Deborah D. McAdams /
07.21.2014 03:34 AM
McAdams On: LPTVs
Thrown a paper tiger
THANKS4, STOPPINGBY—The 5,800 or so low-power broadcast licensees in this country have a friend in Joe Barton, a Texas Republican on the House Commerce Committee. They have a friend as well in Greg Walden, the Oregon Republican who heads the House Communications and Technology Subcommittee, himself a former broadcaster.

Barton and Walden are heavy hitters on the Hill, and for LPTVs to get a draft bill from Barton directing the Federal Communications Commission to “consider” them in the post-incentive auction repack is a big deal, and probably the most that they can hope for. The problem, as Barton conceded at a subcommittee hearing , is that his draft bill doesn’t to anything concrete to assure LPTV licensees they’ll have a channel assignment after the auction.

“They have a secondary license,” Barton said during a subcommittee hearing on Thursday. “They will still have a secondary license under this bill, but it directs the FCC to work with LPTV license holders.”

The real purpose of the bill is to put the commission on notice that it will be called out for indiscriminately crushing LPTVs and translators, which mostly serve communities and households in areas that otherwise would not have access to TV service.

“Every now and then, Congress breaks out in common sense. This bill is common sense,” Barton said. “Why should someone operating unlicensed devices in a white space have more rights than an LPTV operator?”

The reality is that LPTVs have been marginalized from the inception of the incentive spectrum auction. All but Class A stations are ineligible from participating. Louis Libin, executive director of the Advanced Television Broadcasting Alliance, testified on behalf of LPTV operators in support of Barton’s bill. He said that the FCC viewed their allotments as “free spectrum” since it didn’t have to share auction proceeds with licensees.

Lawmakers like Barton, who hails from Ennis, Texas, and Walden, whose district is the predominantly rural and relatively low-income area of Oregon, have constituents who rely on LP and translator TV service. They and others are beginning to tread a bit more carefully on what has thus far been a disunited and silent body of voters. No one knows how many there are, or just what they’d have to say if the TV channels they watch suddenly go dark, a distinct possibility after the spectrum auction. It’s a certainty for some LPTV stations, but no one will know how many and where until after the auction.

This is rightly a concern for lawmakers, especially those in rural areas, who will be expected to explain what just happened to their constituents’ TV service and why. Such are the pesky details arising now, two years after Congress spent the money it hopes to make in the auction of an undeterminable amount of TV spectrum.

The LPTV and translator licensees most vulnerable are those in and around metropolitan areas where frequencies are at a premium. Barton’s draft bill does nothing to protect those operators, nor can it, really. The upshot is the potential loss of several non-English TV stations serving specific language enclaves in various population centers.

This would be counter to the FCC’s charter of fostering diversity among media outlets, though anyone who’s monitored the commission for any amount of time is, at the very least, skeptical about its level of concern for preserving diversity and protecting the disenfranchised.

The only thing Barton’s bill could do is compel the commission to appear as if it tried to save as many LPTV and translators as possible. As several other members of the subcommittee observed, why bother?

Note to LPTV and translator licensees: Expect no miracles.

Post New Comment
If you are already a member, or would like to receive email alerts as new comments are
made, please login or register.

Enter the code shown above:

(Note: If you cannot read the numbers in the above
image, reload the page to generate a new one.)

Posted by: Charles Wilder
Tue, 08-05-2014 11:55 AM Report Comment
From "Too big to fail" to "Too small to matter." LPTV transmitters and translators should qualify for auction money just as the Class "A's" do. '
Posted by: Anonymous
Fri, 07-25-2014 02:17 PM Report Comment
"The upshot is the potential loss of several non-English TV stations serving specific language enclaves in various population centers" -- Here in Los Angeles, there are certainly more of those than anything else on the air. Major network O&O's, long established independents, and three PBS's make up the rest....
Posted by: Anonymous
Fri, 07-25-2014 03:47 PM Report Comment
"Expect no miracles" is absolutely right. If the bill passed tomorrow it would do little to change the Commission's plans for LPTV. We're dealing with an FCC that is busily parsing the language of the Spectrum Act in its favor. This bill, if passed, would just give them one more document to interpret and re-imagine while forging ahead as planned. Now eliminate any reference to the incentive auction in the draft and the bill would be golden. But that ain't gonna happen. Rep. Barton sees the legislation as 'just the right size' porridge. Looks like we LPTV station owners might be eating this cold next year.

Thursday 11:07 AM
The Best Deconstruction of a 4K Shoot You'll Ever Read
With higher resolutions and larger HD screens, wide shots using very wide lenses can be a problem because they allow viewers to see that infinity doesn’t quite resolve into perfect sharpness.

Featured Articles
Exhibitions & Events
Discover TV Technology