Print Page
House Subcommittee Hearing Offers Few Clues on Incentive Auctions
12/13/2012
|
|
Doug Lung
|
|
The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications
and Technology held a hearing Wednesday with all five of the FCC commissioners
to discuss “Keeping the New Broadband Spectrum Law on Track.”
After watching the
two-hour and 45 minute hearing on the Web, I was surprised to
how little time was devoted to the impact of the incentive auctions on
broadcasters. While members were supportive of broadcasters, the Subcommittee's
press
release on the hearing doesn't even mention broadcasters.
The main concern was whether the FCC had structured the
auction in a way to obtain the highest amount of revenue and the most spectrum
for wireless broadband. The amount of spectrum allocated for guard bands and
unlicensed use was questioned, although there was support for some amount of
unlicensed spectrum.
Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden commented, “Finally, let
me make it clear, I support the use of unlicensed spectrum to foster innovation
and provide much needed offload for congested mobile broadband networks. That’s
why our bill expands the amount of unlicensed spectrum by identifying an
additional 195 MHz in the 5 GHz band, frequencies ideal for this kind of use.
It also codifies the use of white spaces. What I cannot support is the unnecessary
expansion of unlicensed spectrum in other bands needed for licensed services,
especially at the expense of funding for public safety.”
Representative John Dingel questioned FCC Chairman
Genachowski about compliance with the law's requirement to ensure that require all
reasonable efforts are made to preserve broadcaster's coverage and population
served. With regard to this, Dingle asked, “Does the Commission intend to
define explicitly what such what reasonable efforts will constitute?” Genachowski
answered “yes”. He then asked, “Does the Commission expect to have defined such
reasonable efforts?” Genachowski answered “Yes.” Rep. Dingel then asked, “Does
the Commission publicly commit to sharing with the public the repacking
methodology it adopts as well as the variables and other inputs it may use to
predict repacking results?” Genachowski replied in the affirmative.
These are only a few of the many questions Dingel posed to
the FCC Chairman. The first line of questioning appeared to catch Chairman
Genachowski off guard. Dingel noted, and Genachowski agreed, that coordination
with Canada and Mexico took a long time during the DTV transition. Rep. Dingel
asked the Chairman for a yes or no answer as to whether the Commission will
commence new arrangements with the State Department, Canada and Mexico
regarding channel changes before repacking broadcast frequencies. Chairman
Genachowski couldn't provide a yes or no answer. When Dingel said the law
required this, the FCC Chairman said they would comply with the law.
Representative Joe Barton had similar problems getting clear
answers from the Commissioners when he asked about the status of low-power TV
(LPTV) broadcasters about an hour and 25 minutes into the hearing.He said, “I didn't envision that we would
have the end result that a low-power television station would simply end up off
the air.” He said it wasn't fair that a “low-power television station that been
a good licensee is totally off the air.” Chairman Genachowski acknowledged the
value LPTV stations provide but didn't provide a clear answer, In the case of
other questions on the incentive auctions, the Commissioners said they were
looking for comments on them in the NPRM.
It is worthwhile watching the recording of the hearing
on-line. You can fast forward through the discussions on who should be allowed
to bid for the spectrum and the use of government spectrum to pick up some of
the tidbits about broadcasters and concerns about how the FCC will handle the
repacking.
Print Page