Posted on September 30, 2009 by David Oxenford

Will TV Channel 6 Be Used For Radio? - MMTC Petition Raises the Issue, Again

With the end of the DTV transition, the future use of TV channels 5 and 6, about which we have written before, is now back before the Commission in connection with an FCC filing by the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, whose "radio rescue petition" was recently placed on a public notice opening a 30 day public comment period.   The FCC already has before it comments filed in its Diversity proceeding suggesting that these channels be reallocated for radio use, as Channel 6 is immediately adjacent to the lower end of the FM band, and the sound from many analog channel 6 TV stations could be heard on FM receivers.  While this petition has been opposed by certain TV interests, it is interesting to note that many television operators have been acknowledging that VHF channels, which had been the preferred channels for analog operations, may not be as advantageous for digital use, especially in urban areas, and may be particularly problematic for use with mobile digital television systems which are about to be introduced.

 In an analog world, VHF channels (those between 2 and 13) were prized by broadcasters, as stations operating on those channels could operate at power levels significantly lower than UHF stations (saving electricity costs), and still cover greater areas.  Many broadcasters thought that these benefits, particularly the lower power costs, would carry over into the digital world, and opted to remain on VHF channels for their digital operations - in some case abandoning the UHF temporary transition channel on which they were operating digitally during the period when they were running both a digital and an analog station before the end of the transition, to return to their VHF channel for their final digital operation.  Right after the digital transition was complete and these stations had moved back to their old VHF channels for their digital operations, in several major markets, many broadcasters operating on VHF channels found that their digital operations had significant problems, as the power levels were insufficient to reach many over-the-air sets, particularly those using "rabbit ears" antennas in urban areas.  

In recent weeks, we have seen many stations, including those in major markets (like Chicago), petition the FCC to move abandon their VHF operations and move to a UHF channel for their digital operations, citing these reception issues.  Interestingly, many have also cited concerns about the ability of stations operating on digital VHF channels to operate successfully in a mobile environment, using the new mobile television system that is being developed and which is supposed to be rolled out quite soon.  I have heard technical people in the television industry express concern about the low power levels of these VHF stations and their ability, in a mobile environment, to provide a stable signal to receivers as well as stations on UHF channels.  A recent article in TV NewsCheck raises that same issue.

With these concerns, one would think that TV stations would not be concerned about the proposals to use channels 5 and 6 for radio - but that is not the case.  In at least one major market, there is no easy UHF channel for the TV operator to use.  In other markets, particularly more rural markets, where there is less interference from buildings and other RF radiation in the environment, these issues have not been as much of a concern.  Thus, TV station operators have been saving on electricity, and wonder who would bear the cost if they were forced to transition to another channel for their ultimate digital home. Thus, a number of TV broadcast companies have opposed the reallocation of channels 5 and 6 to radio.

In the recent LPTV filing window, petitions were filed by a group supporting the reallocation, which was supported by a number of other parties, asking that the Commission freeze new LPTV applications for Channels 5 and 6 while these issues are pending.  Moreover, as the FCC has never issued rules for radio stations now operating in areas where there used to be channel 6 stations (even though a transition process had been promised), noncommercial radio interests were concerned that the potential use of these channels by LPTV stations could preclude FM upgrade options for these stations operating within the current noncommercial reserved band.  The FCC has never ruled on these requests for a freeze on the LPTV applications on these channels.

Thus, the MMTC petition (which can be accessed from the MMTC homepage) brings focus back on the issue.  MMTC asks that the Commission convene an industry-wide committee to map out the transition of these channels for radio use, and to address some of the issues that have been raised with the repurposing of this spectrum.  Comments on the MMTC petition, which also raised many other issues for radio broadcasters, are due on October 23, 2009. 
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on October 6, 2007 by David Oxenford

FCC Plans More Testing of White Spaces Devices to Operate Within the Television Spectrum

On Friday, the FCC issued a public notice promising further testing of "white spaces" devices.   As we've written before, these devices are being promoted by many of the largest tech companies as ways to make more efficient use of the television spectrum by using low power wireless devices within that spectrum in places where those devices would not interfere with the operation of television reception.  The National Association of Broadcasters and other television groups have opposed allowing such operations for fear that they will cause interference to broadcast stations.  Especially during the digital transition, when listening habits are just being worked out and new digital televisions are just being purchase and installed by users, and because interference to a digital television station does not result in "snow" as in the analog world, but instead no picture at all, broadcasters fear that these devices could severely impact the success of the digital transition. 

In August, as we wrote here, the FCC released the first results of its interference studies, finding the potential for severe interference to television broadcasters.  While broadcast groups trumpeted these tests as proof of their fears, many of the tech companies claimed that the testing was flawed, using at least one device that was malfunctioning.  The tech companies essentially asked for a "do over," while the broadcasters argued that, even if a tested device was malfunctioning, that malfunction itself was enough to demonstrate that the devices are not reliable enough to protect television operations during this sensitive transition.

The NAB recently ran radio ads in DC opposing the white spaces initiative, held a press conference with members of sports organizations which also oppose the initiative (interference to wireless microphones is also feared), and otherwise signified broadcasters' opposition to the re-initiation of the FCC inquiry.  Both sides have been lobbying on Capitol Hill and at the FCC on this issue.  The Public Notice demonstrates that the issue is not dead, and the FCC will continue its review of the white spaces proposal. 

The Public Notice does not make any pronouncements about when the testing would occur, how long it would take, or when any decision could be expected out of the FCC on the issue.  It does not even indicate what devices will be tested - requesting that interested parties contact the FCC if they have devices that they want tested.  The issue is clearly one that will continue to be debated in Washington, and one that should be followed carefully both by broadcasters concerned about spectrum interference issues, and by tech companies looking for more access to spectrum for their wireless communications needs.  It is a war that likely still has many battles to be fought.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Comments (2)
  • Share Link
Posted on August 9, 2007 by David Oxenford

FCC Study Deals Blow to Television White Space Advocates

As the digital television transition continues, broadcasters have been concerned about the proposals made by a number of the major computer companies seeking the right to operate low power wireless devices in the spectrum used by television stations – in the so-called "white spaces" between channels. Because of the potential for interference, television obviously don’t operate on every channel in every city. The proposal by the tech companies, about which we wrote here, would allow unlicensed wireless devices to operate at low power within this spectrum, provided that such devices were “smart” enough to detect television signals and to avoid the use of channels that would interfere with these signals. Last week, the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology issued a report finding that the prototypes of these devices that had been made available for testing appeared to interfere with television signals. The report did note, however, that this testing should not be viewed as the end of the story on this issue, as further refinements to the devices might be able to eliminate the interference. The FCC has asked for comment on this report. Public comments are due on August 15, with replies on August 30.

The white spaces debate has been a very contentious one. The tech companies who favor it have argued that the efficient use of the television spectrum, and the congestion in other portions of the spectrum used by unlicensed devices, mandate attempts to allow these devices to operate in the television band on the condition that they do not interfere with TV uses. These companies contend that they should be able to create devices that can sense television stations and avoid interference to these stations.

Broadcasters, on the other hand, fear that the these devices will not be able to fully protect television signals. Especially in a DTV world, where a picture is either there or not (it doesn’t just get snowy as does an analog signal suffering from interference), the risk of allowing an interfering device are great. And given the fact that we’re now right in the middle of the digital transition, where there are bound to be issues even without the introduction of a whole new set of potentially interfering devices, it only makes sense to delay these devices for the the near term. Also, as broadcasters are now looking at introducing their own mobile devices reusing the digital television spectrum ( see our post, here), the Commission should not take any action at this time.

This issue has already been the subject of significant Congressional lobbying, as well as many meetings with the officials at the FCC considering the matter. Given the OET report, it would seem that the push to introduce the devices may slow for the near term. But given that the Commission's staff has left the door open to retesting new wireless devices to see if they can perform better than those initially tested, and the nature of the companies driving this proposal, don’t expect it to disappear for long.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Comments
  • Share Link