Separate Statement of 
Commissioner Michael J. Copps

Re:  Second Periodic Review of the Commission’s Rules and Policies Affecting the 
Conversion to Digital, MB Docket No. 02-RM9832

      I am happy to support this effort to review the progress of and facilitate the 
country’s transition to digital television.  There is no question that DTV is the wave of 
the future:  Congress has mandated the return of analog spectrum and the transition to 
digital broadcasting; this Commission and its Chairman are committed to moving the 
transition forward; and there are already some 400 stations across the country 
broadcasting digital signals.  
      
      While the transition still has a significant distance to travel, I am pleased that we 
have been making some real progress in recent months, with broadcaster and cable 
commitments to digital programming, Commission action looking to phase-in 
requirements for digital television tuners, and the industry’s recent agreement on action 
to address cable compatibility issues.  My sense is that we are moving faster now than we 
were a year ago.  
      
      In spite of all this progress, there has been a tremendous void – a glaring gap – 
covering the DTV transition.  It is answering the question: What are the obligations of 
broadcasters in making sure that digital television, when it comes, will serve the public 
interest?
      
      Today, we begin to fill that void with this proceeding.  I am particularly pleased 
that we were able to reach consensus to refresh the record in the Commission’s long-
dormant proceedings on the public interest obligations of broadcasters in the DTV 
environment.  
      
      In March 1997, President Clinton ordered the creation of an Advisory Committee 
on the Public Interest Obligations of Digital Television Broadcasters, a group comprised 
of commercial and non-commercial broadcasters, producers, academics, representative of 
public interest organizations and the advertising community.  In December 1998, the 
Advisory Committee submitted its report.  That report contained ten separate 
recommendations on public interest obligations that digital television broadcasters could 
assume.  
      
      The Commission issued a formal Notice of Inquiry in December 1999, followed 
by two Notices of Proposed Rulemaking the next year. The NOI was guided by proposals 
and recommendations of the Advisory Committee, and sought comment on several issues 
related to how broadcasters might best serve the public interest during and after the 
transition from analog to digital television.  The NPRMs sought more specific comment 
on two of the Advisory Committee’s ideas.  One was putting broadcasters’ public files on 
the Internet, and the other concerned broadcaster obligations under the Children’s 
Television Act.  
      
      Here, we take a stride towards calling the public interest issues forward and 
according them the high priority they deserve, and must have, if DTV is to serve the 
interests of the American people.  I firmly believe that these issues deserve priority 
attention at the Commission.  In the final analysis, these outstanding DTV public interest 
proceedings are many times more important than digital tuners and set-top boxes.  
      
      There are many questions that cry out for discussion and decision.  I will 
reference only a few here.  If a station carries programming that serves the needs of the 
community on one of its multicast channels, has it met its obligation to serve the needs of 
its local community even if other multicast channels carry no such programming?  Can a 
station carry its weekly three hours of children’s programming exclusively on one 
multicast channel?  How do statutory political broadcasting rules apply in a multicast 
environment?  How, indeed, do we use this promising technology for the greater benefit 
of our people – all of our people?
      
      In addition to ensuring that the public interest is served through digital television, 
clarifying DTV public interest obligations is also a matter of providing certainty to 
broadcasters so they can be about the job of planning how they will use this additional 
programming opportunity.  The Commission has an obligation to the industry, as well as 
to the public, to complete action on these pending proceedings and to consider what other 
initiatives might be taken, given that more than two years have passed since much of 
anything has happened on this issue.  
      
      The opportunities of this digital medium are nothing short of spectacular in terms 
of innovation, encouraging localism and diversity, enhancing education, encouraging 
public discourse and strengthening our democracy.  I thank my colleagues for joining me 
in bringing this discussion back to the fore, and I look forward to continuing to work with 
industry, consumer groups, my colleagues and others to bring them to conclusion.  I 
strongly urge all stakeholders – that is, all Americans – to take part in this important 
discussion.  These are hugely important months for broadcasting in America, particularly 
in the context of our ongoing broadcast ownership proceedings.  The item before us today 
can help us set a course for television to truly serve the public interest as it deploys this 
promising new digital technology.