Point: 5G Broadcast Connects Stations to the Mobile Future

The press is filled with stories predicting the demise of linear broadcast television. And certainly, it is true that we face many obstacles, including streaming services taking our viewers and advertisers, cable cord-cutting eroding our retransmission revenues and our own networks climbing on the streaming bandwagon.

But what if there was a new broadcast standard that held the promise of connecting broadcasters not only to television receivers, but also to 5G wireless smartphones and tablets, opening a whole new market to our transmission? The good news is that there is such a standard and it is called 5G Broadcast. And because 5G Broadcast (unlike ATSC 3.0) was adopted as part of the 3G PP 5G standard, it holds the key to our future. All we have to do is join large portions of the world in adopting it.

I have the greatest respect for my longtime friend Mark Aitken, who has advocated with great skill to try to make ATSC 3.0 the American standard for next-gen TV. And I have great admiration for Sinclair and its principal, David Smith. David is probably the only station group owner who has seated himself at a bench and actually built a UHF transmitter.

Let me state upfront that no one is paying me to write this article and that I do not own a single share of stock in Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, mobile chip makers or phone manufacturing companies. My investments are in boring municipal bonds with no relation whatsoever to the television or telecom industries.

Worldwide Standard
The broadcasting industry is transitioning from ATSC 1.0 to a next-generation standard. The two principal choices available to us are ATSC 3.0 and 5G Broadcast. An international standards body called 3GPP sets the standards for all cellular devices in the world and all of the major cellular device manufacturers (Apple, Samsung, etc.) build their devices to comply with 3GPP. 3GPP-compliant devices only receive signals that are part of the 3GPP family of 5G global standards, meaning that broadcasters who transition to the 5G Broadcast standard will be able to transmit directly to the hundreds of millions of next generation 5G smartphones and tablets.

By contrast, ATSC 3.0 is not a part of the 3GPP family of cellular standards and therefore cannot and will not be able to be received by smartphones and tablets compliant with the 3GPP standards. For this reason, Sinclair and others tried diligently to get ATSC 3.0 approved by 3GPP as part of its standards. Ultimately, 3GPP refused to incorporate ATSC 3.0 into its standard.

LTE-based 5G Broadcast is better-suited for integration with 3GPP modems because it reuses nearly all existing LTE/5G components and hardware, whereas ATSC 3.0 requires different implementations across critical building blocks.

So far, public and private broadcast operators in Germany, France, Italy, Austria, Estonia, Spain and the Czech Republic came forward and announced their intentions to deploy the 5G Broadcast standard. And there is continuing interest in 5G Broadcast in Malaysia, China and Brazil, with active trials and evaluation of the technology. With several large countries committing to 5G Broadcast, I expect TV-set manufacturers to incorporate 5G Broadcast receivers to meet marketplace demand—no government mandates necessary.

Because of trial broadcasts around the world—including a Federal Communications Commission-approved trial by low-power station WWOO in the Boston market—we don’t need to speculate about whether 5G Broadcast can be received by 5G smartphones.

Simply Stated, It Works!
So American full-power TV broadcasters face the following choice: Do you want to transition to a next-gen standard that broadens your market to include reception by 5G cellular devices, or do you want to transition to a standard that cannot be received by those devices?

The question answers itself.

Advocates for ATSC 3.0 try mightily to think of applications that could make up for their standard’s lack of access to 3GPP cellular devices. They argue that car manufacturers will go to the expense of adding ATSC 3.0 receivers to their cars to receive software downloads. But since all cars (even my low-tech minivan) already have 5G transceivers that serve that function, that seems very unlikely. Or they argue that an ATSC 3.0-based new GPS system will be the key to our future. That seems a real stretch, and certainly no substitute for gaining access to 3GPP cellular devices.

So why is Sinclair pushing so hard for ATSC 3.0? The simple answer is that they have a conflict—not bad or evil—just a conflict. Sinclair owns a vast portion of the intellectual property that makes up the ATSC 3.0 standard. That means that they stand to reap a fortune in royalties if American full-power broadcasters adopt ATSC 3.0. All other TV broadcasters can make their choice without being burdened by that conflict!

In my opinion the only thing that can save broadcasting from extinction is to transition to 5G Broadcast and transmit directly to both TV receivers and 3GPP cellular devices and thereby join the mobile future.

All we have to do is do it!

Reflections vs. Illumination: Choosing the Right Path for Broadcast

Bold claims are easy to make, especially from seasoned showmen. But if you’re going to listen to them, it’s best to keep one hand on your wallet. Advocates of 5G Broadcast like to make impressive claims about what 5G Broadcast is and what it can do. So, to avoid confusion, before discussing the relative merits of NextGen TV (or ATSC 3.0) and 5G Broadcast, it’s important to clarify one thing that 5G Broadcast is not.

First and foremost, it is not a near-term path for broadcasters to get their signals into mobile devices. The 5G Broadcast Barkers make much of the fact that 5G Broadcast is already a 3GPP standard. But what they don’t tell you is that this isn’t self-executing. Currently, no consumer device can receive 5G Broadcast signals. Not one.

To actually get a 5G Broadcast signal into a phone in a consumer’s hands, manufacturers would need to agree to install broadcast band antennas and new radio frequency filtering and front ends in mobile devices, which is exactly what they would need to do to get ATSC 3.0 signals into a phone in a consumer’s hands. One difference? India’s mobile manufacturers are already supporting ATSC 3.0 phones. Right now. As you read this.

B2X Is Coming
In any event, the standardization of the next ATSC 3.0 release, currently referred to as “Broadcast to Everything (B2X),” will accelerate the availability of 3.0 receivers in mobile devices. B2X is a backwards-compatible evolution of ATSC 3.0 that harmonizes with 3GPP standards—including Release 17 and anticipated extensions—providing a true path toward converged broadcast-broadband delivery without abandoning the robust ATSC 3.0 foundation.

So if 5G Broadcast doesn’t offer a faster path to getting broadcast to mobile, what does it offer?

Well, for one thing, 5G Broadcast offers measurably inferior performance. This is partly because it’s not even really 5G. It’s 4G/LTE. In fact, I don’t know why I’m even calling it “5G” Broadcast at this point.

You don’t need to take my word for 4G Broadcast’s technical inferiority. Last summer, Brazil engaged in a lengthy, thoughtful process involving extensive laboratory and field testing to select the ATSC 3.0 physical layer as the over-the-air transmission system for the country’s upgrade to next-generation terrestrial broadcast services.

In response to its original call for proposals, Brazil’s Fórum do Sistema Brasileiro de TV Digital Terrestre (SBTVD) received 31 responses from 21 different organizations worldwide, resulting in 30 candidate technologies. This included four over-the-air physical layer candidate technologies: Advanced ISDB-T, ATSC 3.0, 5G Broadcast, and DTMB-A, all of which were subjected to both laboratory and field testing.

The full results of the first rounds of lab tests are available at https://forumsbtvd.org.br/ under the TV 3.0 Project tab. SBTVD determined that it was necessary to conduct further lab and field testing between the top two candidate standards, Advanced ISDB-T and ATSC 3.0, before making a final recommendation. The full results of the final round of lab tests are also available at the URL referenced above.

So Much More to Offer
Here’s the short version of the lab results: ATSC 3.0 outperformed every other candidate standard and was unanimously recommended by SBTVD. ATSC 3.0 demonstrated greater spectral efficiency, with higher throughput for both fixed indoor reception and high-speed mobile reception. (Somehow the so-called 5G Broadcast advocates never mention that their mobile standard doesn’t work well with devices that are actually mobile.)

But for our purposes today, it’s particularly worth noting that 4G Broadcast didn’t even make the cut for the final evaluation in field testing. That’s right—5G Broadcast advocates are trying to convince broadcasters to adopt an also-ran technology as the future of the industry.

It’s misleading to suggest broadcast television could become instantly scalable just by virtue of being “part of 3GPP.” The broadcast mode of 5G—FeMBMS or 5G Broadcast—is not implemented in those hundreds of millions of phones. It’s a separate mode, with its own antenna, filtering, LNA, silicon and other required components and software stack—none of which is found in current consumer devices.

ATSC 3.0 has so much more to offer and is so much further ahead in the game at this point. Broadcasters are already using ATSC 3.0 to deliver superior pictures and sound to viewers. Broadcasters have spent years working on ATSC 3.0, developing features like broadcast applications that allow broadcasters deploying NextGen TV to offer new interactive features and benefits, such as enhanced content, program restart, hyperlocal weather and programmatic advertising.

These applications also create an easy pathway to extending content created for digital platforms into the broadcast experience. And broadcasters are already developing new business models that will allow the industry to diversify revenue streams and thrive in the decades ahead.

The future of broadcast isn’t about shiny distractions—it’s about illumination. ATSC 3.0 isn’t just a standard, it’s a system designed to serve the public, empower broadcasters and evolve with technology. It’s on the air. It’s in consumer devices. It works. And if you attended the recent ATSC Next Gen Broadcast Conference … it’s all about mobile! While others chase hypotheticals, ATSC 3.0 delivers real value today—and lights the path to tomorrow.

STAMFORD Conn.—The LPTV Broadcasters Association has announced that well known TV industry figure Preston Padden will serve as the new chief strategist of the association and will join its Board of Directors.

“We are not only excited, but truly honored to have Preston join the LPTV Broadcasters Association as our Chief Strategist as well as a Board Member,” said Frank Copsidas, founder and president of the group. “Mr. Padden’s experience combined with his foresight will enlighten not only the industry and our government leaders and policy makers, but investors as well, to understand the value of LPTV. This is a time of industry transition, and we look forward to our exciting future in the Local Power TV Industry.” 

“I am excited to join LPTV BA because of the huge untapped potential of LPTV stations and their valuable spectrum. I look forward to working with Frank and the Board to explore creative options for the future.” stated Preston Padden.

Padden has enjoyed a long career in the media business including: assistant general counsel, Metromedia; president, The Association of Independent Television Stations; president, network distribution, Fox Broadcasting Company; chairman and CEO, American Sky Broadcasting (merged into Dish Network); president, ABC Television Network; executive vice-president, government relations, The Walt Disney Company; executive director of a Coalition of TV Stations Participating in the FCC Incentive Auction; and executive VP of the C-Band Alliance. 

In his career, Padden helped to launch the Fox Broadcast Network. 

Currently he is the principal of Boulder Thinking, LLC, a Consulting Company headquartered in Colorado.  Padden also serves on the Advisory Board of Grotech Ventures, a private equity investment firm.

LPTV Broadcasters Association, established in 2021 is the non-profit industry organization representing Low Power, Translator and Class A TV Stations. 

These are comments filed by Preston Padden to the FCC in regards to the sale of C-band spectrum for the development of 5G.

These are my views and do not implicate any former or current employer or client. In particular, this blog has not been approved by CBA. Rather, the views below reflect my personal outrage that the government is changing the rules just because so many chose to “pile on” in the C-band proceeding. 

Some have argued that the C-band satellite carriers should not be allowed to receive 100% of the proceeds of an FCC sale of a portion of their spectrum usage rights because they received their spectrum for free. In the case of SES and Intelsat, this argument is factually incorrect. And regarding all C-band licensees, this argument is contrary to the history of secondary market sales of FCC authorized spectrum usage rights and 60 years of evolving Coasian theory of spectrum allocation. Other than “bad actors,” all FCC licensees that sold their spectrum usage rights in secondary market sales have received 100% of the proceeds—not 10%, not 50%—100%. 

For decades, the Federal Communications Commission awarded usage rights to bare spectrum (an ephemeral “asset” of no value to the public without massive investments in related infrastructure) for FREE. If there was only one applicant for a specific spectrum band, she/he got it and paid nothing to the government. If there were multiple applicants, the usage rights were divided among the applicants or awarded to one applicant based on comparative hearings or lotteries—but in any event, the party awarded the spectrum usage rights paid nothing to the government. 

For example, America’s great over-the-air broadcast system was built this way by risk-taking visionaries. The spectrum usage rights for every radio and TV station in America were granted for FREE without payment to the government. These private sector risk takers invested vast sums in transmitters, towers, personnel and programming to make the spectrum useful to the public. Later, as stations were bought and sold—with the spectrum usage rights being the most valuable asset transferred—100% of the proceeds went to the seller, not to the government. That remains the case for every broadcast station in America today—including transactions approved by the FCC as recently as a few weeks ago. Broadcast spectrum sellers that paid nothing to the government receive 100% of the proceeds when they sell. 

The same is true regarding early wireless spectrum usage rights. In the early 1980s the FCC granted the first cell phone usage rights in the 30 largest U.S. cities. Two licenses were granted in each city—one to the local wireline telephone company for FREE and the second to another applicant, also for free. Through a comparative hearing victory in Chicago and lottery outcomes in other big cities, my first employer, Metromedia, was granted a number of these non-wireline phone company licenses—paying nothing to the government. I know because I filed the applications. Metromedia’s principal, John Kluge, invested vast sums to build out the cellular systems for which demand at the time was thoroughly uncertain. His risk-taking was rewarded when Metromedia sold those systems—including most importantly the spectrum usage rights—for billions to Southwestern Bell (now AT&T, which uses those spectrum usage rights to this day). Metromedia received 100% of the proceeds of that sale. 

Eventually the FCC changed its policy and began to auction NEW wireless spectrum usage rights instead of giving them away for free. But, except for “bad actors,” existing wireless spectrum usage rights holders (both those that initially received the rights for free and those that purchased the rights in private market transactions) universally were permitted to sell those rights and retain 100% of the proceeds. That remains the case today. For example, when America’s cable TV companies sold their wireless spectrum to Verizon, they kept 100% of the proceeds. When XO Communications sold their spectrum to Verizon, they kept 100% of the proceeds. 

This brings me to the current debate over the so-called C-band spectrum. Initially these spectrum usage rights were granted—for free—to companies such as GE Americom, Loral and PanAmSat that invested vast sums to build satellite distribution systems primarily for radio and television programming. In 2001, Intelsat paid $1 billion for Loral’s C-band facilities and in 2006 Intelsat paid $3.2 billion (plus the assumption of over $3 Billion of debt) for PanAmSat’s C-band assets—including in each case the spectrum usage rights. SES paid $5 billion when it bought GE Americom’s C-band business—including the spectrum usage rights—in 2001. All of these private market sales of spectrum usage rights were approved by the FCC. The sellers that had received their spectrum from the government for free received 100% of the sale proceeds. 

Some have argued that the sale of a portion of the C-band is different because the buyers of the spectrum would be using it for a purpose—wireless—that differs from the use for which it was originally licensed—satellite communications. But sound spectrum policy should encourage all spectrum holders—private and Federal—to be willing to give up some of their spectrum for a use of higher value to society. Therefore there is even more reason why the C-band sellers should receive 100% of the proceeds. 

The wireless industry has coveted the C-band spectrum for years because it represents a “Goldilocks” balance between low band spectrum (great for distance) and high band spectrum (great for capacity). Reallocating at least some of the C-band for wireless is the key to keeping America competitive with China in the “Race to 5G.” 

After years of fighting any reallocation, the C-band satellite carriers have stepped forward with a voluntary plan to sell off 60% of their private spectrum usage rights—rights for which they paid billions and in which they have invested vast additional sums. The response from vested commercial interests and other critics has been in the worst tradition of Washington, D.C. Despite the long tradition of private market sales of spectrum usage rights, the critics scream, “four foreign companies want to sell spectrum that belongs to U.S. taxpayers.” It is a great sound bite but does not begin to fully and fairly inform the listener. 

The “foreign operators” have made billions of dollars of contributions to the U.S. economy and Treasury by employing over 1,500 U.S. staff, have bought dozens of satellites and launches from U.S suppliers and continue to provide mission critical services to the U.S. Department of Defense and civilian agencies and U.S. media and telecom companies. Over 70% of Intelsat shareholding is U.S. based. And the “National Treatment” clauses in all U.S. trade deals require each country to treat foreign nationals (including companies) the same as they treat their own citizens. 

There are many public policy reasons to permit the C-band carriers to receive 100% of the proceeds when their usage rights are sold—like all other spectrum usage rights holders have done. First, the active cooperation of the C-band carriers will enable the FCC to conduct the sale in 2020—immediately sending the buyers to place equipment orders to keep pace with China. Second, the value to the economy of getting 5G deployed quickly dwarfs the value of any U.S. Treasury proceeds from a government sale. And the sale of C-band spectrum will serve as an incentive for other spectrum use rights holders to step forward and allow their spectrum to move to its highest and best use for American consumers. 

The Coasian history is clear: (1) radio and TV stations that sold their spectrum in secondary market transactions (whether they were the initial free recipient of the spectrum or bought that spectrum in FCC approved secondary market transactions) received 100% of the proceeds; (2) wireless companies that sold their spectrum in secondary market transactions received 100% of the proceeds; (3) companies like XO, originally licensed for services other than mobile wireless that sold their spectrum for mobile wireless and were not “bad actors” received 100% of the proceeds. 

So the question posed is, if the FCC wishes to be consistent with a long, long line of Coasian precedent and wishes to encourage both private and government parties with spectrum usage rights to allow their spectrum to move to its highest and best use for our society, how in the world would the FCC justify allowing the C-band carriers to receive less than 100% of the proceeds from the sale of their spectrum usage rights as all other sellers have received? Why are the rules changing just for C-band? 

With not just China but other major players, including Japan and South Korea, poised to overtake the significant early investments of the United States and lead the way on 5G, mid-band spectrum remains the elusive input U.S. carriers need to keep apace with Asia. It is a dangerous time for the FCC to abandon history, precedents and its principles that encourage investment, risk taking and facilitating the transfer of licenses for higher uses.  

WASHINGTON—Preston Padden, head of advocacy for the C-Band Alliance, which advocates for marketplace deals to repurpose C-Band spectrum, has exited the organization as of today (March 5).

"Since mid-September I have been in D.C. full time working for the C-Band Alliance - 1661 miles from my home and family in Colorado," he said in an email. "Because my family and I simply cannot maintain that schedule anymore, and because my position requires a full-time presence in D.C., I have decided to step down from my position as Head of Advocacy and Government Relations for the CBA effective today.

But Padden will still be keeping his hand in. He said he will work with his successor on a C-Band transition plan that will "silence our critics," and consult with CBA from his home base in Colorado.

"The CBA plan is the only practical and workable plan to fulfill the twin public interest objectives of repurposing spectrum for 5G wireless while fully protecting existing C-band customers including TV programmers," said Padden. "Because of the National urgency to get mid-band spectrum to U.S. wireless providers there is no doubt that the CBA plan, or something extremely close to it, will be adopted."

Charter has called the C-Band plan a case of backroom deals and windfall profits for CBA members.

The FCC in July voted unanimously to find ways to open up the C-band spectrum (3.7-4.2 Ghz) for terrestrial wireless use, either all of the 500 MHz or some portion of it, and through either an incentive or capacity auction, a market mechanism where incumbents voluntarily strike deals to reduce their footprint, or some other means.

The C-band is currently used for satellite delivery of cable and broadcast network programming to TV and radio stations, satellite radio services, and cable head-ends. The FCC wants to open it up to wireless broadband to help close the digital divide and promote 5G, both prime directives for the commission.

The new alliance, which comprises Intelsat, SES, Eutelsat and Telesat, says it will strike secondary market deals for the spectrum within three years of an FCC decision.

It argues that secondary-market transactions are the only way to re-purpose the spectrum. "An FCC auction of mid-band spectrum could not take place until 2021-2022 or later. Litigation with current satellite operators could push that date much further into the future. By that time, the United States would be a small object in China’s 5G rear view mirror."

Padden is the former president of the Association of Independent Television Stations; president, network distribution, for Fox Broadcasting; chairman and CEO, American Sky Broadcasting; president, the ABC Television Network; and EVP, government relations, The Walt Disney Company. He was also executive director of the Expanding Opportunities for Broadcasters Coalition of stations looking to sell spectrum in the 2016 FCC incentive auction.

"Preston's leadership, prudence and pragmatism will be missed," said Adonis Hoffman, chairman of Business in the Public Interest. "His experience and commitment in creating a workable solution on spectrum allocation has been invaluable."

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) Monday (July 23) launched another effort at massive communications deregulation, one he has been pushing for most of a decade, so far without success.

Scalise has reintroduced a discussion draft of his Next Generation Television Marketplace Act, which repeals must-carry and retransmission consent rules and the compulsory license. That is the license that allows broadcasters to include nonlocal programming in their retrans deals without having to secure individual rights from national network and syndication rightsholders.

The bill would also "eliminate the government's role in defining the scope of programming exclusivity" and "codify the repeal of certain limitations imposed on local broadcasters that prevent them from adapting to today’s dynamic communications marketplace."

Like previous incarnations, the bill also includes eliminating the network nonduplication and syndicated exclusivity rules, as well as broadcast ownership limits.

[Read: Retransmission Overhaul Launched]

“Innovation tends to follow the path of least government resistance. For proof, look no further than the growth of online streaming services that are operating in a completely free market, while competing against other platforms that are regulated as if they were still monopolies from the 1990s," said Scalise. "My legislation will level the playing field so consumers can benefit from even more freedom in the video marketplace.”

Broadcasters wouldn't mind getting rid of more ownership restrictions, but getting rid of must-carry and retrans and network nondupe and exclusivity rules are nonstarters. The National Association of Broadcasters will strongly oppose the bill, according to an NAB spokesperson, as it has previous versions.

“Today’s media marketplace has never been more robust, with consumer access to broadcast programming on more platforms than at any time in history," said NAB EVP Dennis Wharton. "Unfortunately, the Next Generation Television Marketplace Act would undermine this great American success story. It would severely damage broadcasters’ ability to serve local communities and hurt tens of millions of viewers who rely every day on broadcast TV for news, entertainment and lifeline weather coverage."

But the bill has plenty of supporters.

"As the former president of an association of local TV stations, former president of network distribution for Fox, former president of the ABC Television Network, former executive VP of The Walt Disney Company and a former law professor, I write to strongly support House Majority Whip Steve Scalise’s Bill, The Next Generation Television Act," blogged Preston Padden, whose resume includes expert witness on the Hill for why the compulsory license should go.

"His Bill would repeal a steaming pile of outdated, conflicting and unnecessary government interventions into the market for distributing television programming," said Padden.

"The bill would at long last eliminate or substantially curtail legacy video regulations based on perceptions of the market in the early 1990s, or even earlier," said Free State Foundation President Randolph May. "If adopted, the NextGen TV Act would bolster free market competition and free speech in the video services market."

“The American Television Alliance, a voice for the TV viewer, commends Congressman Steve Scalise for his thoughtful leadership to reform and update America’s broken and outdated video laws," said the American Television Alliance, which has been advocating for major retrans reform in the face of what it says are skyrocketing broadcaster fee asks and blackouts. “The Next Generation Television Marketplace Act will jump-start and elevate a long-overdue conversation about modernizing the rules of the road for how Americans access and pay for video content. The legislation is forward-thinking, free-market oriented and pro-consumer."

"ACA applauds Rep. Scalise for introducing legislation designed to overhaul archaic media laws and policies," said ACA President Matt Polka. "The Scalise bill, to its credit, will prompt lawmakers and stakeholders to begin important conversations that should result in legislation next year that will truly serve the public interest."

“The regulations used to govern the video marketplace are out of date and no longer reflect the options and ways consumers obtain and view their content," said Verizon SVP Robert Fisher. "Congress should consider the changing technology enabled by a growing internet ecosystem as they create a new video marketplace framework....This legislation will begin the conversation to modernize our nation’s video policies as the marketplace responds to rapidly changing consumer demands.”

“Dish commends Rep. Scalise for his continued leadership on behalf of consumers," said Dish SVP Jeff Blum. "The broken retransmission consent regime is in dire need of comprehensive reform, and customers have been left paying the price through broadcaster blackouts and skyrocketing retransmission consent rates.”

“NTCA appreciates Congressman Scalise’s willingness to take on the difficult issue of updating video policy by introducing this legislation," said Shirley Bloomfield, CEO of NTCA–The Rural Broadband Association. "As consumer consumption of video continues to evolve, it is essential to examine video marketplace failures and consider updates to existing laws and regulations, especially in rural areas where many residents can’t receive broadcast signals. We look forward to engaging in this important discussion with Congress, and ultimately to the passage of legislation that will address the critical shortcomings in the existing rules governing this marketplace.”

“Charter applauds Majority Whip Steve Scalise for reintroducing the Next Generation Television Marketplace Act," the company said in a statement. "Congressman Scalise is rightly reexamining a broken system that has resulted in retransmission consent fees rising exponentially over the last decade. We look forward to working with him and his colleagues in Congress to reform the outdated rules and better protect consumers.”

NEW YORK—Four of the most well-known incentive auction authorities will join the editorial teams of B&C and TV Techology on July 23, 2:30 p.m. ET, for a Webinar on how to prepare for the event. Mark Aitken, vice president of Advanced Technology for Sinclair Broadcast Group, Howard Symons, vice chair of the FCC’s Incentive Auction Task Force, Rick Kaplan executive vice president and general counsel for the NAB, as well as Preston Padden, executive director of the Expanding Opportunities for Broadcaster’s Coalition, will participate.

This online event Webinar series will begin with an in-depth look at the upcoming auction and help those considering participation navigate the rhetoric and develop a plan of action. For more information on the event and to register, click here.