[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 108 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[House]
[Page H5830]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  THE SPECTRUM GIVEAWAY IS A MISNOMER

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 21, 1997, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, you might title my 5 minutes this afternoon 
``The Spectrum Giveaway is a Misnomer.'' The spectrum issue has 
generated a lot of misinformation, and as a member of the Subcommittee 
on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection, I feel obliged to 
clear up the confusion. Some pundits and politicians have the notion 
that providing broadcasters access to the digital spectrum represents a 
massive giveaway. They are not understanding the point.
  But first let us talk about what the spectrum is. It is broadcast 
airwaves, a series of frequencies for transmitting signals. The 
spectrum had no impact on human life until Mr. Farnsworth developed 
broadcast television. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that there is a statue 
of Mr. Farnsworth in Statuary Hall here in the Capitol.
  Almost literally, something was made from nothing. Over the years, 
the media have invested billions of dollars to put the previously idle 
analog spectrum to productive use. As a Nation, we have benefited from 
these broadcasts through weather alerts, political debates and coverage 
of the first Moon walk.
  With the advent of high definition technologies, the broadcasters 
need access to a new spectrum, the digital spectrum. Again, the 
broadcasters will invest billions of dollars to deliver free TV over 
these frequencies. Individual stations will also have to convert at a 
cost of up to $20 million each.
  Now, obviously, this is a huge cost, particularly for most 
broadcasters in small- and medium-sized markets like many in my home 
State of Florida, where they have assets under $10 million. However, 
there are many who want broadcasters to give up the old analog 
spectrum, spend billions of dollars on new equipment to convert to 
digital TV, and then continue to deliver free TV and pay for the 
digital spectrum all together. Well, it cannot be done.
  Mr. Speaker, heaping auction costs on top of this transition cost 
will make it virtually impossible for many local broadcasters to 
provide free, over-the-air programming in the digitized world. It does 
not take a genius to figure out that if enough broadcasters are forced 
out of these auctions by these costs, consumers will have fewer choices 
in their viewing options.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with those advocating the up-front 
auction of the digital spectrum loaned to broadcasters. These advocates 
should look at this issue in the proper context. In the 1980's, the 
government and broadcasters developed an understanding to develop and 
promote high definition television over digital transmissions. The 
Federal Communications Commission, with the endorsement of Congress, 
agreed to provide broadcasters an additional 6 megahertz of spectrum. 
This added 6 megahertz of spectrum is necessary to assure that the old 
analog transmissions, current over-the-air TV, is not disrupted in the 
transition to digital transmission.
  This does not mean that I support a government giveaway to the media. 
We can still, Mr. Speaker, generate government revenue from this 
exchange, and let me explain.
  Once the transition from analog to digital is completed, we can then 
auction off the analog spectrum for cellular and other transmissions. 
In addition, the government may charge broadcasters a fee if they 
provide ancillary service such as paging or faxing in the new digital 
spectrum.
  Last week William Safire, a leading columnist, called this exchange a 
sweet payoff to broadcasters and compared it with the prospect of, 
``giving Yellowstone National Park to the timber companies.'' Mr. 
Speaker, I wish to offer a different analogy this afternoon: The 
Homestead Act of 1862.
  Mr. Speaker, through this act, the Federal Government parceled out 
billions of acres of what it considered worthless western land. Now a 
settler received a 160-acre plot of land and the government got a 
pledge that the land would be cultivated and put to productive use. 
What was then considered the ``great American desert'' is now among the 
most valuable land in the world.
  My position is that a rational approach providing a win-win situation 
for all should be involved. The government wins because its coffers 
will be filled with analog action proceeds and fees from supplemental 
digital services. Those who care about free, over-the-air broadcasting 
win because television will not be interrupted in the transition from 
analog to digital. Broadcasters win because they will remain 
competitive in the new information age. But above all, consumers win 
with continued free access to news and information and more competition 
among information and entertainment providers.
  The up-front auction of the digital spectrum could be a roadblock to 
the new era of communications. Combined with other technologies, 
digital TV will yield a single box sitting in our living rooms; one 
device functioning as our TV, telephone, computer, modem, radio, and 
VCR. Mr. Speaker, let us not let misguided policies stand in the way of 
progress.

                          ____________________