Wheeler Blog: Incentive Auction Timeline Changed

Wheeler has once again expressed his displeasure at the pending lawsuits by the NAB and Sinclair and indicated that this will set the incentive auction back to either late fall 2015 or early 2016.

Also, the Commission is considering one open TV channel for unlicensed use.

http://www.fcc.gov/blog/incentive-auction-progress-report

I read yesterday that some independent and small station groups are starting to re-think their opposition to the TV repackaging/auction, now that the estimated amount of money for broadcasters willing to give up their channel was announced. $38 billion! That means, as an example, an independent station in Detroit could walk away from their channel and pocket $117 million.

Kelly A said:

I read yesterday that some independent and small station groups are starting to re-think their opposition to the TV repackaging/auction, now that the estimated amount of money for broadcasters willing to give up their channel was announced. $38 billion! That means, as an example, an independent station in Detroit could walk away from their channel and pocket $117 million.

Click to expand...

I guess that explains why smoking pot is now legal in DC....

Kelly A said:

I read yesterday that some independent and small station groups are starting to re-think their opposition to the TV repackaging/auction, now that the estimated amount of money for broadcasters willing to give up their channel was announced. $38 billion! That means, as an example, an independent station in Detroit could walk away from their channel and pocket $117 million.

Click to expand...

The figures quoted in the Greenhill report are wild exaggerations and the FCC has even admitted as much. All the planets have to precisely align to make it happen, beginning with clearing 126 MHz of contiguous spectrum. Ain't gonna happen. The networks have already said that they're not going to participate, ditto Sinclair, Allbritton and some other station group owners. A minimum of 200 stations are needed (to clear 84 MHz) and the FCC is no where near that yet. We may see a few sickly stray independents, some Class As and many noncoms participate, but that's about it.

Then there is the money committed by the telcos. Only ATT has openly committed 9 billion for the auction. The others have mentioned no figure. The 38B the FCC has mentioned was totally pulled out of thin air.

Now that we have the GOP controlling both floors of Congress, maybe we can begin a reasoned discussion on the matter of the incentive auction and repacking. Tom Wheeler has whined more then once about the NAB/Sinclair lawsuits holding up the auction. But now that the GAO is tasked with doing a report on how the auction and repacking is going to affect LPTV, Congress may have to direct that the auction be delayed anyway until the report is finished and studied.

The incentive auction is an Obama agenda item, there's a good chance the GOP would delay it just on those grounds alone.

Carmine5 said:

The incentive auction is an Obama agenda item, there's a good chance the GOP would delay it just on those grounds alone.

Click to expand...

It's one of those Obama agenda items that is based on a Republican agenda. It was during Reagan that the FCC began looking for ways to become for self-sufficient. If any legislation is needed, the Republicans have every reason to support it. But I doubt they'll need legislation.

TheBigA said:

It's one of those Obama agenda items that is based on a Republican agenda. It was during Reagan that the FCC began looking for ways to become for self-sufficient. If any legislation is needed, the Republicans have every reason to support it. But I doubt they'll need legislation.

Click to expand...

It was Obama who got this hairball rolling by signing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 on Feb. 17. Out of that act came the authorization for the National Broadband Plan and Obama put his buddy, Blair Levin, in charge of creating it. On March 16, 2010 the NBP was unveiled. The plan called for the reclaiming of 120 MHz of UHF spectrum (a totally arbitrary figure, BTW) from broadcasters by way of an incentive auction.

Obama both signed the plan and publicly praised it. FCC hatchet man and Obama crony, Julius Genachowski, declared it his "top priority" to get the plan implemented.

So whatever goal the GOP under Reagan may have set or how they wanted to accomplish it, this current fiasco surrounding the incentive auction and repacking started and is being carried out under Obama's watch.


http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ne...ises-national-broadband-plan/47343?nopaging=1

I don't disagree with your timeline. My point is that Republican leaders, including Rep. Greg Walden, have been very supportive of the spectrum auctions. They may not love of the way it's being done, but they support it in principle, and hope it'll be a source of revenue for the government.

TheBigA said:

I don't disagree with your timeline. My point is that Republican leaders, including Rep. Greg Walden, have been very supportive of the spectrum auctions. They may not love of the way it's being done, but they support it in principle, and hope it'll be a source of revenue for the government.

Click to expand...

It's more complex and murkier than you indicate. Keep in mind there were two 'spectrum bills', one from Sen. Jay Rockefeller (who hates broadcasters as does his protege Jessica Rosenworcel) and a second from the House Communications Committee under Greg Walden. While both bills authorize an incentive auction to reclaim broadcast spectrum, the Rockefeller bill did not contain language protecting broadcasters who do not participate in the auction whereas the bill from the House Communications Committee did. It is a version of that bill that ended up appendaged to the Middle Class Tax Relief and Jobs Creation Act while the Rockefeller bill died in the Senate.

Rather than being "very supportive of the spectrum auctions" as you indicate, I have no doubt that Greg Walden, a former broadcaster himself, felt it was better if he and his committee wrote a bill that satisfied the demands for an auction while providing some protection to broadcasters rather than let the Rockefeller bill be voted through. In fact, on Dec. 14, 2011, Rockefeller publicly complained to the press that the House stopped negotiating with him on his spectrum bill. The reason they had stopped was because they were in the process of passing their own spectrum legislation. So while it is true that both parties wanted an auction, the Walden bill reflects the GOP goal of providing some protection to broadcasters who did not want to participate in the auction.

Carmine5 said:

So while it is true that both parties wanted an auction, the Walden bill reflects the GOP goal of providing some protection to broadcasters who did not want to participate in the auction.

Click to expand...

But your post says the change in leadership means further delays. I believe the change in leadership means no delays. Rockefeller has retired, as has his party's control of the Senate. All that is now in the past.

Not that it will happen soon, but the Commission is going to need to step up and guarantee stations a minimum number to vacate certain channels in desired markets. Otherwise broadcasters are not going to commit to giving up their channels on the hope for a windfall at the auction. Just like a regular auction, there needs to be a predetermined reserve minimum of $X for each market.

I've wondered where the Greenhill Report came up with 45 Billion as the figure for the proceeds of the incentive auction, especially since the Spectrum Act put the amount at 24.5B and the CBO estimated 36.7B. According to Deborah McAdams:

"The $45 billion figure, it turned out, was based entirely on AT&T’s pledge to spend $9 billion at the auction if its bid to acquire DirecTV was approved. Four more bids of $9 billion each for the same amount of spectrum would be necessary bring the total to $45 billion."

So, it was spun from the same cloth the emperor from "The Emperor's New Clothes" got his outfit and the purpose of this exaggerated amount was to "get the attention of broadcasters." But as the FCC's Howard Symons admitted: "it’s based on a model, not actual dollars.”

More craven dishonesty courtesy of this administration's FCC.


http://www.tvtechnology.com/mcadams-on/0117/mcadams-on-caveat-auctor/273295

http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0086/feds-to-take-auction-pitch-on-the-road/273283