From: "g.j. angelo" To: Date: Fri, Mar 17, 2000 8:02 AM Subject: My comments on the Rural and Small Market TV Roundtable Robert Krinsky Office of Policy Analysis and Development National Telecommunications and Information Administration U.S. Department of Commerce; Room 4725 1401 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20230. ruraltv@ntia.doc.gov 2000 Huntington Ave #1013 Alexandria, VA 22303 March 17, 2000 Mr. Krinsky, I am really troubled by the recent reports regarding government loans to help deliver television signals to rural areas of the United States. Instead of solving the ACTUAL problem, Congress is just applying another layer of legislation that is senseless. I think that it stems from the fact that they misunderstand the problem. The government is concerned that rural citizens are not able to receive clear network signals-- even though the broadcast maps (established in the 1950's!!!) show that they should be able to receive signals (from their local network affiliate)-- free and clear over a conventional rooftop antenna. When local broadcast signals are not strong enough to get a picture, a customer turns to his satellite provider to get 'distant' network signals. He is quickly turned away, because local network affiliate has a coverage map that CLAIMS that a signal can be received, when it can't. HEREIN LIES THE PROBLEM!!! This archaic method of determining signals has to be revamped to more closely resemble the ACTUAL signals being broadcast to a standard that is worthy of technology in 2000. With this done, customers that are TRULY 'unserved' by 'local' signals would be eligible to buy signals being offered by satellite providers. Customers that can ACTUALLY receive local signals will happily receive them with an antenna-- not by paying a cable or satellite company for something that they should be getting for free. What really drives me crazy is that no one has questioned the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) as to why they have been fraudulently claiming viewers that they don't have for the past 50 years. The broadcast networks have been given use of the public spectrum in order to provide 'free' television to citizens, but the public is heavily reliant on cable and satellite to receive clear signals. Why is this? Giving loans to satellite and cable companies to encourage them to provide 'local into local' service to rural areas is not necessarily a bad idea, but it is foolish. You are, in fact, rewarding broadcasters for not doing their jobs. There are already regulations established for providing 'distant' network signals to households that are 'unserved' by local signals. The qualification process is extremely flawed. If THESE rules were changed to be more accurate the existing laws would work just fine-- and would not cost taxpayers a dime. I would like to expound on Rep. Rick Boucher's (D-Va.) statement on television viewing habits. He said that at any given time, "approximately 60 percent of people with cable TV service are watching local network programming." People are watching programs on NETWORK television; the fact that the signals originate from nearby location is negligible because the government limits that choice to a local broadcaster. (This is a monopoly, by the way.) If the day should come that people could purchase network signals from their cable or satellite company that originate from elsewhere in the country, you would see networks improve service and programming to fight the new found competition. The complacent network affiliate of today would no longer mistreat programming or limit choices. I'd like to challenge a statement made by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.). On the 'local into local' legislation he stated, "Our satellite proposal ensures that Americans living in rural areas or smaller cities receive the same level of quality programming as folks living in large cities." Sorry Mr. Goodlatte, but FORCING local service on rural viewers actually LIMITS the quality of programming. Rural stations simply cannot afford the same level of programming that the deeper pocketed New York, NY and Los Angeles, CA networks have. In summary, tax dollars should not be spent to help private companies deliver (and collect a monthly fee for) a service (broadcast television) just to make up for the inadequacies of broadcasters. Additionally, forward thinking legislators should allow 'distant' signals to compete with local broadcasters in order to end the existing affiliate monopoly. Gerald Angelo CC: Rep. Rick Boucher Rep. Bob Goodlatte __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com