Docket No. 18397-A; Docket No.
18891; Docket No. 18892; Docket No. 18894
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
27 F.C.C.2d 303
RELEASE-NUMBER: FCC 71-103
February 4, 1971 Released
Adopted February 3, 1971
JUDGES:
BY THE COMMISSION: COMMISSIONER JOHNSON CONCURRING AND ISSUING A STATEMENT.
OPINION:
[*303] 1. The
Commission has indicated that it plans to be briefed by its staff regarding
comments filed in the above-captioned proceedings, and that, thereafter, it
plans to conduct an en banc hearing dealing with cable policy in accordance
with procedures to be announced subsequently. Order in Docket No.
18397-A, FCC 70-1076, 26 FCC 2d 4 (released October 7, 1970). We believe
it now timely to announce the hearing dates and procedures to be followed for
en banc hearing.
2. To begin with, it is
appropriate to note that these proceedings have already attracted both
voluminous and diverse comment from [*304] numerous sources.
While we are assured that our staff will be able to summarize the varied
pleadings and place them in useful form, we are concerned, nonetheless, that
care be spent in fashioning procedures for the en banc hearing to assure that
it yields maximum return to the Commission and to the various
participants. We have decided to use a two-part approach -- (i) the usual
oral presentation by interested persons or their representatives, and (ii) a
new approach of panels of contending experts or industry spokesmen, directed to
some of the important issues. The first approach needs no explanation and
simply assures coverage of all matters and an opportunity to all interested
persons. The second is innovative and experimental, and we shall
therefore discuss it briefly.
3. We are mindful of a
substantial objection to large multiparty proceedings which contain a variety
of controversies: no convenient, really effective mechanism exists for assuring
a sharpening of issues between parties contending for different
viewpoints. As a result it is frequent experience that the records of
such hearings contain numerous inconsistent claims and arguments which have
never been subjected to the discipline of informed criticism or the test of
hostile advocacy. We wish to avoid this possibility in the present
proceeding. Consequently, we are embarking on the above noted experimental
approach for conducting the en banc proceeding.
4. Our objective can, we
suspect, be best achieved by selecting particularly knowledgeable persons and
inviting them to direct presentations to specific selected issues. In
order to achieve the interplay of informed views which we seek, we propose to
organize panels of recognized spokesmen for different contending viewpoints and
to create circumstances in which issue can be joined on specific matters.
To launch this experiment, we wish to organize panels to discuss the following
topics:
(a) Possible benefits and detriments
of CATV operation in markets below the top 100, including particularly the
economic impact of CATV operation on television broadcast stations;
(b) Possible benefits and detriments
of CATV operation in the top-100 markets, its need to utilize out-of-market
signals, and the potential economic impact of CATV operation in these
circumstances on television broadcast stations;
(c) Directions in which cable
systems should be headed by the Commission in order to improve their potential
for service to the public including, for example, such matters as minimum
channel specifications, two-way communication, "local access"
channels (including all the possibilities noted in par. 16, Docket 18397-A),
program origination and the consequences of any such new directions on the
regulation, ownership or manner of operation of CATV; and whether separation of
ownership of hardware and control over content should be encouraged, i.e., the
assertion of common carrier jurisdiction;
(d) Whether the proposals made in
Docket 18397-A for commercial switching and for payments to the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting are feasible and, if so, whether they are a desirable
approach to the distant signal problem; and the appropriate form of an
accompanying copyright settlement; and
[*305] (e) Whether CATV
systems should be owned by public or educational entities (as, for example,
proposed by the Ford Foundation) and, if such ownership is considered
desirable, whether such organizations should receive preference in obtaining
CATV facilities.
(f) Appropriate regulations between
federal, state, and local regulatory bodies in dealing with CATV.
5. Persons desiring to
participate in these panels are requested to give written notice of their
willingness to appear and participate within five days of the release date of
this Order. In addition, the Commission reserves the right to invite
other parties to participate if it appears that volunteers do not give an
adequate balance to a proposed panel.
6. As stated, in addition to
these panels, the Commission also will receive oral presentations from
interested parties who have filed either comments or reply comments in these
proceedings. Persons wishing to be heard in this portion of the hearings
should file within five days after the release date of this Order a written
notice of intention to appear and participate which will also give sufficient
indication of the nature of interest to permit appropriate grouping. The
Commission will be further Order designate the persons included in each group
and the amount of time allocated to the group. Within each designated
group, the parties may specify the time allotted each for oral presentation.
7. If agreement as to the
allocation of time within each group is reached, the Commission shall be
advised of the provisions thereof at least five calendar days prior to the date
of oral presentation. If agreement as to the allocation of time within
any group cannot be reached, the Commission shall be notified at least five
calendar days prior to the date of oral argument; the Commission will itself
allot a period of time to each of the parties within such group. We urge
the interested persons, however, to make every effort to reach an understanding
as to the allocation of time.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That
oral argument IS SCHEDULED before the Commission en banc, beginning March 11,
1971 at 9:30 a.m. and continuing on the following days in March: 12, 15, 16
(half day), 18, 19, 25 and 26. Persons desiring to make oral
presentations SHALL FILE within five days after the release date of this Order,
a written notice of intention to appear and participate, which shall also give
sufficient indication of the nature of the interest to permit the Commission to
divide the participating parties into groups.
FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, BEN F. WAPLE, Secretary.
CONCUR:
CONCURRING OPINION OF COMMISSIONER
NICHOLAS JOHNSON
I concur in the innovative
"panel" approach to this inquiry.
There are other issues I would have
preferred to see identified. The success of the undertaking will turn
almost entirely on the extent to which outside parties who are economically
disinterested, imaginative, intelligent representatives of the public interest
will be sought out and encouraged to participate heavily as members of the
panels. I am not yet confident that is intended or likely.