federal Affairs
Officer, Public Policy Office, American Psychological Association
Good morning. I am Jeff McIntyre, and I am honored to be here today
to represent the American Psychological Association. The American
Psychological Association is the largest organization representing
psychology and has over 150,000 members and affiliates working to
advance psychology as a science, a profession, and as a means of
promoting health, education, and human welfare.
My years of policy experience related to children and the media
include serving as a negotiator for the development of a television
ratings system, as an advisor to the Federal Communications
Commission's V-chip Task Force, and as a current member of the
Oversight Monitoring Board for the television ratings system. I also
co-chair the Children's Media Policy Coalition, a national coalition of
public health, child advocacy, and education groups, including the
American Academy of Pediatrics, Children Now, and the National PTA.
In the late 1990s, tragic acts of violence in our schools directed
our Nation's attention to the serious problem of youth violence. School
shootings in Paducah, Kentucky; Jonesboro, Arkansas; Edinboro,
Pennsylvania; Springfield, Oregon; and Littleton, Colorado, brought
about a national conversation on the roots of youth violence and what
we--as parents, psychologists, and public policymakers--could do to
prevent more incidents of youth violence.
Psychological research on violence prevention and child development
informs, and continues to address, this need. While the foundations of
acts of violence are complex and variable, certain risk factors have
been established in the psychological literature. Among the factors
that place youth at risk for committing an act of violence are exposure
to acts of violence, including those in the media.
Foremost, the conclusions drawn on the basis of over 30 years of
research contributed by American Psychological Association members--as
highlighted in the U.S. Surgeon General's report in 1972, the National
Institute of Mental Health's report in 1982, and the three-year
National Television Violence Study in the 1990s--shows that repeated
exposure to violence in the mass media places children at risk for:
increases in aggression;
desensitization to acts of violence; and
unrealistic increases in fear of becoming a victim of
violence, which results in the development of other negative
characteristics, such as mistrust of others.
This research provided the foundation upon which representatives of
the public health community--comprised of the American Psychological
Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American
Medical Association--issued a consensus statement in 2000 regarding the
state-of-the-science on the effects of media violence on children.
Certain psychological facts are well established in this debate. As
APA member Dr. Rowell Huesmann of the University of Michigan stated
before the Senate Commerce Committee--just as every cigarette you smoke
increases the chances that, someday, you will get cancer, every
exposure to violence increases the chances that, some day, a child will
behave more violently than he or she otherwise would.
Hundreds of studies have confirmed that exposing our children to a
steady diet of violence in the media makes them more violence prone.
The psychological processes here are not mysterious. Children learn by
observing others. Mass media and the advertising world provide a very
attractive window for these observations.
Excellent children's pro-social programming (such as Sesame Street)
and pro-social marketing (such as that around helmets for
skateboarding) is to be commended and supported. Psychological research
shows that what is responsible for the effectiveness of good children's
programming and pro-social marketing is that children learn from their
media environment. If children can learn positive behaviors via this
medium, they can learn harmful ones as well.
Our experience with the ratings system merits attention in this
discussion. There continues to be concern arising from the ambiguity in
the implementation of the current ratings system. The ratings system
can be undermined by the marketing efforts of the very groups
responsible for its implementation and effectiveness (e.g., marketing
adult-rated programs to children). This displays a significant lack of
accountability and should be considered when proposals for industry
self-regulation are discussed. At the very least, the industry fails to
actively promote its rating system.
Also undermined here are the interests of parents. As the industry
has shown a lack of accountability in the implementation of the
existing ratings system, parents have struggled to manage their
family's media diet in the midst of misleading and contradictory
information. More information regarding ratings and program content
should be made available. As with nutritional information, content
labeling should be available on the product and not hidden on websites
or in the occasional public education pamphlet. Any move by the
industry to fix the current ratings system by implementing a system
with less content-based information should be seriously questioned. A
Federal Trade Commission report on ``The Marketing of Violence to
Children'' heightens these concerns.
The ``Children's On-Line Privacy Protection Act,'' enacted in 1998,
established that parents have a right to protect their children's
privacy from the unwanted solicitation of personal information. I would
argue that, based on the years of psychological research on violence
prevention and clinical practice with children, parents also have the
right to protect their children from material that puts them at risk of
harm. With the considerations in place for children's privacy, the
precedent for protecting the safety and welfare of children in a media
environment is well established.
This is `a la carte' in reverse. A detailed, content-based ratings
system is a vital step towards giving parents the information they need
to make choices about their children's media habits. Decades of
psychological research bear witness to the potential harmful effects
for our children and our Nation if these practices continue.
Chairman Stevens and Members of the Committee, thank you for your
time. Please regard me and the American Psychological Association as a
resource to the Committee in your deliberations on this important
matter.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Mr. McIntyre. As I
said, I viewed that V-Chip presentation of the industry last
night. You are on the advisory board. Are you satisfied with
that presentation that it is going to give additional tools to
the American family?
Mr. McIntyre. I am hopeful. As I look back over my notes
here for what the presentation was, with the exception of Mr.
Valenti's proposal that the ratings will be shown coming out of
commercial breaks, it was my understanding that most of this
stuff was supposed to be happening 10 years ago when the
ratings agreement was originally made.
The Chairman. It has been in the systems. It has been on
the television, but it has not been explained how to use it.
Last night I saw a detailed explanation of how to use it, how
effective it is. You say you are on the advisory board for that
group, for the V-Chip?
Mr. McIntyre. I am on the Oversight Monitoring Board, yes,
sir.
The Chairman. Monitoring board. Well, what do you think?
Have you seen the presentation they gave us last night?
Mr. McIntyre. We have not. The monitoring board meets
roughly about twice a year, and mostly to my experience, speaks
really only to addressing the individual promotional campaigns
of a given network. It really has not done much.
The Chairman. Jack, can we invite him down to look at that
this afternoon?
Mr. Valenti. Absolutely. I will escort him over there.
Mr. Franks. Senator Stevens, may I----
The Chairman. Let me finish if I may.
On the violence, we agree with you. But I am going to go to
the Caps game tonight and I have got a hockey puck son and
three hockey puck grandchildren, grandsons. They see violence
in sports. How does that affect the children?
Mr. McIntyre. It really depends on the individual child and
on the parents. I would probably guess that you are a pretty
good grandparent and your children are good parents. Your
children, your grandchildren are not necessarily having
problems with bullying or violence-prone necessarily. The way
the rating system should be set up is to be able to allow for
parents to make the decisions based on what their individual
children are going through. So if I have a child and he is
prone to bullying, then I would have some second thoughts about
taking him into environments where violence may be a part of
that regularly.
The Chairman. Well, one of the things they see is a person
who goes too far put in the penalty box, does he not?
Mr. McIntyre. According to the NHL, I think that is the
rule, yes, sir.
The Chairman. My grandsons get there quite often, I think.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Mr. Rosenberg, has anything been done in the
industry to discourage actors from putting indecency out in
terms of programs that are related to children?
Mr. Rosenberg. Well, in all of our contracts, if we
contract to do a series, there is a morals clause.
The Chairman. Well, in ``Harry Potter'' they have all
things that scare people, but they do not really show real
violence. Right?
Mr. Rosenberg. Right.
The Chairman. Now, is there some industry approach--do
actors question the impact of what they are doing on children?
Mr. Rosenberg. You know, I have not done much children's
programming. Actors question what they are doing all the time.
If something is offensive to me, I do not hesitate to question.
I mean, we all have that right.
But we are also hired hands. We do not write the shows and
we do not broadcast them. Actors, I suppose if you are given a
script that has something that might be objectionable, either
if it is violent or if there is scatological language, I guess
your job is on the line when you decide whether to say the
words that are in that script or not, or do the actions that
are in that script or not. It is up to the individual actor, I
suppose.
But we do have morals clauses in our contracts which
prevent us from engaging in indecent behavior.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Reese, we have been wrestling with the problem, it
comes from the fact that past Supreme Court decisions appear to
give us greater power in terms of over-the-air broadcasters
than those who use satellite or cable. Now, you make the point,
and I have made it too, that at the time those decisions were
made about 10 to 12 percent of the people got their programming
over cable. Now satellite and cable is above 80 percent. Even
most of the programs that the broadcasters provide are carried
through the cable system under our must-carry concept, which
currently is under challenge.
Now, what do you tell parents about the role of
broadcasters in this argument right now? There is a dichotomy
here that a program coming over over-the-air broadcasting, if
received through a system that was through cable, would not be
subject to regulation, but if it was out there and received in
rural America where there is no cable, it would be subject to
this regulation.
Now, what does industry think about this situation right
now?
Mr. Reese. Well, I felt I had a good source when I quoted
you, Senator, from your November 29th comments.
The Chairman. That pleased me, but I am not sure it pleased
my colleagues up here at all.
Mr. Reese. The underpinning of the Pacifica discussion
seems to not really be valid any more. Any sort of
pervasiveness argument that could have been made in the 1970s
about broadcasting vis a vis cable at that time and at least,
at best a fledgling satellite industry, just does not work any
more. Americans do not make a distinction about where the
product comes from.
The broadcaster who does something that is deemed indecent
under the less than perfect regulatory system we have now is
the one that is subject to the fine because it went out over
the air, even if only 10 percent of the audience happened to
see it through an antenna in their home.
The Chairman. My last is just a comment to you, all of you.
Staff has pointed this out. We had a discussion in my family
this weekend about the TV Guide and the programming that is
shown on the screen on the television, whether it is cable or
satellite or over-the-air. The presentations of programming
that are available do not show ratings. I am informed now even
as far as the movies the newspapers are not showing ratings.
I think that is missing here somehow. When the public looks
at a presentation of what they can look at, why should they not
see the ratings? Why should not the ratings be available
through these programs that come, like TV Guide? Children look
at those and the parents look at those. Why should they not
find out how those programs are rated? Mr. Franks?
Mr. Franks. Well, two things, Senator. One, Jack can
recount these stories better than I, but we have worked for
years to try and persuade--the ratings are made available to
the newspapers and to all the media several weeks in advance
before the program airs. A very few newspapers or other listing
services actually carry the ratings for their own economic
reasons, having to do with their own space limitations.
I would commend USA Today, for example. If you look at that
back page where they have what is on tonight, it has extensive
V-Chip rating information.
The Chairman. They are the one exception, yes.
Mr. Franks. As for ourselves, in our own promotions, if we
are promoting a show that is on tonight or on tomorrow night,
we put the rating into the promotion.
The Chairman. Well, I think that is something we ought to
look at. The newspapers certainly are critical of what is going
on and yet they are not helping at all to provide the solutions
for the American family.
Mr. Franks. The same thought has occurred to us, Senator.
May I just refer to one thing Mr. McIntyre raised? He has
actually been a very constructive force in this debate and so I
do not want to suggest that I am criticizing him in any way.
But one of the things he was arguing for is a more detailed
rating system to give parents more information, and that is not
a bad idea. But one of the things that we also discussed at
some length on the 29th of November is that the current rating
system is too complex. I think part of what we have tried to do
is to strike a balance between giving parents as much
information as we can get to them without overwhelming them or
it being so complex that they do not understand it or cannot
figure it out. It is a difficult balance to strike and it just
goes to the struggle we are having to try and get this right.
It is not easy.
The Chairman. Mr. McIntyre, we do not have a lot of time,
but you ought to have a right to answer that.
Mr. McIntyre. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that.
We hear this a lot and we have struggled with the rating
system being too complicated. In a world where families program
their TiVos, where they now download videos on their cell
phones, where individuals are fluent on their Blackberries
probably even as we speak, we are told that S, V, and L as
attached to the rating system is too complicated. We do not buy
that.
We understand that it is more complicated than 1, 2, 3, but
we think with the proper promotion and the proper advertising,
with the help of the newspapers, as you mentioned, that it can
be easily digestible and usable by the majority of the American
public.
The Chairman. Well, I hope you do go with Mr. Valenti and
see this. I was surprised at the detail that is there. I was
also surprised that if you really are a parent and you block
out all rating--unrated programs, what you really block out.
You block out emergency notices, you block out sports. You
block out a lot of things, which puts a lot more burden on the
parent to go back and say--but you have the tools--you can
watch this news program, you can watch that sports program. But
it is a more difficult thing to do because there are so many
programs that are not rated.
But I would urge you to go take a look at it.
Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. I thank you.
Mr. Valenti opened his statement by citing a poll. The
first question was: Do you believe that the programming on
television is getting a bit too violent and indecent? I believe
he cited that over 70 percent of the parents said yes. Question
two: Should the government do something about that? Over 70
percent said no.
I have been listening to your testimony very carefully. Mr.
Bozell speaks of raising the fine and Mr. Rosenberg I believe
cited Mr. Brownback, who calls for raising the fine also. But
for the rest of you, you seem to be expressing the views of the
70 percent in saying that Congress should not legislatively
take action at this moment. Am I correct? Mr. Reese.
Mr. Reese. Senator, I think that, as Mr. Bozell said, we
have a system now. We have an indecency regime, as imperfect as
it may be. We now have a voluntary effort which Mr. Valenti has
headed up, which we believe has a strong potential to give
parents--not just tell them that a system exists, but explain
to them how to use it, which may for the first time, by the
way, give parents the ability to program things. Normally I
have to ask my 4-year-old granddaughter to do my programming
for me on anything electric at my house.
But we hope that we will not only tell them it is there,
but show them how to use it and make it an effective tool.
Before we expand fines and before we add some of the other
extreme measures, including license revocation hearings, we
would urge the Committee to give this system a chance, to see
what impact we can have in terms of giving parents additional
tools.
Senator Inouye. Mr. Franks.
Mr. Franks. Senator Inouye, I just do not think a fines
bill is going to help parents very much. We are talking about
such a very small subset of programming that would ever be
subject to a fine. I think parents in their everyday lives,
they are trying to struggle with what is going to be on
tonight. MASH might be inappropriate in a number of households,
given its dealings with the realities of war. No one ever
suggested that MASH was indecent, but there are many parents
who might want to shield their children from that kind of
programming. A fines bill I do not think is going to help with
that, whereas if we can educate parents that they already have
blocking technology they can use I think that will help them
enormously.
Mr. Rosenberg. I would just like to make it clear that I
spoke very much against increasing fines on individuals. Mr.
Brownback's bill deals with raising fines on broadcasters and
licensees. But very much opposed to fining individual American
citizens.
Mr. Bozell. Senator, may I say something, because I think a
point needs to be clarified here?
The Chairman. Sure.
Mr. Bozell. I do not know where Mr. Valenti's poll came
from. I think everyone here would agree that the Pew Research
Center is one of the most reputable research organizations in
America today. In my written remarks to you I have got these
numbers. According to the Pew Research Center, 75 percent of
the American public is demanding tighter enforcement of
government rules on broadcast content, particularly when
children are most likely to be watching. According to the same
poll, 69 percent of the American public also are demanding
higher fines for media companies that violate the law.
When cable choice is concerned, the numbers are no
different. According to a Wirthlin Poll for Concerned Women for
America, two out of three subscribers, cable subscribers, say
they want cable choice. That is the polling data that I am
looking at. That is not my poll; that is the Pew Research
Center and the Wirthlin Poll.
Thank you.
Senator Inouye. Any thoughts on what constitutes indecency?
I am a lawyer, but I am confused.
Mr. Rosenberg. Who was it who said: I will know it when I
see it? It is a difficult, it is a difficult thing to define.
As Mr. Valenti pointed out, the Supreme Court has not really
been able to do it. I agree with him, a 1.5 seconds exposure to
a naked breast is not indecent in my eyes.
Senator Inouye. When Ms. Jackson deliberately or
accidentally exposed herself, that was considered gross
indecency and there was an outcry. But watching some of the
shows on television, for example the Golden Globe awards, I
would suggest that some of the dresses that I saw on the screen
were much more suggestive than what Ms. Jackson showed us.
Mr. Rosenberg. I would agree if you consider that indecent.
I enjoyed watching the Golden Globe awards.
But I want to ask, would we put clothing on Michelangelo's
David, or clothe some of the fabulous nudes painted by
Michelangelo? When you bring a child to a museum is it
necessary to put a sign up before you walk into the room where
the Modigliani nudes are? Is it necessary to warn them before
they walk into that room?
You know, I walk into those museums with my son and I watch
television with my son and I talk about everything with him. I
think it has been stated many times today, that is the best
monitoring we can do, is to continue talking to our children.
Senator Inouye. So, what is the general consensus? We want
laws or we do not want laws?
Mr. Bozell. My consensus is we have laws. The laws are
there. I do not think we need new laws. I think we need to
enforce existing laws. I think that you need to make--
understand, we need to define the difference between offensive
and really offensive. There is plenty on television that any
one of us in this room today might consider to be offensive,
but it does not rise to the level of a complaint with the FCC.
That is not what we are talking about.
But when something does rise to that and when someone has
broken community standards by doing something, like a Superbowl
striptease, that shocked tens of millions of people around the
country, then there should be the requisite fines. Now, I would
say only if it is an egregious violation and a willful
violation.
Senator Inouye. My television just has basic. The programs
you cited, are they pay for view, or what are they?
Mr. Bozell. No, I was talking about cable. I was talking
about basic expanded cable television when you order cable. The
networks were FX and the shows were ``The Shield,'' ``Nip/
Tuck,'' and ``South Park'' on Viacom.
The Chairman. But the Brownback bill does not cover them.
Mr. Bozell. I am sorry?
The Chairman. That bill, the Brownback bill on increasing
fines, does not cover those programs.
Mr. Bozell. No. I think there are two very different----
The Chairman. So, your statement that there is an existing
law that has not been enforced, it only applies to
broadcasting.
Mr. Bozell. Exactly. That is what we have been saying. We
are saying where cable is concerned you ought to go the cable
choice route because there is not oversight.
Mr. Reese. Mr. Inouye, just in quick response to your
question and with respect to Mr. Bozell's long work on this and
his passion in it. I am not sure that the FCC knows what the
difference between egregious and really egregious is, and that
standard moves and that standard moves regularly. Those who are
subject to the indecency regime now really honestly do not know
where that line is. Many broadcasters made the decision in good
faith not to run ``Saving Private Ryan'' because of concerns
about fines. Afterwards when the issue was finally resolved by
the FCC, the FCC said, no, you would not have gotten fined had
you run that show. But the FCC is not in the business of pre-
censoring every program that might come up for airing on
broadcast television.
Senator Inouye. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Pryor.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I may, Mr. Bozell. I know that the Parents Television
Council evaluates various programming that is on TV and I
notice that on your list, maybe at the top of the list, is a TV
show, I believe it is aired on FOX, called ``War At Home.'' Are
you familiar with that, ``War At Home''?
Mr. Bozell. I am very, very slightly familiar with that
show, not enough to comment on it.
Senator Pryor. Well, it does concern me that you rate it as
the worst or one of the worst. But it also--in order to get a
second opinion, it concerns me that other people who looked at
it come out with the same type of conclusion. In fact, the
Washington Post said ``War At Home is unconscionably smutty.
Its vulgarity has no integrity. All the characters are vile in
spirit and objectionable in essence.''
So, here we have a second opinion that confirms your view
of that. The thing that troubles me about it is apparently--I
have never seen it, but apparently FOX airs it Sunday at 8:30
Eastern, which means 7:30 Central. So, on all the broadcast
stations that are in the Central Time Zone, like Arkansas, all
of our broadcast stations are, I assume the FOX affiliates are
airing it at 7:30. Given this type of critique, I think you can
understand why a parent of two young children would be very
concerned that my kids, who would still be up at 7:30,
generally are not watching TV at that time, but could be, might
be exposed to something like that.
So, I think that we really need to come to terms with this.
I really appreciate cable doing their best to come out with a
family tier. I think that is a positive step. I would like to
talk to them directly more about that and some of the
intricacies of it.
But I do think that broadcast has a lot of responsibility
here. So, if I may, Mr. Franks, I would like to visit with you
about CBS. I know that ``War At Home'' is not on CBS, so you
are in the clear on that particular show. But I will say this.
I have a 12-year-old and a 10-year-old at home and my 12-year-
old particularly loves to watch football, and of course CBS
carries NFL football.
I must tell you that when we watch the NFL on CBS, my wife
and I, it is our policy we do not let him watch it alone. We
sit there with the remote control, so as soon as the
commercials come on we can change the channel. I do not think
that is healthy. I do not think that families should have to do
that and have to be nervous wrecks to sit down and watch a
football game on Sunday afternoon.
The thing about that--and I would like to get your comments
on this--but the thing about that is that the advertising on
there oftentimes I feel is inappropriate for 12-year-olds. I do
not know what your market analysis shows, but I know that NFL
has a lot of young viewers. Again, I do not know the breakdown,
but I know there are a lot of young viewers there. I know it is
a challenge for you to try to have advertising for programming
that has that side of an audience. I understand that.
But is there not something you can do about the
advertising?
Mr. Franks. Well, Senator, I would be happy to engage in
this discussion today or another time to discuss specific
commercials. We review every commercial and we make a decision
as to whether or not it is appropriate for our air at all or
whether it is appropriate for a particular time period or the
NFL.
The NFL games, the rights fees are extremely expensive, so
keeping them on free television--I mean, ``Monday Night
Football'' is going off of free television. Keeping them on is
a challenge. The audience is overwhelmingly adult male. But
even then, we still--we reject ads all the time for people that
want to run them on the NFL. R-rated movies we frequently
reject. A whole variety of other product categories we do not
even put into the NFL.
So I am easy to reach. The next time you see--in the AFC
Championship game this weekend, if you see ads that you find
objectionable, it would be enormously helpful to know which
ones they are.
Senator Pryor. Well, that would be helpful, and we will
continue that dialogue. But I must say it is not just the paid
advertising; it is the promotions for your own programming.
Mr. Franks. Again, we have very experienced standards
people, whom many people in Alan's part of the business think
are prudes, antediluvian. And they screen all the promos before
they reach our air. They screen all the commercials. So, you
may disagree with our judgments and obviously you do, but we
are not just letting them go on willy nilly without anyone ever
having looked at them, and judgments are made. You may disagree
with our judgments. It sounds as if you do. That is a dialog we
are happy to have with you. I take complaint calls from our
audience. I am pretty easy to find. It is a discussion we are
happy to have.
Senator Pryor. Well, I do not doubt that the audience for
NFL--I am not just picking on you, because FOX does it and ABC
and everybody else. I am not just picking on you. ESPN. I am
not just picking on you, but I do believe that your audience
for professional football is probably predominantly adult male,
but I think there is a healthy percentage of children that are
watching that programming as well.
The last thing I would say if I may, Mr. Chairman, I would
just like to get all of your thoughts--I am going to switch
media here with you just for a second. But we all know that
there is a certain shock jock who has gone from broadcast radio
to satellite radio in the last few weeks. One reason he has
gone to satellite radio is because I guess they do not have any
regulation or it is a very different regulation regime.
In terms of television, should we have the same regulatory
regime for satellite as for cable as for broadcast, or are we
just living in a world where we are going to have to
differentiate? I will just throw that out to the panel.
Mr. Reese. Senator Pryor, the broadcasters' position is, as
we said earlier, we think the same regime ought to apply, but
it would, we believe, probably take the action of Congress to
do that.
Mr. Bozell. I believe there is a fundamental distinction
between cable and satellite. If you are a subscriber to cable
and you do not like a certain program, you cannot block it out
without losing cable. You cannot decide not to pay for it
without losing the ability to watch cable. If you are a
subscriber to satellite radio and do not like the Howard Stern
Show and do not want to pay for satellite radio, you can get
free radio. You can get an alternative to the satellite, which
you do not get for cable. So, I think there is a fundamental
distinction.
That said, I think that this is going to be looked at and
many other things are going to be looked at, and the chairman
of the FCC has already signaled that he is going to be looking
at this.
The Chairman. Well, thank you all very much. We are going
to close this hearing now. We have another hearing this
afternoon on Protecting Children on the Internet, which will
take place at 2:30 this afternoon. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Lanier Swann, Director, Government Relations,
Concerned Women for America
Concerned Women for America (CWA) represents over 500,000 active
citizens and voters around the United States. Our constituents, as well
as many other families throughout our Nation, are frustrated and
disgusted by the ever-worsening indecent content on television. On
behalf of so many concerned Americans, CWA is calling on Congress to
help stem the tide of the remarkably indecent content flooding our
airwaves.
Our approach to protecting consumers from the vast amount of
questionable material on television is two-pronged. The first and most
immediate aspect of the solution is to reach final passage of
legislation that delivers stronger penalties to those who violate
current Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations. Stronger
penalties will force broadcasters to face the consequences of violating
FCC policies. Current fines, like those doled out to the masterminds
behind Janet Jackson's infamous wardrobe malfunction, were just a drop
in the bucket for network magnates. Our hope is that in stiffening the
fines, broadcasters will think twice before producing, promoting and
airing blatantly offensive material. This goal is not beyond our reach;
in fact, it sits waiting for action by the United States Senate.
The House of Representatives easily passed Congressman Fred Upton's
Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 (H.R. 310). In fact, only 38
Members voted in opposition in February of 2005. This comprehensive
bill strengthens the FCC's ability to fine violators and would set
fines as high as $500,000. That's a significant increase from the
current maximum fine of just $32,500 per violation. To the great dismay
of CWA and concerned American families, a bill that so easily passed
the House has been held up in the Senate for nearly a year.
The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is
also holding up a similar bill sponsored by a Senate colleague. Despite
holding two open ``Forums on Decency,'' Committee Chairman Senator Ted
Stevens has offered only brief comments on the Broadcast Decency
Enforcement Act (S. 193), which was proposed by Senator Sam Brownback
in January 2005, CWA believes that Americans both expect and deserve
action on both bills.
While we support the efforts of Senators like Mr. Brownback who
have worked to bring their voices into the indecency debate, CWA urges
immediate passage in the Senate of Congressman Upton's legislation.
H.R. 310 will provide a key step in the effort to give families more
options to keep highly offensive television content out of their living
rooms.
Stiffer fines are not the only solution to indecent television
content. Cable is a second area where corporate irresponsibility has
gone unchallenged for too long. The key to meeting that challenge is
cable choice. Consumers should be given a choice of what they want to
buy so they are no longer forced to subsidize indecent programming. For
this reason, CWA strongly supports the introduction of an a la carte
pricing option, or cable choice, within Americans' cable subscriptions.
Cable choice would allow consumers to choose the channels they want in
their cable packages. Families would have to pay only for the channels
they select themselves.
In every part of this country, the cable companies have a virtual
lock on our home televisions. The current franchising rules allow one
cable company to control nearly every local market in the country
without any alternatives. Because of these agreements and outmoded
laws, cable television offers only a ``take it or leave it''
proposition. Either you subsidize every channel included in the offered
package, or you simply choose not to have cable at all. With this kind
of power lorded over our television viewing, cable companies have no
need to be responsive to consumers. We pay, they profit. No questions
asked.
What irks most consumers, particularly families, is that cable
subscribers have no choice in the channels funneled into their homes.
Whether the channels they choose not to watch are offensive,
objectionable, or simply uninteresting, there is little consumers can
do to avoid it coming through our living-room television set. While
some parental controls may aid in protecting young eyes from
questionable content, the channel is still part of the cable package
for which we pay each and every month. In other words, no matter how
out of touch you may feel a specific cable channel is with your
family's values, you are still forced to subsidize the channel and the
cable moguls who produce the programming. In a country where we are not
asked to pay for food we don't want to eat, clothes we don't want to
wear, and books we don't care to read, why is it that cable subscribers
are still forced to pay for channels we don't want to watch?
While cable choice seems to make the most sense in light of our
free market economy, cable moguls have continued to ignore the call of
their consumers to offer a la carte pricing. Even the endorsement of
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Kevin Martin seems to
have fallen on deaf ears. In an open forum on decency sponsored by the
Commerce Committee in November 2005, Chairman Martin noted that
indecency complaints at the FCC have greatly increased. He urged cable
companies to adopt methods to allow consumers to avoid seeing such
offensive material. At the conclusion of the second hearing, cable
providers announced that they would offer family-friendly tiers to meet
the concerns of consumers, Senators and the FCC. Sadly, the so-called
``family-friendly'' cable option is not the answer. It may be a step
forward, but it is not the solution to putting a stop to the cultural
pollution permeating our airwaves.
Any typical channel-surfer can easily determine that cable
programmers are perhaps the most unfit entity to be tasked with the job
of defining ``family-friendly.'' Given the skyrocketing consumer
complaints of a tidal wave of indecent television programming, cable
companies have not proven themselves adequate judges of appropriate
content.
In fact, there are multiple channels currently included in cable
lineups deemed ``family friendly'' by television executives. However,
upon closer inspection, viewers will find a great deal of the
programming contains subject matter promoting pre-marital sex,
cohabitation, vulgarity and infidelity, topics many parents would
consider inappropriate for family viewing. Cable choice is a far better
alternative because it allows families to choose their own programming,
not the cable moguls.
We are not alone in our support of a la carte pricing. In 2005 CWA
was joined by 38 family-friendly organizations in sending letters to
Capitol Hill calling for a la carte pricing. Ads were run in The
Washington Times featuring our coalition as well.
In 2004, CWA commissioned a Wirthlin Poll to investigate what
American consumers thought about their current cable choices. The poll
found that 80 percent of the American people disagree with the way that
the cable tier-pricing system currently functions; 66 percent said that
they would rather choose their channels for themselves. In addition,
when asked, ``Would you be more or less likely to subscribe to cable
television if you were able to choose the programming to be included in
your basic cable package?'' Sixty-six percent replied that they would
be more likely to subscribe to cable, and 39 percent said that they
would be much more likely to subscribe.
Those polled were also asked, ``When cable customers have no
control over which channels are included in their basic cable package,
the cable providers should voluntarily enforce decency standards in
that basic package, which would screen out sexually explicit or
graphically violent material.'' Seventy-three percent of respondents
said that they agreed.
Cable choice is a viable, widely supported option that is a good
answer to a problem that so-called ``family-friendly'' tiers will not
solve. Consumers are demanding aggressive results to fight an ever-
worsening problem of indecency on television. American families need
and deserve the best: final passage of the Broadcast Decency
Enforcement Act, the option of cable choice, and strongly enforced
standards for cable companies who have demonstrated little reservation
in their marketing of highly offensive content are needed now.
CWA urges the Committee to take immediate and effective action to
finally solve this broadcast and cable crisis. America's parents need
your help. Please do not ignore them any longer.
______
Sky Angel
Naples, FL, December 5, 2005
Hon. Ted Stevens,
Chairman,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Re: National family-friendly television package
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for addressing the issue of media and parental
responsibility during the November 29th forum on ``Decency in the
Media.'' As the only cable or satellite operator in the Nation to
provide a family-friendly programming package, we watched with great
interest the testimony of many esteemed leaders in the television
industry and would like to submit these comments for the record.
Dominion Video Satellite, Inc., d.b.a. ``Sky Angel,'' is one of the
Nation's only three direct broadcast satellite (``DBS'') licensees,
along with DISH Network and DIRECTV. Dominion was among the first nine
companies to apply to the Federal Communications Commission for a high-
power DBS license in 1981, today it is the sole surviving DBS pioneer
from that first round and currently delivers 36 television and radio
channels to the Continental United States and various United States
territories through a small 20-inch satellite dish.
Sky Angel is the only national multi-channel operator to answer the
call for a family-friendly programming service. Recently, we met with
many leaders of the Congress, as well as of the Federal Communications
Commission, regarding the recent launch of our new family-friendly
national television service. The channels Sky Angel carries were
selected based on a national survey of our subscribers who indicated
the channels they believe are the most ``family friendly.'' Sky Angel
has always been a leader in family television and is the only satellite
operator to create its own educational children's television channel,
KTV-Kids and Teens Television. As it proceeds with various
telecommunications bills in the upcoming year, we believe that the
Committee would benefit from knowing Sky Angel's experience as a multi-
channel family program provider.
First, regarding the ratings system and the ``V-chip.'' Sky Angel
has learned directly from parents that the way in which the television
industry presently uses the ratings system is not working successfully.
For example, Sky Angel has a joint technical venture with EchoStar.
d.b.a. ``DISH Network,'' by which Sky Angel utilizes DISH-brand
receiving equipment for its subscribers to view programming. DISH
Network includes very good parental blocking features in its receiving
equipment; however, DISH Network does not use the ``television ratings
system'' but instead uses the Motion Picture Association of America
(``MPAA'') ratings system on its electronic programming guide (this is
the descriptive screen that comes up on the television screen when a
viewer pushes the ``information'' button on the remote control to learn
more about the program). Many times the ``television rating'' that is
imprinted on the screen by the network (i.e., the ``G'' or ``PG'' on
the top left hand corner of the television screen) does not match the
MPAA ratings that DISH Network shows on the electronic programming
guide. Therefore. parents see a ``G'' rating on the TV screen (the
correct rating for a movie edited for television) but may see an ``R''
rating on the electronic programming guide (the original rating when
the movie was in the theater). This obviously causes confusion and
renders the parental blocking tools ineffective. We understand from a
national supplier of television program guides to cable and satellite
companies that, while most multi-channel operators do not use the MPAA
ratings, there may be others in addition to DISH Network who use the
MPAA ratings; therefore, we respectfully suggest that the ratings, on
the television screen and on the electronic program guide, be
standardized for all multi-channel providers. Thus, parents would see
ratings for the program and the electronic programming guide that are
consistent.
Additionally, we suggest that Congress and the television industry
agree to adopt a standardized ratings scale that would include greater
descriptive content information. For example, a program that is ``G-
rated'' to one network may be ``PG-14'' to another network because the
rating selections are based on each network's judgment of a program;
the widespread use of content specific ratings that tell exactly what
is in the program (versus just a general rating) would be more helpful
to parents. Also, as Parents Television Council President Brent Bozell
pointed out during the hearings, it has been our experience as well
that many times the programs are not rated at all because there is no
requirement for the networks to rate the programs. Therefore, there is
no uniformity in this ``self-regulatory'' system; we believe a
government requirement for ratings may resolve the problem.
Sky Angel is not suggesting that the above changes in ratings are
the final answer to the present problems with television. We believe
the television industry has to take responsibility for the programs on
the air, and if they will not accept that responsibility, the
government needs to step in and broaden the indecency regulations. Sky
Angel believes that children have a constitutional right to stay as
innocent as long as possible, and we and other holders of public
licenses have a responsibility to help parents protect children from
inappropriate content. Sky Angel agrees with some in the media industry
that there is no longer a distinction between cable and broadcast
channels since 88 percent of the American public gets their television
programming from either cable or satellite. While some think that cable
channels should not be regulated for decency because they are not
freely available like broadcast stations, Sky Angel believes that there
is no longer a real distinction between the services since the majority
of Americans now receive their television programming through paid
program providers holding franchises and/or public licenses. Therefore,
these program providers should be held accountable to the issuing
government for how they use their authorizations. Sky Angel believes
that the indecency restrictions should equally apply to cable channels
as well as broadcast channels.
Regarding Sky Angel's experience in putting together a family-
friendly tier of programming, Sky Angel has found there is a desire
among consumers for family-friendly programming packages in addition to
the normal programming packages already in existence. We have had good
support from the programming industry in allowing Sky Angel to pick and
choose those program services that would be appropriate for a family-
friendly tier. None of the programmers so far has forced Sky Angel to
purchase program services that are inappropriate for family viewing in
order to acquire those program services that are appropriate. But, we
agree with EchoStar's Senior Vice President and General Legal Counsel
David Moskowitz that it would be beneficial for multi-channels systems
to have the legal freedom to select program services without fear that
a programmer may require the purchase of one service in order to have
access to another service.
We respectfully offer our personal insight into our experience in
providing family-friendly programming to America and are available to
provide additional information that you believe could be beneficial to
you. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Johnson,
Vice President, Programming.
______
Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, Free Press
January 18, 2006
Hon. Ted Stevens,
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
Co-Chairmen,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Co-Chairs Stevens and Inouye:
Thank you for your leadership in tackling the important issue of
consumer control over television programming.
As the Committee considers how to ensure consumers are able to
protect their families from television content they find objectionable,
we urge you to reject voluntary industry proposals that fail to offer
consumers adequate control through new ``family choice tiers.''
Further, we urge you to carefully scrutinize whether the companies are
designing and promoting the ``family choice'' tiers in good faith to
ensure they have a chance to succeed in the marketplace. Absent
commitments to offer meaningful family choice, the Committee should
pursue legislative solutions. And finally, we urge the Committee to
address the unfair contractual restrictions imposed by video
programmers that prevent existing cable distributors and new video
market entrants from offering ``a la carte'' programming that would
actually lower consumers' monthly cable bills according to recent
analysis announced by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin
Martin at the Committee's November 29, 2005 open forum on indecency.
Announcements of new ``family choice'' tiers by some of the largest
cable distributors is a good first step toward greater consumer choice
if only because it demonstrates that the cable industry can do what,
for years, it claimed it could not--offer consumers smaller,
specialized bundles in lieu of the costly expanded basic tier.
Unfortunately, because cable distributors, in tandem with powerful
broadcast programmers, have decided which channels will be included,
the tier offers consumers very little choice. The programming line-up
of family choice tiers unveiled to date offer only limited channels and
may discourage families who want greater control from subscribing to
the tier because it lacks other general interest programming they may
desire. Subscribers who want programming choices beyond those offered
in the basic cable package, but who do not wish to pay for programming
they find objectionable are left with the Hobson's Choice of the
limited ``family choice'' tier or no popular cable programming
whatsoever.
In order for family-targeted tiers to offer a meaningful consumer
choice and to serve as a viable solution to objectionable programming,
cable distributors must allow subscribers to choose the channels they
subscribe to and pay for from the expanded basic line-up. We urge the
Committee to seek commitments from cable distributors to offer families
that choice and commitments from cable programmers not to block efforts
by distributors to do so. In lieu of those commitments, we urge the
Committee to seek legislative solutions which ensure that subscribers,
not cable companies, select the programming they view as appropriate
for their families based on their unique values and preferences.
In addition, we urge the Committee to address the contractual
restrictions that dominant video programming companies impose on cable
distributors. As you know, both EchoStar and Cablevision Systems have
publicly supported policies allowing subscribers to choose the channels
they will pay for. In addition, new video market entrant AT&T has
likewise supported the option. Each of these distributors, however, is
or will be precluded from offering channels individually by their
contractual agreements with content providers. Smaller, independent
cable distributors, too, have long objected to these contractual
restrictions as they seek greater ability to respond to local community
needs.
Prohibiting contractual restrictions that prevent distributors from
offering subscribers the option to buy channels individually would
facilitate a marketplace response to consumer demand for greater choice
in channel selection. At least in the limited markets where video
competition exists, new competitors offering cable ``a la carte'' may
enjoy a marketplace advantage, driving other distributors to respond
with new choices and more diverse programming, and lower prices. And,
in addition to other policy options to increase diversity of content
offered on cable systems, eliminating the ability of dominant
programmers to dictate all-or-nothing bundles of channels opens the
door to independent, unaffiliated programmers seeking to offer
television channels that respond to and reflect diverse interests and
needs not met by the media giants.
Recent statements by FCC Chairman Martin have debunked the much-
promoted and counter intuitive myth that cable a la carte will not
benefit consumers. And the recent concession by the cable industry to
offer family choice tiers likewise contradicts prior claims that
smaller programming tiers are not economically viable. There remains no
viable reason that cable distributors and programmers should be allowed
to force the ``all-or-nothing'' expanded basic package upon consumers
who merely want the ability to pay for those offerings they want--an
option they have in every other market.
Cable providers, working hand-in-hand with the dominant broadcast
network programmers, should not be allowed to use their absolute
control over television packaging to stifle video competition and
impede the marketplace from responding to overwhelming consumer demand
for cable channel choice. We urge the Committee to ensure that they
cannot.
Sincerely,
Jeannine Kenney,
Consumers Union.
Mark Cooper,
Consumer Federation of America.
Ben Scott,
Free Press.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to
Bruce T. Reese
Question. Although it's important to find ways to block indecent
programming that is already on TV or fine licensees when it's on radio,
I think we should also examine causes for the indecency. A recent study
found that from 2000 to 2003, four of the nation's largest radio
companies were responsible for 96 percent of FCC indecency fines, even
though their stations only accounted for about half of the country's
listening audience. Shouldn't media consolidation be part of our
examination of indecency?
Answer. Media ownership issues are not related to the indecency
debate. As an initial matter, NAB notes that the study referred to in
the question, purporting to link media ownership and indecency, admits
that it does ``not prove a causal link between ownership concentration
and broadcast indecency.'' \1\ Moreover, this Study contains many
serious flaws and inherent contradictions. As just one example, the
fact that the Study is based entirely on the number of fines proposed
by the FCC in ``Notices of Apparent Liability'' (``NALs'') against
radio broadcasters between 2000 and 2003 creates a number of problems.
See Study at 12-13. First, as the Study itself recognizes, NALs are
issued prior to any FCC final judgment that indecent material was
actually broadcast. For this reason, the authors assert that radio
stations should not take any action against their on-air employees on
the basis of a Commission NAL because that ``is analogous to imposing
punishment on an accused criminal on the basis of a prosecutor's
indictment.'' Study at 7. Nonetheless, the authors use NALs as the
basis for their unfounded allegations against radio broadcasters. \2\
The Committee should not rely upon such blatantly contradictory
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ J. Rintels and P. Napoli, Ownership Concentration and Indecency
in Broadcasting: Is There a Link? at 5 (Sept. 2005) (``Study'').
\2\ It is worth noting that the Communications Act prevents the FCC
from using the mere issuance of a NAL to the ``prejudice of the person
to whom such notice was issued,'' until the proposed fine has either
been paid or a court has ordered payment of the fine and that order has
become final. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 504(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee should also recognize that the reason the Study gives
for looking only at a highly limited data set directly contradicts the
assumed link between ownership concentration and indecency. The authors
selected 2003 as its ``end point'' for the Study because ``events''
after that date ``caused `indecency' on radio to come to a screeching
halt.'' Study at 12. Unless the ``events'' were a significant change in
ownership patterns (which did not happen), logic would suggest the
opposite of the author's conclusion--that despite their wish to find a
link, there is no connection between ownership patterns and indecency.
Indeed, comparing the number of NALs the FCC issued per year prior to
and following passage of the 1996 Telecommunication Act, which
permitted more radio group ownership, shows no trend supporting any
casual link.
NAB further notes that most large radio groups that were the
subject of the Study have not been the targets of FCC indecency
actions. As the Study itself showed (at 17), seven of the ten largest
radio groups (determined by the number of stations) had no indecency
actions against them from 2000-2003--a fact that casts considerable
doubt on any alleged link between media ownership and indecency.
Finally, NAB submits that, far from creating problems that this
Committee needs to address, the ownership changes authorized by the
1996 Telecommunications Act have enabled the radio industry to regain
its economic viability, just as Congress intended. As the FCC has
explained, the radio industry experienced severe financial difficulties
in the early 1990s. More than half of all commercial radio stations
were losing money, and hundreds of stations had ceased broadcasting.
The outlook for small stations was ``particularly bleak.'' \3\ In fact,
the FCC concluded in 1992 that economic stress ``substantially
threatened'' the industry's ability to serve the public interest, and
determined that relaxing the strict radio ownership restrictions would
help improve radio stations' ``competitive standing'' and ``ability to
function in the public interest.'' FCC Radio Report, 7 FCC Rcd at 2760-
61. In light of this distress in the industry, Congress in 1996
correctly reformed the strict limits on radio ownership to allow more
station combinations. \4\ Because of this congressional action, free,
over-the-air local radio broadcasters are again economically viable in
an increasingly competitive multimedia marketplace. Spurious attempts
by critics of ``big media'' to link concerns about indecency to media
consolidation should not obscure the very real benefits derived from
allowing radio station combinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Report and Order in MM Docket No. 91-140, 7 FCC Rcd 2755, 2760-
61 (1992) (`` FCC Radio Report '').
\4\ See H.R. Rep. No. 204, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. at 48 (1995)
(Telecommunications Act sought ``to preserve and to promote the
competitiveness of over-the-air broadcast stations'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to
Jeff J. McIntyre
Question. Although it's important to find ways to block indecent
programming that is already on TV or fine licensees when it's on radio,
I think we should also examine causes for the indecency. A recent study
found that from 2000 to 2003, four of the Nation's largest radio
companies were responsible for 96 percent of FCC indecency fines, even
though their stations only accounted for about half of the country's
listening audience. Shouldn't media consolidation be part of our
examination of indecency?
Answer. Absolutely. As media programming becomes more nationalized,
it's much more difficult to enforce the requirement of `community
standards,' as required by the current indecency statutes. How does a
local community exert control when the nationalized media is
broadcasting the same product in Los Angeles as it is in the Ozarks?
Previously, the community standard worked for issues of indecency
because the local media was able to represent and adapt the national
programming to fit the local standards. Now, as control of the media
has moved away from local owners and more into the hands of a few
multi-national owners, local communities continue to struggle with the
media product that is given to them. This is consistent throughout most
forms of media. The more the power of the media is in the control of a
few owners, the less power the local communities have over it. Issues,
such as concerns over indecent or violent programming, will continue to
arise. For indecency/violence concerns, a nationalized media trying to
appeal to local, community standards is designed to fail.
Psychological research demonstrates that one way individual
families can exert local control over their media diet is with a
detailed, effective content based ratings system. By giving parents and
families accurate, detailed information about what programming is
coming into their house--they can make healthy, educated decisions
about what media their children are consuming. When there is a loss of
community control of the media due to consolidation, tools must be put
into the hands of the local consumer (e.g., parents, families,
educators) to individually control the media.
Please consider me and the American Psychological Association a
resource as you continue in your deliberations of this important
matter.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to
Martin D. Franks
Question. Although it's important to find ways to block indecent
programming that is already on TV or fine licensees when it's on radio,
I think we should also examine causes for the indecency. A recent study
found that from 2000 to 2003, four of the nation's largest radio
companies were responsible for 96 percent of FCC indecency fines, even
though their stations only accounted for about half of the country's
listening audience. Shouldn't media consolidation be part of our
examination of indecency?
Answer. In posing the question, you note that ``[a] recent study
found that from 2000 to 2003, four of the Nation's largest radio
companies wereresponsible for 96 percent of FCC indecency fines, even
though their stations only accounted for about half of the country's
listening audience.''
In short, I see no link between media ownership and indecency. The
study to which you refer, conducted by the Center for Creative Voices
in Media, agrees. The executive summary to that study itself disclaims
the very link the authors attempt to establish in the study: ``These
results do not prove a causal link between ownership concentration and
broadcast indecency. Additional research, accounting for the broad
array of factors that may influence the likelihood of a station
receiving an indecency violation, is necessary.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Ownership Concentration and Indecency in Broadcasting: Is
There a Link? '' September 2005, Center for Creative Voices in Media,
Fordham, freepress, at Executive Summary, page 5 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even a quick look at the FCC's history of indecency fines \2\
demonstrates that in the ``good old days'' preceding the moment in
history the study considers the defining moment for media
consolidation--the Telecommunications Act of 1996--the FCC fined radio
even more than it did in the 2000-2003 period cited by the study. In
fact, in the three years prior to 1996, we saw nearly twice the amount
of monetary fines levied against radio ($1.34 million) as in the four
years in the 2000-2003 period ($678,400).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Indecency Complaints and NALs: 1993-2005, www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/
ComplStatChart.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me suggest that another problem with linking media
consolidation and indecency is that it relies on an incorrect premise.
The state of media ownership in this country has never been as
competitively robust as it is today. As I said in my testimony before
the Committee on January 19, CBS would be happy to go back to the
three-channel television era that I and many others recall fondly. But
those days are gone forever, and you and your colleagues should be
proud that telecommunications law over the past decade has fostered
explosive competition. Today consumers in this country can choose among
hundreds of linear channels of video programming on television
delivered 24/7 by digital broadcasters, cable operators, DBS providers
and telephone companies. There is even more on-demand programming
offered by many of these same providers, as well as thousands of
Internet sites, iPods, cellphones, DVDs and more.
To reiterate my testimony, looking back lovingly at the past and
the good old days of broadcasting will not guide us toward a solution
for parents today. Viewers now have the tools to respond to the amazing
choice and diversity--the V-chip and cable and DBS parental controls--
and we in the industry stand ready to educate and encourage them to
actively use those tools.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any additional
questions.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to
L. Brent Bozell, III
Question. Although it's important to find ways to block indecent
programming that is already on TV or fine licensees when it's on radio,
I think we should also examine causes for the indecency. A recent study
found that from 2000 to 2003, four of the Nation's largest radio
companies were responsible for 96 percent of FCC indecency fines, even
though their stations only accounted for about half of the country's
listening audience. Shouldn't media consolidation be part of our
examination of indecency?
Media ownership and consolidation is closely linked to the problem
of indecency. The FCC and Congress bear the burden to establish
equitable media ownership rules that preserve localism, diversity of
ownership and the community standards upon which indecency law is
built. We urge Congress to focus solely on the public interest and deny
the stranglehold on local broadcasting sought by national media
conglomerates as a result of the FCC's most recent media ownership
rules.
The study you cite correctly draws attention to the fact that
increased media consolidation yields a lack of local ownership and
therefore programming decisions often rest with executives thousands of
miles away from the market in question. How can we expect the community
standards of the citizens of Nebraska, Oregon or Alabama to be
preserved and upheld by people who may have never even been to the
community?
The truth is that we can't, and while ownership rules must not be
so draconian as to unnecessarily inhibit commerce, it is important to
remember that the phrase ``public interest'' is mentioned more then 100
times in the Communication Act of 1934 which regulates the broadcast
medium. Clearly, owners with ties to a community are in a much better
position to determine the public interest of those they serve and whose
airwaves they are allowed to broadcast upon.
Around the time of the FCC's most recent rulemaking on media
ownership, a local PTC Grassroots Chapter Director wrote his local Fox-
owned and operated affiliate to complain about the television program
Keen Eddie, which featured a scene where a prostitute was hired to
perform sex with a horse in order to extract its semen. In response to
that complaint, the Vice President and General Manager of the station,
Cheryl McDonald, said in her letter, ``The network, not WDAF-TV4,
decides what shows go on the air for the Fox owned and operated
television stations.'' Local sensibilities and community standards are
no longer applicable when mega media corporations place restraints on
local programming. The ability of local stations to respond to the
needs of their own community is shattered.
The PTC's research strongly supports the assertion that local
broadcasters, when owned and operated by networks of affiliated
stations across the country, literally are forced to air program
material that may be deemed indecent by local community standards. In a
2003 survey of 97 television stations owned and operated by television
networks, only one station had ever preempted a network television
program based on community decency standards, and that one station did
so only one time--one single broadcast--and that was nearly a decade
ago.
Moreover. the consolidation of media outlets is problematic when
discussing issues related to indecency on cable networks. Since the
vast majority of cable programming is owned by a mere six media
conglomerates and all of these corporations force cable and satellite
providers to carry all of their network offerings if any are carried,
consumer choice in cable programming has remained impossible--despite
an FCC report just last week that demonstrated that consumers could
save as much as 13% if allowed to pick and choose channel lineups. In
this respect, media consolidation has directly led to millions of
families paying billions of dollars for channels they don't want, don't
watch and all too often find offensive.
We call on the Congress to end this extortion, and allow families
to choose which cable networks they receive and pay for.
As I'm sure you are aware, a federal appeals court overturned the
FCC's 2003 changes to media ownership rules, and the Commission must
now revisit the methodology used to create those rules. Although it is
likely that the FCC will announce new rules for horizontal and vertical
media ownership sometime this year, as the representatives of the
people, I urge the Congress to take a proactive leadership role in
ensuring that media ownership rules fully protect the public airwaves
and community standards of decency. In the past the FCC ignored the
call for local community control. It undermined this control and
determined that a handful of media giants can buy more and more
stations, more newspapers and more radio stations. This runs directly
in opposition of the public interest, which Congress has the ultimate
responsibility to uphold.
Attachments
Tim Maupin,
Chapter Director, Kansas City Metro Chapter,
Parents Television Council,
Kansas City, MO.
Dear Mr. Maupin,
We received your letter dated June 30, 2003 regarding the content
of the Keen Eddie show that aired on June 10, 2003 at 8pm.
We forwarded your letter to the FOX Network. The Network, not WDAF
TV4, decides what shows go on the air for the FOX Owned and Operated
Television Stations.
Sincerely,
Cheryl McDonald,
Vice President/General Manager WDAF-TV/FOX 4.
Charlotte Observer, October 19, 2003,
Keep Control of TV Local
By Richard Burr and Jesse Helms
When a Kansas City resident wanted to complain about the sexually
explicit language contained in the Fox television program ``Keen
Eddie.'' he did what most Americans would do. He wrote to his local
television station.
Unfortunately, despite the good intentions of management, the local
station--owned by the Fox television network--couldn't do anything
about it. In a letter to the viewer, the station's general manager
confessed that the Fox network in New York controlled what programs
aired on the Fox-owned station in Kansas City.
That's the problem with the Federal Communication Commission's
misguided decision to increase the national television ownership cap
from 35 percent to 45 percent. Community standards get lost when
networks are allowed to nationalize broadcast television programming.
Of the more than 18,000 pages of comments filed during the FCC's
media ownership proceeding, the networks did not cite a single
instance--not one--where one of its owned-and-operated stations
rejected a program that failed to meet local community standards.
Fortunately, the FCC's record showed that non-network-owned
stations can, and often do, reject certain network programs (including
sexually explicit shows like ``Maxim's Hot 100'' or the ``Victoria's
Secret Fashion Show'' ) that conflict with the essential character of
the local communities they serve. By fulfilling their legal duty to
reflect--not dictate--the standards of their communities. non-network-
owned stations promote the essence of ``localism,'' a principle FCC
Chairman Michael Powell recently hailed as a ``core value'' of our
Nation's broadcast system.
Supporters of the FCC's decision to raise the ownership cap from 35
percent to 45 percent argue that it promotes the benefits of
deregulation. Yet the whole point of deregulation, especially among
conservatives, is to place more power in the hands of local decision-
makers. Deregulation is worthless when it leads to the nationalization
of a single product, policy or point of view that can't be adjusted to
reflect the diverse needs of our local communities.
Congress rejected the idea of a highly-centralized BBC-like
broadcast system back in 1934. Instead, it chose a decentralized system
of local stations charged to reflect the diverse needs of each local
market. It made no sense then--and makes less now--to think viewers in
California would have the same response to sexually explicit
programming as viewers in North Carolina.
We are gratified that the House of Representatives recently
rejected the proposed 45 percent cap. By doing so, it cast an important
vote for decentralization. Just as our education system allows families
to influence public school curricula through their local school board,
our broadcast system allows viewers to influence television programming
through their local stations. By giving the networks the ability to
purchase more local stations and control more local programming
decisions, we would invite them to build the same centrally-controlled
broadcast system that Congress said ``no'' to almost 70 years ago.
Conservatives recognize the danger of nationalizing broadcast
television content and taking away the freedom of local stations to
respond to concerns:
The Christian Coalition of America doesn't want to force
``vacuous trash on local television stations whose communities
do not want to see such radical programming.''
The Parents Television Council notes that the ``losers'' of
network ownership ``are the local communities whose standards
of decency are being ignored.''
The National Religious Broadcasters rightfully fear that the
prospect of losing more religious stations to the networks will
be a ``tsunami of sizable proportions.''
Chairman Powell worries that supporters of the 35 percent cap are
motivated by ``a desire to affect content.'' But Congress has no desire
to dictate the content or morality of television shows. It is simply
protecting the right of local viewers to affect the content of the
programs beamed into their living rooms. To do this, local stations
must be empowered to make programming decisions based on community
concerns. not forced to march in lockstep with network mandates from
New York or Beverly Hills.
The right of local viewers to influence programming works both
ways. Stations. of course. must pay equal attention to the interests of
communities who want to watch programs that viewers in other markets
may find objectionable (so as long as the program does not violate
federal laws). While citizens in North Carolina cheered when a local
station replaced an off-color comedy show with vintage episodes of
``The Andy Griffith Show,'' we concede that the switch might not have
been so warmly received in markets where viewers fail to appreciate the
subtlety and warmth of Mayberry's homespun humor.
Our Constitution is steeped in the principle that local governments
are best suited to tend to the daily issues that confront local
citizens. Our Nation's broadcast system has wisely followed this
deregulatory principle for more than 70 years. We are not willing to
silence the voices of local viewers in favor of a single voice from New
York or Los Angeles.
Are you?
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to
Jack Valenti
Your question to the panelists following the hearing before the
Senate Commerce Committee on January 19 was, in paraphrase:
``(1) Since the public is not now using available technology to
block programs, what efforts are you making to speak directly to
individual parents about television ratings and blocking mechanisms?
(2) Will you consider visually showing parents how to work their remote
controls to utilize the blocking technology? (3) Will you inform
parents and consumers at either the point of sale or in literature to
customers?
To all three queries: The public is not making use of their
blocking power in the home because there has not been to date a unified
effort, unprecedented in its scope, scale and frequency of message
presentations, to inform and explain to parents they have in their
possession power to control all TV programming in their home. The
messages which are being designed will, in simple, easy to understand
language, instruct parents in the use of these blocking technologies.
The overall reach of the project we presented to the Committee is
massive. On board, in a seamless web of unity, are every TV station,
all the national broadcast networks ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW, movie
studios, TV programmers, cable systems, direct broadcast satellite
providers DIRECTV and EchoStar's DISH Network, TimeWarner, Comcast,
Viacom, the Consumer Electronics Association, the National Association
of Broadcasters, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association,
the Motion Picture Association of America. This is an effort never
attempted before.
This group has enlisted the Ad Council and its prestige and
achievements, with links to the best brains in creative advertising, to
design the messages that will be dispatched by the hundreds of
thousands, over and over and over again--dispatched to cable systems,
national broadcast networks, individual TV stations, direct-broadcast
satellite companies--to American TV homes. This avalanche of messages
will begin sometime in May of this year.
Additionally, with the cooperation of the Consumer Electronics
Association, we will reach out to retail stores and TV set
manufacturers to inform parents of the presence of a V-chip in the new
TV set they buy. Further, we will distribute the Ad Council material to
churches and advocacy groups so they can pass onto their congregations
and members the messages conveyed to parents.
Finally, the Luntz-Hart poll and the Russell Research poll reveal
that while a majority of parents find some TV programming unsuitable
for their children, by margins of 91 percent to 89 percent, they don't
want the government to step in legislatively. They're rather it be done
on a voluntary basis.
The total cost of this unprecedented project, privately funded,
will be some $300 million.
To summarize this never-before-attempted-project which satisfies
parents' desires that a voluntary program is far better and more
effective than Congressional legislation:
1. Enlist the Ad Council to create, supervise and monitor
messages to parents.
2. Ensure that all the cooperating enterprises offer air time
so these messages are dispatched to all TV homes in the
country.
3. Distribute educational and instructional materials to be
made available to parents at retail stores, in information
included with TV sets, and during installation of pay
television services.
4. Ensure that all cooperating entities have readable logos at
the start of every TV show, and coming out of every commercial
break in programs aired.
5. Reach out to religious and parents' advocacy groups with
information they can distribute to congregations or members to
further inform and educate them about the power that parents
have to control TV programming in their homes.
______
EchoStar Satellite L.L.C.
Washington DC, February 13, 2006
Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lautenberg,
Thank you for your leadership on this issue, and for participating
in the Senate Commerce Committee hearing on decency in broadcasting,
cable and other media. EchoStar Communications Corporation has been a
pioneer in providing consumers with control over the programming coming
into their homes, and choice over the channels they purchase. We
believe that educating consumers about our blocking technology is
necessary to give parents the control they want, but Congress must
address the bundling practices of large programmers in order to give
consumers the choice they desire.
Since we launched our service in 1996, we have provided consumers
with parental controls. All DISH Network set-top boxes come with
blocking software that allows parents to block entire channels and
individual programs based on multiple ratings and content criteria. The
software can also remove the channel information from our service's
electronic program guide. We recognize that our subscribers must know
about the parental controls in order for the technology to be useful,
and the following is a list of the ways that we inform consumers of
these blocking tools.
We provide information about our parental control features
in the welcome kits we mail to all new subscribers;
We include information about using our parental control
features, in easy to understand language, in the user guides
that accompany all of our receivers;
Since January 2004, DISH Network has devoted over 200 hours
of cross channel advertising on popular subscription channels
to teach our subscribers about our parental control technology;
The DISH Network Adult Guard Support Network on channel 490,
and the For Your Information Network on channel 101, provides
information about our parental controls, among other topics,
and explains how to enable it;
Our customer service representatives are available twenty-
four hours per day, seven days per week at 1-800-333-DISH to
help subscribers set-up the parental controls for their
service;
With two simple clicks from our home page, consumers and
customers can find information on setting up the parental
control features http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/
programming/parental control/index2.shtml:
All DISH Network product brochures reference the parental
control features of our receivers; and
Finally, DISH Network provides a monthly newsletter called
DISH Takes that appears in our customers' monthly bills that
periodically provides information about Adult Guard and how it
works. The information is also available from time to time in
our monthly magazine called DISH Entertainment Magazine
available by subscription,
With respect to the newly-announced education campaign, we will
consider creating ads that visually show parents how to work their
remote controls to utilize the blocking technology. In the past, we've
produced these kinds of ads on our service.
In addition to blocking programming coming into consumers' homes,
Congress can take steps to give consumers more choices over the
programming they buy from their pay television provider. More than a
decade ago, Congress granted local broadcast stations the right to
demand payment from cable providers, and ultimately satellite
providers, in exchange for carriage. These retransmission consent rules
have provided network broadcasters extraordinary leverage over pay
television providers who must offer ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX programming
to compete in the market. Today, these network broadcasters use their
market power to bundle their local stations with other pay television
programming and tell distributors like DISH Network, if you want one,
you have to take them all.
In order to give consumers more choice in the programming they
purchase, Congress must pass legislation that would separate
retransmission consent from other programming negotiations. One way to
address this problem is to provide pay TV providers the opportunity to
resolve disputes involving broadcast stations with binding arbitration.
This would offset the broadcasters' leverage, and provide pay
television providers the flexibility to offer programming on
specialized themed tiers or a la carte in order to respond to consumer
demand. During the arbitration proceeding, the programming in dispute
should continue to be available, thereby ensuring that consumers have
uninterrupted access to important local content.
Thanks again for the opportunity to add this important information
to the record.
Sincerely,
Charles W. Ergen,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.
______
Comcast
Philadelphia, PA, February 13, 2006
Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lautenberg:
I was glad to have the opportunity to appear before the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation at the January 19th
hearing on decency in broadcasting, cable and other media. I welcome
the opportunity to respond to the follow-up questions that you asked of
my fellow panelists and me regarding our efforts to educate parents
about parental control technologies. As discussed in detail below, we
are making extraordinary efforts to ensure that all of our customers
are aware of the tools that we make available to control the
programming that comes into their homes, and are fully informed about
how to use these tools.
You asked the following questions: ``I know each of you has tried
to educate the public at large about ways to block unwanted
programming. But the fact is, the public is not using the available
technology and many remain uninformed. What efforts are you making to
speak directly to individual parents and consumers about television
ratings and blocking technology, either at the point of sale or in
literature to customers? In your newly-announced education campaign,
will you consider visually showing parents in the ads themselves how to
work their remote controls to utilize the blocking technology? ''
As you will see, our efforts are multi-faceted.
On the first day that a household initiates service with Comcast,
we provide them with a Welcome Kit that includes written materials that
explain the availability and use of parental control technologies.
Customers are also informed about the availability and capabilities of
parental controls in billing inserts and through public service
announcements (``PSAs''). Clear explanations of how to use parental
controls are provided through Internet links offered on the homepage of
Comcast.com. Tutorials that demonstrate precisely how to use the
blocking and ``favorites'' features of parental controls are also aired
on one of our digital channels that highlights the features of our
digital services and can be called up, virtually instantaneously, via
Comcast On Demand. We also staff a dedicated toll-free number with
Comcast personnel who are trained to answer questions about parental
control technology. In addition, Comcast has partnered with others in
the cable industry to conduct media literacy workshops throughout the
United States, and we work with retail stores to provide consumers with
parental control information in in-store displays. Comcast is also
proud to join in the sweeping new pan-industry consumer education
campaign that was announced by Jack Valenti at the Committee's hearing.
Below are additional details on each of the methods we use to
inform and educate customers about parental controls.
Welcome Kit
Technicians who install Comcast cable service at a new customer's
home provide the customer with a Welcome Kit containing instructional
material describing Comcast's features and services. The kit includes
several brochures, pamphlets, and one-page informational fliers, and
four of those pieces include information on parental controls. Our
``Welcome to Comcast'' brochure includes a chapter called ``Using Your
On-Screen Program Guide/Parental Controls'' (see Attachment A). That
chapter offers a full-color, step-by-step ``how-to'' with views of the
screens that a parent will encounter in the process. The pamphlet
entitled ``How to Use Your New On-Screen Program Guide'' includes a
similar guide with views of parental control screens and a detailed
explanation of how to block selected programming (see Attachment B).
The ``Guide to Using Your Built-In Digital Video Recorder,'' provided
with our DVR boxes, also offers a parental controls section including
instructions and views of the parental control screens (see Attachment
C). Finally, the Welcome Kit also includes an 8\1/2\ by 11 inch flier
entitled ``Using Parental Controls,'' with similar step-by-step
instructions and snapshots of screens (see Attachment D).
In addition to the literature provided, the Comcast technicians who
visit customer homes and conduct installations and repairs are equipped
to answer questions about, and to help set up, parental controls.
Billing Inserts
Comcast also provides inserts in customer billing statements to
remind parents that parental control technologies exist. These billing
inserts direct parents to additional resources, including the parental
controls section of Comcast.com (see Attachment E).
PSAs
In May 2005, the cable industry launched its $250 million ``Cable
Puts You In Control'' public service campaign to better acquaint
parents with TV and MPAA ratings, the V-chip, and the blocking and
``favorites'' features of cable set-top boxes (see Attachment F).
Between May and November of 2005, the cable industry aired over $130
million worth of these public service announcements. In those six
months, Comcast alone aired over 1.6 million PSAs to inform our
customers--and your constituents--about the availability and the
flexibility of parental control technologies. One of the campaign's
PSAs offers the step-by-step instructions for using a remote control to
program parental controls, and a print version of that PSA also
appeared in local newspapers (see Attachment G). In addition, about 30
Members of Congress have recorded PSAs promoting public awareness of
parental controls, and these are airing on cable systems around the
Nation.
Website
The front page of www.comcast.com includes a prominent ``Quick
Links'' section with six featured links, one of which (``Parental
Controls'') bring the user to a section of our website dedicated to
parental controls features (see Attachment H, Comcast.com homepage). As
of February 2, 2006, the website has registered over 277,485 visits to
this parental control content. The parental controls section includes a
variety of Frequently Asked Questions (``FAQs'') tailored to customers
with different types of set-top boxes (see Attachment I). It also
includes several downloadable PDF pages that provide step-by-step
parental control set-up instructions for different types of cable
boxes.
The front page of the Parental Control section of the website links
to other valuable sources of information on parental control
technology, including the FCC's Guide for Parents, the cable industry's
resource page on family-friendly programs, parental controls, the TV
ratings system, the TV Ratings Guide and the Movie Ratings Guide (see
Attachment J, Comcast.com Main Parental Control Page).
Video Tutorials
``How-to'' parental control tutorials are shown regularly on a
digital channel that highlights features of Comcast's digital video
services. Those same tutorials can readily be accessed via Comcast On
Demand. They can also be accessed under the ``Help & Service'' menu in
Comcast's digital cable services or in the Kids On Demand menu, via a
Parental Control button that leads to a sub-menu of parental control
tutorials on digital cable, On Demand and DVR boxes. Parental control
video tutorials are also available online at http://
www.controlyourtv.org/, a website sponsored by the National Cable and
Telecommunications Association, the cable industry's trade association.
A link to this website can be found on Comcast.com.
Toll-Free Number
In April 2004, Comcast launched a new dedicated toll-free phone
line where customers can get questions answered about parental controls
by trained representatives. Comcast customers can call 1-866-781-1888
to speak to Comcast personnel live daily from 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. Eastern
time.
Workshops
Comcast, in partnership with other cable operators, committed to
conduct 100 local ``Control Your TV'' events in communities throughout
the United States. These events provide information about using cable's
parental control tools, the TV ratings system, the V-chip and media
literacy. The events were developed in partnership with the National
PTA and are being coordinated with local PTA chapters where available.
Parents are provided with simple guidelines for developing a safe media
environment in the home. Comcast distributes handouts including two
one-page fliers detailing the step-by-step parental control procedures
for the two models of cable boxes supplied to Comcast customers (see
Attachment K). Sixty (60) events were held in 2005, with more planned
for 2006.
Pan-Industry Campaign
The cable industry is now participating in a new pan-industry
public awareness campaign, led by Jack Valenti, former President and
Chief Executive Officer of the Motion Picture Association of America,
which includes a broad group of entertainment, programming and consumer
electronics participants. This campaign's current plans include wide
dissemination of a PSA developed by the Ad Council, which emphasizes
the tools parents have to manage TV programming and how easy they are
to use. Discussions with the Ad Council are underway to develop
additional messages.
The campaign will also build on existing relationships with Best
Buy and Circuit City to create consumer-friendly materials that are now
included in in-store displays. As part of this public awareness
campaign, the Consumer Electronics Association will also distribute V-
chip educational materials to be made available to parents at retail
stores and in information included with TV sets.
Planned Initiatives
In addition to what is currently available to parents, Comcast is
working to develop more easy-to-use technologies to enable parents to
protect their children. For example, later this year, we plan to give
parents the power to PIN-code-protect access to the On Demand service.
During 2007, we expect to roll out additional features including the
ability to lock out programming by content label (based on TV ratings
for violence, sexual situations, dialog or language), displaying these
content labels on our program guide information screens, and offering
family-friendly recommendations in our program guide.
Consistent with Comcast's ongoing commitment to provide family
friendly programming, Comcast will offer a Family Tier this year.
Subscribers of Comcast's Family Tier will receive 35 to 40 channels,
including many of the premier brand names in family programming, such
as Disney, Discovery, National Geographic, and PBS KIDS Sprout, which
features quality programming chiefly for preschoolers and young
children.
In short, Comcast is making every effort possible to ensure that
parents are aware of the tools we offer and know how easy it is to use
them. While we believe that American consumers benefit enormously from
the abundance and diversity of the programming that we offer, we are
fully committed to enabling each family to make its own decisions about
what programming should be available to particular members of the
household. We look forward to continued work with you and the other
members of the Senate to ensure that American consumers enjoy this
powerful combination of choice and control in their viewing experience.
Please feel free to contact me if you have further comments or
questions.
Sincerely,
David L. Cohen,
Executive Vice President
The Attachments referred to in this letter have been retained in
Committee files.