LPTV Broadcasters Oppose Increased Filing Obligations, Call for Increased Power
Low-power television broadcasters and NAB don’t think the FCC should broadly apply online public file requirements to LPTV, said a host of reply comments filed in docket 24-147 by Monday’s deadline. LPTV commenters also called for looser relocation limits and power increase options. In addition, LPTV company Venture Technologies argued that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling against Chevron deference means the FCC must allow more stations to convert to Class A status. “We believe that the FCC’s failure to allow virtually any new Class A stations for more than two decades is inconsistent with the principles established by the recent Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo,” Venture said.
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.
NAB and numerous LPTV commenters said the FCC hadn’t demonstrated any need for LPTV stations to keep online political ad filings. “We are a Class A station and as such maintain a public file, but in over 20 years, I’ve never had a single person ever request anything from our public file,” said Chad Giddens, general manager of Word of Life Ministries station KADO-CD Shreveport, La. NAB reiterated that it filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the FCC seeking statistics concerning how often the public accesses broadcaster public information files, but that the FCC hadn’t responded by the deadline. NAB made the FOIA request “with the hope of obtaining the data needed to conduct our own analyses and fill the analytical gaps that the NPRM left open. But without those responses to our requests, we cannot do so,” NAB said. Nearly every commenter in the docket opposed extending filing requirements to LPTV stations, Videohouse CEO Ron Bruno pointed out, calling the response a “resounding ‘No, thank you!’”
The FCC’s proposal for increased obligations for LPTV stations goes against the “relaxed regulatory approach that has been in place since the low power television ... service began,” said Giddens. “The FCC provides little to no justification in the NPRM for imposition of onerous new obligations on the LPTV Service,” said the LPTV Broadcasters Association (LPTVBA). That is “especially egregious” because the proposal doesn’t include “concomitant benefits or service enhancements to stations.”
The SCOTUS decision in Loper Bright should cause the FCC to “align its practices with the clear intent of the Community Broadcaster Protection Act of 1999,” Venture Technologies said. The CBPA “does not grant the authority to impose additional one-time-only application windows or market-specific limitations on LPTV stations seeking Class A status.” The FCC is now obligated to loosen restrictions on stations converting to Class A, Venture said. “If necessary, the FCC should initiate a new NPRM to ensure its policies comply with both the legislative intent of the CBPA and the recent Supreme Court decision.”
Several LPTV broadcasters called on the agency to allow LPTV stations to have call signs similar to full-power stations, with the suffix “-TV”. “There is a discriminatory stigma that comes with the term ‘low power TV’ that has caused the entire industry to struggle since its inception,” Three Angels Broadcasting said. Allowing stations to drop the “-LD” suffix would “avoid bias against low power services,” said Giddens. NAB said the LPTV suffixes are codified in the FCC rules and shouldn’t be changed. “Assignment of a -TV suffix to broadcast stations other than full-power television stations could create confusion in must-carry negotiations, audience measurement, and other matters.”
LPTV broadcasters also called on the FCC to keep LPTV relocation restrictions flexible and allow LPTV stations to increase their power. “Existing power limits for the LPTV Service generally are long past due for reevaluation in the post-digital transition and post-repack television spectrum landscape,” said LPTVBA. NAB said it was concerned about the spectrum consequences of allowing increased power but said current power levels for VHF stations may be too low. NAB “would welcome a Commission inquiry on this issue, both for full-power and other television stations,” the trade group said. The Society of Broadcast Engineers seconded NAB’s call for a power increase proceeding. Flexible relocation is important for LPTV because of “the costs of tower rents and the lack of available space on existing towers within the limited distances currently permitted,” said LPTVBA. “Tower leases are not immune to the laws of supply and demand.”