January 27, 2004

Mr. Alex Wallau
President
ABC Television Network
47 West 66th Street
New York, New York 10023

Dear Mr. Wallau:

As you may be aware, during recent live broadcasts on the NBC and FOX television networks, use of language that most Americans would consider indecent, profane, or both was broadcast unedited to millions of American homes. I am referring to NBC's live broadcast of the Golden Globe Awards on January 19, 2003, and to FOX's live broadcast of the 2003 Billboard Music Awards on December 10, 2003. Both of these broadcasts occurred during a viewing period in which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has determined that children are likely to be watching television.

Since that time, the FCC has been asked to determine whether the NBC and FOX broadcasts were indecent, as a matter of law. In the case of the Golden Globe Awards, the FCC has determined that the broadcast was not indecent, and the agency is still investigating complaints related to the FOX broadcast. However, in my mind, whether the remarks in question fall within the FCC's narrow reading of the definition of indecency is not the core issue. No matter how the FCC rules on the pending complaints, a more important question is how the FOX and NBC television networks permitted such objectionable language to be broadcast to millions of American homes.

Though neither of these broadcasts involved the ABC network, I would still appreciate answers to the following questions in order to better inform the Congress as to industry practices:

1. Does the ABC Television Network believe that it is acceptable to transmit programming -- live or otherwise -- that contains the "f word" or similarly objectionable language? Does the network believe that it has a responsibility to its viewers to prevent such broadcasts?

2. What preventive mechanisms and procedures does ABC presently have in place to ensure that obscene, indecent, or otherwise objectionable language is not transmitted to ABC broadcast stations?

3. Legislation has been introduced in the House, H.R. 3717, which would increase by ten-fold the monetary penalty that the FCC can impose upon licensees that broadcast programming which contains obscene, indecent, or profane content. Do you support such legislation? If so, why? If not, why not?

4. The FCC has recently indicated that it may begin to impose monetary penalties per utterance rather than per broadcast program upon licensees that broadcast obscene, indecent, or profane content. Do you support such a change in the agency's enforcement policy? If so, why? If not, why not?

5. The FCC has also recently indicated that, for certain licensees that repeatedly violate its indecency rules, it may begin to seek the revocation of the repeat offenders licenses rather than simply continue to impose fines. Do you support such a change in enforcement policy? If so, why? If not, why not?

As you may be aware, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet plans to conduct a hearing on the subject of broadcast indecency tomorrow, January 28, 2004. I would appreciate if you could respond to this letter on or before Tuesday, February 3, 2004, and I will ask that your answers be included in the hearing record. If you have any questions, please contact me, or have your staff contact Gregg Rothschild, Minority Counsel, at 202-226-3400.

Sincerely,

JOHN D. DINGELL
RANKING MEMBER

cc:   The Honorable W. J. "Billy" Tauzin, Chairman
        Committee on Energy and Commerce