Media Access Project: The History Behind the Great Spectrum Grab

The History Behind the Great Spectrum Grab

Return to the Digital TV Main Page

When commercial broadcasters first sought what they called "spectrum flexibility" in 1994, MAP was the only non-industry organization that raised the issue of what broadcasters should give the public in return for the spectrum. MAP argued that broadcasters must pay for the extra spectrum with new public service obligations, including free time for political candidates, increased, quantifiable children's educational programming, and public access.

If broadcasters wouldn't pay with public service, MAP advocated an auction of the spectrum. The auction plan MAP advocated would have required that a portion of the proceeds be set aside for "public service media," such as funding for children's educational programming, public broadcasting, and construction of telecommunications networks for educational and other noncommercial purposes. Although estimates have varied on the probable proceeds of such acutions, they would likely have reached several billion dollars, and some estimates have placed the value of this spectrum at 70 billion dollars.

Language in the bills which eventually became the Telecommunications Act of 1996 would have given this spectrum to existing broadcasters for nothing. In addition, the bills would have permitted broadcasters to provide just one free channel of programming, while using the remainder of the spectrum's capacity to engage in revenue making ventures. Thanks in substantial part to MAP's advocacy, the language of the final Act did not require the FCC to give the spectrum to incumbent broadcasters, and does not permit them to provide just one free channel. Moreover, the Act includes language that would require each service a broadcaster provides to serve the public interest, be it free programming or otherwise.

The FCC had already commenced a proceeding in August, 1995, prior to the bill's passage, to determine who would get this spectrum and under what conditions. Representing a consumer group and several media advocacy groups, MAP filed extensive comments and reply comments in that proceeding. In December, 1995, MAP's Executive Director was invited to testify at a special FCC hearing on the topic.

However, in response to protests from the left and the right about this spectrum "giveaway," Congressional leaders convinced the agency to halt its proceeding to give Congress a chance to consider the issue itself. Several members of Congress had supported the possibility of spectrum auctions.

The broadcast industry's largest trade association launched a massive, 30 million dollar public relations campaign. In commercials airing, for free, on many local stations, broadcasters said that paying to use the spectrum would threaten someday to force them to charge the public monthly service fees. In them, they vastly exaggerated their desire to provide high definition television. MAP has published a document, Eleven Things the N.A.B. Won't Tell You, to debunk the many myths that the association circulated. Local and network news departments largely failed to make any neutral examinations of the issue.

In response, MAP organized a coalition of over 70 education, children's, consumer, media advocacy, minority and religious organizations. This coalition advocated that broadcasters must compensate the public with the new public service commitments, including free time for political candidates; increased, quantifiable children's educational programming; and public access. If broadcasters refused to provide public service, the coalition called for a spectrum auction, with a portion of the proceeds set aside for "public service media." MAP continued to work with the media, policymakers and other nonprofit organizations to ensure that this issue stayed firmly in the public eye.

In early 1997, it appeared the issue was lost. The FCC was ready to give broadcasters new spectrum without imposing public service duties. However, MAP helped obtain White House intervention and, on February 5, the Vice President announced the formation of a Presidential Advisory committee to recommend new public interest obligations for broadcasters in the digital age. In light of the formation of the Advisory committee the FCC reached a final decision: its Order gives broadcasters the new Digital TV licenses, and promises to revisit the public interest obligations at a later time. Stations in the largest markets must commence broadcasting in digital format within 18 months, and the giveback of the old, analog spectrum must be completed in 2006.

On June 16, 1997, MAP asked the FCC to reconsider its Order, claiming that it was required by law to adopt new public interest requirements for Digital TV commensurate with the additional spectrum given to broadcasters. This Petition also observes that many broadcasters have in recent months began to reject their role as public trustees, and therefore do not deserve this gift of free spectrum. It asks the FCC to clarify that all new and existing public interest obligations should apply to both free and subscription services on both the analog and the digital signals.

Return to Digital TV page

Media Access Project
950 18th Street, NW, Suite 220
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 232-4300

This page last modified 8/24/00.