The 2012 act authorized FCC to conduct an incentive auction for  broadcast television spectrum. After the auction concludes, FCC reported it intends to reorganize the  television broadcast band on a smaller range of channels to free up a  portion of the spectrum; FCC refers to this reorganization as “repacking.”  Relocating the remaining stations on lower channels allows for new,  flexible-use spectrum licenses suitable for providing mobile broadband  services. Additionally,  FCC indicated in the incentive  auction report and order that it anticipated there would be at least one  channel in all areas throughout the country not assigned to a television  station that could be used by unlicensed devices. The Consumer  Electronics Association reported in 2014 that devices using unlicensed  spectrum generate approximately $62 billion annually in retail-level sales  and that further estimated growth in the market for devices that rely on  unlicensed spectrum was “extremely strong.”

	LPTV and Translator Stations Provide Programming and Information That Might Not Be Available to Over-the- Air Viewers after the Auction

		LPTV and Translator Stations Are Diverse in Their Programming and Owned by Various Types of Entities

Through analysis of FCC data, our survey of LPTV and translator station  representatives, and meetings with stakeholders as discussed below, we  obtained information on LPTV and translator stations, including (1) the  number of such stations and their communities of license, (2) types of  programming and hours of broadcasting, and (3) ownership. According to one broadcast industry association we interviewed, LPTV  stations serve a wide range of diverse audiences, including those in both  rural counties with limited access to full-power stations and in large urban  areas. The Incentive Auction Could Affect Viewers’ Ability to Receive LPTV and Translator Stations’ Programming and Televised Emergency Information

We found LPTV and translator station viewers may lose access to  programming or emergency alert information through several possible  ways, including the following:
Alternatives to broadcast programming are cost-prohibitive or  unavailable: Many LPTV and translator station viewers are  economically or geographically disadvantaged and may not be able to  afford other options for accessing programming such as for satellite  television or broadband Internet, according to two broadcast industry  associations we interviewed and six survey respondents, among  others. As noted previously, FCC has acknowledged that the incentive auction  will potentially  displace some LPTV and translator stations. Selected Stakeholders View FCC’s Actions as Having Limited Usefulness and Have Proposed Additional Actions to Mitigate the Auction’s Effects

		Selected Stakeholders View FCC’s Actions as Helpful in Some Circumstances but Insufficient

According to FCC officials, FCC’s actions to mitigate the effects of the  incentive auction include: (1) channel sharing, (2) the digital transition  deadline, (3) FCC’s optimization software, and (4) cross-border  coordination. While broadcast industry associations generally expressed  support for these measures in comments to FCC, some representatives  of these groups told us and stated in comments to FCC that the actions  will not do much to mitigate the effects of the incentive auction on LPTV  and translator stations. The broadcast industry associations and station  ownership groups generally opposed the proposal, while the technology  companies, the technology industry association, and the public interest  group were proponents of the proposal. For example, a representative from one  broadcast industry association told us the vacant channel proposal will  force existing LPTV and translator stations off the air because there will  be one less channel where a displaced LPTV or translator station can  relocate and that many rural and underserved communities will likely lose  access to the broadcast stations on which they rely. One of these proponents also added that this could help  extend coverage to people who might not have affordable access to the  Internet. They noted that this use of  spectrum is currently occurring and that preserving a vacant channel  could help lower costs and improve the technology, thus improving and  expanding broadband in rural areas. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report focuses on the possible effects of the Federal Communication  Commission’s (FCC) spectrum incentive auction on low power television  (LPTV) and translator stations and their viewers. Specifically, our  objectives were to examine (1) what is known about LPTV and translator  stations and how FCC’s spectrum incentive auction might affect viewers’  access to the stations’ services, (2) selected stakeholder views on actions  has proposed or taken to mitigate the possible effects of the incentive  auction on LPTV and translator stations, and additional stakeholder  proposals for doing so, and (3) selected stakeholder views on the  expected outcomes of preserving a vacant channel for unlicensed use of  the television broadcast spectrum. These responses  represent 535 of the 2,063 LPTV stations, and 1,515 of the 3,660  translator stations in the U.S. and its territories. To identify selected stakeholder views on the expected outcomes of  preserving a vacant channel for unlicensed use of the television  broadcast spectrum, we reviewed FCC’s June 2015 notice of proposed  rulemaking where FCC proposes to preserve one vacant channel in the  ultra high frequency television band for use by white space devices and  wireless microphones, and we reviewed selected comments and other  filings association with this proceeding.
Why GAO Did This Study

In 2012, Congress authorized FCC to conduct an incentive auction of broadcast television spectrum whereby eligible broadcasters can voluntarily relinquish their spectrum usage rights in return for compensation. This auction will make spectrum available for new uses such as mobile broadband and will also potentially affect LPTV and translator stations. In addition to conducting the auction, FCC proposed preserving at least one vacant television channel in all areas that could be used by unlicensed devices to ensure the public continues to have access to the benefits associated with these devices.
GAO was asked to review the possible effects of the auction on LPTV and translator stations and their viewers. This report examines: (1) LPTV and translator stations and how FCC's incentive auction might affect their viewers, (2) selected stakeholders' views on actions FCC has proposed to mitigate the possible effects of the auction on such stations, and (3) selected stakeholders' views on the expected outcomes of preserving a vacant television channel for unlicensed use. GAO reviewed relevant FCC proceedings and comments associated with those proceedings; surveyed a non-generalizable sample of 330 LPTV and translator station representatives with available e-mail addresses; and interviewed officials from FCC and industry stakeholders selected to represent various types of organizations, such as broadcast industry associations and technology companies. GAO provided FCC with a draft of this report. FCC's technical comments have been incorporated.

What GAO Found

As of May 2016, there were 2,063 low power television (LPTV) stations and 3,660 translator stations in the United States and its territories, serving diverse communities. However, some LPTV and translator stations may be displaced and need to find a new channel or discontinue operation after the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) ongoing incentive auction of broadcast television spectrum. By statute, these stations were not designated as eligible to participate in the auction; consequently, they cannot voluntarily relinquish their spectrum usage rights in return for compensation. LPTV stations may serve rural communities with limited access to full-power stations and niche communities in urban areas, whereas translator stations retransmit the programming of other stations, mostly to viewers in rural areas who cannot otherwise receive television signals. After the auction, FCC intends to reorganize the television stations remaining on the air so that they will occupy a smaller range of channels, thus freeing up spectrum for other uses. LPTV and translator stations are not guaranteed a channel during the reorganization. FCC has acknowledged that the auction and channel reorganization may negatively affect an unknown number of LPTV and translator stations and that some viewers will lose service, and concluded the success of the auction outweighs these concerns. Broadcast industry associations and others have raised concerns about viewers' losing access to programming and emergency alert information these stations provide.
Selected stakeholders viewed FCC's actions to mitigate the effects of the incentive auction on LPTV and translator stations as helpful in some circumstances, but overall as insufficient. FCC's actions include using its software to identify channels that will be available for displaced stations following the auction and allowing channel sharing. While broadcast industry associations generally supported these measures in comments to FCC, some representatives told GAO that the actions will not do much to mitigate the effects of the incentive auction on LPTV and translator stations. Moreover, in response to GAO's non-generalizable survey, representatives of LPTV and translator stations generally indicated FCC's actions have limited usefulness.
According to selected stakeholders, FCC's proposal to preserve a vacant television channel in all areas throughout the country for unlicensed use, such as Wi-Fi Internet, could result in the loss of some existing broadcast service, but could have various benefits. Of the stakeholders GAO contacted, the broadcast industry associations generally opposed the proposal, while the technology companies supported it. According to a broadcast industry association, the proposal will force some LPTV and translator stations off the air because there will be one less channel where a displaced station can relocate, and many rural and underserved communities will likely lose access to the broadcast stations on which they rely. On the other hand, technology companies and other supporters of the vacant channel proposal maintain that preserving at least one vacant channel for unlicensed use will contribute to innovation and the development of new technologies. Proponents also said that preserving a vacant channel could help expand Wi-Fi more thoroughly giving people and businesses greater connectivity and could help extend coverage to people who might not have affordable access to the Internet.