WASHINGTON-The broadcast auction issue has reappeared on the political radar screen with the same intensity and fanfare that nearly upended the telecommunications reform bill earlier this year.
This time around, with that legislation signed into law, the controversy has shifted to the Federal Communications Commission where there is a staff proposal to auction lightly used TV channels 60-69 prior to the end of a 10- to 15-year transition period for converting from analog to digital broadcast technology.
There are some who continue to argue that broadcasters should not be guaranteed a digital channel and that all new broadcast licenses should be auctioned. That is unlikely to occur, but the proposed auction of TV channels 60-69 is plausible.
During the transition contemplated by Congress and the FCC, broadcasters would simulcast signals on existing analog channels and new digital channels. While TV channels 60-69 would be auctioned in the short-term, eventually all analog channels are supposed to return to the FCC. Some skeptics doubt that will happen.
A key element of the proposal that could secure bipartisan support and political cover for proponents entails setting aside a portion of auction proceeds for a public broadcasting trust fund.
Public safety wants a slice of the pie, too.
And just last week, President Clinton earmarked $5 billion from the future sale of spectrum in TV channels 60-69 even before policymakers decide whether such an auction should take place.
The new auction plan was pulled from the FCC’s July 11 meeting at the request of Commissioner James Quello, himself a former broadcast executive, and Commissioner Rachelle Chong. The initiative, spearheaded by the Office of Plans and Policy and supported by Hundt, has been rescheduled for next week’s meeting.
TV channels 60-69, being adjacent to the 800 MHz band, are considered prime real estate for wireless telecommunications services like those that occupy the band today. For that reason and the fact that nearly $20 billion has been spent on digital paging and pocket telephone licenses, the wireless industry strongly favors broadcast auctions.
Even so, the matter of who would be eligible to bid on freed up TV spectrum could prove dicey. The Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials International Inc. asked the FCC for “substantial portions of UHF channels 60-69” for police, fire, emergency medical agencies at the local, state and federal levels. The federal government would not receive any federal revenue public safety entities, though. Commercial wireless providers, on the other hand, are willing to pay top dollar for spectrum.
The powerful TV industry, led by the National Association of Broadcasters, argues the FCC auction plan could cause interference to the 97 analog TV licensees and scores of low-power TV licensees operating on channels 60-69. Moreover, it is contended that the loss of channels 60-69 will complicate the digital TV transition.
The issue largely died down after then-Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.)-a vocal advocate of broadcast auctions-removed his hold on the telecommunications bill in exchange for a promise by new Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Larry Pressler (R-S.D.) and House Commerce Committee head Thomas Bliley (R-Va.) not to grant digital TV licenses until spectrum reform legislation is finished.
But the controversy was reignited last month after Lott, Bliley, Senate Commerce Committee ranking minority member Ernest Hollings (D-S.C.) and House Commerce Committee ranking minority member John Dingell (D-Mich.) urged the FCC’s Hundt to finalize digital TV rules by April 1, 1997, and to refrain from reallocating broadcast spectrum for wireless auctions.
Pressler, who is writing a sweeping spectrum reform bill, refused to sign the letter. Neither the Senate nor the House will move spectrum legislation this year.
The June 14 letter created a firestorm of protests from public interest groups and a handful of lawmakers. The broadcast industry, meanwhile, has ratcheted up its lobbying on Capitol Hill and at the FCC.
A half-page ad in last Monday’s Washington Post warned the FCC’s Hundt that American jobs will be lost and new technology denied to consumers if the digital TV transition plan is disrupted.
But others claim taxpayers will be shortchanged billions of dollars if broadcast spectrum is not paid for.
“A giveaway of this spectrum is simply corporate welfare,” said David Keating, executive vice president of the National Taxpayers Union. “We seriously doubt that the broadcast industry will want to use all of the digital capacity made possible by this added 6 megahertz of spectrum for High Definition Television.”
The paging industry, for example, fears broadcasters may use excess capacity for wireless messaging without having to compete for digital licenses as paging firms had to do. Broadcasters would have to pay a market price for ancillary services offered on digital TV channels.
Liberal Democrat Barney Frank of Massachusetts quipped, “I did not realize that I would miss Sen. Dole so quickly*…*Now, with Sen. Dole scarcely out the door, his former colleagues are repudiating his position in the eagerness to bestow this gift on broadcasters.”
John McCain, a conservative GOP budget hawk who sits on the Senate Commerce Committee, said, “I sincerely hope that the FCC will see clear to do the right thing and auction these channels [60-69]. This proposed auction will undoubtedly result in new revenues to the Treasury. If the commission decides not to auction, I hope the commission will correctly identify its action as a ripoff of the American taxpayer.”
People for the American Way, the Media Access Project and the Center for Media Education last Thursday were set to release a letter calling on Congress “to stop the giveaway of public property to corporate media giants” and “to preserve the future of educational and informational telecommunications services.” (See related story on Page 8).
