FCC Ready to Tap Returned TV Spectrum with New White Spaces Order
As the media has reported extensively this week (for example here and here) the FCC is poised to tap into the television spectrum to allow the use of that spectrum on an unlicensed basis, potentially leading to a wave of innovative unlicensed devices, including potentially turbo-charged Wi-Fi. On the tentative agenda released recently for the next open Commission meeting, to be held next Thursday, September 23rd, the Commission has included an item entitled: "TV White Spaces Second MO&O: A Second Memorandum Opinion and Order that will create opportunities for investment and innovation in advanced Wi-Fi technologies and a variety of broadband services by finalizing provisions for unlicensed wireless devices to operate in unused parts of TV spectrum."
As watchers of the TV white spaces issue will recall, the Commission adopted an Order in late 2008 to permit the operation of unlicensed devices in the so-called "TV white spaces", which is the spectrum in the TV band that is not actively occupied by a television station in a particular geographic area. (An earlier advisory by Davis Wright Tremaine summarizing the Commission's 2008 Order can be found here.) Following the adoption of that Order, over a dozen parties sought reconsideration of the Commission's decision; those petitions remain pending. It is not clear whether the proposed Order would be an Order on Reconsideration, but presumably it will address the issues raised by these petitioners. In addition, the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) and others filed an appeal in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seeking to challenge the FCC's white spaces Order. That appeal is on hold pending the Commission's resolution of the Petitions for Reconsideration. Despite the unresolved objections, in late 2009, the FCC moved forward with putting a spectrum management structure in place that would establish a privately maintained database that would permit coordination in order to locate unused spectrum in the TV band in a particular area. We summarized this step in an earlier blog entry here. In early 2010, nine parties submitted proposals to be designated TV Band Device Database Managers, but to date the matter remains pending.
Now, with the announcement of next week's agenda item, it appears that the FCC is ready to move forward aggressively to allow the use of the TV spectrum on an unlicensed basis. Chairman Genachowski has touted the TV white spaces as a platform for innovation and development. In particular, it is seen as a way to expand Wi-Fi and extend broadband service, which in turn would take pressure off of existing wireless spectrum. On the one hand, the use of the TV spectrum on an unlicensed basis is a simple and artful way for the Commission to "return" the spectrum recaptured by the DTV transition to the spectrum pipeline. Opening the spectrum to unlicensed devices would allow parties to use the frequencies without the need for an FCC auction and would allow for the tapping of returned channels on a piecemeal, market-by-market basis, which avoids the issue of trying to aggregate contiguous television channels for use nationwide. In contrast to the clearing of TV Channels 52-59 and 60-69, which was mandated by Congress and factored into the DTV transition from the beginning, there is no clear or easy path for clearing more TV channels nationwide barring a radical restructuring of the DTV Table of Allotments, which would undoubtedly be heavily contested by broadcasters in light of the substantial investments made and disruption brought by the recently completed digital transition. Furthermore, if unlicensed devices are developed and deployed in the TV spectrum to provide Wi-Fi broadband access, this would potentially alleviate some pressure on the wireless carriers and forestall the much-warned-of and oft-debated "spectrum crunch", which is one of the main driving factors in the National Broadband Plan.
On the other hand, deploying hundreds of thousands if not millions of unlicensed and unaccountable devices into the television spectrum could have a significant impact on the future of Mobile DTV, as well as on the ability for consumers to receive the signals of local TV stations in their homes. The fact that the Commission is moving quickly and touting the white spaces as a way to release prime spectrum would seem to be a further indication by the Commission that it does not view over-the-air (OTA) TV signals to be as critical as they once were, notwithstanding the fact that Commission bent over backwards to ensure that broadcasters preserved and replicated their former analog OTA service as they were required to spend hundreds of millions converting their stations to digital. The importance of the OTA TV signal and consumers' reliance on that signal, however, might change rapidly in the near future with a widespread introduction of Mobile DTV, or as folks cut the cable cord and replace cable service with a combination of over-the-air signals and video over the Internet. In adopting rules and opening the TV spectrum, it will be essential that the Commission ensure that interference protections, frequency coordination efforts, and unlicensed devices all work as anticipated and do not infringe on the reception of over-the-air television signals.
Regardless of where one stands on the use of the TV white spaces, and whether the FCC is picking winners and losers by advancing particular devices, services, and innovations to the detriment of existing license holders and industries, the issue is moving forward and will present some fascinating issues in the future. For example, if a video program is broadcast over-the-air on a TV channel by a television station, it is subject to numerous restrictions and regulations, including the prohibition on indecent material, limitations on commercials in children's programming, rules governing political advertising, etc. However, if a video program is transmitted through the Internet, which is then, in turn, streamed into the home via a vacant television channel, there would be no such restrictions, despite the fact that it is an identical video program that is being delivered via the same television spectrum. In that scenario, it would be possible to essentially provide a broadcast-like service on a broadcast TV channel but with no broadcast restrictions and with no license. Previously, when the Commission reallocated portions of the reclaimed television Channels 52 to 69 for commercial wireless services, it required that if the new licensees of the reauctioned 700 MHz spectrum provided "broadcast-type services" then those services would be subject to all of the applicable broadcast rules. In the hypothetical posed above, however, there would be no new licensee providing a licensed service, but rather an unlicensed Wi-Fi operation permitting access to the Internet via the television spectrum. And, with the FCC pushing for universal access to broadband, the differences between television and the new media seem to disappear. What effect this evolution of media and technology has on the foundation of broadcast regulation remains to be seen.
Brendan, this article is so WRONG on so many levels.
Typical of something written by a millennial--and a lawyer!
(Sorry about that). Talk about going to a gunfight armed with a knife.
OK: Headline implies this is "reclaimed" spectrum. Repeat after me: There Is No New Spectrum. KAAA in Smalltown operated on Ch. 20 analog, KBBB in Metropolis on analog 40. After the DTV transition, KAAA is on ch. 40, KBBB Ch. 20.
More to the point, KXXX and KYYY moved from VHF channels to channel 24 and 44 respectively--so there is less spectrum.
Point No. 2: Streaming Ain't Broadcasting!!! Channel 49 here where I live pumps out a signal that anyone--with a good antenna or close to the transmitter--can plug into their digital TV for the latest NBC program. There is no effect on the signal whether there are 4 or 4000 digital TV sets tuned in. The same 6 mhz of bandwidth supplies all these sets.
Same NBC program on Hulu being streamed: 4 laptops = 4 digital streams. 8 laptops = 8 streams, 4000 laptops --the system crashes. Why we have this "spectrum gift" by the Commission to ATT, Microsoft, et al.--the present bands can't handle all the gadgets they want to sell.
Point 3--Other reports indicate the Commission is going to drop the requirement that these devices be "smart," that is, they will know not to use channels 27, 33, 36, 48, 50 in Washington. Apparently now they will be set-up when sold to use an "empty" channel in the area where they will be used.
Of course, these empty channels are used for wireless mikes in churches, schools, etc. But setting that aside, what guarantee is there that the device will stay put?
There is a Grand Canyon sized gulf between the IT guys and those of us who understand RF. We can be charitable and attribute the Commission's position here to this gulf. More likely, the decision has been made to kill over the air TV in favor of Silicon Valley's unquenchable thirst for more spectrum for all their toys. What no-one will recognize is even if they could use DC to light there will never be enough spectrum to accommodate all these devices.
Tom-
I agree with you that at the end of the day broadcasters still have only 6 MHz of spectrum, just as they had before the whole DTV transition all started. However, the fact is that for the past 12 or so years since the adoption of the 6th DTV Report and Order establishing the DTV Table of Allocations in 1997, broadcasters have had 12 MHz of spectrum as they were allocated a paired digital channel to accompany their original analog allotment. In 2009, after 12 years of occupying 2 channels, they have each returned one channel. Thus, compared to May of 2009 (i.e. pre-DTV transition) there are a bunch of "new" channels in this spectrum. Multiple parties, including broadcasters, have sought to tap these channels. Further, I think that the exercise of giving a paired channel to each existing television emphasized to some that there is potentially a lot of flexibility in the TV spectrum if we were able to squeeze out paired channels for ~1500 full power stations as part of the DTV transition.
With respect to your second and third points, I am not sure they are contrary to what I wrote or demonstrate that anything I said was wrong, so much as they continue the discussion and raise a couple of additional points.
And although I'm not a millennial, I'm not sure what in my piece is indicative of a Generation Y perspective, or that that is necessarily a bad thing. Clearly the Commission, the media industry, and technology are all moving rapidly into a new generation that will bear a scant resemblance to broadcasting of even five or ten years ago. And if, as you say, over-the-air TV is being killed off in favor of wireless broadband and new computing devices, then broadcasters need to be aware of that and start planning for, and participating in, the future.
Thanks for posting your comments.
Brendan
"Point 3--Other reports indicate the Commission is going to drop the requirement that these devices be "smart," that is, they will know not to use channels 27, 33, 36, 48, 50 in Washington. Apparently now they will be set-up when sold to use an "empty" channel in the area where they will be used.
Of course, these empty channels are used for wireless mikes in churches, schools, etc. But setting that aside, what guarantee is there that the device will stay put?"
Not entirely correct. OET has recommended only that the spectrum sensing requirement be eliminated. All TVBDs will still have to check in with the geo-location database prior to operation via hardwire connection or on a clear TV channel used by a fixed base through which the personal/portable TVBD would connect. However, TVBDs having to check the database only once a day, and with a 24 hour grace period should an internet link not be available, the efficacy of the database remains to be seen.
Further, if a TVBD moves more than 100 meters, it must re-check with the database.
Hi Brendan,
To the point of the last paragraph of your post concerning transmitting unrestricted content from the Internet via a vacant television channel, there are two potential cases:
1) The first, and highly-unlikely case, is that the content is transmitted in ATSC format so that it can be received by a compatible television set over-the-air. In this case, the "white spaces" service is simply acting as an unlicensed television station.
2) The second, and far more likely scenario, is that the content is transmitted in all or part of the bandwidth of a vacant television channel, but in a completely different format that can't be understood by an ATSC receiver. To view the content, some other device will be needed to decode and convert it to an analog or digital video signal (if the original content was even designed for that purpose.)
Brendan:
You, and many others still miss the point. There is no magical new spectrum. Before the conversion there were 228 mhz between Ch. 14 and 52. There is still 228 mhz, but now there are more full power channels shoe-horned into this band. (Low band VHF proving a poor band for DTV because of co-channel tropospheric interference, and the so-called "beachfront hi-vhf" also not working that well). As well as the various levels of community channels and translators using this band.
The Commission deliberately ignored some of its earlier interference rules to allocate companion channels during the transition. Many of the channels used during the transition to DTV were operated at minimum power, pending the cut-over, alleviating potential interference problems. However, the Commission --as experience has proved--underestimated the level of digital signal needed to provide reception. So many stations lost coverage with their new digital channel.
I will concede the implied point that interference from these devices may be a moot point where most of the OTA audience has already migrated to cable or satellite. But the question not being addressed is whether we should keep over the air TV. The white space proposal is akin to an attempt to settle a title dispute by adverse possession.
I have a broadcast auxiliary license to operate five wireless mics on frequencies anywhere between 174 and 216 mHz within a defined circle 50 miles in diameter -- a bit more imposing an authorization than that of your average school or church wireless mic. Of course this authorization is secondary to broadcast television operations, but nothing else, to my knowledge. If the new unlicensed devices are not "smart," how can whoever programs them possibly know at what locations and on what frequencies I might be using my wireless mics? The only way to be sure is not to ever allow any operation of these new devices in a circle 1962.5 sq. mi. in area on a band of frequencies 42 mHz wide, which would be the information provided to the programmer by the FCC database. I'm sure my situation is replicated all over the country. The FCC is really opening a can of worms.
In response to Len's comment, Yes, I agree completely that it will not be an ATSC compatible signal broadcast by an unlicensed device. I didn't mean to suggest that the signals would be receivable by a DTV tuner, but simply that video could be delivered over this spectrum that could look and feel like traditional broadcast offerings, but by virtue of the fact that it originates from the web or from some source other than a licensed broadcast television station and is not broadcast widely across the channel as a TV signal that is wouldn't be subject to indecency restrictions, etc., whereas a traditional broadcast station would.
And Greg, you've given one good example of the types of issues the FCC and the industry will need to address as this issue moves forward. Unlicensed Part 15 devices must not cause any harmful interference and must accept any interference caused to them. So they should not be permitted to cause harmful interference to a licensed secondary service. One advantage to your licensed operation is that it should be included and protected in any database established for this purpose, just as will a TV translator, LPTV, or full power TV station.
Thanks all for the comments and I know we'll be writing much more about this as the item moves forward.
Brendan
"I have a broadcast auxiliary license to operate five wireless mics on frequencies anywhere between 174 and 216 mHz within a defined circle 50 miles in diameter -- a bit more imposing an authorization than that of your average school or church wireless mic. Of course this authorization is secondary to broadcast television operations, but nothing else, to my knowledge. If the new unlicensed devices are not "smart," how can whoever programs them possibly know at what locations and on what frequencies I might be using my wireless mics? The only way to be sure is not to ever allow any operation of these new devices in a circle 1962.5 sq. mi. in area on a band of frequencies 42 mHz wide, which would be the information provided to the programmer by the FCC database. I'm sure my situation is replicated all over the country. The FCC is really opening a can of worms."
First, personal/portable devices are not permitted to operate in the VHF-TV bands, only UHF. Only fixed bases - presumably with hardwire connections to the internet - will operate on the VHF channels. Secondly, it's not an issue of someone programming the TVBDs; rather, as part of the firmware the TVBD must check in with a geo-location database to find a clear channel prior to operation. Your license(s) would be in the database but you will have to register on a per event/show/broadcast/shoot basis the days, times and channels in use as best as you can predict, unless you truly are a 365/24/7 operation, in which case you designate that in the database.
The real problem is going to be the 24 hour grace period and 24 pre-scheduled database check in: Should a TVBD power up or move at least 100 meters, which necessitates a database check, and can't establish an internet link, it now has a 24 hour grace period before it's required to check in again at it's predeterimined time and may operate unsupervised (on what channel has yet to be defined as far as I can determine). If it powered up minutes after it's predetermined check in time, and can not find an internet connection, it gets its 24 hour grace period plus almost 24 hours before its scheduled check in time resulting in almost 48 hours of unsupervised operation should it not move at least 100 meters.
Henry Cohen
Henry, entering pre-determined times and locations for our wireless mic use into a database is an impossibility. That's why these devices are licensed the way they are. By the way, currently schools and churches cannot operate wireless mics legally in the 174-216 mHz band, only devices licensed to broadcasters or commercial film/video producers are permitted. I maintain that this whole TVBD idea is potentially a technical and administrative mess.
Greg, I agree registering in the database for ENG type operations is not practical. It's OET's thinking those type of highly dynamic operations would use the two safe harbor channels. Since those two channels are on each side of 37, that won't do you, with your VHF equipment, much good. I also agree this whole thing is a train wreck waiting to happen; and wireless mics, in their current technological guise, are going suffer far more than TVBDs.
As far as non-Part 74 licensed wireless mic, coms, IEM and IFB operations in VHF, they are now permitted under the Part 15 waiver adopted in January's FCC 10-16; see paragraph 163.
Henry Cohen
Henry, you're right; that's what I get for not reading the entire R&O!