The NAB said that the FCC should stick to the traditional OET-69 methodology for calculating the over-the-air coverage of TV stations. Using another standard, the association said, would be "arbitrary, capricious and contrary to established law."
NAB Ready To Go To Court Over Repacking
The NAB obliquely threatened today to take the FCC to court if it insists on using its “different and novel methodology” for calculating the over-the-air coverage of TV stations when it repacks the TV band in conjunction with the planned incentive auction.
In comments filed with the FCC, the NAB said that the FCC should stick to the traditional OET-69 methodology. Using its novel approach “contradicts the plain language of the Spectrum Act,” which authorizes the FCC to conduct the incentive auction and requires the agency to make “all reasonable efforts” to preserve stations’ current coverage in the repack.
The FCC current course, the NAB said, is “arbitrary, capricious and contrary to established law.”
“Arbitrary and capricious” is the legal standard typically used in challenging rulings by regulatory agencies in federal court.
Nothing in the incentive auction rulemaking, and no construction of the FCC’s delegated authority, authorizes the commission to rewrite the OET-69 methodology, the NAB said.
In addition, it said, the FCC’s procedures for releasing and publicizing new versions of its methodology violate the Administrative Procedure Act and deny the public adequate notice to provide meaningful comment.
BRAND CONNECTIONS
Through the auction, the FCC hopes to buy up to 120 MHz of TV spectrum from broadcasters and then auction it off to wireless carriers. After buying the spectrum, the FCC intends to repack the TV band so that it can aggregate the spectrum headed for the auction block.
Comments (2)
Ellen Samrock says:
April 4, 2014 at 9:07 pm
The gloves have finally come off. It’s about time. At some point, Tom Wheeler will have to realize that he is FCC chairman, not a communications czar. He doesn’t get to reward his friends and punish his enemies and he doesn’t get to pick winners and losers. Wheeler thinks that, as a former lobbyist, he can beat the NAB at its own game. But the NAB has been fighting these battles a long, long time and Gordon Smith was a former congressman with a lot of clout on Capitol Hill which he is using. That trumps any of Tom Wheeler’s connections. At some point, he’s going to have to swallow his pride and work with broadcasters and acknowledge our necessary role in US communications. And here’s a read’em and weep fact: The Spectrum Act does not specify that 120 MHz of UHF spectrum be auctioned off, only the NBP does that–and the NBP is not law.
Don Thompson says:
April 5, 2014 at 9:09 am
Ok, so the trend turned out NOT to be the cashcasters’ friend.
Blaming the current FCC chairman for addressing flawed policies he inherited is the same as saying that prior FCC actions forever bind future FCC leaders.
True, precedent has substantial weight but can government function if the dead shall always rule the living?
The FCC is saying that the one-top-four-TV-station-to-a-market rule is important; it is keeping it; and JSAs designed to evade it are null and void.
What would you be saying if cable operators skirted FCC rules to establish such overwhelming market power that they could drive retransmission consent prices to zero and stage signal blackouts until the local TV stations paid them for carriage?
I think I know your answer.
Another lesson here is this: Broadcast attorneys who told their JSA-indulging TV station clients that FCC intervention was a low-probability event dispensed some very poor advise. The three-month plunge in Sinclair’s and Nexstar’s stocks, fueled by the recent Wells Fargo downgrade, shows that investors do not believe that collusion is a sustainable business model. Please follow me on Twitter: @TedatACA