FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
September 22, 2015
The Honorable Greg Walden
U.S. House of Representatives
2182 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Walden:
Thank you for your letter concerning the impact of the upcoming incentive auction on
low power TV (LPTV) stations and translators.
I agree that LPTV stations and TV translators provide important services upon which
many consumers and businesses in rural communities rely. Although, as you note, the Middle
Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of2012 ("Spectrum Act") does not explicitly protect
LPTV and translators in the repacking process, the Commission is taking an array of steps to
help ensure that as many of these stations as possible remain on the air so that the important
programming content they provide continues to reach viewers.
As an initial matter, the Commission last year announced that it will open a special filing
window for operating LPTV and TV translator stations that are displaced by the repacking and
reallocation of the television bands. 1 We also modified our rules to allow stations with mutually
exclusive displacement applications to reach a settlement or an engineering solution, rather than
require competing stations to resolve all mutual exclusivity through an auction as the
Communications Act generally requires.I In cases where a settlement is not possible, in order to
ensure the continued availability of full power television service, we afforded priority to
displacement applications filed by digital replacement translators used to fill in the service areas
of full power stations that could not otherwise be replicated when those stations transitioned
from analog to digital facilities.
Additionally, to help accommodate some ofthe needs of LPTV and translator stations
following the auction, the Commission adopted rules that will permit these stations to remain on
their existing channels during the post-auction transition period until they are notified that a
forward auction winner is within 120 days of commencing operations on the repurposed 600
MHz spectrum. For many LPTV and translator stations that are located in the new 600 MHz
Band, this could mean continued operations for many years until wireless licensees commence
operations.
Recognizing the importance of LPTV and translator stations, the Commission also
opened a dedicated proceeding to consider additional means to mitigate the potential impact of
I See Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, GN Docket
No. 12-268, Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 6567,6834-35, para. 657 (2014) ("Incentive Auction Report & Order").
2 Id., para. 66l.
Page 2-The Honorable Greg Walden
the incentive auction and the repacking process on LPTV and TV translator stations to help
preserve the important services they provide. 3 I expect that the Commission will act on the
proposals put forward in this proceeding later this fall. Those proposals include a range of
options to help enable LPTV and TV translator stations remain on the air. First, we have
proposed allowing LPTV stations to share channels. Channel sharing arrangements will
facilitate the continued viability of LPTV through new programming and business arrangements
and promote spectral efficiency." Second, in response to concerns that finding a new channel for
displaced LPTV and TV translator stations will be challenging, we also proposed making our
auction repacking software available to LPTV and translators stations to identify available
channels and potentially maximize the number of such stations in the TV band post-auction.' Of
course, a station's decision to seek channel assignments recommended by the optimization
software would be completely voluntary, but I believe that the availability of our software will
expedite and ease the post-auction transition process for many low power stations.
While the auction will by definition result in a smaller TV band and therefore fewer
channels for all television stations - full power as well as LPTV and translators - the steps I have
described above will help ensure the continued availability of LPTV and translator services post-
auction.
Just as we are seeking to preserve and facilitate the transition for LPTV and TV translator
stations, we are seeking to do the same for white space devices and wireless microphones that
will also be displaced by the reorganization of the 600 MHz Band. That is the genesis of our
proposal to preserve a vacant channel in every area for use by white space devices and wireless
microphones.? This proposal is aimed at ensuring that the public continues to have access across
the nation to the significant benefits of these services, consistent with our intent to strike "a
balance between the interests of all users of the television bands, including secondary broadcast
stations as well as [white space] devices and wireless microphones, for access to the UHF TV
spectrum. ,,7
The Commission believes that the proposal to preserve a vacant channel will not
significantly burden LPTV and TV translator stations in terms of either the continued availability
of channels in all areas or the administrative burdens of compliance. The impact on LPTV and
3 Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules to Establish Rules/or Digital Low Power Television and
Television Translator Stations, MB Docket No. 03-185, Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 14-151 (rel,
Oct. 10,2014) ("LPTV NPRM').
4 LPTV NPRM, para. 14.
5 Id., para. 44 et seq.
6 Amendment of Parts 15, 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules to Providefor the Preservation of One Vacant
Channel in the UHF Television Bandfor Use by White Space Devices and Wireless Microphones, MB Docket No.
15-146, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 15-68 (rel, June 16,2015) ("Vacant Channel NPRM').
7 See Incentive Auction Report & Order, 29 FCC Red at 6683-84, para. 269 and 670 l, para. 309.
Page 3-The Honorable Greg Walden
TV translator stations in terms of the availability of channels for future use will be limited
because multiple vacant channels will still exist in all or most markets as a consequence of the
need to avoid interference between primary broadcast stations in the incentive auction final
channel assignment process. The effect of our proposal would be to reduce by one (or two in the
handful of markets where a TV station may be assigned to the duplex gap) the total number of
vacant channels that would otherwise be available in an area.
Finally, I believe our proposal to preserve vacant channels for use by white space devices
and wireless microphones in all areas is fully authorized by law. The Commission has broad
authority to manage spectrum in the public interest, which was not affected by the Spectrum
Act." Our proposal is within that existing authority, and ensures that the public does not lose
access to the significant benefits of wireless microphones and white space devices. Importantly,
our vacant channel proposal addresses use of the TV band; it does not involve the spectrum
reclaimed through the auction. Unlicensed use of the reclaimed spectrum will be limited to the
guard bands, as permitted by the Spectrum Act. It is through this mix of frequencies that we
appropriately seek, as I noted in my recent blog post, to "maximize the amount of spectrum made
available for not only licensed use, but also unlicensed use."? I would note that this proposal
remains open for comment, and I expect a robust record on both sides of the issue. The
Commission will, of course, consider the record carefully before making a final decision.
Thank you for the opportunity to address these important issues. I share your goal of
preserving a healthy LPTV and translator industry, and we are committed to policies to achieve
that goal while also meeting the public's growing demand for unlicensed spectrum. I believe the
Commission's course strikes the appropriate balance between providing the necessary flexibility
for a successful auction and preserving spectrum for all services.
Sincerely,
.~
Tom Wheeler
8 Title III of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, "endow[s] the Commission with expansive powers,"
including "broad authority to manage spectrum ... in the public interest." 47 U.S.C. §§ 301, et seq.; Cellco P'ship
v. FCC, 700 F.3d 534,541,542 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (internal quotes and citations omitted); Spectrum Act at §
6403(i)(1) (stating that nothing in section 6403(b) "shall be construed to ... expand or contract the authority of the
Commission, except as expressly provided").
9 "Seizing the Opportunities of Unlicensed Spectrum and Wireless Microphones," FCC Blog (Jul. 16,2015),
available at https:llwww.fcc.govlbloglseizing-opportunities-unlicensed-spectrum-and-wireless-microphones.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
September 22,2015
The Honorable Joe L. Barton
U.S. House of Representatives
2107 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Barton:
Thank you for your letter concerning the impact of the upcoming incentive auction on
low power TV (LPTV) stations and translators.
I agree that LPTV stations and TV translators provide important services upon which
many consumers and businesses in rural communities rely. Although, as you note, the Middle
Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 20 12 ("Spectrum Act") does not explicitly protect
LPTV and translators in the repacking process, the Commission is taking an array of steps to
help ensure that as many of these stations as possible remain on the air so that the important
programming content they provide continues to reach viewers.
As an initial matter, the Commission last year announced that it will open a special filing
window for operating LPTV and TV translator stations that are displaced by the repacking and
reallocation of the television bands.' We also modified our rules to allow stations with mutually
exclusive displacement applications to reach a settlement or an engineering solution, rather than
require competing stations to resolve all mutual exclusivity through an auction as the
Communications Act generally requires.' In cases where a settlement is not possible, in order to
ensure the continued availability of full power television service, we afforded priority to
displacement applications filed by digital replacement translators used to fill in the service areas
of full power stations that could not otherwise be replicated when those stations transitioned
from analog to digital facilities.
Additionally, to help accommodate some of the needs of LPTV and translator stations
following the auction, the Commission adopted rules that will permit these stations to remain on
their existing channels during the post-auction transition period until they are notified that a
forward auction winner is within 120 days of commencing operations on the repurposed 600
MHz spectrum. For many LPTV and translator stations that are located in the new 600 MHz
Band, this could mean continued operations for many years until wireless licensees commence
operations.
Recognizing the importance of LPTV and translator stations, the Commission also
opened a dedicated proceeding to consider additional means to mitigate the potential impact of
1 See Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, GN Docket
No. 12-268, Report and Order, 29 FCC Red 6567, 6834-35, para. 657 (2014) ("Incentive Auction Report & Order").
2 Id., para. 661.
Page 2-The Honorable Joe L. Barton
the incentive auction and the repacking process on LPTV and TV translator stations to help
preserve the important services they provide. 3 I expect that the Commission will act on the
proposals put forward in this proceeding later this fall. Those proposals include a range of
options to help enable LPTV and TV translator stations remain on the air. First, we have
proposed allowing LPTV stations to share channels. Channel sharing arrangements will
facilitate the continued viability of LPTV through new programming and business arrangements
and promote spectral efficiency." Second, in response to concerns that finding a new channel for
displaced LPTV and TV translator stations will be challenging, we also proposed making our
auction repacking software available to LPTV and translators stations to identify available
channels and potentially maximize the number of such stations in the TV band post-auction.' Of
course, a station's decision to seek channel assignments recommended by the optimization
software would be completely voluntary, but I believe that the availability of our software will
expedite and ease the post-auction transition process for many low power stations.
While the auction will by definition result in a smaller TV band and therefore fewer
channels for all television stations - full power as well as LPTV and translators - the steps I have
described above will help ensure the continued availability of LPTV and translator services post-
auction.
Just as we are seeking to preserve and facilitate the transition for LPTV and TV translator
stations, we are seeking to do the same for white space devices and wireless microphones that
will also be displaced by the reorganization of the 600 MHz Band. That is the genesis of our
proposal to preserve a vacant channel in every area for use by white space devices and wireless
microphones." This proposal is aimed at ensuring that the public continues to have access across
the nation to the significant benefits of these services, consistent with our intent to strike "a
balance between the interests of all users of the television bands, including secondary broadcast
stations as well as [white space] devices and wireless microphones, for access to the UHF TV
spectrum."?
The Commission believes that the proposal to preserve a vacant channel will not
significantly burden LPTV and TV translator stations in terms of either the continued availability
of channels in all areas or the administrative burdens of compliance. The impact on LPTV and
3 Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules to Establish Rules for Digital Low Power Television and
Television Translator Stations, MB Docket No. 03-185, Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 14-151 (rel.
Oct. 10,2014) ("LPTV NPRM').
4 LPTV NPRM, para. 14.
5 Id., para. 44 et seq.
6 Amendment of Parts 15, 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules to Provide for the Preservation of One Vacant
Channel in the UHF Television Bandfor Use by White Space Devices and Wireless Microphones, MB Docket No.
15-146, Notice of Proposed Ru1emaking, FCC 15-68 (rel. June 16,2015) ("Vacant Channel NPRM').
7 See Incentive Auction Report & Order, 29 FCC Red at 6683-84, para. 269 and 6701, para. 309.
Page 3-The Honorable Joe L. Barton
TV translator stations in terms of the availability of channels for future use will be limited
because multiple vacant channels will still exist in all or most markets as a consequence of the
need to avoid interference between primary broadcast stations in the incentive auction final
channel assignment process. The effect of our proposal would be to reduce by one (or two in the
handful of markets where a TV station may be assigned to the duplex gap) the total number of
vacant channels that would otherwise be available in an area.
Finally, I believe our proposal to preserve vacant channels for use by white space devices
and wireless microphones in all areas is fully authorized by law. The Commission has broad
authority to manage spectrum in the public interest, which was not affected by the Spectrum
Act." Our proposal is within that existing authority, and ensures that the public does not lose
access to the significant benefits of wireless microphones and white space devices. Importantly,
our vacant channel proposal addresses use of the TV band; it does not involve the spectrum
reclaimed through the auction. Unlicensed use of the reclaimed spectrum will be limited to the
guard bands, as permitted by the Spectrum Act. It is through this mix of frequencies that we
appropriately seek, as I noted in my recent blog post, to "maximize the amount of spectrum made
available for not only licensed use, but also unlicensed use."? I would note that this proposal
remains open for comment, and I expect a robust record on both sides of the issue. The
Commission will, of course, consider the record carefully before making a final decision.
Thank you for the opportunity to address these important issues. I share your goal of
preserving a healthy LPTV and translator industry, and we are committed to policies to achieve
that goal while also meeting the public's growing demand for unlicensed spectrum. I believe the
Commission's course strikes the appropriate balance between providing the necessary flexibility
for a successful auction and preserving spectrum for all services.
8 Title III of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, "endow[s] the Commission with expansive powers,"
including "broad authority to manage spectrum ... in the public interest." 47 U.S.C. §§ 301, et seq.; Cellco P'ship
v. FCC, 700 F.3d 534, 541, 542 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (internal quotes and citations omitted); Spectrum Act at §
6403(i)(1) (stating that nothing in section 6403(b) "shall be construed to ... expand or contract the authority of the
Commission, except as expressly provided").
9 "Seizing the Opportunities of Unlicensed Spectrum and Wireless Microphones," FCC Blog (Jul. 16, 2015),
available at https:llwww.fcc.gov/blog/seizing-opportunities-unlicensed-spectrum-and-wireless-microphones.