***NAB2004 Convention
Opening Address
NAB President and CEO Edward O. Fritts

Las Vegas, NV
April 19, 2004

Thank you and welcome to the NAB 2004 Convention!

Team NAB will be working hard this week to make this a memorable
and productive show for each and every one of you.

I've been fortunate enough to be president of NAB for more than
20 years, and it is still a tremendous honor for me to represent
the thousands of hometown radio and television stations all over
America. I salute over-the-air broadcasters for their day-in and
day-out commitment to community.

Ladies & gentlemen, I want you to imagine for a moment that you
lived in a country where you had cable TV, satellite TV,
satellite radio...you had the Internet, broadband, wi-fi, and so
forth ... but imagine that local radio and television did not
exist.

Imagine a country where all households had to pay $75 a month or
more for TV entertainment, $10 a month for their radio, and $50 a
month for their high-speed Internet service.

Imagine that, other than the morning paper, news of the community
was limited and there was no direct connection to the local
community.

Now ... imagine that a new wireless technology came along and
declared:

We will give you free television.

We will give you free radio.

We will give you free local news, free local weather reports and
school closings as they happen.

What's more, we will be a leading contributor to the local
community.

We will be as local as the bakery, the car dealership, the church
or synagogue.

We will volunteer billions of dollars of public service every
year, and help raise hundreds of millions for charity.

We will be the first responders in getting out information on
local emergencies, such as tornadoes and terrorist attacks.

We will even bring you emergency alerts -- called Amber Alerts --
that will save the lives of 150 kidnapped children.

We will be the community's local lifeline.

My friends, if this new technology called broadcasting came along
today, it would be hailed as a miracle. It would be the darling
of legislators and regulators. They would herald it as an amazing
addition to public and political discourse. They would declare it
a tremendous advance in public safety in this era of concern over
homeland security.

I saw a cartoon the other day. A fellow is in a phone store with
all these different kinds of phones that take pictures, send
text, play music and so forth, and he says to the clerk, "Do you
have a phone where you just talk to people?"

Sometimes we lose sight of the fundamentals in the pursuit of the
flashy and the fleeting.

I think something similar has happened to broadcasting, at least
on the part of some public policymakers.

If broadcasting were a developing technology, the government
would enthusiastically encourage its spread. Look how Congress is
loath to regulate the Internet or to do anything that might
stifle its growth. I think the Internet is terrific, but what has
the Internet done for community service? How many kidnapped kids
have been saved by a Web site?

Let me tell you about another cartoon I saw. A father, sitting in
his easy chair, is talking to his son. The boy has obviously
asked the father a question, and the father replies, "Go ask your
computer search engine." Going online and asking an Internet
search engine for local news is no replacement for the immediate,
live and local service that broadcasters provide.

Ladies & gentlemen, I am here to tell you that broadcasting
should feel good about its function and its future.

In 2004, broadcasting's biggest issues revolve around how
government balances technological forces ... with economic forces
... with the public good. When I say technological forces, I mean
digital. When I say economic forces, I mean the clash of
broadcast, cable and satellite. And when I say the public good, I
mean us.

I mean broadcasting, which is not only free but exceedingly
generous, providing more than $9.9 billion a year in public
service announcements and funds raised for local charities and
disaster relief.

That $9.9 billion is worth more in public service than the top
100 foundations combined!

My friends, broadcasting serves a public purpose, a greater good,
but I cannot convey to you the constant vigilance we must keep.

At the NAB, we are constantly on guard to preserve and strengthen
this valuable resource called free, over-the-air broadcasting.

Let me review some of our hot-button issues.

First, some good news about television's transition to digital.
I'm happy to report that great advances have been made on the DTV
front, and it is the broadcast industry leading the way. We were
the first to embrace FCC Chairman Powell's voluntary DTV plan two
years ago, and we haven't looked back. The FCC has mandated DTV
tuners in all digital sets. It has facilitated plug and play. It
has promoted the distribution of new content by protecting it
with a broadcast flag.

Yet it is mystifying why the FCC continues to delay action on
perhaps the biggest decision of all: cable must carry of DTV and
multicast signals. Nearly 1,200 local stations are broadcasting
digital signals, but only a third of those are carried on cable.
Our DTV and high definition signals are all dressed up with no
place to go. I call on the FCC to break down the cable industry's
digital dam, and let the free broadcast signals flow. Here's our
message to Brian Roberts and leaders of the cable cartel: Tear
down that wall! ... Stop blocking consumer access to the best TV
pictures the world has ever seen.

Another issue ... The Columbia Journalism Review has called DTV
multicasting "TV on Steroids," because, using digital spectrum,
local TV stations can provide as many as six separate channels
simultaneously. This would allow broadcasters to deliver a range
of new programs -- local C-Spans, local all-news channels, more
kids' educational programming and many other consumer choices.

Predictably, the cable industry is fighting multicasting. The
cable monopoly is frightened of potential competition that would
be created by hundreds of new channels offered free by
broadcasters.

I can understand cable not wanting competition. What is baffling
is why the FCC has not yet embraced the notion of more
competition to cable and more public service programming for
consumers - all free of charge. To the cable companies, we say,
"Pick up our signals and pick up the pace of progress." To the
FCC, we ask respectfully: "Please make a decision on cable DTV
carriage, and let's get on with it."

Another item on our TV must-do list is renewal of the Satellite
Home Viewer Improvement Act. Mischief is afoot in Washington on
this one, with bogus claims of "digital white areas," "two-dish
schemes," and other such nonsense. The bottom line is that NAB
won't be satisfied until every TV station in all 21O markets is
carried on satellite "local-to-local." Once that is in place,
there is no reason for any consumer to receive an out-of-market
distance network signal on satellite.

We want to advance localism for television, and we also want to
advance it for radio. Digital radio is an exciting and necessary
advance. For radio not to go digital would be like commercial
airliners in the 196O's not going from propeller to jet engines.
Local radio stations are embracing digital, just as television
has done. Radio doesn't need new spectrum to make the change ...
only a belief in itself and an investment in its future.

What concerns our radio colleagues, of course, is satellite
radio's obvious violation of FCC rules. You've read that XM and
Sirius are now cream skimming certain broadcast markets by
providing local weather and traffic reports. We believe this
directly contradicts FCC rules, under which satellite was
licensed as a national service. Clearly, XM and Sirius face
serious financial problems, plus other pressures. A quarter of
their customers are switching off the service every year. Also,
the life expectancy of XM satellites has fallen from 17 to less
than 7 years.

That's why every morning when I get up, I look out the window to
make sure an XM satellite is not plummeting toward my roof.

So you can see why XM and Sirius are skirting the FCC rules. That
must not happen. I urge all radio broadcasters to contact their
Members of Congress in support of HR 4O26, the bill that orders
the FCC to investigate the XM and Sirius violations.

Let me now turn from the indefensible to the indecent ... and say
a few words about a topic that just won't go away. To be sure,
this year's Super Bowl halftime show was an unfortunate event.
But if a similar incident had happened on any of the hundreds of
cable or satellite channels, it would have been greeted with a
collective shrug by the American public and by public
policymakers.

Why? ... Because "wardrobe malfunctions" are part of the cable
and satellite landscape Monday through Friday, 24/7.

Some would say that what happened at the Super Bowl was: cable
television standards being foist on an American public expecting
broadcast standards. Others would say that what is malfunctioning
now in Washington is a regulatory framework that treats broadcast
programming different than that of cable and satellite. I'm not
suggesting that broadcasters do not continue to have a special
compact with the government. The government licenses spectrum to
broadcasters, and broadcasters in turn serve the community. And
it's my belief that the vast majority of Americans believe that
social compact is alive and flourishing.

Two weeks ago, the NAB held a summit on responsible programming.
As an industry, we are working through this difficult issue,
mindful that voluntary initiatives are preferable to government-
imposed mandates. In that regard, NAB is forming an Advisory
Committee on Responsible Programming. I'm pleased to announce
that two distinguished former NAB Joint board chairmen have
agreed to co-chair this committee. Gary Chapman of LIN Television
and David Kennedy of Susquehannah Radio have agreed to provide
industry leadership on this advisory committee. You'll be hearing
more on this in the near future. Self-regulation can be flexible,
adaptable, and can be tailored to each station's unique
circumstance ... everything that government regulation is not.

Let me close with a final point ...

When Democratic senate Leader Tom Daschle spoke at an NAB event
last month, he drew an interesting analogy. He said that when
Pierre L'Enfant was designing Washington, D.C., he didn't make
the Capitol or the White House the center of the city, but rather
the National Mall. L'Enfant believed that democratic fellowship
arises when citizens are able to come together in a shared public
space. Senator Daschle called broadcasting our nation's public
space. I could not agree more.

Indeed, broadcasting is also our local town square. From FDR's
fireside chats to Neil Armstrong landing on the moon, from ethnic
language TV to community-based talk radio, broadcasters provide a
connection to listeners and viewers that is invaluable to local
communities. The NAB is committed to our industry's tradition of
leading-edge localism. Leading-edge localism means that
broadcasting will remain technologically strong. It means that we
will remain economically vibrant. And it means that we will
remain committed to the community. Leading-edge localism is how
broadcasting will keep our advantage over the flashy and the
fleeting.

My fellow broadcasters, I urge you to embrace our digital future
with confidence. And never, EVER forget that localism is our
franchise, and ours alone. Thanks again for being here ... and
now, let's all have a great Convention!

www.nabshow.com/



Wave Issue 0415 /23/2004 Article 2-01