TV Violence Report to Congress Due Within 2 Weeks, McDowell Says

An FCC report to Congress on violence in TV network programming that’s due within 2 weeks raises more questions than it answers, Comr. McDowell said during a news briefing Wed. He also fielded questions on a wide range of wireless and wireline issues. McDowell said the 700 MHz auction may face delays if the Commission adopts a proposal by Frontline Wireless. Chmn. Martin was expected to start circulating a 700 MHz order as early as Wed. McDowell also said he was frustrated with 800 MHz Transition Administrator’s (TA) lack of progress on rebanding.

The TV violence report will flag constitutional issues raised by the prospect of expanding TV content regulation, McDowell said: “It makes suggestions, some recommendations and it tries to give Congress a briefing on the legal and policy landscapes.” Asked whether the report discusses how govt. would identify violent programming and whether cable networks would be subject to regulation, McDowell said the report will “raise more questions than answers,” and those issues are “at the heart of many of the questions.”

Parents are ultimately responsible for what their children watch on TV, with or without well crafted govt. rules, McDowell said: “Even if we have the most perfect law with the harshest of enforcement… the first responsibility falls to parents.” The FCC and Congress must “tread lightly” as they enter the “uncharted constitutional waters” of increased programming regulation, he said. Keeping children from seeing violence depicted on TV is a “noble endeavor,” but it’s important for govt. to develop rules that can stand up to legal challenges, he said.

700 MHz Auction

Starting the 700 MHz auction soon is important, McDowell said: “I'm working to keep the 700 MHz auction on track to start this fall… Things always take longer than you expect.” Starting the auction in the fall will give the Commission and bidders a jump on the holiday season, he said.

Consideration of the Frontline proposal could slow the start of the auction (CD April 3 p2) by several months, even with the tightest possible deadlines for filing comments and replies, McDowell said: “Frontline’s proposal has some attractive components, especially its open access proposal, but of course it was filed late in the process so that has complicated matters a little bit for us,” he said: “It would have to be put into an NPRM and that could possibly delay the auction.”

McDowell said he was exploring whether the FCC could examine the “open access” proposed in the Frontline plan more generically through the existing rulemaking, which he said would be quicker than putting the proposal out as a separate item. “I'll see where my colleagues stand on that, but we're going to need to hurry up if we're going to try to decide all the rest of these issues by April 25,” the date of the next FCC meeting, he said. McDowell said the proposal raises other questions as well that the Commission needs to address. “We would also need to resolve the fact that the current rules do not allow designated entities to sell to non- designated entities on a wholesale basis as envisioned by Frontline.”

Frontline shares “every commissioner’s commitment” to meet auction deadlines, a Frontline spokeswoman said. A short public-notice period followed by a brief but substantive reply period would give the FCC time to get the proposal on its May agenda and meet deadlines such as getting auction proceeds to the U.S. Treasury by June 2008, she said. Such short comment and reply periods aren’t common but they were used with the Missoula Plan and the conditions placed on the AT&T’s takeover of BellSouth.

On the ongoing 800 MHz rebanding, McDowell said he doubted the FCC would give Sprint Nextel time beyond its 3 year deadline to complete the process. “I am frustrated by the length of time that process has taken,” he said: “The chairman and I have discussed it. I'm not sure there’s a big appetite for much more of an extension, if any.”

McDowell also criticized the performance of the team known as the transition administrator, chosen by the FCC to supervise the transition. “I'm starting to get frustrated with how long things are taking for the administrator to make some decisions,” he said. He called the progress of the TA “a percolating issue.”

Media Ownership

McDowell hasn’t taken positions on a number of media ownership issues, he said. For instance, he still hasn’t decided whether the FCC should set limits on how many customers a single cable operator can serve. An order that takes up that question is circulating on the 8th Floor (CD March 14 p1) but hasn’t received any votes, a Commission source said. Setting limits on cable operators could create a disparity between cable and telcos, McDowell said: “Why just MVPDs [multichannel video programming distributors]? Why not other platforms as well? All these companies are getting into each others’ businesses.” In this “spirit of regulatory parity” it may make sense to take a broader view of the market, he said. That item probably won’t be set for a vote at the April meeting, he said: “We don’t know, but we don’t think so.”

The Commission’s review of media ownership rules won’t interfere with the way it handles pending broadcast transactions, he said: “In any context, if we are considering a rule change… it’s important to keep the status quo intact.” Declining to talk specifically about Tribune’s proposed $8.2 billion buyout, which is seen needing waivers of the FCC ban on newspaper-broadcast cross ownership (CD April 3 p3), McDowell said waiver requests need to be dealt with case by case. Whenever the Commission is presented with a merger, it’s important to resolve any pending complaints against the companies involved, he said.

Universal Service

On the Universal Service Fund, McDowell said he would support a cap on the growth of the program. “There’s a couple of ideas there in terms of whether [it would be] interim, how long the interim period might be, 6 months or a year, things of that nature,” he said: “The legitimate question to ask is whether it would be competitively neutral.”

McDowell said a cap on competitive eligible telecommunications carriers (CETCs) could be largely neutral despite the concerns of wireless carriers. “ILECs do have caps on their internal components… and growth of those revenue streams to them is already capped,” he said. McDowell said his “number one priority” is slowing the growth of the fund. He said the FCC should examine the “efficiencies” wireless brings to the table and not base reimbursement on wireline costs, which he called “the same old subsidies that others received for a less efficient network.”