Sinclair Challenge Is About Opposing Auction, Not Text of Auction Order, Says EOBC

the FCC in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Since EOBC includes NAB members, the coalition is intervening only in Sinclair’s case, the brief said. The brief also took issue with Sinclair’s argument against the 39-month construction deadline for repacked broadcasters after the auction. “The post-auction transition period reasonably balances the competing public interest objectives of preserving television service and expediting the introduction of new wireless service on reclaimed spectrum, the brief said. EOBC also supported the FCC stance that two independently controlled stations nationwide participating in the auction would fulfill its competition requirement. Sinclair has said the order should require that the two stations be in the same market. “Sinclair’s real complaint is with the policy choice for an Incentive Auction and not with the FCC’s implementation of the choice Congress made,” the EOBC said. The Competitive Carriers Association, CEA and CTIA also filed an intervenor brief supporting the commission Tuesday. Sinclair and NAB are “overreading” the congressional reference to OET-69 in the Spectrum Act, CCA, CEA and CTIA said. “Petitioners contend that Congress ordered the Commission to conduct an unprecedented and exceedingly complex spectrum auction using (1) archaic software that would make a timely auction impossible and (2) outdated, inaccurate factual inputs,” the brief said. “Congress did no such thing.”