Not withstanding Mr. Smith\'s comments, if the FCC \"requests\" that any station that participates in this 30 day SAFER Act, broadcast only educational messages and emergency messages, I think that this \"request\" would be strictly followed by the participating broadcasters. With that said, I can\'t see why any broadcaster would willingly take on the extra expense of operating their analog transmitter for the extra month.

Not withstanding Mr. Smith's comments, if the FCC "requests" that any station that participates in this 30 day SAFER Act, broadcast only educational messages and emergency messages, I think that this "request" would be strictly followed by the participating broadcasters. With that said, I can't see why any broadcaster would willingly take on the extra expense of operating their analog transmitter for the extra month.

FCC cannot regulate \"content.\" The bill, as I read it, grants Congressional authority to the FCC to \"encourage and permit\" the analog broadcast of DTV info. In the final version, somebody slipped the word \"only\" before the mention of the DTV information -- but neither Congress nor the FCC has the authority to regulate content, which is constitutionally protected commercial speech. So, notwithstanding someone slipping the word \"only\" in the final bill, if a station wants to supply its regular programming along with a DTV crawl, it would have the constitutionally protected right to do so. To say otherwise would be to somehow allow the FCC to regulate content, which the Constitution prohibits. NTIA/FCC, tell me if you have another interpretation. If so, you would seem to be walking on thin ice, constitutionally speaking.

FCC cannot regulate "content." The bill, as I read it, grants Congressional authority to the FCC to "encourage and permit" the analog broadcast of DTV info. In the final version, somebody slipped the word "only" before the mention of the DTV information -- but neither Congress nor the FCC has the authority to regulate content, which is constitutionally protected commercial speech. So, notwithstanding someone slipping the word "only" in the final bill, if a station wants to supply its regular programming along with a DTV crawl, it would have the constitutionally protected right to do so. To say otherwise would be to somehow allow the FCC to regulate content, which the Constitution prohibits.
NTIA/FCC, tell me if you have another interpretation. If so, you would seem to be walking on thin ice, constitutionally speaking.

There is nothing I can see in the language of the bill that prohibits stations from airing their full programming lineup on their analog feed. This story makes it sound like the bill specifies that only DTV and emergency info can be broadcast, when in fact it appears that the language of the law allows stations to continue \"business as usual\" in analog for 30 days as long as they provide DTV and emergency info. Can you please clarify this in an updated version?

There is nothing I can see in the language of the bill that prohibits stations from airing their full programming lineup on their analog feed. This story makes it sound like the bill specifies that only DTV and emergency info can be broadcast, when in fact it appears that the language of the law allows stations to continue "business as usual" in analog for 30 days as long as they provide DTV and emergency info. Can you please clarify this in an updated version?