LPTV and Translator Act Faces Bevy of Critics Ahead of Thursday Hearing

Subcommittee ranking member Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., plans objections. “Giving the FCC new instructions when they are well into the design and development of the most complex spectrum auction ever conducted would add unnecessary complexity and could dismantle the carefully crafted balance on other issues of importance to Subcommittee members, including maximizing both unlicensed and licensed spectrum,” Eshoo plans to say Thursday, according to her prepared statement.

"As current law stands,” low-power TV broadcasters “carry a secondary license to full power stations, which means that a LPTV broadcaster could potentially lose the spectrum they hold in the incentive auction,” Barton expects to say in his opening statement. “While this bill does not guarantee additional rights, it does provide the LPTV community with a stronger moral position and enhanced standing before the [FCC].” Barton will cite work with the Advanced Television Broadcasting Alliance (ATBA), NAB, National Religious Broadcasters and the National Translator Association (NTA).

"We are concerned that any legislation will require the FCC to engage in a new round of rulemaking and invite stakeholders to re-litigate everything related to the repacking -- even if the bill does not address broader issues,” Public Knowledge Senior Vice President Harold Feld, a scheduled witness at the hearing, told us. “No matter how Congress tries to narrow the impact of any legislation, the FCC will need to have some kind of proceeding to implement it, and the interrelated and complex nature of [FCC’s broadcast TV spectrum incentive auction, scheduled for mid-2015] guarantees that people will drag in unrelated issues.”

Feld is slated to testify alongside Louis Libin, ATBA executive director and a negotiator behind the draft (CD July 21 p2). Libin strongly defended the bill to us last week and again Wednesday. “We know we're up against the best of the best,” Libin said of Feld, who he argued is associated with wireless interests. “It’s about the viewers at home, it’s about how many we can save from being hurt.” Libin said he is “doing my best to reach out to as many Democrats” on the subcommittee as he can to assuage concerns, emphasizing the ethnic groups that are stakeholders in such low-power debates and framing that as a key concern of such Democrats. “It really comes down to simple protection” for low-power stakeholders, he said.

NTA, in a statement it released this week, called the bill “a good faith effort” but outlined concerns that some may “perversely” use “the actual language” in places “to further diminish rights of the affected licensees, rather than preserve rights currently enshrined in FCC policy.” Jim McDonald, the association’s president, had offered to testify but the committee declined.

The LPTV Spectrum Rights Coalition opposes the bill language, with Director Mike Gravino circulating a detailed attack Wednesday. Congress must request a GAO analysis “of the impacts of the auction on LPTV, so that an accurate cost-model may be developed for LPTV relocation funding” before legislating, he said, suggesting the study be done during August recess, with legislation talks potentially to resume in the fall. Gravino did an informal stakeholder survey and posted critical anonymous quotes online (http://conta.cc/1rKz58A), with his own message of concern: “STOP BARTON, WALDEN, and SINCLAIR FROM KILLING LPTV!” Gravino attacked the ATBA as “a shadowy group backed by ultra-conservative TV station group Sinclair Broadcasting, the largest NAB station group owner.”

"Sinclair is one of the major funders of our alliance, but so what?” Libin countered. “We have to be funded by some place.” He defended his alliance and dismissed Gravino’s concerns as “silly” and a long-running talking point. “I don’t speak to him because there’s really no point.”

"A bill is simply not necessary,” Feld said, pointing to the FCC’s recognition that such low-power licensees offer valuable services and commitment to a action to “ameliorate the impact of the auction and subsequent repacking.” Given the incentive auction framework is settled and a tentative timeline chosen, “now is not the time to create new delay and uncertainty by passing a bill telling the FCC to do what it is already doing,” Feld said.

"NAB appreciates Congressman Barton’s work to produce a bill that recognizes the important service LPTVs and translators provide to millions of Americans,” said Executive Vice President Dennis Wharton in a statement. In the incentive auction, the FCC “must be evaluating more than just broadband when it looks at implementing the statute,” he said. “The Spectrum Act is designed to achieve a balance between broadcast and broadband, and this bill serves as a strong reminder of that balance."

Also under consideration are the Anti-Spoofing Act (HR-3670) and the E-LABEL (Enhance Labeling, Accessing, and Branding of Electronic Licenses) Act (HR-5161). Rep. Grace Meng, D-N.Y., introduced the Anti-Spoofing Act with backing from Barton and Rep. Leonard Lance, R-N.J. The E-LABEL Act is a companion bill to one in the Senate (S-2583) introduced earlier this month by Sens. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and Deb Fischer, R-Neb. On Tuesday night, House Communications Subcommittee Vice Chairman Bob Latta, R-Ohio, said he was introducing the House version alongside Eshoo, Committee Vice Chairwoman Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt. The bill aims to let electronics manufacturers show the FCC’s approval labels electronically rather than physically. Latta and Meng are witnesses for the hearing’s first panel. Public Knowledge supports both those bills, Feld said.

The E-LABEL Act “will facilitate continued innovation by modernizing the device approval process,” Latta said in a statement. “This will save tens of millions of dollars for device manufacturers and will provide increased flexibility to compete and create next-generation technologies that consumers demand.”