Supporters of Additional Repacking Funding Lobby Capitol Hill Ahead of Possible Fall Action
Industry and Capitol Hill supporters of legislation aimed at additional funding for post-incentive auction repacking are using the August recess to bolster two bills’ prospects ahead of hoped-for fall action. Some lawmakers and lobbyists told us they're concerned the repacking issue may get lost amid other policy issues. The Viewer Protection Act (HR-3347) and Viewer and Listener Protection Act (S-1632) filed last month would establish funds to supplement the $1.75 billion allocated in the existing reimbursement fund for post-incentive auction repacking (see 1707200051 and 1707260059). They followed a preliminary FCC estimate that repacking expenses will total $2.12 billion (see 1707140070).
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.
Senate Communications Subcommittee ranking member Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, believes the Commerce Committee “can get [S-1632] to move” quickly in the fall given the bill “isn’t terribly controversial.” Committee Republican leaders signaled “there’s a willingness to take it up,” said Schatz, who led sponsorship of S-1632 with Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan. House Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone, D-N.J., is the lead sponsor on HR-3347. Pallone’s office is concentrating now on “trying to build support for [the bill] in committee” given that it thus far only has co-sponsorship from fellow Democrats, an aide said. House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., is interested in revisiting repacking issues, cautioning that “everybody knew what the rules of the game were going to be before we got into this.” House Commerce wants to “make certain that the rules and the process that’s laid out are followed and then we’ll see what needs to be revisited,” Blackburn said.
Industry lobbyists said they're pushing during recess for additional co-sponsors for both bills and to educate non-telecom-focused lawmakers on the repacking issue amid expectations the fall will see some action on the bills. “August is a good time do that sort” of education, a broadcasting lobbyist noted. Some of that focus will concentrate on lawmakers’ staffs to “build some momentum” for the bills before the fall, another lobbyist said.
Some noted a possible Senate Commerce markup of S-1632, given visible bipartisan support for that bill. Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.; Jim Inhofe, R-Okla.; Tom Udall, D-N.M.; and Todd Young, R-Ind., co-sponsored the bill. House Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., also “expressed that he would like to get [the repacking issue] dealt with,” so “I wouldn’t be surprised if House Republicans try to go to work on it in the fall,” a broadcasting lobbyist said.
Broadcasters are framing the need for legislation like these bills as not just an issue of “pure fairness” but also in the context of needing the additional funding to ensure the repacking process “happens as quickly as possible,” said Pillsbury Winthrop broadcast attorney Scott Flick. Any broadcaster in the repacking “daisy chain” that feels it can't move on schedule because of cost issues will end up “slowing everyone down,” he said. Such incidents aren’t unprecedented, since they occurred in past processes, particularly for radio stations, so it will be important to frame repacking legislation as necessary for lawmakers to ensure a “smoother experience” for their constituents, Flick said.
Education on repacking is important because of the potential for other communications sector issues to drown out discussions about HR-3347 and S-1632, lobbyists said. One noted the recent move by opponents of Sinclair's buying Tribune to frame their petitions for the FCC to deny the deal around the specter that the new company would have unprecedented ability to drag the repacking process to a halt (see 1708080067). Some also noted Microsoft’s proposal to use the TV white spaces to deploy broadband in rural markets as a contender for Hill attention (see 1707110015). Lobbyists raised concerns that FCC consideration of an NPRM proposing to roll back net neutrality rules and reclassification of broadband as a Communications Act Title II service (see 1707250059 and 1708070068) could dominate the Hill’s limited telecom attention this fall.
Low-power TV broadcasters are also closely watching progress on repacking funding legislation, said LPTV Spectrum Rights Coalition Director Mike Gravino. HR-3347 would allow the FCC to allocate unused money from the supplemental repacking fund “to reimburse low-power television stations and television translator stations” for “reasonable relocation costs” related to repacking. S-1632 doesn’t yet mention funding for LPTV but “we’re encouraged” that a low-power provision will be added in a Senate Commerce markup, Gravino said. Low-power broadcasters are hoping that additional money will be a definitive part of both bills if lawmakers in both parties request an FCC economic analysis on those broadcasters’ repacking costs, he said.
Movement on HR-3347 and S-1632 could depend partly on whether lawmakers attempt to attach the language to final FY 2018 federal spending bills or as part of other end-of-the-year must-pass legislation, lobbyists said. They don’t believe movement on the bills will be hampered by the FCC repacking expenses estimate being temporary, since consensus is that the final cost will still be above $1.75 billion. Broadcasters will emphasize the need for Congress to appropriate enough additional funding so there isn’t “another round of chaos” later that requires additional Hill action, Flick said.