Broadcasters Push White Spaces Alternative
Joint filing suggests possible path to DTV citizenship for unlicensed mobile devices under more stringent conditions than FCC proposes
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 10/22/2008 1:06:00 PM EDT
Broadcasters Wednesday reiterated to the FCC that it should hold off on voting on a proposal to approve unlicensed, mobile devices in the DTV spectrum band, then told it what it could do with that extra time.
In a joint filing, broadcasters suggested a possible path to DTV citizenship for the devices, but only under a series of conditions that would protect broadcast signals, wireless microphones, and cable reception, conditions more stringent than FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is proposing.
Those conditions include limiting power levels on the first adjacent channel to 5 milliwatts rather than the FCC's proposed 40 [Fox opposes any adjacent channel uses], a "safe harbor" for wireless microphones, power limits to guard against direct pick-up interference to cable, mandatory geolocation, and disallowing devices that rely only on sensing when spectrum is unused.
The geolocation requirement makes it sort of hybrid mobile and fixed service. Broadcasters do not oppose fixed unlicensed devices.
Facing an FCC that could well approve the devices, broadcasters say their conditions are a compromise the FCC should consider as an alternative. And, in either case, say it must do nothing until it puts its proposal out for public comment.
Broadcasters are particularly concerned with suggestions by think tank the New American Foundation that the end game is to reclaim all of the broadcast channels for advanced services. "Neither Congress nor the Commission has adopted the position that the FCC should administer euthanasia to the public’s over-the-air service," wrote the National Association of Broadcasters, the Association for Maximum Service Television and the major broadcast networks in a supplement to an earlier emergency filing with the FCC. "It is absolutely critical for the Commission to protect the public’s free, over-the-air broadcasting service not just from interference from white spaces devices but from a movement to totally eliminate television broadcasting," they said.
-
These are the same people who oppose net neutrality because they fear free speech -- and free or low-cost access to the internet. Diversity of voices has enriched TV programming and allowed cable TV to prosper. But even cable's rich diversity has not eclipsed broadcast TV's primacy, which derives from its ubiquity, its availability to every citizen with a TV set. Let there be no mistake: there is an assault on "free" broadcasting, TV and radio, and it must be resisted by the industry and the public in the interest of a free market -- and free speech.
