[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REGULATORY CLASSIFICATION OF LOW-POWER TELEVISION LICENSEES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS,
TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 13, 1999
__________
Serial No. 106-21
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce
------------------------------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
56-602 cc WASHINGTON : 1999
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
TOM BLILEY, Virginia, Chairman
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOE BARTON, Texas RALPH M. HALL, Texas
FRED UPTON, Michigan RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania BART GORDON, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER COX, California PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma ANNA G. ESHOO, California
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina RON KLINK, Pennsylvania
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California BART STUPAK, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
GREG GANSKE, Iowa THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma GENE GREEN, Texas
RICK LAZIO, New York KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
JAMES E. ROGAN, California DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona LOIS CAPPS, California
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
Mississippi
VITO FOSSELLA, New York
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
ED BRYANT, Tennessee
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland
James E. Derderian, Chief of Staff
James D. Barnette, General Counsel
Reid P.F. Stuntz, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana, Chairman
MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
Vice Chairman RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida BART GORDON, Tennessee
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
CHRISTOPHER COX, California ANNA G. ESHOO, California
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
JAMES E. ROGAN, California RON KLINK, Pennsylvania
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico GENE GREEN, Texas
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
Mississippi JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
VITO FOSSELLA, New York (Ex Officio)
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland
TOM BLILEY, Virginia,
(Ex Officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Testimony of:
Bruno, Ron, General Manager, WBGN-TV......................... 29
Devault, George E., Jr., President, Holston Valley
Broadcasting Corporation................................... 26
May, James C., Executive Vice President, The National
Association of Broadcasters................................ 16
Stamler, Arthur D., General Manager, WAZT-LPTV............... 20
Stewart, Roy J., Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission; accompanied by Keith Larson,
Associate Chief, Engineering, Mass Media Bureau............ 10
Sullivan, Michael, Executive Director, Community Broadcasters
Association................................................ 23
Material submitted for the record by:
Devault, George E., Jr., President, Holston Valley
Broadcasting Corporation, letter dated May 11, 1999, to
Hon. W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, enclosing material for the
record..................................................... 50
Grossman, Sherwin, President, Community Broadcasters
Association, letter dated April 15, 1999, to Hon. Billy
Tauzin, enclosing material for the record.................. 47
National Association of Broadcasters, response for the record 49
(iii)
REGULATORY CLASSIFICATION OF LOW-POWER TELEVISION LICENSEES
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 1999
House of Representatives,
Committee on Commerce,
Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in
room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. W.J. ``Billy''
Tauzin (chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Tauzin, Oxley, Gillmor,
Deal, Cubin, Rogan, Shimkus, Fossella, Markey, Luther, Klink,
Sawyer, Green, and McCarthy.
Also present: Representative Norwood.
Staff present: Michael O'Rielly, professional staff member;
Justin Lilley, majority counsel; Andrew W. Levin, minority
counsel; Peter Filon, minority senior legislative intern, and
Jon M. Peha, minority legislative fellow.
Mr. Tauzin. May we please come to order? I am throwing
rocks today; we have no gavel.
Today the subcommittee meets to hear testimony on the
regulatory classification of low-power television licenses. I
want to thank everyone for moving forward with this hearing on
such short notice. A vast majority of low-power television
stations embody the spirit that many of us envisioned when low-
power was officially classified by the FCC, in the early
1980's. Today low-power television stations operate on unused
television broadcast spectrum, at the lower power levels to
bring television service to the American public.
Low-power stations also operate very similar to full-power
stations in that they are required to comply with the
appropriate FCC rules governing broadcast stations. Some
markets, low-power television is one of the original
competitors to full-service broadcasters. Competition, of
course, is a good thing. Competition makes full-power broadcast
services improve the quality of their product, makes them
realize that markets are not monolithic, and communities served
by local television stations are made up of small
neighborhoods, towns, and cities where people can differ as
much as their viewpoints. It, literally, signafies a pattern
that one size doesn't, in fact, fit all. This rosy picture gets
clouded, however, when the complicated process of converting to
digital television is thrown into the mix.
Let me be clear: The members of the subcommittee have
worked hard over the last decade to provide an opportunity for
digital television to flourish. I am excited about the
development of digital television, as I think all the members
of our committee are. After the long and difficult debates, a
number of technology battles, we are at the brink of seeing how
consumers will respond to the services that digital television
will offer.
Next month, another FCC deadline will arrive on DTV, and
many broadcast stations will be required to provide a digital
signal to their consumers. Most broadcast stations provide
digital signals. Providing those signals will mean more digital
programming, which in turn will mean consumers will have a
reason to purchase digital sets and to invest in the
technologies that will merge computers with our television
screens. As Congress, we placed a number of limitations on the
development of digital television in the Balanced Budget Act of
1997.
Congress' effort to bring a balanced budget to the American
people was historic, and I believe it enhanced the growth of
our robust economy. Converting over 1,500 full-power stations
to digital signals will no doubt be a complex task. Larger
broadcasters contend, and perhaps rightfully so, that creating
a permanent license for qualified low-power stations may make
the conversion to digital more difficult. Conversely, low-power
stations are very concerned, and perhaps rightly so, that their
ability to provide low-power service will be greatly curtailed
by the conversion process, as the FCC re-allocates spectrum.
We need to think and to explore the exact repercussions of
the conversion process on low-power stations. We should also
examine whether congressional action is necessary to alter the
current relationship between low-power and full-power stations,
so that low-power is not altogether eliminated, as the
conversion unfolds.
For instance, it is a fact that low-power licenses are
secondary, meaning that low-power stations may have to be
reallocated in the spectrum band. Also, how would this impact
the market share of existing low-power stations? Because we now
have to address these issues, I believe that this hearing is
both well-timed and appropriate.
While I have become very familiar over the years with
issues involving low-power stations, I want to thank my good
friends, Mr. Deal, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Klink, and others, for
bringing the particulars of their concerns to me over the last
year. There is no question that a number of the subcommittee
members care deeply about these issues and want to see an
environment where low-power stations can continue to operate.
I recognize that Mr. Norwood and Mr. Klink have introduced
legislation regarding low-power issues. Their bill would create
a permanent license for qualified low-power stations. I have
withheld my views on the bill, partly because, frankly, I think
we need all need additional information. The hearing starts
that process of exploring the issues in-depth, so we can all
have a greater understanding. We need to put these issues on
the table and begin thinking about how to resolve them, and
that is, indeed, why we have gathered today, and we intend to
learn a great deal at this hearing.
I want to thank the witnesses in advance for their
testimony. I look forward to hearing from them.
I yield now to my friend from Massachusetts, the ranking
minority member. Please welcome Mr. Markey, for your opening
statement.
Mr. Markey. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
so much for having this very important hearing today.
The low-power television industry was established by the
Federal Communications Commission in the early 1980's as a
secondary broadcast service designed to further the
telecommunications policy goal of localism. In an era of rapid
consolidation, and of television broadcast properties at the
national level, ensuring that local broadcasting remains
vibrant and competitive is vitally important, and I believe
that low-power television has a key role in fulfilling that
policy objective.
In countless markets across the country, low-powered
television stations are operated by local schools, religious
groups, minority organizations, local governments, and
businesses. Low-power stations serve many rural communities and
also broadcast at traditionally underserved minority, foreign
language, and bilingual populations. Moreover, these stations
meet the need of many communities of providing programming of
local interests. Whether it is a local high school football
game or local town meeting, it is often the low-power
television station that covers the event and broadcasts it to
the local community.
As the television broadcast industry undergoes its
transition to digital television and more spectrum is needed,
low-power television stations as secondary licensees are at
risk of being displaced until the transition is over. Without
question, this committee has a strong interest in ensuring that
the transition is a success. Given the length of the
anticipated transition time, however, the practical reality for
many low-power stations is that, if they are displaced, they
may be off the air for a significant period of time in some
markets.
One suggestion for ensuring that low-power television
stations are not displaced during the digital transition is to
put low-power stations on even par with full-power stations.
This is but one of a number of difficult policy and engineering
issues posed for the Congress and for the FCC.
The Commission is always at its best when it takes
government resources and creatively works to get those
resources into the marketplace to meet a need. When the
Commission created low-power television during the Reagan
administration, it essentially fit those new stations into
existing markets, working carefully to limit interference to
the incumbents. Many of those stations are now
telecommunications policy success stories, and the witnesses we
have here embodied the best in local, in community-oriented
broadcasting.
I would observe, parenthetically, that FCC Chairman Kennard
has proposed creating a new low-power radio service. Low-power
radio could also meet an important need for local broadcasting,
especially, in light of the rapid, and in my view, unhealthy
consolidation of radio stations at the passage of the
Telecommunications Act. Clearly, issues of interference need to
be fully explored and worked out, as was done in creating low-
power television. But I want to applaud the Commission for
exploring this worthwhile proposal.
And I want to especially commend the work of our committee
colleagues, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Klink, and Mr. Deal, and others
who have recognized the important role that low-power
broadcasting can play in our communities. And I again commend
Chairman Tauzin for calling this hearing and I pledge my
support, my commitment to any process that you may decide is
best for us to follow.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much, Mr. Markey, and I am
pleased now to welcome Mr. Nathan Deal from Georgia for his
opening statement.
Mr. Deal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to join in
thanking you for holding this important hearing. As you know,
two-thirds of low-power stations serve rural communities. So
therefore, it's not unusual that in a rural district, such as
mine, low-power television is an important service factor.
Local news is the backbone of these communities, and these low-
power stations provide this service to otherwise unserved
areas.
Therefore, I am strongly supportive of these stations, and
am a co-sponsor of my colleague, Mr. Norwood's bill, the
Community Broadcasters Protection Act. An excellent example of
the broadcasting that is provided by such low-power stations is
North Georgia Television, which is in my district. WDNN is
carried on five cable systems and reaches approximately 200,000
viewers. Community news is the centerpiece of their
programming, which offers information about business,
education, public affairs, and political coverage. Low-power
television stations are similar to community newspapers,
covering stories and events that are often overlooked by larger
affiliate stations in the market area. These stations are
important tools in informing local communities, and may often
be the only local programming channel that is received by
viewers.
Qualifying low-power stations, in my opinion, should have
the same permanent license status as other television stations,
if they so choose. Therefore, I urge my colleagues, as we
consider the information provided in this hearing, to look into
the legislation that is proposed by Mr. Norwood and by Mr.
Klink.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this
important hearing. Thank you.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Mr. Deal. The Chair is now pleased
to welcome the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Luther, for an
opening statement. He is not here. The gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Klink.
Mr. Klink. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me, and
I thank you for holding this hearing today, and I appreciate
your remarks.
Before I go on, let me just introduce to you one of the
witnesses who is here today; somebody that, when I was working
at KDKA many years ago, first came out of Indiana University of
Pennsylvania as an intern and today as a broadcaster, my dear
friend and constituent, Ron Bruno. I welcome Ron for being here
with us today and look forward to his testimony, as well as I
do the rest of the witnesses.
Let me just say, first of all, that I am very much
concerned about the future of low-power television. As someone
who has lived in rural areas and as a former broadcaster, I can
tell my fellow colleagues on the committee how important these
low-power television stations are to the communities that they
serve.
Let me just say that, you know, America has been made great
because we have people that go into their garages and basements
and invent things that often start new industries. The low-
power broadcasters today are the inventors; they are the people
that are going out there changing the face of broadcasting.
They may be small, but each one of them is an integral part of
the community that they often serve in. They put up compelling
programming, with local focus, that very often is not
available, wouldn't be carried by the other full-powered
stations--things like high school sports, community civic
celebrations, local government meetings, foreign language, for
if you have a Spanish community or a Greek community or a
Seiren community, they can offer programs in the language of
those communities.
In that regard, I view the low-power television stations as
the centers of innovation, creativity, and community service.
But the transition to digital television is putting their
future in jeopardy, which would have, I think, a disastrous
consequence for the people in the communities in rural areas
who are dependent upon their local coverage. And that is why
with my good friend, Mr. Norwood, that with Mr. Deal's support,
we have introduced H.R. 486, the Community Broadcasters
Protection Act--to protect qualified low-power stations from
losing their space on the dial as we transition to digital.
Mr. Chairman, I do understand that this is an oversight
hearing; it is not a hearing specifically on our bill. But
something does need to be done before we lose these stations
entirely. Our bill simply would give some protection to the
small mom-and-pop community broadcasters who comply with the
act.
Under this bill, stations would only qualify for protection
if they broadcast 18 hours a day, have 3 hours a week of
locally produced broadcasting, be in compliance with the FCC
rules for both low-power and full-power television stations,
and not interfere with the Grade B contour of other stations.
The least we can do, Mr. Chairman, is to help these
broadcasters. Without some form of minimum protection, we can
well lose this industry that is truly local broadcasting at its
best.
Now I yield back my time.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentleman for your statement. The
Chair now recognizes the vice chairman of our subcommittee, the
gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Oxley.
Mr. Oxley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I applaud the
decision to hold today's hearing to discuss the low-power
television industry. As you may know, Mr. Chairman, I am a
original co-sponsor of the Community Broadcasters Protection
Act, sponsored by the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Norwood.
I support the bill because I have three low-power stations
in my district that are providing excellent service to my
constituents, including strong local contact. An example, is
WOHL TV, the FOX affiliate in Lima, Ohio--that's ``Lima,'' not
``Leema.''
WOHL produces about 7 hours of local programming each week,
including high school sports shows, weather reports, a daily
news magazine, a show called, ``A View From the Hill'' that
features interviews with local legislators, political debates,
Sunday morning church services, and a program called ``In
Focus.'' ``In Focus'' is a unique project, whereby WOHL is
partnered with the Lima City and Allen County schools to
provide technical support to teachers and students for the
purpose of producing TV segments. These segments are then
broadcast on WOHL each week.
Of course, it is common for low-power stations to serve
rural communities and other underserved populations. I believe
this is an important service worth preserving.
My sense is that there is room for low-power television
alongside full-power, both during and after the conversion to
digital. However, this is a technical question best answered by
the experts at the FCC, with the oversight of this committee.
We all want the transition to DTV to be successful. The
problem, Mr. Chairman, is that low-power secondary spectrum
priority means that there is always an element of doubt as to
their continued viability. Needless to say, this creates great
difficulty in raising capital and making needed investments.
Hopefully, this hearing is the first step in establishing
greater stability for these stations, so they can continue to
grow and serve their communities.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I yield back to balance my time.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, my friend. The Chair is now pleased
to recognize another gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Sawyer, for an
opening statement.
Mr. Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a longer
statement that I have prepared for the record; I don't intend
to read it.
I would observe that in the greater Akron area, a community
of some 600,000 to 700,000 people, we may be the largest
community of our size anywhere in the industrial Midwest not to
have a broadcast affiliate of any kind. We did up until
recently, and the vacuum that has been lost in terms of local
news coverage has been severely felt. I can fully appreciate,
therefore, the sensitivities of those who are today being
served well by low-power stations and the important role that
they fulfill within their communities.
We have one low-power station in my community, it is
largely a source of entertainment and advertising and probably
does not fulfill the kind of role that many of you have brought
to the communities that you serve.
In that sense, I will be interested in the course of this
hearing and in the unfolding of this issue, to get a sense of
what kind of criteria, in addition to those that Congressman
Klink mentioned in his testimony, his opening statement, what
kind of criteria you would foresee as being appropriate for
low-power stations to receive a Class A designation or whether
it would simply be all. A question of whether the FCC can or
should do this through the regulatory structure or whether we
have an appropriate role that ought to be done through
legislation. And finally, how this legislation would affect
full-power stations' obligations in high-definition television
and programming in general.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I will submit my statement for the
record and thank you for your time today.
[The prepared statements of Hon. Thomas C. Sawyer and Hon.
Richard Burr follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Thomas C. Sawyer, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Ohio
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and Mr. Markey for holding this
hearing this afternoon. I also want to thank our witnesses for coming
to testify before us.
Mr. Chairman, I represent what may be the only city of its size in
the industrial midwest that does not have a major local broadcast
affiliate located within its own metropolitan area. Up until a few
years ago, we had an ABC affiliate. However, that station was bought
out and turned into a Home Shopping Network channel which provides
family programming, but not local news. And while the broadcasting
affiliates from Cleveland try to provide my constituents with their
local news and broadcast programming, it is not the same. When this
subcommittee held its first reauthorization hearing this year on the
Satellite Home Viewer Act a few weeks ago I made this same point. I
make this statement again today because I believe it has some relevance
to the topic we are about to discuss.
In the early 1980s, the FCC created low-power television to allow
small independent broadcasters who wanted to fill a void within in
their community with an opportunity to deliver local programming and
community news. These station operators were given their secondary
license with the understanding that their broadcasts could not
interfere with full power stations. There was also the understanding
that the FCC could revoke their broadcast license at any time and use
their allocated spectrum for other purposes.
Three years ago, we passed legislation that required the broadcast
industry to begin delivering their programming in high definition by
2002 and that the broadcasters be given additional spectrum to convert
to digital. After the conversion has been completed, the broadcasters
must return their analog spectrum to the federal government. However,
low-power television stations, who were given secondary or
``temporary'' broadcasting licenses, may be at risk of being put out of
business if their spectrum is used by full power stations.
Today we will hear testimony on the effects digital conversion will
have on low-power broadcast stations and on H.R. 486, the Community
Broadcaster Protection Act, which has been introduced by Congressman
Norwood and Congressman Klink. Their legislation would essentially
elevate low-power television stations to full-power station status by
providing them with Class A status. I also understand that there is a
petition before the FCC that would provide relief to low-power
television stations by granting low-power stations Class A status
through the regulatory process.
Given the current situation in my congressional district, providing
Class A status to low-power television stations may be a good idea.
However, there are a few questions I would like to have answered before
I come to any conclusion.
First, there are currently about 2100 low-power television
stations operating in the United States. What type of criteria
will be used to determine which low-power television stations
receive the new Class A designation or will all of them be
granted the license?
Second, if the FCC is deliberating over the petition before it
in this area, is congressional action truly needed or does the
FCC have the regulatory authority to find a solution to this
problem?
Finally, I want to know the effects this action will have on
the full power stations' abilities to meet their obligations
with respect to high definition television and their future
programming abilities.
Mr. Chairman, I hope our panelists will be able to answer these
questions. Again, thank you for calling this hearing today.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Richard Burr, a Representative in Congress
from the State of North Carolina
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for allowing me the opportunity
to address your Subcommittee today. The issue under discussion is of
vital importance to rural communities not only in my district, but
across the nation as well. These communities rely on low-power
television stations to broadcast important news and community
information that would otherwise be ignored by the larger high-power
stations. Unfortunately, because their licenses are considered
``secondary'' or temporary, low-power stations top the list of
licensees who will lose their frequency when spectrum reallocations
become necessary. While some of these stations receive new channels,
many simply go dark.
When a low-power station is forced to stop broadcasting, the
effects are felt throughout the community. Without the low-power
stations in my district, many local charities and non-profit
organizations would not benefit from the hours of air time allocated
for fund raising. Residents of these communities would miss out on many
minority syndicated programs not carried by high-powered stations. They
could not see the Carolina Hurricanes National Hockey League games or
watch their children participate in the state high school football and
basketball championships. Finally, because these stations are locally
owned and operated, they provide many economic benefits to the
communities they serve.
In order to allow low-power television stations to continue serving
their communities, I encourage the members of the Subcommittee to look
favorably on legislation similar to the Community Broadcasters
Protection Act. As you know, this important bill would create a
permanent ``Class A'' license for low-power stations, thus removing the
constant threat of spectrum reallocation while insuring that the
stations remain committed to serving their communities. This type of
license is not new to us. It has worked quite well for low-power FM
radio stations, and I strongly believe that a similar license will work
just as well for television. Without this protection, many communities
may not only lose a valuable source of community news and information,
but an important member of the community as well.
I commend Mr. Norwood for introducing this bill. He continues to be
a strong champion for low-power stations, and I look forward to working
with him, the members of this Subcommittee, and my colleagues on the
full Commerce Committee on this important legislation. Again, Mr.
Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing and for the
opportunity to address you today.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentlemen.
Without objection, any written statements members wish to
submit will be accepted into the record.
The Chair is now pleased to recognize another gentleman
from Ohio, the vice chairman of the full Commerce Committee,
Mr. Paul Gillmor, for an opening statement.
Mr. Gillmor. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I waive an
opening statement.
Mr. Tauzin. I really thank the gentleman from Ohio.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Missouri, Ms.
McCarthy, for an opening statement.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for having this hearing.
I won't repeat what Mr. Markey and others have said about
the importance of low-power stations; they are key to my
district in educating the public and serving communities which
would otherwise not be served. So I thank each of the panelist
today for being here. It is very important.
Mr. Chairman, I think, as we advance equitably into the
digital age, we need to be sure that low-power television
stations remain in the market. I would hope this committee, as
we look at legislation to improve, would include language to
require the FCC to conduct a study to determine the actual
amount of spectrum available, and the idea of just relying on
sort of theoretical and abstract numbers is of concern to me. I
think we need to request that, and I hope that we would
consider that in any discussion that we have on the
legislation.
And I will submit my entire statement for the record.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentlelady. The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from California, Mr. Rogan, for an opening
statement.
Mr. Rogan. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Very briefly, I just
want to simply thank the Chair for calling this hearing.
As we transition from analog to digital television signals,
there are a number of issues we are going to have to address
here in Congress dealing with both equity as well as service.
This hearing will be a big help to all of us, as we wind our
way through the legislative process. I thank the Chair for
calling this hearing. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Tauzin. Mr. Shimkus.
Mr. Shimkus. I am anxious to hear from our panel of
experts, so that is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tauzin. Mrs. Cubin. Is she still here? I think we have
gone through our panel.
Let me thank the members for their opening statements and,
again, remind everyone that, if you wish to submit a written
statement, it will be part of the record.
[Additional statement submitted for the record follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tom Bliley, Chairman, Committee on Commerce
I thank Chairman Tauzin for calling this hearing. Some people had
argued in the waning days of the last Congress that we should take
action on this issue in relation to other legislative issues that were
being considered at the time.
The Committee was concerned that there was not a substantial enough
record to justify such action. As I always prefer regular order when at
all possible, I am glad that Chairman Tauzin is turning to this issue
early in the session.
The story of low power television is a unique one. Of the large
number of low power stations, no one is quite sure which are viable
stations and which ones are stations in name only. I have been told
that there may be upwards of 700 legitimate stations out there
providing service. That leaves a large portion of the over 2000 low
power stations that may be nothing more than paper that is filed at the
FCC. This is not too surprising given the minimal regulations designed
to allow low power to flourish.
In some rural markets--as we have learned all too well in the
debate over the Satellite Home Viewer Act reform effort--local full
power television signals are not available to consumers. In many of
these markets low power television can be the only access to local news
and weather. In some other instances, low power stations provide unique
programming to serve the unique interests of consumers.
Currently, the regulatory classification puts low power television
as a secondary spectrum priority. For those consumers that rely on low
power stations for their local news during a miserable snow storm,
school closing or whatever there is no secondary status about it. It is
clear that in some communities low power stations provide a valuable
service to consumers.
And a hearing on low power television would be interesting in and
of itself if the entire broadcasting industry was not making the
conversion to digital television. The digital conversion plan is going
to require the broadcasting industry to harness all of its resources.
Along with this comes the question, what happens to low power
television stations during and after the conversion.
I want to congratulate the competitive, entrepreneurial spirit of
the low power community. Many of the low power stations are family run
stations that operate on shoe-string budgets in order to bring service
to a community. Mr. Stamler points out in his testimony that he and his
wife went three years without a paycheck and that their ultimate,
original investors were the local dairyman, the farm implement dealer,
and a retired federal employee, a physician, an accountant and others.
This history reminds me of the stories we hear about the personal
computer revolution, and the recent development of the Internet and
electronic commerce. These are real American entrepreneurs.
Some say, however, that low power television stations have always
been on notice that their service could be impeded or discontinued at a
moment's notice. They have been well aware of the rules of the road.
Thus, the difficulties with the transition to digital television should
be no surprise.
The purpose of this hearing is to hear more about the impact of the
FCC's conversion plan, how it will impact full power television
stations, how it will impact low power stations and whether the
regulatory classification of low power licenses is appropriate in a
digital environment.
I trust this will be an informative debate so that Members can
fully understand the differing perspectives on this important issue.
I thank the Chairman again for holding this hearing.
Mr. Tauzin. I am now pleased to welcome our panel. Let me,
first of all, apologize to our panel, as we may have some
disruptions in the hearing today. I understand the Democrats
will have a briefing on Kosovo at 3 p.m. So we will get as far
as we can, as rapidly as we can. And we will also have a
briefing later on, I think, this afternoon. So we are going to
try to wrap as fast as we can.
In that regard, we are going to use the 5-minute rule,
which means that I will switch you on. The green light is not
working, but the red light is. So when the red light comes on,
that means your 5 minutes are up, and if you kind of wrap when
you see that red light hitting.
Let me thank you all for coming. We will start, please,
with Mr. Stewart. Roy Stewart, the Chief of Mass Media Bureau
of the FCC, for your statement, Mr. Stewart.
All of your written statements are part of our record; we
have them. If you would summarize and give us the highlights of
your testimony? Mr. Stewart.
STATEMENTS OF ROY J. STEWART, CHIEF, MASS MEDIA BUREAU, FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; ACCOMPANIED BY KEITH LARSON,
ASSOCIATE CHIEF, ENGINEERING, MASS MEDIA BUREAU; JAMES C. MAY,
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
BROADCASTERS; ARTHUR D. STAMLER, GENERAL MANAGER, WAZT-LPTV;
MICHAEL SULLIVAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY BROADCASTERS
ASSOCIATION; GEORGE E. DEVAULT, JR., PRESIDENT, HOLSTON VALLEY
BROADCASTING CORPORATION, AND RON BRUNO, GENERAL MANAGER, WBGN-
TV
Mr. Stewart. Mr. Chairman, ranking members, and members of
the subcommittee, good afternoon, I am Roy Stewart, Chief of
the Mass Media Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission.
Accompanying me today is Keith Larson, Associate Chief for
Engineering of the Mass Media Bureau.
I welcome this opportunity to discuss low-power television
and legislation intended to protect community broadcasting
stations, that provide beneficial local programming to their
communities. The Commission's Chairman, William Kennard, has
submitted a statement for the record to the subcommittee, in
which he expresses his strong support for Class A status for
qualifying low-power television stations.
Low-power television stations operate on the same channels
as full-service broadcasters, but do so at much lower power
levels. Because low-power stations are secondary, they are
subject to displacement at any time by primary full-service
television stations. Despite their secondary status, many low-
power stations have become important sources of local
programming in their communities; providing local news,
weather, community affairs, local election, and sporting event
coverage, as well as programming directed to unserved and
underserved audiences. Indeed, many low-power stations may be
the only television outlet in their community.
The LPTV service has also increased the diversity of
broadcast station ownership. Station operators include such
varied entities as schools, colleges, churches, local
governments, community groups, and radio and television
broadcasters. And the service has provided first-time ownership
opportunities to minority groups, women, and a range of small
businesses.
The Commission has long recognized the value of low-power
television service and has extended considerable effort over
the years to promote and protect it. At the outset of the
service, I was the Chief of the Video Services Division in the
Mass Media Bureau. I well remember the flood of applications
that overwhelmed our ability to process and dispose of them. We
turned to Congress for help, and obtained staffing and computer
resources, as well as statutory changes that greatly
streamlined our processing methods.
This assistance enabled us to implement the service, and
today there are some 2,100 licensed LPTV stations. Although
secondary, low-power stations have, until the recent
introduction of the DTV service, largely managed to avoid
displacement by full-service broadcast stations. As the DTV
transition begins in earnest, however, the Commission has
acknowledged that there is insufficient spectrum to protect
existing low-power television stations and provide a second
channel for digital service to more than the 1,600 existing
full-power television stations. Working with the LPTV industry,
the Commission has taken numerous steps to mitigate the impact
on low-power television stations, including relaxing certain
interference standards, permitting immediate displacement
relief applications to be filed, and modifying more than 60 DTV
allotments to eliminate conflicts with LPTV service. But even
with these measures, many low-power television stations are
still subject to being displaced, including stations that have
made significant contributions to their local communities.
The bill before the subcommittee, the Community
Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999, addresses many of the
problems now faced by low-power television stations as a result
of their secondary status. It is very similar in scope and
intent to a petition for rulemaking filed with the Commission
by the Community Broadcasters Association. The legislation
proposes to create a new Class A television service that would
enjoy primary status and would not, therefore, be subject to
displacement. The bill and its objective of providing a measure
of permanence and protection for the many low-power television
stations that contribute significantly to their local
communities, is both timely and commendable. This protected
status is critical if we are to preserve these valuable outlets
for diverse and uniquely local programming.
The bill seeks to craft eligibility and procedural
provisions to establish Class A service in a manner that does
not unduly disrupt existing television service, or the
transition to digital television. Let me turn to three
particular provisions of the bill that may warrant further
examination by the subcommittee. Okay.
First, the contour protection provisions of the act, which
gives eligibility to Class A stations during dependency of any
rulemaking that we had to do. While this approach would give
early protection to Class A stations, it could also preclude us
from being able to authorize new full-power television analog
stations. That may limit our flexibility to make necessary
adjustments to the technical parameters of the DTV stations
operating pursuant to our DTV table of allotments.
The second aspect deals with the requirement that we do not
have a bidding mechanism to deal with competing Class A station
applications, or translators. It would require us not to be
able to use what came out of the Balanced Budget Amendment--
competitive bidding process. And we would have to sit there and
try to figure out what comparative criteria to use. I think we
can agree, that we have had a problem, as a Commission, trying
to figure out comparative criteria for competing applications.
And the third part deals with the fact that there are no
ownership restrictions on the Class A stations. But yet, the
bill appears to contemplate that Class A stations would enjoy
primary status. Then it should be subject to most of the
Commission's full-service obligations. I have asked that the
subcommittee may wish to consider whether full-service
ownership rules should apply.
And, finally, if I may, Mr. Chairman, I want to close by
re-stating Chairman Kennard's unequivocal commitment to
creating a Class A low-power television service. He firmly
believes that affording qualifying low-power television
stations with substantial and enduring protections, consistent
with the needs of a digital television transition, will serve
the public interest.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear
before you, and I am prepared to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Roy J. Stewart follows:]
Prepared Statement of Roy J. Stewart, Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission
I. Introduction
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee: Good
afternoon. I am Roy Stewart, Chief of the Mass Media Bureau at the
Federal Communications Commission. Accompanying me today is Keith
Larson, Associate Chief for Engineering of the Mass Media Bureau. I
welcome this opportunity to discuss low power television community
broadcasting and legislation intended to protect community broadcasting
stations that provide beneficial local service to their communities.\1\
As you know, FCC Chairman William E. Kennard has submitted a statement
for the record in which he expresses his strong support for Class A
status for qualifying low power television stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The comments and views expressed in this Statement are offered
in my capacity as Chief of the Commission's Mass Media Bureau and may
not necessarily represent the views of individual FCC Commissioners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Low Power Television History
Low power television (LPTV) stations are broadcast stations that
operate on the standard VHF and UHF television channels, but at much
lower power levels than conventional TV stations. LPTV stations may
retransmit programming received from other sources or originate their
own programming. LPTV stations have a ``secondary'' frequency use
status in that they may not interfere with, and must accept
interference from, conventional ``primary'' TV stations.
The Federal Communications Commission created the Low Power
Television Service in 1982. The FCC believed that LPTV stations could
increase television programming diversity in both urban and rural areas
and that these stations would be particularly well suited to provide
local programming.
The LPTV service has overcome many obstacles in its brief history.
Its early growth was impeded by the FCC's difficulty in processing the
tens of thousands of applications which had rapidly accumulated, nearly
all of which were mutually exclusive with many other applications.
Congress appropriated funds for computers and additional staffing to
help the FCC meet its LPTV processing challenge. It also enacted
legislation to enable LPTV licenses to be awarded by random selection
(lottery), rather than through the hearing process adopted in the LPTV
rulemaking proceeding. In 1984, facing a backlog of more than 30,000
applications, the FCC froze application filings for new LPTV stations.
The filing freeze continued for more than 3 years, during which the FCC
solved the processing problems and accelerated the pace of authorizing
LPTV stations. By 1986, about 150 LPTV stations were operating. The
early LPTV stations had considerable difficulty obtaining programming
and funding from conventional sources. Yet, the service continued to
grow. By 1989, 500 LPTV stations were licensed to operate in the lower
48 states, and by 1993, the number of licensed stations had grown to
1,000. Another 250 LPTV stations operated in Alaska.
III. The LPTV Service Today
There are currently more than 2,100 licensed LPTV stations. LPTV
stations operate in more than 1,000 communities of all sizes and in all
50 states. The LPTV service has increased the diversity of broadcast
station ownership; station operators include such diverse entities as
schools, colleges, churches, local governments, community groups and
radio and TV broadcasters. The service has also provided first-time
ownership opportunities to minority groups, women and a variety of
small businesses. LPTV stations can be operated in a wide variety of
ways. FCC rules do not require minimum hours of station operation or
minimum amounts of locally produced programming. Some stations
primarily retransmit programming imported from full-service television
stations, satellites or other sources. Others focus on program
production. The hallmark of the LPTV service has been locally oriented
programming. LPTV stations also often provide programming to unserved
or underserved audiences, including ``niche'' programming tailored to
audiences with specific interests. Many LPTV stations serve as a
community's only local television station and provide coverage of local
news, weather, community affairs, local elections and events such as
high school football games.
IV. Digital Television Impact on LPTV
Despite their secondary status, until the arrival of the digital
television era, few LPTV stations had been displaced by primary
television stations. The Commission received very few complaints of
interference from LPTV stations to analog TV reception. Where
interference occurred, the affected stations were usually able to find
a suitable replacement channel on which to operate using an FCC
``displacement relief'' provision. That provision permits stations with
an interference conflict to seek replacement channels at any time on a
noncompetitive, ``first-come'' basis. Thus, the disruption of LPTV
service during the analog television era has been minimal.
The prospects for LPTV service disruption, however, have been
markedly increased by the emergence of the digital television (DTV)
service. The FCC concluded in its DTV proceeding that there was
insufficient spectrum to protect the existing service of secondary LPTV
stations and to provide a second channel for DTV service to more than
1,600 full-service stations. It also concluded that LPTV stations would
remain secondary to, and must not interfere with, DTV service. The
Commission, however, provided several measures intended to mitigate the
impact of the transition to DTV on LPTV service. The channel
displacement relief provisions were extended to stations potentially
affected by DTV stations or channel allotments. Applications for
replacement channels were accorded the highest priority among
applications in the LPTV service.
Several of the interference protection rules imposed on LPTV were
found to be overly protective and were either eliminated or made less
restrictive. LPTV stations were afforded additional operating
flexibility and permitted to negotiate interference agreements with
other stations in the LPTV service. The Commission also expanded its
policy of granting waivers of the interference rules based on
consideration of terrain shielding. It increased the maximum power
limits in the LPTV service, primarily to enable LPTV stations to
operate on channels adjacent to those of full power stations operating
at the same location. Finally, the Commission modified more than 60 DTV
allotments to eliminate conflicts with one or more LPTV stations.
Despite all of these measures, the DTV transition is expected to
have a significant, adverse impact on many LPTV stations, particularly
those stations in urban areas. As an indication of the extent of
potential displacement, in June 1998 the Commission received more than
1,000 ``displacement relief'' applications from stations in the LPTV
service, seeking operations on different channels. More than 400 of
these applications have been granted; many others are mutually
exclusive and, as the law now stands, these LPTV operators will be
required to bid against each other to obtain one of the limited number
of available replacement channels.
V. The Rule Making Petition of the Community Broadcasters Association
The FCC has received and is now considering a rulemaking proposal
submitted by the Community Broadcasters Association (CBA), an
association of LPTV station operators. CBA's petition asks the FCC to
amend its rules to provide additional protections for a limited class
of LPTV stations. CBA proposes that the FCC create a Class A television
service for qualifying LPTV stations. LPTV licensees would qualify for
Class A status by demonstrating that for the three month period prior
to submission of their applications their stations complied with the
minimum operating schedule for TV broadcast stations and broadcast not
less than 3 hours in each calendar week of locally produced
programming. Applicants would also be required to certify that as of
the application filing date, their station operations complied with
most rules applicable to full power TV stations, generally excepting
only those rules governing their initial authorization and station
power. Applications for Class A status would have to be filed within
one year of completion of the FCC rulemaking proceeding.
As proposed by the CBA, applicants would be required to demonstrate
that their stations would not cause interference within the Grade B
contour of analog TV service authorized as of the filing date of the
Class A application. They would also be required to show that
interference would not be caused within DTV service areas resulting
from the technical parameters in the FCC's DTV Table of Allotments.
Applicants would also have to demonstrate that interference would not
be caused within the protected areas of authorized LPTV and TV
translator stations (translator stations rebroadcast the programs of
primary TV stations). Class A stations would be protected against
interference within their LPTV service areas by subsequently filed
analog TV and DTV service application proposals (other than proposed
DTV facilities consistent with a station's DTV allotment parameters).
The CBA also proposes higher power levels for Class A stations and that
such stations be entitled to convert to digital operation on their
channel or seek a second channel for digital operation, provided
interference protection requirements are met.
VI. The Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999
The bill before you H.R. 486, the Community Broadcasters Protection
Act of 1999, would help preserve those low power TV stations that have
served the public interest by providing a local broadcast TV service to
their communities. As I described earlier, the Federal Communications
Commission has long sought to nurture the low power TV service,
recognizing the significant contributions it can make to local
communities. I firmly support the objectives of the proposed
legislation as a means of protecting those low power stations that have
made such contributions to their communities. By affording these
stations Class A, protected status, these local community broadcasters
can continue providing the local programming that makes them so special
to their communities. It will provide these stations the certainty they
need as we enter the digital age.
In pursuing this objective, the proposed legislation seeks to craft
eligibility and procedural provisions to establish Class A service in a
manner that does not unduly disrupt existing television service or the
transition to DTV. Let me turn to three particular provisions of the
bill that may warrant further examination by the Subcommittee.
First, the legislation provides that the FCC grant ``certification
of eligibility'' during the pendency of its rulemaking proceeding to
prescribe regulations to establish a Class A service and that the
contours of LPTV licensees must be preserved until the related Class A
applications have been resolved. These provisions appear to direct the
FCC to protect the existing service contour of an LPTV station once it
certifies the station licensee to be eligible to apply for Class A
status. While these provisions in the legislation would give early
protection to LPTV stations eligible for Class A status, they could
also constrain the FCC from authorizing new analog television service
for which applications are pending and that was protected in the
development of the DTV Table of Allotments. Station licenses sought by
these applications will be awarded through the competitive bidding
process. The legislative provisions could also affect the transition to
digital television by constraining the FCC from granting DTV
applications proposing facilities that deviate from stations' allotted
parameters (location, antenna height and power) in the DTV Table of
Allotments, including site relocations or other changes necessary to
resolve unforeseen problems.
Second, the bill would appear to prevent the FCC from using
competitive bidding in deciding among mutually exclusive applications
where one or more of the applicants is a ``qualified Class A licensee
or a translator rebroadcasting the signal of a primary service station
within its designated market area.'' In these situations, the bill
would require the FCC to give the applicants at least 60 days to
develop an engineering solution so that the applications are not
mutually exclusive. If this proved unsuccessful, the Commission would
be required to devise a system for selecting among the competing
applicants other than the auctions process that would maintain ``equal
opportunities'' for Class A and translator applicants and that would
encourage localism and diversity.
I am concerned that this provision would be difficult to implement
and could lead to delays in the authorization of broadcast service.
Congress granted the FCC statutory authority to use auctions in the
broadcasting context in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Prior to this,
the Commission used a comparative hearing process to select among
competing broadcast applications. Our long experience with this process
taught us that auctions are a much more efficient and cost-effective
method of assigning spectrum in cases of mutual exclusivity than any
other method, including comparative hearings. The Subcommittee may wish
to keep this experience in mind in considering the provision of the
bill dealing with the FCC's auction authority.
Finally, the bill provides that there will be no ownership
restrictions on Class A stations. While unrestricted ownership was
appropriate for the emerging and secondary LPTV service, it may not be
appropriate for those LPTV stations reclassified as Class A facilities,
with primary frequency use rights comparable to those of full-service
broadcasters. The bill appears to contemplate applying most of the
Commission's Part 73 regulations--those applicable to full-service
broadcasters--to Class A stations. The Subcommittee may wish to
consider whether the ownership provisions of that Part should also be
applied to Class A facilities.
VII. Conclusion
I want to close by restating Chairman Kennard's unequivocal
commitment to creating a Class A LPTV service. He firmly believes that
affording qualifying LPTV stations with substantial and enduring
protections consistent with the digital television transition will
serve the public interest and has urged his colleagues at the
Commission to promptly address this matter in connection with the CBA
petition now before the FCC.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before you
today.
[The prepared statement of Hon. William E. Kennard
follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. William E. Kennard, Chairman, Federal
Communications Commission
I am a strong supporter of Class A status for low power television
(LPTV) stations. LPTV stations offer their communities significant
services. They often function as a community's only local television
station and commonly serve as exclusive outlets for foreign language
and other special programming for unserved and underserved audiences.
Many LPTV stations are owned by small businesses, minorities and women
and thus help to enhance the diversity of ownership in the broadcast
industry. I therefore commend the House Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection for holding this
hearing and the efforts of Representative Norwood (R-GA) and others to
assure primary status for qualifying LPTV stations.
As long as these LPTV stations are regarded as secondary
operations, they may be vulnerable to displacement, especially in major
markets. Moreover, even those stations that are not displaced may
encounter difficulty in accessing.capital for programming, equipment,
service and infrastructure improvements while they retain secondary
status.
For these reasons, and at my direction, the Commission sought
public comment in 1998 on a petition for rulemaking submitted by the
Community Broadcasters Association. The petition proposed, as does
Representative Norwood's bill, H.R. 486, that we create a new Class A
television station class for qualified LPTV stations providing
substantial local programming. This Class A status would avoid the
displacement of such stations by affording them primary status as
television broadcasters as long as the station continues to meet the
requirements for a qualifying low power television station. The
Commission is currently reviewing this matter and I expect that it will
adopt a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the near future. I have urged
my colleagues to issue proposed rules that will make clear that LPTV
stations will survive and continue to provide broadcast service to
their communities.
Meanwhile, I am pleased that the Subcommittee is holding this LPTV
hearing and I offer it the Commission's assistance as it addresses this
important telecommunications policy matter.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Mr. Stewart. Indeed, we have Mr.
Kennard's statement, and it is very strong. Thank you, sir.
The Chair is now pleased to welcome Mr. Jim May, Executive
Vice President of The National Association of Broadcasters. Mr.
May.
STATEMENT OF JAMES C. MAY
Mr. May. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When the FCC first began
licensing low-power television stations in the 1980's, it did
so with a specific and limited role in mind. It saw these
stations as serving a small niche of very local interest and
saw them as a secondary service to full-power television
stations. The Commission granted neither the obligations, nor
the privileges, of full-power licenses. Low-power stations
owner understood that when they got their licenses. Yet, even
with that difference, many low-power stations have become
extremely popular, as evidenced by the comments on this panel
today and the more than 2,100 that are on the air today.
Enter the advent of digital television. This new technology
is already beginning to provide viewers with the best quality
picture and sound in television history. But the transition to
digital is a very complicated process. It has required an
almost magical fitting in of nearly 1,600 new digital stations
between and among existing 1,600 full-service analog stations,
serving virtually every portion of the country.
And while the Commission has worked hard to make this
transition a technical reality, it is still very much a work-
in-progress. The vast majority of these duplicate stations have
yet to be built, yet to be engineered, yet to be tested, or put
on the air. Fifty-seven digital stations are on the air now;
four network affiliates in the top thirty markets will be
broadcasting in digital by November of this year. That means
the overwhelming percentage of stations have until May of 2002
to go through that process. And the transition won't be
complete until 2006. Please keep those dates in mind.
Given the complicated matrix of digital television
assignments, the FCC has made a sincere attempt to preserve
service for as many low-power stations as possible. The
Commission even expanded the core spectrum for DTV by five
channels per market, in part, to relieve the pressure on low-
power stations. In the end, the vast majority will be
maintained in the digital era.
Now, with this background in mind, let us place the
elements of H.R. 486 against the reality of that transition.
H.R. 486 does several things. First, it makes many LPTV's
primary status within 5 months of enactment. The qualifications
for eligibility are minimal and it would appear that most LPTVs
would qualify. It then virtually mandates the Commission grant
them primary status, a status that gives them equal standing
with and against full-power stations.
The bill also protects the current low-power service area,
while they are applying to become Class A primary stations. And
perhaps most troubling, the bill further limits the protection
that full-power stations or translators have in their digital
build-out to an exceedingly narrow timeframe.
What is the end result? We believe that broadcasters and
the Commission will not, as Mr. Stewart said, have the
flexibility that they need to make sure the digital transition
occurs without causing serious disruption and interference.
The bill also truncates the decisionmaking process by
creating almost instantly a new television service with
protections that are equal or exceed those of full-power
stations and their translators. In short, it locks in LPTVs and
their service areas before the DTV system is up and running and
any changes are taken into account. Remember, it will be 2002
before we truly know which changes are going to be required.
Clearly, then, the biggest issue, is one of timing. No one
can predict with certainty today what modifications or changes
will be needed to make in the next few years, as the digital
transition moves forward. That is why we cannot make decisions
now about LPTV stations.
Further, we can think of no circumstances where low-power
station should have primary status over any current full-power
station or its digital equivalent. We also believe LPTV
stations should not have primary status over needed
modifications to full-power stations, either operating or
planned. And we simply don't know if there will be a need to
make alterations to digital rollout as we go forward. We
respectfully suggest that any of these decisions be put off
until the transition is further along, when we have more
knowledge of potential interference.
Mr. Chairman, we are not arguing that LPTV stations do not
provide an important service to viewers, and we applaud the
efforts of the commission to preserve as many LPTVs as possible
during the transition and into the future. We are suggesting
that this Congress has mandated a multi-billion dollar
transition to digital, which American broadcasters have
committed huge resources and effort forward to.
Mr. Chairman, let me note that the Commission has before it
a petition for rulemaking on this very issue. It is our
understanding that the FCC will act shortly to issue a notice
seeking comment on these very same proposals. We would expect
the Commission to continue to do all it can to maintain as many
LPTV stations as possible during the transition and beyond. And
we would hope that the committee would allow that process would
go forward before intervening. Simply, I am not sure the
Commission needs any new authority.
Let me conclude, however, by saying that we pledge to work
with this committee on a critically important issue. We
understand the sponsors' interest in seeking a resolution and
pledge our best efforts to find an agreeable solution.
[The prepared statement of James C. May follows:]
Prepared Statement of James C. May, Executive Vice President, National
Association of Broadcasters
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is James C.
May and I am Executive Vice President of the National Association of
Broadcasters, on whose behalf I appear before you today. NAB
appreciates the opportunity extended by the Chairman to testify before
this Subcommittee on H.R. 486, proposing a ``Community Broadcasters
Protection Act'' intended to preserve low-power television stations
that provide substantial local programming to small communities
throughout the nation.
NAB appreciates the sponsors' concerns for the many low power
television stations that have been providing targeted or niche
programming in the ``interstices'' of full service television service
as the massive transition of this country's broadcasting system to
digital technology begins.
The digital revolution now upon us has extended to every form of
technology in our nation and indeed in the world and is being felt in
every sector of American life and business. It is enabling all
Americans, no matter where they live, to participate in technological
wonders not even dreamed of 20 or 30 years ago. It is exploding options
for all Americans in their work, their schools, their continuing
education, their investing, their hobbies, their art and their
entertainment. Digital technology revolutionized the massive upgrade in
television technology being planned for this country's free over-the-
air broadcasting system. Digital technology, the basis of our DTV
standard, has expanded the number and types of television programming
and television services that all Americans will be able to enjoy for
free. Congress and the FCC have, in concert with the broader television
industry, devised a plan to transition this nation's television
system--long the envy of the world--to the wonders of digital with
little if any disruption of service to the public.
While the changeover in technology is revolutionary, total and
necessarily involves replacing virtually all broadcast equipment and
facilities as well as all consumer televisions, the public should not,
under the FCC's carefully constructed plan, have their daily primary
television service interrupted. While consumers will have to purchase
new television sets, the FCC's plan allows them to do so over time,
thereby affording them the benefit, over the length of the transition,
of falling prices and the luxury of proceeding according to their own
timetables--while continuing to see their familiar programs without
interruption.
However, this consumer-conscious plan for the digital television
transition was not arrived at easily, nor is it yet perfected. It is,
in the truest sense of the term, a work in progress. It has required an
almost magical fitting in of over 1700 new digital television service
areas in between and matching up with the over 1700 existing full
service television stations, serving virtually every area of the
country--and doing so in less spectrum than today's service occupies.
These temporary ``duplicate'' stations are just now beginning to be
built, re-engineered, negotiated with neighboring stations and with
local community groups, tested, adjusted and, finally, broadcast to the
very same audiences expecting their service.
It was truly an extraordinary accomplishment to match every
television station in the country with a same-service-area-replicated
digital station while the to-be-replaced analog stations continue to
operate pending consumer replacement of hundreds of millions of
television receivers. This was achieved (to a great extent, but not
perfectly or completely) after years of planning in order to preclude
disrupting, to the greatest extent possible, consumers' highly valued
and highly utilized free television service.
But, given the extreme congestion of population and therefore
stations in many parts of the country, the DTV plan could not achieve
its primary goals of service area replication for every full service
station and minimization of interference to existing television service
while taking into account the secondary low power and translator
services.
The FCC did adopt certain measures in its DTV Orders to ameliorate
the impact of the initial DTV Table of Assignments on low power
stations. But only so much could be done in this regard--until all full
service stations have perfected their DTV assignments.
Accordingly, Members of the Committee have expressed a concern that
the low power service be protected as much as possible, in the
transition to DTV.
While we at NAB would like nothing more than to be able to
acquiesce to immediate accommodation of a certain class of low power
stations within the digital transition, we can see no way to do so at
this time--while we are in the midst of this fragile and just-beginning
DTV transition. To try to do otherwise at this time would do a grave
disservice to all consumers and to the digital television transition so
long in the planning. NAB will do its best to work with the
Subcommittee to try to fashion legislation that will not disserve the
digital transition but will seek to preserve certain low power
television operations at the earliest possible point in the digital
transition.
That said, I must note that the low power television service was
created as a secondary service, to supplement full service operations,
not to supplant, or vie for spectrum with, the broad-based television
service that has always been the foundation of television in America.
Low power operators applied for their licenses, and began their
operations, with full knowledge that they must give way for full
service operations. NAB appreciates that low power operators want their
service to their audiences to survive in the digital transition, but we
ask this Committee not to cause that to occur at the expense of full
DTV service for all consumers.
We in fact have similar concerns for the television translator
service that extends the broad-based television service, including
network television service, to thousands of rural Americans. The TV
translator service, like low power operations, is a secondary service
which similarly could not be protected or included in the initial round
of DTV assignments. To do so for translators or LPTVs would have
compromised the achievement of the service goals for the DTV Table,
namely DTV replication of every existing full power television service
area and minimization of interference to existing NTSC television
service, which will be the primary free television service for most
consumers for several years. Once, however, all full service DTV
stations are substantially settled, many if not most low power and TV
translators will be able to be accommodated in their NTSC mode and then
with DTV service as well. Much can be done to these ends long before
the end of the transition. Once all full service stations are on-air
with DTV in 2002, the Commission will be able to evaluate how many
LPTVs and translators can be accommodated with replacement NTSC
channels for those bumped and second (DTV) channels for those low power
stations seeking DTVs (rather than switching to DTV at the conversion).
Once the conversion to all-DTV occurs in 2006, the NTSC channels within
the core DTV spectrum will be freed-up and there should be ample room
for all LPTVs and translators to have DTV homes as well.
To further these ends, and to explain to you the specifics of my
concerns with (and possible amendments to) the bill before us, I would
like to proceed to the terms of the legislation itself.
First, this legislation appears to seek two goals, which taken
together pose challenges for the DTV transition that simply cannot be
accommodated at this point. One, the bill seems primarily aimed at
``permanently'' preserving certain low power stations by creating a new
class of stations with ``primary'' status, which could not be displaced
by any other user, including full power DTV stations. Two, the bill
also appears to grant a preference these ``new'' LPTVs for new DTV
licenses over translators and full service DTV modifications alike. The
entire bill, including a provision for Class A stations to be strongly
considered for an ``advanced television'' license, would be placed in
the section of the Communications Act (Sec. 336) that concerns
``advanced television'' services and licenses for the new service. This
legislative bias in favor Class A DTV licenses, however, comes without
regard for the DTV assignments and needed modifications of full-power
stations and cannot be squared with the rollout and tweaking of full
service DTV facilities. I urge this Subcommittee not to direct action
that might compromise the perfecting of full service DTV assignments so
long under construction and benefiting so many consumers.
Second and possibly the major improvement that could be made to
this bill, is the time within which the Commission is to ``prescribe
regulations'' creating Class A low power licenses. The bill currently
provides for FCC regulations ``within 120 days'' of enactment. This
time period could direct the creation of new permanent Class A licenses
before the vast majority of full service stations will have filed for
their DTV construction permits, before they have had a chance, to re-
engineer their facilities, if needed, change channels, if needed, join
with other broadcasters to locate and construct a new joint tower, if
needed, or otherwise perfect, or maximize (as is contemplated in the
FCC's rules) their DTV facilities. The result well could be Class A low
power station's trumping needed modifications for full service DTV
stations and thus compromising the DTV transition in its infancy. We
respectfully suggest that this be considered only some time after all
initially-eligible DTV licensees are granted DTV licenses by the
Commission.
Third, we would recommend, for the same reason, that any
legislation, with appropriate timing, would specifically provide that
in no event will the Class A licensee have primary status as against
any initially-eligible DTV station or any existing NTSC licensee.
Fourth, the bill only provides interference protection to Grade B
contours of existing stations or to DTV service areas provided in the
DTV Table or modified before the filing of the Class A application.
Again, timing is the major problem. To avoid disruption to the
perfecting of full service DTV service to the public, the Class A's
simply should not have primacy over any full service DTV modifications
or over any pending NTSC facilities modifications.
Fifth, we do have serious concerns over the bill language
potentially allowing Class A low power stations to raise their power
levels in accord with the operating rules for full service stations. We
believe that low power must remain low power and be constrained by the
power limitations applicable to all low power stations.
Sixth, with regard to the bill section on issuance of advanced
television licenses, NAB strongly believes that there should be no
built-in bias toward Class A DTV licenses over those for TV
translators. We also strongly believe that there should not be any
possibility, as there is in this bill, that Class A DTV applications
might trump full service DTV assignments or yet applied-for
modifications thereto. Thus, timing is again the main stumbling block.
But so too is the preference for low power DTV assignments over those
for full service-extending translators, which serve primarily rural
consumers free broad-based television service.
Seventh, if and when Class A's are to assume the permanency of
primary stations, they should be required to adhere to the same
restrictions as full service stations. In particular and specifically
raised in this legislation, Class A licensees should be subject to the
same ownership restrictions as full power televisions stations.
Lastly, the bill section that addresses ``interim qualification''
of out-of-core LPTVs, again depending on timing, should not permit such
LPTVs' finding a home within the core DTV spectrum to override needed
modifications of full service DTVs by ``automatically'' granting Class
A primary status as against future modifications by full service
stations.
As is clear from the above-recitation of substantive problems with
H.R. 486, NAB's main problem remains with the timing of the creation of
new Class A low power stations. Knowing that this Chairman and this
Committee are committed to the best and full deployment of digital
television for the benefit of all consumers, NAB urges you to postpone
further action on this bill until the DTV dust has clearly settled.
Once it has, it should be the first and top priority of the FCC to
accommodate both low power stations and translators in the brave new
DTV world.
Let me close by noting that in our view the FCC requires no new
authority to aid LPTVs in the midst of the DTV transition, in the same
ways this legislation suggests, or otherwise. In fact, the Commission
has before it at this very moment a petition for rulemaking along the
same lines as the legislation before this Subcommittee. It is our
understanding the FCC will act shortly to issue a Notice seeking public
comment on these same proposals. We expect the Commission will continue
to do what it can for low power stations, consistent with its
responsibilities for the DTV transition.
Mr. Chairman, again I thank you and the Subcommittee for inviting
my participation in this hearing.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much, Mr. May.
The Chair is now pleased to welcome Dr. Arthur Stamler, the
station General Manager at a LPTV station, WAZT, the Waltz TV,
LPTV, in Woodstock, Virginia. Mr. Stamler, for your testimony,
sir.
STATEMENT OF ARTHUR D. STAMLER
Mr. Stamler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be here
today. I would like to also introduce my wife, sitting behind
me, Virginia, who is my co-partner in WAZT. We both started it
together some 15 years ago.
I started my career in broadcasting 47 years ago in Boston.
It is all I wanted to do, is to be in broadcasting, and I was
pleased to see that my dream had come true. And my entire
professional career has been in broadcasting. I was a
department head at the National Association of Broadcasters in
the late 1950's and early 1960's, when the then-Chairman of the
FCC called television a vast wasteland.
I didn't believe it then, and I sure don't believe it now.
There are television stations who are every bit professional.
And WAZT considers itself to be professional.
Over the course of years, I have seen major changes in the
broadcast industry when FM came in; when UHF came, and the VHF
broadcaster said was going to put them out of business; when
color television came in and black and white went out; when
cable systems came along; when satellite technology came along,
and now direct television to the home. There are changes that
will continue and the industry has to roll with the changes.
And to protect an existing industry, over what may or may
not happen in the years to come at the expense of industry that
is serving the American public, I believe is not the intent of
the Congress when it established it or the intent of the FCC as
it supervises it.
WAZT is a primary source of news, and information, of
spiritual enrichment, of local events, of local school sports,
and that very special, nothing-like-the-Washington-DC weather
forecast, even though we are only located 100 miles west of DC.
Mr. Tauzin. Do you need a pair of beavers by the way?
Mr. Stamler. Excuse me, sir.
Mr. Tauzin. I wondered if you could use a pair of beavers;
we have got a little problem I think.
Mr. Stamler. To thousands of viewers in our area, we are
their local television station, and the term ``low-power''
doesn't mean anything at all. It is so vital for any television
station, when operating, to present to its viewers the ability
to see quality as they click through the channels with that
remote control. It doesn't make any difference whether they are
full-power or low-power. The stations are on the air to do
something.
Our station went on the air with 49 watts. That is less
than a 60-watt lightbulb. And when it when on the air, we were
every bit as professional as our neighbor full-power television
station 60 miles down the road in Harrisonburg. As a matter of
fact, they have become quite friendly with us and treated us
equal. We are members of the Virginia Association of
Broadcasters. And the full-power television stations treat us
as equal.
We are members of the National Religious Broadcasters
because our basic format has religious programming. It is the
only religious television station from the Maryland line to the
West Virginia line for 150 miles through the Shenandoah Valley.
It fills a niche that is so needed because that area is called
the Bible Belt in Virginia. So we found something that the
people needed and we give it to them. In addition, we have a
fully staffed local news department. We have 21 local preachers
that are on the air providing their programming for our local
area.
This becomes a forum for each of the communities for the
county government, for the town government, for the city
governments.
I mentioned a few moments ago that we are members of the
National Religious Broadcasters Association. This committee
should know that WAZT was named ``Television Station of the
Year'' in 1998. And that is in full competition with a number
of full-power television stations around the country. So,
according to those professionals, we must be doing something
right.
Our investments are hard to come by because we are
temporary; we are secondary, and I equate that word with
temporary. The bank looks at us and says, ``How long will you
be in business? Why should we give you money to buy a new piece
of equipment?'' Mr. Chairman, we buy the best second-hand
equipment you can buy. We would like to buy first class.
Let me complete with just two brief sentences. There is an
old hymn that says, ``We've come this far by faith.''
And I would like to know that we have some blessed
assurance that we can continue. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Arthur D. Stamler follows:]
Prepared Statement of Arthur D. Stamler, General Manager, WAZT-LPTV
My name is Arthur D. Stamler. I am the Managing Member of Ruarch
Associates Limited Liability Company, licensee of Low Power Television
Station WAZT, Woodstock, Virginia. Let me first offer congratulations
to this Subcommittee and to the Congress for its foresight in the
establishment of the Low Power Television Service nearly twenty years
ago. What had been envisioned then has come to pass now--television
media to bring local service to underserved areas and markets
throughout the United States. When I categorize areas I specifically
refer to locations that either because of remote distances from major
communities or terrain shielding preventing local reception were unable
to have local program choices. And when I categorize markets, I mean
the very specific publics that prefer narrowcasting linguistically or
topically to meet local desires. In the lptv industry, WAZT is referred
to as a pioneer broadcaster. Our station started service in 1985 after
a two year building program. WAZT, then W10AZ, applied for and received
a construction permit and license to serve greater Woodstock,
population about four thousand, within the County of Shenandoah, then
with a population of less than 18-thousand people. Our granted power
was 49 Watts, less than the power of a light bulb. But we were
television broadcasters, and went to work to make W10AZ the best local
television station money would buy. But no bank would provide any funds
on loan, and monies received from the sale of our home were
insufficient, so my wife and I set out to encourage local investments.
We were fortunate to attract investors from the local area: a dairy
farmer, a farm implement dealer, a retired federal employee, a
physician, an accountant and several others. We determined one thing
from the very outset, that is, we would be professional and local from
the very first day. And we have had a local newscast every weekday
since the station went on the air, even with 49 Watts.
My dreams of operating as a professional television station have
never wavered. But the ability to do it has been at tremendous personal
cost, financially and healthwise. My wife and I went for more than
three years without a paycheck, borrowing against savings, life
insurance, and even credit cards as a last resort. WAZT existed for
more than a year while the local cable system refused to carry the
station, so our 49 Watts had an audience that retained rabbit ears. Our
staff learned the television business on the job. Without a budget to
hire professional television people, we trained them while they worked,
never had to go outside of the Shenandoah Valley for staff. Gradually,
one piece of used equipment at a time, we added and upgraded and
improved our facility. Public outcry demanded that WAZT be placed on
local cable, and it finally was. Our philosophy was then, and is now,
that any viewer should be able to click on a remote control and not be
able to tell the difference between any station or satellite service
and WAZT. Our engineer used a lot of tape and bailing wire and
imagination to keep us on the air and looking good as we moved from
crisis to crisis. We were able to seek and find available channels in
adjacent communities, and received licenses to serve them as well,
expanding our coverage of adjacent communities and enlarging the scope
of our news and information. On the occasion of our fifth anniversary,
we invited the Low Power Television Branch of the Federal
Communications Commission to come visit this station, the closest to
Washington, D.C. They came. Three vans full. Most of the personnel had
never been in any tv station, let alone a low power facility. They
learned what the business they were regulating was all about, a very
valuable trip. I would like to extend the same invitation to the
members of this Subcommittee and staff as well. Come see what Congress
proposed and what we have composed. It is as much a television station
as anything you could shake a remote control at. I would be amiss at
this juncture if I did not express my appreciation and gratitude to the
staff at the Low Power Television Branch, especially the former Chief,
Keith Larson who believed in the Congressional LPTV mandate and watched
us toe the line to comply.
WAZT has chosen to provide our communities of license with programs
keyed to spiritual enrichment. We are located in what has become known
as the Bible Belt in Virginia, but there were no religious television
stations serving that concept. As a matter of fact, from the top of the
state just North of Winchester all the way to Roanoke, some 300 miles
away, there was only one television station, a network affiliate. The
area is isolated from the Washington area by the Blue Ridge, so DC
stations were received with great interference, if at all. WAZT filled
a void and continues to be the only local independent station providing
a forum for advertising, community events, area sports, political
debate, locally produced lively arts, plus two thirty minute actuality
filled news reports each weekday evening, one at 5:30 and one at 9:00
PM. WAZT is not exactly a powerhouse now, even though some high band
VHF stations can apply for as much as ten thousand watts. Our 670 Watts
seem to be doing an adequate job in Shenandoah County. WAZT, with five
surrounding translator stations, operates 24 hours a day, seven days a
week. It has still been denied cable carriage in three area systems,
but we have patience that some day those systems may relent. More than
two million dollars has been invested in bringing WAZT to its current
posture. Now, we are looking at converting our on-channel facilities to
a digital format in keeping with the current timetable proposed by the
FCC. That will mean duplication of virtually all production and
transmission facilities plus an extensive and expensive engineering
consultation and installation. That will mean not less than a million
dollars for a bare bones transition. No business on earth would take on
that much debt, knowing that it could be terminated in a heartbeat. No
financier knowing of the very secondary and temporary licensing of an
LPTV would consider a loan or a lease for new digital equipment.
There's an old hymn that says ``we've come this far by faith''. Now we
need some blessed assurance. I need to go back to Woodstock and tell
those 21 local preachers that they will be able to stay on the air. I
need to tell my staff of 18 that their jobs are secure. I need to tell
my investors that there's pretty good chance their investments are
secure. I need to tell my wife we did the right thing fifteen years
ago. I need the permanent status that we have desired, and now is
within sight, and I promise that my facility will do whatever is needed
to see that it happens.
Mr. Tauzin. With all of the connections that you have got,
I didn't want to turn you off, even if the red light was on.
Thank you, Mr. Stamler.
We are now pleased to welcome Mr. Michael Sullivan,
Executive Director of Community Broadcasters Association of St.
Cloud, Minnesota. Mr. Sullivan.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL SULLIVAN
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am the Executive
Director for Community Broadcasters Association. That is the
national organization that represents the low-power television
in the country. I was going to, as you can see, in my
statement, sort of brag, or really explain what low-power
television is--and I see you smiling--HTV in Houma, Louisiana.
Mr. Deal has talked about channel 43 over in Dalton; Mr. Oxley
has already talked about channel 67; Mr. Klink has all that he
can say in terms of western Pennsylvania and where high school
football is king, plus some of the other programming that is
provided by Ron Bruno, to my left here.
You all know you are learning today, if you didn't know
before, what low-power is, what low-power television can do.
The big threat--and you know that we are secondary status. We
are not here today, Mr. Chairman, to complain about digital; we
are not complaining about the public safety allotments; we are
not complaining about the commercial allotments. The Congress
directed the Commission to do that, and in a lot ways I think
it is sound public policy. We are not here to argue that.
Mr. May referred to the impact of what this has done, and
that is, considerably shrink available spectrum, available for
broadcast television. And that has probably created the single
greatest need for primary status, because what happens is Mr.
Deal's constituent or your own constituent, Mr. Chairman,
basically they not only have gone through the bumping process
that we just had with those three other incidents; they risk
tomorrow, the following day, and every day in the future,
getting bumped not only once, but twice, and three times.
Mr. Oxley's constituent, for example, has just re-channeled
67 and he is now FOX 25 in the Lima, Ohio market; put a
$100,000 to do that; he has no protection whatsoever, about not
getting bumped again. Mr. Sawyer was here talking about a full-
power station just vacating that Akron market, which is
understandable. Maybe that sounds rather harsh on my part, but
it basically vacated the Akron market to go to the ``Big
Apple'' of that television market, which is Cleveland. When you
can go to a market of 1.4 million versus the couple of hundred
thousand of Akron, Nielsen is much better to you when you are
there.
And television is about numbers; television is about
Nielsen, and one of the special things about low-power
television is that we are not bound to ratings because we
weren't created--Jim says it very well; we were really created
as a supplemental television service. But as it is
supplemental, it means we translate that into basically into
pockets of underserved. These pockets of underserved exist both
in rural and urban communities. The District of Columbia or the
Washington Metro is a wonderful example of that. There are two
Spanish language stations here in the Washington market,
channel 48 and channel 64. They are both low-power stations.
There are 300,000 Hispanics in this market. They need some
security, and I think all of the community broadcasters believe
that number of Hispanic people clearly deserve television in
this kind of market. Where I come from 300,000 folks is a half
a congressional district. You know, to me those are big-time
numbers; those are people who really deserve.
Back to Akron for a moment, what happens, Mr. Sawyer
mentioned that the station isn't everything is could be or
should be; we know that. The owners of that station know it.
About a million dollars separates it from where it is today and
to be truly a full-service station. How can they do that with
the threat of being bumped tomorrow, the next day, and the next
day?
We have other problems, too. If we are going to stay in
television, we have to transition to digital. We are told that
is very expensive. How do we do that?
Last point, no matter how good you feel about low-power
television, if low-power television is going to mess up
digital, you can't consider it and we shouldn't advocate it.
Very simply, we want to believe that section 7 in the Norwood
bill is real, is serious, creating no interference for full-
power digital stations. There will be no Class A if they create
interference.
Thank you; I see the red light.
[The prepared statement of Michael Sullivan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mike Sullivan, Executive Director, Community
Broadcasters Association
Chairman Tauzin and members of the Subcommittee, we are very
pleased to be here today. We are grateful to you, Mr. Chairman that you
would provide community broadcasters throughout the country and other
interested parties the opportunity to examine and discuss the issue of
changing the ``Regulatory Classification of Low Power Television
licenses.''
The Case for Primary Service Designation
As you know, Mr. Chairman, the current regulatory classification of
low power television is one of secondary status. Secondary service
simply means that when the Congress or the Commission designates
spectrum used by LPTV service for other purposes and classifies those
purposes as a primary use of spectrum, the secondary service is
displaced. If no other spectrum is available the station simply goes
dark. Some will argue that those are the breaks. The licensee should
have understood the rules before they built the station. They took the
risk with their eyes wide open. Now let them take the loss.
Others go a step further asking, ``who are these folks?'' They
continue, ``when we're surfing the channels, we thought television was
television.''
If you are in Dalton, Georgia, it's station WDMN providing over 15
hours of original local programming per week in five counties of North
Georgia. If you are in Hopkinsville, Kentucky it's station WKAG serving
most of western Kentucky with significant local news and community
affairs for which there is no competitor. If you are in Houma,
Louisiana, it's H-TV providing the only regular local television
programming for that community of 100,000 population. H-TV doesn't just
play television, it originates 12 separate local programs each week for
that community. If you are in Lima, Ohio it is Fox-67 which was
recently displaced and is now Fox-25. Local programming is also their
signature as it is also in New Castle Pennsylvania where high school
football is king. If you are in Reidsville, North Carolina, Plano,
Illinois or Laramie,Wyoming it's low power television making a
difference for the citizens of those communities. If you are here in
Washington D.C. as we are today, it's channels 48 and 64. These are the
only two Spanish language stations in this market serving the estimated
300,000 Hispanic people in the Washington Metropolitan area. If you are
in Hartford, Albuquerque, Miami, San Diego, San Francisco, Portland,
Denver, Salt Lake or Milwaukee there are low power Spanish language
stations in those markets. In fact, it is estimated that between 40-50%
of the Spanish language television stations in the country are low
power stations. But that should be no surprise. The low power service
is a community based not market based television service. Its purpose
is not to compete with full power service but to serve the underserved
in both rural and urban communities.
What we really see in low power television today is a FCC program
that worked. When the service was created in 1981, did we know it was
going to work? Did we know that low power television would find a
niche--maybe not in every market but in every one of the.50 states of
the United states? Did we know at its inception that many of these
stations, while low in power, would meet every measure of a full
service television station in their niche markets?
I believe the answer to these questions is no. But there was much
more that we didn't know.
Did we realize during the decade of the 80's that television
spectrum would be reduced by 108 megahertz--a full 18 channels? Did we
realize then that the 1990s would bring the full implementation of DTV
where every full power station would receive a second 6 mHz channel?
This was more than 1700 new allotments Mr. Chairman, how could have
these low power licensees--even those with their eyes fully opened--
envisioned such radically changed circumstances?
What we did know is that secondary service could mean
displacements. But not even the best low power television historians
can list five stations during that decade that were displaced and not
successfully rechanneled.
The recent DTV, Public Safety, and Commercial spectrum allocations
have changed that dramatically. From an environment where one might say
we had spectrum abundance we are now challenged with significant
scarcity. This has change considerably the investment environment in
community television.
We're here today because we want you to know what impact this
change has on our communities and operators. Here are three examples.
First, just a week ago in Akron Ohio, the Mayor's Advisory Board
had a town meeting with local citizens listening to input on ways to
improve their community in the next century. 100% of the local citizens
attending wanted to see a television station back in Akron, a community
of over 200,000. Their full power station left town for Cleveland, the
big apple in that market. The irony of this story is that there is a
television station in Akron right now. It's WAOH. LP owned by local
residents who want to improve their service to the Akron community. But
to become a truly full service station in that market, WAOH would have
to make a capital investment of approximately $1 million. By many
measures, that is a modest investment. But with the threat of future
displacements and the almost non-existence of other available spectrum
in that market, that which could be a modest investment becomes almost
foolishly risky.
Second, I cited stations in Dalton, Lima, Houma, Reidsville, New
Castle, Albuquerque and many others. The Commission is in the process
of granting over 600 new assignments to those displaced by DTV, Public
Safety and Commercial allotments. So long as these stations are
secondary, they can be displaced again and again and again.
Yes, Dalton, Lima, Houma and Plano low powers made way for DTV and
full replication of every full power licensee in their markets.
Everyone of these stations need the Norwood/Klink bill and they need it
before they are displaced again.
If that isn't enough, low power television has a third challenge.
We also have to make the digital transition. Without investment
security and without a reasonable means to raise outside capital, this
transition for community broadcasters will become hugely difficult.
Sherwin Grossman, CBA's President, who has both developed
television stations and chartered banks, maybe summarized today's
investment environment best. He said, ``If I had a loan officer who
made a loan to a low power station today, I'd fire him or her on the
spot.'' He probably just knew that if he didn't fire him, the bank
examiner would close the doors of the bank.
Impact on DTV Roll-Out
Now even if all of us agreed that there is a compelling case for
primary service designation, CBA realizes it won't happen if it
jeopardizes DTV implementation.
For this reason we become both mystified and deeply troubled by the
allegations of our fellow broadcasters at NAB. Here is a sample.
By giving LPTV stations primary status, the FCC will not
be able to assure consumers that the transition to digital by full-
power stations can proceed inteference-free . . . It makes no sense to
tie the hands of the FCC by preventing them from turning off LPTV
service where interference is occurring.
Full power broadcasters are working hard to meet the
aggressive timetable laid out for digital. Passage of legislation could
threaten to slow down that transition further.
Any LPTV amendment would threaten to further complicate an
already complex transition to digital television.
If that (legislation) were to occur, the transition to
digital itself could be in jeopardy. Clearly, increased interference to
new digital services would be disruptive.
(If legislation is approved) it could block efficient roll
out of digital TV.
CBA believes these assertions are very serious. But, CBA and many
others also believe that Sec (7) No Interference Requirement is clear
and precludes a threat of interference. The legislation reads: ``The
Commission may not grant a Class A license . . . unless the applicant
shows . . . the license . . . will not cause interference within . . .
the DTV service areas provided in the DTV Table of Allotments or
subsequently granted by the Commission prior to filing the Class A
application.''
We can only ask, what doesn't this say that it needs to say? As CBA
understands this legislation, when an LPTV licensee submits to the
Commission a certification of eligibility under the terms of (f)(1) of
this legislation, the Commission will neither grant this certification
nor preserve the protected contours of the low power station, if such
an applicant creates interference within the protected contour of any
DTV allotment.
Help us out. How does this place the DTV transition in jeopardy?
How does this result in increased interference? How does this slow
down? How can this block? How does this tie the hands for the
Commission? What does this have to do with assuring viewers
interference few digital reception?
We believe the no interference standard assures every full power
station in the country frill utilization of its DTV allotment. As a
practical matter, maybe the Senate Commerce Committee came to the same
conclusion when they reported S. 1427, a companion to H.R. 486, last
October 1 by a unanimous voice vote. Maybe Chairman Kennard and his
engineering staff came to a similar conclusion. In the Chairman's July
27, 1998 letter to Senators he wrote, ``Having reviewed this
legislation, I have no major concerns with this bill.''
Almost no one is a more committed, enthusiastic, and determined
advocate of a rapid DTV roll-out than Chairman Kennard. For CBA, it is
inconceivable that the Chairman and his staff would find ``no major
concerns'' with this legislation, if there was any serious, credible,
documented technical evidence showing that these assertions have merit.
If this committee comes to any different conclusion than Chairman
Kennard or the Senate Commerce Committee, please advise us immediately
and we will work with you on corrective measures.
Mr. Chairman, we want the digital television to work because we
want to be part of it. Thank you so much for the opportunity to address
the committee today.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much, Mr. Sullivan. I want to
congratulate you on knowing how to talk committee language. I
think you have touched every member with that comment.
We are now pleased to welcome Mr. George E. DeVault, Jr.,
President of Holston Valley Broadcasting Corporation. I
understand you own both full-power and low-power television
stations.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE E. DEVAULT, JR.
Mr. DeVault. That is true, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tauzin. We welcome your testimony, sir.
Mr. DeVault. Thank you for inviting me. Holston Valley
Broadcasting is one of the handful of television broadcasters
which operates both so-called full-power and low-power
stations. Our high power, if you can call it that, WKPT is a
UHF station, signed on about 30 years ago. We have been the ABC
affiliate in our market all these years. Our principal low-
power station, WAPK, signed on in 1991. It has been the local
UPN affiliate since that network's inception.
And to add something to what I have given you in writing, I
just returned from a conference today of UPN affiliates, at
which I discovered that 34 markets in this country receive
their UPN programming through LPTV affiliates. WKPT has been a
member of the NAB for decades and WAPK a member of the CBA
almost as long as that organization has been in existence, and
both stations are members of the Tennessee Association of
Broadcasters.
As others have done here today, I would like to correct the
misconception that LPTV stations have to be tiny facilities
with coverage limited to just a few miles and programming that
some would call unattractive. Although it is a LPTV station, we
operate WAPK like any traditional television station. It
telecasts local news, weather, sports, news briefs 5 days a
week. It has produced many other local programs: high school
baseball games, one college basketball game; we do a couple of
parades each year, sometimes more, live local candidate
debates. We have produced religious shows. We carried for many
years, the programming, the meetings of the city council, in
both Johnson City and Kingsport. And we also carry a lot of
nationally recognized programs in additional to those from UPN,
syndicated shows like ``Entertainment Tonight'' and ``People's
Court,'' and ``Touched By an Angel,'' and a lot of those you
see on full-power stations around the country.
We also carry a lot of sports. In addition to those local
things, we have carried the Cincinnati Reds, the Charlotte
Hornets, ACC football and basketball, SEC basketball, the
Tennessee Oilers, and this year the Atlanta Braves. And
although low-power stations are not required to do so, WAPK
carries some 4 hours of children's educational and
informational programs each week, and we are going to multiply
the number of hours of such programming we carry, beginning
this fall.
Our LPTV station is carried on some 25 cable systems,
reaching just under 100 percent of all the cable-connected
homes in our eight-county TV metro, and about 85 percent of the
cable homes in the full 17-county market. We even achieve
modest--and I emphasize modest--Nielsen ratings, and we
subscribe to their service, and our schedules are carried in TV
Guide, and the local newspapers.
Our concern is the same as the others here today, and that
is whether WAPK will survive in the future, because it is a
low-power station, a secondary service. We filed a displacement
application to move to another channel, and we have learned, in
getting the estimates of what it is going to cost, that it is
expensive. And of course, one of these days when they turn off
the analog, we will have to transition again to digital. We
believe LPTV stations, should not face the possibility of
having to change channels again, and again, and again; or the
possibility of having to terminate their operations all
together--just because, sometime in the future, a full-service
station who has already built its digital, decides it wants to
increase its power, or because the Commission decides, the FCC
decides, to license more full-service, or full-power stations,
or because someone here in Congress, or at the Commission,
decides to allow pizza delivery trucks, or taxi company radios,
to become primary users of these frequencies.
The bill now before the House, H.R. 486, as you know, will
bestow primary status on qualifying LPTV stations, once those
stations make any initial required moves to accommodate digital
television. Interestingly, the obligations that LPTV stations
must assume in order to qualify in some ways exceed those that
the FCC requires full-power TV stations to meet. The case in
point is the requirement that qualifying LPTV air at least 3
hours per week of programming produced within their local
markets. Many full-power stations do not meet this standard;
they are not required to. The manager of the local FOX
affiliate in our markets, a good friend of mine, his stations
are operated by one of the largest groups in the country, but
he has no local news, and essentially no local programming at
all.
As you have heard today, many low-power broadcasters, most
we know are good broadcasters, and we believe the power levels
that the FCC has allocated for full-service DTV stations will
replicate the station's existing analog coverage. The station
later decides to apply for more power, and add that small donut
of additional coverage. If that interferes with the low-power
station, we believe the FCC should have the authority to issue
a show-cause order requiring that low-power station to again
change channels if, and only if, an alternate channel providing
comparable service can be found, and the full-service station
creating the displacement agrees to pay all reasonable costs
incurred. There is precedence for this in the FM service.
That concludes my remarks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of George E. DeVault, Jr. follows:]
Prepared Statement of George E. DeVault, Jr., President, Holston Valley
Broadcasting Corporation
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure to represent Holston
Valley Broadcasting Corporation, in these hearings today. Holston is
one of a handful of television broadcasters, which operate both so-
called full power and low power TV stations. Our WKPT signed on almost
30 years ago and has always been the Tri-City, Tennessee-Virginia
market's ABC affiliate. Our principal low power TV station WAPK signed
on in 1991 and has been the local UPN affiliate since that network's
inception. Actually what we refer to as WAPK is a network of four LP
stations, each covering different parts of our market and all carrying
the exact same programming. WKPT has been a member of the NAB for
decades; WAPK has been a member of the CBA almost from that
organization's inception.
Although it is an LPTV station, we operate WAPK like any
traditional station. It telecasts local news, weather, and sports
programs and news briefs five days a week. It has produced many other
local programs, high school baseball games, one college basketball
game, two or more local parades each year, and live local candidates
debates. We have telecast locally-produced religious shows. For years
WAPK telecast the meetings of the Johnson City Commission and the
Kingsport Board of Mayor and Aldermen. Not only does WAPK carry
national programming from UPN, its syndicated offerings are among the
top shows nationally including Entertainment Tonight, Real TV, Extra,
People's Court, Touched by an Angel, and dozens more.
In addition to local sports telecasts WAPK has carried Cincinnati
Reds Baseball, the Charlotte Hornets, ACC Football and Basketball, SEC
Basketball, Tennessee Oilers games, and beginning this year the Atlanta
Braves.
Although low power stations aren't required to do so, WAPK carries
some four hours of children's educational and informational programs
each week.
WAPK's programming is carried on some 25 cable systems reaching
just under 100% of the cable-connected homes in the eight county Tri-
Cities TV metro and almost 85% of the cable-connected homes in the 17
county total TV market.
WAPK achieves modest Nielsen ratings and subscribes to the Nielsen
service. Its schedules are carried in TV Guide and in all major local
newspapers.
Holston's concern today is whether WAPK will survive in the future,
because it is a low power station and, therefore, is currently
classified as a ``secondary'' service. We have already filed a so-
called ``displacement'' application with the FCC to move to another
channel, and we're seeking channels for the three other stations in
WAPK's little network, which are also to be displaced. Changing
channels is expensive; however, we accept the need to change channels
in order to allow the development of Digital Television. At some point
before all analog signals are shut off, LPTV stations will also have
the expense of converting to digital transmission.
What we believe the LPTV industry should not face is the
possibility of having to change channels again and again and again or
the possibility of having to terminate their operations altogether,
because sometime in the future a full service station, which has
already built its digital facility, wants to increase its power, or
because the Commission decides to license another full power station,
or because the Commission decides to allow pizza delivery trucks, taxi
cab companies, and the like to become so-called ``primary'' users of
these frequencies.
The bill is now before the House, H.R. 486, will bestow ``primary''
status on qualifying LPTV stations once those stations make the
required move to accommodate digital TV. The obligations LPTV stations
must assume in order to ``qualify'' in some ways exceed those the FCC
requires ``full power'' TV stations to meet. A case in point is the
requirement that qualifying LPTV's air at least three hours per week of
programming produced within the local market. Many full power stations
don't meet that standard. The manager of the local Fox affiliate in our
market is a good friend of mine. His station is operated by one of the
nation's largest groups, but his station has no local news and
essentially no locally-produced programming at all.
I have immense respect for the NAB; for years I chaired its UHF
Committee. In fact if I had accepted the job of Vice President for TV
at NAB when I was privileged to be offered it many years ago, I
wouldn't be here today, and I'd probably have a much better retirement.
My good friend Jim May and the NAB oppose ``primary'' status for any
LPTV stations. I say to Jim and to you: LPTV broadcasters who qualify
under the proposal are good broadcasters. In many cases they are more
attuned to the problems and needs of their communities than many full
service broadcasters.
As both a full power and a low power broadcaster, I do offer
compromise between the positions taken by these two fine organizations:
The power levels the FCC has allocated for full service DTV
stations are designed to replicate such stations' existing analog
coverage. If such a station later decides to apply for more power, and
adding that small ``doughnut'' of additional digital coverage would
interfere with a qualifying LPTV station, I believe the FCC should have
the authority to issue a ``show cause'' order requiring that LPTV
station to again change channels if and only if, 1) an alternate
channel providing comparable service can be found, and 2) the full
service station agrees to pay all reasonable costs incurred including
not only the technical expense, but also such items as signage and re-
printing letterhead and business cards. There is precedent for this in
the Commission's past rulings.
That concludes my prepared remarks. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman,
for inviting me to testify at today's hearing.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much, Mr. DeVault.
And finally, Mr. Ron Bruno, General Manager of WBGN-TV in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who will supplement his testimony
with some real interesting stories about Ron Klink.
STATEMENT OF RON BRUNO
Mr. Bruno. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Members of
Congress, for the opportunity to speak to you today. I
especially would like to thank Congressman Klink and
Congressman Norwood, and their hard-working staffs for being
the lead co-sponsors of House Bill H.R. 486.
I am Ron Bruno, as you just heard, president and co-owner
of the Bruno-Goodworth Network, which operates and does
business as WBGN-TV. My partner and co-owner is Ms. Debra
Goodworth, one of the few women in this country that is a
hands-on-owner of a television broadcast property. WBGN-TV is a
group of 11 low-power stations that cover the demographic
marketing areas of Pittsburgh and Wheeling-Stuebenville. We
also own the FOX affiliate in Youngstown, Ohio, WYFX, channel
62, a low-power television station.
We began to design WBGN-TV in 1984, when we realized that
there was a need for a television voice in the small
communities that surround Pittsburgh. When we turned on our
first station, we came out of the gates running. Today, our 11
stations provide programming that fills the needs of small
communities that our station serve. We produce a daily WBGN-TV
regional highlight show that specifically examines an issue or
event of interest to each particular community. We telecast
local parades, local festivals, local affairs, and events that
our community celebrate. By far, our most successful local
programming is our award-winning high school, and college
football and basketball coverage. The Pittsburgh Post Gazette
called us a staple in western Pennsylvania high school
athletics.
This fall we will provide over 25 hours per week of local
sports coverage. Mr. Chairman, when we cover a high school
football game, it is no ordinary day for the kids and the
communities who participate. We heavily promote the upcoming
contest throughout the week on local radio, newspaper, cable
TV, and our own station. Early in the morning on game day, we
descend on a football field with productions trucks, support
trucks, cranes, camera platforms, thousands of feet of cable,
and a crew of 35 people. You only need to see the faces of the
coaches and the players when they see all of this commotion
being created over their team. They are dazed in wonderment and
excitement that a television station is actually going to pay
this much attention to their little community, and treat their
team like they are in the Superbowl.
One coach said to me that we are the best thing that
happened to local high school athletics in as long as he could
remember. This coach has been coaching for 35 years. Our games
have become so popular that now our local high school athletic
directors are petitioning our station to cover their games.
In addition to all of this programming, we provide our
community leaders with four--count them--four half-hour blocks
of time each week to discuss critical government issues. We air
5 hours per week of educational children's programming, where
only three are required. We air 70 hours per week of national
news; 15 hours per week of America's Voice Network, and 12
hours per week of syndicated entertainment programming.
We are the home of the Atlanta 10 Basketball Conference;
the CIAA Basketball Conference; the Western Athletic Football,
and Basketball Conference; the Mid-Atlantic Conference, and the
North East Conference, and we are announcing this week that we
are the television broadcast of the Pittsburgh River Hounds, a
new soccer franchise coming to Pittsburgh. We fully comply with
FCC, part 73, rules, even though we are not required to, and we
look, act, and feel like any full-power station.
The combination of digital television, public safety, and
commercial spectrum allotments has resulted in a devastating
blow to WBGN. We have been displaced on all 12 of our stations,
including the FOX affiliate in Youngstown. FCC Chairman
Kennard, with the help of staff members like Susan Fox, and Roy
Stewart, and Keith Larson, and others, made giant steps in the
6 reporting, in order to help LPTV stations find replacement
channels. Unfortunately for us at WBGN-TV, at this writing, we
have only been able to find displacement channels for 3 of our
12 stations.
Ms. Debra Goodworth and I are not wealthy people. We come
from working-class families, and neither of us has a rich
uncle. We have our life savings and financial futures at stake
with these stations. Even if we can find replacement channels
for each of these 12 stations, we may have to spend up to
$100,000 per station to find new locations, and completely
rebuild WBGN-TV. The banks simply will not lend me $1.2 million
for a network of secondary stations. It does not make sense to
spend this amount of money, only to know that we maybe replaced
again, and again, and again.
We had a reasonable expectation when we started in LPTV of
what secondary meant, and what the risks were, but to go to a
replacement channel without permanent status at this time would
be financial suicide. Low-power stations simply need permanent
status. If this legislation is passed, television viewers in
western Pennsylvania, and across the country, will reap the
rewards of securing community television in their area.
H.R. 486 will give WBGN-TV the capability to continue to
provide high-quality, local programming for all of its viewers.
Our communities love our station; in fact, they call it their
station. Sponsors pay to be on our station because the
community watches our station. Local government officials
communicate important local issues to the public through the
use of our station.
We have done our jobs as responsible broadcasters. Please,
allow us a firm ground to operate on. Please pass H.R. 486.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the Members of Congress.
[The prepared statement of Ron Bruno follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ron Bruno, President, Bruno Goodworth Network
Inc.
Thank you Chairman Tauzin and Members of Congress for the
opportunity to speak to you today. I would especially like to thank
Congressman Charlie Norwood of Georgia and Congressman Ron Klink of
Pennsylvania and their hard working staff members for being the lead
cosponsors of House Bill HR 486.
I am Ron Bruno President and co-owner of The Bruno Goodworth
Network Inc. which operates and does business as WBGN-TV. My partner
and co-owner is Miss Debra Goodworth, one of the few women in this
country that is a ``hands on'' owner of a television broadcast
property.
WBGN-TV is a group of eleven low power television stations that
simulcast and cover the Demographic Marketing Areas of Pittsburgh and
Wheeling Stuebenville. We also own the Fox affiliate in Youngstown,
Ohio, WYFX, Channel 62 an LPTV station.
WBGN-TV's group of eleven low power stations broadcast our
programming from our main station in Pittsburgh whose signal is then
repeated by our other ten stations. When conditions warrant, we can
break away from the eleven station simulcast and individual stations
can broadcast local news, information and entertainment specifically
targeted to the communities that they serve.
We began to design WBGN-TV in 1984 when we realized that there was
a need for a television voice in the small communities that surround
Pittsburgh. When we turned on our first station, we came out of the
gates running.
On our first hour of broadcast we were live with our grand opening
ceremony from the small town of Beaver, PA (pop. 9,000) where we built
our first station--Congressman Klink was our featured speaker. Later
that night we covered the biggest local high school football game in
the area. We had a total of four full hours of local community
programming on our first day of broadcast. We haven't stopped since.
Today our 11 stations provide local programming that fills the
needs of the small communities that our stations serve. We produce a
daily ``WGBN-TV Regional Highlight'' show that specifically examines an
issue or event of interest to each particular community. We telecast
local parades, festivals, fairs and events that our communities
celebrate. By far, our most successful local program is our high school
and college football and basketball coverage. The Pittsburgh Post
Gazette called us a ``staple'' in Western Pennsylvania high school
athletics. This fall we will provide over 25 hours per week of local
sports coverage.
When we cover a high school football game it is no ordinary day for
the kids who participate. We heavily promote the upcoming contest
throughout the week on local radio, newspaper and our station. Early
morning on gameday we descend on the football field with a giant
production truck, support trucks, cranes, camera platforms, 1000's of
feet of cable and a crew of 35 people. You only need to see the faces
of coaches and players when they see all of this commotion being
created over their team. They are dazed in wonderment and excitement
that a television station is actually going to pay this much attention
to their community and treat their team like they are in the superbowl.
One coach said to me that we are the best thing that happened to local
high school athletics in as long as he could remember (this coach has
been coaching for 35 years). Our games have become so popular that we
now have high school athletic directors petitioning our station to
cover their games.
In addition to this programming we provide our community leaders
with four half hour blocks of time each week to discuss critical
government issues. We air five hours per week of educational children's
programming, 70 hours per week of national news, 15 hours per week of
America's Voice Network, and 12 hours per week of syndicated
entertainment programming. We are the home of Atlantic 10 basketball,
The CIAA conference, the WAC Conference, the Mid Continent Conference
and the Northeast Conference. We are announcing this week that we are
the television broadcast home of the Pittsburgh Riverhounds, a new
soccer franchise coming to Pittsburgh. We fully comply with FCC Part 73
rules. We look, act and feel like any full power station.
The combination of DTV, Public Safety and Commercial spectrum
allocations has resulted in a devastating blow to WBGN-TV. We have been
displaced on all 12 of our stations including the Fox affiliate in
Youngstown. FCC Chairman Bill Kennard with the help of staff members
like Susan Fox, Roy Stewart, Keith Larsen and others made giant steps
in the 6th report and order to help LPTV find replacement channels.
Unfortunately for us at WBGN-TV, at this writing, we have only been
able to find displacement channels for three of our stations.
Miss Debra Goodworth and I are not wealthy people. We come from
working class families and neither of us have a rich uncle. We have our
life savings and financial future at stake with these stations. Even if
we can find replacement channels for each of these 12 stations, we may
have to spend up to $100,000 per station to find new locations and
completely rebuild WBGN-TV. The bank will not lend me $1,200,000 for a
network of ``secondary'' stations. It doesn't make sense to spend this
amount of money only to know that we may be replaced again and again
and again. We had reasonable expectations when we started in LPTV of
what ``secondary'' meant and what the risks were--but to go to a
replacement channel now without permanent status would be financial
suicide. Low power stations simply need permanent status.
The current laws seem to have abandoned the commitment made in 1981
to thousands of LPTV entrepreneurs across the country. Most owners are
not wealthy people, they are truly small businesses that just happen to
be broadcasters. The current rules and regulations are threatening to
eliminate an entire segment of the free ``over the air'' broadcast
service. This is happening in favor of powerful conglomerates that are
becoming further and further removed from the concept of community
service that has been the hall mark of Broadcasting since the
Communications Act of 1934.
If this legislation is passed as written, television viewers in
Western Pennsylvania and across the country will reap the rewards of
securing community television in their area. H.R. 486 will give WBGN-TV
the capability to continue to provide high quality local programming
for all of its viewers. Our communities love our station--in fact they
call it ``their station''. Sponsors pay to be on our station because
the community watches our local programming. Local government officials
communicate important local issues to the public through the use of our
stations. We have done our jobs as responsible broadcasters. Please
allow us firm ground to operate on--please pass H.R. 486.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of congress for your time.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much.
The Chair is also pleased to welcome Mr. Charlie Norwood of
Georgia, who is not a member of this subcommittee, but the
Chair will ask anonymous consent if Mr. Norwood could
participate with us in these hearings. Without objection, so
ordered.
Welcome, Mr. Norwood. As one of the principal sponsors of
the legislation, we are pleased to have you here, sir.
Thank you all for your testimony. The Chair will recognize
himself for a round of questions, and members in order of
appearance.
Let me, first, turn to you, Mr. Stewart. Is it likely that
LPTV stations who are unable to find replacement channels may
be required to cease operations?
Mr. Stewart. To the extent that a LPTV station cannot find
a replacement channel, there is a very good likelihood that
they may very well have to cease operations.
Mr. Tauzin. So, in the case of Mr. Bruno, where he has
found replacement for only 3 of his 12 stations, is there a
good likelihood that any, or most, of those stations will go
dark?
Mr. Stewart. Well, I would not want to say that without
sitting down with Mr. Bruno, as we have in the past, and trying
to work out some ability on the part of the Commission to
accommodate the need, because I think the critical element here
is to try to find a way to do the transition to digital
television, which has a tremendous value for the American
public, and at the same time continue to provide the service
that these gentlemen are providing in their local communities.
Mr. Tauzin. He makes a point, though, that even if you find
him a replacement channel, he may get bumped again, and he
cannot afford to. In fact, the banks will not give him $100,000
every time it happens. How do we deal with that?
Mr. Stewart. Well, I would like to see--we spent a lot of
time, Mr. Chairman, on the table of allotments, and on the
technical standards, and I am pretty much convinced that most
of the American television stations are going to be able to
replicate their service with no problem, and no real impact on
low-power television stations. We got very few reconsideration
petitions that adjusted the table as a result of the work that
we had done. We have implemented the digital television in the
major markets, and have not run afoul of concerns about impact.
Mr. Tauzin. Let me turn it around then: If it is likely
that they will not have to be replaced again, is the Commission
considering permanent status for the placements you do find for
Mr. Bruno's station?
Mr. Stewart. Yes, I think the Commission has a petition
before it, filed by the Community Broadcasters Association. The
Chairman has expressed his interest in trying to classify low-
power stations with a Class A status, to give it permanency. He
has asked the Commissioners to support that, and I expect that
we will be acting soon on that petition, for rulemaking in a
reasonably short period of time.
Mr. Tauzin. Mr. Sullivan, you want to comment?
Mr. Sullivan. I just wanted to add that the example that I
gave earlier about the two Spanish language stations here in
the District of Columbia, right now, I do not think either of
them has found replacement channels. So, it means, with the
advent of public safety, one goes away. When channel 5, the FOX
affiliate, I believe here in the District, comes on, our
channel 48 goes away, and the laws of physics allow only so
much, and so we do have some hard spots, some unresolved
issues. But then added to that--and that is what this
legislation is really about--is for those, like in Akron, who
are hanging on, so that they can spend their million dollars,
provide the service to the couple of hundred thousand folks of
that community, and not risk being knocked again.
Mr. Tauzin. Mr. May, give me a short summary, your concern
about doing that. What is your concern about legislation that
would make permanent these placement slots?
Mr. May. Mr. Chairman, I do not think we expressed as
strong a concern about the permanency of a Class A license as
we expressed a very real reservation about the timing of the
creation of that license; what protections go with that license
on an immediate basis, vis-a-vis the transition that is going
to take place for digital. Remember, that it is great that we
have got 57 channels on the air; it is great that we are going
to have 4 times 30 more markets on the air by November of this
year, but we have got 1,700 stations out there, and the vast
majority of those are not even going to begin the process of
building until the end of the year 2000 and 2001. And I do not
think anybody on the dias, or sitting at this table, or at the
Commission, can say with absolute certainty that every one of
those assignments is going to work. We want to make sure that,
if we have got this requirement to get the system up and
operating, that the Commission and broadcasters have the
flexibility to know that it is going to work seamlessly; and
that we are not going to find that broadcasters have to go
through some sort of a competing process with a newly minted
Class A licensee. As we get to that point, the way that this
bill is written, that could well be the case.
Mr. Tauzin. React to that, Mr. Sullivan. My time has
expired.
Mr. Sullivan. Okay, I guess I would like to ask Mr. May if
he believes there is any integrity in the 1,750 digital
allotments that the Commission has given. You know, are most of
these duds, or are a significant number of them duds, or are
these really channels that have integrity, where we can have
reasonable expectation that they are going to be working?
Mr. May. And the answer to that is, we hope that these are
good assignments, but I do not think any of us have that
reality yet, because this is a brand-new system; this is one
that is just getting off the ground.
Mr. Tauzin. The time of the chairman has expired. I might
point out that maybe in the legislation we may approach this
with some sort of hold-harmless concept; we may want to talk
about that.
The Chair is pleased to recognize the gentlemen from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Klink.
Mr. Klink. Thank you, and I thank the witnesses. This has
been an interesting discussion, and I want to kind of get this
straight, though, because I understand, Mr. May, who has been a
friend for a long time, I understand your point about your
making this transition, and what is going to happen. But right
now full-power stations have already been given their second
channel digital allotments, my understanding; is that correct?
Mr. May. That is accurate.
Mr. Klink. A lot of low-power stations, as we have heard,
have already been displaced; some of them have gone dark. Our
bill now, as it is constructed--and it may not be perfect, as
Mr. Tauzin has alluded to--we may have to look at some hold
harmless. No bills go through very many subcommittees and
committees that do not get changed somewhat, maybe a lot of
times, but this bill would not do anything to change the table
of digital allotments. All it would do is to provide some
protection for the low-power stations from futures
displacements. So that Mr. Bruno, or Mr. Stamler, or someone
else can go to the bank, and say, ``We are for real. We are
going to be here. We are not going to be displaced. If you lend
us the money, we are going to make a capital investment in
providing public service to the community.'' The bill would
require these stations to then prove that they do not interfere
with any other station, before they can be granted a Class A
license. So, I am having a little difficulty in trying to
figure out how that has an adverse impact on existing
broadcasters.
And, Mr. Stewart, I also was concerned about one of the
comments that you made. I want to make sure that I understood
it. You seemed to be concerned about the effect these
assignments would have on additional analog channels that have
applications pending, or maybe do not even have applications
pending. My question there is, why should a potential full-
power station have preference over a station that is already at
work in the community, providing public service?
Mr. Stewart. Congressman, these applications have been
pending for a while.
Mr. Klink. They have been broadcasting for a while.
Mr. Stewart. Okay, I think the question is then, it is a
decision for Congress to make, when it makes a value judgment
as to whether or not it is more important to keep on the air
the kinds of stations that Congressman Deal was talking about
in Georgia, that provide a real good service for their
community, as opposed to providing opportunities for new full-
service broadcast stations. It is a trade that you have to
make.
As far as the other matter you raised, what I am saying is
that I do not think, after all the effort we have put into that
table and the technical standards, that we believe that there
is going to be a lot of situations--we do not believe that
there will be a lot of situations where we are going to have
further impact of these DTV stations on the low-power stations.
And what we should do is to put a safety net into this bill
that enables the Commission, in those rare circumstances, to
make any adjustments we deem appropriate to the low-power
television service station, even if it is a Class A station.
And that way, maybe we can go on, create the Class A service,
give the Commission some flexibility to say in those few
situations--and I cannot quantify them, but we do not think
there is going to be a lot of them--that the Commission will
have some ability to be able to make some adjustments in what
we otherwise called a Class A station, perhaps changing its
contours to some extent, so that we could go on and create this
class, and the service it provides.
Mr. Klink. Let me ask you a question. My time is probably
running out. Could that adjustment that you are making,
ultimately, still be a death sentence for one of these--I mean,
what kind of adjustments are we talking about? If they are
going to the bank, and there is still the ``sword of Damocles''
hanging over their head, how in the world are they going to be
able to stay in business? How are they going to get capital to
continue to expand their operations? They still have to make
the transition to digital as well.
Mr. Stewart. First, I do not think we will have a lot of
situations like that, Congressman. And, second, I think, if we
had that flexibility from the statute, we would try to do
something that had the most diminutive impact on the operations
of those stations in terms of their future viability. I mean,
it may be adjusting their contour to make them pull back
slightly. It might not be to take them off the air.
Mr. Klink. Could we guarantee that in the language of the
law, and the language of the regulation, so there was going to
be in fact a diminutive----
Mr. Stewart. I think we could work with the committee on
determining what the appropriate language would be, to give the
Commission the flexibility it might need in those limited
circumstances, and still preserve most of the low-power
television stations, and create the Class A status.
Mr. Klink. Thank you, Mr. Stewart. Thank you.
Mr. Tauzin. You wanted to react, Mr. Sullivan?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, I would like to respond to Mr. Klink's
comments that I think CBA can work. In fact, we would be
delighted to work with the committee in terms of developing
some language that can be that safety net, because, one, I
guess I like to think of the probability of problems maybe as
the same as--there is a probability that those leaving the
Longworth today will get hit by a car walking across
Independence Avenue, but the probability is not such that the
House administration locks the door, you know, on the Longworth
Building to make sure that nobody gets hit.
So, I think that is what we have to deal with, and in
anticipation of this problem a little bit, I have developed
some language that I would like to submit for the record for
the committee today to consider. And we would be delighted to
work with committee staff, and we would be delighted to work
with Mr. May, and the FCC, in coming up with an acceptable
safety net.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much. We are pleased to accept
that suggestion, as well as any you might have in regard to how
we might work that delicate of a situation.
[The information referred to follows:]
After certification of eligibility if unforseen technical
problems arise requiring an engineering solution to a station'
allotted parameters or channel assignments in the DTV Table of
Allotments, the Commission is authorized to make such
modification to ensure replication of the digital applicants
service area as provided for in the Commission Regulations.
Mr. Tauzin. The Chair is now pleased to welcome the
gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Deal, for a line of questions.
Mr. Deal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Could anyone on the panel give me some estimate as to how
many low-power stations will be displaced with full-power
stations moving to digital?
Mr. Larson. Congressman, early studies in the DTV
proceeding at the FCC had estimated that possibly as many as 35
percent of the low-power stations in the country could possibly
be displaced.
Mr. Sullivan. That is consistent with our information, too.
Mr. Deal. What contingencies, if any, does the FCC have to
deal with that problem?
Mr. Larson. The FCC has adopted a number of relief measures
in the DTV proceeding, including providing opportunities for
displaced stations to seek replacement channels on a non-
competitive basis, granting these kind of applications the
highest priority among all of the low-power applications
considered by the Commission. It also relaxed certain
interference standards that it found to be overly restrictive,
giving low-power stations more flexibility to find other
channels; undertook a number of others measures, allowing low-
power stations, for example, to negotiate interference
agreements among each other, and there were several others.
Mr. Deal. Is it the language of the Telecom Act itself that
restricts the channel allocations that the full-power can be
assigned? In other words, why should the low-power folks be the
ones that have to go out and look for alternatives? Is it the
language of the telecom statute that gives the priority of
displacing?
Mr. Stewart. Yes, Congressman, the language is licensees
and permitees at the time that we give out the authorization,
and it was full-service licensees; it was not low-power. So
there was a deliberately----
Mr. Deal. No, you are missing my point, I think. I am
talking about when they are now given another channel
allocation for a digital broadcast.
Mr. Stewart. Yes.
Mr. Deal. Does the language of the Telecom Act itself
prescribe the channel ranges that require the displacement of
low-power?
Mr. Stewart. No, that was left, I think, to the Commission
to decide that.
Mr. Deal. If that is the case, then, and you are telling a
low-power station that is being displaced to go look for
another allocation, if there is another allocation, why should
that not be placed on the full-power station that is asking for
the allocation, rather than the other way around?
Mr. Stewart. Well, it was, first, the Congress did restrict
the ability of the Commission to use all the frequencies. For
example, the channels between 60 and 69 were taken from the
Commission for mobile safety, and to be opened up for
competitive bidding. So, we do not have that broad range. You
are suggesting that maybe Congress meant to say that the
broadcasters should have to vacate or find another channel
themselves. I am not sure that I follow your question,
Congressman.
Mr. Deal. Well, as I understood, the answer I have received
is that, if you are now looking for a digital allocation slot
for a full-power station, they come and take the allocation of
a low-power station--all right?--and it is given to them in a
preferential assignment. I then asked what is going to happen
to the low-power station. You said, ``Well, the low-power
station can then go look for some other channel allocation.''
If that is the option, why is it that the low-power has to go
look for it? Why should it not be the one who is asking in the
first place, the full-power, be required to do so?
Mr. Stewart. What we were trying to do was to make certain
that, when we assign channels for digital television, and
paired them to each present NTSC licensee, that we were able to
get channels that would replicate in terms of the height and
power the service area of the existing stations. So, that was
what drove us to pair channels, and not say that the television
licensee had to move someplace else. Well, we were looking at
your channel. We tried to figure out, based upon the table that
we developed and the technical parameters of that table, what
channel could match, if operated by you, your present coverage
area when you move to a DTV environment, and that restricted
our ability in terms of who moves to what direction.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentleman. The Chair is now pleased
to welcome the gentlelady, Ms. Cubin, for a line of questions.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As most of you know, I am new on the committee, so I have
some questions that may be very elementary. I want to start
with Mr. Stewart. I believe, you said that approximately 35
percent of the 2,100 low-powered TV stations will be displaced.
And then you said, of that--so that is about 735 stations
across the country--and then you said, of that, that very few,
let me see, that there would be very few situations--describe
what kind of----
Mr. Stewart. Beyond that, Congresswoman, in other words,
once we have made the initial assignment of licenses to pair
channels, so that the existing broadcaster could transition to
a digital channel, and then presumably return the channel that
it is operating on now back to Congress, so that we can have
auctions of that channel for various uses. Beyond the initial
35 percent cut, where we have matching channels, and it
affected low-power television stations, we do not think that
there is going to be many more situations where we are going to
find that there is going to be, to achieve the replication of
service, where there is going to be a significant impact on
more low-power television stations.
Mrs. Cubin. Then 735?
Mr. Stewart. Right, right.
Mrs. Cubin. Tell me what you mean by significant impact.
Mr. Stewart. Well, maybe I will learn not to use a word
like this in the future.
I mean, we do not think there will be enough of an impact;
that if we put some kind of a safety net into this statute,
which apparently Mr. Sullivan has suggested already, that we
will not have to use it that many times, because we think that
the table that we have developed and the technical parameters
were designed to make certain that we have a smooth transition,
from a technical point of view. I do not want to use the word
``significant'' again, but I do not think that we envisioned
that there would be a number of situations that would tie up my
resources, having to figure out what kind of changes we would
have to make.
Mr. Larson. Let me add something to what Mr. Stewart said.
Mrs. Cubin. Please do, because I was not thinking about
asking about numbers. I was asking what significant impact is,
going dark to having to change letterhead?
Mr. Larson. A significant impact could be requiring a
station to have to change its channel, because as some of the
other witnesses have testified, that can be an expensive
proposition.
Mrs. Cubin. Right.
Mr. Larson. Even more significant would be the possibility
that some stations would have to cease operating. I would like
to add, though, that there will be some low-power television
stations that will survive the transition to DTV. That is, the
impact of protecting, or being protected by these initial DTV
broadcasters, only to be faced with the possibility of being
displaced by yet a new entrant, or additional DTV stations, and
that would be another level that they would have to be
concerned about down the road.
Mrs. Cubin. Mr. Bruno, or anyone else--Mr. Sullivan--who
would like to answer it: I think that Mr. May makes a good
point about the timing, that transition does not have to been
done until 2002, and then the bands turn back 2006; and yet,
this would take place relatively soon. Would you respond to
that for me? To me, that is a legitimate point.
Mr. Sullivan. So, you are suggesting basically that maybe
we should consider----
Mrs. Cubin. I am just saying, what do you think about that?
Mr. Sullivan. What do I think about it? I think what it
does is that it provides the opportunity for HTV in Houma,
Louisiana to be displaced again, and again, and again. It
provides that same opportunity in Mr. Norwood's district, in
Mr. Deal's district, and in Laramie, Wyoming. Your station can
be bumped again during that timeframe, and when you do $100,000
a pop on these low-power stations, and how many times can they
handle being displaced; or why can not they develop the way
they should in Akron, Ohio? Again, a half a million population,
I mean, I should say, half a congressional district population
in Akron.
Mrs. Cubin. Mr. Chairman, I see my time is up, but I just
have one question. What was the safety net language that you
offered for the record?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, it is probably more garbled than
lawyers would like.
Mrs. Cubin. Then just give me the simple English.
Mr. Sullivan. What it does basically is, in the FCC
testimony, they talked about these unforeseen problems, and I
think that is a keyword. Right now they believe there is
integrity in the allotments. The NAB believes there is less
integrity, I think--is this correct, Jim?--than the FCC would
be inclined. So, what we want to do is where, if there are some
serious engineering problems that develop within the allotment
of any of the 1,750 allocations that have been made, that it
would provide the flexibility to the Commission to make what
change was necessary to make sure that the broadcaster could
equal 100 percent of the replication with their DTV channel,
100 percent of the replication of the operating NTSC channel.
Mrs. Cubin. So, you cannot see any room for compromise on
the timing aspect?
Mr. Sullivan. I think, no. I think that we would have to
oppose that, and oppose that very vigorously, because if we
have this kind of safety net language in there, the Commission
has that flexibility to correct the problem for 1, 5, or 50
stations, and we do not have to put the entire low-power
industry on hold----
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Mr. Sullivan.
Mr. Sullivan. [continuing] facing the risks of these
additional displacements.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentlelady. The Chair is now
pleased to recognize our guest. Charlie, the rules of the House
require that guests go last, so this was not personal. If it is
any consolation, Mr. Stamler and his wife went 3 years without
a paycheck, putting their station together. It was a lot easier
on you, Mr. Norwood.
Mr. Norwood. Mr. Chairman, I certainly do abide by the
rules. I am just grateful that you allowed me to have an
opportunity to come before your fine committee.
Mr. Tauzin. We are glad to have you.
Mr. Norwood. Mr. Stewart, you have read over H.R. 486?
Mr. Stewart. Yes.
Mr. Norwood. You understand what we are trying get at
there?
Mr. Stewart. Yes.
Mr. Norwood. Is there anything in the law today that would
prevent you from taking care of this problem without us passing
this bill?
Mr. Stewart. I think there is a petition before the
Commission, filed by the Community Broadcasters Association. My
Bureau is actively involved in working with the Commissioners
on the content of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, raising a
lot of the issues we have been talking about. What is the
effect down the road, if you want to auction off this digital
spectrum, and provide money to the Treasury, in terms of its
impact on any Class A stations that are provided for?
Mr. Norwood. Can you fix the problem without us passing
this bill?
Mr. Stewart. I would like the opportunity to try.
Mr. Norwood. Any reason you think you could not?
Mr. Stewart. The Commission is a congenial body, and it has
to work together, and I would hope that we would be able to do
that. The Chairman has certainly encouraged the Commissioners
to seek--to adopt rules that would provide this type of Class A
protection.
Mr. Norwood. Can you adapt rules before 2002? Well, some
folks can around here cannot.
Mr. Stewart. I am sorry?
Mr. Tauzin. I think he wants to know if you are a high-
powered or low-powered Commission.
Mr. Norwood. I want to know if you can fix the problem, or
if you are willing to fix the problem, and if so, how soon?
Mr. Stewart. Well, I would hope that the Commission will
act reasonably soon. The Chairman said he would like to do it
as soon as possible. He has encouraged the Commissioners to do
it. The Bureau is working with the Commission now. There are,
in fairness, a whole host of issues that we have not explored
this afternoon, sitting here; we have only talked about
replication of digital television signals, and the impact on
low-power Class A. There are these future applications, and
what happens to them. I think that we can do it. I think the
Chairman would like the opportunity to do it, and, I would----
Mr. Norwood. Does it speed you up any as we get more co-
sponsors?
Mr. Stewart. I think the answer to that is yes.
Mr. Norwood. Well, Mr. Sullivan, part of the problem, as I
understand it is, has to do with financing of low-power, and I
certainly can understand, and have been explained to very
clearly in my district, about low-power, how it is an untenable
situation for you to try to run a small business--one, by the
way, that brings a lot of jobs in our districts; that many
communities in our district appreciate what you do very much.
It is not that we do not want to watch Mr. May's stations; we
do, but we appreciate those things that you do, too. But it is
so hard for you to grow and get better, because the bankers do
what?
Mr. Sullivan. What do the bankers do? I think the president
of our association, Sherwin Grossman, stated it best as he both
developed a number of television stations as well as chartered
a series of banks, and he made a comment 1 day that, if he had
a loan officer that would loan, make a loan to a low-power
station, he would fire him on the spot.
Mr. Norwood. Because he----
Mr. Sullivan. Because--probably because--he knew that the
bank examiner would close his door next time the bank examiner
came, when he saw that loan.
Mr. Norwood. You mean, you are not a good investment
because the Federal Government may take your business out from
under you tomorrow? Is that what that means?
Mr. Sullivan. Oh, it can take it out tomorrow, but, again,
can take it out repeatedly. I mean, Mr. Oxley's constituents
just paid $75,000 to $100,000 to re-channel FOX 67 out down to
FOX 25. That part of the country is--which is not that far from
Mr. Sawyer's area--really spectrum scarce now. You get bumped
in that area, and the probability of finding another channel is
really very, very limited.
Mr. Norwood. That is why we cannot wait to 2002; we need to
get it done by summer, if we can.
Mr. Stewart. I will convey that message to the Chairman, as
I am sure the chairman of the subcommittee will, also.
Mr. Norwood. Mr. May, you go co-sponsoring our bill yet?
Mr. May. Mr. Norwood, I do not think we will see our names
on there as co-sponsors of you legislation, but I----
Mr. Norwood. But you will get by all right if we pass it,
will you not?
Mr. May. Well, sir, I think we would like to see some
changes made to it, or changes made to what the Commission is
considering. You know, I might want to go so far out on a limb
as to suggest that a lot of this would not be a problem. I
think Mr. Sullivan, Mr. DeVault, and Dr. Stamler, and others,
would agree, if the Congress in its rush to generate a whole
lot of cash had not tried to auction off 67 to 69, then a lot
of this would not be even a problem today.
Mr. Norwood. Mr. Chairman, I see the red light, and I will
certainly abide by that, but I am very grateful to you for
giving me a few minutes. I have a few other questions, if I
could submit in writing?
Mr. Tauzin. Not a problem.
Mr. Norwood. Thank you, sir, and one of them is, how do you
spell ``Kasich?''
Mr. Tauzin. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Vito Fossella,
is here. Line of questions for you?
Mr. Fossella. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you for coming, Vito.
Mr. Bruno wanted to respond.
Mr. Bruno. I would just like to try to explain a practical
situation with our 12 TV stations--to kind of put this into
perspective, what I may have to go through from now to the year
2002. For me to go out and get a $1.2 million loan to replace
all of my 12 television stations puts me out of about $20,000 a
month on loan over 5 years. The year 2002 is only assuming that
I have $20,000 of profit, which I do not, that I can invest in
that debt service. If I get bumped between now and the year
2002 again, and who knows how many times that would be, that
would be another $20,000 per month; we are up to $40,000. If I
get bumped a second time, that I have to take from profits of
our station, which I certainly do not make $40,000 a month of
profit, to pay off that debt service, because I keep getting
bumped around.
So in a practical sense, the bank says no to me, ``Ron
Bruno, you get permanent, and then we will give you the money,
but until you are permanent, forget it.''
Mr. Tauzin. Of course, the question was for us, if you do
get permanent, can you get those loans?
Mr. Bruno. I believe if we are permanent, we can get a
combination of loan and investment, and continue.
Mr. Stamler. Mr. Chairman, about 10 years ago, we invited
the low-power television branch to visit our television station
in Woodstock, which I say is about 1\1/2\ hours west of
Washington, DC.
Mr. Tauzin. That is not the Woodstock of----
Mr. Stamler. Not at all. They are not the same.
Mr. Tauzin. That is the one off of Interstate 81.
Mr. Stamler. That is the one. I would like to extend that
same invitation to the subcommittee, to come and see what a
working low-power television station looks like. A lot of you
people probably have never been there. Your committee and its
staff, you are more than welcome to come up and see that we are
real.
Mr. Tauzin. That is very kind of you. I want you to know
that I have been in low-power stations, and actually
participated in some programming there. So I am well acquainted
with it. Mr. Sullivan has made sure that we are well acquainted
with our low-power stations at home.
Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Chairman, I understand that you have even
done some Cajun cooking on HTV?
Mr. Tauzin. Much to my shame, I have.
Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Chairman, but the constituents love it.
Mr. Tauzin. Mr. Norwood.
Mr. Norwood. I cannot help but note or tell Mr. Stamler, if
we have anything to do with it, if we are going to check out a
low-power station, it is going to be in either Louisiana or
Georgia; I can tell you that right now.
Mr. Tauzin. I want to get a couple of responses before we
wrap up. Mr. Stewart asked us to focus on three sections of the
bill: one dealing with the protections from interference. None
of you responded to that. I would like to get a response to any
of his concerns. What exactly is your concern there, Mr.
Stewart?
Mr. Stewart. Well, the statute would provide that the
protection of the contours of the Class A stations would come
in a very early period of time, while we still have
applications pending for new stations, while we have not
finished the replication applications for digital television
being filed. And the concern that we have, we are not sure what
the impact may be. We do not think it is going to be
significant, but that raises this idea of putting in some kind
of a safety net, so we can deal with these situations, if they
arise, because the language in the statute is rather
categorical.
Mr. Tauzin. Yes, so the question is, if I can summarize, in
the section of a bill that provides for interference
protection, is it possible to have some sort of safety net
protection, as some of the Commission's decisions come down?
And I just ask you to think about that and respond to us,
either now or in writing.
Mr. Sullivan. Okay, we are fully prepared to make a
combination as a safety net, to make sure that we can do
everything possible to preserve the integrity of the 1,750
digital allotments. You know, digital, everybody wants digital
to work; we want it to work.
Mr. Tauzin. I think I heard that rather clearly, but we
need to see in language what might accomplish that.
Second, the Commission indicated that they were concerned
that section 3(b) precludes the FCC from using competitive
bidding to select among competing Class A designation
applications. We have been through comparative license renewals
and comparative license processes, and I think the FCC is
probably still in court over a lot of those. We got away from
that and went to competitive bidding, in order to literally get
away from the green mailing, and the lawsuits, and everything
else, that were literally associated with that process. I do
not want to go back to it, frankly. I do not think anybody in
this Commission--I know the vice chairman, Mr. Oxley, was very
instrumental in the bidding process, the auction process; would
be very apposed to going back to it.
What is your answer? Why is that in the bill, and how do
you resolve it, if you take that out of the bill? If it is not
a bidding process, how do you settle competing applications?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, we agree with the FCC that maybe the
provision that is in the bill, that Mr. Norwood agreed to add,
is not perfect, and needs to be looked at, but it is not a
happy day when you can put 2 or 3 broadcasters head to head
against one another who are secondary status.
Mr. Tauzin. Well, think of----
Mr. Sullivan. You know, so how much are they inclined to
bid, when they do not know if a week down the road after they
win the bidding, and pay the money, that they are even going to
continue to hold the channel.
Mr. Tauzin. If you are going to get a Class A permanent
license, it may be worth bidding for, but the bottom line is
that we need some resolution of this. To leave it with no
bidding process, and no resolution of how to settle it, is not
going to be acceptable, and I would suggest that all the
parties be thinking about a respectable solution before we move
legislation.
Mr. Sullivan. Okay.
Mr. Tauzin. Let me turn to the third concern that the FCC
has raised, and that is, that it exempts Class A stations from
ownership rules that apply to full-service stations. Now, let
me be candid, Mr. Stewart, I am not particularly enamored of
the ownership rules at the FCC. And, as you know, I have
petitioned the FCC personally, and a lot of other members, to
strongly consider revising those rules, and rapidly, at least
within the biennial review process required by law to do so. Is
there a message there? I hope so.
Mr. Stewart. I heard it.
Mr. Tauzin. In any respect, his concern is, if there is a
rule, shouldn't it apply equally to Class A stations, as to
full-service stations? Would you please respond?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes. We are different from full-power in the
sense that we are local, community broadcasters, as opposed to
regional or big market broadcasters, and this was in the bill
primarily----
Mr. Tauzin. But let me stop you. If you have got a
permanent license, you become something else.
Mr. Sullivan. Oh, I understand, but we are still----
Mr. Tauzin. If you get a permanent license, should not you
be subject to the same rules as the other permanent license-
holders in the community? Why not?
Mr. DeVault, you have got them both. Please tell me, what
is the difference?
Mr. DeVault. I would say, why not--because the low-power
station has now, and would continue to have, much more limited
coverage than the full-power station.
Mr. Tauzin. But, what has this got to do with the purpose
of, and the continuation of, these ownership restrictions? You
understand, I have problems justifying the continuation of
these ownerships personally----
Mr. DeVault. I know you do.
Mr. Tauzin. But if you have got to have them, and if they
exist, why shouldn't they apply to someone with a broader
coverage as opposed to someone with smaller coverage? After
all, they apply to stations in Lafayette and New York
simultaneously. I suspect a broader coverage is in New York
than in Lafayette, Louisiana. What is the difference here?
Mr. DeVault. I think if more full-power stations had looked
to the possibility of developing low-power stations to serve
there in close communities, instead of trying to lease out, or
whatever, someone else's full-service television station, we
probably would not be fighting this battle today.
Mr. Tauzin. I haven't heard a good answer yet, but I want
you to keep thinking about it, and come back to me because I
need a good answer here.
Mr. DeVault. Okay.
Mr. Tauzin. Mr. Stamler.
Mr. Stamler. Mr. Chairman, we are Shenandoah County, which
is a lengthy county that requires four channels to cover it. If
we were restricted to only one channel in ownership for
Shenandoah County, we could not do it.
Mr. Tauzin. Mr. Stewart.
Mr. Stewart. We do not have any restrictions now. You can
own seven low-power stations in your city, and a TV station, a
full-service TV station, can own you. But if we elevate you to
something other than a secondary service, then the concern we
might have is that a full-service television station may buy
you, and we lose the localism that you had. They will control
your programming, and normally we would not let you own--and I
will say this quietly, Mr. Chairman--two TV's in the same city.
Mr. Tauzin. Oh, God forbid.
Mr. Stewart. But, so that is the concern that I am looking
at, that if you get elevated to a new class, that a full-
service licensee then could own this elevated new class, unlike
its ability to own a secondary service that may get knocked off
the air; and a new class that is going have all the
responsibilities, hopefully, that a full-service television
station had, so that you can get the recognition there.
Mr. Tauzin. Let me just jump in here and tell you, we have
the same problem in financial institutions. You know, we got a
law that tried to separate security businesses from banking
businesses, and the marketplace began to merge the two, and now
we made special classes out of one and the other, and some
became special targets of acquisition. The point Mr. Stewart is
making is, are you are going to become special targets of
acquisition, as a full license operator, by a full-power
station, because owning you is a way to avoid the ownership
rules that they might have if they bought any other station?
Mr. DeVault?
Mr. DeVault. Well, as I understand it, and I pointed out in
my testimony, the requirements for local program origination
that are in this bill for local low-power stations that are
seeking Class A status are requirements that do not even apply
to full-service stations. And if a low-power station gained
Class A status, it is my understanding that station would have
to continue to comply with that requirement on into the future.
It couldn't just gain the status, and then stop doing the local
programming.
Mr. Tauzin. Mr. Norwood wanted to jump in here.
Mr. Norwood. Well, I just wanted to make a point that there
are restrictions on low-power now that are not on full-power. I
wonder, if Mr. May wants to buy any low-power stations--I do
not think there is any reason they cannot own them, if they
want to.
But back to you, Mr. Stewart, the perfect----
Mr. Tauzin. I have got to jump in here. You had made Mr.
May both a Member of Congress and now a television station
owner, which I am not sure you really want----go ahead.
Mr. Norwood. Well, you have got my meaning.
Mr. Stewart, the purpose of the ownership restrictions is
for what?
Mr. Stewart. To encourage diversity of ownership and view
point in the community, and to make certain that there is a
competitive balance in the community in terms of not being able
to dominate the advertising market. The Commission's ownership
rule----
Mr. Norwood. You do not want any media monopolies out
there?
Mr. Stewart. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Norwood. And, I do not know, what you mean by
diversity. What does that mean?
Mr. Stewart. Well, the theory would be that the--here I go
again, Mr. Chairman--that the widest dissemination of ownership
in terms of a community may provide the opportunity for
divergent viewpoints. So that the more ownership sources you
have, or programming sources in terms of stations, if you have
separately owned stations, you have more of a chance of having
more diversity of viewpoint. And if the full-service station
can buy out its competition by buying that new Class A low-
power television station, I am not sure that is good for the
community. I do not know what the full-service station might do
to Doug Jensen's Class A station, once it buys it, if Doug lets
it go. You might lose something about its talent that it has
when Doug has it----
Mr. Norwood. You aren't worried about monopolies in low-
power, though, are you?
Mr. Stewart. No.
Mr. Norwood. Are you concerned that any of these men may
cover 8 counties rather than 2?
Mr. Stewart. You can own as many low-power television
stations--there is no national limit. You can own as many
locally. But once we elevate it to something different, that
makes it like a full-service station, then I think there maybe
some value in looking at the ownership rules and saying, wait a
minute, we do not want the television stations in the city to
buy all these new Class A stations up, and perhaps change what
they do in terms of the programming.
Mr. Norwood. Mr. Chairman, you got it right. Rather than us
raising the threshold of ownership rules for low-power, why do
not we go in there and lower the threshold for ownership rules
for full-power, and we might get this thing a little balanced?
Mr. Tauzin. In fact, Mr. Norwood, we will have this another
day, but I would love to know, Mr. Stewart, why it is that
cable companies can consolidate in communities? There used to
be 3, 4, or 5 cable companies in Los Angeles, and it is
gradually becoming just one. And as they are consolidating,
buying out each other in each other's community, and becoming a
bigger market power and a single voice in the community for
advertisers, why is that permitted, and why are television
stations subject to these ownership rules? We will get to that
discussion 1 day, but solving that riddle might help us solve
Mr. Norwood's riddle of equal treatment to the low-power
stations.
It has been a very good hearing. Let me thank you, Mr.
Norwood. Thank you for participating.
I would thank the panelists. I have asked you to respond to
us with more information and suggestions. Please don't miss
that opportunity. Before we go forward with this bill, I would
like to examine whether some of the real concerns Mr. Stewart
has raised, Mr. May has raised, regarding the timing, and the
concerns you have raised regarding financing, if there is not
someway to accommodate all those concerns simultaneously. As
you know, that is always our wish. We do not like to pick
winners and losers out there. We would like see everybody
flourish in this marketplace, if possible.
Thank you very much for your attention and you
contributions. The hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4.02 p.m. the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Community Broadcasters Association
April 15, 1999
Honorable Billy Tauzin
Chairman
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Commerce
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman: We are grateful for the opportunity to
participate in your April 13 hearing on the Regulatory Status of Low
Power Television Licenses. It helped us get a better sense of issues of
importance to you and your colleagues on the Subcommittee. We also
found it very helpful to be at the same table with spokesmen from the
Commission and NAB. At the end of the hearing you asked that we respond
to the four concerns raised by the FCC in their testimony. We are
pleased to have the opportunity to do that. We will discuss them in the
order they appeared on pages 7-9 of their testimony.
1. Beginning on page 7, the Commission expressed concern that class
A status could constrain them from ``authorizing new analog television
service for which applications are pending.''
CBA would like to share with the Subcommittee our understanding of
this issue. While rumors were in the air for approximately six months
before any official statement, in June 1996, the Commission announced
that as of September 20, 1996, it would not accept further applications
for full power analog stations. It is our understanding that during
this ten month period, a significant majority of the estimated 800
applications were filed for these new full power analog stations. Since
many of the applicants filed for the same or conflicting channels, the
total number of planned new grants is approximately 300. The Commission
has already granted some of these new assignments, with the result of
displacing low power stations in their communities of service.
If the Congress would choose to give priority to these new
applicants, over existing class A eligible stations, this puts at risk
all the community stations, plus many others, that CBA discussed in
their testimony before the Subcommittee. We agree completely with Mr.
Deal's assessment of this issue. He asked the FCC spokesman, if he were
being asked to choose between his local station in Dalton versus a
pending application, whose programming and commitment to the community
he knew nothing about''?
Many of the class A eligible stations have investments in the
hundreds of thousands of dollars, some more than a million dollars in
their community based stations. These investments and their commitment
to their communities came well before the hugely significant DTV,
public safety and commercial spectrum reallocation decision of the mid-
1990s. The ``last opportunity'' rush for analog stations came after
most of these investments. The engineering and legal costs associated
with these applications are minuscule in comparison to those of the
class A eligible operating stations.
In a July 27, 1998 letter to Senator Ford and others on the Senate
Commerce Committee, Chairman Kennard concluded a discussion on this
issue with the statement, ``I note this issue for your consideration.''
He included no recommendation to the Senate Commerce Committee. CBA
believes that this is a public policy not regulatory issue. We believe
it's not only within the purview of the Congress but one that needs to
be decided by the Congress. The outcome of this issue is of critical
importance to prospective class A licensees and their unserved and
underserved communities throughout the United States.
2. The Commission also expressed concern that there is insufficient
flexibility in H.R. 496 to address future, unforeseen engineering
problems that may arise during the digital transition.
Subcommittee members and panelists discussed this problem at some
length and suggested the addition of some type of ``safety net''
provision that would provide needed flexibility. CBA can support a
safety net concept but wants to be certain that its use is limited to
documented, engineering problems that need resolution to ensure
utilization of replicated allotments. CBA proposes the following
modification to H.R. 486:
At the end of Sec. (f)(1) add the following--
``If after granting certification of eligibility or a class A
license, unforeseen technical problems arise requiring an engineering
solution to a station's allotted parameters or channel assignment in
the digital television Table of Allotments, the Commission is
authorized to make such modifications, as necessary, to ensure
replication of the digital television applicant's service area, as
provided for in 47 CFR Sec. 622.''
3. The Commission also expressed significant concern about a
proposed amendment to the auction authority contained in Sec. 309(j)(2)
of the Communication's Act. The Commission properly characterized this
amendment stating that it would ``prevent the FCC from using
competitive bidding in deciding among mutually exclusive applications
where one or more of the applicants is a qualified class A licensee or
a translator service rebroadcasting the signal of a primary service
station within its designated market area.''
CBA is sympathetic to these concerns and is prepared to seek
alternative solutions with the Subcommittee and the Commission. But we
want to emphasize that there is a real problem that needs a solution.
In the first three months of the Commission's 1998 Displacement
Relief program for low power broadcasters and translator stations, the
Commission received more than 1,200 applications for new channel
assignments. Approximately, 300 of these applications were mutually
exclusive. Applicants were notified and a few found engineering
solutions which were most commonly alternative channel assignments.
Many remain unresolved due to the scarcity of spectrum available after
the DTV, public safety and commercial allocations.
Providing local television service to unservered and underserved
rural and urban communities is the cornerstone of this legislation. In
those communities, and there are many, where there is insufficient
spectrum available to accommodate multiple displacement applications,
choices have to be made. CBA struggles with the concept that the
deepest pockets determine the outcome. The practical reality is that
some of the displaced stations are those who are providing significant
levels of local programming in their markets and doing just what this
legislation is seeking to encourage and preserve. Some others serve as
translators rebroadcasting distant signals. In many instances, the
translators carrying the distant signals are part of larger operations,
whose financial capabilities far exceed those of the local
broadcasters.
The end result of an auction is known before it begins. The low
power broadcaster is frequently offered some small compensation to go
away. This is usually accepted because the local service licensee knows
there is no chance of victory in an auction. This removes the need for
an auction. The government never realizes its revenue objectives. And
most importantly, another local broadcaster has disappeared from an
underserved community. While we know that is not the purpose of the
auction authority, CBA believes the Congress must reconcile these
market place realities for low power broadcast stations with statutory
directives.
CBA can accept that the provision in H.R. 486 may need some
revision. However, we remain deeply committed to finding a solution
better than what is currently available in Sec. 309(j) of the
Communications Act.
4. The Commission also expressed concern with Sec. (f)(3) ``common
ownership'' provisions of this legislation. This concern is based on
the possibility that full power television licensees might acquire low
power stations as second outlets in their markets, where they are
precluded from owning two full power stations. This has the effect of
eliminating the benefits of ownership diversity, and local ownership
and management participation that mark the low power industry today.
While acquisition of low power stations in the same market could be
of concern, ownership of other media that generate cash flow or provide
an asset to serve as security for financing has been an important
element in making possible the establishment of some of the most
prominent locally-owned low power stations that provide extensive local
service today. CBA strongly believes that these stations should not be
precluded from receiving the benefits of class A status.
To avoid areas of future concern, while not depriving existing
stations of the benefit of this legislation, CBA proposes that Sec.
(f)(3) be modified as follows (italic portion is added):
(3) COMMON OWNERSHIP--No low power television station, authorized
as of the effective date of this Act, shall be disqualified for a class
A license based on common ownership with any other medium of mass
communications.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide additional information.
If you have any questions or need further information, please call me
or Mike Sullivan.
Sincerely,
Sherwin Grossman
President, CBA
cc: Chairman Tom Bliley
Congressman John Dingell
Congressman Ed Markey
Congressman Charlie Norwood
Congressman Ron Klink
______
National Association of Broadcasters Responses for the Record
Question: You suggest in Talking Points to State Associations that
``Crowding LPTV stations into a limited number of vacant channels would
create greater interference for both analog and digital television
receivers.''
Aren't there two things wrong with this statement:
a) I thought Section 7 of this legislation precludes the FCC from
granting any Class A licenses that would create interference for either
analog or DTV stations. Isn't that correct?
b) If they are vacant, can't LPTV apply for these and use them
whether they are Class A, or not Class A? As I understand this
legislation, it's not about using vacant channels but about securing
channels so that Class A broadcasters can make the necessary investment
to operate these stations. What do I misunderstand?
c) If there is crowding, this bill doesn't change a thing about
current LPTV regulations, allowing the FCC to move or cancel any LPTV
license that poses a problem.
Answer: a) Talking Point sheet addressed the original ``Community
Broadcasting Protection Act of 1997'' (S. 1427) as introduced on
November 7, 1997. The original incarnation of the bill did not appear
to provide any interference protection at all. On October 12, 1998,
Senator McCain introduced an amendment to S. 1427 that effectively
struck the prior language and substituted new language that included a
``no interference'' section. That language appears virtually verbatim
in H.R. 486.
However, the ``no interference'' language does not provide
interference protection to NTSC stations that may have applications for
modifications that are pending at the Commission and to DTV stations
that have applied for service area modifications. We addressed this in
written testimony for the Low Power Television Hearing as our fourth
point of concerns regarding the current legislation.
Further, regardless whether the bill now precludes interference
from Class A licenses in some instances, the statement itself is a true
statement. By placing LPTV stations in vacant channels, whether by
desire or necessity to avoid displacement, interference can result to
the existing stations and potentially to the digital stations yet to be
built. It is a matter of physics.
b) One of the major problems with the legislation is that it would
allow the ``securing'' of channels by LPTV stations before the DTV
transition is completed. As drafted, the legislation would provide
primary status to qualified LPTV stations and without the proper
protections to existing NTSC TV stations and unbuilt DTV stations.
Currently, there may be NTSC stations with pending modification
applications. Also, there is a need to keep as much flexibility as
possible for DTV stations if there should be a need for adjustments
during the transition. It is not logical to threaten the DTV transition
before it has a chance to get off the ground.
c) The LPTV rules and regulations have always imposed a secondary
status on LPTV stations. This bill would change this status--by
providing LPTV stations with primary spectrum use. The FCC, during the
DTV proceeding, has tried to take into account the concerns of LPTV
stations. Unfortunately, until full service DTV stations are
substantially settled, there is simply not enough flexibility to
accommodate LPTV stations and even TV translators.
Question: You state in many written documents that this legislation
goes against the initial FCC ruling that established LPTV stations? You
say, correctly, that LPTV owners knew that their licenses were
temporary and could be revoked at any time. Is this a correct
assessment of your position?
If so, please explain this as justification for the Congress not to
reconsider creating a new class of licenses as H.R. 486 does. Because,
as I see it, the stations that would qualify for Class A licenses under
this bill would have program requirements that are even more stringent
than the ones placed on your members. To qualify for a license under
H.R. 486, low-power stations would have to broadcast at least 18 hours
a day and broadcast at least 3 hours of local programming.
Can all of your members meet this requirement? If not, why would
you object to creating a new class of licenses for stations that do,
especially considering the service, jobs and revenue these stations
provide to local communities?
Answer: NAB opposes the establishment of a new class of TV licenses
that would harm the transition to DTV. At this time, it would be unwise
to provide primary status to LPTV stations--even if they meet the
qualifications in the legislation. Congress has set a national policy
that America's TV stations will transition to digital broadcasting, and
the vast majority of stations will do so by 2002--as long as nothing
impedes this process. LPTV stations have always been a secondary
service. Although many LPTV stations may provide an important service
to their viewers, the fact remains that it is the full service TV
stations that consumers depend on. Now is not the time to place
roadblocks in the way of the DTV transition. Once the DTV dust settles,
the FCC can determine how best to accommodate the LPTV stations.
______
WAPK-TV
May 11, 1999
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin
Chairman
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Commerce
Room 2125
Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6115
Dear Chairman Tauzin: I want to again thank you for inviting me to
testify before the Subcommittee on April 13 on the subject of the
Regulatory Classification of Low Power Television Licensees. It was a
pleasure to discuss our company's experiences with its WAPK-LP ``UPN/
30.'' As I stated in verbally supplementing my written testimony, when
I wrote that testimony I was unaware that in some thirty-four TV
markets around the U.S., the UPN affiliate is an LPTV operation rather
than a full power station!
Following our initial testimony you invited each witness to send to
you any supplemental comments. Mine are presented herewith.
Perhaps the greatest surprise to me in the subject hearings was the
inclusion in the testimony of the representatives of the National
Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) of the suggestion that the FCC might have to carefully
consider counting any LPTV station, which achieves the proposed primary
status, as a ``real'' TV station for purposes of the Commission's
multiple ownership rules. You and I share the belief that this
suggestion was a particularly surprising one for NAB to make, given
that organization's consistent efforts to achieve deregulation of
existing multiple ownership restrictions involving radio stations, TV
stations, and daily newspapers in a given market.
When you asked during the hearings for my comment on this point, I
stated that I believed the fact that an LPTV station, which would
qualify for primary status under the proposal, would have to air each
week several hours of programming originated within its market--a
requirement which does not presently exist even for full power TV
stations--was sufficient to exempt the LPTV station from being counted
the same as a full power station for multiple ownership purposes.
A second reason I believe such stations should be exempted is the
fact that LPTV stations presently licensed to parties who are also
licensees of one or more radio stations and/or a full power TV station,
and/or are the owner of a daily newspaper in the same local market, are
among the best examples in America of excellent LPTV broadcasters, who
serve their audiences with superior local public affairs, public
service, and news programming and other local program features.
How unfair it would be to force the divesture of any station by
local broadcasters and newspaper owners, who complied fully with both
the spirit and the letter of the multiple ownership rules when they
built their LPTV stations! Frankly it would send a message to such
entrepreneurs that the way to really get ahead in the local TV station
business is not to build what has always been indisputably legal under
the multiple ownership rules, but instead to resort to what many in our
industry would call ``skirting the rules'' by entering into time
brokerage agreements or ``local marketing agreements'' (LMA's) in order
to be able to effectively operate not only the full power television
station for which one holds a license, but a second or third ``LMA'd''
full power station as well!
I understand that the Community Broadcasters Association (CBA) has
suggested a change in the language of the subject bill, which would in
effect ``grandfather'' those existing LPTV licensees, who have LPTV or
radio, full power TV, or daily newspaper interests or multiple LPTV
interests in their markets, so that they would not have their primary
status LPTV stations counted by the Commission in making multiple
ownership determinations.
Finally, a third reason I believe qualifying primary status LPTV
stations should not be counted for multiple ownership purposes relates
to cable and is perhaps the most significant reason of all. Almost
seven out of every ten American households receive their local TV
stations via cable; yet even under the proposed law almost no LPTV
stations--regardless of status--would enjoy the supreme privilege all
full power stations enjoy (even if they don't originate one minute of
local programming each week), ``must carry'' on area cable systems.
Given the resistance the full power TV industry and the NAB have
encountered in their attempt to assure ``must carry'' status for the
federally-mandated digital stations each full service licensee must put
on the air by May, 2002, I assume that the NAB would vigorously oppose
``must carry'' for primary status LPTV stations, regardless of what
other local media interests their licensees may have, just as NAB has
opposed almost every thing else positive for LPTV and despite the
praise that Association's testimony heaped upon the LPTV industry and
the local service it provides.
At the risk of seeming to be ``self-serving'' (our company has
full-service [UHF] TV, LPTV, and radio in the same market) and with all
things considered, we agree that ``grandfathering'' is the best
solution. There is ample precedent for this. I believe the history of
the broadcasting industry in this country (the almost 38 years I've
been in the business personally and the 41 years preceding, which I
have studied with some intensity) will reveal that the only instance in
which ``grandfathering'' was not allowed when ownership restrictions
were tightened was when the FCC or its predecessor The Federal Radio
Commission (FRC) ruled back in the '30's or '40's that one owner could
not own more than one ``standard broadcast station'' in the same
market. That was at a time when ``standard broadcast stations'' were
all AM stations. There was essentially no FM or TV then (nor was there
any cable TV, DBS, MDS, MMDS, etc.).
I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the privilege and honor of
testifying before the Subcommittee.
Sincerely,
Houston Valley Broadcasting Corporation
George E. DeVault, Jr.
President
cc: Mike Sullivan, Executive Director
Community Broadcasters Association,
St. Cloud, MN
Roy Stewart, Chief, Mass Media Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC
Jim May, Executive Vice President
National Association of Broadcasters
Washington, DC