Congresswoman Eshoo (D) of California (Silicon Valley), and Congressman Barton (R) of Texas, both key members of the House Subcommittee for Communications and Technology, jointly crafted a letter to the General Accountability Office (GAO) asking it to:

 

It is very interesting the way this is phrased using the "provide original programming" language.  This could mean that a paid channel lease deal (time brokerage) could say they are doing this since they air original programming from a national network. But it also could be a pointed reference to the fact that many LPTV are network affiliates and do not do local original programming.  Thing is that it is the same for most primary stations except for local news and weather.  But this phrasing could just be asking for the difference between what an LD station would be doing, airing original programming, or what a TV translator would do, airing a local station which is in the same market but too far away to be seen.  Next they want to know about the racial and ethnic minority communities which are being served under both of these scenarios.  Fair enough, but why?  Congress may not like the answer to this question, as it could easily become the reason for stopping or altering the auction. And it could also be used to gain must-carry status, so let's see what the GAO comes up.

 

3)  A projection of the number of LPTV stations and TV translator stations listed under both scenarios that may lose either their current input or output channel as a result of the forward auction.  

This is going to difficult for the GAO to figure out exactly since it all depends on what happens in the auction itself. But it is easy to figure out if they have the correct framework to look at the problem.  We will attempt to provide to them some data points we have researched.

 

4)  A projection of the number of such LPTV stations and TV translator stations that will subsequently be able to locate and operate on replacement channels after the auction, together with an aggregate estimate of the costs of relocation, including new 

equipment, legal and engineering services, and facility construction.  

Now this is getting really interesting.  The channels part will be easy and based on the assumptions they made in the previous question.  But the really interesting part is the detailing of the projected expenses.  These categories are similar to what the auction relocation funding is allocated for.  We think the 126-MHz clearing number will definitely bring this estimate to the $1 billion+ aggregate cost.

5)  A projection of the number of such LPTV stations and TV translator stations that will be unable to locate to or operate on replacement channels after the auction.

While we are all waiting to see the final rules for LPTV we do know that displaced stations may move into the UHF or VHF, may change City-of-License, and we are advocating for adjacent-DMA changes if needed.  These options do not mean that the same audience will be able to be reached, and for many stations that will be a real pain.

 

Drilling down to the viewer-level is very important and will be eye-opening for all parties to the auction process.  The pillars of the Communications Act are in play with how the answer to this question is figured out.  But do notice that the concern in the question is about "local news and info".  So a station which only airs distant networks and has no local content will not be studied in this question?  Will a national Vietnamese channel which will lose coverage in major market-A not be counted because they only offered a national-level discussion of the news?  LPTV have no local programming requirements unlike Class-A's, so asking this question this way one has to be careful of the answer that is really wanted. 

 

Assuming the technical assumptions are identified, this should be a fairly straight forward question to answer.  As with many of the above questions, it will all depend on the actual auction results in each DMA.

 

This is of course the most important part of the GAO Study, the recommendations to solve the identified problems and harm.  But the LPTV industry needs to carefully watch this, as what is best for the viewers may not be what is best for the businesses providing the service to them.  A balance is needed here so that the stations, the networks, the viewers, the government, and the supporting industries are all taken into account in any proposed remedy.  During the DTV transition the TV translators and the noncom's got funding, but most LPTV did not.

Again, the request is excellent, and hats off to all which provided thoughts and actions to make it happen.  I will be the first here to make a public apology for calling out the House Subcommittee members when the bill this summer was being proposed.  While the bill sucked big time, and as written could have totally given up the last defense LPTV had in the FCC process, the resulting firestorm around it has definitely changed the dynamic.  There has also been a lot of activity behind the scenes in the Senate about this issue, but the House is better set up to make the GAO request, so thanks once again.  Work in a bi-partisan manner, and keep the process open for discussion, and we all win. 

 

Most of you know that this spring and summer, while others were trying unsuccessfully to pass any kind of LPTV bill they could, the Coalition chose a different model and heavily lobbied both the House and Senate to make an ask of the GAO to conduct a study on the impacts of the auction on LPTV. The reason we did this was because after the initial DTV transition, but before the auction legislation, a similar type of study was done by the GAO which was the basis of what Congress used to decide to keep LPTV and TV Translator stations out of the auction, pay for their own displacement moves, and be secondary for ALL primary services.

The FCC has NOT worked towards fixing many of the problems identified in the 2011 study (GAO)-11-790, and as such LPTV is not only facing problems with the transition to digital, the auction, the displacements, but also with structural information and data needs.

When you read the 2011 study it reports that the FCC asked Congress for an additional Class-A window to be opened, but that it has been Congress which has not wanted to do it.  A very interesting lesson for us all in that.  It will take all parties, from all perspectives, and branches of government, to make solutions and accommodations for LPTV owners, our supporting industry partners, and our viewers, to make the incentive spectrum auction, and our displacements work. 

• Incentive Auction Opportunities Presentation
• Broadcasting Cable article
• Wall Street article #1
• Wall Street Journal article #2
• Multichannel News
• Fierce Wireless
• TV News Check article
• Current Newsletter article