Rep. Pallone Introduces the Viewer Protection Act to safeguard consumers’ TV signals following the broadcast incentive auction. The bill proposes allocating $90 million to educate the public on how the repacking may affect them and an extra $1 billion in case the $1.75 billion already mandated to reimburse broadcasters for expenses in moving to new channels proves inadequate.
New Bill Offers Post-Auction Protections
House Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) unveiled a draft bill today that would go a long way toward protecting broadcasters during the repacking of the TV band that will follow the FCC’s incentive auction this spring.
In the incentive auction, the FCC plans to buy the spectrum of several hundred TV stations and then turn around and sell it to wireless carriers.
If the auction is successful, the FCC will require up to 1,200 of the remaining stations to move to new channels as if repacks the TV band to segregate broadcasting and wireless spectrum.
Congress has ordered that $1.75 billion of the auction proceeds be set aside to reimburse broadcasters for the cost of the channel moves. And the FCC has given broadcasters just 39 months to complete their moves.
Pallone’s draft proposes allocating $90 million to educate the public on how the repacking may affect them and an extra $1 billion in case the $1.75 billion proves inadequate.
The draft authorizes the FCC’s Mass Media Bureau to grant stations extensions of the 39-month relocation deadline so that “no station is forced to stop broadcasting due to reasons outside the station’s control.”
BRAND CONNECTIONS
Finally, the measure requires the FCC to develop a repacking plan that provides “wireless licensees with access to their licenses on a phased-in basis as separate regions of the country are reorganized for wireless use.”
The legislation covers the major concerns about the repacking raised by the NAB.
“Ranking Member Pallone is proposing a smart, consumer-friendly approach that addresses urgent ‘repacking’ issues that must be addressed to achieve a successful and truly voluntary incentive auction,” said NAB spokesman Dennis Wharton. “NAB looks forward to working in bipartisan fashion to protect broadcast viewers in communities across the country.”
Comments (6)
Ellen Samrock says:
January 5, 2016 at 4:00 pm
And in a pattern characteristic of Democrats the bill offers no protection for low power TV or translators. I suppose it’s asking too much of the NAB to point that out even as it praises the bill.
Warren Harmon says:
January 5, 2016 at 6:42 pm
When this actually happens, the losers will be the people. Especially those that cannot put pay TV in their budget!
Jim Church says:
January 6, 2016 at 12:29 am
The Pallone bill discussion draft is the worst possible scenario for LPTV and TV translators, and NAB knows it. Many of you will remember that in early 2015 our Coalition protested loudly to the FCC and their Inspector General that a “secret meeting” had been held by NAB, PBS, and CTIA members to discuss how they could work together, BUT THEY WOULD NOT REVEAL THE DETAILS. Now we know what the meeting was all about – screw LPTV and translators by developing a “regional repacking” plan to clear market by market . While this sounds good, what it does is to prevent in the free market place, LPTV and tv translators from contracting with tower crews to achieve their own repacking. And certainly this will mean that the wireless bidders will attempt to push off the displaced LPTV and translators well before the now mythical 39 month period, which we were led to believe that we would be able to stay “on-channel” during this time. And NAB has know all about this, so frak off NAB, you do not rep LPTV and the majority of translators. Unless the licensed and displaced LPTV and translators are allowed to be built out at the same time, and we can in a free market fashion contract with the tower crews also, or own build outs, which are also on a schedule, will never be able to happen for years later. What this effectively does is to wipe us out because we will not be able to construct in time. And for those of you who think this is a Dem thing, and you blame the Prez for it, wake up. The Repubs have DONE NOTHING to help us in this process. This is big money which cares nothing about small biz and the diverse audiences and networks we provide services to.
Wagner Pereira says:
January 6, 2016 at 5:37 am
There’s always a CB. You would have more audience.
Dante Betteo says:
January 6, 2016 at 10:57 am
So if Stations who don’t participate in the auction that broadcast above Channel 32, it reads above that they have to move anyway. Have I read that correctly?
Logan Molen says:
January 6, 2016 at 2:25 pm
The FCC has displayed massive indifference to the LPTV industry both stations/translators and their viewers on many levels. While allocating funds to reimburse full power broadcasters for the cost of channel moves there has been zero monies for LPTV broadcasters to cover their costs. Incredible inequity. Congress can fix this but thus far has shown little interest. Congress should force the commission to postpone the auction until meassures are taken to truly protect LPTV.