Broadcasters, NCTA Disagree on Must Carry for 2nd-Gen Channel Sharers
Broadcasters and NCTA disagree whether allowing TV stations engaged in second-generation channel sharing to keep their must-carry rights is a bigger burden for cable carriers. Their opinions came in replies posted Friday and Monday in FCC docket 15-137. Second-generation channel sharing is channel sharing after the incentive auction is over and is unrelated to converting broadcast spectrum to wireless use, and NCTA doesn’t think the agency should allow licensees that give up their spectrum to retain their must carry-rights. “Allowing post-auction channel sharing would likely multiply carriage disruptions and distortions -- while failing to serve any legitimate governmental interest,” NCTA said. “If two stations have carriage rights before they enter into a channel sharing agreement, and they preserve carriage rights after entering the agreement -- how has the burden on the MVPD [multichannel video programming distributor] increased at all?” countered NAB.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Broadcaster comments asking the FCC to set aside TV channels that are vacated by channel sharing show that second-generation sharing will increase the must-carry burden, NCTA said. Congress didn't intend that, NCTA said. The Spectrum Act granted carriage rights to channel sharing stations that relinquished their spectrum in the auction process “precisely because, absent such a grant, the must carry provisions of the Cable Act would not afford such rights,” NCTA said.
NAB also attacked NCTA assertions that allowing channel sharing after the auction could discourage participation. NCTA had suggested that the savings on facilities allowed by sharing could cause some broadcasters to decide to remain in business, but NAB disagreed. “Broadcasters will participate in the auction with channel sharing bids if they foresee the potential for an attractive financial return based on spectrum relinquishment by one channel sharing partner, not due to perceived incremental cost savings associated with sharing facilities,” NAB said.
Many broadcast commenters said allowing second-generation channel sharing is essential to increasing auction participation. “The more risk-free the Commission can make channel sharing for broadcasters, the more stations will agree to relinquish their spectrum to channel share,” said the Expanding Opportunities or Broadcasters Coalition. It echoed NAB and a joint filing from the Association of Public Television Stations, CPB and PBS.
Rules to facilitate channel sharing could be “one means of preventing the emergence of unserved areas lacking any public television service,” the public TV filing said. The FCC should make sure channel sharing rules don’t penalize both parties to a channel sharing agreement (CSA) when one party causes another to be in violation, the joint filing said. For example, if one station's actions cause its sharing partner to not be able to broadcast the single stream of standard definition content required by the CSA rules, the FCC shouldn’t punish both sharing partners, the joint filing said.