NAB To TV: Take Spectrum Case To Public

NAB President Gordon Smith sent an e-mail to station members urging them to air a new NAB-produced 30-second spot that promotes the benefits of free, over-the-air broadcasting. "The broadcast industry could see the greatest assault on the public airwaves since the 1980s, with the anticipated release of the FCC's National Broadband Plan set for Feb. 17, 2010," says the e-mail.
TVNewsCheck,

The National Association of Broadcasters is asking TV stations to join the fight to preserve broadcast spectrum by airing an NAB-produced 30-second spot touting the benefits of free, over-the-air broadcasting.

In an e-mail to stations from NAB President Gordon Smith and the NAB spectrum committee, the trade association says the spot will be available Dec. 21 and urges stations to run it "in heavy rotation" between Dec. 25 and Jan. 14 in insure "our viewpoint is heard loud and clear."

Story continues after the ad

"The broadcast industry could see the greatest assault on the public airwaves since the 1980s, with the anticipated release of the FCC's National Broadband Plan set for February 17, 2010," says the e-mail.

The NAB fears that the plan will recommend that all or some of broadcast spectrum be reallocated for wireless broadband access, a service the FCC believes will soon be facing a spectrum shortage.

"A variety of interest groups - from the Communications Technology Information Association (CTIA) to AT&T to Broadband for America - have already launched TV spots attempting to position a national broadband plan as having no potential drawbacks," the e-mail says.

"Meanwhile, some proposals being floated by the FCC would eliminate high-definition broadcasting and multicasting altogether.

"Broadcasters must push back and frame the issue in the public's continuing interest of free-over-the-air broadcasting in every local community in America."

 

Edit Article

Comments (16) -

Credo12 Nickname posted over 2 years ago
|
About time!
PSIPthing Nickname posted over 2 years ago
|
it's just a start, I hope
Benthere Nickname posted over 2 years ago
|
I just hope that the broadcasters have the cajones to run this spot in heavy rotation - even with the real threat of Obama's Big Brother administration looking down from on high. Get ready for the Chicago political machine to rev up again, and thwart any insubordination to the new socialist dictatorship.
RustbeltAlumnus2 Nickname posted over 2 years ago
|
Even in heavy rotation, what is their message to the public? Maybe, "Hey, you need our aver-the-air signals, because practically none of you actually use them?" or "Hey, you don't want government-subsidized local signals over cable/satellite with an extra cable channel (or two) thrown in for free, do you?" or "You rural dwellers don't want to give up that rotary antenna, do you?" As much as I dislike Obama, this move is long overdue, because the spectrum is being wasted on a mere 11 percent of homes who could otherwise (and more cheaply) be subsidized, using with a tiny fraction of the money reaped by auctioning airwaves to industries that REALLY need them, like cell phone service providers.
PhillyPhlash Nickname posted over 2 years ago
|
Why not just come out and say, "I'm paid to post here for the broadband lobby." So transparent, and thus, ineffective.
Andrew Wyatt posted over 2 years ago
|
In my market, with heavy Mexican Television spill in, and no local-into-local for DirecTV we are about 50% over the air reception. If it's okay with you PhillyPhlash, I'd like to go a while longer before we turn off the transmitter. By the way, there are about 40 markets that do not have local-into-local from one or the other big satellite companies. I think the message should be more along the lines of, "Don't let the government diminish the local news business, otherwise your local news will all be coming from citizen journalists and bloggers". Stuart Benjamin's essay outlines how to legislate broadcasters off of the spectrum. Before broadcasters leave the spectrum, you can bet they will collapse their news departments to the point there is little local news left, if any. Then where will the checks and balances be? Will Obama, or perhaps a worse future government, be able to run without any credible watchdog journalists ensuring they are working in our interest? I really can think of not better way for the government to finally eliminate the voice of the media so they can have complete, unmonitored control over the people, can you?
JohnnyHD Nickname posted over 2 years ago
|
The real waste will come from all the people who end up getting brain cancer from excessive cell phone usage. Stick a radiating antenna next to your head for an extended period of time and see what happens.
PhillyPhlash Nickname posted over 2 years ago
|
MEMO TO SEN. SMITH: First, counter the lies. In some areas of the nation, nearly half the population depends on free OTA TV. If stations would install DTV signal repeaters, OTA viewing would be much greater. Many people still think they need cable to get HDTV -- due to misleading cable advertising. Also, if stations had promoted the economics of OTA -- the fact that it's free, offers new channels and full HD for free -- the industry wouldn't be painted into this corner. Perhaps NAB should support bans on cable/broadband cross-ownership of broadcast properties. Third, do deals with manufacturers of those battery-powered portable 7-inch DTV sets to offer viewers deep discounts -- don't wait for mobile to once again make TV portable. Also, do deals with computer software purveyors of plug-in DTV modules that turn laptops into DTV sets, and with antenna makers. Make OTA financially attractive. Consider developing a free OTA all-news channel -- or sue for the right of station groups to carry existing all-news channels. Stress the fact that the airwaves belong to the PUBLIC, not to licensees, who have NO PROPERTY RIGHT to share in any proceeds from auction of spectrum. It belongs to the public... and the key to defeating this broadband spectrum grab is to remind the public and legislators of the sacred public trust that is of free, local, OTA full-service broadcasting -- including UNCOMPRESSED HDTV at no extra charge. If the public had the facts, many people would put up antennas just to get the best possible broadcast picture. And finally, your secret weapon: Hire some skilled researchers to investigate possible personal and business ties, conflicts of interest, among the cable-broadband greedster lobby and staff and officials of the FCC. Just getting the word out of such a "private eye" inquiry might work miracles --and those with potential conflict of interest problems know that's true. Some business journalists already may be working this angle.
D BP Nickname posted over 2 years ago
|
I'm not so sure the public would care about this issue even if they saw the NAB's PSA. Many don't even know about the multichannel broadcasting capabilities of OTA DTV or that it offers the best quality HD picture. I definitely feel that the NAB should begin a campaign to persuade the FCC to consider other unused or underused spectrum that would be well suited to wireless broadband. In their panic to formulate a broadband plan by February, the FCC has become way too myopic in this matter of spectrum usage.
PhillyPhlash Nickname posted over 2 years ago
|
Panic -- or a premeditated assault on free, over the air broadcasting intended to eliminate competition and force the American public to pay for what traditionally has been available to them, over THEIR airwaves, at no charge? All spectrum belongs to the people, the American taxpayer. FCC should not have the authority to auction off the public spectrum and share the spoils with licensees who have no property rights to spectrum in the first place. Genachowski should be REMOVED from the FCC chairmanship if he continues to pursue the interests of one sub-sector of the communications industry at the expense of another -- and at the expense of the public interest. The question to President Obama: Sir, do you want to be the U.S. President who took free broadcast TV away from the American people??? Run a full-page ad in the Washington Post and New York Times asking that question -- and calling for a conflict of interest investigation into the staff and officials of the FCC -- and this battle will be pre-emptively WON by broadcasters before the issue even comes before Congress -- and even if no one watches the NAB "save free TV" PSA!!!
Benthere Nickname posted over 2 years ago
|
While I am a cable subscriber, I want the option to utilize free, OTA broadcasting if I choose. Any cable regulation that was supposed to decrease rates has horribly led to increased pricing. I don't need some math flunkie to tell me that the price may be higher, but now have over 200 c hannels - I only watch about 12-15. The local, state, and federal governments don't care about the price going down, as their taxing is based on a percentage of the cable bill in many cases... if it goes up, so does their tax. Once more broadcasters begin multicasting, more people may opt for free OTA television. This does not take into consideration second homes/cabins/cottages that will give people minimum options than to pay for television at multiple locations. At the end, I agree with Philly, about the true lack of authority for the FCC to sell the airwaves. Next up for sale by your government is the Hudson River, Lake Michigan, and the Sun.
Bonefish Nickname posted over 2 years ago
|
Those of you from the cable industry who have posted your obviously ignorant thoughts did not go through the hell that the FCC called the DTV transition. If no one is using OTA, why was it such a big deal?
Anthony Belle posted over 2 years ago
|
Well being an OTA Single person, If I have a choice betwen OTA or Cell phone and all the extras that cost more, I want my OTA TV singles. Yes many people do not know what an OTA DTV single is. I am all for sending the message to the public. But we must educate the public what OTA singles are then why we need them. Maybe the NAB can use the issue of the crowded spectem on the East coast. I still feel The UHF spectum should be extended to Channel 56. Giver OTS another 5 channels or 30mgz.
TownHallRsch Nickname posted over 2 years ago
|
I could not agree more. For the first time in at least 50 years, broadcast television now offers a better viewer experience than pay TV. AND ITS FREE!!! Somebody please challenge viewers -- watch the superbowl on broadcast to half way through the half time show, then switch to pay TV for at least a few plays minutes into the third quarter and then pick the better picture. Do a similar thing for the grammy's, make sure broadcast goes into the sound system. Right now broadcasters must band together to demonstrate their superiority. I've never heard an advert on broadcast or pay which says broadcast is better, try it out. I've heard plenty of comcast, Dish, and DirecTV ads make less relevant claims. The FCC believes local broadcasters are going to charge for mobile broadcast television. If that is true, drop it. Charge for premium content, everything else should be free. Location based advertising is worth way more than any television or internet advertising. They should be looking at upping the power and reach of broadcast, not killing it. The FCC is trying to address an important issue of needed urban spectrum. What they forget is that femto and pico cells will multiply the carrying capacity of current spectrum. What they forget is that 4G technologies will multiply the carrying capacity of current spectrum. What they appear to be doing is to have citizens pay for all television or entertainment. What they are doing is wrong. This is a case where common practices not the contract should rule.
CenSorShot Nickname posted over 2 years ago
|
ME LIKE FREE TV!
CenSorShot Nickname posted over 2 years ago
|
WE DON'T NEED TO SHUT OFF OVER THE AIR TV! LEAVE IT ALONE!

Today's Top Stories

Classifieds

The Market

Symbol Last Change (%)
Nasdaq 2815.24 +36.45 (+1.31%)
NYSE 7512.10 +84.36 (+1.14%)
S&P 500 1308.16 +12.94 (+1.00%)
Updated 05/21 11:06a ET Quotes delayed at least 20 mins.
Source: Financial Content

Ratings

Overnights, adults 18-49 for May 17, 2012
  • 1.
    3.0/9
  • 2.
    2.5/7
  • 3.
    2.4/7
  • 4.
    1.5/4
  • 5.
    1.1/3
  • 6.
    0.3/1
Source: Nielsen
Reviews
Opinions
Features
  • David Wiegand

    Fans of Sex and the City have finally gotten their wish: Their beloved sex-focused sitcom is back on the air ... sort of. The four women have become four men, of course, and the writing isn't as good. Oh, and the laugh track so annoying, it's offensive. And did I mention that the costumes would be considered fashionable if you were holding a yard sale? Men at Work on TBS is almost quaint, it's so old fashioned. If it had any meat on its bones, you'd be tempted to say it's the sadly ignoble epitome of TV's long-festering emasculated-men syndrome. But it's so much of a big, forgettable, innocuous shrug, it's not even worth any actual vitriol.

  • Mike Hale

    The USA Network's motto is "Characters Welcome." Apparently they're especially welcome if they resemble Oscar Madison and Felix Unger. Already stocked with Odd Couple knockoffs in Psych and White Collar, USA adds to its inventory Common Law, another comic crime-fighting show about mismatched partners. But this latest entry exhibits very little of that kind of spark as it tries to wring laughs from the juxtaposition of counseling and police work. It looks too flat and schematically plotted to succeed as the type of lightweight summer fun we’ve come to expect from USA.

  • Joanne Ostrow

    Johnny Carson: Fantastic entertainer, miserable human being. That's the lasting message of Johnny Carson: King of Late Night, the new PBS American Masters film, a rich history of a rare product of television who dominated the small screen for decades. Unprecedented access to personal archives plus all existing episodes of The Tonight Show (1962-92), distinguishes this film by Peter Jones. Telling interviews with family and colleagues, including second wife Joanne Carson, former Tonight Show executive producer Peter Lassally and a number of biographers sharpen the picture. The clips are carefully selected to illustrate specific personality traits, the performance highlights are given context and meaning beyond funny lines and memorable moments.

  • Hank Stuever

    AMC's The Pitch is a sharply-made if slightly off-putting reality series that follows different advertising agencies each week as they compete for new accounts. The inspiration for the show — made clear by its own ad campaign — is to harness some of the verve generated by the network's acclaimed Mad Men. The Pitch has a way of making the ad world seem like a real downer — a repugnant exercise in egotism laced with depressing bouts of creative compromise.

  • Tim Goodman

    HBO's Veep stars Julia Louis-Dreyfus as former Sen. Selina Meyer, who accepts the vice presidential duty and regrets it almost immediately: She has no real power and gets muscled by the Senate, Congress and the (so-far-unseen) president, who delegates all the truly crappy jobs to her. Louis-Dreyfus has found perhaps her best post-Seinfeld role and takes to it with such fervor — the constant swearing, the barely veiled desire to become president, the unhappy give-and-take with other politicians and a delightful disdain for average citizens — that you can't help but applaud what is clearly an Emmy-worthy effort. Her work alone makes Veep a gem, but there's even more to like.

This advertisement will close automatically in  second(s). You will see this ad no more than once a day. Skip ad