FCC Chairman Kevin Martin’s call for a government-mandated PSA campaign to inform the public about the DTV transition has gotten the broadcasters’ attention.

NAB President David Rehr cut short his visit with the Kansas Association of Broadcasters and returned to Washington hoping to meet with Martin this week.

And Martin and his fellow commissioners are likely to hear more from other broadcasters as the industry begins to make the case against mandates.

“The notion of the federal government directing broadcasters to deliver a specific message at a specific time raises fundamental concerns about the regulatory process,” says broadcast lawyer Wade Hargrove.

“It would set a troubling precedent,” he says.

Hargrove is one of several industry lawyers and lobbyists who discussed the matter during an intra-industry conference call and meeting at NAB headquarters on Monday.

“It’s in broadcasters self interest to make sure the public is fully informed,” says Hargrove. “The industry does have a plan and will implement it. Mandates are not needed.”

NAB had hoped that its voluntary awareness campaign would discourage Congress and the FCC from mandating one.

Last Monday, NAB announced the details of the voluntary campaign, which included pledges by broadcasters to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in time for PSAs.

But, despite the big numbers, the plan generated little enthusiasm on the Hill and clearly didn’t satisfy Martin.

Two days after the NAB announcement, the chairman told members of the House Telecommunications Subcommittee that he would push for FCC mandates.

With FCC Democrats Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein having already indicated their support for mandates, Martin should have little trouble turning his proposal into rules.

Nonetheless, the broadcasters are going to work, hoping they can at least water down the proposals.

They don’t have much time. Martin wants the FCC to act quickly, possibly at the scheduled Oct. 31 open meeting.

FCC insiders say Martin's proposal would take effect in November and would require stations to initially air at least four PSAs every day during different dayparts.

Six months later, stations would have to increase the PSAs to eight per day, again at different times. He wants those PSAs to inform viewers about converter boxes, which conventional analog TV set owners will be able to use to receive digital signals off air.

The chairman would also like to see at least four crawls aired as well. Such crawls would cite the Feb. 17, 2009, analog cut-off date and refer viewers to the FCC’s Web site.

Eventually, Martin is suggesting that stations air 12 PSAs and 12 crawls per day as the analog cut-off nears.

“We think our DTV plan would be superior to some sort of mandated proposal by the government because it allows flexibility,” says NAB spokesman Dennis Wharton.

“There will be PSAs in prime time. Stations ought to be given a little bit of leeway in determining what works best for their stations in their particular market.” he says.

Any meeting with Martin will emphasize that broadcasters are serious about their commitment to having a successful transition, he says.

“NAB will sit down with Martin, all the commissioners and key members of Congress to make sure they understand that we’re going to get this job done properly,” Wharton says.

“We understand it is in everybody’s best interest—Congress, the FCC and broadcasters—to have a successful conclusion of analog television.”

In pushing for mandates, Martin is responding to Hill pressure. Martin doesn’t want to be blamed for “screwing this up,” says one source.

Democratic leaders, including House Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (Mich.) and Telecommunications Chairman Ed Markey (Mass.), have voiced their desire to see the FCC implement just such a plan.

And there is widespread concern among lawmakers that they may become the scapegoats if their constituents are not aware of the transition and are surprised to find that their TV sets no longer work on Feb. 18, 2009.

Despite their best efforts, Washington insiders say, broadcasters are unlikely to derail the mandates because they have too much momentum on the Hill and at the FCC.

Plus, one lawyer close to the DTV action says, it is hard for broadcasters to say they can’t do something that they had just volunteered to do.

But broadcasters may be able to reduce the frequency of the PSAs and crawls and gain more flexibility on when and where they air.

One source suggested that the FCC could make the mandates more palatable for broadcasters by requiring that they deliver gross rating points.

Broadcast lawyers say that a court challenge of the rules might work, but that the political consequences for whatever broadcaster brings the suit would be severe.

Martin’s interest in DTV mandates, first publicly articulated in a letter to congressmen the week prior to the NAB press conference, is said to have taken NAB by surprise.

And if the mandates are adopted, they will be scored as a major loss for the NAB and Rehr.

The NAB is pouring hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, into its awareness efforts, and one of its reasons is to avoid the mandates that it is now facing.

Critics are already emerging, saying the NAB should have been more active earlier this year in heading off interest in mandates on the Hill and winning endorsements from key lawmakers for the NAB’s voluntary efforts. “They didn’t get a deal,” says one source.

This week, NAB took down the large banner protesting the XM-Sirius satellite radio merger that had been hanging on the front façade of its N Street headquarters and replaced it with a DTV banner.

“Get ready for the switch to digital TV. Feb 17, 2009,” it says. “Find out more at dtvanswers.com.”

It may serve to alert the thousands that drive or walk by every day about the transition.

But as a symbol of the NAB’s commitment to voluntary DTV awareness efforts for policymakers wandering up Connecticut Avenue, it may be too little, too late.