Shapiro Again Accuses Broadcasters Of ‘Slow-Walking’ Spectrum Auction
CEA President Gary Shapiro took the opportunity of a Media Institute lunch Monday to again accuse broadcasters of trying to delay the spectrum incentive auction. “Broadcasters appear to be employing every possible strategy to slow walk the auctions,” he said, repeating an accusation he has leveled against broadcasters at recent speaking appearances (CD April 2 p6).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Shapiro cited broadcaster opposition to the incentive auction legislation and an NAB FCC filing about the repacking of stations that will be required. “The FCC must resist efforts to maim the auctions by those seeking to slow them down, restrict participation or impose unreasonable requirements,” Shapiro said. NAB has defended its record on spectrum auctions, and said Monday it’s working with technology and other companies on the auction.
Shapiro pointed to recent NAB filings on changes to OET-69, the methodology being used by the FCC to calculate interference between stations for the repacking process associated with the incentive auction. On April 17, NAB executives met with the Office of Engineering and Technology to present arguments about the changes, which they say will create “substantial uncertainty for broadcasters and the wireless industry,” said an ex-parte filing (http://bit.ly/14KaqZO). It said the changes to the old OET-69 methodology, which the FCC has said is more accurate, mean that broadcasters that had previously been able use the old methodology to predict what their post-auction coverage area might look like can no longer do so. “As a result of these changes, no broadcaster could know what it would be auctioning or preserving,” said the ex parte filing. NAB said changes to OET-69 should be handled through a public rulemaking process, and that “such a reexamination is not appropriate or wise in the middle of an extremely complex proceeding” like the spectrum auction.
Shapiro said the old OET 69 methodology the NAB favors uses 1990 Census data. “Why is NAB pushing to use software that relies on 20-year old population data and 20th century technology?” Shapiro asked, calling NAB’s request to use the old methodology “a stalling tactic.” In comments to the FCC, NAB has pointed out that the census data used is actually from the 2000 Census. “Our aim is to help the commission have a successful auction as expeditiously as possible,” said an NAB spokesman Monday. “We are engaged and working with our counterparts in the wireless and technology industries to solve the difficult challenges raised by this first-in-the-world auction.”
Shapiro said it’s important to hold the spectrum auction as soon as possible because of a vastly increased consumer need for wireless devices. He cited data from a CEA study, which he said showed that the top-four consumer electronics “in terms of household penetration” were mobile devices, with tablet computers now in more than one third of U.S. households and smartphones in 58 percent. “And this growth in mobile will continue.” said Shapiro. He said nearly 132 million smartphones will be sold in the U.S. this year, and an estimated 181 million by the end of 2016. “The challenge we face is ensuring they work,” said Shapiro. “We need spectrum for these devices."
Shapiro also took broadcasters to task for their litigation against Internet service Aereo, and subsequent comments by broadcasters that they may go to a subscription model if the litigation goes against them (CD April 17 p3). U.S. companies specialize in innovation, and broadcasters’ lawsuit against Aereo is an example of their resistance to innovation, Shapiro said. “While I recognize that copyright needs clear protection, we also need clear laws and bias toward allowing new forms of innovation and technology that cannot be choked by spurious litigation or unnecessary government restrictions.”