U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

92–674 PDF 2015

H.R. 3670, THE ANTI–SPOOFING ACT OF 2013; 

H.R. —————, THE LPTV AND TRANSLATOR 

ACT OF 2014; AND H.R. ————, THE 

E–LABEL ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 24, 2014 

Serial No. 113–166 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

Ranking Member 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 4 

Hon. Michael F. Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 5 

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 7 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 46 

WITNESSES

Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio ..... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Hon. Grace Meng, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

Louis Libin, Executive Director, Advanced Television Broadcasting Alliance ... 18 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 60 

Harold Feld, Senior Vice President, Public Knowledge ........................................ 25 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 65 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

H.R. 3670, the Anti-Spoofing Act of 2013, submitted by Mr. Walden ................. 47 

H.R. ————, the LPTV and Translator Preservation Act of 2014, submitted 

by Mr. Walden ...................................................................................................... 53 

H.R. ————, the Enhance Labeling, Accessing, and Branding of Electronic 

Licenses Act of 2014, submitted by Mr. Walden ............................................... 56 

(1) 

H.R. 3670, THE ANTI–SPOOFING ACT OF 2013; 

H.R. ————, THE LPTV AND TRANSLATOR 

ACT OF 2014; AND H.R. ————, THE 

E–LABEL ACT 

THURSDAY, JULY 24, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:12 a.m., in room 

2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Greg Walden 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Walden, Latta, Shimkus, Terry, Lance, Guthrie, Gardner, Long, Ellmers, Barton, Eshoo, Doyle, Braley, Welch, 

Matheson, and Waxman (ex officio). 

Staff present: Ray Baum, Senior Policy Advisor/Director of Coalitions; Leighton Brown, Press Assistant; Andy Duberstein, Deputy 

Press Secretary; Graham Dufault, Policy Coordinator, Commerce, 

Manufacturing, and Trade; Gene Fullano, FCC Detailee; Kelsey 

Guyselman, Counsel, Communications and Technology; Grace Koh, 

Counsel, Communications and Technology; David Redl, Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Charlotte Savercool, Legislative Clerk; Shawn Chang, Democratic Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Margaret McCarthy; Democratic Professional 

Staff Member; Ryan Skukowski, Democratic Policy Analyst; and 

Patrick Donovan, Democratic FCC Detailee. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. WALDEN. We will call to order the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology for our hearing on H.R. 3670, the AntiSpoofing Act of 2013, the LPTV and Translator Act of 2014, and 

the E–LABEL Act. We are here today to conduct an important part 

of the committee’s business, a legislative hearing on bills and discussion drafts. We will be considering three different but useful 

pieces of legislation that will benefit consumers, streamline electronic device manufacturing for the digital age and protect Americans from misleading communications. 

H.R. 3670, the Anti-Spoofing Act of 2013, aims to prevent bad actors from using spoofing services to misrepresent who is sending a 

text message. Introduced by Representatives Barton and Meng, 

this bipartisan bill enhances the protections of the Truth in Caller 

ID Act of 2009 by extending the prohibition to text messaging. 

2 

Spoofing, when a caller purposefully falsifies who is originating a 

call or a text message, has often been used maliciously by 

scammers to trick unsuspecting recipients. By utilizing one of the 

many easily found spoofing services, the perpetrator can make a 

text message appear as though it is from anyone the sender chooses to impersonate; usually, posing as a familiar Web site, service 

or friend or relative of the recipient. Thinking they are talking to 

someone they know and trust, the person on the receiving end is 

convinced to give up personal and sensitive information like bank 

account numbers or passwords. For example, customers of a Florida credit union received text messages that were allegedly from 

the bank, alerting them to unusual activity on their account, and 

requesting information, including credit card numbers, PIN numbers and account numbers. While the credit union was able to 

quickly detect the scam and alert customers, there were thousands 

at risk for compromised personal information. This bill intends to 

protect cell phone users from this kind of harmful mischief in the 

same way we protect consumers from spoofing or voice caller ID. 

Next, we will consider the LPTV and Translator Act of 2014, a 

discussion draft offered by Mr. Barton that addresses how the FCC 

should treat low-powered television stations and television translators in the upcoming broadcast incentive auction. The incentive 

auction was one of this committee’s contributions to the Middle 

Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, and offers broadcasters compensation for relinquished spectrum to be used for other 

purposes. While low-powered stations and translators are not eligible to participate in the auction, this draft urges the FCC to account for the value of LPTV and translators to communities all 

across our country. Translators play an important role for so many 

in the mountain west, including my own district in eastern Oregon. 

I have long urged the Commission to keep this value in mind when 

conducting the repacking analysis, and was happy to work with 

Mr. Barton on the language on this discussion draft. This draft 

would memorialize that sentiment in law as well as allow LPTV 

and translator licensees additional opportunities to petition the 

FCC to stay on the air after the incentive auction process is complete. 

Finally, we will consider the E–LABEL Act, this bipartisan, bicameral proposal is a commonsense piece of legislation that brings 

outdated regulations in line with consumer expectations. Currently, 

all equipment and devices that are licensed by the FCC for radio 

frequency compliance must have a physical label that shows the licensing information. You will see it right there on the back of your 

smart phone. The E–LABEL Act would allow manufacturers of devices with screens like smart phones to display a digital label rather than the physical mark on the device itself. Now, that makes it 

easier and less expensive to put a label on your ever shrinking electronics. This legislation is another example of bringing existing regulations in line with modern technology by allowing digital labeling 

consumers and regulators can still access important information 

easily without the sometimes onerous requirements on manufacturers. It reminds me of those labels on your mattress that says do 

not remove this label under penalty of law. 

Ms. ESHOO. Under penalty of law. 

3 

Mr. WALDEN. E-labels can provide more detailed information. Did 

you ever cut them off, by the way? E-labels can provide more detailed information without the space limitations of a physical label, 

as well as potential cost savings as labels can become part of the 

code programmed into a device, rather than etched into the external body of the equipment. 

I want to recognize the FCC for their work on this issue, led by 

Commissioners O’Rielly and Rosenworcel. The Commission issued 

guidance for manufacturers wishing to use digital labeling for their 

devices, including guidelines for how to properly display the information and how to educate consumers on accessing the labels. I 

also commend my colleagues, Representatives Latta and Welch, as 

well as Senators Fischer and Rockefeller, for their bipartisan work 

in this effort to streamline and modernize consumer protection 

rules. More efficient Government and regulation for the innovation 

era is a goal of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and one that 

our subcommittee is clearly committed to furthering. 

So we look forward to the testimony of our witnesses, and I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

We’re here today to conduct an important part of this committee’s business: a legislative hearing on bills and discussion drafts. We’ll be considering three different 

but useful pieces of legislation that will benefit consumers, streamline electronic device manufacturing for the digital age, and protect Americans from misleading communications. 

H.R. 3670, the Anti-Spoofing Act of 2013, aims to prevent bad actors from using 

‘‘spoofing’’ services to misrepresent who is sending a text message. Introduced by 

Reps. Barton and Meng, this bipartisan billenhances the protections of the Truth 

in Caller ID Act of 2009 by extending the prohibition to text messages. Spoofing, 

when a caller purposely falsifies who is originating a call or a text message, has 

often been used maliciously by scammers to trick unsuspecting recipients. By utilizing one of many easily found ‘‘spoofing’’ services, the perpetrator can make a text 

message appear as though it is from anyone the sender chooses to impersonate, usually posing as a familiar Web site, service, or friend or relative of the recipient. 

Thinking that they are talking to someone they know and trust, the person on the 

receiving end is convinced to give up personal and sensitive information, like a bank 

account number or password. For example, customers of a Florida credit union received text messages that were allegedly from the bank, alerting them to ‘‘unusual 

activity’’ on their account and requesting information including credit card numbers, 

PIN numbers, and account numbers. While the credit union was able to quickly detect the scam and alert customers, there were thousands at risk for compromised 

personal information. This bill intends to protect cell phone users from this kind of 

harmful mischief, in the same way we protect consumers from spoofing of voice caller ID. 

Next we will consider The LPTV and Translator Act of 2014, a discussion draft 

offered by Mr. Barton that addresses how the FCC should treat low-power television 

stations and television translators in the upcoming broadcast incentive auction. The 

incentive auction was one of this committee’s contributions to the Middle Class Tax 

Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, and offers broadcasters compensation for relinquished spectrum to be used for other purposes. While low-power stations and 

translators are not eligible to participate in the auction, this draft urges the FCC 

to account for the value of LPTV and translators to communities all across this 

country. Translators play an important role for so many in the mountain west, including my own district in eastern Oregon. I have long urged the Commission to 

keep this value in mind when conducting the repacking analysis and was happy to 

work with Mr. Barton on the language on this discussion draft. This draft would 

memorialize that sentiment in law, as well as allow LPTV and translator licensees 

additional opportunities to petition the FCC to stay on the air after the incentive 

auction process is complete. 

4 

Finally, we will consider the E–LABEL Act. This bipartisan, bicameral proposal 

is a common sense piece of legislation that brings outdated regulations in line with 

consumer expectations. Currently, all equipment and devices that are licensed by 

the FCC for radio frequency compliance must have a physical label that shows the 

licensing information—you’ll see it right there on the back of your smartphone. The 

E–LABEL Act would allow manufacturers of devices with screens like smartphones 

to display a digital label rather than the physical mark on the device itself, making 

it easier and less expensive to put a label on our evershrinking electronics. 

This legislation is another example of bringing existing regulations inline with 

modern technology. By allowing digital labeling, consumers and regulators can still 

access important informationeasily, without the sometimes onerous requirements on 

manufacturers. E-labels can provide more detailed information without the space 

limitations of a physical label, as well as a potential cost-savings as labels can become part of the code programmed into a device, rather than etched into the external body of the equipment. I want to recognize the FCC for their work on this issue, 

led by Commissioners O’Rielly and Rosenworcel. The Commission issued guidance 

for manufacturers wishing to use digital labeling for their devices, including guidelines for how to properly display the information and how to educate consumers on 

accessing the labels. I also commend my colleagues, Reps. Latta and Welch, as well 

as Senators Fischer and Rockefeller, for their bipartisan work on this effort to 

streamline and modernize consumer protection rules. More efficient Government 

and regulation for the innovation era is a goal of the Energy and Commerce Committee and one that this subcommittee is committed to furthering. 

I’d like to thank all of our witnesses for being here today to discuss these bills, 

including Reps. Latta and Meng who have graciously offered to appear and speak 

on their respective bills. I look forward to a conversation about these three pieces 

of potential legislation. 

Mr. WALDEN. And now I recognize the gentlelady from California, the ranking member of the subcommittee, Ms. Eshoo, for an 

opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANNA G. ESHOO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you stopped, I thought 

is he going to recognize me? And you did. Thank you. 

Good morning, everyone. And welcome to our colleague, Congresswoman Meng from New York. We are delighted that you are 

here and proud of the work product that you have brought forward. 

3670, the Anti-Spoofing Act of 2013, is a bipartisan bill, and it 

is aimed at reducing the number of fraudulent phone calls and text 

messages received by millions of Americans. It is a very practical 

bill. It is a bill that is really going to correct something that I think 

everyone in the country wants corrected. So I really salute you for 

coming up with something that is very practical. 

Just this morning, NPR ran a story about a series of spoofing incidents in Maryland where people received calls purported to be 

from the State police demanding payment for court or traffic fines. 

I mean, most people would just out of a little bit of fear and intimidation just pay attention to it and, you know, these frauds would 

do very well by their fraudulency with vulnerable people. So at a 

time in which unscrupulous behavior is on the rise, this pro-consumer bill will better protect Americans from becoming victims of 

scammers and deceitful telemarketers. And, again, I commend Congresswoman Meng for her leadership and for assembling a bipartisan group of cosponsors. That is the secret sauce around here. 

And I salute you for doing that, coupled with the endorsements 

from AARP, the major county sheriff’s association, the major cities, 

5 

chief’s association and Public Knowledge, which is wonderful that 

Public Knowledge has endorsed the bill as well. 

And so, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to your proceeding with a 

markup of this bill, because it is an excellent one. I am also pleased 

to support our colleague, Mr. Latta’s bill, the E–LABEL Act. That 

too is a bipartisan bill. And he worked with our colleagues, Mr. 

Welch and Ms. Blackburn in introducing that earlier this week. 

You explained what the E-labeling guidance issued by the FCC earlier this month does. And to promote the electronic labeling for 

FCC certified devices, phones, computers, smart watches, this is 

only going to grow, this field. And this needs an update. And I 

think it is an excellent one. 

I have concerns with the LPTV and Translator Preservation Act. 

Low-powered television stations provide a very important public 

service in communities around the country, particularly in the 

rural America. And it is why as part of the Spectrum and Public 

Safety Act of 2012 members agreed on a bipartisan basis to preserve the spectrum usage rights of LPTV stations. But given the 

FCC new instructions when they are well into the design and development of the most complex spectrum auction ever conducted, I 

think would add unnecessary complexity, and it could dismantle— 

I am not saying will, but could dismantle the carefully crafted balance on other issues of importance to the subcommittee, including 

maximizing both licensed and unlicensed. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am looking forward to hearing the testimony of those that are here today, the distinguished 

first panel and the second one. And I yield the remainder of my 

time to Mr. Doyle. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. DOYLE. I want to thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Chairman, thank you for this hearing today. And we look forward to 

hearing from our colleagues. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to use this short amount of time I have 

to just make some comments on the proposed Communication Act 

update. This is something that I have been monitoring with great 

interest, but also some concern. I know at this point that majority 

staff has released a number of Brief White Papers on spectrum 

competition and interconnection. I think these are important 

issues, and it is this subcommittee’s duty and responsibility to address these topics. But I would say to my friend that these updates 

won’t move forward unless you start reaching out to members and 

staff on our side of the aisle. These issues are real that are at 

stake, and there is real opportunities to make things better for the 

people of our country. 

Mr. Chairman, I just want to use the opportunity to urge you in 

the most friendly and kind way that we move forward with the limited time in the session that we have over the next few months to 

engage our side in meaningful discussion so that we can put forward a bipartisan discussion of these issues. I thank you, and I 

look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman. 

6 

Mr. WALDEN. I appreciate the gentleman’s comment, would be 

happy to have that conversation with him at another time. 

Mr. DOYLE. Great. 

Mr. WALDEN. And now, all time has been expired on that side. 

Now, we recognize Mr. Barton for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BARTON. I don’t think I will take 5 minutes, Mr. Chairman, 

but I do appreciate the opportunity. 

There are two bills that I have been actively engaged with that 

are the subject of this markup today, H.R. 3670, which is the AntiSpoofing Act of 2014, and the Low-Power TV and Translator Preservation Act of 2014. Representative Meng, who is sitting at the 

witness table, and I have been working closely on H.R. 3670 to 

modernize the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009 to include text messaging services, IP enabled voice services and to hold foreign spoofing services accountable to the law. Due to the many conversations 

that we have had with various stakeholders, it would be my intention that this bill does go to markup to offer an amendment in the 

nature of a substitute to address some of the concerns that have 

come up in the stakeholder discussions. 

There have been a number of spoofing incidents this year alone, 

one in Abilene, Texas, in my State, just last Friday when a person 

pretended to work for a roofing company in order to collect money 

up front from the customers that they were calling. Another incident, just two weeks ago, involved a Bank of America, and someone 

commented on the story that they received text messages from 

what appeared to be the Bank of America directing them to call a 

number concerning a problem with their own account, only to later 

realize that it was a scam. 

The majority of the members of this subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, including yourself and Ms. Eshoo, have cosponsored H.R. 

3670. So this is a bill that I think, to echo what Mr. Doyle just 

commented on, does have bipartisan cooperation, could move 

through the committee to the floor and even through the other 

body and to the desk of the President this year. 

On the Low-Power Television and Translator Preservation Act, I 

am very quite frankly surprised on both sides of that one some of 

the strongest low-powered TV advocates are against this bill because they think it doesn’t do anything. On the other side of the 

equation, there are people that think it goes too far and that somehow it would impact in a negative way the pending auction. The 

truth of the matter is that with your help, Mr. Chairman, I think 

we have got it just right. It does give low-powered TV license holders increased moral standing, if nothing else, in their petitions before the FCC. But as you know and I know, under current law, 

they don’t have a guarantee. They have a secondary license which 

can be revoked by the FCC. If this bill does become law, they will 

still have a secondary license. They will not have any guarantee. 

But they will have the strength that—again, if this were to become 

law—that legislatively, the House and the Senate, as signed by the 

President, wants the FCC to work with low-powered TV license 

7 

1The article is available at http://www.ktxs.com/news/phone-spoofing-crime-surfaces-in-abilene/27017160. 2The article is available at http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/consumer/call12-for-action/2014/07/06/debit-card-phishing-scam-call12/12275239/. 

holders to give them the best chance possible to maintain their viability in the marketplace. 

On the Low-Power TV, Mr. Chairman, I’ve worked with the National Association of Broadcasters, the Advanced Television Broadcast Alliance, the National Translators Association, the National 

Religious Broadcasters. I have also worked very extensively with 

you and your staff to modify and to hopefully perfect this bill. So 

I do hope, Mr. Chairman, we have a good hearing. And I hope in 

the very near future we can go to markup on both of these bills. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON

Today, I have two pieces of legislation being discussed that I have been working 

diligently on: H.R. 3670, the Anti-Spoofing Act of 2014, and the LPTV and Translator Preservation Act of 2014. 

Representative Grace Meng and I have been working closely on H.R. 3670 to modernize the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009 to include text messaging services, IPenabled voice services, and to hold foreign spoofing services accountable to the law. 

Due to the many conversations had with various stakeholders, it would be my intention, if this bill went to a markup, to offer an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to address all concerns. 

There have been a number of spoofing incidents this year alone to include one in 

Abilene, TX, reported last Friday when a person pretended to work for a roofing 

company in order to collect money up-front from the customers.GA1 Another incident was reported on July 7, 2014, involving Bank of America and someone commented on the story that they received text messages from what appeared to be 

Bank of America, directing them to call a number concerning a problem with their 

account, to later realize that it was just a scam. 2

I am proud to see that the majority of my colleagues on this subcommittee have 

cosponsored this bill, including you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Anna 

Eshoo, and it is my hope to see this bill move forward through the committee to 

have a vote taken on the House floor. 

As for the LPTV and Translator Preservation Act, I am happy to have worked 

with you, Mr. Chairman, to highlight the LPTV industry during the incentive auction process. As current law stands, LPTV broadcasters carry a secondary license 

to full-power stations, which means that a LPTV broadcaster could potentially lose 

the spectrum they hold in the incentive auction. While this bill does not guarantee 

additional rights, it does provide the LPTV community with a stronger moral position and enhanced standing before the Federal Communications Commission. 

I have worked with the National Association of Broadcasters, Advanced Television 

Broadcast Alliance, National Translators Association, and the National Religious 

Broadcasters on this issue. It is my belief that this bill should become law to ensure 

that the FCC does not easily overlook the important services offered by the LPTV 

industry and TV translators. I hope to see this bill move forward. 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentleman, who now yields to the vice 

chairman of the committee, Mr. Latta. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much to the gentleman for 

yielding. And thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

legislative hearing on these important bills today. 

With the advancement of technology, businesses and consumers 

alike have reaped tremendous benefits. To ensure that consumers 

continue to profit from groundbreaking applications and services, 

8 

and businesses continue to find opportunities for investment and 

growth, we need to make sure our laws reflect the 21st century information and communications technology marketplace. 

This will not only help foster future innovation as the E–LABEL 

Act promotes, but it will also protect gains we have made with 

technologies currently employed today which the Anti-Spoofing Act 

and the LPTV and Translator Act address. I look forward to addressing and engaging in a closer examination on each of these 

bills. 

And I thank the chairman, and I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. 

And I think now we go to—who on your side would like—would 

recognize for Mr. Waxman’s time? Mr. Welch, do you seek any 

time? Mr. Doyle, any further time? 

Mr. DOYLE. I don’t. 

Mr. WALDEN. Ms. Eshoo? 

Mr. DOYLE. Let us get to our witnesses. 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes. OK. 

Ms. ESHOO. Good move. 

Mr. WALDEN. I like the way you think. I think we are OK on our 

side, right? Because we have done both. So at this point now, we 

will go—oh, look who showed up at the witness table. It is a twofer. A Latta two-fer. We are delighted to have both of our colleagues here today, and appreciate the good work that you have 

both done on these and other pieces of legislation. And so with 

that, we will go to panel one. And we will recognize the gentleman 

from Ohio, Mr. Latta, to open. And then we will go to Ms. Meng, 

as well. 

STATEMENTS OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO, AND HON. GRACE 

MENG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE 

OF NEW YORK 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I 

greatly appreciate the opportunity to give testimony on the legislation today. I also want to thank Ranking Member Eshoo and all 

the other members of the subcommittee today. I appreciate the opportunity to present testimony on the bipartisan E–LABEL Act. 

The Federal Communications Commission has instituted an 

equipment authorization program where electronic devices are required to display a physical label documenting that it has been 

properly certified by the Commission for commercial use. The label 

is also intended to provide consumers with means to readily obtain 

additional information about the device as efficiently as possible. 

While the information contained on the label serves as an important function and extends meaningful benefits and protections to 

consumers, the time has come for the Commission to update its 

rules to reflect modern technology and modify its equipment identification requirements to permit electronic labeling or E-labeling for 

wireless devices. 

The current rule requiring physical labeling was adopted by the 

FCC back in the 1970s. The Commission revisited that rule in the 

9 

late 1980s, and, while it eliminated some labeling requirements, 

the technological capability of wireless devices at the time was admittedly not able to fully support an equipment authorization 

standard other than the existing physical labeling system. 

As we all know, technology, especially in the wireless market, 

has advanced significantly since that time, and wireless devices are 

today equipped with numerous functionalities. They are without 

question able to support the modernized equipment authorization 

standard of E-labeling if given the option. 

Permitting E-labeling would not only facilitate efforts to bring 

our communication laws in line with 21st century technologies, but 

it would also benefit both manufacturers and consumers. Manufacturers have increased flexibility to design innovative products that 

consumers demand. It would also reduce device manufacturers’ development cost. According to the Telecommunications Industry Association, E-labeling could result in over $80 million in saving per 

year for companies. Consumers in my State of Ohio and across the 

country would also benefit from the efficiencies created by E-labeling. E-labeling can expand consumer access to relevant device information, and enhance the overall quality and availability of 

equipment identification records through supporting software. 

The FCC recently released guidance on E-labeling. I welcome the 

FCC’s efforts on this issue and recognize it as an important first 

step in promoting the use of E-labels. The E–LABEL Act will facilitate efforts at the Commission by establishing a timeframe for 

moving forward with a rulemaking. This will ensure that the Commission takes timely action on this issue and resolves any uncertainty that manufacturers might have in opting to use E-labels. 

We are in the midst of an innovation era where new and 

groundbreaking technologies and devices are introduced into the 

information and communications technology marketplace almost 

daily. Our laws need to reflect this reality. 

I thank Congressman Welch, Congresswoman Blackburn and 

Ranking Member Eshoo for their support on this measure. I thank 

Chairman Walden again for the opportunity to present the testimony today on E–LABEL ACT and advance efforts to modernize 

our communication laws for the digital age. And I thank the chairman again. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:] 

10 

11 

12 

13 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentleman for this testimony. And now 

we will go to the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Meng, for her testimony on this legislation. We appreciate your bringing this forward to us. And please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GRACE MENG 

Ms. MENG. Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing 

on my bill, H.R. 3670, the Anti-Spoofing Act, which I sponsored 

along with Mr. Barton, Mr. Lance and seven other Republican and 

seven Democratic members of this subcommittee. I also thank you 

for inviting me to discuss the bill today. It is a great honor to appear before such an esteemed panel. 

We address today the problem of caller ID spoofing, which is the 

scrambling of caller identification numbers. It is a tool often used 

to defraud unwitting recipients of phone calls and text messages. 

It is often stated that the measure of a society is how it treats 

its most vulnerable. Almost every day, I receive new reports of caller ID spoofing that harms the most vulnerable in our society. We 

have reports of widespread caller ID spoofing of new immigrants, 

which is why USCIS recently issued a former scam alert on caller 

ID spoofing. And we have reports of widespread targeting of seniors, which is why the AARP wrote a letter in support of this legislation. Veterans are primary targets as well. 

Caller ID spoofing is also fracturing the trust built between communities and local law enforcement, because scammers are falsely 

using police department’s phone numbers to trick residents, as we 

recently heard today. For this reason, the major city’s chief’s association and major county sheriff’s association have endorsed this 

legislation. 

I even saw the Chicago Tribune reported on Monday that the 

families of the unaccompanied minors at the border are being targeted by caller ID spoofing. I mention this not to wade into the border security debate, but rather to underscore the point that if there 

is a vulnerable or weak population among us, it is likely they are 

being targeted by caller ID spoofing. 

Shortly after entering Congress, I pursued this issue because of 

complaints from a local civic organization and seniors in my district. But I quickly realized it is affecting Americans in all corners 

of our country in all of our districts. This past tax season, a huge 

scam was revealed whereby caller ID spoofing was used to dupe 

tens of thousands of Americans nationwide into thinking they were 

being contacted by the IRS, which they were not. 

I have had very good conversations with many of you on the subcommittee about pervasive caller ID spoofing in your own districts. 

And I think the fact that this is playing in so many of our communities is a big reason why we have so much bipartisan support here 

today. 

H.R. 3670 is an update to the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009. 

That legislation first criminalized malicious caller ID spoofing. But 

since the passage of that law, scammers have used legal loopholes 

and new technologies to circumvent it. Thus, malicious caller ID 

spoofing is on the rapid rise again. So it is time to strengthen and 

14 

tighten existing law and shut down the roots by which it is being 

circumvented. And that is what our bill does. 

There are three main parts to H.R. 3670, and I will review them 

briefly now. Number one, the bill broadens current law to prohibit 

caller ID spoofing from foreigners. This is crucial because U.S. 

based companies now spoof calls to U.S. residents with intent to do 

harm but originate such calls from outside of the United States. 

Two, the bill broadens current law to include new Internet based 

voice over IP services that enable callers to make outgoing only 

calls from computers and tablets to mobile and landline phones. 

This is a technology that was undeveloped in 2009 when the Truth 

in Caller ID Act was adopted, and therefore unaccounted for in 

that law. But it has now grown and has contributed significantly 

to the caller ID spoofing problem. Three, finally, our bill broadens 

current law to include text messaging. We all know this technology 

has developed, and we thus see text message caller ID spoofing 

with increasing regularity. 

I also just want to note that current law and H.R. 3670 only pertain to caller ID spoofing with intent to defraud or cause harm. 

Sometimes caller ID spoofing can be applied beneficially and benignly, and we have taken great care to exclude such cases from 

the legislation. 

In closing, I would like to once again thank the committee for 

considering this legislation and for giving the time of day to a 

freshman who is not a member of the committee. This process has 

been a wonderful and inspiring experience for me to take a problem 

I heard from my constituents and work through the legislative 

process in such a positive and bipartisan fashion to try and solve 

that problem. I would especially like to thank Mr. Barton and Mr. 

Lance for working with me to write this bill, Chairman Walden and 

Ranking Member Eshoo for all their guidance, leadership and support, and all the subcommittee cosponsors who were instrumental 

in bringing about consideration of this bill. 

I would like to thank the witnesses who came to speak today, 

and of course the committee and personal staffs who have done 

such terrific work here. I look forward to continuing to work with 

the committee on this issue and legislation. 

I thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Meng follows:] 

15 

16 

17 

18 

Mr. WALDEN. Ms. Meng, thank you for bringing this to our attention and working with our committees and our staffs on both sides 

of the aisle to move good public policy forward, and we appreciate 

what you have done. 

We want to thank you both for being here. We actually won’t 

grill you. That is our normal procedure, to let Members come and 

make their case and depart. So thank you for being here, and 

thanks for bringing this to us. 

We will now move on to the second panel while you two depart. 

Mr. Louis Libin, did I say that correctly? 

Mr. LIBIN. Yes. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you. Executive Vice President, Advanced 

Television Broadcasting Alliance, and Mr. Harold Feld, Senior Vice 

President, Public Knowledge. We welcome both of you gentlemen 

here to testify this morning. And just bring those microphones 

close. That is kind of how they work. And push the button. And, 

Mr. Libin, we will start with you. And thanks again for being here. 

STATEMENTS OF LOUIS LIBIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ADVANCED TELEVISION BROADCASTING ALLIANCE, AND HAROLD FELD, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE 

STATEMENT OF LOUIS LIBIN 

Mr. LIBIN. Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Eshoo and 

distinguished members of the subcommittee, my name is Louis 

Libin. I am the Executive Director of the Advanced Television 

Broadcasting Alliance, which is comprised of hundreds of low-powered television, or LPTV, broadcasters and owners and operators of 

translators. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify regarding the impact of the planned broadcast incentive auctions on 

LPTV stations, translators and boosters. In particular, I appreciate 

the efforts of Chairman Barton to develop the LPTV and Translator Preservation Act, which will require the FCC to consider the 

great benefits of LPTV and translator stations, rather than indiscriminately eliminating their licenses without any consideration of 

the value these stations provide to underserved communities. 

LPTV service was created to enhance diversity by allowing more 

unique voices to provide free, over the air television service. LPTV 

stations address the needs of minorities, women, ethnic communities, the elderly, children and other underserved populations. 

They also broadcast in rural areas where full-power stations sometimes are not commercially viable. Translators extend the reach of 

broadcast stations into isolated areas. More than 5,000 LPTV stations and translators serve tens of millions of Americans. In many 

places, these stations are the only broadcast television service 

available, and they often provide communities their only access to 

the affiliates of major broadcasting networks. Many translators 

were built and are operated by local communities to bring broadcast television to their citizens. 

A third or more of the LPTV and translator stations are now at 

risk of being shut down by the FCC as it conducts the incentive 

auction. As you know, the 2012 Congress authorized the FCC to 

conduct an incentive auction of broadcast spectrum. The 2012 Spectrum Act expressed a fundamental principle about spectrum use 

19 

that spectrum allocation should reflect market demand. Unfortunately, the FCC’s auction plan does not reflect this core principle. 

The FCC gives no consideration at all to the value of the service 

provided by LPTV and translator stations. 

Because the FCC does not have to share proceeds of the auction 

with LPTV or translator stations, those stations are simply free 

spectrum in the eyes of the FCC. From the perspective of the auction itself, there is no cost to eliminating LPTV and translator 

service. Under the FCC’s auction rules, the FCC could cancel hundreds or even thousands of LPTV and translator licenses, even if 

doing so would not generate a single dollar in additional revenue 

for the auction. The FCC could eliminate LPTV and translator stations just for the sake of running the auction faster or with less 

precise calculations, or for the sake of completing the auction in 

less than half the 10 years Congress authorized. And that is exactly what the FCC is doing. It has adopted rules that run the auction at breakneck speed, with literally no consideration at all of the 

impact on citizens served by LPTV and translator services. 

This is not a market mechanism. It is a pointless, tragic destruction of value, jobs, diversity, localism and rural service. The FCC 

could shut down thousands of LPTV and translator stations to give 

wireless carrier spectrum in rural areas that they do not need, and 

likely will never use. The FCC’s incentive auction order also treats 

low-powered television stations as secondary, even to unlicensed 

services. Congress did not authorize the FCC to elevate unlicensed 

services over licensed LPTV and translator services. While the economic costs of the FCC’s approach will be born most directly by the 

licensees, the public served by these critical facilities is the big 

loser. The TV stations that air local high school football games, 

provide ethnic and foreign language programming, provide church 

services and weather alerts, and bring network programming into 

rural areas that are already underserved will all be gone without 

any consideration of the value lost to millions of Americans, and regardless of whether the market actually demands additional wireless spectrum in those areas. 

While LPTV and translator operators and their audiences would 

like to see much more done, the LPTV and Translator Preservation 

Act is a step in the right direction. We are very thankful for the 

support Chairman Barton has given to Americans who rely on 

LPTV and translator service. Thank you very much again for the 

opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Libin follows:] 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Libin, thank you. And go ahead and turn off 

that microphone. We appreciate your being here. We appreciate 

your testimony on this important matter. 

Mr. Feld, we welcome you to this discussion. Please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF HAROLD FELD 

Mr. FELD. Thank you, Chairman Walden and Ranking Member 

Eshoo. Thank you very much for inviting me to testify today. 

I want to start by voicing my strong support for both the AntiSpoofing Act and the E–LABEL Act. These bills provide necessary 

updates the Communications Act, and Public Knowledge supports 

their swift consideration and passage. 

But while I agree with the principles behind the LPTV and 

Translator Act, I strongly recommend against consideration of this 

bill. Consideration of this bill creates needless uncertainty and 

delay around the broadcast incentive auction. I say needless because the FCC is already committed to doing precisely what this 

bill tells it to do. As I have said many times over the last 4 years, 

and as you have heard from others, the broadcast incentive auction 

poses enormous challenges for the FCC. The difference in complexity between the incentive auction and the first spectrum auctions conducted by the FCC in 1994 is like the difference between 

the cell phones of 1994 and the smart phones of today. But instead 

of the gradual evolution over 20 years we had in phone technology, 

we are asking the FCC to jump from the auction equivalent of a 

brick phone to the auction equivalent of an iPhone. 

Adopting this bill will create new delay at a time when the auction framework finally appears to be coming together. After nearly 

2 years of contentious debate involving some of the most renowned 

spectrum auction experts in the world, hundreds of engineers and 

thousands of stakeholders, the FCC adopted a framework for the 

auction in May. While much work remains to be done, we have 

reached the point where the FCC can set a timeline for the remainder of the process, and stakeholders can have confidence the auction will take place. 

Importantly, the FCC can begin building the entirely new auction software and hardware needed to make all the many pieces of 

this auction work together in real-time. But we can only move forward from here if all stakeholders have confidence that the framework adopted in May is a stable foundation on which to build, 

which brings me back to the LPTV bill. Despite efforts to limit the 

bill’s scope, questions will reverberate throughout all aspects of the 

auction. Imagine a row of wine glasses packed tightly together. Tap 

one, and the rest start to hum as the vibrations ripple out. So to, 

implementation of the LPTV Act would reverberate through the entire auction framework. For example, the FCC will need to consider 

whether the bill’s command to avoid terminations of LPTV and TV 

translator license where possible impacts the auction and repacking design, or whether reduction in projected revenue would be an 

adverse impact on the auction. These questions implicate the repacking as a whole, the band planned, and nearly every other key 

element of the auction design everyone thought we already settled. 

Work on the new auction software and hardware will slow or stop 

entirely until these questions can be settled again. 

26 

And what is the urgent need that justifies this new delay and 

uncertainty? At the moment, none. The FCC is already committed 

to doing precisely what the bill requires. As part of the framework 

adopted in May, the FCC explicitly recognized the importance of 

LPTV and TV translator services, and committed to completing a 

further notice of proposed rulemaking to ameliorate the impacts of 

the auction. Given that the FCC appears to be on the right course, 

there seems no reason to introduce new potential devastating, uncertainty and delay. 

To conclude, the importance of localism and diversity in broadcasting is a value that no one questions. Localism and diversity 

have been the fundamental foundation of our national broadcast 

policies since Congress passed the Federal Radio Act in 1927. 

LPTV and TV translator licensees are important parts of that ecosystem, as the FCC continues to recognize. No one wants to eliminate licensees providing valuable services to their local communities. I may add that just last week before this bill was introduced, I and other members of the public interest spectrum coalition were present at a meeting with the FCC staff, and we once 

again urged the FCC to consider means to allow LPTVs to transition smoothly, including voluntary reduction in power, precisely the 

mechanism that the bill recommends. 

There is broad support for continuing service of LPTVs and 

translators, consistent with the direction that Congress gave to the 

Commission in the Spectrum Act of 2012. Passing new legislation, 

even if it is only intended to reinforce what the FCC is already 

committing to do, will reintroduce new uncertainty and delay at 

precisely the wrong time. 

Thank you. And I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Feld follows:] 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Feld. You have far more confidence 

in the FCC than I do. But then I understand why. 

I want to ask a couple of questions, because this really matters 

to the public, to consumers in districts like mine, not only in rural 

areas, but urban areas. And I have met with a lot of these folks 

who have LPTV and low power. They serve minority populations 

in many cases with specialty programming. And my message here, 

and I think it is shared by Mr. Barton, is I don’t want a runaway 

FCC that simply squishes them because they can and takes them 

out. I am also not going to give them full-power authority, because 

they didn’t have that to begin with. But I think you are over the 

top in terms of kind of this notion you are going to blow up the 

whole auction, because you actually admit that the FCC is headed 

down this path anyway. I am reinforcing that. I was hoping to have 

a lot more faith in this FCC. But I am seeing some really bad behavior from the top down where Republican commissioners are 

kept out of the loop, where there is a process failure. I don’t think 

this hearing is going to get into this. But I just think you are over 

the top, and I am just going to tell you that. 

In places like my district, these translators are really important. 

They really are. And I want to send a clear message without screwing up the auction that they need to be thoughtful about this, 

whether it is in a rural area or an urban area. There are a lot of 

people served. And you can have a band plan that squishes out just 

for the sake of getting more spectrum available for the big companies that want to buy it. And I think we have got to be thoughtful 

about the public spectrum and how it is used and how it is allocated. 

Now, Mr. Libin, a number of your colleagues in the LPTV community have also expressed opposition to this bill, I think for other 

reasons, and have suggested they would rather have no bill than 

this bill. Could you explain why some LPTV providers feel this 

way? 

Mr. LIBIN. I think that they are concerned that by opening this 

door it is going to bring discussions on LPTV and the auction and 

take it in places back to the FCC where it may not have the conclusions that they want. For example, there is an NPRM, a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, on LPTV coming up. But that is really just 

a mechanism to talk about how essentially the FCC has plans to 

shut down these stations. It is surely not a mechanism to help 

LPTV. The LPTV industry I have to tell you is very different than 

the big broadcast industry. Actually, I come from NBC. I am used 

to coming with big contingencies. The LPTV industry is an industry of typically mom and pops. They are small businesses. Not that 

they don’t employ people. They all employ a lot of people. 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. LIBIN. We are not talking about eliminating thousands. It is 

still a lot of people. But this is the other—essentially, there may 

not be unity in the community, but it is becoming—— 

Mr. WALDEN. We are aware of that. 

Mr. LIBIN. But it is becoming more and more. I believe that the 

industry is tightening up. I mean, you can see just in the past few 

months, we now have the NAB is our partner, and we have the National Translator Association. And we are working with the NRB. 

37 

So I think we are really finding the commonality that we need. But 

it is a small industry. 

Mr. WALDEN. OK. That is the only questions I have. I will now 

yield back the balance of my time, recognize my friend from California, Ms. Eshoo. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to both 

Mr. Libin and Mr. Feld. 

It seems to me I think I probably have more an observation after 

listening to the testimony and, of course, reading the—you know, 

the staff memo that there are some issues to be dealt with here. 

And I think it is a question of how it is done. I think it is a question of how it is done and how we thread the needle. 

We had a chance to chat before as I came into the hearing room 

a little earlier this morning. And you were talking about rural 

areas and then said the Bay Area. The Bay Area doesn’t have a 

lot of rural areas, but it does have some. And I asked you what you 

were referring to. 

Mr. LIBIN. The South City. 

Ms. ESHOO. What you were referring to is not rural. It is a heavily populated area. It is the northern part of San Mateo County, 

the county that I live in, just outside the city and county of San 

Francisco and very close to San Francisco International Airport. 

And there—it is the largest Filipino-American community outside 

of the Philippines that resides in that area. So there are issues 

here and communities of interest that we need to look after. We 

are not looking to do something where there would be a loss of jobs 

or, very importantly, the communications that these communities 

of interest rely on. 

I don’t think you have a case for completely rewriting the whole 

thing, to tell you the truth. And—but I do think that we need to 

work so that what I just mentioned and—or outlined as to the 

chairman that we thread this needle so that those two elements 

are not disrupted. I appreciate Mr. Feld’s testimony. I love it when 

people come here and feel strongly about things. I really do, even 

when I disagree with them. I mean, it is the place to do that. 

And so I thank you for that. I do have the concern that, you 

know, we are what, now almost 2 years into the planning for the 

spectrum auction? And it is the first time in the history of our 

country—actually, in the world that this kind of auction is going 

to take place. So we are not—none of us want to throw sand in the 

gears. And I think that is what you are talking about. And the 

chairman has his misgivings about the agency and its jurisdictions 

and how they do things. I have I think more confidence than he 

does. But be that as it may, I don’t want anyone squashed in this 

either, because I think we need to look after these important communities in our country. So I think more than anything else that 

we have got some work to do to refine this. 

I really don’t have questions to ask you. I think the chairman already asked you, Mr. Libin, what I was going to ask. And, Mr. 

Feld, thank you for being here and for what you have focused on. 

And you always come here with a lot of passion. And I love that. 

I love it. So I think that we have some work to do together on this 

to help resolve some of the issues that the—we not throw sand in 

the gears relative to the auction, but that we recognize that there 

38 

are communities of interest that are really reliant on this. And I 

don’t think, Mr. Libin, you are going to get everything you want. 

But you know what? No one does around here. So if we can resolve 

it the way I think we’re both describing it, then we will have accomplished something. 

I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. 

I turn now to the former chairman of the committee, Mr. Barton, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, thank you. And I appreciate the testimony of 

both of you gentlemen. I appreciate the comments of Ms. Eshoo and 

our chairman. 

I am going to go back to the story of Goldilocks and the Three 

Bears. There are probably some of the younger people don’t get 

those stories anymore, but I am of an age that I remember those 

when I was a child. And there were three bowls of porridge. And 

one bowl was way too hot, and so one of the bears says it is too 

hot. And another bowl was way too cold, and the second bear said 

well, it is too cold. But then the third bowl, the middle bear said 

it is just right. 

Now, our Bill that is three pages—three pages—really just two 

pages. I am going to read the relevant portion, because this is one 

of these things that average people, and even members of Congress, can actually understand, you know? It is low-powered television translator and television booster stations, A, in general— 

now this is for the people that says it is too cold. OK? Nothing in 

this subsection shall be construed to alter the spectrum usage 

rights of low-power television stations, television translator stations or television booster stations shall be construed to alter the 

spectrum usage rights. This bill doesn’t give them any new rights. 

OK? It doesn’t give them any new rights. 

Now, B, preservation. And here the keyword is the third word, 

the Commission shall, s-h-a-l-l, shall, s-h-a-l-l, shall, one, in general, consider the benefits of low-power television stations, television translator stations and television booster stations to the 

communities of license of such stations consider the benefits. So it 

says the FCC has to consider the benefits. Two, where possible, 

avoid the termination of the low-power television station, television 

translator station or television booster station as along as such 

avoidance does not adversely impact the reverse auction under 

Subsection A(1) or the forward auction under Subsection C(1). And, 

three, after the completion of the reassignments and reallocations 

under paragraph 1(b), permit any low-power television station, television translator station or television booster station to request to 

operate at reduced power or from a different transmitter location 

consistent with the Commission’s rules of such station or otherwise 

lose its license as a result of such reassignment or reallocation. 

So what this does, it says the FCC shall, if possible, preserve the 

termination of the low-power television station. So it does give increased standing. But that is all. The FCC still can make the decision, and it cannot impact the reverse auction. You know, Section 

A guarantees that. So with all due respect to Mr. Feld, I think this 

bill is just right. It elevates low-power television’s standing before 

the FCC. They have to consider these things. But once they have 

39 

considered them, you know, they can’t let it adversely impact the 

auction, and they go forward. So, you know, this is one of those 

bills where it is funny to see some people in the industry itself saying, oh, this thing doesn’t do anything, doesn’t go far enough. Well, 

you can’t give a right that they don’t have now. But on the other 

hand, to have Mr. Feld and his folks, oh, it is going to hold up the 

auction. Oh, my God, you know? Well, what the hey? It just says 

they have to consider these things. 

Mr. WALDEN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BARTON. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. WALDEN. I think the last part is also really important. It 

says if after all—everything is said and done after the auction, if 

there is another way for them to survive, they should have the 

right to apply for that, different location, different power, different 

whatever. And I think that is the survival lifeline. 

Mr. BARTON. Yes. So, you know, every now and then, Congress 

breaks out in commonsense. This is a commonsense bill. It really 

is. Now, my good friend, Anna Eshoo, if she has really got concerns 

about this, let me know. We will work with you. But these stations 

have real value. But under the current law, it is not considered. 

And instead of just letting the FCC do whatever the heck they 

want, this bill at least says hey, you have got to consider these 

things. And I think that is fair. I think it is the right thing to do. 

And I think it will result in a better process. As Mr. Libin pointed 

out, you know, why should you give an unlicensed operator operating a wide space more authority than somebody who at least has 

a secondary license? This bill does that. And I hope we can pass 

it on a bipartisan basis. 

Thank you for the courtesy. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thanks for working with us. And we appreciate 

your passion and your involvement in this issue. It is very important. I now turn to the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Braley. 

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I could have sworn, Mr. 

Chairman, that Mr. Barton was going in another direction with 

that fairy tale. I thought it was going to be Little Red Riding Hood. 

And I was just waiting for whom the big bad wolf was going to be, 

so I feel somewhat let down. 

Mr. BARTON. I am saving that for full committee. 

Mr. BRALEY. But I think as we talk about these issues, which are 

important issues, it is also important to look back over the history 

of telecommunications. Because it is not the LPTV stations but the 

UHF stations that have served a more limited audience in remote 

areas of the country and often were in the vanguard of some of the 

innovation and technology in the industry. I happen to represent 

a UHF station in Dubuque, Iowa, which was in the vanguard of 

cable television because it was located on the bluffs of the Mississippi River. They had a hard time getting over the air signals 

from more conventional VHF stations. And through the work that 

was done there decades ago, the basic foundation for what we now 

know as cable television started to emerge in communities around 

the country. And since this spectrum is held in the public interest, 

I think it is important for us to keep that focus on those who have 

gone before and have led us down paths of innovation that provide 

the incredible array of services we now get over the spectrum. 

40 

So I guess for the panel, my question for you both is in light of 

some of the comments that have been made here today, in light of 

how people are served across the country through these current 

LPTV stations, what are the biggest risks and the biggest rewards 

you see from moving forward with the legislation as it is currently 

drafted? 

Mr. FELD. Well, first, I would just like to address one misconception that I have now heard a couple of times, which is with regard 

to the relationship between LPTVs and unlicensed. It is important 

to realize that what the Commission has done is tried to balance 

things. And in fact, what the Commission did was to sort of merge 

wireless microphones, which are another secondary wireless service 

associated with broadcasting, and regarded as critical with broadcasting, with the unlicensed and say these are smaller transmitters, they operated in a way that is consistent with each other, we 

will have them share some space. And then over here, with the 

larger fixed transmitters, the LPTV and the translators, we will 

have a different question as to how we try to fit them in the intricacies of the repacking. So the FCC was very careful to not revisit 

its existing hierarchy. But what it has done is what Congress has 

directed it to do, which is balance many interests. In that light, I 

think that there is a tremendous opportunity here for the LPTV 

service as part of this transition through the incentive auction. It 

is true that the LPTV service has fallen on very hard times for a 

number of reasons, many of which are not related to the incentive 

auction but have to do with the digital transition, with the fact 

that they do not have must-carry rights on cable. I used to work 

with this community a lot some years ago when I was at Media Access Project. My hope has been, and we have expressed it at every 

opportunity in our filings at the FCC, is that this is an opportunity 

for the Commission to recognize and reward those licensees that 

are providing local service, contributing to diversity, satisfying the 

public interest and upholding those traditions of trustees of the 

public airwaves while simultaneously examining those bad actors 

in the field who are, you know, speculators or who were not serious, or who for reasons totally unrelated to the incentive auction 

have essentially gone dark but still hold permits in the hopes that 

someday they will be able to come back again. And I think that the 

advantage and disadvantage of this process is it is really going to 

help separate the genuine service to local communities and hopefully, you know, shine a spotlight on those and reinvigorate those, 

while also maximizing spectrum efficiency overall. 

Mr. LIBIN. Thank you so much. I have to try to come back to the 

question that you had, and I think the question really was who will 

be impacted. And it is a great question. And if I knew that answer, 

then I would right now be sitting at the FCC, because I think they 

are the only ones who know. If you ask me who would be hurt, 

which LPTV and TV translator stations—well, not just stations but 

they could actually impact through a chain reaction through translators, because that is how they work. So how many? So the answer is, it is hundreds of thousands, or thousands. And it really 

turns out to be an amazing—nobody really knows. That is really 

the whole point. 

41 

We are looking for transparency here. We are really trying to understand. We don’t. If you ask me right now do we want to slow 

down the auction? Do I want to stop it? The answer is absolutely 

not. We want this to go forward. We think this is in the best interest of America. But we want to do it right. We want to make sure 

that everything we are doing won’t be held up, just—you know, I 

could just examples of health. I am not going there. But we all 

know that we want to do right. This is a major deal. 

We are 2 1⁄2 years into a 10-year process. We are not rushed. Let 

us get it right. Let us get it really done right. If we look at who 

is going to be hurt, if you look at the ownership of LPTV and translator stations, it is somewhat close to 30 percent is minority and 

women ownership. If you look at if we call it the other broadcasters 

and cable, I think it is less than three percent. Those are the people that would be hurt. It is the people—whether they are sitting 

in Oregon or sitting in Youngstown, Iowa, and this is the only way 

they receive you, or in Utah and wherever they are. There are so 

many of these stations and so many people who rely on this service 

that I think we just need to tread very lightly when we are considering moving ahead with the auction. We need to consider LPTV 

and TV translators. 

Thank you so much. 

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank the gentleman. We will now recognize Mr. 

Latta for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And 

again, thanks for our witnesses for testifying for us today. And 

this, you know, is a very good discussion we are having here, because I know the question that the chairman asked, you know, why 

are some people against the bill? Ranking Member Eshoo was talking about that, you know, we are not always talking about rural 

areas, but, you know, it is areas that are impacted that have certain minority populations that could be hit. My friend from Iowa, 

Mr. Braley, was asking a question about who is going to be impacted. 

But, Mr. Libin, let me ask you this, because, again, I represent 

kind of a unique area. It goes from very, very rural and into parts 

of a large city. And when you are looking at all these questions 

that have been asked so far by members of the committee, I guess 

the question is if we have—if the FCC is not mindful of these 

LPTVs and the translator stations throughout the spectrum auction and shut them down, will you have rural consumers, or as the 

ranking member mentioned in larger cities that you have certain 

minorities that might be impacted with that, what are the options 

that these individuals are going to have out there from the rural 

or to the city if this has happened that they wouldn’t have these 

LPTVs? 

Mr. LIBIN. I think that is a great question. When we talk about 

diverse, we are talking about financial as well. And there aren’t always options. There are many options that all America—or a typical America could have when it comes to whether it is entertainment or news, or wondering if that there is a tornado warning is 

coming and how am I going to get that. Well, if they don’t have this 

free over the air coming to them, and a lot of people this is the way 

42 

they do have it now, they are not going to know. They are not 

going to know what is happening in their community. They are not 

going to know what is happening nationwide. But especially local, 

they are not going to know, aside from I mentioned high school 

football and all of that. But it really has to do with life and public 

safety. This is their lifeline for many, many people. 

And it is so interesting I brought up the Youngstown, Iowa before, because there are a number of LPTVs over there as well. But 

going back to when I was mentioning in the Bay Area, so—and you 

brought up the opposition to LPTV, you know, it really is like a 

chess game, because in the Bay Area, we were talking about the 

language that they were speaking from the Philippines was Tagalog. I think I pronounced that right. Was that correct? 

Ms. ESHOO. Tagalog. 

Mr. LIBIN. Tagalog. This language that they do. But there is also 

Vietnamese and Mandarin. And they are all intertwined in that 

area. And these LPTV and translator stations are put like chess 

pieces there. So you are correct. If somebody now says wait a second, we might have to move our station. Well, if you are now receiving—you have your population of Mandarin, then what are 

they going to do with this station over here? So you are absolutely 

correct that there could be. So these are all very, very good issues. 

But I am glad that we are discussing them, because all of this is 

very important to an underserved population. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am 

going yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentleman for his questions. Now, we 

will turn to—who is next on our side? Let us see. I think Mr. Long 

is next. Mr. Long, do you have questions for our witnesses, or a 

statement? 

Mr. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for 

being here today. 

Mr. Libin, can you give me a specific example of maybe just one 

example of a low-power TV station which would go out of business 

if the FCC makes changes to the incentive auction? 

Mr. LIBIN. That is also a great question. So, as we know now, 

there are thousands of LPTV stations and translator stations. And 

I could make assumptions. But since we haven’t seen any of the results of the auction yet, so I am not privy to what any of the results of the spectrum repacking study. This goes into the—all of 

this has to take the geography of the country, and then it goes 

down to the level of the specific area. And it has to—now, you have 

to do station coverage and decide well, there are different scenarios. How much spectrum are we getting back? If we are getting 

back so that we can sell in the auction a certain amount, if affects 

this number of stations. So you are asking a very, very good question. And I myself would love to know the answers, as well as the 

LPTV and the TV translator operators and owners, as well as the 

manufacturers of the equipment. Because within the past, I think, 

past month, just last week, one U.S. manufacturer of TV translator 

equipment has gone out of business because of all the uncertainty 

in this market. So— 

Mr. BARTON. Would the gentleman yield, Mr. Long? 

Mr. LONG. Yes. 

43 

Mr. BARTON. Let me rephrase the question that he just asked 

you, or give a generic answer. Wouldn’t it be more likely that a 

low-power television station that had been operating in an area 

that had been rural but had now become more urban or suburban, 

and was in a growth area where there was a high demand for wireless services, and maybe like the Congressman’s district in 

Branson, Missouri that if there were a low-power television station, 

that station might lose its license because of the demand for wireless carriage because the population had grown? Isn’t that possibly 

an example? 

Mr. LIBIN. That is absolutely a very good example. Another example that would hit home to Chairman Barton would be if you 

look at, for example, if you take Texas and you look at Dallas, you 

can actually follow the translators along the interstate, because 

that is where the populations are. And if one of them are impacted, 

the whole chain goes down. So in that effect, we are talking about 

a very big effect to a lot of people. 

Mr. BARTON. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. LIBIN. Thank you so much. 

Mr. LONG. Let me kind of follow up with all the moving parts 

and pieces. And I come from a 30-year background of the auction 

business. So I know a little bit about auctions. With all the moving 

parts and pieces that you are talking about, isn’t that also going 

to affect how the bidders will look at what they need and what this 

auction will provide? 

Mr. LIBIN. I think so. I mean, it has to have an impact. But the 

impact is really minor. It is a minor impact, because again just by 

name, low-power television are lower power television. So they just 

need to be considered just as if there was some terrain in the way 

or something else. There is the impact of low-power television into 

the auction to be considered in all the repacking scenarios is an impact, but it is not a major, major impact. 

Mr. LONG. OK. Thank you. And, Mr. Feld, from your testimony 

here today, you obviously think that the FCC has done a great job 

so far with this incentive auction preparation. Do you think they 

have made any mistakes and should have done anything differently 

or did anything differently regarding auction preparation? 

Mr. FELD. Well, I think that this has been a very challenging 

process for everybody, where everybody learns as they go. If we had 

known 2 years ago that this is where we were going to end up, we 

could have gotten here a lot faster. But I do have to say that one 

of the problems which I want to highlight is as Mr. Libin says from 

his perspective, this is a minor impact. But again, all of these impacts, because these issues are so tightly wound with each other, 

all have impacts everywhere else in the auction structure, which 

requires everything to be recalibrated. So I think part of the delay 

and part of the issue here has been how do you get all of these 

complicated pieces to work together when we have no guide and 

sometimes conflicting goals that the FCC has been instructed by 

Congress to balance? I also think that there is a concern about 

time. Mr. Libin has said, you know, we have 10 years to get this 

right. We don’t really have 10 years. Congress gave the FCC 10 

years to make sure that things could get done. But at impetus to 

pass legislation was the spectrum shortage, which we have been 

44 

concerned about, and the demand for wireless capacity continues to 

grow. It was to fund deficit reduction, to fund FirstNet. And the 

longer we delay the auction, the longer these remain outstanding 

items on our Federal budget ledger. So I think that particularly 

here where I do believe that the FCC has been overall doing a pretty good job of trying to thread this needle, and where we have a 

process that is unfolding now, then rather than have Congress drop 

another bill, tell everybody to go rethink does this legislation 

change the progress that we have made so far, that we ought to 

keep going, Congress should continue to exercise oversight. And if 

the further notice does not work out the way that Congress believes is necessary, there will still be time to take corrective action. 

Mr. LONG. OK. Thank you. And I am way over my time. And 

thank both of you once again. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Long, thank you for your questions. Ms. Eshoo 

and I decided we are just going to put you in charge of the auction 

when we get this thing done. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Mr. WALDEN. It would be a lot cheaper, faster, easier. 

Mr. LONG. This thing here might take 10, 20, 30, 40 years. 

Mr. WALDEN. That is all right. And we will raise more money, 

and we guarantee we will have more fun. Mr. Matheson, I am just 

going touch base with you one more time. OK. Then we will go to 

Ms. Ellmers for final questions, if you have any? 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Feld, I will start 

off with you, just in continuing the conversation here. From what 

I am hearing, you seem to believe that the proposed LPTV legislation would delay the incentive auctions. Obviously, you kind of 

made that clear. And, obviously, this is problematic. But what are 

the consequences if the FCC fails to protect translators and LPTV 

stations? 

Mr. FELD. Well, part of this is I understand that there is some— 

in your particularly—in the LPTV community, but from where we 

have been sitting and what we have been urging has been for the 

FCC to actually take great care to protect these services. The FCC 

has continued to recognize their importance. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Um-hum. 

Mr. FELD. We have continued to stress their importance. You 

know, Public Knowledge is an organization that has supported localism and diversity in media for a very long time. I think we all 

recognize that if services in communities that communities rely 

and go dark, that that would be a grave disservice to those communities and would be contrary to over 80 years of communications 

long precedent. For that reason, I think that where the FCC is continuing to take these things very seriously, where the struggle has 

been to try to figure out how to balance multiple interests that 

Congress should continue to exercise its oversight. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Um-hum. 

Mr. FELD. Be prepared to step in, if necessary. But legislation is 

a very big step. And contrary to what Chairman Walden may believe, I know the FCC takes the acts of Congress very seriously. At 

least they spend a lot of time considering them. And if there is a 

bill that is proposed now, my concern is that it causes everybody 

45 

to take their tokens, go back to go and reopen a lot of issues that 

we had thought were settled. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. OK. Mr. Libin, I understand there is a 10-year 

window of time that has been mentioned already. What do you see 

is the relevant timeline for the LPTV and translators in terms of 

your feelings of the impact of the incentive auction? Are you coming down to a shorter period of time now, as well, considering all 

things? 

Mr. LIBIN. Right. So first of all, our goal is, as I said before, is 

absolutely not to slow down the process at all. It is an optimization 

process. We now know more. We also know a little bit that the 

FCC sort of needs this nudge on LPTV and TV translators and 

boosters, because they have been advocating a little bit maybe on 

the side of the wireless providers. And that is where we sort of had 

this whole issue where now LPTV might be tertiary to the wireless 

providers. So I think that is why this is so important to come back 

with sort of the reminder from Congress that this is the way you 

have to treat LPTV. And I don’t think that it really slows the process down. I think that in effect if we open it up, there are a lot 

of experts out there—a lot more experts who now could come in 

and can say and by the way, there are many tweaks that have to 

be done to the software right now. And so this is just another one. 

Let us add it in there. And let us see how far we can help keep 

the deadline, which is again we are all shooting for much less than 

10 years. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Right. And, Mr. Feld, do you want to expand on 

that? 

Mr. FELD. I would just like to add that our organization, Public 

Knowledge, other organizations in the public interest spectrum coalition, which include organizations that care a great deal about diversity in media, have consistently hoped that this can be a win 

for everybody. And one of the advantages of the ongoing FCC process is we continue to try to work with all of the communities who 

are involved to find solutions. As I say, we have proposed the solution that is actually proposed in this bill, this voluntary reduction 

in power in order to save licensees. We think that there are other 

ways in which we can cooperate rather than view this as a fight. 

And my hope is that in fact what we need is not a push for the 

FCC to go back to the beginning and force everybody to go through 

all of this again, but instead a nudge for all of the parties to come 

together and find solutions that are going to maximize the efficiency for everybody. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Um-hum. Thank you. And thank you both. And, 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank the gentlelady. And I thank our witnesses 

for your testimony. If you have other comments we should be 

aware of, please submit them. And I am sure we will probably have 

some questions perhaps from the committee, so we will keep the 

record open for submission of that, as according to our rules. 

We thank you very much. And I thank everyone for being here 

and participating. And we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:24 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

Æ