Robert Johnson scolds Alfred Liggins for FCC Complaint
by Markus Robinson
Robert Johnson, entrepreneur and founder of BET has some harsh words for Interactive One’s CEO Alfred Liggins, about their recent FCC complaint in opposition of Johnson’s newest endeavor Urban Television, LLC. In the letter Johnson states:
As you know, TV One is the only minority-owned channel since BET is now a division of Viacom, yet you take the position in your filing that there is no need for another voice to serve the broad range of viewing interests in the African American community.
Johnson goes on to say:
I can recall vividly when you launched TV One you made a strenuous argument that TV One should get mandatory carriage on any cable system that served urban markets. I further recall when you said BET was not enough. You felt then that BET should not be the only voice. Now, in an amazing turn-about of self interest or motivated by Comcast, the largest cable company which owns a significant stake in TV One, you argue that TV One should be the only voice.
The 2 page letter gets very interesting, check the full letter here:
Dear Alfred,
I am very disappointed and puzzled as to why you would file comments with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (File Nos. BALCT-20081118AGX, et al.; DA 08-2621, DA 08-2772; filed/accepted February 19, 2009) in opposition to the creation of another programming network that I would own – Urban Television, LLC – that would help serve the viewing interests of over 30 million African Americans. As you know, TV One is the only minority-owned channel since BET is now a division of Viacom, yet you take the position in your filing that there is no need for another voice to serve the broad range of viewing interests in the African American community.
I can recall vividly when you launched TV One you made a strenuous argument that TV One should get mandatory carriage on any cable system that served urban markets. I further recall when you said BET was not enough. You felt then that BET should not be the only voice. Now, in an amazing turn-about of self interest or motivated by Comcast, the largest cable company which owns a significant stake in TV One, you argue that TV One should be the only voice. You know as well as I that there are over 500 majority-owned channels serving the viewing interest of the majority community and while African Americans represent 12 percent of the U.S. population, there is only one channel, yours, that is minority-owned. This position is not only a detriment to diversity, which we all support, it clearly argues that the cable industry has an obligation to serve the broad public interest by providing more diversity for the African American customers who spend in excess of $4 Billion annually on cable to receive literally two black program oriented channels.
Furthermore, let me be clear the digital must carry that we are seeking would in no way reduce carriage for TV One, BET, or will any way prevent the future expansion of TV One or BET. Cable systems (based on engineering specifications) have the technological capacity to carry a second digital channel without any reduction in cable channel spectrum. In other words, digital channels don’t require the cable operators to drop any existing cable service.
Therefore, your argument that Urban Television would “have a devastating impact” on TV One is totally without merit and absolutely self-serving. You suggest that the process that we’re proposing for a government mandated right to carriage is “a thinly-veiled” attempt to circumvent the system. I guess you mean by the “system” that we go to each cable market, system-by-system, and beg for carriage.
Alfred, as you well know, it is that very process which caused the failure of other African Americans who have tried to launch cable networks including Percy Sutton’s Apollo Channel and attorney Willie Gary’s New Urban Entertainment Television. As you well know, when I was at BET, and I am sure you did the same at TV One, we used every political leverage at our disposal to force many cable operators to carry our programming throughout their systems. In fact, had you not had the support of the largest cable company Comcast which was under political pressure to complete a minority deal, and I had Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI), our two channels would have never existed.
I would, at any time that you suggest, be willing to debate with you whether or not Urban Television deserves mandatory digital must carriage in front of any public interest group or government hearing. I would like to hear your argument as to why the FCC should not grant digital must carry that would promote diversity and better serve the viewing interests of African Americans.
My argument at these hearings would be that if Urban Television is successful in gaining digital must carry, other broadcasters could be encouraged to establish additional programming partnerships that could include content providers like Essence, EBONY, Black Enterprise or young African American Hollywood executives who are constantly searching for a distribution platform to showcase their creative ideas. These digital channels could also prove fertile ground for nonentertainment programming focused on education, health care, or financial literacy – all issues that are critically important to the African American community today. Moreover, if the digital stations are approved, there will be more opportunity for diversity and localism. For example a local Chicago, Atlanta, or Detroit broadcast station may want to provide local programming channels in partnership with minority entrepreneurs.
I would hope that you would hold a greater vision of this technological opportunity presented by digital must carry and join with Urban Television and the many organizations like the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council (MMTC), the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ), RainbowPUSH Coalition, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the National Urban League (NUL), the National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters (NABOB), the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the International Black Broadcasters Association, the National Bar Association, the Community Broadcasters Association (CBA), and others who have filed in support of this innovative use of digital technology and the necessity for mandatory cable carriage.
Warm Regards,
Robert L. Johnson
Letter to Alfred – Free Legal Forms
Did you like this article? Share It!
Kamau says:
While I hate to see our people argue in public and I hate to agree with Bob Johnson, he is absolutely right. Blacks folks have to come together and work in unity so for dude to try and block another black owned tv network is wrong.
Nokware says:
Ouch. That's quite a tongue lashing. But Johnson's argument sounds fair, to say the least. It sounds as if Liggins is asking for a legalized monopoly. Not exactly the American way.
Angela Benton says:
Whew! Bob went hard on him. I must say I do agree w/ his statements, especially this one:
My argument at these hearings would be that if Urban Television is successful in gaining digital must carry, other broadcasters could be encouraged to establish additional programming partnerships that could include content providers like Essence, EBONY, Black Enterprise or young African American Hollywood executives who are constantly searching for a distribution platform to showcase their creative ideas. These digital channels could also prove fertile ground for nonentertainment programming focused on education, health care, or financial literacy – all issues that are critically important to the African American community today. Moreover, if the digital stations are approved, there will be more opportunity for diversity and localism. For example a local Chicago, Atlanta, or Detroit broadcast station may want to provide local programming channels in partnership with minority entrepreneurs.
I'd love to hear the other side to this and/or a response from TV One's perspective.
Shercilla says:
I understand Bob's frustration because on the surface, it does appear that Liggin's is merely trying to block another's blessing. I can't however, escape the nagging feeling that there is more to his (Alfred's) protest than the consumer public is being made aware of.
Gem2001 says:
@Shercilla there is WAY more to this than Bob is laying on. Liggins isn't the only multicultural broadcaster in opposition, in fact ALL of the multicultural broadcasters are in opposition, from Si TV to the Gospel Music Channel. http://www.commlawblog.com/2009/01/articles/bro...
In fact, the only Black folks in favor of this are the “Civil Rights” organizations, but check out what they were saying about these multi-cast “must carry” schemes just one year before. Non other than Jesse Jackson Sr. via Rinbow PUSH explained why Ion's scheme would harm minority media owners.http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519836708
What changed in a year? Why was it harmful in 2007, but a miracle in 2008? How did Bob Johnson's Black face change the impact this will have on multicultural channels?
One way to look at it is this. Each TV “station” actually has a ton more capacity than they ever use. That “spectrum” can be split up into pieces. However, cable carriers only have to carry the primary signal. Ion wants to force cable carriers to carry them all. So in exchange for giving Black folks a 51% stake in a piece of a crumb, Ion gets to save its entire business and get exponentially more of its stations on to Direct TV, DISH and cable. Not a high price to pay to give up capacity you already weren't using,
Dig deeper and look into whether or no 51% equals “ownership” if the minority owner retains certain rights that make the majority owner's “rights” illusory. Do you really “own” something if you have to get permission from someone else to do with it what you will? Do you really own something if you have to use someone else's equipment and facilities to carry out your business?
I don't know. I'm just asking the questions. Right now MSM is basically publishing Bob Johnson's press releases.
Gem2001 says:
@Angela there are not going to be “hearings.” At this point this petition is being decided under “DA” delegated authority. The Media Bureau will be making the decision, not the full Commission. Yes, EBONY, ESSENCE, and other AA content providers could get their own programming, but they could have that now. Ion has the extra capacity in their spectrum. For every “Black” oriented station that is added, there will be 50 other stations added. The cable carriers will not be able to carry them all. Somebody has to go.
Gem2001 says:
Actually, its the other way around. Bob Johnson would have the legalized monopoly. Because this isn't an open process, Urban TV would be the only station benefiting from this in the beginning. TV One, the Gospel Music Channel, the Africa Channel, and BTTN actually had to compete in the market place to get carried by cable. Johnson asking the government not to make him compete, but to force them to carry him. He will get an advantage TV One and the other Black oriented stations won't have because they won't be “broadcast” There isn't a TV One “broadcast” station so they won't get to take advantage of the multicast must carry. They aren't multicast.
At least I think that's the case after pouring over FCC filings all week
Gem2001 says:
There is nothing preventing Bob Johnson and Ion from beginning to broadcast Urban Television today. Liggins isn't blocking anything. What Johnson is asking is for the FCC to grant Bob Johnson an advantage that TV One, the Africa Channel, Si TV, the Gospel Music Channel,and Black Television News don't have. This has nothing to do with Urban television, but Ion Life and Quoba. Ion can't get them on Cable of satellite, so they are using this “diversity” angle to get a ruling to force all their other non-AA-oriented channels onto satellite and cable.
Don't believe the hype. Most of the “articles” in places like Broadcasting and Cable and the other MSM's are just repeating Bob Johnson's press releases.
You have to ask yourself, WHY is Bob coming back so hard? because if this “Diversity” angle gets blown to bits by Liggins and other Black folks, then the whole deal goes down the tubes.
Muntu says:
3-6-09
Good Folk;
Passing on an insight into “crabs-in-the barrel” – my assertion. This is self-serving interest that goes against the best interest of the community, (the Natl. Black Community)… Who? Alfred Liggins, TV-One; Bob Johnson, Urban Television – (Johnson was the creator of BET-TV)
In my humble opinion, these two entities should be forced to sit with each other and hammer out an amenable agreement so they both can provide diversity and choice to the National Black Community.
Our social and civic organizations should step-up and push both parties.
Read on and pass your opinion. Communications is the most important factor in bringing UNITY within our diverse and spread-out National Black Community. We need instant NEWS of each other’s communities in order to enhance and strengthen our own individual areas.
This in-fighting is sooo defeating to our communal growth. Let these folks grow up; give up the ego and partner together like other races in this world. There is, as they proclaim a four billion dollar cable market within the National African-American Community. The two entities together could carve out a greater portion of our market, if they provide us with viable programming, news, service and choice. We now know how to collectively make advertisers responsible and sensitive to our greater needs.
Blessings,
Warren Haskins
Cc: Bob Johnson, Urban television, LLC
Alfred Liggins, TV-One, Inc.