SPEECH BY REED HUNDT
                                 CHAIRMAN
                     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                        CENTER FOR MEDIA EDUCATION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C.

                        (AS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY)

                             OCTOBER 18, 1995


                            A GOOD DAY FOR KIDS

     It is a pleasure to be here today with former FCC Chairman Newton Minow. Newt is
a  good friend and mentor, and it is always a pleasure to share a podium with him.  And, of
course, Dr. Kathryn Montgomery's work as CME's president is vital to the efforts we are all
engaged in here.  I also want to acknowledge my friend and ally on many causes, Assistant
Secretary of Commerce Larry Irving. Larry has been waging a valiant fight for the public
interest over at NTIA and he's going to succeed.

     The Federal Communications Commission is devoted to promoting private
competition and to staking the claim of the public interest in the communications revolution. 
The public interest includes, especially, the interest we should all take in the impact of the
communications revolution on our children.

     Let's talk about the way the communications revolution can make every day a good
day for kids. 

     When everyone in the house gets roused up at around 7 am, wouldn't it be a good
day if there were a selection of interesting, educational TV shows for kids like my six-year-
old Sara to watch? 

     When our children go off to school, wouldn't it be a good day if  in their classrooms
they could enter the world of wonder that communications technology can bring them?  
We'd like our children in our neighborhood public school to be in classrooms that have
computers on networks with Internet access, distance learning, electronic mail, and cd-roms.

     When our children come home in the afternoon, it would be a good day if there were
choices on broadcast TV that are safe and enriching.

     With George Lucas and Steven Spielberg and Steve Bochco in this country, there is
no doubt that if TV stations commit to carrying educational TV, the creative community will
make terrific, fascinating, profitable shows that really teach children.

     Then in the evenings, when the parents get home, wouldn't it be a good day if mother
and father could call up on the TV screen or the PC the kids' homework?  Or could get and
send e-mails to the teacher?  Or could chat on the PC with other parents about the soccer
games, or the PTA auction, or who is going to be the room parent on Friday?  These could
be  key ways to participate in a child's education.
     
     And last but not least, when you turn on the TV in the evenings, you should be able
to know in advance what shows are inappropriate for kids.  By written notice in the TV
guide, by software coding from networks, by means of the v-chip, you should be able to
choose shows that you think are appropriate to watch, and you should be able to protect your
kids from the inappropriate.

     That's the way a good day for kids could be.

     In fact, it's up to the FCC to craft sensible, concrete, simple rules to make this good
day an everyday event in America.  

     With respect to the networking of classrooms, I was pleased to participate in that
debate from the day I arrived at the Commission, almost two years ago.

     I was borrowing from a man I have long been privileged to call a friend:  Vice
President Al Gore.

     When he first coined the term "information highway," he talked about the vision of
the schoolgirl in Carthage, Tennessee, who could go to the Library of Congress to get the
learning not available in her small town in rural America. 

     In last year's State of the Union address, President Clinton challenged the
telecommunications industry to connect every classroom and every library in America to the
national information highway by the year 2000.  In his words, "instant access to information
will increase productivity, will help to educate our children...(and) will create jobs."

     And just a month ago, in San Francisco, the President reiterated his challenge to
America to see that every classroom in our country is connected to the information highway
by the year 2000.

     With the catalyst of public action through government, communities can come
together to put communications technology in every classroom.  As the President said,
"Preparing our children for a lifetime of computer use is now just as essential as teaching
them to read and write and do math . . . We must make technological literacy a standard."

      Shouldn't schools be eligible for assistance from our universal service programs? 
Both S.652, the Senate version of the Telecommunications Reform bill, and H.R. 1555, the
House version, include provisions to make that possible.

     In the Senate bill, that provision is called Snowe-Rockefeller, named after the great
Senators who sponsored it.  This provision  would order the FCC to create special tariffs for
schools.    These discounted rates would be reimbursed, in part, from the funds we have
used in the past to ensure universal access to the telephone network.  

     Senator Mosley-Braun has sponsored another excellent initiative, the Educational
Technology Corporation.  And she's supporting Snowe-Rockefeller.  I want to say how much
I appreciate her work.

     And Larry Irving's Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance
Program (TIIAP) program continues to help local communities adopt advanced technology. 
It is another catalytic force that is inspiring us to fulfill the President's challenge.

     Business is also responding.  TCI is developing an innovative commercial  product
that networks classrooms with state-of-the-art technology.  Time-Warner, in its social
contract with the FCC, agreed to provide a free modem to all the schools in its service areas,
to provide them inside wiring at cost, and to provide them free access to the Internet using
their new on-line service as soon as it is on the market.   Time-Warner's commitments apply
to 1/8 of all the classrooms in the country.

     Our words are getting out to the whole world.  Recently, British Labour Party leader
Tony Blair picked up the President's networking theme when he called for a Britain in which
every school, hospital, and library is wired into the information superhighway, and every
child has a laptop computer.

       It's a compliment to be copied.  We need to do more so we can be copied and
complimented more.
     
     With respect to the children's educational TV initiative, I started drilling down into
this issue when preparing for my post in 1993.  I jumpstarted our moldering Notice of
Inquiry in a speech at the Harvard School of Education in 1993, soon after I got my job

     Later in 1994, at the FCC, we had an en banc hearing to bring our Notice of Inquiry
to a close.  Thereafter the full Commission voted to put out a notice of proposed rulemaking.

     In that proceeding and related matters we have already received some 1,500
comments.  
     Overwhelmingly, the commenters representing the public have supported rules that
place minimum duties on all broadcasters to deliver educational TV free over the air.  In our
comments so far, the public has expressed its wishes through groups such as the Parents and
Teachers Association, the U.S. Catholic Conference, the Consumer Federation of America,
the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Education Association, the American
Psychiatric Association, and many others.  

     The membership of the groups formally lodging support for minimum quantitative
requirements is nearly 59,000,000.

     A comparative handful of commenters disagreed.

     I'd like to talk about three who disagree -- the historic Big Three Networks,  NBC,
ABC, and CBS.  These networks recommended in their filings that instead of requiring
broadcasters to air a set number of hours per week of educational programs, we should
continue to study, as ABC put it, "the children's programming marketplace."

     We asked the networks to do their studies three years ago.  The comment filing date
of October 16 was the time to stand and deliver.  It was the date of a test of conscience. 
And on that date the networks said they needed more time to study.  Three more years to
study.  At least they didn't say the dog ate their homework.

     But it's past time to postpone decisions while waiting for the networks to study their
own business.  Now it's time to review the data we have and to make good decisions about
how to fix our failed rules.

     The networks are welcome to continue to study their own business.  Meanwhile they
should be helping teach our children with a minimum amount of educational TV right now.

     In the comments we have received, broadcasters tell us they're already providing
plenty of educational TV.  They don't say this proposition needs study.  But others dispute
the assertion.  We should examine the record for data that resolve the factual disputes.

     Everyone should participate in a fair-minded, public, hard-nosed effort to state the
true facts on this issue.

     We will be trying to find out if broadcasters' assertions about how much educational
TV they show depend on a broad, vague, meaningless definition of what is educational.

     This definition is all the FCC has given broadcasters, and maybe we shouldn't blame
them for trying to drive through it  a truckload of claims about educational programming.  
(I'm borrowing my friend Commissioner Chong's metaphor. )

     The current FCC definition apparently encourages broadcasters, according to a study
by Dale Kunkel, a researcher at the University of California at Santa Barbara, to file public
records saying that educational programming includes "Biker Mice from Mars", "America's
Funniest Home Videos," and "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers."

     And NBC claimed in its filing with the FCC this past Monday that in January 1995 its
network added another half hour of educational/informational programming to its schedule
with "NBA Inside Stuff." 

     In fact, NBC has the National Basketball Association produce the show, but it assures
us that each episode "is specifically designed to serve the educational and informational needs
of teens."

     I know the NBA is fantastic, but saying that it provides  education is like saying a
playground is a classroom, the best school is the school of hard knocks, and ketchup is a
vegetable.  I will be very interested to read reply comments on this particular assertion.

      I suppose it's true that anyone can learn something from anything.  But shouldn't  we
all agree that a meaningful definition of educational programming should count only shows
that have the primary intent and substantial effect of educating kids?

     In addition, wouldn't it be a good idea to have an institute or a university with
academic freedom report on networks' educational shows? 

     Let networks state what those shows are, and then let social scientists evaluate in a
rational, empirical manner just how well those educational shows do in teaching kids.  Such
a report card could grade each show and each network on teaching effectiveness, ratings and
share (showing that it is engaging enough to attract kids), and so on.

     Responsible broadcasters -- and this is at heart a very responsible industry  -- would
benefit from this sort of public, informed, scientific guidance.  And so would the FCC.  And
so would the networks.

     As we evaluate the comments and reply comments, everyone should look very closely
at Dale Kunkel's study.  He tells us he examined a representative, randomly selected sample
of stations that applied for renewal with the FCC in 1994.  He found that stations' own
claims to the FCC as to their educational programming amounted on average to the same
number of hours showed  in 1992, right after the Children's Television Act was effective..

     And even this number, according to Kunkel, was compiled by counting the shows I
mentioned earlier -- shows that do not necessarily  pass the red face test. 

     The NAB has given us a different set of assertions based on an anonymous survey of
those stations that wished to participate.  In reply comments I will be interested in knowing if
such a survey is scientifically valid. And what is the data that supports the survey?  What
should we think about the definition used to count shows as educational?  And why did some
stations not submit data?  What time of day were the shows displayed? 

      I'd like to see NAB's back-up data.  I'd like to see Kunkel's.  I'd like to have us
debate based on real facts, not rhetoric.

     These are some of the issues we must examine carefully before we make any
decisions.
     
     The broadcast TV networks have the wealth of Midas and the creativity of
Michelangelo.  They have lawyers and lobbyists as numerous as leaves on trees. 

      With these resources they do not need three more years to study their own business
while our children continue to grow up less educated than they should be. 

     Instead, now, for the sake of the 60 million kids in this country, these fabulously
profitable and  ingenious businesses can give us a bare minimum of the public good of truly 
educational TV.  After all, they rely on the public property of the airwaves to reach us all
with entertainment.  Isn't it only fair to ask them to use our property also to help us with the
public duty and honor of teaching our kids.

      And that is, after all, the law of the land.

     And, after all, that should be at the core of the meaning of  broadcasters' status as
public trustees.  That should be at the core of why broadcaters currently have a right to use
without charge  the public property of the analog airwaves, public property valued at  tens of
millions of dollars.

     Networks and broadcast stations can tell us how to craft rules that will guarantee
educational TV from all broadcasters, even in a competitive market.  These rules can and
should be based on solid data, good economics, creative thoughts, and a willingness to be
part of a solution instead of part of the problem.

     Finding ways to apply the Children's TV Act so that all broadcasters deliver at least a
minimum amount of educational  TV shows  should not become a partisan issue. 

      It should not be characterized as a test of whether a particular commissioner is for or
against kids, for or against broadcasters.  

     All Commissioners should be for just one thing:  the public interest.

     All  Commissioners and all commenters have a responsibility to address with
creativity, care, and practicality our rewrite of the children's educational rules.  We have a
duty to read the law, apply economics, and do the right thing with objectivity and fairness.,

     All Commissioners have a duty to listen to tens of millions of Americans, paying
unbiased and full attention to public interest groups and to private sector advocacy.  I'm
positive all Commissioners will do their duty, each according to his or her best judgment. 
Meanwhile, all Americans have a right to keep communicating with us. 
     
     I'm looking forward to the continuing participation of many millions in this
proceeding.  Read the comments and file replies.  Write us at 1919 M St., NW.  Send us e-
mail at  kidstv@fcc.gov.  Come visit us in person.  Let's keep the debate going, and keep
the good days of our kids uppermost in our mind. 

     Thank you.

                                   -FCC-