Skip to content

Broadcast Law Blog

Discussion of FCC, copyright, advertising and other legal issues of importance to radio and television broadcasters and other media companies

Published by
David Oxenford logo

Menu

HomeAboutServicesContact
David Oxenford logo

The Incentive Auction Moves Forward – FCC Decisions Further Defining Channel Sharing, and Order Setting When Wireless Users “Commence Operations” Ending LPTV Operations

By David Oxenford on October 23, 2015
Posted in Digital Television, Incentive Auctions/Broadband Report, Low Power Television/Class A TV, Television

The FCC seems to almost daily be issuing orders in the incentive auction proceeding, looking to the filing of applications in December by TV stations ready to give up their spectrum to the FCC so that it can be repackaged and resold to wireless users.  In the last two days, the Commission has issued orders further clarifying the channel sharing rules and defining when a wireless user of the newly repackaged spectrum “commences operations” requiring that LPTV stations and TV translators operating on frequencies that would cause interference to the wireless operators to cease operations.

On channel sharing, the FCC ruled on a few issues not addressed in earlier channel sharing orders, clarifying issues raised by these prior orders (see our articles on channel sharing agreements here and here) some of which will affect very few TV stations.  For instance, it decided that TV stations which entered into channel sharing agreements in which both parties offer their spectrum for surrender can designate alternative channel sharing partners in the event that both stations to the initial sharing agreement are “frozen” in the incentive auction at the same time – meaning that both will be bought out by the FCC if the auction is a success in the round in which they are frozen.  While it is commendable that the FCC is providing stations with this flexibility to designate a backup sharing partner in case their initial partner’s station is also bought out in the auction, it would seem that it is unlikely that many stations will put themselves in a position to take advantage of this provision, as most channel sharing agreements will require one station to retain a channel on which the partners in the agreement can operate post-auction.  It would seem as if it will be the rare case where all parties to a channel sharing agreement will be subject to being bought out by the FCC at the same time.  Probably much more important is the decision of the FCC to extend the dates by which stations that agree to channel sharing agreements must actually implement those agreements after the auction has concluded.

In prior orders, the FCC stated that stations would have to implement their channel sharing agreements within 3 months of the close of the auction and their receiving their payment of the auction price to which they agreed – a very short period to accomplish what could very well be a complex technical task of acquiring and installing equipment to implement the channel sharing agreement, and educating the audience of the station that is moving off their current channel as to where they will be operating after the sharing agreement is implemented.  The FCC decided that a 6 month period was more reasonable, with two additional 3 month extensions being available – the first to be favorably viewed if a reason for the extension can be provided, and the second likely to be granted unless the grant would delay the spectrum transition.  For stations looking to stay in business and to transition their listeners to new over-the-air channels, this extra time could be quite important.

A second decision is important to TV translators and LPTV stations, which are not protected in the auction process (the FCC has suggested that there would be some post-auction window in which these stations could apply to move to new channels if their channels are taken as a result of the decrease in the size of the TV band, or by interference caused by repacked TV stations, but no final rules have yet been adopted, see this article on the proposed post-auction transition process for LPTV and TV translators).  The FCC decided that a wireless operator commences operations (meaning that any LPTV station or TV translator that interferes with such station must cease operations) when the wireless operator “conducts site commissioning tests.”  According to the FCC, the wireless operator needs to buy and test equipment before it fully starts operations, and once it starts the process through testing on the new spectrum, the secondary broadcast operators need to cease operations.  The site commissioning tests will entail the purchase and installation of permanent base station equipment and antennas – and the spectrum needs to be cleared for this equipment to be tested and put into operation.  However, broadcast secondary services do not need to vacate the spectrum throughout the area in which the wireless operator has authority to operate – but instead only in areas in which actual interference is likely to occur.

It is also expected that the FCC will soon come out with an order further defining the interference allowances between television stations and wireless operators after the auction.  Look for that order soon, and read the orders described above carefully to see how they may impact your incentive auction planning.

Tags: LPTV protection in incentive auction, TV channel sharing
Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Related Posts
This Week in Regulation for Broadcasters: November 26 to December 2 , 2022
December 4, 2022
September Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters:  Reg Fees, Foreign Government Program Certifications, Final Chance to Claim Reimbursement for Repacking Expenses, Comments on ATSC 3.0 and FTC Advertising Inquiry, and More
August 28, 2022
This Week in Regulation for Broadcasters: July 30, 2022 to August 5, 2022
August 7, 2022

Stay Connected

Subscribe to this blog via RSS Follow Me on Twitter

Recent Posts

  • This Week in Regulation for Broadcasters: March 13 to March 17, 2023
  • Two Million Dollar Fine for Pirate Radio – Don’t Cross the Commission Again After You’ve Been Caught Once, Especially as More Enforcement Appears to be on the Way
  • This Week in Regulation for Broadcasters: March 6 to March 10, 2023
  • March Madness and Advertising:  Use of NCAA Trademarks (2023 Update – Part 2)
  • March Madness and Advertising: Use of NCAA Trademarks (2023 Update – Part 1)

Topics

  • About this Blog
  • Advertising Issues
  • AM Radio
  • Appearances
  • Assignments and Transfers
  • Broadcast Auctions
  • Broadcast Performance Royalty
  • Cable Carriage
  • Children's Programming and Advertising
  • Digital Radio
  • Digital Television
  • Drones
  • EEO Compliance/Diversity
  • Emergency Communications
  • Fairness Doctrine
  • FCC Fees
  • FCC Fines
  • FM Radio
  • FM Translators and LPFM
  • General FCC
  • Incentive Auctions/Broadband Report
  • Indecency
  • Intellectual Property
  • Internet Radio
  • Internet Video
  • License Renewal
  • Low Power Television/Class A TV
  • Multiple Ownership Rules
  • Music Rights
  • Noncommercial Broadcasting
  • On Line Media
  • Payola and Sponsorship Identification
  • Podcasting
  • Political Broadcasting
  • Privacy
  • Programming Regulations
  • Public Interest Obligations/Localism
  • Security
  • Television
  • Tower Issues
  • Trademark
  • Uncategorized
  • Website Issues
Photo of David OxenfordDavid OxenfordPartner

David Oxenford represents broadcasting and digital media companies in connection with regulatory, transactional and intellectual property issues. He has represented broadcasters and webcasters before the…

David Oxenford represents broadcasting and digital media companies in connection with regulatory, transactional and intellectual property issues. He has represented broadcasters and webcasters before the Federal Communications Commission, the Copyright Royalty Board, courts and other government agencies for over 30 years.

Show more Show less

Archives

David Oxenford logo
1800 M Street NW
Suite 800N
Washington, DC 20036
Fax: 202.783.5851
Subscribe to this blog via RSS Follow Me on Twitter
Privacy PolicyDisclaimer

ABOUT

David is a partner at the law firm of Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP, practicing out of its Washington, DC office. He has represented broadcasters for over 30 years on a wide array of matters from the negotiation and structuring of station purchase and sale agreements to regulatory matters. His regulatory expertise includes all areas of broadcast law including the FCC’s multiple ownership limitations, the political broadcasting rules, EEO policy, advertising issues, and other programming matters and FCC technical rules.

Read More...
Copyright © 2023, David Oxenford. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo