Broadcasters Ponder FCC Spectrum Reclamation
Discussed the possibility of turning much of their digital spectrum back in to the government in exchange for a cut of the proceeds
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 10/21/2009 4:42:17 PM
A source confirms that broadcasters at last week's NAB board meeting in Dallas discussed the possibility of turning much of their digital spectrum back in to the government in exchange for a cut of the proceeds when that spectrum was reauctioned for wireless broadband. "There was not much support for the idea," said the source.
That meeting came on the heels of another one, reported by TVNewscheck's Kim McAvoy, between FCC broadband advisor Blair Levin and members of the board of broadcasters' spectrum watchdog group, the Association for Maximum Service Television (MSTV).
MSTV Board Chairman and Hubbard TV President Robert Hubbard told B&C that said Levin was invited to the Oct. 8 meeting to talk about the issue of freeing up spectrum for broadband. That issue has been much on the FCC's mind of late as it prepares a national broadband plan to Congress in which wireless broadband is expected to play a significant role. "MSTV invited Blair Levin to come in and tell what he has been tasked with and to understand what he is trying to accomplish and if and where we can be helpful."
He said the conversation "ran the gamut from broadcasters contributing nothing, and when I say contribute I don't mean just give it away, to very extreme things, and everything in between. My take was that it was a conversation about 'what ifs' and 'what are possibles,' but at this point it's all in-process analysis." He says there was no particular proposal, but rather a conversation about a lot of possibilities. He would not identify which, but he did say some of the possibilities are "quite scary," though he added: "Where we end up in the political process nobody can predict today."
"The FCC is looking for a way to find spectrum and, as far as I know, they are looking at every option and all of the spectrum holders," Hubbard said. "Obviously, television holds a big share of spectrum and ours is some they are looking at."
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski told B&C in an interview last week that the FCC had reached out to broadcasters.
"We are grateful to the numerous broadcasters who have responded to inquiries we've made about alternative scenarios for freeing up greater spectrum use," he told the magazine last week. "I encourage broadcasters to be a part of this process."
In a speech to the wireless industry two weeks ago, Genachowski said that mobile was essential to the future of broadband, and that getting more spectrum was essential to mobile. "As this audience knows, it takes years to reallocate spectrum and put it to use. And there are no easy pickings on the spectrum chart," he said. "But we have no choice. We must identify spectrum that can best be reinvested in mobile broadband. That is something that we have to work on together, across industries, and in partnership with all stakeholders."
David Donovan, who heads MSTV, had no comment on the meeting. Levin was not available for comment at press time. But Donovan had plenty to say about what he saw as a potential wireless spectrum grab.
"Wireless companies are asking the government to participate in the biggest consumer bait and switch in American history," he told B&C. "For the last few years, the government told consumers that digital television would bring them free over- the-air HDTV and more channels. Now after purchasing billions of dollars in new digital equipment and antennas, wireless advocates are asking the government to renege on its promise. High-definition programming and more digital channels would become the sole and exclusive province of pay services. The American public simply will not stand for this."
While almost 9 out of 10 viewers watch their local TV stations over a cable system rather than over the air, the digital switch has openened up mutlicast channel opportunities, including potential pay services and new revenue streams, as well as the ability to do mobile TV. The industry just last week agreed on a standard for mobile digital broadcasting.
"Wireless advocates use the broadcast business model as it existed prior to the digital transition," says Donovan. "They fail to take into account the new digital business model based on HDTV, multicasting and mobile TV. Because our system is “backward” compatible, we can provide mobile service and at the same time provide HDTV programs as well.
Because our infrastructure is built, we can bring these services to consumers faster and at a lower cost."
-
I understand the technology if more of the current broadcast spectrum, is capable of making broadband available to some hard to get to rural areas, I just question the profitableness to wireless companies and the desire to invest in those areas.
I also question if it is really in the public interest, for the FCC, to take away spectrum from a over the air free service and place it in a pay only service to receive television. The FCC mapping of DTV, which sadly the NAB uses the same model, puts large parts of the country without free over air service, but it is very inaccurate. According the FCC and NAB, my street address has no over air TV, but I get a strong signal on 3 stations (5 broadcast stations counting subs, all with decent video content). When you consider that local cable provider has raise their bill, by just under $6.00 in the last year and half, so local broadcast tier is $20.00 and extended analog cable is now just under $60.00 and that is before you add on the taxes, plus they raise the rate at least once every year. On top of that the picture over analog cable at my location is really poor (the over the air signal I get which is over 50 miles air miles from the transmitters, blow away the local cable provider as far as picture quality and it is free, at least at the moment). That said where I live I do have broadband Internet service and at least one wireless service puts a strong signal into my home and offers broadband service. I don't view getting rid of free over TV, for wireless broadband access for rural areas, which I don't believe will really happen, wireless covering the areas of the U.S that have no broadband Internet. All I can see is a Boost to cable and satellite operators and wireless services bottom line. Increase in the wireless spectrum the ability to add more and more gadgets and Cable and satellite companies with sole providers of video and it is hard to understand how that serves the public interest.
Warren Lambing - 10/26/2009 9:51:30 AM EDT -
Some of the TV spectrum is more robust at penetrating foliage and surviving atmospheric disturbances than some of the cellular frequencies used today. The use of high gain directional antennas and point to point over the air transmission can get internet access to areas that do not get it today. The coming use of 4G technologies will enhance this capability. No it will not be 50 Mbps symmetrical, it may be more like 5 Mbps symmetrical per household. But spectrum has to be there to innovate the technology to get to that point. Only if the spectrum is available for broadband internet use, will there be any private investment in attempting to develop the technology.
davidhoffman - 10/23/2009 1:34:34 PM EDT -
I live in a rural area, and it is hard to understand how an increase in wireless spectrum will improve the distribution of broadband to areas that don't have broadband. Most of the rural areas that have no broadband (except satellite broadband service), also have no cellular service. Some small rural towns have limited cellular service, but due to the terrain in many of these rural areas, the cellular coverage is not available out of town. Put simply many of the areas that have no broadband service available also have no cellular service. In the past when the government has talk about mandating cellular companies to service areas, they have scoff at the expense and the fact that it is not profitable to cover those rural area in full. Increase in wireless spectrum will be advantageous to metro areas that have multiple broadband options, but not many rural areas that have limited or no existing cellular service and where cellular companies would have to build infrastructure an invest large sums of money to service, which so far they have been unwilling to do. On top of that most of the same rural areas are not service by cable TV, but satellite TV only, who unlike cable, do not offer a local TV tier service only, the consumer will have to buy a more expensive package to get local channels.
Warren Lambing - 10/22/2009 9:42:41 AM EDT
Broadcasters Defend Their Spectrum
11/01/2009Broadcasters Tackle Spectrum-Sharing Debate
10/04/2009
