SNL KAGAN TV AND RADIO FINANCE SUMMIT

Is FCC Going Too Fast On Spectrum Auction?

Broadcasters say yes and urge the commission to delay it until there are adequate safeguards for broadcasters and consumers. On the other hand, FCC Senior Adviser Rebecca Hanson says the commission is acting methodically and responsibly.

Broadcasters are urging the FCC to slow down plans to hold the much-debated spectrum auction as early as next year, saying “spectrum is going to last a long time … so we need to get it right.”

“There are so many unanswered questions,” says the National Association of Broadcaster’s Rick Kaplan. “There are too many things that are too important.”

That the transfer of spectrum from broadcasters to wireless companies, which is the goal of the auction, would result in interference for is among the primary concerns, Kaplan says.

Kaplan was one of a panel of broadcasters — as well as an FCC senior adviser — who debated the merits of the spectrum auction at the SNL Kagan TV and Radio Finance Summit held Thursday in New York.

Although the four-person panel discussed the nitty-gritty of the plan, much of the discussion boiled down to whether the plan includes adequate safeguards for broadcasters and consumers.

Sinclair’s Mark Aitken made extremely clear his opinion that the answer to that is no. He said that by pushing to hold the auction in 2014, versus delaying until the many issues associated it with it are resolved, the FCC is putting at risk both the quality and accessibility of over-the-air TV.

BRAND CONNECTIONS

“The consumer gets shorted on this deal, and the fact is we think the commission ought to take some time and figure out what’s good for the American public,” Aitken said.

Although it’s up to broadcasters whether or not they want to sell their spectrum to the FCC — which in turn will sell it to wireless companies — they ultimately will pay the price when the commission then moves onto repacking, or reassigning channels that remain on the air, he says.

Repacking raises the risk that TV viewers will experience interference. A small number of viewers could even lose access to a station altogether. Aitken says it makes sense to do that repack years down the road, when new transmission standards will make it more successful.

But Rebecca Hanson, an FCC senior adviser, says the commission is acting methodically in devising plans to executing the auction, the timing of which is being driven by “the need for spectrum in the marketplace as we understand it. That said, we aren’t recklessly going to go head on into something we’ve never done before,” she said.

Rather, she added, the auction plan has components that mitigate problems like interference that could result from the repacking. “An inferior broadcast project is not one of the commission’s stated goals of the auction and never will be,” she said.


Comments (10)

Leave a Reply

Dave Chumley says:

June 6, 2013 at 3:54 pm

The FCC’s position, to quote Rebecca Hanson, that “An inferior broadcast project is not one of the commission’s stated goals of the auction and never will be,” is an arrogant display of technical stupidity and ignorance. What does the FCC mean by “inferior broadcast project” ? The FCC and all of us can benefit from less lawyers like Rebecca Hanson and more engineers. Mark Aitken is absolutely correct.

Gregg Palermo says:

June 6, 2013 at 5:09 pm

Justice delayed is justice denied: Spectrum is squandered when so few people actually use broadcast signals.

    Intern 10W says:

    June 6, 2013 at 5:45 pm

    “when so few people actually use broadcast signals”
    So your answer is to deny cable companies and the satellite companies access to local TV? Where do you think the MVPD’s get their signals? If you think fiber is the answer, guess again.

    Chad Leabo says:

    June 7, 2013 at 3:22 pm

    Right you are… Not only are our signals used by many MVPD’s, broadcasters are using their spectrum for mobile broadcasts… Congress and the bueracrats at the FCC should listen to the engineers who understand the laws of physics and interference. It also makes sense to inventory the spectrum broadcasters will give up, transition to a new more efficient standard which should minimize the impact and interference issues, and then repack the band. Stations took many complaints from the last transition, let’s get the next one right…esspecially if it means giving up spectrum that we can’t get back.

Ellen Samrock says:

June 6, 2013 at 5:13 pm

Nearly all engineers agree that the FCC’s timetable is rushed. The only logical conclusion is that there is some underlying reason why the Obama regime is pushing for the VIA to happen in 2014. It can’t be because of a spectrum crunch because the telcos and MVPDs are already in possession of hundreds of MHz of warehoused spectrum and are in bids to either purchase more or sell some. What we do know is that Obama rewards his friends. Among his friends, Cisco, Apple, AT&T, Microsoft, Google, TWC and Comcast had each contributed millions to Obama’s re-election. Broadcast groups? Little to none. In fact, Sinclair contributed to the Republicans and ran an infomercial critical of Obama (this can all be Google-searched). So when it came time for Obama’s “friends” to complain that a certain competitor was standing in the way of their ambitions to become “broadcasters” themselves, that he would be only too happy to oblige them and get rid of their competition? This is yet another but little publicized scandal of the Obama administration.

Keith ONeal says:

June 6, 2013 at 10:40 pm

Here’s a thought: Why not set up the ATSC 2.0 standard first? Then we’ll know for sure if the FCC really NEEDS to hold the spectrum auction in the first place. During the past forty or more years the FCC already cut channels 52 to 83 from television to give to other services. That’s a lot of spectrum MHz to begin with. Now, they also want to take the spectrum MHz for channels 32 to 51 as well and leave channels 2 to 31 for television. I think that Congress needs to step in and stop this STUPID idea by the FCC!

    Trudy Handel says:

    June 7, 2013 at 7:00 am

    It was Congress that gave the FCC the authority to do it in the first place.

    Ellen Samrock says:

    June 7, 2013 at 3:29 pm

    True, but the Spectrum Act/Congress gives the FCC until 2021 to complete the process. Why the rush???

Rick Soltesz says:

June 7, 2013 at 12:10 pm

So the government gives the TV broadcasters a $150 billion free loan (read the public airwaves) and then the broadcasters want that free loan extended, and another $150 billion thrown in, in the name of the public interest. I wish, as an average citizen, I could get such a deal from my government. Congrats to the TV broadcasters for pulling this off and having the chutzpah to promote it as consumer friendly.

    Todd Barkes says:

    June 10, 2013 at 9:59 am

    There has never been anything free about our role in planting, nurturing, developing and providing access to OTA TV – except for the fact that the service and access to OTA TV by the American public is free. Mr./Ms. Snyder, these free services in the future will be provided by whom? Verizon? AT&T? Laughable!