Padden On Spectrum: Take The Sure Money

The head of a coalition of broadcasters buying stations with the intent to sell spectrum in the upcoming FCC auction says the alternative, adopting a new transmission standard and then leasing some of their spectrum, is "highly speculative" and requires too many variables to go right over the next few years.

Like retirees sizing up their pensions, broadcasters can go for the lump-sum payout or opt for an annuity that will fill their checking accounts each month.

That’s the way Preston Padden, executive director of the Expanding Opportunities for Broadcasters Coalition, explains it in a speech prepared for delivery this morning at a George Mason University conference on TV’s future.

Only Padden is not talking about pensions; he’s talking about TV spectrum.

Broadcasters can take a lump sum by selling their spectrum in the FCC’s planned incentive auction or they can adopt a new broadcast standard and lease all or some of their spectrum to wireless carriers for that “annuity.”

Both represents ways that broadcasters can monetize the “10-fold” increase in spectrum value when it is made available to wireless carriers rather than used solely for broadcasting, he says.

For Padden, the choice is clear: take the cash. That’s not surprising. His coalition represents broadcasters who have been buying marginal large-market stations with that intention.

BRAND CONNECTIONS

The opportunity could come as early as 2015 if the FCC sticks to its plan to buy spectrum from willing broadcasters in a “reverse auction” so that it can turn around and sell it to wireless carriers in a forward auction.

Getting the annuity — leasing the spectrum, that is — requires too many things to go right over the next few years, Padden says. He calls it “highly speculative.”

Before broadcasters could lease, he says, they would need to coalesce around a new broadcast standard; they would have to convince the FCC to adopt that standard; they would need to spend billions of dollars to help consumers transition to the new standard; they would have to persuade mobile device manufacturers to develop new standards and devices to receive the broadcast signals; they would have to switch to a cell-like broadcast architecture; they would have to develop a plan with wireless carriers for aggregating and leasing spectrum; and, finally, they would have to cope with disputes resulting from the leasing.

But a successful auction is far from a given, too, Padden also acknowledges. For it to work, the FCC has to convince a critical mass of broadcasters to participate and that will not be easy, he says.

“To even begin to contemplate participation in the auction, broadcasters need to know what initial price offers they will see, when the auction will be held and when they will be expected to cease broadcasting. The sooner the FCC commissioners and their hard-working staff can provide answers to these questions, the sooner the FCC will begin to attract more broadcast sellers.”

Some of the FCC’s current thinking on compensating broadcasters in the auction is self defeating, Padden says. “For example, in an apparent effort to suppress payments to some broadcasters, the FCC has proposed to ‘score’ stations offering larger payments to bigger and more successful stations,” he says. “This proposal is driving away from the auction some of the stations otherwise most likely to be willing to participate.

“The FCC will be buying 6 MHz of spectrum, not ongoing broadcasting businesses. Since all stations bring the same 6 MHz to the table, the FCC should offer the same starting prices to all stations and let the design of the auction itself freeze at early high-priced rounds those stations most important to clearing the spectrum.

“Buying smaller stations not located at a market’s main antenna farm will have a greater effect on clearing spectrum because of adjacent channel preclusion — preclusion that is not a problem for co-located stations.”


Comments (3)

Leave a Reply

Bobbi Proctor says:

November 15, 2013 at 9:38 am

No matter what direction the FCC goes in taking away channels from broadcast television it is the home viewer who will lose. If it happens like the FCC plans I am sure that we as viewers will have less programming to chose from and more interference. That happened when channels 52 to 69 were taken and will be worse the next time around. If “broadcasters” like Padden do not want to continue to operate stations they should just turn in their licenses. They should not be paid to jsell the frequency. Use it or lose it.

Ellen Samrock says:

November 15, 2013 at 12:37 pm

Preston, Preston, Preston. Fear-mongering is the last refuge of a huckster. Sure, we don’t know how ATSC 3.0 will turn out or even if it will happen. But closing shop and shrinking off with a pennies on the dollar payout is not how great industries are built or adapt. The technological advancements that are happening just within broadcast television alone are truly amazing and gives clear indication that OTA TV is at the beginning of a new era with unlimited potential beyond just supplying television. The only threat to this new era is the government spurred on by lobbyists like you. As for broadcasters leasing spectrum, you know, if the telcos really want it, they’ll lease it and find a way to make it happen. If telcos don’t lease it from broadcasters, then they obviously overstated their need for spectrum (surprise, surprise). And as far as giving equal value to spectrum, you and I know that not all spectrum is equal. Spectrum in New York and Los Angeles is worth more then spectrum in Louisville simply because it’s more scarce. The FCC is going to have to pay out more money if they ever hope to encourage stations in markets 1&2 to vacate as opposed to stations in market 48. I like to compare what’s happening with the incentive auctions and pressure from groups like the EOBC and the government to the movie “Giant”. The scene where Jett Rink is being pressured by Bick Benedict and his buddies to sell his little piece of land for pennies on the dollar. They hand him a few hundred dollars and say, “What are ya’ goin’ to do with all that money, boy?” Jett smiles and throws it back in their face knowing that his land is worth more then a few measly dollars (otherwise why would they want it so badly). Broadcasters know their “land” or spectrum is valuable too, after all, why would the telcos and government want it so desperately. Jett wanted to see what riches his land would yield and it eventually struck oil. Smart broadcasters want to see if their spectrum will eventually strike a gusher too(and we’re confident it will). But they won’t see that if they follow your advice by taking a paltry buyout and running.

    Stephanie Harrison says:

    November 16, 2013 at 5:10 am

    Spot on.