Articles Posted in Spectrum

Published on:

By

The FCC’s revised rules for its Experimental Radio Services (“ERS”) were published in today’s Federal Register, and become effective on May 29, 2013 (except for several rules that contain new or modified information collection requirements, which require further approval by the Office of Management and Budget). These revised rules allow parties, including manufacturers, entrepreneurs, and students, to engage in a wide variety of experiments involving radio spectrum, including, for example, technical demonstrations, equipment testing, limited market studies, and development of radio techniques. The FCC’s revisions streamline and modernize the ERS rules, allowing parties to more quickly develop new technologies and products for the marketplace.

One of the primary changes to the rules is the creation of three types of ERS licenses: (1) Program Licenses; (2) Compliance Testing Licenses; and (3) Medical Testing Licenses. An applicant for a license must demonstrate in its application that it meets the eligibility requirements, must provide a certification of radio frequency (RF) expertise or partner with another entity with such expertise, and must explain the purpose of its experiment. Each license has a term of five years and is renewable.

Under a Program License, the license holder is permitted to conduct an ongoing program of research and experimentation under a single authorization without having to obtain prior FCC consent for each distinct experiment or series of unrelated experiments, as would have been required under the FCC’s prior rules. Eligibility is limited to colleges, universities, research laboratories, manufacturers of radio frequency equipment or end-user products with integrated radio frequency equipment, and medical research institutions. Authorized entities must provide a “stop buzzer” point of contact, identify the specifics of each proposed experiment in advance of the testing on a public web database established by the FCC, and post a report detailing the results of each experiment upon completion of the experiment (A “stop buzzer” point of contact is a person who can address interference concerns and cease all transmissions immediately if interference occurs).

A Compliance Testing License allows a test lab to conduct testing for FCC equipment authorizations. Such licenses are available to labs that are currently recognized for RF product testing as well as any other lab that the FCC finds has sufficient expertise to undertake such testing. Unlike a Program Licensee, a compliance testing licensee does not have to identify a “stop buzzer” point of contact, provide any notification period prior to testing, or file any narrative statement regarding test results. Testing is limited to those activities necessary for product certification.

The third type of experimental license is a Medical Testing License. This license allows an eligible entity to conduct clinical trials of medical devices (i.e., a device that uses RF wireless technology or communications functions for diagnosis, treatment, or patient monitoring). Only health care facilities (defined as hospitals and other establishments that offer services, facilities and beds for beyond a 24-hour period in rendering medical treatment, as well as institutions and organizations regularly engaged in providing medical services through clinics, public health facilities, and similar establishments, including government entities and agencies) are eligible for this type of experimental license. Medical devices tested under a Medical Testing License must comply with the FCC’s Part 15, 18 and 95 rules. Authorized health care entities must provide a “stop buzzer” point of contact and also follow the same notice and reporting requirements as Program Licensees. A Medical Testing Licensee is required to file a yearly report with the FCC on the activity that has been performed under the license.

The FCC’s other changes to its ERS rules include:

  • consolidating all of the experimental licensing rules into Part 5 of the FCC’s Rules;
  • consolidating its rules regarding marketing of unauthorized devices;
  • allowing demonstrations in residential areas of devices not yet authorized, so long as the relevant spectrum licensee is working with the device manufacturer;
  • permitting, without an experimental license, the operation of devices not yet authorized, so long as the devices are operated as part of a trade show demonstration and at or below the maximum power level permitted for unlicensed devices under the FCC’s Part 15 rules;
  • allowing more flexible product development and market trials;
  • standardizing and increasing the importation limit for devices that have not yet been authorized to 4,000 units; and
  • codifying the existing practice of allowing RF tests and experiments conducted within an anechoic chamber or Faraday cage without the need for obtaining an experimental license.

Parties interested in learning more about the FCC’s revised ERS rules should contact their communications counsel for advice.

By
Posted in: Spectrum
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

This morning, the FCC released a Public Notice announcing that, commencing immediately and until further notice, it will no longer accept modification applications (or amendments to modification applications) from full power and Class A television stations if the modification would increase the station’s coverage in any direction beyond its current authorization.

The Public Notice also indicates that the FCC will cease processing modification applications that are already on file if the modification will increase the station’s coverage in any direction. Applicants with a pending modification application subject to the freeze are being given 60 days to amend their application to prevent an increase in coverage (or seek a waiver), thereby allowing those applications to be processed by the FCC. Modification applications that are not amended within that period will not be processed until after the FCC releases its order in the Spectrum Auction proceeding, and at that point will be subject to any new rules or policies adopted in that rulemaking that would limit station modifications.

With regard to Class A stations specifically, the FCC will also not accept Class A displacement applications that increase a station’s coverage in any direction. Class A applications to implement the digital transition (flash cut and digital companion channels) will continue to be processed as long as they comply with the existing restrictions on such applications.

The FCC states that the reason for putting modification applications in the deep freeze is that:

We find that the imposition of limits on the filing and processing of modification applications is now appropriate to facilitate analysis of repacking methodologies and to assure that the objectives of the broadcast television incentive auction are not frustrated. The repacking methodology the Commission ultimately adopts will be a critical tool in reorganizing the broadcast TV spectrum pursuant to the statutory mandate. Additional development and analysis of potential repacking methodologies is required in light of the technical, policy, and auction design issues raised in the rulemaking proceeding. This work requires a stable database of full power and Class A broadcast facilities. In addition, to avoid frustrating the central goal of “repurpos[ing] the maximum amount of UHF band spectrum for flexible licensed and unlicensed use,” we believe it is now necessary to limit the filing and processing of modification applications that would expand broadcast television stations’ use of spectrum.

So once again, television broadcasters are tossed into a digital ice age, unable to adapt their facilities to shifting population areas, which seems to be the polar opposite of what Congress intended in requiring that spectrum incentive auctions not reduce broadcast service to the public. Aggravating the situation is that, unlike some of the DTV transition application freezes, the FCC is not limiting this freeze to large urban markets where it hopes to free up broadcast spectrum for wireless broadband. Indeed, modification applications were already less likely in those heavily populated urban areas because of the existing spectrum congestion that makes modifying a TV station’s signal difficult.

As a result, the broadcasters most likely to be hurt by the freeze are those in more rural areas–areas that have ample available spectrum for broadcasting and broadband, and which the FCC has said are not really the target of its spectrum incentive auction. Those broadcasters will have to hope that the FCC is serious about considering freeze waiver requests. Otherwise, rural Americans will once again see improvements in their communications services delayed while the FCC focuses all its attention on securing more spectrum for broadband in urban population centers.

Published on:

By

The engineers who worked heroically to push broadcasting across the digital threshold had barely caught up on their sleep before agitation for more change began to erupt. The National Broadband Plan concluded that the amount of over-the-air viewing doesn’t justify the number of broadcast stations, and that the FCC could use incentive auctions to re-pack broadcasting into a smaller band of spectrum. Now incentive auctions are the law. This decade we will likely see more broadcast spectrum repurposed for mobile services and another “transition” as hundreds of broadcasters conform their facilities.

So what’s the connection between incentive auctions and talk of a new technical standard? The FCC thinks we need more spectrum for mobile services — in large part because of rising use of video on mobile devices. But the FCC’s rules dictate a broadcast television technical standard that means much of the most popular video — which is already available free-to-air — can’t be received by mobile devices. The FCC is right that spectrum best suited for mobile services should be useful for mobile services. So why stop with the highest frequency TV channels? If we’re going to do all the work of another transition, why not open a path for consumers to access the entire TV band with mobile devices? Many of the same forward-looking broadcasters that championed 8-VSB are working with others on a new standard that incorporates next-generation transmission technologies, as an article in TVNewsCheck reported earlier today. ATSC 3.0 would be easily accessible on mobile devices and provide a much better indoor viewing experience as well. And it will be ready to deploy when incentive auction repacking takes place.

But will every broadcaster want to upgrade at the same time? And what about consumers? FCC rules require all broadcasters to use the same digital standard to ensure universality — so every television can receive every broadcast signal. But not everybody thinks that’s the best policy. Back in the 1990s, the FCC itself debated whether it should select one standard, approve several standards, or simply let the market work things out. It adopted the ATSC standard, but it also asked whether the requirement to use that standard should sunset after a critical mass of deployment was reached.

Nobody wants a television Babel. But what does universal access mean when people increasingly consume their video on-the-move and on devices that we don’t think of as televisions? In my home near downtown Bethesda, Maryland, pretty close to many of the region’s television towers, I can reliably receive only three stations, even with an attic-mounted antenna. I can’t receive any broadcasts on any of my computers, tablets, or other mobile devices.

I love broadcast television, but in my case, it’s difficult or impossible to use most of the time. Millions of other Americans either don’t use over-the-air television directly, or use it less than they otherwise might, for similar reasons.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In my last post, I discussed the FCC’s mammoth NPRM asking for public comment on an immense number of issues relating to the planned spectrum incentive auctions. In particular, I noted the challenges faced by both the FCC and commenters in trying to cover so much ground on such complex issues in such a short time. One of the emails I received in response to that post was from an old pro in the broadcast industry who wrote that “I’ve been reviewing the NPRM for 12 days and haven’t finished yet!”
Having heard that message from a number of people, the importance of the NPRM to a great many segments of the communications industry, and the inability of many of our clients to dedicate several weeks to perusing the NPRM, Paul Cicelski and I have drafted a highly condensed summary of the NPRM in a Pillsbury Client Advisory that may be found here. In condensing it, we were mindful of the quote, often attributed to Albert Einstein, that “everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” While an entirely sensible approach, it would have abbreviated the 205-page NPRM (including attachments) only marginally. So instead, we threw that bit of advice out the window and condensed our summary down to five pages, giving us an industry-leading 41:1 compression ratio.

As a result, the Advisory cannot contain the level of detail found in the NPRM itself (that’s how you cut out 200 pages!), but our hope is that it will make the NPRM’s content accessible to a much broader audience, particularly the many who will ultimately be affected by the FCC’s various auction and repacking proposals. In addition to providing a relatively painless way for those interested to learn more about this proceeding, the Advisory should provide a road map for parties seeking to identify the issues that will most greatly affect them so that they can focus their attention on those specific aspects of the NPRM when preparing comments for the FCC.

Given that the volume of issues to be addressed in the NPRM is so great, and there is literally no way any individual party could cover them all, the best chance for a well-informed outcome in this proceeding is for the FCC to hear from a large number of commenters who, cumulatively, will hopefully touch on most of the key issues in their comments and reply comments. As a reminder, the comment deadline is December 21, 2012, with reply comments due on February 19, 2013. Whether a potential seller in the reverse spectrum auction, a potential buyer in the forward auction, or a television bystander that may be buffeted by the winds of repacking, now is the time to step up and make your voice heard, rather than merely grumbling over the next several years about how the process is unfolding.

Published on:

By

Given that the FCC adopted its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to establish the parameters of its much-anticipated broadcast spectrum auctions on September 28, 2012, and released the text of that NPRM on October 2, 2012, you would think that the communications industry would now be buzzing over the details of the FCC’s long-in-the-making plan. Instead, from many corners of the industry, there has been stunned silence; not because there were any real surprises in the NPRM, but because the NPRM made clear to those not previously involved in the process the sheer enormity of the tasks ahead.

Also feeding the industry’s muted reaction is the fact that, because there were no surprises, the industry doesn’t know much more now than it did before about how the auctions will be structured. Instead, we are left with many excellent but unanswered questions asked by the NPRM, leaving the auction rules and structure a very ethereal proposition. As the annual deluge of Halloween horror movies reminds us, people are afraid of ethereal entities, and are unlikely to visit the FCC’s cabin in the woods (despite the “big money for spectrum” signs out front) until the FCC is able to remove the dark mystery from this undertaking.

On the one hand, the FCC’s staff deserves immense credit for asking the right questions on what is unquestionably the most complex undertaking the FCC has ever attempted (it makes you long for the simple-by-comparison DTV transition, which only took 13 years to accomplish). On the other hand, asking the right questions meant producing a 140 page, 425 paragraph NPRM, along with an additional 65 pages of appendices and commissioner statements.

The NPRM is a densely packed document with numerous questions and issues raised for public comment in each paragraph. Part of the problem, however, is that in order to get the entire package of materials down to 205 pages total, some of the NPRM’s questions had to be condensed so severely as to make it difficult to discern what precisely the FCC is asking about or proposing. As a result, you will note that a lot of the third-party summaries circulating are short on condensed narrative and long on direct quotes from the NPRM–often a sign that the person drafting the summary gave up on trying to figure out what the NPRM was trying to say, and decided to let the reader take a crack at it instead.

Comments on the NPRM are due on December 21, 2012, with Reply Comments due on February 19, 2013. While the FCC indicates that it intends to hold the spectrum auctions in 2014, keep in mind that once the Reply Comments are filed, if the FCC were able to resolve a paragraph’s worth of issues each and every day the FCC is open for business after that date, it would resolve the final issues in October of 2014. It would then need to release an order adopting the final policies and rules, and begin the process of setting up the reverse auction (for broadcasters interested in releasing spectrum) and the forward auction (for those interested in purchasing that spectrum for wireless broadband). Completing that process before 2015 will be extremely challenging.

Even this understates the actual time that will be required for the FCC to have a shot at a successful auction. Critically important to the success of such auctions is providing adequate time for potential spectrum sellers and buyers to analyze the final rules and assets to be sold to determine if they are interested in participating and at what price. If the FCC wants to encourage participation, it will need to ensure that potential spectrum sellers and buyers have at least a number of months to assess their options under the final rules. Otherwise, it is likely that many who might participate will not have attained an adequate level of comfort in the process to participate, or at least not at the prices the FCC is hoping to see. In that case, they will elect to remain on the sidelines.

Given the number of moving parts and these related considerations (which ignore entirely the possibility of additional delay from court appeals of the eventual rules), a 2014 auction seems very optimistic unless the FCC’s goal shifts from having a successful auction to just having any form of auction as soon as possible. While those already intent upon being a buyer or seller of spectrum would certainly prefer a fast auction since that means quicker access to spectrum and spectrum dollars and less competition for both, the FCC and the public have a vested interest in holding auctions with a broader definition of success (in terms of dollars to the treasury, less disruption of broadcast service, producing large enough swaths of spectrum to maximize spectrum efficiency, etc.).

This morning, the FCC announced an October 26, 2012 workshop focusing on broadcaster issues in the NPRM, so efforts at removing at least some of the mystery surrounding the auctions are already underway. Given that all television broadcasters will be affected by this process, whether through participation in the reverse auction or by being forced to modify their facilities in the subsequent spectrum repacking, it would be wise to participate in the workshop, which is also being streamed on the Internet.

And one last bit of good news: the workshop will be held at the Commission Meeting Room at FCC Headquarters in Washington, DC rather than at that cabin in the woods mentioned above. However, don’t be surprised if there is still a “big money for spectrum” banner over the door when you get there.

Published on:

By

Last week the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted a Consent Decree involving a “voluntary contribution” of more than a quarter of a million dollars by a well-known guitar manufacturer, Fender Musical Instruments Corporation, relating to claims of unauthorized marketing of bass amplifiers, pre-amplifiers, tuners, audio mixers, and wireless microphones. While one might be puzzled by the FCC’s interest in regulating musical equipment, the fact is that these devices, like virtually all modern day products, incorporate digital circuitry and generate (intentionally or unintentionally) radio-frequency signals that can cause interference to other spectrum users. The FCC’s action is a reminder to all types of businesses that digital devices are regulated and must comply with the FCC’s Part 2 and Part 15 rules regarding equipment authorization, including certification, verification, and declarations of conformity.

The FCC’s investigation into Fender’s products began in June 2010, when the FCC sent the company a letter of inquiry. While the content of the letter is not publicly available, it appears that the FCC sought information about when Fender received equipment authorizations for certain products, the labeling of such products, and the information disclosed in the user manuals for those products.
Over the course of the next two years, Fender, through its legal counsel, submitted a number of filings responding to the FCC’s inquiry, and executed tolling agreements that permitted the FCC to extend its investigation. Ultimately, Fender reached an agreement with the FCC terminating the investigation. In the agreement, Fender did not acknowledge any wrongdoing (nor did the FCC reach any such conclusion), but the company voluntarily agreed to contribute $265,000 to the U.S. Treasury and institute an internal program to ensure future compliance with the FCC’s rules. While this is nowhere close to being the most expensive equipment-related contribution or fine the FCC has received or assessed for unlicensed devices (in one case the FCC assessed a $1 million dollar forfeiture), it does send a loud message to manufacturers and importers of almost all modern day electronic devices that the FCC polices its equipment authorization rules and treats potential violations seriously.

For an overview of the FCC’s Part 2 and Part 15 rules, you can check out our Client Advisory on the subject.

By
Posted in: FCC Enforcement
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By and

The FCC has announced that the preliminary television channel sharing rules in the FCC’s Report and Order in the Innovation in Broadcast Television Bands proceeding will become effective on June 22, 2012. The rules establish the basic framework by which two or more full-power/Class A television stations can voluntarily choose to share a single 6 MHz channel. Channel sharing is integral to clearing the television broadcast spectrum so that the FCC can auction it for wireless broadband as called for in the National Broadband Plan. The rules follow the signing of the “Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012”, which we discussed in detail in a previous post. Also called the “Spectrum Act,” that law gives the FCC authority to conduct incentive auctions to encourage television broadcasters to get out of the business or find new business models that rely on less spectrum, such as doubling up with another station on a single 6 MHz channel.

The FCC’s new rules allow a station to tender its existing 6 MHz channel to the FCC, making it available for the “reverse” or “incentive” spectrum auction. The tendering station can set a reserve price below which it won’t sell. To encourage more stations to participate in the auction, the FCC is also permitting stations, in advance of the auction, to agree to share a single 6 MHz channel after the auction. In this scenario, one of the two stations would tender its channel into the auction, and both stations would share the proceeds and operate on the remaining 6 MHz channel after the auction. The FCC’s Order makes clear that channel sharing arrangements will be voluntary, and that stations will be “given flexibility” to control some of the key parameters under which they will combine their operations on a single channel, including allocation of auction proceeds among the parties.

Each station sharing a 6 MHz channel will be required to retain enough capacity to transmit one standard definition stream, which must be free of charge to viewers. Each will have its own separate license and call sign, and each will be subject to all of the Commission’s rules, including all technical rules and programming requirements. Stations that agree to share a channel will retain their current cable carriage rights. Commercial and noncommercial full-power and Class A TV stations are permitted to participate in the incentive auction and enter into channel sharing agreements, but low power TV and TV translator stations are not.

Many more details will have to be resolved prior to the incentive auction. We recently discussed the procedural uncertainties surrounding the auction in a detailed and comprehensive interview conducted by Harry Jessell of TVNewsCheck. The transcript of the interview can be found here. At bottom, we concluded that the largest obstacle facing the FCC will be designing the auction so that a sufficient number of broadcasters find it attractive to participate.

The FCC invited us and other industry experts to participate in a Channel Sharing Workshop earlier this week. In the meantime, other Pillsbury attorneys have been actively helping stations assess the risks and opportunities of the incentive auctions, including spectrum valuation and strategies for the forward and reverse auctions and spectrum repacking. Many of the issues raised at the FCC’s Channel Sharing Workshop dealt with the intricacies of the arrangements broadcasters will have to craft to govern their relationship with a channel sharing partner. These ranged from how multiple channel “residents” will manage capital investments in facilities upgrades, to what might happen if one licensee on a shared channel goes bankrupt, sells, or turns in its license. A recording of the Workshop can be accessed here.

The FCC acknowledged that much work lies ahead of it. To that end, the FCC announced at the Workshop that the first of a series of Notice of Proposed Rulemakings concerning issues raised during the Workshop will be released in the Fall. The FCC did not predict a timeframe for completing the auction design process and establishing service rules.

As these and other issues take the fore, television broadcasters must remain engaged, shaping the process to allow them the maximum flexibility to develop relationships and business models that can thrive in the post-auction environment.

Published on:

By

The FCC created a stir in the broadcast community when, after proclaiming for more than a year that surrendering broadcast channels for the planned broadband spectrum auction would be entirely voluntary, it began to “volunteer” Class A stations it concluded had not complied with all FCC rules. I first raised this issue in a February post on the day the FCC released the first sixteen Orders to Show Cause demanding that the recipient Class A TV stations submit evidence as to why the FCC should not revoke their Class A status for infractions that would have previously drawn only a fine.

Loss of Class A status not only eliminates protection from being displaced by full power TV stations (or by a spectrum auction), but also disqualifies the station from sharing a post-auction channel with a full power station or seeking any compensation for its spectrum in the auction. Downgrading Class A stations to LPTV status therefore allows the FCC to sweep them aside involuntarily to clear spectrum for the auction, and avoid sharing the proceeds of the spectrum auction with that licensee.

It was therefore not too surprising when that initial batch of FCC orders was followed by dozens of subsequent FCC actions against Class A stations, some of which proposed substantial fines and indicated that the licensee had been earlier informed it could avoid a fine by notifying the FCC it wished to relinquish its Class A status.

Having put scores of stations on notice that their Class A status was either directly at risk or that they could avoid a fine by agreeing to relinquish Class A status, the FCC turned up the heat further this past week when it began issuing follow up orders revoking stations’ Class A status. While the writing was already on the wall for many of these stations given the FCC’s earlier actions against them, one of the orders offers a particularly disturbing insight into the determination with which the FCC is moving to thin the ranks of Class A stations (old FCC motto for Class A stations–“last bastion of independent voices in a consolidated TV world”; new FCC motto for Class A stations–“old and in the way”).

Station KVHM is (or at least was) a Class A station that received a pair of investigatory letters from the FCC in late March and early August of 2011. According to the FCC, the letters noted that the station had failed to file required children’s television reports and provided the licensee with thirty days to respond, making the first response due at the end of April 2011. However, as the FCC itself notes in the Order, the licensee, Humberto Lopez, died in May of 2011. According to his obituaries, Mr. Lopez, who owned multiple TV and radio stations and was an inductee of the Tejano Roots Hall of Fame, died “on May 16 after battling a long illness.”

In the last few weeks of his life, he apparently didn’t find time to respond to the FCC’s March letter, and was certainly unable to respond to its August letter. His failure to respond led the FCC to issue a February 2012 Order to Show Cause demanding that Lopez demonstrate why his Class A status should not be revoked. When, not surprisingly, the licensee was unable to deliver that message from beyond the grave, the FCC issued last week’s Order, stating “Lopez did not file a written statement in response to the Order to Show Cause, and, therefore, we deem him to have accepted the modification of the KVHM-LP license to low power television status.” Talk about being tough on a licensee; the FCC demanded not just that Lopez rise from the grave to defend his Class A status, but that he do so in writing.

While it is easy enough to ridicule an FCC Order that is on its face so completely preposterous as to invite comparison with the worst cinematic portrayals of soulless bureaucracy, the real lesson of this case can be found by delving a bit deeper into the facts. On the FCC’s side of the ledger, it is true that the first investigatory letter did arrive while the licensee was still alive, and that it was at least theoretically possible the licensee could have responded. Had the FCC’s Order been based on this fact alone, rather than on the licensee’s failure to respond long after his death to the 2012 Order to Show Cause, its action would have been hard-hearted, but perhaps defensible. The FCC could have argued that, given the licensee’s failure to meet the original response deadline, his estate lacked the “clean hands” necessary to protest the loss of Class A status, and that the FCC was just playing the hand it was dealt. However, as it turns out, the FCC lacked clean hands as well.

Why, you may ask, did the licensee’s estate not step up to oppose the Class A revocation? Apparently because it is still waiting for the FCC to grant the application to transfer control of the station from the deceased licensee to the licensee’s estate (controlled by an Executor). Despite the fact that such post-death transfers are normally accorded nearly automatic grants, that application remains pending at the FCC since early November 2011. Worse, the apparent reason why the transfer application is hung up at the FCC is because the FCC has still not acted on the station’s 2006 license renewal, which also remains pending. To be blunt, the licensee literally died waiting for the FCC to act on his license renewal application. While the FCC will often sit on a transfer application until the underlying station’s license renewal is granted based on the theory that the “seller” shouldn’t profit from the transfer of a station unless the FCC can first determine he was qualified to own it, the licensee here is beyond caring about such profit.

So in the fair world we like to think we live in, the FCC would have promptly granted the station’s transfer application (and perhaps its license renewal application as well), transferring control of the station to the Executor of the licensee’s estate. Without altering its timetable one iota, the FCC could then have proceeded to issue its February Order to Show Cause, and the Executor would have had a reasonable opportunity to try to defend the station’s Class A status. Instead, in its apparent haste to clear “voluntary” spectrum for auction, the FCC cut all of these procedural corners, leaving Lopez’s wife and (according to the obituary) twelve children with an asset of significantly diminished value, and no opportunity to seek their share of any spectrum auction proceeds.

What is particularly ironic is that the Lopez family is the archetype of the kind of licensee the FCC has argued will be interested in participating in the auction–a licensee that may no longer be as interested in running the station as in monetizing it to pay estate taxes and to split any remaining proceeds among the many heirs. The FCC has placed itself in the role of the cattle baron who dams up the stream, depriving his neighbors of water so that he can obtain their land for next to nothing (or in this case, nothing). If the FCC’s thirst for broadcast spectrum has become so intense that it is willing to sacrifice fundamental fairness and “widows and orphans” to get it, all broadcasters need to be looking over their shoulders for the next regulatory lightning bolt encouraging them to also “volunteer” their spectrum. Like death and taxes, it appears the FCC is determined to make surrendering spectrum for the auction an unavoidable fact of life (and death).

Published on:

By

I wrote in February about a sudden deluge of nearly identical FCC decisions, all released on the same day, proposing to revoke the Class A status of sixteen LPTV stations for failure to timely file all of their Form 398 children’s television reports. While I noted at the time that the affected licensees had done themselves no favors by apparently failing to respond to FCC letters of inquiry, the decisions were still somewhat surprising in that the FCC has traditionally fined Class A stations for rule violations rather than revoked their Class A status. Class A status is important because it provides LPTV stations with protection from being displaced by full-power TV stations, and is now more important than ever, as the recently enacted spectrum auction legislation allows Class A stations both the opportunity to participate in auction revenues, and protection from being eliminated in the broadcast spectrum repacking associated with the auction.

Given the peculiar timing of the FCC’s decisions (just days after the spectrum auction legislation became law), the sudden shift from fines to Class A revocation, and the release of sixteen such decisions at the same time, the decisions raise the specter that the FCC may be moving to delete the Class A status of non-compliant stations in order to facilitate clearing broadcast spectrum as cheaply as possible in preparation for the newly-authorized wireless spectrum auction. Within a few days of my post, a number of trade publications picked up on this possibility as well. The result was a lot of Class A stations checking to make sure their regulatory house is in order, and a growing concern in the industry that these decisions might be the leading edge of an FCC effort to clear the way for recovering broadcast spectrum for the planned auction.

While that may still turn out to be the case, I was nonetheless at least somewhat relieved to see a trio of decisions released this morning by the FCC that are largely identical to the February decisions with one big exception–the FCC proposed fining the stations for failing to file all of their children’s television reports rather than seeking to revoke their Class A status. Specifically, the FCC proposed fining two of the licensees $13,000 each, and the third licensee $26,000 (because it had two stations that failed to file all of their reports).

Each $13,000 fine consisted of $3000–the base fine for failing to file a required form–and an additional $10,000, which is the base fine for having such documents missing from a station’s public file. While a $13,000 fine is painful, particularly for a low power station, loss of Class A status could be far more devastating for these stations, and for Class A stations in general. Setting aside spectrum auction considerations, buyers, lenders and investors will be hesitant to risk their money on Class A stations that could suddenly lose their Class A status, and shortly thereafter be displaced out of existence. Stated differently, those considering buying, lending to, or investing in Class A stations will want to do a thorough due diligence on such stations’ rule compliance record before proceeding.

So why did the FCC propose fines for these stations while the sixteen stations in the February decisions were threatened with deletion of their Class A status? Although today’s decisions and the February decisions are similar in many respects, there is one big distinction. Unlike the licensees in the February decisions, the licensees named in today’s decisions promptly responded to the letters of inquiry sent by the FCC, and upon realizing that they had failed to file all of their children’s television reports, belatedly completed and submitted those reports to the FCC. While that didn’t stop the FCC from seeking to fine these stations, it does seem to have avoided a reexamination of their Class A status.

While the FCC’s February decisions to pursue deletion of Class A status are still a worrisome development for all Class A stations, today’s decisions thankfully shed some much needed light on when the FCC is likely to pursue that option, and when it will be satisfied with merely issuing a fine. As I noted in my earlier post, a licensee that fails to promptly respond to a letter from the FCC is living life dangerously, and today’s decisions confirm that fact. As a result, Class A stations should continue to make sure that their regulatory house is in order, and if they receive a letter of inquiry from the FCC, should contact their lawyer immediately to timely put forth the best possible response to the FCC.

Published on:

By

Following many months of debate and after trying several potential legislative vehicles, the House and Senate finally enacted spectrum auction legislation as part of the bill to extend payroll tax cuts for another year. It was signed by the President last week, and for those following the process for the past two years, the result was somewhat anticlimactic. That is mostly good news for broadcasters, as the NAB was successful in ensuring that the law contains enough protections for broadcasters to prevent the spectral armageddon that it once appeared broadcasters might face.

Having said that, we can’t ignore that there were bodies left out on the legislative battlefield, the most obvious being low power TV and TV translator stations. Under the new law, these stations are not permitted to participate in the spectrum auction, are not protected from being displaced to oblivion in the repacking process, and are not entitled to reimbursement of displacement expenses. It is that last point that may be the most important in rural areas. While it is possible there could be enough post-repacking broadcast spectrum in rural areas for TV translators to survive, they will still need to move off of the nationwide swaths of spectrum the FCC intends to auction to wireless companies. Unfortunately, many if not most TV translator licensees are local and regional entities with minimal financial resources. Telling such a licensee that it needs to move to a new channel, or worse, to a different location to make the new channel work, may be the same as telling it to shut down.

This is particularly true when the sheer quantity of translator facilities that might have to be moved is considered. For example, there are nearly 350 TV translators in Montana alone. Moving even a third of them will be an expensive proposition for licensees whose primary purpose is not profit, but the continued availability of rural broadcast service. Further complicating the picture is the fact that in border states like Montana, protecting spectrum for low power TV and TV translators will inevitably be a very low priority when negotiating a new spectrum realignment treaty with Canada or Mexico to permit reallotment of the band.

While full-power and Class A television stations therefore fared much better in the legislation, for those uninterested in selling their spectrum, spectrum repacking will still not be a pleasant experience. Those of us who endured the repacking process during the DTV transition can attest to how complex and challenging the process can be, and the DTV process had the luxury of fifteen years of planning and execution, as well as a lot more spectrum in the broadcast band with which to work. Having already squeezed the broadcast spectrum lemon pretty hard during the DTV transition, the FCC may find that there isn’t much juice left in it for a second go around. That, combined with a much tighter time frame, could make this an even more complex and messy process.

In addition, while it hasn’t drawn as much attention as it should have, one other changed factor is that after the DTV transition was completed, the FCC opened up TV “white spaces” (spectrum between allotted broadcast channels) for unlicensed use by technology companies seeking to introduce new products and services requiring spectrum. Having enticed companies into investing many millions of dollars in research and development for these white spaces products and services, eliminating the white spaces during the repacking process (which is the point of repacking) could leave many of these companies out in the cold. This is a particularly likely outcome given that the very markets white spaces companies are interested in–densely populated urban areas–are precisely those areas where the FCC most desperately wants to obtain additional spectrum for wireless, and where available spectrum is already scarce. Like low power TV and TV translator licensees, these white spaces companies are pretty much going to be told to “suck the lemon” and hope there are a few drops of spectrum left for them after the repacking.

Still, while there certainly are some obstacles to overcome, the DTV transition gave the FCC staff priceless experience in navigating a repacking, and the FCC already has ample experience auctioning off spectrum. The question is whether this particular undertaking is so vast as to be unmanageable, or whether quick but careful planning can remove most of the sharp edges. Once again, the devil will be in the details, and no one envies the FCC with regard to the task it has before it. However, the chance for an optimal outcome will be maximized if all affected parties engage the FCC as it designs the process. In addition to hopefully producing a workable result for the FCC, broadcasters engaged in the process can ensure that the result is good not just for broadcasters in general, but for their particular stations.

For those interested in getting an advance view of what specifically is involved, Harry Jessell of TVNewsCheck recently interviewed us to discuss some of the pragmatic issues facing the FCC and the broadcast industry in navigating the spectrum auction landscape. The transcript of the interview can be found here. Those comments provide additional detail on the tasks facing the FCC, as well as how long the process will likely take.

While everyone impacted by the spectrum auction and repacking process faces many uncertainties as to its outcome, of this we can be certain: challenging times lay ahead.