Industry Backs O'Rielly Kidvid Proposal, Which Some See Advancing Amid Public Interest Opposition

Some industry officials don’t believe O’Rielly would have blogged about relaxing the requirements if he didn’t have reason to believe Pai’s office was amenable. Asked about O’Rielly’s proposal at a Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council event Tuesday, Commissioner Brendan Carr responded broadly that broadcasters labored under too many regulations and said he would be “happy” to see if steps could be taken about kidvid. The offices of Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel didn’t comment.

Advocates for the mandates have believed for months the FCC might move to relax them, said Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy. The rules were targeted in numerous filings from broadcasters, MVPDs and content companies in media regulation modernization docket 17-105, he noted. Companies that want the system relaxed see O’Rielly's public support as a signal, and could begin lobbying, industry officials said. The FCC is still determining the next steps on media deregulation, said a spokesman. Broadcast attorneys said the kidvid rules would be by far the most controversial topic tackled under Pai’s monthly media deregulation effort, which has largely focused on minor, unobjectionable rule changes approved unanimously.

The requirements are extremely burdensome to broadcasters, and their positive effect on children’s education was never demonstrated, said broadcast attorney Jack Goodman. After two decades, the FCC should be able to justify the obligations by showing they have led to some sort of improvement, Goodman said. The requirement for three hours weekly squeezes schedules, and the content’s protected status, is “an incredible pain” for broadcasters to pre-empt programming, he said. There are also filing requirements. Stations have been fined thousands of dollars for neglecting those filings, which amount to “hundreds of pages that no one ever looks at,” Goodman said.

The commercial restrictions are a problem for programmers, content industry officials said. Filings in the media deregulation docket cited rules barring showing of websites in kids' content as hampering attempts to make educational content for children available. Internet based providers of children’s programming don’t have to follow similar mandates, MPAA commented. “Absent additional flexibility, non-internet based providers may be discouraged from providing kids programming, or less able to raise revenue, which could affect both the quality and quantity of the content.” If there’s more freedom in kids' programming that doesn’t fall under FCC regulation, investment dollars will flow away from content that does, one industry official said. “There’s a clear regulatory imbalance.”

Since broadcasters use spectrum they were granted from the public, they have an obligation to serve the public interest by providing educational TV for children, said Adrianne Furniss, executive director of the Benton Foundation, in an interview. “If the FCC gets rid of the CTA [Children’s Television Act] rules, broadcasters should have to pay back their retransmission consent money,” Chester said, saying litigation would swiftly follow FCC action against the curbs. Though O’Reilly argued children have other sources of content now, such as streaming services, Furniss said online video isn’t accessible to everyone. Chester, who advocated for the rules when they were approved, said his side lost when broadcasters were required to offer only three hours a week of kids' content. “We wanted an hour a day,” he said. “This is a small price to pay.”