Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554

In the Matter of ) ) Incentive Auction Task Force and ) MB Docket No. 16-306 Media Bureau Seek Comment on ) GN Docket No. 12-268 Post-Incentive Auction Transition on ) Scheduling Plan )

COMMENTS OF BLOCK COMMUNICATIONS, INC., LIMA COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, INDEPENDENCE TELEVISION COMPANY, WAND(TV) PARTNERSHIP, IDAHO INDEPENDENT TELEVISION, INC., AND WEST CENTRAL OHIO BROADCASTING, INC.

Block Communications Inc., on behalf of its subsidiaries Lima Communications

Corporation, Independence Television Company, WAND(TV) Partnership, Idaho Independent

Television, Inc., and West Central Ohio Broadcasting, Inc. (collectively, “the Block Stations”),1 hereby submit these comments in response to the Public Notice issued on September 20, 2016, by the Incentive Auction Task Force (the “IATF”) regarding the post-auction repack of the TV broadcast spectrum.2

1 The Block Stations are local operating affiliates of Block Communications, Inc., an integrated media company headquartered in Toledo, Ohio, with interests in cable television systems, newspapers, regional cable networks, and several broadcast television stations. Lima Communications Corporation is the licensee of WLIO(TV), Lima, Ohio; Independence Television Company is the licensee of WDRB(TV), Louisville, Kentucky and WMYO, Salem, Indiana; WAND(TV) Partnership is the licensee of WAND(TV), Decatur, Illinois; and Idaho Independent Television is the licensee of KTRV(TV), Nampa-Boise, Idaho. West Central Ohio Broadcasting, Inc. is the licensee of Class A television station WOHL-CD, Lima, Ohio, and low- power stations WLQP-LP, Lima, Ohio, WLMO-LP, Lima, Ohio, and WFND-LP, Findlay, Ohio. 2 See Incentive Auction Task Force and Media Bureau Seek Comment on Post-Incentive Auction Transition Scheduling Plan, Public Notice, DA 16-1095 (rel. Sept. 30, 2016) (the “Public Notice”). I. INTRODUCTION

For the past five years, the Block Stations have strongly urged the FCC to protect

American TV viewers from potential loss of service from the TV Broadcast Incentive Auction

and the subsequent repack.3 Congress authorized the FCC to conduct the auction only on the condition that the over-the-air broadcasting system would be replicated by the post-auction repack.4 The Block Stations have advocated for the rights of TV viewers threatened with loss of

service and broadcasters, whose businesses are equally threatened if the repack leads even to

temporary service losses. Under the Communications Act and American tradition, the FCC has

both a legal and a moral duty to protect local television service during the repack. The Block

Stations continue to challenge the FCC to live up to these duties.

Unfortunately, the repack plan included in the Public Notice fails to live up to the FCC’s

duties to protect American TV viewers. The new repack plan adheres to the 39-month post-

auction construction timeline despite a mountain of evidence that the repack cannot reasonably

be completed in that time. Rather than make protecting viewers’ relied upon service the top

priority in the repack, the Public Notice makes rapidly clearing the 600 MHz band the top

priority. The problem is that unless the FCC makes a serious effort to design the repack plan to

avoid station blackouts, disruptions in service are guaranteed to occur. That is not what

Congress had in mind when it gave the FCC incentive auction authority in the Spectrum Act, and

3 See Reply Comments of Block Communications, et al., MB Docket Nos. 03-185, et al., filed Feb. 5, 2015; Comment of Block Communications Inc., et al., MB Docket Nos. 03-195, et al., filed Jan. 12, 2015; Petition for Reconsideration of Block Communications, Inc., et al., GN Docket No. 12-268, filed Sept. 15, 2014; Comments of Block Communications, Inc., et al., GN Docket No. 12-268, filed July 2, 2014; Comments of Block Communications, et al., GN Docket No. 12-268, filed Apr. 21, 2014; Comments of Block Communications, et al., ET Docket No. 10- 235, filed Mar. 18, 2011. 4 See Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-96, § 6403(b)(2), 125 Stat. 156 (2012) (the “Spectrum Act”).

2

it is not what the American people are expecting. Moreover, an inefficiently designed transition also will lead to the waste of money, which is supremely important because Congress intended its $1.75 billion repack reimbursement fund to fully reimburse broadcasters’ repack-related expenses. The Block Stations – like most broadcasters – expect to be fully reimbursed, but if the repack is not conducted efficiently, the result is extremely unlikely.

The Block Stations urge the FCC to revisit its repack plan and take a more realistic approach to getting this job done right. The plan should be prefaced with the goal of protecting

TV viewers from service disruptions. It should set an attainable goal for clearing the 600 MHz spectrum – at least doubling the current 39-month time frame would be a good place to start.

The FCC should begin gathering actual information from broadcasters about the work that will have to be done and the service that may be lost to viewers, it should continue to gather this

information once the auction is complete, and it should get a complete picture of these issues

before it assigns stations to construction phases. Only then can it determine based on

information provided by antenna manufacturers, tower fabricators and crews, and other resource

contributors, how long the repack will take and how best to accomplish it. Finally, the FCC

should recognize that there is no rush – wireless bidders are not showing any overwhelming

enthusiasm for purchasing broadcast spectrum – and that it’s more important to get the repack

right than it is do it fast.

II. THE FCC SHOULD GATHER MORE REAL-WORLD DATA FROM BROADCASTERS BEFORE FINALIZING ITS REPACK PLANS OR ASSIGNING STATIONS TO REPACK PHASES.

A key problem with the FCC’s proposed repack plan is that it aims to assign each

broadcaster to a repack phase and a set construction period without consulting broadcasters

directly about how much time they think they will need to construct new facilities. As the record in the FCC’s proceedings to date shows, the time each station will need to construct varies 3

significantly due to factors like local regulatory approvals, tower loading conditions, Federal

Aviation Authority approvals, the need to accommodate other tenants on towers, the availability

of tower crews, seasonal weather variations in storm-prone areas, and dozens of other individual

factors. The idea that a successful phase assignment can be accomplished without taking these individual factors into account is bureaucratic nonsense. Block therefore proposes that the FCC seek from broadcasters real-world information regarding difficult construction projects following the auction but before any phase assignments are made. Assigning stations to construction phases without this information likely will lead to assignment of too short a construction period to stations with difficult and time consuming construction projects ahead.5

For example, the Block Stations have at least two potentially very difficult tower

construction projects that will be very challenging to complete in a timely fashion even if its

stations are granted the maximum 39-month construction period. In the Louisville DMA,

WDRB(TV), Louisville, Kentucky, and WMYO(TV), Salem, Indiana, both are resident on a

tower in a tower farm near Floyds Knobs, Indiana. Given the age and loading on that tower, it is

unclear that new facilities for these two stations can be placed on the tower. And it’s unlikely that the Block Stations can attain the local approvals for the tower improvements – including the potential need to replace the tower entirely – necessary to construct facilities at the current site.6

5 The importance of getting information from broadcasters regarding their construction projects cannot be overemphasized, and some of that information simply cannot be known until broadcasters receive their final channel assignments. For example, all towers have load limitations. The height and weight of TV antennas determines the load they place on towers, but those specifications differ considerably depending on the channel on which the antenna is designed to broadcast. Generally, the lower the channel, the heavier and longer the antenna. So broadcasters will not be able to determine whether their final channel position creates tower load issues until they know with certainty their post-auction channel. 6 The most recent structural analysis conducted for the tower currently housing WDRB(TV) and WMYO(TV) suggests that if both channels are repacked and assigned lower channels than their current assignments, an entirely new tower likely would need to be constructed to accommodate 4

If they must change channels, it is quite possible that WDRB(TV) and WMYO(TV) will need to find a new tower site for the stations, purchase additional property, and construct a new tower in order to continue serving their viewing audiences.

Of course the extent of necessary construction will not be known until the auction is over, new channels have been assigned to continuing broadcasters, and the actual scope of necessary construction work can be assessed. But according to the proposed repack plan, by the time a plan for reconstructing these stations can be developed, they already will have been assigned to a

repack phase with a construction period of potentially much less than the maximum 39-month

period. In the case of these stations, however, construction within 39 months would be a stretch

even in the best case scenario, and construction during that time period if a site change is

necessary will likely be impossible. In any event, it makes little sense to assign a construction

period to these stations before the scope of any necessary work can be determined. If the FCC must do so, complex construction projects like the Block Stations’ Floyds Knobs tower issue

should be assigned the full 39 months as a matter of course.

Likewise, the Block stations face a difficult construction situation in Lima, Ohio, where

WLIO(TV) and WOHL-CD share a tower on a city block in a residential area of Lima. The

tower is built over the offices and studios of the stations and is fully loaded at this time. To fit

onto the tower site, the tower was designed to be close guyed (the guy wires are at a 30 degree

angle, rather than the typical 45 degrees). Due to the limitations of this design, the stations

cannot place auxiliary or interim antennas on the tower during construction of the new main

facilities. Doing so would cause an unreasonable risk of a tower collapse, which would create

serious risks to life and property in the area. If either WOHL-CD or WLIO(TV) are moved to

them. Given the likely difficulties that could create at the current tower site, the Block Stations may be forced to locate a new property to construct the replacement tower.

5

new channels as part of the repack, significant tower work will be necessary to balance the tower

load, and any such changes will require city zoning approval, which is frequently slow for

residential sites in residential areas of Lima. Indeed, in the Block Stations’ experience, local

approvals from the City of Lima require a lengthy review and an uncertain fate.

One option would be to find a new site and construct a new tower either for auxiliary or permanent facilities, but that possibility is speculative at this point and may not ultimately save much time. As with WDRB and WMYO, reconstruction of Block’s Lima facilities is unlikely to be feasible within the 39-month time frame envisioned by the FCC, so WLIO(TV) and WOHL-

CD should be placed in the last phase of construction time periods.

The Block Stations can only speak from their own experience. Perhaps the challenges the Block Stations in Louisville and Lima are unique, but the Block Stations fear that these difficult construction scenarios are more typical than the FCC suspects. The way the FCC appears to view the repack, if stations are unable to construct their facilities within the allotted time, they will simply be forced to cease broadcasting to make way for wireless services in the

600 MHz band. The FCC shouldn’t be foreordaining that result for any station because that will mean lost service to the viewers that depend on over-the-air TV. The Block Stations fear that will be the result for many, many stations across the country if the current proposal is followed.

Moreover, a station being forced off the air is not the only way that viewers will lose service under the FCC’s current accelerated repack schedule. The Block Stations also note that

even the best-planned, best-executed construction projects for full power stations will be only

part of the battle of retaining over-the-air service. WLIO(TV) and WOHL-CD serve an area in

between several larger DMAs and they historically have served audiences on the rural fringes of

those DMAs. Preserving that service through the DTV transition required facilities changes and

6

a consumer education campaign encouraging viewers to use outdoor antennas. The FCC’s

current repack schedule leaves stations like like WLIO and WOHL-CD with little or no time to modify their facilities to maintain service to these historically served areas. Similarly, the Block

Stations’ WAND-TV, Decatur, Illinois, relies on translators to serve the eastern and western edges of its service area. Ensuring continued operation of these translators likely will have to

await completion of the full-power and Class A transition because materials and tower crews will

be entirely unavailable due to the demands of the repack. If these facilities are out of operation,

viewers that depend on them will be blacked out. The near-certain loss of these subsidiary

services should make the FCC even more circumspect about pursuing a repack plan that would

cause full-power or Class A stations to go off the air if they are unable to construct according to

the FCC’s schedule.

Accordingly, Block strongly suggests that the FCC delay phase assignment until the

auction is complete, new channels have been assigned, and broadcasters have been given an

opportunity to plan construction and notify the FCC of construction difficulties or other potential

losses of service that would require assignment of the maximum 39-month transition period. In

some cases, that notice would likely be that construction cannot be completed even if the

maximum 39 months is allotted to the station. Only after the FCC has received such notification

of difficult construction projects or other related issues should the FCC conduct its phase

assignment. While this will add time to the repack process, it will help the FCC assure that the

phase assignment is carried out sensibly, in a way that endangers service to the fewest possible

number of TV viewers.

Block also is concerned that the repack plan may be premised on overly optimistic

forecasts regarding the capability of antenna manufacturers and suppliers. Over the past year,

7

WLIO and one of the Block Stations’ low-power station in Lima, WFND-LD, intermittently have had to operate at reduced power pursuant to special temporary authority due to suppliers’ inability to provide parts and repair assemblies in a timely manner. If these suppliers are having trouble keeping up with demand during this relatively calm period in TV construction, the FCC

should not assume that these same companies will be able to ramp up to serve the many hundreds of stations that will need new broadcast facilities during the repack. It would be a wise

course for the FCC to pursue direct and comprehensive discussions with the suppliers of these

essential materials to determine their realistic capacity for delivering the necessary antennas and

other facilities during the repack.7

IV. CONCLUSION

The plan proposed by the Public Notice is problematic on a number of other levels, and the Block Stations look forward to a full examination of the plan by the parties in this proceeding. The Block Stations strongly urge the FCC to take seriously the comments of broadcasters that will actually be tasked with achieving the repack and maintaining service to

7 The FCC also should note that even assuming the repack proceeds according to plan and all full-power and Class A station are able to transition seamlessly to post-auction operations, many viewers will, at least temporarily, lose service. For example, the

8 customers. For the foregoing reasons, the Block Stations request that the FCC adopt the changes to the repack plan described herein.

Respectfully submitted,

LIMA COMMUNICATIONS, CORPORATION INDEPENDENCE TELEVISION COMPANY WAND(TV) PARTNERSHIP IDAHO INDEPENDENT TELEVISION, INC. WEST CENTRAL OHIO BROADCASTING, INC.

/s/ John R. Feore Jason E. Rademacher Cooley LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20004

Its Attorneys.

October 31, 2016

9