NAB vs. New Technology: A history of stifeling competition

We all know of the NAB's vehement opposition to satellite radio, not just against the Sirius-XM merger, but against the entire industry in general. But is this opposition limited to just satellite radio? Or has the NAB opposed other technologies? So glad you asked... read on!

For actually over twenty-five years, the NAB has objected to the evolution of communications technology. This includes satellite television, "drop in" radio stations, low-power radio and low-power TV band devices.

So what makes satellite radio different?  Opposition to the Sirius-XM merger is simply the latest and greatest in the NAB’s persistent resistance to change. Let's take a look at the evidence...

Satellite Television
In the 1980s, the NAB fought the FCC's decision to award DBS licenses, claiming that the Communications Act forbade a nationwide licensee. The NAB's position was so extreme that a federal appeals court described the NAB as "luddite[s]," saying it would be irresponsible to deny consumers "new technology that offers the promise of substantial public benefit." The court also chided terrestrial broadcasters, commenting that "the Act does not entrench any particular system of broadcasting: existing systems, like existing licensees, have no entitlement that permits them to deflect competitive pressure from innovative and effective technology."
(NAB v. FCC, 790 F.2d 1190, 1197-98 – D.C. Cir., 1984)

"Drop-In" Stations
In the 1980s, the FCC issued a decision allowing the allotment of additional FM frequencies. The NAB and other broadcasters sought to have restrictions imposed on the operation of these so-called "drop-in" FM stations, which were made possible by technological improvements in radio receivers. The NAB also filed a petition for reconsideration of the FCC's decision to authorize the new stations.
(Modification of FM Broadcast Station Rules to Increase the Availability of Commercial FM Broadcast Assignments, 87 F.C.C. 2d 279, 1984.)

Low-Power Radio
The FCC first proposed the establishment of rules for low power radio service in 1999. The NAB and other broadcasters submitted comments vehemently opposing this new service. The then-FCC Chairman William Kennard said this opposition was "about the haves—the broadcast industry—trying to prevent the have-nots—small community and educational organizations—from having just a little piece of the pie. Just a little piece of the airwaves which belong to all of the people."
(Statement of FCC Chairman William E. Kennard on Low Power FM Radio Initiative, 2000 FCC Lexis 1536 – March 27, 2000)

Low-Power TV Band Devices
In 2004, the FCC proposed to allow certain types of unlicensed devices to operate in the broadcast television spectrum at locations where the spectrum is not being used. As the Commission explained, permitting such operations would enable "more efficient and effective use of the TV spectrum and would have significant benefits for the public by allowing the development of new and innovative types" of broadband devices. The NAB and other broadcast interests sought to impede the operation of these new devices, though they would operate only on channels not being used for licensed services. Even after the FCC issued a decision in 2006 authorizing the devices, the NAB and other broadcast interests asked FCC to impose an extensive set of restrictions on the operation of the devices.
(Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands; Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices Below 900 MHz and in the 3 GHz Band, 19 FCC Rcd 10018 – 2004)
(See Joint Comments of The Association for Maximum Service Telelvision, Inc. and the National Association of Broadcasters, ET Docket Nos. 04-186 and 02-380 - filed Jan. 31, 2007)

Satellite Radio
From the start, the NAB vehemently opposed allocation of spectrum for and licensing of satellite radio, asserting that it would destroy local radio broadcasting. The radio industry’s evidence was embarrassingly thin ranging from studies that assumed satellite radios would be free, claiming that a temporary revenue fall-off during a recession was indicative of the declining fortunes of terrestrial broadcasters, to a survey of radio station executives, each of whom claimed that satellite radio would be the death of localism. Ultimately, NAB’s opposition delayed licensing satellite radio for seven years. Now the organization is looking to stop the Sirius-XM merger from going through, using any means necessary.
(Rules and Policies for the Digital Audio Radio Satellite Service, 12 FCC Rcd 5754, ¶ 19 - 1997)
(Reply Comments of CD Radio, at 29 - filed Oct. 13, 1995)

The NAB's public opposition to the Sirius-XM merger is an effort to advance its members' interests. Period. This has nothing to do with serving the greater good. It has nothing to do with the public interest. The NAB is in business to advocate for their members, and that's all.

The NAB's opposition to the merger is not indicative of the value of the merger itself. Rather it's symptomatic of the NAB's self-interest and consequent hostility toward new technology.