Dear Mr. Chairman-Designate:

President Trump’s election last month was as fascinating as it was profound. His message of radical reform obviously resonated in a way not seen since Teddy Roosevelt was thrust into service. His vision of efficient government that should work to accelerate innovation then get the hell out of the way is tantalizing. After more than a half-century in and around the mechanics of communications regulation, I am as optimistic as can be at that prospect.

In was in the light of Mr. Trump’s victory that I read your comments last week regarding broadcasters’ public interest responsibilities. As always, your intense, full-throated convictions left no doubt that the government needs to get out of the way and that the commission needs to ensure that the public sees a “quid” in return for the “quo” for use of broadcast channels. How to do that has historically been a mystifying trick.

Yes, we understand the dynamic, if not slippery, nature of the “public interest.” Its core meaning has baffled FCC chairs from Sykes to Sikes, from Fly to Fowler, from Porter to Patrick, Powell to Pai and Minow to Martin. From the time the phrase was suggested by a young Senate aide to Senator Clarence Dill in 1927, its meaning has been elusive. It is, as former Chairman Newton Minow once said, “the battleground of regulatory debate.”

A suggestion/question: Yes, broadcasters have public interest responsibilities, but why are those tied only to content? From KidVid mandates to candidate access requirements, the commission has always looked at a broadcaster’s public interest responsibilities only in terms of programming. What I like about your approach to spectrum is that it should be maximized to its best and highest use by the market.

Maybe that includes content and maybe there’s a substitute. Your support of broadcasters’ datacasting opportunities speaks to that flexible use of spectrum. So why not incorporate datacasting as part of the public interest payment for use of the broadcast channel? Using a fraction of channel capacity, broadcasters can provide data capabilities to support a terrestrial supplement to the vulnerable satellite-based GPS system. What would be more in the public interest than broadcasters serving as the backbone of a national security infrastructure?

The Broadcast Positioning System proposals to use NextGen TV (ATSC 3.0) technology to transmit precise timing signals are already being evaluated by the Department of Transportation and the Defense Department. You could be the catalyst to making that a reality by accelerating the deployment of the NextGen broadcast standard and requiring that a portion be used for BPS timing. Setting a firm and early sunset date to reliance on the ATSC 1.0 standard would accomplish multiple fundamental goals: moving the industry to full deployment of the new standard by all stations, opening up vast new capabilities and benefits to consumers and signaling to the receiver industry that the standard is here to stay. That is a win-win-win for consumers, broadcasters and national security.

It’s an out-of-the-box way for broadcasters to meet their public interest responsibilities, First Amendment considerations aside. Something worth considering.

Jerald N. Fritz was the chief of staff to former FCC Chairman Mark Fowler, an NAB Board member and EVP of ONE Media.