By Richard R. Zaragoza

The Office of Management and Budget is currently considering whether to approve a revised version of FCC Form 303-S, the “Application For Renewal of Broadcast Station License” that all commercial and noncommercial full-power radio and television stations will be required to use when they file for their next renewal of license. The FCC has made several modifications to the prior version of the form.

One of the modifications is a new renewal certification which will constitute a material representation to a government agency. For that reason, every renewal applicant will want to be doubly sure that it has a reasonable, good faith basis for responding to the certification with an unqualified “Yes” and adequate documentation to support such response. Specifically, the revised renewal form seeks a “Yes” or “No” response to the new certification that the licensee’s “advertising sales agreements do not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity and that all such agreements held by the licensee contain nondiscrimination clauses.” According to the FCC, this new certification is needed to combat “no urban/no Spanish dictates” that have turned up in some broadcast advertising arrangements. The FCC believes that those “dictates” discriminate against broadcast stations which target African American and Hispanic audiences and the businesses they support.

When it adopted the “nondiscrimination clause” requirement, the FCC chose not to provide specific, or even illustrative, language to be included in advertising contracts. Such language would have given applicants a better idea of what the FCC actually believes qualifies as an adequate “nondiscrimination clause.” As a result, licensees have been left to rely upon their own interpretations of what constitutes compliance.

One question of interpretation relates to the scope of the nondiscrimination clause: is it adequate if only two types of prohibited discrimination are identified, namely race and ethnicity, or must the clause include all other types of discrimination prohibited under federal, state and local law? We know that the rule making from which the nondiscrimination clause arose focused only on “no urban/no Spanish dictates,” and that the FCC’s later issued “Erratum” substituted “ethnicity” for “gender” without retaining “gender.” From this it can be argued that the FCC did not intend to require stations to include in their nondiscrimination clauses other forms of discrimination prohibited by federal, state and local authorities, although stations are free to include them.

Additional interpretation is required to answer this question: is the nondiscrimination clause sufficient if each sales contract in effect proclaims (i) that no advertiser may use the station to discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity and (ii) that any contract entered into with an advertiser whose intent is to use the station to unlawfully discriminate shall be null and void? Or must the nondiscrimination clause also include from the advertiser some type of certification or representation to the station disclaiming any intent to discriminate on the grounds of race or ethnicity? It is my experience that the approaches used by stations vary considerably. That fact may suggest that there are a number of interpretations that may be regarded as reasonable.

The third instance requiring interpretation relates to those stations that do not use formal sales contracts: how are they expected to comply with the nondiscrimination clause requirement? The answer to this question will turn on how flexible the FCC intends to be. We know that noncommercial educational stations filing their license renewal applications will not be asked to respond to this particular certification because such stations do not “sell” time, although they do enter into on-air and production relationships with their underwriters. Certainly a starting point for commercial stations that do not use formal sales contracts is to ensure they can adequately demonstrate to the FCC that their advertising sales arrangements with third parties in fact alert such parties to the station’s nondiscrimination policy and do not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity, e.g., website postings, standard email disclaimers, invoice/statement disclaimers.

The three questions posed above are not intended to deal with all of the issues raised by the new renewal certification. My observation is that if the FCC had been more clear when it adopted the nondiscrimination clause requirement, licensees would be able to make a more informed judgment in deciding whether they may responsibly respond to the new certification requirement with an unqualified “Yes,” or whether they will be required to answer “No” with an explanation, understanding that a “No” answer will likely result in the licensee’s application being pulled out of line and deferred for further scrutiny. Stations should consult with communications counsel now to assess whether, based on current practices, they will have a reasonable basis to respond “Yes” to the new renewal certification when it comes time to file their application for renewal of license.

From Radio Ink

January 6, 2010: FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski was an opening-day speaker at the Consumer Electronics Show, taking place now in Las Vegas. Genachowski focused on mobile broadband and spectrum in his remarks, saying, “We’re in the early stages of a mobile revolution that is sparking an explosion in wireless traffic.  Without action, demand for spectrum will soon outstrip supply.”
He continued, “If we don’t tackle the spectrum challenge, network congestion will grow, and consumer frustration will grow with it.  We’ll put our country’s economic competitiveness at risk, and squander the opportunity to lead the world in mobile. That’s why unleashing spectrum to support mobile innovation is at the top of the FCC’s 2011 agenda.”

Genachowski talked about the potential opportunities with mobile broadband, saying it “has created a tremendous new platform for innovation” and for commerce.”Everywhere you look,” he said, “mobile is becoming a staple of the workplace, increasing productivity and contributing to our economy.  From managing crops on a farm to managing inventory at Best Buy, mobile broadband is increasing productivity and contributing to our economy.”

Those innovations, he said, “require an invisible infrastructure that is up to the task.”And if the FCC doesn’t act to ensure that, “Frustrated consumers will be forced to choose between lousy service and rising prices, driving down both the adoption and utility of mobile broadband in the United States. If we don’t act, we will put our country’s economic competitiveness at risk.”

Genachowski said the FCC’s spectrum policies are outdated, and said “unleashing spectrum” is a top priority at the agency.

One of the ways the commission hopes to do that is through voluntary incentive auctions, with the spectrum supplied by licensees including TV broadcasters. Under the FCC’s plan, Genachowski said, “a broadcaster could choose to contribute the six megahertz they are using, or continue to broadcast by sharing a channel with one or more stations, or simply not participate and continue to broadcast as they do today.”

He said, “Since the DTV transition, some broadcasters are making effective use of the capabilities of their spectrum, but some are not. For those who are not, their spectrum could be put to higher use for other purposes. What we need is a mechanism to enable market forces to unleash the value of that spectrum for broadband use, and we believe that incentive auctions are that mechanism.”

Genachowski said the commission has already begun to pave the way for incentive auctions in several spectrum bands, and is preparing to act quickly when the agency gets congressional authority for the sales.

MBA note:  The NAB maintains that “broadcast innovation and broadband development are not mutually exclusive goals.”  Spectrum reallocation will be a major component of the MBA’s lobbying efforts in Washington DC in early March.  If you have an issue that you would like us to take to our Congressional delegation, email jordan@massbroadcasters.org

From RBR.com

The five FCC commissioners approved Chairman Julius Genachowski’s middle-of-the-road approach to achieving a free and open internet on a 3-2 party line vote, and even among the three Democrats, the vote was split between approving of and concurring with the Order.

Genachowski voted for the order; Democrat Mignon Clyburn approved in part and concurred in part; Democrat Michael Copps, who has been skeptical on grounds the Order will not be strong enough, concurred; and the two Republicans, Robert McDowell and Meredith Baker, both dissented.

The Order provides for reasonable network management practices, notes that there will be a high hurdle to justify paid prioritization, saying such a practice was unlikely to clear the “no unreasonable discrimination” hurdle, and noted that the still-in-development mobile broadband universe would be handled differently.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The National Association of Broadcasters issued a statement today following an announcement that the Federal Communications Commission will be issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding retransmission consent. Retransmission consent is the market-based process by which a pay-TV distributor and a broadcast station negotiate carriage rights.

Commenting, NAB President and CEO Gordon Smith said:

“NAB strongly endorses educating consumers with the multiple options available to them in the exceedingly rare instance when a retransmission consent dispute arises, including the antenna TV option. In the final analysis, injecting Washington into private business negotiations that have a 99 percent success rate only serves to embolden pay-TV companies. If the pay-TV giants succeed, there will be further migration of premiere sporting events like the Super Bowl away from free TV, and a reduction in financial resources that sustains quality foreign language programming, local news and entertainment to a growing audience of more than 30 million Americans who rely exclusively on over-the-air television.”

About NAB
The National Association of Broadcasters is the premier advocacy association for America’s broadcasters. NAB advances radio and television interests in legislative, regulatory and public affairs. Through advocacy, education and innovation, NAB enables broadcasters to best serve their communities, strengthen their businesses and seize new opportunities in the digital age. Learn more at www.nab.org.

As we reported earlier this month, your Association joined with other State Broadcasters Associations, the NAB and various broadcast, cable and satellite associations in urging the FCC to extend the current March 29, 2011 deadline for broadcasters and others to comply with the CAP reception requirement.  I am pleased to report that we have been successful.  Today the full Commission released an Order extending the CAP-compliance deadline to September 30, 2011.  Furthermore, the Commission signaled an intent to be flexible, expressly reserving the right to grant a further extension of the new September 30, 2011 deadline depending upon the outcome of its upcoming notice of proposed rulemaking which will undertake a comprehensive review of the impact of CAP on its Part 11 rule, including the CAP reception rule and the issue of FCC certification of CAP compliant equipment.

Stay tuned to www.massbroadcasters.org and facebook.com/mabroadcasters for more information!

Yesterday, the Massachusetts Broadcasters Association, along with 45 other State Broadcasters Associations, the National Association of Broadcasters, National Cable and Telecommunications Association, Society of Broadcast Engineers, American Cable Association, Association for Maximum Service Television, National Public Radio, Association of Public Television Stations and Public Broadcasting Service, urged the FCC to extend the current March 29, 2011 CAP-compliance deadline to at least September 30, 2011 or later, as well as to consider holding the deadline in abeyance until the FCC has completed its own CAP-related equipment certification process and has resolved its anticipated rulemaking proceeding concerning modifications to Part 11 of its EAS rules and regulations.

We pointed out that it would be premature at best, and potentially very wasteful at worst, for some 25,000 to 30,000 EAS participants to be required to purchase, install and test new or modified CAP-related equipment in circumstances where (i) the IPAWS list of CAP tested and certified EAS equipment has yet to be released, (ii) the FCC may conduct its own certification process which could necessite further changes to equipment which FEMA has already approved, and (iii) the FCC may, as a result of an expected rulemaking, change its EAS regulations in ways that impact the future suitability of CAP-related equipment. We also urged the Commission to take into consideration the extra time needed for EAS participants to coordinate with their state and local representatives to insure that the conversion of government owned EAS equipment would be compatible with CAP-related equipment that radio and television stations, and others, may employ. Given the importance of getting “CAP” right the first time, we stressed that flexibility should be the watchword in this context.

National Association of Broadcasters response to Senator Kerry’s legislation draft:

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The National Association of Broadcasters issued a statement today regarding the fair, market-based carriage negotiation process known as retransmission consent.

Commenting, NAB Executive Vice President Dennis Wharton said:

“As history has shown, 99.9 percent of these deals are reached without disruption. We don’t have a broken system; we have a broken pay-TV company that likes to play Washington games. Broadcasters and pay-TV operators share a mutual interest in reaching a fair, market-oriented carriage deal. Only when one party shifts their focus, pleading to government instead of negotiating fairly, does that mutual desire dissolve.”

Retransmission consent is the fair, market-based negotiation process by which pay-TV operators and broadcasters reach an agreement for the carriage of a TV station’s signal. For more information on the market-based negotiation process, visit NAB’s Policy Blog.

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) Press Release from October 19th:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), Chairman of the Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet, today sent a letter to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski with draft legislation to protect consumers during disputes between broadcasters and cable providers that sometimes lead to televisions going dark and often threaten to disrupt service.
For years, Kerry has urged both broadcasters and cable providers to keep TV signals up during their contract negotiations, but in recent years, TV blackouts or threats of blackouts during major events such as the college bowl games and the Oscars have too often been the result of these retransmission disputes.
“It’s not our job to take sides, but it is our responsibility to help find a better way forward,” said Sen. Kerry.  “The goal of this legislation is to offer a path towards resolution that reforms a broken system and protects the consumers who get caught in the middle. I look forward to feedback from the FCC and collaboration and input from all stakeholders. This system today isn’t working for anyone.”
Kerry’s legislation, which he intends to introduce in the upcoming “lame duck” session, would prevent television signals from being pulled until both broadcasters and cable companies have gone through a process with the FCC to ensure good faith negotiations and consider arbitration as an option.
The full text of the letter is below:
October 19, 2010
The Honorable Julius Genachowski
Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
445 12^th Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20004

Dear Chairman Genachowski:

As you know, News Corp. (FOX) and Cablevision failed to reach an agreement on Friday for the retransmission of WNYW (NY channel 5), WWOR (NJ channel 9) and WTXF (Philadelphia channel 29).  As a result, approximately 3 million Cablevision subscribers in New Jersey, New York and Connecticut were left without access to these broadcast channels, including the widely watched New York Giants game this weekend.  As the New York Times recently reported, these sorts of confrontations are now “a regular event;” indeed, Bloomberg News recently reported that “TV blackouts in the U.S. have reached the highest level in a decade and may climb as pay-TV operators fight higher fees sought by content producers.”

Rather than take sides in a conflict of corporate interests, we can all agree that this system works least of all for consumers, the primary interest we represent in matters of public policy-making.  I hope you will agree that the current process – which forces all sides and particularly consumers into lousy choices – is broken and in need of reform.  Currently, either party, sufficiently strong willed, can play a game of negotiating chicken with the consumer caught in the middle.  It incentivizes conflict over negotiation.

The voices of angry consumers in this weekend’s news coverage speak volumes. Many football fans had to leave home, denied the service they faithfully pay for, and even bring their children to bars to watch the game. As one person, Marilyn Odell, told the New York Times, shouting to be heard above the crowd, “We’re too old to be in this place.”  A separate Associated Press story detailed one of the owners of a bar that depends on its Cablevision subscription complaining, “This is ridiculous!…I’m relying on people to come in who are Giants fans – and they’re walking out, even though I pay for the football package.”  He went on to say that “regular, everyday people get caught in the middle.”

There are important equities and business interests at stake in these negotiations, and in this most recent case, both sides believe they’ve negotiated in good faith. It’s not our job to take sides – but it is clearly our responsibility to ask whether there’s a better way forward as these kinds of situations rise in frequency. In addition to this most recent dispute, just last March, Cablevision and Disney/WABC-TV failed to reach an agreement and the WABC-TV signal was pulled from Cablevision.  While that signal was eventually restored, it was only after Cablevision customers were without WABC-TV for approximately 20 hours, including the first 15 minutes of the Academy Awards (Oscars) broadcast.  And upcoming retransmission consent negotiations between FOX and the DISH Network which will include thousands of households in Boston and millions nationwide, and in December between Mediacom and Sinclair Broadcasting, could put even more Americans at risk of losing television programming that they have come to expect and rely on for their local news and entertainment.

This spring, you testified before the Senate Commerce Committee that the retransmission consent system was under review and had been since the previous New Year.  Further, a petition that seeks to modify the FCC’s rules for retransmission consent negotiations has been pending before the FCC since March 2010.  The FCC has had sufficient time to consider the comments that have been filed on that petition and begin the process to revise its rules. But in the absence of FCC action, I feel a responsibility to begin to consider the smartest, least intrusive actions to reform the law.

A discussion draft of the legislative language is attached.  The process we are trying to effect is two party negotiations that have a big impact on an unrepresented third party; consumers.  The goal is to offer a path to potential resolution of differences and protect consumers.  It would stave off the termination of carriage on expiration of an agreement and allow signals to continue transmitting until the FCC evaluates the behavior of the parties and recommends or does not recommend binding arbitration during which carriage would continue. At the end of the day, the broadcaster would retain the right to pull the signal when there is a good faith impasse on terms, but it would not be able to do so without much greater transparency in process and a more systemic effort at reaching agreement without consumers getting caught in the middle.

In short, in any broadcaster-distributor negotiation, there are four basic possible impasse scenarios, for which I am considering a new process of resolution as follows.  Once both parties agree that they have reached an impasse, they both submit their last best offer for FCC evaluation and:

·         Scenario 1 – The FCC finds that the broadcaster is negotiating in good faith and making an offer consistent with market conditions but the distributor is not.  In this case, the distributor shall agree to the broadcaster’s last best offer or terminate carriage and the FCC may fine the distributor for negotiating in bad faith.  In lieu of termination of the signal, the broadcaster can withdraw the last best offer and ask the Commission to require binding arbitration.

·         Scenario 2 – The FCC finds that the broadcaster is not negotiating in good faith or making an offer consistent with market conditions and the distributor is negotiating in good faith and making an offer consistent with market conditions, then the FCC can
require binding arbitration.  The penalty for the broadcaster is forced participation in binding arbitration.

·         Scenario 3 – This will be the most likely scenario in most cases. The FCC finds that both parties have negotiated in good faith but reached a true impasse based on an honest disagreement on the value of the signal.  In this case, the FCC may request them to submit to binding arbitration.  If one party or the other refuses to engage in binding arbitration, then the FCC will provide both parties with a model notice by which to inform consumers of the potential loss of service as well as the difference in offers on the table so that consumers can judge for themselves who was making the fairest offer.  This adds a more consumer friendly and transparent way to end transmission of services if necessary and creates an attractive option for arbitration for both parties.

·         Scenario 4 – The FCC finds that neither party is negotiating in good faith, then it can require binding arbitration and fine both parties.

I look forward to working with you on a solution to this problem.  If you have an alternative solution or believe you can make the process work for consumers using your regulatory authority, please let me know.

Sincerely,

John F. Kerry

On September 3, 2010, the Massachusetts Broadcasters Association joined with 45 other State Broadcasters Associations in strong support of the free, local, over-the-air television broadcast industry by filing Reply Comments in the FCC’s Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (“STELA”) proceeding.  The Reply Comments focus on efforts by the DISH Network and DirecTV to persuade the FCC that STELA requires the FCC to permit increased importation of distant network signals into local markets.

The satellite providers are permitted to import distant network signals to “unserved households” — households that are unable to receive their local network affiliate’s signal over-the-air.  Under prior statutes, a household was considered unserved only if it could not receive its local network affiliate through an outdoor rooftop antenna.  Because of a change in the wording of STELA compared to prior statutes, the satellite providers are seeking to persuade the FCC that a household should be considered unserved (and therefore eligible to receive network stations from other markets) if it is unable to receive its local network station using a simple indoor antenna.  Such a change would greatly increase the number of households deemed “unserved”, and therefore greatly increase the number of satellite subscribers receiving distant network signals in your markets.  The satellite providers’ incentives for urging this change are the opportunity to sell more distant network signals to their subscribers, and to undercut local network stations in retransmission negotiations by giving the satellite provider an alternate source of network programming for its local subscribers.

The Reply Comments support the joint comments filed by NAB and others opposing this change, and argue that STELA does not require the FCC to use indoor antennas as the new reception standard.  The State Associations point out that local stations, unlike distant out-of-market stations, provide viewers with local news, emergency information, sports, weather, public safety, and public service programming.  The Reply Comments also reiterate the importance of localism and the need to prevent satellite providers from undercutting the viability of local network stations, noting that Congress specifically designed STELA and its predecessors to restrict, rather than enhance, the ability of satellite providers to import duplicative network programming from out-of-market stations.  The State Associations therefore urged the FCC in the Reply Comments to maintain localism by continuing to rely on the Individual Location Longley Rice model and its use of outdoor rooftop antennas as the reception standard of reference for distant network signal importation.

From Press Release

Yesterday, July 29th, U.S. Representatives Rick Boucher (D-VA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet, and Cliff Stearns (R-FL), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, introduced the Voluntary Incentive Auctions Act of 2010. The legislation will help ensure that new spectrum can be made available for commercial wireless services by permitting the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to conduct incentive-based spectrum auctions in which a spectrum holder voluntarily relinquishes its spectrum in return for a portion of the auction proceeds. “Each year, millions of users graduate from basic cell phones to smart phones that employ a range of data services requiring far greater bandwidth than traditional cell phones. At the same time, smart phone applications are becoming more elaborate. The combination is placing unprecedented demands on our limited wireless spectrum availability. To meet these growing demands, the FCC’s National Broadband Plan calls for making 500 MHz of spectrum newly available for broadband use within the next 10 years. That is a worthy goal, and one that our legislation will assist in achieving,” Boucher said. “We are facing a looming spectrum crisis. It’s very clear that the U.S. will need additional spectrum to meet the growing demand for wireless broadband. Wireless providers have used spectrum to provide U.S. consumers with innovative voice and data services. The number of mobile broadband customers has increased exponentially over the past several years. As customers increase the amount of time they spend on their mobile devices talking, emailing, and surfing the Internet, cell sites become constrained for capacity. In order to remain the world’s leader in innovation, we need to make more spectrum available,” Stearns said. The National Broadband Plan also suggests that the Federal Communications Commission initiate a rulemaking to reallocate some spectrum currently in the hands of television stations from television broadcast to wireless broadband use. The Plan suggests that the Commission, among other things, determine rules for auctioning broadcast spectrum reclaimed through voluntary channel sharing or channel surrender, including a way for stations to receive a share of the proceeds for spectrum they contribute to the auction. The National Broadband Plan’s recommendation concerning incentive-based auctions, with broadcasters sharing in the proceeds from the auction of spectrum they voluntarily return to the Federal Communications Commission, requires legislation. Boucher and Stearns today are introducing the requisite legislative measure. Under the legislation, only in instances in which television broadcasters or other spectrum holders willingly enter into agreements with the FCC for the surrender of their spectrum in return for a portion of the auction revenues would the transaction be deemed to be voluntary. And “truly voluntary” means neither directly nor constructively involuntary. “Our goal is to ensure that any incentive auctions the Federal Communications Commission conducts are truly voluntary,” Boucher noted. “The Voluntary Incentive Auctions Act takes the right approach to incentive-based spectrum auctions—enter into conversations with broadcasters and others about surrendering a portion of their spectrum on a voluntary basis, determine rules for incentive-based auctions that are truly voluntary and conduct the auctions in accordance with the agreement,” Boucher said. “The Voluntary Incentive Auctions Act of 2010 is a positive step toward this goal. It is important to stress that any incentive auctions conducted by the FCC are truly voluntary. No spectrum licensee, whether a broadcaster or wireless provider, should be forced to give up the spectrum they currently hold,” Stearns concluded.

Congressman Stearns

Congressman Boucher

From Reuters.com

July 20 (Reuters) – U.S. broadcasters told the Obama administration they might sign on to the government’s voluntary program to reallocate their highly-prized airwaves to wireless companies, as long as certain conditions are met.

The National Association of Broadcasters sent a letter to the White House on Monday to lay down conditions to protect broadcasters, in a sign that progress is being made on a plan to refocus spectrum use.

Broadcasters, fearing the program could come with harsher regulations, sought assurances that the government would not limit their signal strength or slap them with more fees.

The Obama administration and the Federal Communications Commission have urged broadcasters to voluntarily give up a swath of airwaves in exchange for proceeds from auctions.

The program is aimed at helping wireless companies deal with a looming spectrum crunch as more consumers turn to mobile devices to surf the Web.

The spectrum reallocation plan is part of the FCC’s larger National Broadband Plan, which seeks to give more Americans access to high-speed Internet and wireless services.

AT&T Inc (T.N), Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile, the U.S. unit of Deutsche Telekom AG (DTEGn.DE) are among wireless companies seeking more spectrum. Verizon Wireless is a venture between Verizon Communications Inc (VZ.N) and Vodafone Group Plc (VOD.L).

NAB represents 7,500 local radio and TV stations including the big networks CBS Corp (CBS.N), Walt Disney Co’s (DIS.N) ABC, News Corp’s (NWSA.O) Fox, and NBC, which is majority-owned by General Electric Co (GE.N).

“Our goal is simple: to work collaboratively on a two-track strategy that accomplishes the administration’s goals without compromising America’s robust and reliable digital television service that remains free, local and ubiquitous,” NAB President Gordon Smith wrote in a letter to National Economic Council Director Larry Summers.

In the letter Smith said he wants to ensure that broadcasters not interested in the voluntary program will not be subject to signal strength limitations or onerous new taxes for using current spectrum.

He added that broadcasters should also have the ability to provide viewers with mobile digital television programming.

The NAB letter comes as two senators introduced legislation that would give the FCC and the Commerce Department the authority to auction off spectrum and give some of the proceeds back to the license holders.

The FCC needs Congress to give it new authority before it can move forward with this type of auction.

In a move to prod broadcasters to relinquish some spectrum, the bill also includes a provision that would allow the FCC to assess an annual fee for spectrum holders.

The FCC regulates commercial spectrum and the Commerce Department oversees spectrum used by government agencies. Both are examining how spectrum is being utilized.

“We can and should know how our spectrum is being used and do more to encourage more efficient and productive use,” said Democratic Senator John Kerry, who along with Republican Senator Olympia Snowe, offered a spectrum reform bill.

There is no companion legislation in the House of Representatives. (Reporting by John Poirier; Editing by Richard Chang)