A reader had a less than satisfactory experience participating in FCC Auction No. 37
Integrity of Auction?
In a letter to the FCC, L. Topaz Enterprises, Inc. was falsely accused in the FM Auction No. 37 bidding process of "improprieties and collusion" and requested L. Topaz be eliminated from further bidding, allegedly by Robert Ingstad. The FCC placed a notice on the Nov. 15th Daily Digest denying such a request to "maintain the integrity of the auction process." The FCC also in its notice, said no such requests will be considered until after the auction and until the appropriate time "petitions to deny" may be filed, leaving me wide open for more false accusations. As President of L. Topaz, I went thru the ceiling when I spotted this notice on the 15th and placed several calls to the FCC to determine what this was all about. No one returned my calls until the following day, several bidding rounds having transpired.
Mr. Ingstad's attorney, Dawn Sciarrino contacted the commission and stated that her client had never written such a letter! I then found out that the letter sent to the FCC was NEVER signed or dated!! Yet they responded to it within days of receipt! (try getting a response like that in anything else!).
Having been in ownership for 21 years until 2003, I've experienced of few of these false and bogus filings, and know very well of the stress, attorney fees, and long duration of time the commission takes in their investigative process. Although completely innocent, this fact doesn't eliminate any of the above. I'm fed up with false accusations and the "process." So, I decided I wouldn't bid any longer, not because of guilt, but because of the process, and the fact that many broadcasters have become so devious and gutless, that it isn't worth it for me to continuing fighting these rascals, when broadcasting is no longer a "love of my life."
L. Topaz was high bidder on two FM allocations on round 26 on Monday, Nov. 15th, the day of the FCC release. I remained high bidder on one, and only one other bid was placed after round 26 on the other, and that applicant became the winner! I would have bid much higher because the 2nd allocation was in the same market.
Upon contact with several people at the FCC, I asked them how they could even publish a response to ANY letter that wasn't signed or dated? Couldn't they have at least contacted the alleged person to verify its contents? They said they are doing that NOW! Little good that does me. The FCC also refuses to show me the contents of this letter!!!! That is absurd and a great injustice! I can HELP them with their investigation. I know who did it and told them who it was! They can publish their response to a non-dated, unsigned letter, but won't let me, the innocent victim, even defend myself from it! Their response was, that the allegation has been dropped against L. Topaz and they have opened an investigation concerning the bogus letter, and would like me to document any information I have as to who the culprit is. Another colossal waste of my time, attorney fees and resources. However, I will cooperate.
The commission CAN get this guy, IF they seriously desire to. I question their desire. Their greatest desire is to squeeze every penny they can in the auction process and to shut up people like me who criticize THEM! They'll spend more time trying to keep me quiet than tracing False letters! God bless America, huh?
In short, the auction process was flawed in several ways:
(1) allowing withdrawal bids, thereby taking a station "off the market" and placed on the next auction, God knows how far into the future. It's worth it for a competitor to bid very high on a permit in their market, wait until their competitors have lost all eligibility to bid, and then withdraw. Originally only 3 or 4 potential licenses were never bid on at all, yet at the end of the auction, 30 licenses were returned to the FCC! That's a huge flaw! Penalties incurred are not serious enough to prevent this. Prevent it my allowing NO WITHDRAWALS!! Does the FCC ever give a licensee a second chance if they violate the Public File or EAS?? NO! Then why give someone in the bidding process a second chance? There's a submit button to hit and you can review your bids before selecting.
(2) Don't publish any response to any filing until "after" the auction is over! If they're not going to act on anything (as the FCC has claimed) until after the auction is over, then DON'T don't respond to letters during the auction!
(3) Downpayments are not sufficient. I know of one applicant (and more) that is high bidder on over $400,000! He could barely afford to buy his own breakfast. He only but in $10,000 of "upfront" money (someone else's) and will "Shop around" his high bids to anyone he can "sucker" into funding him. If he can't ( and usually he can't) he just loses 10 grand and perhaps be eliminated from bidding in further auctions. Big deal! He'll use his wife, relative or friend in the next one!
(4) If you have a high bidder, who remains high for at least 5 rounds, they should get the permit! If there were REALLY sufficient interest, an applicant would be bidding on a consistent basis on that allocation. Of course, the FCC would not MAXIMIZE bidding of their precious dollars if they did this.
There you have it, yet another government agency (cookie monster) where the whole is much bigger than its parts that continues to cobble itself up. It's not a democrat or republican but a Bureaucracy problem, that gets worse with every passing day!
In fairness to the commission, particularly those involved with implementing the auction, the internet set-up was super and went flawlessly. People such as Linda Sanderson and many others were very knowledgeable, helpful, and ARE seriously concerned with the "integrity of the process." But most of these outstanding people at the commission, DO NOT make POLICY and DO NOT enforce the rules. The changes NEED to be made at the high levels. In that regard its all talk, little action and ALL Bureaucracy.
I challenge the Enforcement Bureau to nail this guy. I don't believe they have the desire to do so. Instead, I'll spend more of my time trying to "help" them, while they sit on this for 1-3 years, and do little to nothing. If the commission does nothing, then my question is: "what would prevent any devious character to write bogus letters and "petitions to deny?" There could be hundreds even thousands, unless they nail this guy. How many initial investigations open up, where someone actually knows who the culprit is? And yet, I challenge the FCC and Enforcement Bureau to nail this guy armed with that information. I certainly won't be holding my breath.
Dale A. Ganske, President
L. Topaz Enterprises, Inc.
Are you reading this from a forwarded email?