By Ken Benner
TUCSON — Long before I got involved with the “mock” or “alternative inspection programs,” I toured the Upper Midwest with a trunk full of homemade, carefully calibrated Heathkit® test instruments that I used to conduct the then-FCC required annual proof of performance measurements. This was conducted during my vacations and occasional days off from other employment ventures.
It was during these tours that I first learned of how some FCC regulations were distorted for what I considered extortion. For example, on more than one occasion I encountered a licensee confronted with the “greenmail scam.”
I became concerned when I discussed this matter with some wealthy broadcast colleagues, expressing just how little support I could muster to address the issue. As it turns out, those I discussed it with were actually engaged in the greenmail scam practice.
When any application is filed with the Commission, it is made public before any action is taken on it — and for very good reason. This was and remains essential to address the possibility of an applicant’s filing that could adversely affect another applicant or current licensee. Examples may include competitor interference with signal coverage involving a possible harmonic interfering signal mix.
Thus, before the Commission could approve any new license, it was essential a thorough professional assessment to evaluate the potential signal harm that could result from granting the application.
Among the challenges facing an applicant were the financial means to research for an open coverage channel, replacement location for a new tower location in addition to engineering research, etc., and of course very substantial costs for legal “professional assistance.”
These challenges even applied to simple license renewals where a competitor would challenge a renewal implying the current licensee was not adequately serving his community to the FCC required “public interest, convenience and necessity.”
I encountered more than one of these instances where a competitor would challenge an application with no apparent possibility for the challenge to be granted but with an opportunity to exploit the greenmail scam.
By the time all of these challenges were met, a new proposed station could easily expend $100,000, and would be justifiably required have at least another $100,000 for land, tower and equipment. Such resulted in large payments demanded by the green mail scamsters.
The scam involved an offer from the party challenging an application to withdraw his challenge, but for a tidy some in the tens of thousands of dollars.
Realizing all this, I contacted the FCC, suggesting they address this extortion scam once it became obvious many application challenges were made for no other reason than to withdraw for substantial exploitation. Bingo!
They agreed, and it was less than two weeks from my contact that the Commission ruled for anyone to offer to withdraw an application challenge for a price was prohibited.
I’m told that even the NAB got involved and published an item involving “agreements to withdraw opposition” in one of their publications.
This matter is one of at least three suggestions I have made over many years to the FCC that was taken seriously and promptly properly addressed.
Indeed, the Commission does listen to us ordinary folks and address our public interests. One can only hope it continues, as similar instances could easily be going on today or arise in the future.
Ken Benner is an independent Alternative FCC Compliance Certification Inspector and a research analyst for the Coalition for Transparency, Clarification and Simplification of Regulations pertaining to American Broadcasting. Benner has more than 55 years of experience providing service to the broadcast industry.
The views expressed by Media Information Bureau columnists are those of the writer only and not of the editorial board of the Radio + Television Business Report or its parent, Streamline Publishing.
