Barton Tells NAB He Has Votes in House for 2006 DTV Deadline

It’s unclear how broadcasters took the compliment, because moments earlier Barton had emphasized he was diametrically opposed to their key congressional concerns. He would soon introduce a bill with the 2006 deadline that he said would pass the House. He told reporters that, while he didn’t have express support from House Speaker Hastert (R-Ill.) or House Majority Whip DeLay (R-Tex.), they were “generally supportive.”

But broadcasters were likely heartened by comments earlier in the day from leading senators. Though Senate Commerce Committee Chmn. Stevens (R-Alaska) was noncommittal on a DTV deadline, he did say any transition bill should include multicast must-carry requirements for cable. And Sen. Allen (R-Va.) said there shouldn’t be any “artificial deadline” for a DTV transition. In his remarks, Barton acknowledged there would be opposition in the Senate to the proposal.

Stevens qualified his multicast opinion to apply only to broadcast content that provides a public service, such as news and weather. Without a must-carry rule, broadcasters don’t have the financial incentive to create multicast programming, he said. “No one in their right mind will develop the programming if cable refuses to carry it,” he said. Stevens added that multicast must- carry would be part of the DTV transition debate.

But Barton said his bill wouldn’t include any must- carry obligations for cable. “I'm not going to be a must- carry guy,” he said in response to a question from a broadcaster. “I wasn’t for must-carry 20 years ago.” He said in an environment where cable carries 200 channels, broadcasters will be carried “if their signal is worthy.” The 3rd or 4th Spanish-language or religious station may be left out, he said, but he emphasized that the free- market would almost certainly oblige cable to carry the programming. He said he was on broadcasters’ side in regards to retransmission consent.

But on a DTV transition deadline, Stevens left his position somewhat vague. He noted Barton’s support of a 2006 deadline, and said: “There’s a lot to be answered before that question is decided. I'm not wed to any specific proposal.” Senate Minority Leader Reid (D-Nev.) also spoke to NAB and said he was concerned that a hard deadline would be too disruptive.

However, Allen expressly said no “artificial deadline” should be set on DTV transition, even if it means delaying analog spectrum return to public safety officials. Allen told reporters after his speech that any deadline had to be “based on reality.” Any deadline has to be “properly defined,” he said, and he cited the 85% penetration mark as a logical proposal. And while Allen said he was concerned about security and public safety, he said return of analog spectrum to public safety was not “a reason unto itself” to force broadcasters off the spectrum early. “My main goal is to protect the consumers,” he said.

Barton said a hard deadline was the only way to provide “certainty.” But he left the door open for a different deadline. When one broadcaster asked why there’s no time limit on producing analog TV sets, Barton said such a deadline could be considered. Barton emphasized that it’s good public policy to end the DTV transition, which he said would open spectrum for consumers’ uses and for public safety, and would generate federal revenue as the commercial spectrum is auctioned. “I'm not your enemy,” he said.

Allen and Stevens spoke briefly about media ownership rules. While Stevens, who supported a 35% broadcast ownership cap, said he still had concerns about consolidation, he told reporters he believed the 39% compromise struck last year in appropriations legislation settled the matter and it shouldn’t be raised again this Congress. Allen told NAB that he believed some cross- ownership and duopoly rules should be relaxed for some markets, particularly small ones. Additionally, Barton told broadcasters that he wouldn’t support reinstitution of the fairness doctrine, which he said would stifle debate.