House DTV Caucus and its lobbying ties
July 10th, 2007Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) is planning a kickoff event for the House Digital Television Caucus this summer.
As of last month, 22 congressmen and -women had joined Walden’s newest group, but he hopes to draw more members in coming months, an aide said.
The caucus, according to a letter sent to legislators, will “communicate information on the transition to our constituents in creative and culturally competent ways.” It is set to disband after the television transition in 2009.
Walden, who formerly owned several radio stations, co-chairs the caucus with Reps. Rick Boucher, D-Va. The DTV Caucus, according to WikiCongress, was “formed in conjunction with the National Association of Broadcasters,” a powerful trade group that lobbies Congress on behalf of its industry. Through legislation, including the DTV Act, and oversight of the FCC, Congress regulates the broadcasting industry.
Donors linked to NAB were top contributors to Walden’s campaign during the 2006 election cycle, with contributions totaling $17,400, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Walden recently founded another Congressional caucus, the Small Brewers Caucus. The National Beer Wholesalers Association, formerly headed by current NAB President David Rehr, is tied for fourth place on the donor chart for the 2006 Walden campaign.
Related:
• Cable lobby salutes DTV Caucus founders
• Links: The (Bend, Ore.) Bulletin, WikiCongress, opensecrets.org
Anders Bjers says:
July 11th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Hi, interesting piece. I wonder what constituents will say to members of the caucus if they dont approve of the transition and who the members of the caucus will point at? Whos responsibility it is to get the transition working properly and whos responsibility it is if it don´t work. What will the message be from the caucus? Will it be the same as NAB´s? It will be interesting to follow. And how mainstream media will cover the caucus.
Best / Anders
www.dtvbrief.wordpress.com
Steven Sande says:
July 11th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
You raise valid questions, Anders. If the DTV transition goes badly, I expect no shortage of finger-pointing.
Broadcasters need to get word to consumers about the changeover, and members of Congress are in a position to help because they can send junk mail to their constituents for free. Here’s something that isn’t really on big media’s radar: The government is being engaged to promote a particular form of television distribution on behalf of a regulated industry that helps fund their campaigns. Those are the kinds of cozy relationships that can stand in the way of our leaders acting in the public interest.
Anders Bjers says:
July 13th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Well, I do think that any form of networking and efforts to reach out to constituents / consumers are good. However the messages needs to be really in sync with the overall comunicative strategies and messages. Becasue a transition will be complex to understand as it is and having politics in the mix may bias people. But a transition is not something you need to make politics out of. In my view.
Another thing is that the $40 coupons people probably will be able to recieve and use is really a form of subsidies. There is a great discussion among european countries about that. Because it is really to give one platform (OTA broadcasts) a favorable position. Lets say that a consumer wants to buy a satellite box instead of a converterbox. Then he won´t be able to use the coupon. EVen if the action is to make the TV work as usual. So it will give broadcasted TV a rebate compared to other choices like cable, satellite or IP/broadband TV.
It is interesting to see that no one is talking about that in media or among stakeholders in the TV-industry. In Europe and in Sweden in particular it´s been a great debate.
On the other hand, sending out the coupons is a respectfull action to households with a poorer economy.
Best / Anders
dtvbrief.wordpress.com
Steven Sande says:
July 13th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
I wish the DTV transition wasn’t so much about politics, frankly…it makes it less fun than I would like. But it tends to be treated as if it were a neutral technology change enacted for the common good, rather than something interest groups (e.g., broadcasting, cable TV, consumer electronics manufacturers) have fought about with armies of lawyers camped out in Washington for years. Do those industries exert the same level of influence over government in Sweden, or do good-government laws protect the public interest?
Civic groups and even elected leaders, some of them, will approach this in an apolitcal fashion at this point, which should indeed make it easier for consumers to understand, and of course it’s important to help everyone understand what they need to do to manage the switchover.