23 EAST FRONT STREET
SUrTE 103
MONROE, MI48161
1734124~110
OIS11UCT OffiCES:
19856 WEST DurER DRIVE
SUfTE lC3-E
DEARBORN, "'148124
(31312"8-2936
WASHINGTON OFfICE:
ROOM 2328
RAYBURN HOUSE OFFice BUILD1NG
WASHINGTON. DC 20515-2215
120Z1 225-4071
~D
'DI\
WI!.
301 WEST MiCHIGAN AVENUE
SUITE 305
YPSIlANTI, MI48197
(7341481-1100
June 17,2011
Q:ongress of the <}Rntted~U1tfS
i!lousc of 'lRqmscntatiucs
Ueshingron, 1)[:20515-2215
The Honorable Julius Genachowski
Chairman
U.S. Federal Communications Commission
445 12
th
Street., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20054
JOHN D. DINGELL
16TH DISTRICT, MICHIGAN
COMMITTEE ON
ENEAGY AND COMMERCE
CO-CHAIR
HOUSE OREAT LAKES
TASK FORCE
MEMBER
MIGRATORY BIRO
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Federal Communications Commission has requested - and the Congress is
considering granting - authority to conduct incentive auctions offrequencies currently
allocated to broadcast television. The Commission has suggested that up to 12,0 MHz can
be reclaimed and reallocated from television broadcasting for wireless broadband
purposes. I understand that the Commission has developed an Allotment Optimization
Model (AOM) that has been used to investigate various scenarios for incentive auctions,
including spectrum reclamation and repacking. I recognize that these are investigative
scenarios and may vary from results in reality, since predicted station participation may
not mirror actual behavior.
Nevertheless, this analysis would be as helpful to the Congress as it has been to
the Commission in understanding the implications and potential consequences of
spectrum reclamation. In my view, it is important that the Commission share the
information it has gathered in order to aid the Congress in its delibei-ations. With this in
mind, I would appreciate your thorough responses to the following questions. To the
extent that the scenarios the Commission has investigated differ from those requested
below, please describe those variations and provide information from scenarios closest to
those I am requesting.
1. Using the assumptions that no new television stations are moved to low VHF
channels (television channels two through six), that there is full protection ofall
existing television stations' contours, and that the results are consistent with
current United States treaty obligations with Canada and Mexico, what are the
general implications and impacts ofreclaiming 120 MHz ofspectrum from
television broadcasters?
• More specifically, how many television stations are assumed to share a
channel or go off the air nationwide in this scenario? In addition, how many
television stations in the Northeast (i.e., the Boston-to-Washington, D.C.
corridor), the Great Lakes border region, and the San Francisco and Los
Angeles areas are assumed to share or go offthe air in this scenario? Please
THIS MAILING WAS PREPARED, PUBLISHED. AND MAILED AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE
THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON P....PER MADe OF RECYCLED FIBERS
~"
The Honorable Julius Genachowski
Page 2
include in your response the number affected by full power television stations,
Class A stations, and low power stations.
• Further, how many stations according to this scenario are required to be
moved to a new channel or be repacked? How many stations are assumed to
move from a UHF channel (i.e., television channels above channel 14) to a
high VHF channel (i.e., television channels seven to 13) where digital
television reception has been somewhat problematic?
2. Using the same assumptions as in Question I, what is the impact for other
scenarios under which the amount ofspectrum to be reclaimed was assumed to be
less than 120 MHz? Please provide the same information as the request above for
scenarios investigated that result in the reclamation ofapproximately 90, 60, and
30 MHz, respectively.
• In the spectrum studies identified above, please indicate the total number of
television viewers that will lose scrvice and the number ofchannels these
consumers are expected to lose (e.g., 200 consumers will lose service, of
which 100 consumers will lose one channel, 75 lose two channels, 20 lose
three channels, and five lose six channels).
• Similarly, please list how many consumers wiil gain new service, as well as
the number ofchannels they will gain.
3. Lastly, when does the Commission plan to make the AOM model widely
available for use by outside parties, particularly those meant to participate in
voluntary incentive auctions?
Please provide your responses to my office no later than the close of business
on Monday, June 27, 2011. The Congress must address our country's growing spectrum
needs in the fairest manner possible, and your responses to the questions above will be
invaluable in informing that important work.
Thank you for your prompt attention to my request. Should you have any
questions, please feel free to contact me directly or have a member ofyour staff contact
Andrew Woelfling in my office at 202-225-4071.
With every good wish,
John D. Dingell
Member ofCongress
The Honorable Julius Genachowski
Page 3
cc: The Honorable Fred Upton, Chairman
Committee on Energy and Commerce
The Honorable Henry Waxman, Ranking Member
Committee on Energy and Commerce
The Honorable Greg Walden, Chairman
Committee on Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
The Honorable Anna Eshoo, Ranking Member
Committee on Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
The Honorable Michael Copps, Commissioner
U.S. Federal Communications Commission
The Honorable Robert McDowell, Commissioner
U.S. Federal Communications Commission
The Honorable Mignon Clyburn, Commissioner
U.S. Federal Communications Commission