When the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission told The New York Times earlier this month that the nation's biggest broadcasters should have no problem sending digital signals by next year, he set the ante in a high-stakes poker game. For the government, the prize is spectrum auction revenues that will fatten the US Treasury. For the broadcasters, winning the face-off would buy more time to install expensive digital equipment and work out myriad local regulatory hurdles. In both cases, there's a lot of money at stake.
So it should come as no surprise that broadcasters have been spending a lot of time at the FCC offices - not only to talk some sense into Chairman Reed Hundt, but also to work up some opposition against his ideas among the three other commissioners. The other three commissioners reportedly oppose Hundt's one-year idea at the outset, so broadcasters may not have a tough job. A spokesman at the National Association of Broadcasters declined to discuss any lobbying tactics, but says very diplomatically, "We hope to have this resolved amicably."
But Hundt's spokesman confirmed that some broadcast representatives met last week with Hundt's chief of staff, Blair Levin. He wouldn't discuss the content of those meetings, either, but a broadcast industry source says the party line is that a one-year schedule is "just impossible to do." The spokesman says only that Hundt is having "ongoing discussions" with broadcasters on the matter.
The reason for all the fuss is simple. The Clinton administration has proposed a budget in which broadcasters' current analog spectrum is supposed to be the source of a big pot of cash for the federal government. The plan is to auction off the analog spectrum, which broadcasters will desert when the switch to digital is complete, and sell it off for a wide range of new communications services. That means that Hundt has to speed things along to make those targets stick.
But what really excites Hundt, according to his spokesman, is the prospect of "jump starting" digital TV broadcasting in the 10 largest US markets, which make up 30 percent of television households. That kind of early penetration might get television manufacturers off their butts, which they've been dragging for fear digital TV boxes will sit on store shelves while broadcasters lollygag into the digital age. Now, with broadcasters saying that digital broadcasting is two or three or more years away, manufacturers are backing away from plans to make a Christmas '98 marketing push for the digital boxes.
Broadcasters say they're worried about patchwork local zoning laws and Federal Aviation Administration rules that could slow down the process of building new digital towers. Even in the major markets that would be affected by Hundt's plan, broadcasters argue, pushing the new infrastructure through the required approval processes will take longer than a year.
But perhaps the broadcasters' strongest argument for delay is that the new equipment they'll need to broadcast digitally is untested. No one in the industry wants to confront a situation where consumers who have plunked down US$2,000 for TV sets spend their first few months in the brave new world watching shows cut in and out as broadcasters work out the kinks. And lawmakers and FCC staffers don't like to hear from irate TV viewers, either.
The next chapters: The FCC is supposed to announce decisions on two major digital broadcasting issues in the next two weeks. The first will address allocation of the new digital channels, the other will set the framework for the transition to the new broadcasting system.
Hundt's spokesman said both items are on track for completion by 1 April - right when the budget talks could start getting nasty. That would be a good time for an FCC order adding credibility to the White House's budget scenario. But with no evident support building for Hundt's go-fast approach, any such order more likely would be an April Fool's prank. And that's seldom funny in high-stakes poker.
