In the Matter of
Federal-State Joint Board on
Universal Service

FCC 96-93
CC Docket No. 96-45

REPLY COMMENTS OF THE ALLIANCE FOR COMMUNITY MEDIA

IN THE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

The Alliance for Community Media (the "Alliance") respectfully submits the following reply comments in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 96-93, in the above-captioned proceeding, released March 8,1996 ("NPRM").. The Alliance reiterates the points presented in its initial comments, and emphasizes that provision of universal service to "at-risk" communities could have enormous impact on those communities' full participation in American society. The Commission should adopt only those recommendations of the Joint Board which guarantee that telecommunications services are provided to all American people[1] including individuals and groups that may heretofore have been denied access to the benefits of both basic and advanced services. The Alliance urges the Commission to promote localism, equitable access, and encouragement of diversity in considering and adopting any recommendations of the Joint Board.

The Alliance's initial comments were filed in conjunction with two coalitions: one including People for the American Way, the Alliance for Communications Democracy, the

____________________

1 See, in general, 47 U.S.C. [[section]] 254(b).

1

Benton Foundation, the Center for Media Education, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Minority Media Telecommunications Council, the National Council of La Raza, and the National Rainbow Coalition ("Joint Comments" and "Joint Commenters").; and a second with the Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ and the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council ("UCC Comments" and "UCC Commenters"). In these comments, the Alliance and its co-commenters emphasized the importance of providing access to telecommunication services to all regions and all sectors of American society, for purposes of economic development, job creation and civil discourse. The Alliance believes that community computing centers offer a sensible methodology for providing advanced services to communities which might not otherwise have these services.

The Alliance for Community Media is a national membership organization comprised of more than thirteen hundred organizations and individuals in more than seven hundred communities. Members include access producers, access center managers and staff members, local cable advisory board members, city cable officials, cable company staff working in community programming, and others involved in public, educational and governmental ("PEG") access programming around the country. The Alliance assists in all aspects of community programming, from production and operations to regulatory oversight.

These centers produce and transmit local non-commercial, non-profit educational and public affairs television programming on local cable systems, pursuant to local franchise agreements authorized by Section 611 of the 1984 Cable Act.[2] As such, the

____________________

2 Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, Sec. 611 (47 U.S.C. Sec. 531).

2

Alliance represents the interests of religious, community, educational, charitable, and other non-commercial, non-profit institutions who utilize PEG access centers and facilities to speak to their memberships and their larger communities and participate in an evergrowing "electronic town hall." The organization represents the interests of the hundreds of thousands of employees and volunteers who help produce educational, governmental and public access programming. Finally, it represents the concerns of all Americans who believe that the tremendous resources of the Information Age should be made available to "at-risk" communities that otherwise would have insufficient means.

In many smaller and rural towns and villages, PEG access is the only means by which residents receive truly local programming. In suburban jurisdictions which may be served by one or more broadcast stations, PEG access programming allows cable subscribers to participate in events and activities of importance to the suburban community, from local school board meetings and town council elections to televised plays and concerts. PEG access also provides a forum for local religious education programming, community college courses, and high school football games. In large urban areas, PEG access provides a variety and diversity of communication which is unavailable on commercial local stations.

PEG access is provided on cable systems pursuant to a franchise agreement

between a cable operator and a franchising authority (typically, a municipal government).[3]

Cable operators may also be required to provide services, facilities and equipment to make

____________________

3 Id.

3

such access possible.[4] Franchise authorities, which are entitled to collect franchise fees from cable operators,[5] often provide a portion of these fees for PEG access.

The PEG access provisions of federal law result from Congress' resolve that our nation's telecommunications policy should promote the production and distribution of local programming produced by members of the community for the community's benefit.[6] As the House Commerce Committee stated in its report on the 1984 Cable Act:

Public access channels are often the video equivalent of the speaker's soap box or the electronic parallel to the printed leaflet. They provide groups and individuals who generally have not had access to the electronic media with the opportunity to become sources of information in the electronic marketplace of ideas. PEG channels also contribute to an informed citizenry by bringing local schools into the home, and by showing the public local government at work.[7]

PEG access centers and community communication centers help fulfill the Commission's long-standing public interest in promoting localism[8] by providing an open forum for local programming.

During the past few years a number of PEG access centers have expanded their menu of offerings to include access to advanced telecommunications service, including

____________________

4 Id.

5 1984 Cable Act, Sec. 622 (47 U.S.C. Sec. 542)

6 See H.Rep. No. 934, 98th Cong. 2d Sess. at 30-37 (discussing policy and legal rationale for PEG access).

7 Id. at 30.

8 See Id.; see also Section 307(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. Sec. 307), requiring Commission to provide fair, efficient and equitable distribution of radio service among "the several states and communities." See also Options Papers Prepared by the Staff for Use by the Subcommittee on Communications, H.Comm.Print 95-13, 95th Cong. lst Sess. (1977)("Options Papers") at 45-65.

4

Internet and on-line services. This expansion is in concordance with Alliance members' belief that Americans should not be mere passive consumers of information and entertainment, but active participants in political dialogue, local economic development, and artistic endeavor. The First Amendment requires that schools, churches, community organizations, and individuals have meaningful access to advanced forms of media as telecommunications become increasingly sophisticated -- and increasingly concentrated.[9] Consequently, the Alliance supports implementation of universal service that provide for the expansion of First Amendment access rights, and that guarantee that non-commercial, non-profit, educational and public institutions share the benefits of advanced communications technology.[10]

Section 254(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. [[section]] 254(b)) instructs the joint Board and the Commission to "base policies for the preservation and advancement of universal service" on a number of principles, including providing services

____________________

9 See Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 390 (1969)("[i]t is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market."); see also Note, "The Message in the Medium: the First Amendment on the Information Superhighway," 107 Harv.L.Rev. 1062, 1088 (1994)("If only certain classes of users have access, then particular viewpoints remain scarce."); See also D. Bazelon, "The First Amendment and the 'New Media'- New Directions in Regulating Telecommunications," 31 Fed.Com.L.J. 201, 209 (1979)("[S]urely it is reasonable to assume that concentration will tend to stifle, rather than promote a multitude of tongues.").

10 As Rep. Wallace White noted in debate on the Radio Act of 1927:

[L]icenses should be issued only to those stations whose operations would render a benefit to the public, are necessary in the public interest, or would contribute to the development of the art... If enacted into law, the broadcasting privilege will not be a right of selfishness. It will rest upon an assurance of public interest to be served. 67 Cong.Rec. 5479 (1926).

to consumers in all regions of the Nation,[11] additional services for elementary and secondary schools, libraries and health care providers[12] and " [s]uch other principles as the joint Board and the Commission determine are necessary and appropriate for the protection of the public interest, convenience and necessity and are consistent with this Act."[13] The Alliance believes that designating community computing centers to receive and offer special services similar to those provided pursuant to Section 254(h),[14] would be an appropriate additional policy for the Joint Board and the Commission to promulgate, based on the principle that a range of institutions, not just libraries and schools, can offer meaningful opportunities for people who otherwise could not "get connected." Community computing centers serve much the same purpose as PEG access centers, and would have much of the same client base. And, as many centers are already expanding to include availability of, and training in the use of, computer and communications services, providing low-cost advanced services to PEG access centers would provide an efficient way to provide universal access to these services. This could potentially reach a population group, including a range of non-profit organizations, that may not be able to be reached by public libraries.

Community networks link computers of citizens, institutions, organizations and businesses to one another, providing information from a multitude of sources and twoway communications opportunities for all that are connected to it.[15] Community

____________________

11 47 U.S.C. [[section]] 254(b)(3).

12 Id. at [[section]] 254(b)(6).

13 Id. at [[section]] 254(b)(7).

14 47 U.S.C. [[section]]254(h).

6

computing centers can fulfill an important role in the future of video-voice-data convergence; integrated PEG-computing centers allow video programming, databases, and two way communication to support each other and provide a range of social and information services to the community.[16] The Alliance believes that the joint Board, in considering how to serve a range of previously-excluded communities, should direct universal service funds to support these growing institutions that offer residents of a community meaningful opportunities for access and expression at minimal cost to service providers. Such centers will give meaningful additional services to low-income telephone subscribers in concordance with the Commission's expressed desire to provide lowincome services that are consistent with public interest, convenience, and necessity[17] and will promote First Amendment values which ensure that every citizen can fully and equally participate in society.

Respectfully Submitted,

Jeffrey S. Hops
Director, Government Relations
Alliance for Community Media
666 11th Street, N.W.
Suite 806
Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 393-2650

Of Counsel:

James N. Horwood, Esq.
Spiegel & McDiarmid
1350 New York Ave., N.W.
Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 879-4000

____________________

13 These community computing centers, their history and future development, are described in greater detail in 18 Community Media Review No. 1 (January 1995). Selected articles from that issue are attached as Exhibit A.

16 See e.g., "Concept Proposal: Davis [CA] Community Communication Center: A Community Resource for the 21st Century," attached as Exhibit B.

17 NPRM [[paragraph]]58, 47 U.S.C. [[section]] 254(c)(1)(D)

7