atnngress nf tlf e 11tniteik ~tales 
1!ma.sl1ington, ilill 20515 
November 8, 2017 
The Honorable Ajit Pai, Chairman 
Federal Communications Commission 
445 12th Street, S.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20536 
Dear Chairman Pai, 
We are writing to express our concern regarding two items you've offered for 
consideration at the upcoming November 2017 Open Meeting of the Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC). Having assessed your draft proposals, we have 
identified serious problems with both the Media Ownership Reconsideration Order1 and 
the "Next Generation" Broadcast TV Standard (ATSC 3.0) Order2. Both proposals carry 
serious consequences for the American media ecosystem and we urge you to postpone 
consideration of these items until the Commission has taken steps to rectify the concerns 
we've identified below. 
Reconsideration for Broadcast Ownership 
Your Media Ownership proposal will allow for consolidated ownership of more than one 
of the top four stations in any market if parties can demonstrate on a "case-by-case basis" 
that such a transaction would serve the public interest. First, this approach subjects the 
rule and the market to precisely the type of uncertainty that you have so often railed 
against in the past by failing to uphold a clear and consistent policy. The failure to 
commit to actually enforcing the law creates uncertainty for consumers and competitors 
unsure of whether and when the Commission will choose to enforce the laws Congress 
directed it to implement. 
The broadening of Commission discretion by this item is also unnecessary if the purpose 
is to give relief from the bright-line duopoly rule in rare extenuating circumstances. 
Traditionally, relief from the duopoly rule can be granted by filing a petition for waiver 
demonstrating "good cause shown" which presumes the rule itself is still valid but that 
there has been good cause demonstrated to not apply it in the specific case. Under your 
proposed rule, the FCC can apply any standard it chooses so long as it is able to tie it to 
the public interest. This is far broader discretion than exists under current waiver 
1 In the Matter of 2014 Quadrennial Regulat01y Review - RevielV of the Commission 's Broadcast 0 1Vnership 
Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, MB Docket No. 
14-50 et al, Draft Order on Reconsideration and Notice of Proposed Rulemakin (rel. Oct. 26, 2017). 
2 In the Matter of Authorizing Permissive Use of the "Next Generation " Broadcast Television Standard, GN 
Docket No. 16-142, Draft Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (rel. Oct 26. 201 7). 
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 
953
authority which itself has had to be reined in by comts for overuse. This potentially 
results in a regulatory scheme where the Commission grants exception to the duopoly 
rule in every case, rending the duopoly a rule in name only. It exceeds the intent and 
undermines the purpose of media ownershjp policies. 
Next Generation TV, or ATSC 3.0. 
The 'Next Generation TV' item claims to combine the benefits of broadcasting and 
internet programming for next generation technologies, but it lacks essential protections 
for consumers and threatens to cut people from over the air signals. 
First, the order in no way provides for an orderly transition process to a new broadcast 
standard. The mirumal requirements laid out in the order threaten to leave consumers 
without access to over the air television. It allows broadcasters to cut off ATSC 1.0 
service after five years, or earlier, without educating or informing consumers. This has 
the strong potential of leaving consumers with TVs and set top boxes that can no longer 
receive over the air broadcasts, because consumer' s current equipment will not be able to 
receive ATSC 3.0 broadcasts. Even worse, the exemption for lower power and translator 
stations from the order's minimal requirements threatens viewers in rural America's 
ability to receive signals even sooner. Additionally, the Commission's case by case 
waiver process of full power stations simulcast requirements creates even more 
unce1tainty as viewers in markets around the country may lose access to broadcast signals 
even sooner. 
The Commission must rethink its approach to the ATSC 3.0 transition process. As it 
stands the order as currently written could deprive many American's of access to free 
over the air broadcasts and force them to purchase new potentially expensive equipment 
just to retain access to broadcasts they receive currently. 
We therefore urge the Commission to postpone these items until it has rectified the 
problems identified in order to ensure that the Commission's actions conform more 
closely to the intent of Congress and pose a reduced risk to viewer's losing access to free 
over the air broadcasts. In so doing, we expect the Commission to remember its 
obligation to serve the public interest first. It should reassess its present path in both 
orders and forgo voting on these items until these concerns have been adequately 
addressed. 
Member of Congress Member of Congress