Spectrum: for those Interested in the "Spectrum Grab" Bill and MARKEY SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT and quest

[David Farber <>]

Date: Sat, 05 Mar 94 22:09 EST
From: Susan_FRATKIN () umail umd edu (sf42)


David
We need the following disseminated as widely as possible and contacts and
visits made Once we agree on a response and develop short and long
responses:
Congressmen John Dingell (D. Mich), 202-225-4071; Edward Markey (D. MA),
202-225-2836; Al Swift (D. WA), 202-225-2605; W.J.Tauzin (D. LA),
202-225-4031; Jim Slattery (D. KS), 202-225-6601; Ralph Hall (D. TX),
202-225-6673; Congresswoman Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky (D. PA), 202-225-6111


Senators Ernest Hollings (D. SC), 202-224-6121; Wendell Ford (D. KY),
202-224-4343; James Exon (D. NE), 202-224-4224; John Kerry (D. MA),
202-224-2742; John Breaux (D.LA), 202-224-4623; John Rockefeller (D. WV),
202-224-6472; Charles Robb (D. VA), 202-224-4024; John Danforth (R. MO),
202-224-6154;Conrad Burns (R. MT), 202-224-2644.


Many thanks for your help.
Sue
 ----------- Begin Forwarded Message ------------
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 94 22:09 EST
From: Susan_FRATKIN () umail umd edu (sf42)


Yes - I am in receipt of a letter that has been sent to selected parties -
don't know the criteria as I obtained a copy from Andy Schwartzman of Media
Access -  but will be receiving one of my own on Monday - this is an effort
to provide the broadcasters with "something" but not to give away the whole
store. Markey has let it be know that he is not happy but feels that he must
go along with "giving the broadcasters. something."
Andy will be sharing their answers to these questions and has promised all
the assistance we need. I promised to share with him our activities and
responses.
He has recommended visits to the Hill - so if you will be in DC this week
and are willing to make visits, please let me know. I will be
coordinating them with Andy and crowd. We need numbers to turn out and leave
sheets with answers to these questions in long and short form at each stop.


MAJOR CONCERN - responses to these 14 detailed questions are due Monday, March
7th although Markey's staff know that answers will be coming in later - but
SPEED IS OF THE ESSENCE. Rather than try to fax a copy of the questions to
anyone who asks - I will outline them here, including the proposed amendment
that Mr. Markey is offering as a substitute.  I expect that you all will
develop a response document that all can agree to by cob on Monday.


                        THE MARKEY SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT


After section 202, insert that following new section


SEC. 203 BROADCAST SPECTRUM FLEXIBILITY
        (a) Regulations Required - Within 1 year after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall, after a notice
and comment proceeding, prescribe regulations to permit broadcasters to
make use of the broadcast spectrum that they are licensed to used for
services that are ancillary or supplementary to the programming services
which they are authorized to provide. Such regulation shall not relieve a
broadcast station from its obligation to serve the public interest,
convenience, and necessity. This section shall not be construed to authorize
the Commission to reduce, restrict, or eliminate any condition or obligations
applicable to the issuance or renewal of a license in the broadcasting
service. Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the
Commission's discretion and responsibility to make determinations consistent
with the public interest with respect to advanced television services .
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or otherwise affect the
Commission's authority to review and revise its regulations with respect to a
broadcast station's minimum hours of operation.
        (b) Fees For Commercial Services - To the extent that a broadcast
license uses broadcast spectrum to provide commercial services other than
broadcast service, the Commission shall, after a notice and comment
proceeding, impose a fee upon each license in an amount not to exceed the
amount that would have been paid if the license to provide such commercial
services had been subjected to competitive bidding under section 309 (j) of
the Communications Act 0f 1934 (47 U.S.C. 309 (j)). The Commission shall, in
its notice and comment proceeding consider criteria it deems appropriate in
establishing a resonable amount to be paid.


                QUESTIONS RAISED BY MR. MARKEY RELATING TO ABOVE AMENDMENT


1- Currently, broadcasters fall outside of the class of spectrum users that
are required to bid competitively for spectrum under Section 309 (j) of the
Communications Act of 1934 since they do not receive compensation from
subscribers for the principal use they make of their license.


        A - Should broadcasters bid and pay a fee for the use of spectrum
currently assigned to them if they provide new services apart from their
main channel signal?


        B - In the event broadcasters are assigned additional spectrum
(e.g., spectrum to be assigned for so-called high definition television
(HDTV) service) and seek to use it to provide services beyond their main
channel signal, should they be required to bid at public auction for the use
of this spectrum? In either case, how might allowing broadcasters use of
spectrum that they have not bid for affect the underlying rationale and
fairness of the spectrum auction process?


2. If broadcasters are allowed to use spectrum to offer services apart from
their main channel signal, how should the federal government establish the
fees they should be charged? Should the calaulation of the fee be based
solely on a measure of the market value of the spectrum or should other
factors be considered? How might the government accurately estimate a market
price for the spectrum in the absence of an auction?


3. What impact might there be on federal government receipts from spectrum
auctions if broadcasters obtained the use of spectrum for services apart
from their main channel signal at less than market rates?


4. Section 309 (j) of the Communications Act of 1934 requires auctions only
for spectrum whose principal use involves compensation from subscribers.
Should this distinction also be applied to the types of services offered by
broadcasters on additional spectrum to be assigned to them? If this
distinction is applied here, how should subscription or pay video services
be treated? If consumers must pay for set top converters in order to receive
even non-subsctiption services, should fees be applied for those services
as well? If, over time, broadcasters changed the nature of the service they
were providing over newly assigned spectrum, should the fee for the
spectrum be adjusted accordingly ? By what process?


5. The amendment would allow radio and television broadcasters to use the
spectrum assigned to them to provide a wide variety of services outside of
their main channel signal. The only limitation that appears to exist in
the amendment is the requirement that these services be "ancillary or
supplementary to the programming serivces which they are authorized to
provide." What is the effect of this limitation? What practical limits do the
terms "ancillary" and "supplementary" impose on broadcasters? What services
apart from the main channel signal are broadcasters currently authorized to
provide and how would the amendment change that authority? What limits
would be appropriate to set on the kinds of services broadcasters can
offer over the spectrum assigned to them?


6. Pursuant to the Federal Commmunications Commisssion's (FCC's) proceeding
on advanced television systems, each television broadcaster has tentatively
been allocated an additional 6 megahertz in order to broadcast an HDTV -
quality television signal. How would the amendment in questions affect the
FCC's efforts to encourage the development of HDTV and other advanced
television systems? Does the amendment fully preserve the FCC's authority to
establish standards and regulations for the transmission of HDTV?


7. What are some of the commercial services that are currently
technologically feasible if broadcasters are allowed to use the spectrum
originally allocated to them, for HDTV services other than their broadcast
service? Is this spectrum particularly well-suited for any specific
commercial uses?


8. Under the FCC's proceeding on advanced television systems, the
additional spectrum to be assigned to broadcasters would not require the
issuance of new licenses. If broadcasters use this spectrum for services
other than HDTV service, how should such services be regulated and should
broadcasters be required to obtain a separate license for such service?


9. To the extent that television broadcasters offer additional video
programming services apart from the main channel signal on spectrum assigned
to them for HDTV service, should such services be accorded must carry rights
by cable operators?


10. To the extent that a new service offered by a broadcaster is similar to
its existing main channel signal, would this new service be considered
"broadcasting" under Section 3(0) of the Communications Act of 1934 and
therefore subject to the requirements of Title III of the Act? This may not
be a concern if the ancillary service is data transmission, but if it is an
additional video channel, the language of the amendment could effectively
exempt that service from the requiirements of Title III (for example, the
equal time rule, the personal attack rule, equal employment opportunity
requirements, children's television programming requirements, character
review, etc.) Please comment.


11. Under exisiting law, broadcast frequencies are available to all based
on a competition which considers public interest factors such as diversity
of ownership and ownership by minorities. The amendment could be read as
effectively reallocating spectrum without taking such minority and
diversity concerns into consideration. Please comment.


12. Nothing in this proposal would appear to restrict or limit the proportion
of spectrum that broadcasters would be able to devote to services apart from
its main channel signal. This leaves open the possibility that the
broadcast-related service could become a minor part of a broadcaster's
overall services. Should broadcasters be required to devote a minimum
percentage of their spectrum to their broadcast license operation?


13. If broadcasters are given flexibility to offer multiple digitally
transmitted video signals, wouldn't there be a natural incentive to reduce
picture quality if that meant a broadcaster could transmit more channels of
video?


14. FCC regulations currently require a minimum level of service for
televsion broadcasters of 2 hours per day or 28 hours per week, and for
radio broadcasters of 12 hours per day. The amendment would appear to free
broadcasters to provide services apart from their main channel signal on the
entire spectrum assigned to them, during hours of the day that they are
not broadcasting. This appears to create incentives for them to reduce their
traditional broadcasting service to the public in order to expand any
commercial services that prove more profitable than broadcasting. Please
comment.


I will be happy to provide assistance. You may reach me at 202 - 265 5410 ,
e-mail  sf42 () umail umd edu.
Sue Fratkin,
Washington liaison
Coalition of Academic Supercomputing Centers (21 members including 5 NSF
Centers)


> Worth checking into. Maybe we should do something about awareness? --RJS
>
> ==============================
>
> > Date: Sat, 5 Mar 94 14:44:13 -0500
> > From: pcubed (Craig J. Birkmaier)
> > To: rjs () farnsworth mit edu
> > Subject:   Re spectrum giveaway
> >
> >
> > Richard;
> >
> > > From what I heard about it, Tauzin's ammendment was poorly structured and
> > gave away too much to the broadcaster. But it sounds like Markey is
soliciting
> > a
> > better proposal--not later this year, but later this month. It's likely that
> > the
> > broadcast ammendment will be re-submitted when the bills reach the full
> > Energy & Commerce committee.
>
> > The Grand Alliance system will never get off the ground. As soon as
> > a better broadcast ammendment is added to the deregulation bills,
> > the rule of the game will be changed. Its also clear that the
> > administration is going to take care of their buddies in the
> > broadcast business. We need to push for a solution that forces an
> > early demise of the NTSC service, thus freeing up the spectrum
> > quickly. The best way to accomplish this is to make the digital
> > service less regulated and more attractive financially. Let the
> > broadcasters have a new digital channel if they agree to provide a
> > service that is compatible with the wired NII, and to vacate the NTSC
> > channel by the year 2000!
> >
> > Craig




------------ End Forwarded Message -------------