1
Remarks of
Chairman Julius Genachowski
Federal Communications Commission 
NAB Show 2010
Las Vegas, Nevada
April 13, 2010
Thank you for inviting me, and thank you all for coming.  The fact that you chose to be here and 
woke up before 9 a.m. in Las Vegas is much appreciated. 
Thank you to my fellow FCC Commissioners, Michael Copps, Mignon Clyburn and Meredith 
Baker, who are here and will participate in a session this afternoon. I’m more than happy to serve 
as their warm-up act. 
The last time I was at an NAB convention I was here … as a broadcaster.  
It was in the late 1990s, and I was part of the USA Broadcasting team launching stations that had 
carried HSN.  
We focused on local sports as anchor programming -- expensive -- as we launched original 
programming including local news and children’s -- all expensive -- against fragmenting 
audience and ad dollars.  Not easy.  
Meanwhile, of course, we were trying to make sure we got our DTV license applications in on 
time -- protecting our basic must-carry rights, and hoping we might get digital must carry.
I know first-hand the challenges of local broadcasting.  And I certainly understand the real-world 
impact on broadcasters of the economic crisis we’ve been suffering through.  
I have enormous respect and admiration for the many broadcasters who succeed as businesses 
while providing news and other programming that serves America’s local communities.  
And who do so in this time of change, as cable and satellite have continued to grow, and as use 
of the Internet and mobile phones has exploded.
We see these changes every day.
I know I see it when I look at my children and compare their experiences to mine. 
I grew up watching over-the-air TV.  Channel 9 was the Mets; Channel 11 the Yankees; Channel 
2 was Walter Cronkite and Jim Jensen, watching with my father; Channel 5 was Dinah Shore 
with my mom.  Cable didn’t come to my childhood home until after I left for college.
2
Flash forward.  My 18-year-old son has never not had cable, and isn’t particularly interested in 
which channels are ‘broadcast’ and which are ‘cable’.  With new viewing platforms from video 
game consoles to laptops to smartphones – all as natural to my son as the TV -- content has been 
liberated from context.
I can only imagine what my 3- and 5-year-olds’ viewing habits will be when they are teenagers -
- but I can tell you that most of their interaction with PBS characters comes through iPhone apps.
I could tell similar stories for radio, of course.  By the way, not widely known but true: I was a 
radio DJ while in high school, spinning disks -- literally -- on an old carrier-current station.
And so I have particular appreciation for the accomplishments of the radio industry.  I note with 
pride that, notwithstanding new sources of audio programming, radio has actually grown its 
over-the-air audience by almost 10 percent over the last decade.
Through our Media Bureau, we recently authorized a power increase for HD radio.  We also 
updated our rules to let AM stations use FM translators.  
I appreciate the many voices of thanks on these topics when I visited the floor yesterday. 
And I was impressed on the floor by what I saw of the work being done on the transition to 
digital of both radio and TV. 
The transition to DTV didn’t change -- and in fact it underscored -- the original vision of the 
value of what broadcasting can bring to our country: Local news. Weather.  Sports.  Emergency 
information.  A platform for diverse voices and creative programming.  Educational 
programming for our kids.  
Many broadcasters still supply important connective tissue holding our communities together.
And as a new generation of startups with funny names but growing audiences seek to provide 
content to local communities on new platforms, more and more broadcasters are seeking to 
extend their reach beyond the traditional platform.  As I heard one broadcaster say:  Wayne 
Gretzky goes where the puck is going; we need to go where the audience is going: online and 
mobile.
And so during the recent snowstorms in D.C., not only were local broadcasters a lifeline for the 
community, WRC-TV used its robust Web site and Twitter feed to help residents who had lost 
power get up-to-the-minute information through their computers and phones. 
Many stations like KCRA 3 in Sacramento have entered into partnerships with cityvoter.com to 
engage local residents and develop user-generated “Best Of” lists for their community. 
LinTV partnered with a company called News Over Wireless to develop an iPhone app for all 27 
of its TV stations. 
3
Last month, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting announced a major local journalism 
initiative that will form teams of multimedia journalists who will report via multiple platforms --
TV, radio, online and mobile.
I noted with interest that NAB has copyrighted a new word to describe your transforming 
industry in this multiplatform world: “broader-casting.” 
We want to work with broadcasters as you seek to reach your audience both over the air and 
through the Internet.  
A core goal of the FCC is to foster a thriving, healthy and competitive media landscape on all 
platforms. 
I believe it’s vital that the Internet remain free and open for content creators like you to innovate 
and reach your audience, and vital also that you can protect your content online against unlawful 
copyright infringement.
Now, as the digital revolution creates challenges and opportunities for broadcasters, it does so for 
our nation as a whole.
We’re in the midst of a transformative digital age, and having a world-leading broadband 
infrastructure is a vital part of our national strategy to compete globally and have an enduring 
engine of job creation and economic growth in the 21st century.  
Unfortunately, recent studies have ranked U.S. broadband infrastructure as low as 15th globally 
for adoption and 18th for speed. 
A 2009 study placed the US 40th out of the 40 countries in the study in “the rate of change in 
innovative capacity.” 
That says we’re at serious risk as a country in not moving quickly enough on our technology 
infrastructure in and other areas to remain the world’s leader in innovation.
Many believe there is no bigger opportunity for the United States than leading the world in 
mobile innovation.
Mobile Internet access can be not only a powerful platform for substantial 21st century job and 
business creation, but also a critical part of the solution to pressing national challenges like 
education, health care, energy, and public safety.
But a real problem looms. 
On our current trajectory, the demand for spectrum for mobile Internet access will outstrip the 
supply.  By a lot.
You don’t have to take my word for it.  
4
During our open broadband process, over one hundred companies – technology, telecom, 
electronics and others, representing many billions of dollars of ongoing investment and millions 
of American jobs – submitted a formal filing stating, “Our nation’s ability to lead the world in 
innovation and technology is threatened by the lack of sufficient spectrum for wireless 
broadband applications and services.”  
This is not a theory or idle speculation.  It’s math and physics.
Here are some facts that illustrate the issue, also part of our broadband record.  
An advanced Internet-connected smartphone -- like what most of you have in your pockets (and 
20 percent have actually checked) -- generates 30 times the data volume of the cellphones they 
replaced.  
A wireless netbook generates 450 times more data. 
There are over 280 million wireless subscribers in the U.S.  
Three years ago the iPhone, Droid, and PalmPre didn’t exist.  
Today, one-quarter of American wireless subscribers have smartphones.  And Nielsen projects 
that smartphone penetration will more than double by the end of 2011, and keep climbing. 
Data from multiple sources submitted as part of our broadband record tell us to expect a 40-fold
increase in mobile Internet demand over the next 5 years.  
And those projections were prepared before the iPad was introduced.
That 40-fold increase in demand compares to a three-fold increase in spectrum for mobile 
broadband coming online.
That’s the gap we need to narrow -- if we’re going to lead the world in mobile, and seize the 
opportunity for job creation at home.
Other countries are not standing still. As my colleague Meredith Baker has reminded us, 
Germany is on the verge of auctioning 340 megahertz of additional spectrum for mobile 
broadband, and Japan is reportedly planning to make spectrum blocks totaling 500 megahertz 
available for 4G deployments.
And here at home we’re already seeing signs of the problems to come. Reports of consumer 
frustration with mobile are growing -- and will only increase if we stand still. 
No question.  Our country faces a serious issue.  
5
And while it’s not the time to panic, it is the time to plan.  If we wait for the crisis to hit, it will 
be too late to act without significant cost to our economy and global competitiveness.  
So what should be done about this?  
Many things.  There’s no silver bullet.
To deliver the mobile Internet future, we’ll need new spectrum-efficient technologies, and we’re 
asking at the FCC how can we best incentivize the development and deployment of such 
technologies.
We’ll also need spectrum-efficient policies, and we’re asking at the FCC how can we best 
accelerate market-based solutions like secondary markets and spectrum flexibility. 
These strategies are necessary.  But not sufficient.  The record is clear: America needs more 
spectrum for mobile internet access.
The wireless industry formally called for recovery of 800 megahertz of spectrum.  Our National 
Broadband Plan calls for the recovery of 500 megahertz of spectrum over the next 10 years –
from multiple private and government users across the spectrum chart.  Certainly not limited to, 
but including, broadcast spectrum.
What about broadcast spectrum?
Some have suggested that all 300 MHz now allocated to broadcasting should be reclaimed and 
auctioned.
Others take the view that the status quo is fine; no change needed. 
The Broadband Plan recommends neither course.  Instead, it lays out a well-balanced plan 
designed to be a win-win-win for broadcasters, mobile Internet providers, and the American 
people.  
It proposes voluntary incentive auctions -- a process for sharing with broadcasters a meaningful 
part of the billions of dollars of value that would be unlocked if some broadcast spectrum was 
converted to mobile broadband.  
The plan would give broadcasters the choice to contribute their licensed spectrum to the auction 
and participate in the upside. 
The plan would give broadcasters the option of channel sharing.  For example, a broadcaster 
could contribute half of its capacity and share spectrum with another broadcaster in the market, 
continuing to broadcast their primary programming streams and more, while lowering their 
operating expenses and gaining infusions of capital.  
6
The large majority of broadcasters may well be uninterested in this choice -- and that is 
completely fine as far as the plan is concerned.
But why should a broadcaster who sees benefit in sharing spectrum be denied the opportunity to 
take it? 
Why shouldn’t we seek to find sensible strategies, consistent with the public interest, to bring 
more market-based incentives to broadcast spectrum?
By the way, the incentive auction proposal would apply to all bands of spectrum.  It’s a creative, 
21st century idea for wise and efficient spectrum policy.
A lot has been said and written about this auction proposal, including at this conference, that just 
isn’t accurate.
Let me make four points about incentive auctions as applied to broadcasters, and dispel four 
myths.
One, these auctions are voluntary. Period. Participation is up to the licensee and no one else.
Two, for the Plan to work, we don’t need all, most, or even very many licensees to participate.  
If a relatively small number of broadcasters in a relatively small number of markets share 
spectrum, our staff believes we can free up a very significant amount of bandwidth. 
And rural markets would be largely unaffected by the recommendation in the broadband plan 
because the spectrum crunch will be most acute in our largest population centers.
Point three, we anticipate mechanisms to reduce or even eliminate risk, and maximize upside, for 
broadcasters that elect to participate in the auction.  For example, the plan could allow 
broadcasters to set a reserve auction price below which their licenses wouldn’t transfer.  The 
mechanism could lock in a payment for broadcasters, while allowing for participation in upside 
above that level. 
Four, auction rules and mechanisms will be developed through an open and transparent process, 
with ongoing dialogue about the best design mechanisms for incentive auctions, focusing on 
what will actually work and meet the country’s needs. 
In sum, the intention of the proposal is to provide broadcasters with more choice and flexibility, 
not less. More business model options, not fewer.  While at the same time helping address a vital 
national challenge.
Let me now address some myths about incentive auctions.
Myth #1: The plan is to confiscate broadcasters’ spectrum and drive broadcasters out of 
business.  
7
Not so.  Again, the incentive auction plan is voluntary. No one will be forced to participate.  In 
fact, this is the opposite of a confiscation; it would be an economic boost to broadcasters that 
elect to participate.
Also it’s important to note that that the broadband plan anticipates that broadcast spectrum would 
be less than 25 percent of the 500 MHz target in the broadband plan.  No spectrum stone is being 
unturned. 
Myth  #2: The plan will diminish voices and harm the values of broadcast diversity and localism.
To the contrary, giving broadcasters new options and an additional source of financing should 
strengthen the industry and bolster the public interest.  
The plan could bring the greatest benefits to broadcasters that provide programming to 
underrepresented portions of a local community.  
Because the advertising base is smaller, the traditional broadcast model has always been a 
challenge for such broadcasters, and digital fragmentation is putting more pressure on the 
business model.  It’s a particular challenge for these stations to invest in new streams of over-
the-air digital programming where that programming isn’t subject to must carry. 
The incentive auction plan would give local broadcasters serving minority or other 
underrepresented audiences a new choice: share spectrum, continue programming and carriage, 
reduce operating costs, and gain a capital infusion.   For some broadcasters, it could make the 
difference in having a business and staying on the air.
Myth #3: The Plan will prevent broadcasters from deploying Mobile DTV.
Another misperception.  I’m pleased that the DTV transition has enabled the development of 
standards and the launch of market trials for mobile DTV. Our job is not to predict innovation or 
business models, but to enable them.  Under the incentive auction plan, broadcasters will be able 
to provide mobile DTV, both licensees that choose to retain all 6 megahertz, and those that 
choose to share. 
Myth #4: Consumers will need to purchase new equipment
Not the case. First, of course, the plan would have no effect at all on viewers who receive their 
broadcast signals from cable, telephone or satellite providers.  Viewers who receive their 
broadcast signals over-the-air would simply need to rescan their current TVs or converter boxes. 
And to the extent a transition would impose any new costs on broadcasters themselves, those 
costs could be covered by the auction proceeds.
Now, some people have asked, what happens if the incentive auction doesn’t work? 
I truly believe it won’t come to that. Our country can’t afford for it to come to that. 
8
I believe that a voluntary auction plan based on unlocking billions of dollars of value and sharing 
it, a plan that needs the participation and spectrum-sharing of a limited number of broadcasters, 
who will get to lower their operating costs, and receive a cash infusion, while continuing on the 
air.  I believe such a plan can and will produce a multi-level win for a series of great American 
industries – including broadcasting, mobile broadband, consumer electronics, and technology 
companies – that it will empower new innovators and entrepreneurs, and that it will bring 
significant benefits to consumers and taxpayers.   
I also believe that, whatever we might think or hope, this issue won’t go away, because the 
mobile web – and the opportunities it provides, and the data demand it will generate – won’t go 
away.
And so I call on all broadcasters to ignore the hyperbole and focus on the real challenges and the 
real opportunities. 
Move beyond inside-the-beltway debates and tactics.  Consider carefully what the National 
Broadband Plan actually proposes.  Accept our offer to work with us constructively on fleshing it 
out, improving it where appropriate, and finding a real win for the country and all stakeholders.
As a next step toward solving problems together, I’m pleased to announce that the FCC will be 
convening an Engineers Forum, which will enlist broadcast, mobile and other engineers to 
address concrete technical issues raised by the plan and help develop the best path forward. That 
will be followed by similar efforts involving business executives.
The FCC staff and I have real hope that these direct roll-up-your-sleeve sessions will produce 
progress and good outcomes.
Now, I’ve chosen to focus my remarks on the incentive auctions, but of course technology and 
business changes are raising additional issues at the FCC.  Let me touch on some of them briefly. 
Retransmission consent has been much in the news recently. 
Many broadcasters tell us they are pleased to finally receive cash compensation for their 
programming from cable operators and other multichannel providers.  
I agree that the market is the preferred method to determine broadcast-cable arrangements.
At the same time, these commercial negotiations between broadcasters and multichannel video 
providers affect third parties who aren’t at the table.   
I’m concerned about sudden program interruptions, and about the potential for rising cable rates.   
Some ask: is ‘free TV’ really free when cable rates go up because of retransmission fees?
9
There are legitimate questions about whether to update the 20-year-old framework for 
retransmission consent and must carry. As we move forward, I’ll be focused on making sure we 
have a framework that is fair to consumers, as well as each of the businesses involved. 
On media ownership, the FCC will soon issue a Notice of Inquiry, launching the next stage of 
review of our ownership rules.
Two points.  First, I believe Congress was right when it instructed the FCC to review its 
ownership rules on a regular basis to make sure the rules fit the changing facts and economic 
realities of the marketplace. 
Second, I believe that the traditional Communications Act values of competition, localism, and 
diversity remain core and essential values in the 21st century.  
And with broadcast ownership rules, as elsewhere, an America with universal broadband access 
and deployment looks different from one without.  
One of the most significant effects of the changing media and economic landscape is the 
potential crisis in journalism. Network news, newspapers, newsmagazines have slashed the 
number of reporters who provide accountability journalism and credible information to 
communities.
This moment presents a great business challenge to local broadcasters -- but also perhaps an 
opportunity.  As other outlets cut back, and as the online news business model develops slowly, 
can local TV news fill the void?  
As I mentioned earlier, there are already some promising examples of commercial and non-
commercial broadcasters upping their commitment to local news.  Will this become more 
widespread and substantial? Can we all look back at this period as the golden age of local TV 
news?
Just yesterday, the new nonprofit investigative journalism service Pro Publica won a Pulitzer 
Prize in collaboration with the New York Times -- a partnership between a commercial news 
provider and a nonprofit would have been unthinkable a few years ago.  Is this a sign that new 
approaches, new partnerships can achieve historic goals in the 21st century?
These are some of the questions being asked by the FCC’s project on the Future of Media and 
Information Needs of Communities.  Steve Waldman, a journalist and entrepreneur, is leading a 
top-to-bottom study on the subject, thinking fresh about how best to implement longstanding 
principles in the digital era.  
We’re also taking a fresh look at the ways in which new media technologies can help educate 
and inform our children, and the ways in which these technologies expose our kids to new risks. 
We can and must work together to ensure that media improves the lives of children and 
empowers families.  
10
As we review the information needs of communities and how to update the 20-year-old 
Children’s Television Act for the digital age, I’m optimistic that new technologies and new 
markets are creating new opportunities to further the public interest, enhance our democracy, and 
completely honor free speech and the First Amendment.
In closing, this is no ordinary time. 
Our nation faces historic challenges with energy, education, health care, our security, and most 
significantly, our economy.  New technologies are changing the way we tackle these challenges 
and virtually everything else about our society.
Just as this moment is unique, the broadcasting industry is unique -- with its unique history, a 
unique connection with viewers and the local community, unique benefits, and unique 
responsibilities.  
Technology-driven change is never easy, but broadcasting began as a disruption-driving new 
technology, and it has adapted over the years to several generations of media technologies that 
sought to disrupt broadcasting.
The pace of change seems only to move in one direction: faster.  But working together I believe 
we can seize the opportunities of the digital age in a way that serves our country and benefits all 
Americans. 
Thank you.