LPTV Bill Would Not ‘Blow Up’ Incentive Auction, Walden Argues
One potential piece of legislation may slow the pace of the FCC’s broadcast TV spectrum incentive auction, a lawmaker and congressional witness warned Thursday, as expected (CD July 24 p6). But Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, who authored the draft of the LPTV and Translator Preservation Act, strongly defended the proposed bill, as did Communications Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., who helped craft its language. They considered the draft and two other bills during a Thursday subcommittee hearing.
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.
"Some of the strongest low-power TV advocates are against this bill because they think it doesn’t do anything,” Barton mused. “On the other hand, there are people who think it goes too far,” hurting the incentive auction timeline. He compared the situation to the fairy tale of Goldilocks and the Three Bears, who debated over bowls of porridge that were too hot, too cold and just right. “I think we've got it just right,” Barton said of his bill, arguing it would give LPTV interests “increased moral standing, if nothing else.”
Arguing that the bill would potentially pose a threat to the auction were Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., the ranking member of House Energy and Commerce Committee’s subcommittee, and Public Knowledge Senior Vice President Harold Feld, a witness. Louis Libin, executive director of the Advanced Broadcasting Television Alliance, testified in favor of the bill and had helped Barton’s office assemble it (CD July 21 p2).
"None of us want to throw sand in the gears, and I think that’s what you're talking about,” Eshoo said. “I don’t think you have a case for completely rewriting the whole thing, to tell you the truth. ... I don’t think, Mr. Libin, you're going to get everything you want, but you know, no one does around here.”
The legislation would cause “new potential devastating uncertainty and delay,” Feld said. “Imagine a row of wine glasses packed tightly together. Tap one, and the rest start to hum as the vibrations ripple out.” The auction design and timeline are largely settled and this could upend everything, he said. “Congress should continue to exercise its oversight, be prepared to step in if necessary, but legislation is a very big step."
Committee Democratic staff attacked the bill in its hearing memo: “If enacted, the legislation could inject new, unpredictable variables into a highly complex auction planning process that is already underway at the FCC to implement the 2012 law, thereby threatening the success of the world’s first incentive auction,” Committee Democratic staff said (http://1.usa.gov/1nY4orz). “It also could disrupt the Commission’s ongoing spectrum management authority and flexibility to repack and reorganize the broadcast television band as appropriate.” It could mean “new delays into the incentive auction timeframe, create additional litigation risks for the FCC, and introduce new complexities that could greatly undermine the auction’s success.”
"You're over the top with this notion that we're going to blow up this whole auction,” Walden countered. He reiterated his concerns with a “runaway FCC” and why such legislation might be necessary, as well as why translators in his district are important. He also worried the FCC’s incentive auction problems are more likely to come from within: “I was hoping to have a lot more faith in this FCC, but I'm seeing some really bad behavior from the top down.” Walden also asked about low-power stakeholders who oppose the bill, and Libin explained that some stakeholders are worried a bill could open the door to a situation in which the FCC “may not have the conclusions that they want."
"The FCC can still make the decision, and it cannot impact the reverse auction,” Barton said, reading from the draft pointing to language giving the auction primacy: “Section A guarantees that.”
The FCC “needs this nudge,” Libin argued. “I don’t think it really slows the process down.” He dismissed Feld’s case that the FCC is already charged with working to protect such low-power interests and its work in a FNPRM. That proceeding won’t help LPTV but is a mechanism to talk about shutting down stations, he said. “We are two and a half years into a 10-year process,” Libin said. “We're not rushed. Let’s get it right.”
Rep. Billy Long, R-Mo., pressed Libin on his claims that “a third or more of the LPTV and translator stations are at risk of being shut down” through the auction and asked Libin for any specific case of a station that would go out of business due to the auction. But Libin said he hasn’t seen the FCC’s repacking analysis that would give any indication: “You're asking a very good question, and I myself would love to know the answer.”