The commission reassures broadcasters that there will be no repercussions if they decline to talk about — or participate in — the upcoming spectrum auction.
NAB 2014
FCC: Not Talking About Auction Is Fine
The FCC won’t retaliate against broadcasters who refuse to participate in a planned agency outreach effort intended to educate broadcasters about why they might want to participate in the agency’s incentive auctions, a top agency official said Monday.
“If someone from the FCC calls … and you’re not interested and you don’t want to talk, ‘No thank you,’ is fine, and there will be absolutely no penalty,” said Howard Symons, vice chair of the FCC’s Incentive Auction Task Force, during a session at the NAB Show in Las Vegas.
Some broadcasters have raised concerns about the appropriateness of the planned agency outreach because the FCC licenses broadcasters and reviews station transactions. But Symons told broadcasters during the NAB session that the FCC takes “very, very, very seriously” the statutory directive that auction participation be voluntary.
“I don’t think we can be passive as an agency and make this auction work,” Symons said. “But that doesn’t mean that you’ve got to take the meeting, that you’ve got to be interested,” Symons continued. “That’s not what voluntary means.”
After the session, Rick Kaplan, NAB EVP, told TVNewsCheck that the association hoped to help the FCC find the “best way” to pursue its educational objectives. “We think there’s probably a solution that is not as threatening [as the FCC’s proposed one-on-one sessions] to the smaller broadcasters,” Kaplan said.
Preston Padden, executive director of the Expanding Opportunities for Broadcasters Coalition — a group of broadcasters that is considering auction participation — told TVNewsCheck that the concerns about the outreach were “ridiculous.”
BRAND CONNECTIONS
“We’ve been begging the FCC to do outreach, and now that they’re starting to do it, we hear these ridiculous complaints,” Padden said.
Comments (10)
Ellen Samrock says:
April 8, 2014 at 12:39 pm
The complaints (if you can even call them that) are not “ridiculous.” Broadcasters are very well aware of the incentive auction. Outreach efforts on the part of the FCC are unnecessary and really premature at this point. We have no idea what the Commission is offering money-wise or any of the other particulars on the auction. However, what little is known is apparently enough for some station groups to say they aren’t interested. They want to stay in business AND keep their spectrum. Accept it. Besides, after the recent campaign by the Commission to do away with JSAs why should broadcasters cooperate with the agency on any issue to which they aren’t legally bound? Why should broadcasters do any favors for the FCC? And let’s face it: despite the “win-win-win-win-win, etc.” sales pitch we’ve been hearing from the past and current chairman, participating in the auction is really about helping the FCC achieve it’s goal. Well, guess what? Broadcasters have their goals too.
Stephen Bernard & David K. Randall says:
April 8, 2014 at 12:58 pm
Good post. They are saying in effect “help us help you” but it’s really “help us f*** you” and I hope we as an industry make them drag us kicking and screaming into this auction process and make it as difficult for them as possible.
Stephen Bernard & David K. Randall says:
April 8, 2014 at 12:54 pm
“If you like your broadcast spectrum, you can keep it.”
Right, guys? LOL
Ellen Samrock says:
April 8, 2014 at 1:19 pm
Or how about this for a bumper sticker: “Real broadcasters don’t let broadcasters join the auction”
cortney baker says:
April 8, 2014 at 3:58 pm
I like Nefnet’s comment…”if you like your broadcast spectrum, you can keep it.” perfect.
Mike Brown says:
April 8, 2014 at 4:08 pm
I would encourage broadcasters to seriously consider that the time has come to join the auction and sell their spectrum while the value still exists. Every passing day the younger generation move more and more to Internet-delivered video. Those who blindly hold on to the fond memories of yesterday will see the value of their broadcast investments fade into the sunset. Like the song “The Gambler,” — you gotta know when to Hold ’em and when to Fold ’em. Only a fool rides a horse off a cliff…
Geri Zeldes says:
April 8, 2014 at 4:53 pm
2 Thoughts…
1. Obviously the spectrum we hold as TV broadcasters is worth something… Like a whole lot. The FCC wants it back so it can sell it to wireless providers who are hoarding spectrum and want to see the way of FREE Television go by the wayside so they can make heaps of money forcing everyone to pay for anything they watch. And, wireless providers are huge companies with deep pockets and tons of lobbyists. Most TV owners are small by comparison, and the large wireless companies would like to see them just disappear. That’s not the way America is supposed to work. What happened to the idea that individual voices in each market made America better? Plus, where I am (outside the top 100 markets), people simply cannot afford the huge cable, satellite or cellphone bills, and many still rely on over-the-air, FREE, television.
2. I remember people saying that AM radio would die a miserable death 30 years ago and would cease to exist. While AM is certainly embattled currently, it still very much exists 30 years later, and there are plenty of young people who know what AM is, even if it’s only so they can listen to their favorite sports team…
Terry Dreher says:
April 8, 2014 at 4:59 pm
Internet delivered video doesn’t work “everywhere”. And a question for you…where will the younger generation get emergency information during the next Hurricane Sandy? Pretty safe bet that it won’t be from broadband.
Ellen Samrock says:
April 8, 2014 at 5:00 pm
Since spectrum is a finite resource (as we’ve been told ad nauseum) it will never lose value. Just ask Charlie Ergen. He’s been warehousing spectrum for a while now in the firm belief it will be worth much more in the near future. So, no, there isn’t pressing need for broadcasters to sell.
Wagner Pereira says:
April 8, 2014 at 6:06 pm
No conflict of interest in your post, is there Mr. Thibedeau?