Barton’s LPTV Draft Bill Stirs Mixed Reactions Among Stakeholders
The draft version of the LPTV and Translator Act unveiled by the House Communications Subcommittee Thursday (http://1.usa.gov/1u0pRcH) and written by Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, leaves some key stakeholders uncertain. But some advocates for such low-power TV issues argue it’s a crucial first step and are thrilled to see Congress raising the profile of the issue ahead of the FCC broadcast TV spectrum incentive auction, slated for mid-2015. They told us people should be prepared for the discussion draft to evolve.
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.
"They all first looked at me like, ‘have I lost my mind?'” said Advanced Television Broadcasting Alliance Executive Director Louis Libin of other low-power operators and owners, describing negotiations that created the draft bill. His group along with the National Translator Association and the National Religious Broadcasters worked with Barton on the bill, he said. Libin has coordinated with Barton staff for the past six months on the legislation, he said. “Every single word is a negotiation, but it’s not the end.”
The House Communications Subcommittee will consider the LPTV and Translator Act Thursday at 10:15 a.m. in 2322 Rayburn in a legislative hearing along with two other bills -- the Anti-Spoofing Act of 2013 (HR-3670) and a draft version of the E-LABEL Act. Barton has talked about producing a bill on LPTV issues for many months now, such as in a December oversight hearing featuring FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. Then and in a January interview, Barton mentioned working with House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., on the bill (CD Jan 30 p18). The draft bill the committee unveiled Thursday night only lists Barton’s name.
"When we officially introduce the bill we fully expect Chairman Walden to be an original co-sponsor,” a Barton spokesman said Friday. “We have worked closely with him in crafting this bill.” The spokesman said it has been a “long and winding” road of two years in getting to this point from when a low-power broadcaster from Barton’s district first approached him. Walden’s office was unable to confirm his co-sponsorship.
The legislation’s stated aim is to protect LPTV stations after the incentive auction. The FCC would be compelled to “where possible, avoid the termination of a low-power television station, television translator station, or television booster station, as long as such avoidance does not adversely impact the reverse auction,” said the three-page bill. It also said the agency would have to “permit any low-power television station, television translator station, or television booster station to request to operate at reduced power or from a different transmitter location consistent with the Commission’s rules, if such station would otherwise lose its license as a result of such reassignments or reallocations.”
Too Broad?
"I would love for it to be not quite so vanilla” but it’s good Congress is considering the issues and may be exerting “steady oversight” of the FCC on this front, said National Translator Association President Jim McDonald. The language is “pretty broad” but largely “fine,” “essentially a way of putting the brakes on,” he said. McDonald, who described meeting with Barton’s office on the issue over the last half year, would prefer the legislation have more teeth and specific language, he said.
"The bill could help the atmospherics,” said National Translator Association Vice President-Legal Affairs Michael Couzens after reviewing the text, “but that’s all it would do. It does not provide any substantive relief whatsoever.” He criticized language in the bill suggesting LPTV entities could operate at reduced power and referred to the bill as an unfunded mandate: “It’s not something I would spend any energy trying to get passed.”
Mike Gravino, director of the LPTV Spectrum Rights Coalition, attacked the bill on its merits in a long email message he had circulated. He’s pleased a bill is introduced and has a hearing scheduled, but “we give them a ‘D’ for using language which may, although not for sure, but might actually limit LPTV spectrum usage rights,” Gravino said. “For not actually solving any real LPTV problems, and offering up even lower power as a solution to limited channel availabilities, well that gets an ‘F.” Gravino’s group did not help in the drafting of the bill, he said.
Libin defended the draft despite his own “reservations.” Barton is “a congressman who really supports us in this,” Libin said, saying every LPTV operator and owner should be excited to see the debate “thrown up a notch” and that policymakers are “not talking about chopping us off at the legs.” Modifying the draft now is how “the Washington process works,” he said. “We're not extremely happy over some of the wording.” He would change the draft wording that said avoid the termination of low-power entities “where possible,” for instance, he said. He sees his goal as to “build consensus,” he said, emphasizing the multitude of stakeholders involved and a need to work with the wireless industry.
"I'm really very pleased with it,” said Fletcher Heald attorney Peter Tannenwald, who represents LPTV clients. The bill would send “a very important message” to the FCC and “tell them to do something,” he said. The next step for this legislation may be nailing down the language to yield “an end result a little more specific,” he said. (jhendel@warren-news.com)