[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 3670, THE ANTI SPOOFING ACT OF 2013; H.R. _____, THE LPTV AND
TRANSLATOR ACT OF 2014; AND H.R. ____, THE
E LABEL ACT
======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 24, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-166
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
92-674 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
JOE BARTON, Texas Ranking Member
Chairman Emeritus JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania ANNA G. ESHOO, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
LEE TERRY, Nebraska GENE GREEN, Texas
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania LOIS CAPPS, California
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
Vice Chairman JIM MATHESON, Utah
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana JOHN BARROW, Georgia
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio DORIS O. MATSUI, California
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi Islands
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey KATHY CASTOR, Florida
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky JERRY McNERNEY, California
PETE OLSON, Texas BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia PETER WELCH, Vermont
CORY GARDNER, Colorado BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas PAUL TONKO, New York
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
BILLY LONG, Missouri
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina
7_____
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
Chairman
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio ANNA G. ESHOO, California
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
LEE TERRY, Nebraska DORIS O. MATSUI, California
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee PETER WELCH, Vermont
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CORY GARDNER, Colorado BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois JIM MATHESON, Utah
BILLY LONG, Missouri G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex
JOE BARTON, Texas officio)
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 4
Hon. Michael F. Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 5
Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, opening statement....................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Ohio, opening statement..................................... 7
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, prepared statement................................... 46
Witnesses
Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Ohio........................................................ 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Hon. Grace Meng, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York....................................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Louis Libin, Executive Director, Advanced Television Broadcasting
Alliance....................................................... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Answers to submitted questions............................... 60
Harold Feld, Senior Vice President, Public Knowledge............. 25
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Answers to submitted questions............................... 65
Submitted Material
H.R. 3670, the Anti-Spoofing Act of 2013, submitted by Mr. Walden 47
H.R. --------, the LPTV and Translator Preservation Act of 2014,
submitted by Mr. Walden........................................ 53
H.R. --------, the Enhance Labeling, Accessing, and Branding of
Electronic Licenses Act of 2014, submitted by Mr. Walden....... 56
H.R. 3670, THE ANTI-SPOOFING ACT OF 2013; H.R. --------, THE LPTV AND
TRANSLATOR ACT OF 2014; AND H.R. --------, THE
E-LABEL ACT
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 24, 2014
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:12 a.m., in
room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Greg
Walden (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Walden, Latta, Shimkus, Terry, Lance,
Guthrie, Gardner, Long, Ellmers, Barton, Eshoo, Doyle, Braley,
Welch, Matheson, and Waxman (ex officio).
Staff present: Ray Baum, Senior Policy Advisor/Director of
Coalitions; Leighton Brown, Press Assistant; Andy Duberstein,
Deputy Press Secretary; Graham Dufault, Policy Coordinator,
Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Gene Fullano, FCC Detailee;
Kelsey Guyselman, Counsel, Communications and Technology; Grace
Koh, Counsel, Communications and Technology; David Redl, Chief
Counsel, Communications and Technology; Charlotte Savercool,
Legislative Clerk; Shawn Chang, Democratic Chief Counsel,
Communications and Technology; Margaret McCarthy; Democratic
Professional Staff Member; Ryan Skukowski, Democratic Policy
Analyst; and Patrick Donovan, Democratic FCC Detailee.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. We will call to order the Subcommittee on
Communications and Technology for our hearing on H.R. 3670, the
Anti-Spoofing Act of 2013, the LPTV and Translator Act of 2014,
and the E-LABEL Act. We are here today to conduct an important
part of the committee's business, a legislative hearing on
bills and discussion drafts. We will be considering three
different but useful pieces of legislation that will benefit
consumers, streamline electronic device manufacturing for the
digital age and protect Americans from misleading
communications.
H.R. 3670, the Anti-Spoofing Act of 2013, aims to prevent
bad actors from using spoofing services to misrepresent who is
sending a text message. Introduced by Representatives Barton
and Meng, this bipartisan bill enhances the protections of the
Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009 by extending the prohibition to
text messaging. Spoofing, when a caller purposefully falsifies
who is originating a call or a text message, has often been
used maliciously by scammers to trick unsuspecting recipients.
By utilizing one of the many easily found spoofing services,
the perpetrator can make a text message appear as though it is
from anyone the sender chooses to impersonate; usually, posing
as a familiar Web site, service or friend or relative of the
recipient. Thinking they are talking to someone they know and
trust, the person on the receiving end is convinced to give up
personal and sensitive information like bank account numbers or
passwords. For example, customers of a Florida credit union
received text messages that were allegedly from the bank,
alerting them to unusual activity on their account, and
requesting information, including credit card numbers, PIN
numbers and account numbers. While the credit union was able to
quickly detect the scam and alert customers, there were
thousands at risk for compromised personal information. This
bill intends to protect cell phone users from this kind of
harmful mischief in the same way we protect consumers from
spoofing or voice caller ID.
Next, we will consider the LPTV and Translator Act of 2014,
a discussion draft offered by Mr. Barton that addresses how the
FCC should treat low-powered television stations and television
translators in the upcoming broadcast incentive auction. The
incentive auction was one of this committee's contributions to
the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, and
offers broadcasters compensation for relinquished spectrum to
be used for other purposes. While low-powered stations and
translators are not eligible to participate in the auction,
this draft urges the FCC to account for the value of LPTV and
translators to communities all across our country. Translators
play an important role for so many in the mountain west,
including my own district in eastern Oregon. I have long urged
the Commission to keep this value in mind when conducting the
repacking analysis, and was happy to work with Mr. Barton on
the language on this discussion draft. This draft would
memorialize that sentiment in law as well as allow LPTV and
translator licensees additional opportunities to petition the
FCC to stay on the air after the incentive auction process is
complete.
Finally, we will consider the E-LABEL Act, this bipartisan,
bi-cameral proposal is a commonsense piece of legislation that
brings outdated regulations in line with consumer expectations.
Currently, all equipment and devices that are licensed by the
FCC for radio frequency compliance must have a physical label
that shows the licensing information. You will see it right
there on the back of your smart phone. The E-LABEL Act would
allow manufacturers of devices with screens like smart phones
to display a digital label rather than the physical mark on the
device itself. Now, that makes it easier and less expensive to
put a label on your ever shrinking electronics. This
legislation is another example of bringing existing regulations
in line with modern technology by allowing digital labeling
consumers and regulators can still access important information
easily without the sometimes onerous requirements on
manufacturers. It reminds me of those labels on your mattress
that says do not remove this label under penalty of law.
Ms. Eshoo. Under penalty of law.
Mr. Walden. E-labels can provide more detailed information.
Did you ever cut them off, by the way? E-labels can provide
more detailed information without the space limitations of a
physical label, as well as potential cost savings as labels can
become part of the code programmed into a device, rather than
etched into the external body of the equipment.
I want to recognize the FCC for their work on this issue,
led by Commissioners O'Rielly and Rosenworcel. The Commission
issued guidance for manufacturers wishing to use digital
labeling for their devices, including guidelines for how to
properly display the information and how to educate consumers
on accessing the labels. I also commend my colleagues,
Representatives Latta and Welch, as well as Senators Fischer
and Rockefeller, for their bipartisan work in this effort to
streamline and modernize consumer protection rules. More
efficient Government and regulation for the innovation era is a
goal of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and one that our
subcommittee is clearly committed to furthering.
So we look forward to the testimony of our witnesses, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden
We're here today to conduct an important part of this
committee's business: a legislative hearing on bills and
discussion drafts. We'll be considering three different but
useful pieces of legislation that will benefit consumers,
streamline electronic device manufacturing for the digital age,
and protect Americans from misleading communications.
H.R. 3670, the Anti-Spoofing Act of 2013, aims to prevent
bad actors from using ``spoofing'' services to misrepresent who
is sending a text message. Introduced by Reps. Barton and Meng,
this bipartisan billenhances the protections of the Truth in
Caller ID Act of 2009 by extending the prohibition to text
messages. Spoofing, when a caller purposely falsifies who is
originating a call or a text message, has often been used
maliciously by scammers to trick unsuspecting recipients. By
utilizing one of many easily found ``spoofing'' services, the
perpetrator can make a text message appear as though it is from
anyone the sender chooses to impersonate, usually posing as a
familiar Web site, service, or friend or relative of the
recipient. Thinking that they are talking to someone they know
and trust, the person on the receiving end is convinced to give
up personal and sensitive information, like a bank account
number or password. For example, customers of a Florida credit
union received text messages that were allegedly from the bank,
alerting them to ``unusual activity'' on their account and
requesting information including credit card numbers, PIN
numbers, and account numbers. While the credit union was able
to quickly detect the scam and alert customers, there were
thousands at risk for compromised personal information. This
bill intends to protect cell phone users from this kind of
harmful mischief, in the same way we protect consumers from
spoofing of voice caller ID.
Next we will consider The LPTV and Translator Act of 2014,
a discussion draft offered by Mr. Barton that addresses how the
FCC should treat low-power television stations and television
translators in the upcoming broadcast incentive auction. The
incentive auction was one of this committee's contributions to
the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, and
offers broadcasters compensation for relinquished spectrum to
be used for other purposes. While low-power stations and
translators are not eligible to participate in the auction,
this draft urges the FCC to account for the value of LPTV and
translators to communities all across this country. Translators
play an important role for so many in the mountain west,
including my own district in eastern Oregon. I have long urged
the Commission to keep this value in mind when conducting the
repacking analysis and was happy to work with Mr. Barton on the
language on this discussion draft. This draft would memorialize
that sentiment in law, as well as allow LPTV and translator
licensees additional opportunities to petition the FCC to stay
on the air after the incentive auction process is complete.
Finally, we will consider the E-LABEL Act. This bipartisan,
bicameral proposal is a common sense piece of legislation that
brings outdated regulations in line with consumer expectations.
Currently, all equipment and devices that are licensed by the
FCC for radio frequency compliance must have a physical label
that shows the licensing information--you'll see it right there
on the back of your smartphone. The E-LABEL Act would allow
manufacturers of devices with screens like smartphones to
display a digital label rather than the physical mark on the
device itself, making it easier and less expensive to put a
label on our evershrinking electronics.
This legislation is another example of bringing existing
regulations inline with modern technology. By allowing digital
labeling, consumers and regulators can still access important
informationeasily, without the sometimes onerous requirements
on manufacturers. E-labels can provide more detailed
information without the space limitations of a physical label,
as well as a potential cost-savings as labels can become part
of the code programmed into a device, rather than etched into
the external body of the equipment. I want to recognize the FCC
for their work on this issue, led by Commissioners O'Rielly and
Rosenworcel. The Commission issued guidance for manufacturers
wishing to use digital labeling for their devices, including
guidelines for how to properly display the information and how
to educate consumers on accessing the labels. I also commend my
colleagues, Reps. Latta and Welch, as well as Senators Fischer
and Rockefeller, for their bipartisan work on this effort to
streamline and modernize consumer protection rules. More
efficient Government and regulation for the innovation era is a
goal of the Energy and Commerce Committee and one that this
subcommittee is committed to furthering.
I'd like to thank all of our witnesses for being here today
to discuss these bills, including Reps. Latta and Meng who have
graciously offered to appear and speak on their respective
bills. I look forward to a conversation about these three
pieces of potential legislation.
Mr. Walden. And now I recognize the gentlelady from
California, the ranking member of the subcommittee, Ms. Eshoo,
for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANNA G. ESHOO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you stopped, I
thought is he going to recognize me? And you did. Thank you.
Good morning, everyone. And welcome to our colleague,
Congresswoman Meng from New York. We are delighted that you are
here and proud of the work product that you have brought
forward.
3670, the Anti-Spoofing Act of 2013, is a bipartisan bill,
and it is aimed at reducing the number of fraudulent phone
calls and text messages received by millions of Americans. It
is a very practical bill. It is a bill that is really going to
correct something that I think everyone in the country wants
corrected. So I really salute you for coming up with something
that is very practical.
Just this morning, NPR ran a story about a series of
spoofing incidents in Maryland where people received calls
purported to be from the State police demanding payment for
court or traffic fines. I mean, most people would just out of a
little bit of fear and intimidation just pay attention to it
and, you know, these frauds would do very well by their
fraudulency with vulnerable people. So at a time in which
unscrupulous behavior is on the rise, this pro-consumer bill
will better protect Americans from becoming victims of scammers
and deceitful telemarketers. And, again, I commend
Congresswoman Meng for her leadership and for assembling a
bipartisan group of cosponsors. That is the secret sauce around
here. And I salute you for doing that, coupled with the
endorsements from AARP, the major county sheriff's association,
the major cities, chief's association and Public Knowledge,
which is wonderful that Public Knowledge has endorsed the bill
as well.
And so, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to your proceeding
with a markup of this bill, because it is an excellent one. I
am also pleased to support our colleague, Mr. Latta's bill, the
E-LABEL Act. That too is a bipartisan bill. And he worked with
our colleagues, Mr. Welch and Ms. Blackburn in introducing that
earlier this week. You explained what the E-labeling guidance
issued by the FCC earlier this month does. And to promote the
electronic labeling for FCC certified devices, phones,
computers, smart watches, this is only going to grow, this
field. And this needs an update. And I think it is an excellent
one.
I have concerns with the LPTV and Translator Preservation
Act. Low-powered television stations provide a very important
public service in communities around the country, particularly
in the rural America. And it is why as part of the Spectrum and
Public Safety Act of 2012 members agreed on a bipartisan basis
to preserve the spectrum usage rights of LPTV stations. But
given the FCC new instructions when they are well into the
design and development of the most complex spectrum auction
ever conducted, I think would add unnecessary complexity, and
it could dismantle--I am not saying will, but could dismantle
the carefully crafted balance on other issues of importance to
the subcommittee, including maximizing both licensed and
unlicensed.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am looking forward to
hearing the testimony of those that are here today, the
distinguished first panel and the second one. And I yield the
remainder of my time to Mr. Doyle.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Doyle. I want to thank my friend for yielding. Mr.
Chairman, thank you for this hearing today. And we look forward
to hearing from our colleagues.
Mr. Chairman, I want to use this short amount of time I
have to just make some comments on the proposed Communication
Act update. This is something that I have been monitoring with
great interest, but also some concern. I know at this point
that majority staff has released a number of Brief White Papers
on spectrum competition and interconnection. I think these are
important issues, and it is this subcommittee's duty and
responsibility to address these topics. But I would say to my
friend that these updates won't move forward unless you start
reaching out to members and staff on our side of the aisle.
These issues are real that are at stake, and there is real
opportunities to make things better for the people of our
country.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to use the opportunity to urge
you in the most friendly and kind way that we move forward with
the limited time in the session that we have over the next few
months to engage our side in meaningful discussion so that we
can put forward a bipartisan discussion of these issues. I
thank you, and I look forward to working with you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Walden. I appreciate the gentleman's comment, would be
happy to have that conversation with him at another time.
Mr. Doyle. Great.
Mr. Walden. And now, all time has been expired on that
side. Now, we recognize Mr. Barton for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Barton. I don't think I will take 5 minutes, Mr.
Chairman, but I do appreciate the opportunity.
There are two bills that I have been actively engaged with
that are the subject of this markup today, H.R. 3670, which is
the Anti-Spoofing Act of 2014, and the Low-Power TV and
Translator Preservation Act of 2014. Representative Meng, who
is sitting at the witness table, and I have been working
closely on H.R. 3670 to modernize the Truth in Caller ID Act of
2009 to include text messaging services, IP enabled voice
services and to hold foreign spoofing services accountable to
the law. Due to the many conversations that we have had with
various stakeholders, it would be my intention that this bill
does go to markup to offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute to address some of the concerns that have come up in
the stakeholder discussions.
There have been a number of spoofing incidents this year
alone, one in Abilene, Texas, in my State, just last Friday
when a person pretended to work for a roofing company in order
to collect money up front from the customers that they were
calling. Another incident, just two weeks ago, involved a Bank
of America, and someone commented on the story that they
received text messages from what appeared to be the Bank of
America directing them to call a number concerning a problem
with their own account, only to later realize that it was a
scam.
The majority of the members of this subcommittee, Mr.
Chairman, including yourself and Ms. Eshoo, have cosponsored
H.R. 3670. So this is a bill that I think, to echo what Mr.
Doyle just commented on, does have bipartisan cooperation,
could move through the committee to the floor and even through
the other body and to the desk of the President this year.
On the Low-Power Television and Translator Preservation
Act, I am very quite frankly surprised on both sides of that
one some of the strongest low-powered TV advocates are against
this bill because they think it doesn't do anything. On the
other side of the equation, there are people that think it goes
too far and that somehow it would impact in a negative way the
pending auction. The truth of the matter is that with your
help, Mr. Chairman, I think we have got it just right. It does
give low-powered TV license holders increased moral standing,
if nothing else, in their petitions before the FCC. But as you
know and I know, under current law, they don't have a
guarantee. They have a secondary license which can be revoked
by the FCC. If this bill does become law, they will still have
a secondary license. They will not have any guarantee. But they
will have the strength that--again, if this were to become
law--that legislatively, the House and the Senate, as signed by
the President, wants the FCC to work with low-powered TV
license holders to give them the best chance possible to
maintain their viability in the marketplace.
On the Low-Power TV, Mr. Chairman, I've worked with the
National Association of Broadcasters, the Advanced Television
Broadcast Alliance, the National Translators Association, the
National Religious Broadcasters. I have also worked very
extensively with you and your staff to modify and to hopefully
perfect this bill. So I do hope, Mr. Chairman, we have a good
hearing. And I hope in the very near future we can go to markup
on both of these bills.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barton follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Joe Barton
Today, I have two pieces of legislation being discussed
that I have been working diligently on: H.R. 3670, the Anti-
Spoofing Act of 2014, and the LPTV and Translator Preservation
Act of 2014.
Representative Grace Meng and I have been working closely
on H.R. 3670 to modernize the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009 to
include text messaging services, IP-enabled voice services, and
to hold foreign spoofing services accountable to the law. Due
to the many conversations had with various stakeholders, it
would be my intention, if this bill went to a markup, to offer
an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to address all
concerns.
There have been a number of spoofing incidents this year
alone to include one in Abilene, TX, reported last Friday when
a person pretended to work for a roofing company in order to
collect money up-front from the customers.A\1\ Another
incident was reported on July 7, 2014, involving Bank of
America and someone commented on the story that they received
text messages from what appeared to be Bank of America,
directing them to call a number concerning a problem with their
account, to later realize that it was just a scam. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The article is available at http://www.ktxs.com/news/phone-
spoofing-crime-surfaces-in-abilene/27017160.
\2\ The article is available at http://www.azcentral.com/story/
money/business/consumer/call-12-for-action/2014/07/06/debit-card-
phishing-scam-call12/12275239/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am proud to see that the majority of my colleagues on
this subcommittee have cosponsored this bill, including you,
Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Anna Eshoo, and it is my hope
to see this bill move forward through the committee to have a
vote taken on the House floor.
As for the LPTV and Translator Preservation Act, I am happy
to have worked with you, Mr. Chairman, to highlight the LPTV
industry during the incentive auction process. As current law
stands, LPTV broadcasters carry a secondary license to full-
power stations, which means that a LPTV broadcaster could
potentially lose the spectrum they hold in the incentive
auction. While this bill does not guarantee additional rights,
it does provide the LPTV community with a stronger moral
position and enhanced standing before the Federal
Communications Commission.
I have worked with the National Association of
Broadcasters, Advanced Television Broadcast Alliance, National
Translators Association, and the National Religious
Broadcasters on this issue. It is my belief that this bill
should become law to ensure that the FCC does not easily
overlook the important services offered by the LPTV industry
and TV translators. I hope to see this bill move forward.
Mr. Walden. I thank the gentleman, who now yields to the
vice chairman of the committee, Mr. Latta.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much to the gentleman for
yielding. And thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding
this legislative hearing on these important bills today.
With the advancement of technology, businesses and
consumers alike have reaped tremendous benefits. To ensure that
consumers continue to profit from groundbreaking applications
and services, and businesses continue to find opportunities for
investment and growth, we need to make sure our laws reflect
the 21st century information and communications technology
marketplace.
This will not only help foster future innovation as the E-
LABEL Act promotes, but it will also protect gains we have made
with technologies currently employed today which the Anti-
Spoofing Act and the LPTV and Translator Act address. I look
forward to addressing and engaging in a closer examination on
each of these bills.
And I thank the chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields back the balance of his
time. And I think now we go to--who on your side would like--
would recognize for Mr. Waxman's time? Mr. Welch, do you seek
any time? Mr. Doyle, any further time?
Mr. Doyle. I don't.
Mr. Walden. Ms. Eshoo?
Mr. Doyle. Let us get to our witnesses.
Mr. Walden. Yes. OK.
Ms. Eshoo. Good move.
Mr. Walden. I like the way you think. I think we are OK on
our side, right? Because we have done both. So at this point
now, we will go--oh, look who showed up at the witness table.
It is a two-fer. A Latta two-fer. We are delighted to have both
of our colleagues here today, and appreciate the good work that
you have both done on these and other pieces of legislation.
And so with that, we will go to panel one. And we will
recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, to open. And then
we will go to Ms. Meng, as well.
STATEMENTS OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO, AND HON. GRACE MENG, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I
greatly appreciate the opportunity to give testimony on the
legislation today. I also want to thank Ranking Member Eshoo
and all the other members of the subcommittee today. I
appreciate the opportunity to present testimony on the
bipartisan E-LABEL Act.
The Federal Communications Commission has instituted an
equipment authorization program where electronic devices are
required to display a physical label documenting that it has
been properly certified by the Commission for commercial use.
The label is also intended to provide consumers with means to
readily obtain additional information about the device as
efficiently as possible. While the information contained on the
label serves as an important function and extends meaningful
benefits and protections to consumers, the time has come for
the Commission to update its rules to reflect modern technology
and modify its equipment identification requirements to permit
electronic labeling or E-labeling for wireless devices.
The current rule requiring physical labeling was adopted by
the FCC back in the 1970s. The Commission revisited that rule
in the late 1980s, and, while it eliminated some labeling
requirements, the technological capability of wireless devices
at the time was admittedly not able to fully support an
equipment authorization standard other than the existing
physical labeling system.
As we all know, technology, especially in the wireless
market, has advanced significantly since that time, and
wireless devices are today equipped with numerous
functionalities. They are without question able to support the
modernized equipment authorization standard of E-labeling if
given the option.
Permitting E-labeling would not only facilitate efforts to
bring our communication laws in line with 21st century
technologies, but it would also benefit both manufacturers and
consumers. Manufacturers have increased flexibility to design
innovative products that consumers demand. It would also reduce
device manufacturers' development cost. According to the
Telecommunications Industry Association, E-labeling could
result in over $80 million in saving per year for companies.
Consumers in my State of Ohio and across the country would also
benefit from the efficiencies created by E-labeling. E-labeling
can expand consumer access to relevant device information, and
enhance the overall quality and availability of equipment
identification records through supporting software.
The FCC recently released guidance on E-labeling. I welcome
the FCC's efforts on this issue and recognize it as an
important first step in promoting the use of E-labels. The E-
LABEL Act will facilitate efforts at the Commission by
establishing a timeframe for moving forward with a rulemaking.
This will ensure that the Commission takes timely action on
this issue and resolves any uncertainty that manufacturers
might have in opting to use E-labels.
We are in the midst of an innovation era where new and
groundbreaking technologies and devices are introduced into the
information and communications technology marketplace almost
daily. Our laws need to reflect this reality.
I thank Congressman Welch, Congresswoman Blackburn and
Ranking Member Eshoo for their support on this measure. I thank
Chairman Walden again for the opportunity to present the
testimony today on E-LABEL ACT and advance efforts to modernize
our communication laws for the digital age. And I thank the
chairman again.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Walden. I thank the gentleman for this testimony. And
now we will go to the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Meng, for
her testimony on this legislation. We appreciate your bringing
this forward to us. And please go ahead.
STATEMENT OF HON. GRACE MENG
Ms. Meng. Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo and members
of the subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing on my
bill, H.R. 3670, the Anti-Spoofing Act, which I sponsored along
with Mr. Barton, Mr. Lance and seven other Republican and seven
Democratic members of this subcommittee. I also thank you for
inviting me to discuss the bill today. It is a great honor to
appear before such an esteemed panel.
We address today the problem of caller ID spoofing, which
is the scrambling of caller identification numbers. It is a
tool often used to defraud unwitting recipients of phone calls
and text messages.
It is often stated that the measure of a society is how it
treats its most vulnerable. Almost every day, I receive new
reports of caller ID spoofing that harms the most vulnerable in
our society. We have reports of widespread caller ID spoofing
of new immigrants, which is why USCIS recently issued a former
scam alert on caller ID spoofing. And we have reports of
widespread targeting of seniors, which is why the AARP wrote a
letter in support of this legislation. Veterans are primary
targets as well.
Caller ID spoofing is also fracturing the trust built
between communities and local law enforcement, because scammers
are falsely using police department's phone numbers to trick
residents, as we recently heard today. For this reason, the
major city's chief's association and major county sheriff's
association have endorsed this legislation.
I even saw the Chicago Tribune reported on Monday that the
families of the unaccompanied minors at the border are being
targeted by caller ID spoofing. I mention this not to wade into
the border security debate, but rather to underscore the point
that if there is a vulnerable or weak population among us, it
is likely they are being targeted by caller ID spoofing.
Shortly after entering Congress, I pursued this issue
because of complaints from a local civic organization and
seniors in my district. But I quickly realized it is affecting
Americans in all corners of our country in all of our
districts. This past tax season, a huge scam was revealed
whereby caller ID spoofing was used to dupe tens of thousands
of Americans nationwide into thinking they were being contacted
by the IRS, which they were not.
I have had very good conversations with many of you on the
subcommittee about pervasive caller ID spoofing in your own
districts. And I think the fact that this is playing in so many
of our communities is a big reason why we have so much
bipartisan support here today.
H.R. 3670 is an update to the Truth in Caller ID Act of
2009. That legislation first criminalized malicious caller ID
spoofing. But since the passage of that law, scammers have used
legal loopholes and new technologies to circumvent it. Thus,
malicious caller ID spoofing is on the rapid rise again. So it
is time to strengthen and tighten existing law and shut down
the roots by which it is being circumvented. And that is what
our bill does.
There are three main parts to H.R. 3670, and I will review
them briefly now. Number one, the bill broadens current law to
prohibit caller ID spoofing from foreigners. This is crucial
because U.S. based companies now spoof calls to U.S. residents
with intent to do harm but originate such calls from outside of
the United States. Two, the bill broadens current law to
include new Internet based voice over IP services that enable
callers to make outgoing only calls from computers and tablets
to mobile and landline phones. This is a technology that was
undeveloped in 2009 when the Truth in Caller ID Act was
adopted, and therefore unaccounted for in that law. But it has
now grown and has contributed significantly to the caller ID
spoofing problem. Three, finally, our bill broadens current law
to include text messaging. We all know this technology has
developed, and we thus see text message caller ID spoofing with
increasing regularity.
I also just want to note that current law and H.R. 3670
only pertain to caller ID spoofing with intent to defraud or
cause harm. Sometimes caller ID spoofing can be applied
beneficially and benignly, and we have taken great care to
exclude such cases from the legislation.
In closing, I would like to once again thank the committee
for considering this legislation and for giving the time of day
to a freshman who is not a member of the committee. This
process has been a wonderful and inspiring experience for me to
take a problem I heard from my constituents and work through
the legislative process in such a positive and bipartisan
fashion to try and solve that problem. I would especially like
to thank Mr. Barton and Mr. Lance for working with me to write
this bill, Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Eshoo for all
their guidance, leadership and support, and all the
subcommittee cosponsors who were instrumental in bringing about
consideration of this bill.
I would like to thank the witnesses who came to speak
today, and of course the committee and personal staffs who have
done such terrific work here. I look forward to continuing to
work with the committee on this issue and legislation.
I thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Meng follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Walden. Ms. Meng, thank you for bringing this to our
attention and working with our committees and our staffs on
both sides of the aisle to move good public policy forward, and
we appreciate what you have done.
We want to thank you both for being here. We actually won't
grill you. That is our normal procedure, to let Members come
and make their case and depart. So thank you for being here,
and thanks for bringing this to us.
We will now move on to the second panel while you two
depart. Mr. Louis Libin, did I say that correctly?
Mr. Libin. Yes.
Mr. Walden. Thank you. Executive Vice President, Advanced
Television Broadcasting Alliance, and Mr. Harold Feld, Senior
Vice President, Public Knowledge. We welcome both of you
gentlemen here to testify this morning. And just bring those
microphones close. That is kind of how they work. And push the
button. And, Mr. Libin, we will start with you. And thanks
again for being here.
STATEMENTS OF LOUIS LIBIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ADVANCED
TELEVISION BROADCASTING ALLIANCE, AND HAROLD FELD, SENIOR VICE
PRESIDENT, PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE
STATEMENT OF LOUIS LIBIN
Mr. Libin. Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Eshoo and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, my name is Louis
Libin. I am the Executive Director of the Advanced Television
Broadcasting Alliance, which is comprised of hundreds of low-
powered television, or LPTV, broadcasters and owners and
operators of translators. Thank you very much for the
opportunity to testify regarding the impact of the planned
broadcast incentive auctions on LPTV stations, translators and
boosters. In particular, I appreciate the efforts of Chairman
Barton to develop the LPTV and Translator Preservation Act,
which will require the FCC to consider the great benefits of
LPTV and translator stations, rather than indiscriminately
eliminating their licenses without any consideration of the
value these stations provide to underserved communities.
LPTV service was created to enhance diversity by allowing
more unique voices to provide free, over the air television
service. LPTV stations address the needs of minorities, women,
ethnic communities, the elderly, children and other underserved
populations. They also broadcast in rural areas where full-
power stations sometimes are not commercially viable.
Translators extend the reach of broadcast stations into
isolated areas. More than 5,000 LPTV stations and translators
serve tens of millions of Americans. In many places, these
stations are the only broadcast television service available,
and they often provide communities their only access to the
affiliates of major broadcasting networks. Many translators
were built and are operated by local communities to bring
broadcast television to their citizens.
A third or more of the LPTV and translator stations are now
at risk of being shut down by the FCC as it conducts the
incentive auction. As you know, the 2012 Congress authorized
the FCC to conduct an incentive auction of broadcast spectrum.
The 2012 Spectrum Act expressed a fundamental principle about
spectrum use that spectrum allocation should reflect market
demand. Unfortunately, the FCC's auction plan does not reflect
this core principle. The FCC gives no consideration at all to
the value of the service provided by LPTV and translator
stations.
Because the FCC does not have to share proceeds of the
auction with LPTV or translator stations, those stations are
simply free spectrum in the eyes of the FCC. From the
perspective of the auction itself, there is no cost to
eliminating LPTV and translator service. Under the FCC's
auction rules, the FCC could cancel hundreds or even thousands
of LPTV and translator licenses, even if doing so would not
generate a single dollar in additional revenue for the auction.
The FCC could eliminate LPTV and translator stations just for
the sake of running the auction faster or with less precise
calculations, or for the sake of completing the auction in less
than half the 10 years Congress authorized. And that is exactly
what the FCC is doing. It has adopted rules that run the
auction at breakneck speed, with literally no consideration at
all of the impact on citizens served by LPTV and translator
services.
This is not a market mechanism. It is a pointless, tragic
destruction of value, jobs, diversity, localism and rural
service. The FCC could shut down thousands of LPTV and
translator stations to give wireless carrier spectrum in rural
areas that they do not need, and likely will never use. The
FCC's incentive auction order also treats low-powered
television stations as secondary, even to unlicensed services.
Congress did not authorize the FCC to elevate unlicensed
services over licensed LPTV and translator services. While the
economic costs of the FCC's approach will be born most directly
by the licensees, the public served by these critical
facilities is the big loser. The TV stations that air local
high school football games, provide ethnic and foreign language
programming, provide church services and weather alerts, and
bring network programming into rural areas that are already
underserved will all be gone without any consideration of the
value lost to millions of Americans, and regardless of whether
the market actually demands additional wireless spectrum in
those areas.
While LPTV and translator operators and their audiences
would like to see much more done, the LPTV and Translator
Preservation Act is a step in the right direction. We are very
thankful for the support Chairman Barton has given to Americans
who rely on LPTV and translator service. Thank you very much
again for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Libin follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Walden. Mr. Libin, thank you. And go ahead and turn off
that microphone. We appreciate your being here. We appreciate
your testimony on this important matter.
Mr. Feld, we welcome you to this discussion. Please go
ahead.
STATEMENT OF HAROLD FELD
Mr. Feld. Thank you, Chairman Walden and Ranking Member
Eshoo. Thank you very much for inviting me to testify today.
I want to start by voicing my strong support for both the
Anti-Spoofing Act and the E-LABEL Act. These bills provide
necessary updates the Communications Act, and Public Knowledge
supports their swift consideration and passage.
But while I agree with the principles behind the LPTV and
Translator Act, I strongly recommend against consideration of
this bill. Consideration of this bill creates needless
uncertainty and delay around the broadcast incentive auction. I
say needless because the FCC is already committed to doing
precisely what this bill tells it to do. As I have said many
times over the last 4 years, and as you have heard from others,
the broadcast incentive auction poses enormous challenges for
the FCC. The difference in complexity between the incentive
auction and the first spectrum auctions conducted by the FCC in
1994 is like the difference between the cell phones of 1994 and
the smart phones of today. But instead of the gradual evolution
over 20 years we had in phone technology, we are asking the FCC
to jump from the auction equivalent of a brick phone to the
auction equivalent of an iPhone.
Adopting this bill will create new delay at a time when the
auction framework finally appears to be coming together. After
nearly 2 years of contentious debate involving some of the most
renowned spectrum auction experts in the world, hundreds of
engineers and thousands of stakeholders, the FCC adopted a
framework for the auction in May. While much work remains to be
done, we have reached the point where the FCC can set a
timeline for the remainder of the process, and stakeholders can
have confidence the auction will take place.
Importantly, the FCC can begin building the entirely new
auction software and hardware needed to make all the many
pieces of this auction work together in real-time. But we can
only move forward from here if all stakeholders have confidence
that the framework adopted in May is a stable foundation on
which to build, which brings me back to the LPTV bill. Despite
efforts to limit the bill's scope, questions will reverberate
throughout all aspects of the auction. Imagine a row of wine
glasses packed tightly together. Tap one, and the rest start to
hum as the vibrations ripple out. So to, implementation of the
LPTV Act would reverberate through the entire auction
framework. For example, the FCC will need to consider whether
the bill's command to avoid terminations of LPTV and TV
translator license where possible impacts the auction and
repacking design, or whether reduction in projected revenue
would be an adverse impact on the auction. These questions
implicate the repacking as a whole, the band planned, and
nearly every other key element of the auction design everyone
thought we already settled. Work on the new auction software
and hardware will slow or stop entirely until these questions
can be settled again.
And what is the urgent need that justifies this new delay
and uncertainty? At the moment, none. The FCC is already
committed to doing precisely what the bill requires. As part of
the framework adopted in May, the FCC explicitly recognized the
importance of LPTV and TV translator services, and committed to
completing a further notice of proposed rulemaking to
ameliorate the impacts of the auction. Given that the FCC
appears to be on the right course, there seems no reason to
introduce new potential devastating, uncertainty and delay.
To conclude, the importance of localism and diversity in
broadcasting is a value that no one questions. Localism and
diversity have been the fundamental foundation of our national
broadcast policies since Congress passed the Federal Radio Act
in 1927. LPTV and TV translator licensees are important parts
of that ecosystem, as the FCC continues to recognize. No one
wants to eliminate licensees providing valuable services to
their local communities. I may add that just last week before
this bill was introduced, I and other members of the public
interest spectrum coalition were present at a meeting with the
FCC staff, and we once again urged the FCC to consider means to
allow LPTVs to transition smoothly, including voluntary
reduction in power, precisely the mechanism that the bill
recommends.
There is broad support for continuing service of LPTVs and
translators, consistent with the direction that Congress gave
to the Commission in the Spectrum Act of 2012. Passing new
legislation, even if it is only intended to reinforce what the
FCC is already committing to do, will reintroduce new
uncertainty and delay at precisely the wrong time.
Thank you. And I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Feld follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Feld. You have far more
confidence in the FCC than I do. But then I understand why.
I want to ask a couple of questions, because this really
matters to the public, to consumers in districts like mine, not
only in rural areas, but urban areas. And I have met with a lot
of these folks who have LPTV and low power. They serve minority
populations in many cases with specialty programming. And my
message here, and I think it is shared by Mr. Barton, is I
don't want a runaway FCC that simply squishes them because they
can and takes them out. I am also not going to give them full-
power authority, because they didn't have that to begin with.
But I think you are over the top in terms of kind of this
notion you are going to blow up the whole auction, because you
actually admit that the FCC is headed down this path anyway. I
am reinforcing that. I was hoping to have a lot more faith in
this FCC. But I am seeing some really bad behavior from the top
down where Republican commissioners are kept out of the loop,
where there is a process failure. I don't think this hearing is
going to get into this. But I just think you are over the top,
and I am just going to tell you that.
In places like my district, these translators are really
important. They really are. And I want to send a clear message
without screwing up the auction that they need to be thoughtful
about this, whether it is in a rural area or an urban area.
There are a lot of people served. And you can have a band plan
that squishes out just for the sake of getting more spectrum
available for the big companies that want to buy it. And I
think we have got to be thoughtful about the public spectrum
and how it is used and how it is allocated.
Now, Mr. Libin, a number of your colleagues in the LPTV
community have also expressed opposition to this bill, I think
for other reasons, and have suggested they would rather have no
bill than this bill. Could you explain why some LPTV providers
feel this way?
Mr. Libin. I think that they are concerned that by opening
this door it is going to bring discussions on LPTV and the
auction and take it in places back to the FCC where it may not
have the conclusions that they want. For example, there is an
NPRM, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, on LPTV coming up. But
that is really just a mechanism to talk about how essentially
the FCC has plans to shut down these stations. It is surely not
a mechanism to help LPTV. The LPTV industry I have to tell you
is very different than the big broadcast industry. Actually, I
come from NBC. I am used to coming with big contingencies. The
LPTV industry is an industry of typically mom and pops. They
are small businesses. Not that they don't employ people. They
all employ a lot of people.
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Libin. We are not talking about eliminating thousands.
It is still a lot of people. But this is the other--
essentially, there may not be unity in the community, but it is
becoming----
Mr. Walden. We are aware of that.
Mr. Libin. But it is becoming more and more. I believe that
the industry is tightening up. I mean, you can see just in the
past few months, we now have the NAB is our partner, and we
have the National Translator Association. And we are working
with the NRB. So I think we are really finding the commonality
that we need. But it is a small industry.
Mr. Walden. OK. That is the only questions I have. I will
now yield back the balance of my time, recognize my friend from
California, Ms. Eshoo.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to both
Mr. Libin and Mr. Feld.
It seems to me I think I probably have more an observation
after listening to the testimony and, of course, reading the--
you know, the staff memo that there are some issues to be dealt
with here. And I think it is a question of how it is done. I
think it is a question of how it is done and how we thread the
needle.
We had a chance to chat before as I came into the hearing
room a little earlier this morning. And you were talking about
rural areas and then said the Bay Area. The Bay Area doesn't
have a lot of rural areas, but it does have some. And I asked
you what you were referring to.
Mr. Libin. The South City.
Ms. Eshoo. What you were referring to is not rural. It is a
heavily populated area. It is the northern part of San Mateo
County, the county that I live in, just outside the city and
county of San Francisco and very close to San Francisco
International Airport. And there--it is the largest Filipino-
American community outside of the Philippines that resides in
that area. So there are issues here and communities of interest
that we need to look after. We are not looking to do something
where there would be a loss of jobs or, very importantly, the
communications that these communities of interest rely on.
I don't think you have a case for completely rewriting the
whole thing, to tell you the truth. And--but I do think that we
need to work so that what I just mentioned and--or outlined as
to the chairman that we thread this needle so that those two
elements are not disrupted. I appreciate Mr. Feld's testimony.
I love it when people come here and feel strongly about things.
I really do, even when I disagree with them. I mean, it is the
place to do that.
And so I thank you for that. I do have the concern that,
you know, we are what, now almost 2 years into the planning for
the spectrum auction? And it is the first time in the history
of our country--actually, in the world that this kind of
auction is going to take place. So we are not--none of us want
to throw sand in the gears. And I think that is what you are
talking about. And the chairman has his misgivings about the
agency and its jurisdictions and how they do things. I have I
think more confidence than he does. But be that as it may, I
don't want anyone squashed in this either, because I think we
need to look after these important communities in our country.
So I think more than anything else that we have got some work
to do to refine this.
I really don't have questions to ask you. I think the
chairman already asked you, Mr. Libin, what I was going to ask.
And, Mr. Feld, thank you for being here and for what you have
focused on. And you always come here with a lot of passion. And
I love that. I love it. So I think that we have some work to do
together on this to help resolve some of the issues that the--
we not throw sand in the gears relative to the auction, but
that we recognize that there are communities of interest that
are really reliant on this. And I don't think, Mr. Libin, you
are going to get everything you want. But you know what? No one
does around here. So if we can resolve it the way I think we're
both describing it, then we will have accomplished something.
I yield back.
Mr. Walden. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her
time. I turn now to the former chairman of the committee, Mr.
Barton, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Barton. Well, thank you. And I appreciate the testimony
of both of you gentlemen. I appreciate the comments of Ms.
Eshoo and our chairman.
I am going to go back to the story of Goldilocks and the
Three Bears. There are probably some of the younger people
don't get those stories anymore, but I am of an age that I
remember those when I was a child. And there were three bowls
of porridge. And one bowl was way too hot, and so one of the
bears says it is too hot. And another bowl was way too cold,
and the second bear said well, it is too cold. But then the
third bowl, the middle bear said it is just right.
Now, our Bill that is three pages--three pages--really just
two pages. I am going to read the relevant portion, because
this is one of these things that average people, and even
members of Congress, can actually understand, you know? It is
low-powered television translator and television booster
stations, A, in general--now this is for the people that says
it is too cold. OK? Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to alter the spectrum usage rights of low-power
television stations, television translator stations or
television booster stations shall be construed to alter the
spectrum usage rights. This bill doesn't give them any new
rights. OK? It doesn't give them any new rights.
Now, B, preservation. And here the keyword is the third
word, the Commission shall, s-h-a-l-l, shall, s-h-a-l-l, shall,
one, in general, consider the benefits of low-power television
stations, television translator stations and television booster
stations to the communities of license of such stations
consider the benefits. So it says the FCC has to consider the
benefits. Two, where possible, avoid the termination of the
low-power television station, television translator station or
television booster station as along as such avoidance does not
adversely impact the reverse auction under Subsection A(1) or
the forward auction under Subsection C(1). And, three, after
the completion of the reassignments and reallocations under
paragraph 1(b), permit any low-power television station,
television translator station or television booster station to
request to operate at reduced power or from a different
transmitter location consistent with the Commission's rules of
such station or otherwise lose its license as a result of such
reassignment or reallocation.
So what this does, it says the FCC shall, if possible,
preserve the termination of the low-power television station.
So it does give increased standing. But that is all. The FCC
still can make the decision, and it cannot impact the reverse
auction. You know, Section A guarantees that. So with all due
respect to Mr. Feld, I think this bill is just right. It
elevates low-power television's standing before the FCC. They
have to consider these things. But once they have considered
them, you know, they can't let it adversely impact the auction,
and they go forward. So, you know, this is one of those bills
where it is funny to see some people in the industry itself
saying, oh, this thing doesn't do anything, doesn't go far
enough. Well, you can't give a right that they don't have now.
But on the other hand, to have Mr. Feld and his folks, oh, it
is going to hold up the auction. Oh, my God, you know? Well,
what the hey? It just says they have to consider these things.
Mr. Walden. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Barton. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. Walden. I think the last part is also really important.
It says if after all--everything is said and done after the
auction, if there is another way for them to survive, they
should have the right to apply for that, different location,
different power, different whatever. And I think that is the
survival lifeline.
Mr. Barton. Yes. So, you know, every now and then, Congress
breaks out in commonsense. This is a commonsense bill. It
really is. Now, my good friend, Anna Eshoo, if she has really
got concerns about this, let me know. We will work with you.
But these stations have real value. But under the current law,
it is not considered. And instead of just letting the FCC do
whatever the heck they want, this bill at least says hey, you
have got to consider these things. And I think that is fair. I
think it is the right thing to do. And I think it will result
in a better process. As Mr. Libin pointed out, you know, why
should you give an unlicensed operator operating a wide space
more authority than somebody who at least has a secondary
license? This bill does that. And I hope we can pass it on a
bipartisan basis.
Thank you for the courtesy.
Mr. Walden. Thanks for working with us. And we appreciate
your passion and your involvement in this issue. It is very
important. I now turn to the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Braley.
Mr. Braley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I could have sworn,
Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Barton was going in another direction
with that fairy tale. I thought it was going to be Little Red
Riding Hood. And I was just waiting for whom the big bad wolf
was going to be, so I feel somewhat let down.
Mr. Barton. I am saving that for full committee.
Mr. Braley. But I think as we talk about these issues,
which are important issues, it is also important to look back
over the history of telecommunications. Because it is not the
LPTV stations but the UHF stations that have served a more
limited audience in remote areas of the country and often were
in the vanguard of some of the innovation and technology in the
industry. I happen to represent a UHF station in Dubuque, Iowa,
which was in the vanguard of cable television because it was
located on the bluffs of the Mississippi River. They had a hard
time getting over the air signals from more conventional VHF
stations. And through the work that was done there decades ago,
the basic foundation for what we now know as cable television
started to emerge in communities around the country. And since
this spectrum is held in the public interest, I think it is
important for us to keep that focus on those who have gone
before and have led us down paths of innovation that provide
the incredible array of services we now get over the spectrum.
So I guess for the panel, my question for you both is in
light of some of the comments that have been made here today,
in light of how people are served across the country through
these current LPTV stations, what are the biggest risks and the
biggest rewards you see from moving forward with the
legislation as it is currently drafted?
Mr. Feld. Well, first, I would just like to address one
misconception that I have now heard a couple of times, which is
with regard to the relationship between LPTVs and unlicensed.
It is important to realize that what the Commission has done is
tried to balance things. And in fact, what the Commission did
was to sort of merge wireless microphones, which are another
secondary wireless service associated with broadcasting, and
regarded as critical with broadcasting, with the unlicensed and
say these are smaller transmitters, they operated in a way that
is consistent with each other, we will have them share some
space. And then over here, with the larger fixed transmitters,
the LPTV and the translators, we will have a different question
as to how we try to fit them in the intricacies of the
repacking. So the FCC was very careful to not revisit its
existing hierarchy. But what it has done is what Congress has
directed it to do, which is balance many interests. In that
light, I think that there is a tremendous opportunity here for
the LPTV service as part of this transition through the
incentive auction. It is true that the LPTV service has fallen
on very hard times for a number of reasons, many of which are
not related to the incentive auction but have to do with the
digital transition, with the fact that they do not have must-
carry rights on cable. I used to work with this community a lot
some years ago when I was at Media Access Project. My hope has
been, and we have expressed it at every opportunity in our
filings at the FCC, is that this is an opportunity for the
Commission to recognize and reward those licensees that are
providing local service, contributing to diversity, satisfying
the public interest and upholding those traditions of trustees
of the public airwaves while simultaneously examining those bad
actors in the field who are, you know, speculators or who were
not serious, or who for reasons totally unrelated to the
incentive auction have essentially gone dark but still hold
permits in the hopes that someday they will be able to come
back again. And I think that the advantage and disadvantage of
this process is it is really going to help separate the genuine
service to local communities and hopefully, you know, shine a
spotlight on those and reinvigorate those, while also
maximizing spectrum efficiency overall.
Mr. Libin. Thank you so much. I have to try to come back to
the question that you had, and I think the question really was
who will be impacted. And it is a great question. And if I knew
that answer, then I would right now be sitting at the FCC,
because I think they are the only ones who know. If you ask me
who would be hurt, which LPTV and TV translator stations--well,
not just stations but they could actually impact through a
chain reaction through translators, because that is how they
work. So how many? So the answer is, it is hundreds of
thousands, or thousands. And it really turns out to be an
amazing--nobody really knows. That is really the whole point.
We are looking for transparency here. We are really trying
to understand. We don't. If you ask me right now do we want to
slow down the auction? Do I want to stop it? The answer is
absolutely not. We want this to go forward. We think this is in
the best interest of America. But we want to do it right. We
want to make sure that everything we are doing won't be held
up, just--you know, I could just examples of health. I am not
going there. But we all know that we want to do right. This is
a major deal.
We are 2 \1/2\ years into a 10-year process. We are not
rushed. Let us get it right. Let us get it really done right.
If we look at who is going to be hurt, if you look at the
ownership of LPTV and translator stations, it is somewhat close
to 30 percent is minority and women ownership. If you look at
if we call it the other broadcasters and cable, I think it is
less than three percent. Those are the people that would be
hurt. It is the people--whether they are sitting in Oregon or
sitting in Youngstown, Iowa, and this is the only way they
receive you, or in Utah and wherever they are. There are so
many of these stations and so many people who rely on this
service that I think we just need to tread very lightly when we
are considering moving ahead with the auction. We need to
consider LPTV and TV translators.
Thank you so much.
Mr. Braley. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Walden. Thank the gentleman. We will now recognize Mr.
Latta for 5 minutes.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
again, thanks for our witnesses for testifying for us today.
And this, you know, is a very good discussion we are having
here, because I know the question that the chairman asked, you
know, why are some people against the bill? Ranking Member
Eshoo was talking about that, you know, we are not always
talking about rural areas, but, you know, it is areas that are
impacted that have certain minority populations that could be
hit. My friend from Iowa, Mr. Braley, was asking a question
about who is going to be impacted.
But, Mr. Libin, let me ask you this, because, again, I
represent kind of a unique area. It goes from very, very rural
and into parts of a large city. And when you are looking at all
these questions that have been asked so far by members of the
committee, I guess the question is if we have--if the FCC is
not mindful of these LPTVs and the translator stations
throughout the spectrum auction and shut them down, will you
have rural consumers, or as the ranking member mentioned in
larger cities that you have certain minorities that might be
impacted with that, what are the options that these individuals
are going to have out there from the rural or to the city if
this has happened that they wouldn't have these LPTVs?
Mr. Libin. I think that is a great question. When we talk
about diverse, we are talking about financial as well. And
there aren't always options. There are many options that all
America--or a typical America could have when it comes to
whether it is entertainment or news, or wondering if that there
is a tornado warning is coming and how am I going to get that.
Well, if they don't have this free over the air coming to them,
and a lot of people this is the way they do have it now, they
are not going to know. They are not going to know what is
happening in their community. They are not going to know what
is happening nationwide. But especially local, they are not
going to know, aside from I mentioned high school football and
all of that. But it really has to do with life and public
safety. This is their lifeline for many, many people.
And it is so interesting I brought up the Youngstown, Iowa
before, because there are a number of LPTVs over there as well.
But going back to when I was mentioning in the Bay Area, so--
and you brought up the opposition to LPTV, you know, it really
is like a chess game, because in the Bay Area, we were talking
about the language that they were speaking from the Philippines
was Tagalog. I think I pronounced that right. Was that correct?
Ms. Eshoo. Tagalog.
Mr. Libin. Tagalog. This language that they do. But there
is also Vietnamese and Mandarin. And they are all intertwined
in that area. And these LPTV and translator stations are put
like chess pieces there. So you are correct. If somebody now
says wait a second, we might have to move our station. Well, if
you are now receiving--you have your population of Mandarin,
then what are they going to do with this station over here? So
you are absolutely correct that there could be. So these are
all very, very good issues. But I am glad that we are
discussing them, because all of this is very important to an
underserved population.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
going yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Walden. I thank the gentleman for his questions. Now,
we will turn to--who is next on our side? Let us see. I think
Mr. Long is next. Mr. Long, do you have questions for our
witnesses, or a statement?
Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for
being here today.
Mr. Libin, can you give me a specific example of maybe just
one example of a low-power TV station which would go out of
business if the FCC makes changes to the incentive auction?
Mr. Libin. That is also a great question. So, as we know
now, there are thousands of LPTV stations and translator
stations. And I could make assumptions. But since we haven't
seen any of the results of the auction yet, so I am not privy
to what any of the results of the spectrum repacking study.
This goes into the--all of this has to take the geography of
the country, and then it goes down to the level of the specific
area. And it has to--now, you have to do station coverage and
decide well, there are different scenarios. How much spectrum
are we getting back? If we are getting back so that we can sell
in the auction a certain amount, if affects this number of
stations. So you are asking a very, very good question. And I
myself would love to know the answers, as well as the LPTV and
the TV translator operators and owners, as well as the
manufacturers of the equipment. Because within the past, I
think, past month, just last week, one U.S. manufacturer of TV
translator equipment has gone out of business because of all
the uncertainty in this market. So--
Mr. Barton. Would the gentleman yield, Mr. Long?
Mr. Long. Yes.
Mr. Barton. Let me rephrase the question that he just asked
you, or give a generic answer. Wouldn't it be more likely that
a low-power television station that had been operating in an
area that had been rural but had now become more urban or
suburban, and was in a growth area where there was a high
demand for wireless services, and maybe like the Congressman's
district in Branson, Missouri that if there were a low-power
television station, that station might lose its license because
of the demand for wireless carriage because the population had
grown? Isn't that possibly an example?
Mr. Libin. That is absolutely a very good example. Another
example that would hit home to Chairman Barton would be if you
look at, for example, if you take Texas and you look at Dallas,
you can actually follow the translators along the interstate,
because that is where the populations are. And if one of them
are impacted, the whole chain goes down. So in that effect, we
are talking about a very big effect to a lot of people.
Mr. Barton. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Libin. Thank you so much.
Mr. Long. Let me kind of follow up with all the moving
parts and pieces. And I come from a 30-year background of the
auction business. So I know a little bit about auctions. With
all the moving parts and pieces that you are talking about,
isn't that also going to affect how the bidders will look at
what they need and what this auction will provide?
Mr. Libin. I think so. I mean, it has to have an impact.
But the impact is really minor. It is a minor impact, because
again just by name, low-power television are lower power
television. So they just need to be considered just as if there
was some terrain in the way or something else. There is the
impact of low-power television into the auction to be
considered in all the repacking scenarios is an impact, but it
is not a major, major impact.
Mr. Long. OK. Thank you. And, Mr. Feld, from your testimony
here today, you obviously think that the FCC has done a great
job so far with this incentive auction preparation. Do you
think they have made any mistakes and should have done anything
differently or did anything differently regarding auction
preparation?
Mr. Feld. Well, I think that this has been a very
challenging process for everybody, where everybody learns as
they go. If we had known 2 years ago that this is where we were
going to end up, we could have gotten here a lot faster. But I
do have to say that one of the problems which I want to
highlight is as Mr. Libin says from his perspective, this is a
minor impact. But again, all of these impacts, because these
issues are so tightly wound with each other, all have impacts
everywhere else in the auction structure, which requires
everything to be recalibrated. So I think part of the delay and
part of the issue here has been how do you get all of these
complicated pieces to work together when we have no guide and
sometimes conflicting goals that the FCC has been instructed by
Congress to balance? I also think that there is a concern about
time. Mr. Libin has said, you know, we have 10 years to get
this right. We don't really have 10 years. Congress gave the
FCC 10 years to make sure that things could get done. But at
impetus to pass legislation was the spectrum shortage, which we
have been concerned about, and the demand for wireless capacity
continues to grow. It was to fund deficit reduction, to fund
FirstNet. And the longer we delay the auction, the longer these
remain outstanding items on our Federal budget ledger. So I
think that particularly here where I do believe that the FCC
has been overall doing a pretty good job of trying to thread
this needle, and where we have a process that is unfolding now,
then rather than have Congress drop another bill, tell
everybody to go rethink does this legislation change the
progress that we have made so far, that we ought to keep going,
Congress should continue to exercise oversight. And if the
further notice does not work out the way that Congress believes
is necessary, there will still be time to take corrective
action.
Mr. Long. OK. Thank you. And I am way over my time. And
thank both of you once again. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Walden. Mr. Long, thank you for your questions. Ms.
Eshoo and I decided we are just going to put you in charge of
the auction when we get this thing done.
Ms. Eshoo. Yes.
Mr. Walden. It would be a lot cheaper, faster, easier.
Mr. Long. This thing here might take 10, 20, 30, 40 years.
Mr. Walden. That is all right. And we will raise more
money, and we guarantee we will have more fun. Mr. Matheson, I
am just going touch base with you one more time. OK. Then we
will go to Ms. Ellmers for final questions, if you have any?
Mrs. Ellmers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Feld, I will
start off with you, just in continuing the conversation here.
From what I am hearing, you seem to believe that the proposed
LPTV legislation would delay the incentive auctions. Obviously,
you kind of made that clear. And, obviously, this is
problematic. But what are the consequences if the FCC fails to
protect translators and LPTV stations?
Mr. Feld. Well, part of this is I understand that there is
some--in your particularly--in the LPTV community, but from
where we have been sitting and what we have been urging has
been for the FCC to actually take great care to protect these
services. The FCC has continued to recognize their importance.
Mrs. Ellmers. Um-hum.
Mr. Feld. We have continued to stress their importance. You
know, Public Knowledge is an organization that has supported
localism and diversity in media for a very long time. I think
we all recognize that if services in communities that
communities rely and go dark, that that would be a grave
disservice to those communities and would be contrary to over
80 years of communications long precedent. For that reason, I
think that where the FCC is continuing to take these things
very seriously, where the struggle has been to try to figure
out how to balance multiple interests that Congress should
continue to exercise its oversight.
Mrs. Ellmers. Um-hum.
Mr. Feld. Be prepared to step in, if necessary. But
legislation is a very big step. And contrary to what Chairman
Walden may believe, I know the FCC takes the acts of Congress
very seriously. At least they spend a lot of time considering
them. And if there is a bill that is proposed now, my concern
is that it causes everybody to take their tokens, go back to go
and reopen a lot of issues that we had thought were settled.
Mrs. Ellmers. OK. Mr. Libin, I understand there is a 10-
year window of time that has been mentioned already. What do
you see is the relevant timeline for the LPTV and translators
in terms of your feelings of the impact of the incentive
auction? Are you coming down to a shorter period of time now,
as well, considering all things?
Mr. Libin. Right. So first of all, our goal is, as I said
before, is absolutely not to slow down the process at all. It
is an optimization process. We now know more. We also know a
little bit that the FCC sort of needs this nudge on LPTV and TV
translators and boosters, because they have been advocating a
little bit maybe on the side of the wireless providers. And
that is where we sort of had this whole issue where now LPTV
might be tertiary to the wireless providers. So I think that is
why this is so important to come back with sort of the reminder
from Congress that this is the way you have to treat LPTV. And
I don't think that it really slows the process down. I think
that in effect if we open it up, there are a lot of experts out
there--a lot more experts who now could come in and can say and
by the way, there are many tweaks that have to be done to the
software right now. And so this is just another one. Let us add
it in there. And let us see how far we can help keep the
deadline, which is again we are all shooting for much less than
10 years.
Mrs. Ellmers. Right. And, Mr. Feld, do you want to expand
on that?
Mr. Feld. I would just like to add that our organization,
Public Knowledge, other organizations in the public interest
spectrum coalition, which include organizations that care a
great deal about diversity in media, have consistently hoped
that this can be a win for everybody. And one of the advantages
of the ongoing FCC process is we continue to try to work with
all of the communities who are involved to find solutions. As I
say, we have proposed the solution that is actually proposed in
this bill, this voluntary reduction in power in order to save
licensees. We think that there are other ways in which we can
cooperate rather than view this as a fight. And my hope is that
in fact what we need is not a push for the FCC to go back to
the beginning and force everybody to go through all of this
again, but instead a nudge for all of the parties to come
together and find solutions that are going to maximize the
efficiency for everybody.
Mrs. Ellmers. Um-hum. Thank you. And thank you both. And,
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. Walden. Thank the gentlelady. And I thank our witnesses
for your testimony. If you have other comments we should be
aware of, please submit them. And I am sure we will probably
have some questions perhaps from the committee, so we will keep
the record open for submission of that, as according to our
rules.
We thank you very much. And I thank everyone for being here
and participating. And we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:24 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[all]