Sinclair Plan Shot Down By FCC Fine Print

An examination of the FCC’s 484 pages of incentive auction rules shows the commission has rejected a proposal to allow a blanket waiver for all a group’s stations if the group turned down federal reimbursement for moving. In addition, the FCC made clear that it believes it has wiggle room under Congress’ mandate that it make “all reasonable efforts” to preserve the coverage areas and populations served by stations required to move to new channels during the repacking.

The FCC has all but slammed the door on a broadcast industry proposal that could have made it easier for TV station groups to introduce a new advanced television standard in the U.S., broadcast industry sources said Tuesday.

Under the proposal, originally pitched at the FCC by Sinclair Broadcast Group, TV station groups that agreed to forego federal reimbursement for any stations forced to move to new channels during the agency’s incentive auction repacking process would have received a waiver allowing them to use the existing spectrum for all their stations’ channels for traditional broadcast and other new services.

Some broadcasters, led by Sinclair, want to be able to use at least part of their existing spectrum capacity to introduce an advanced TV standard that would make it easier for them to broadcast a variety of services to consumer mobile devices.

But in the fine print of the 484-page text of the incentive auction rules the agency released June 2, the FCC rejected the request for a blanket waiver that would have applied to all of a group broadcaster’s stations.

Instead, the FCC said that waiver requests would be considered only for the individual stations that are specifically required to move during the repacking, with the broadcaster’s agreement to forego federal reimbursement a point in a waiver’s favor.

Also under the FCC rule adopted, the broadcaster would have to continue offering at least one free broadcast TV program stream to the public.

BRAND CONNECTIONS

One well-placed broadcast industry attorney told TVNewsCheck that the original proposal could have substantially reduced industry demand for repacking expense reimbursements from the federal government.

Serious concerns have been raised that the $1.75 billion fund established by Congress to reimburse the industry for auction-related relocation costs won’t be enough to go around, with broadcasters forced to pick up some of the costs on their own.

A broadcast industry attorney said that the proposal as pitched could have taken a substantial number of station groups out of the reimbursement pool, by allowing them to plan for all of their stations. “A win-win for everybody,” the source said.

But as the rule came down, it applies only to the handful of a group’s stations that may be forced to move during the repacking, severely undermining a group broadcaster’s incentive to participate, the source said, adding: “It’s just short-sighted. It’s useless.”

Another industry source said: “The waiver of the service rules section [in the incentive auction rules] is basically a rejection of Sinclair’s proposal. Sinclair proposed the only meaningful way forward.”

In the text of its rules, the FCC said it would try to hold repacking costs down and didn’t have reason, “at this time,” to believe that the $1.75 billion would fall short.

“If future developments suggest that $1.75 billion is insufficient to cover eligible costs, the commission delegates authority to the Media Bureau to develop a prioritization scheme for reimbursement claims,” the FCC said in its auction rules.

Also in the rules, the FCC made clear that it believes it has wiggle room under Congress’ mandate that it make “all reasonable efforts” to preserve the coverage areas and populations served by stations required to move to new channels during the repacking.

“Congress included the term ‘reasonable’ in the statute [authorizing the incentive auction] because it anticipated that broadcasters’ interests would not be the only interests the commission would have to consider in the repacking process,” the FCC said.

“Accordingly, we do not believe the statute requires us to precisely and strictly preserve broadcasters’ coverage areas and populations served without considering the other objectives in the Spectrum Act.”


Comments (6)

Leave a Reply

Wagner Pereira says:

June 3, 2014 at 5:15 pm

Congress, which should have GOP majority on both sides in the Fall, really need to rein this thing in.

Bobbi Proctor says:

June 4, 2014 at 11:52 am

Too bad the FCC is not concerned about viewer’s interests. Their belief that they do not have to “preserve broadcasters’ coverage areas and populations served” confirms my suspicion that we viewers who do not have pay TV will likely lose service. The FCC is supporting cable and satellite over antenna TV.

    Wagner Pereira says:

    June 4, 2014 at 3:00 pm

    If you read the story, broadcasting a free OTA channel is required. Of course, what you get on the free OTA channel will possibly (and probably if Aereo is deemed legal by SCOTUS this month) not be in the same format you see today. A split screen with .1 and .2 in a box OTA with audio selectable for either (.1 by default) with channel numbers of the Cable/Telco/Satellite number under the window seems like a real option, with the full resolution picture available only on the systems that pay retransmission fees.

    mike tomasino says:

    June 4, 2014 at 5:25 pm

    Broadcasters (or the networks) certainly may slit their own throats. That will be their own problem!!! Pay television is living on borrowed time.

    Wagner Pereira says:

    June 4, 2014 at 10:52 pm

    If you want quality (and not to debate what that means), the money has to come from someone.

Ben Gao says:

June 4, 2014 at 4:12 pm

I thought that maybe the GOP would get on the bandwagon to keep this travesty from turning into a total trainwreck. Many stations do NOT have the same HDTV ‘footprint’ that they did with NTSC – so the FCC modeling programs are already flawed. OTA HDTV must be preserved and the service footprint should be as large as, or larger than it already is. The FCC erred in not give a ‘group discount pass’, especially if this program runs out of cash. They also need to start at the borders where they’ll soon realized that there is NO spectrum to harvest there for cell co’s as they have stations filled to the brim in the 40’s in the Pt Hurnon/Detroit/Toledo areas near Canada.