Posted on November 30, 2010 by David Oxenford

FCC Adopts Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Looking to Reallocate Some TV Spectrum to Wireless Broadband

The FCC today started an examination of the future of the spectrum currently used by broadcast television, beginning the formal process of implementing the ideas raised in its Broadband Plan of repurposing some of that spectrum for use by wireless broadband technologies. Specifically, the FCC adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, seeking comment on a number of issues. While the full text of the FCC’s order has not been released, many of the issues for consideration can be gleaned from the comments made at the FCC meeting. In the initial presentation made about the NPRM, it was stated that the principal issues to be addressed in the NPRM were:

  • Allowing new primary allocations in the television spectrum for fixed and mobile wireless users.
  • Providing a framework that would allow two or more broadcast television stations to share a single 6 MHz channel, retaining full must-carry rights for each station, while allowing for the return of spectrum to the FCC to be auctioned for wireless uses
  • Looking at ways to increase the value of VHF television channels (channels 2 through 13) for DTV use, including proposals to allow stations operating on such channels to operate at higher power and to increase performance standards for indoor antennas

Co-primary uses could be important for many TV users, as currently LPTV and TV translator stations are secondary services, implying that such services might be preempted by new primary wireless users.  The enhancement of the VHF spectrum would be important to any attempt to dedicate significant spectrum to wireless broadband without substantial disruption to over-the-air television, as without the use of those channels (which are underutilized, particularly in urban markets, as they have proved to be very susceptible to interference and do not provide as broad coverage as VHF analog service did), the ability to repack the TV spectrum to clear portions of the spectrum for wireless would be very restricted in the major metropolitan areas where any spectrum crunch is likely to be most acute. 

As FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski stated, this was an efficient presentation on an important issue. The explanation of the proposals took far less time than each of the Commissioner’s individual statements, all of which raised important issues that will be addressed in this proceeding.   The FCC public notice about this proceeding is available by clicking here.  But an examination of each of the Commissioner's statements (which are available through the links on their names, below) is important to understand the scope of the issues to be addressed by the FCC. 

Commissioner Copps spoke first, indicating that he was cautiously optimistic about the proposals. But Copps was very concerned about the potential impact on broadcast television, recognizing the public interest benefits of over-the-air television. The Commissioner stated that he believed that Digital Television provided the potential for broadcasters to develop new programming on multicast streams, especially programming addressing local needs. But he stated that he was disappointed by his perception that few broadcasters were taking advantage of the new opportunities to provide local services stating that, if broadcasters had done so, he would not be supporting efforts to redeploy some of the television spectrum to wireless broadband. In fact, Commissioner Copps suggested that, if broadcasters demonstrate a commitment to local services that use the whole of their spectrum, he could be convinced that changes in the TV band are not in the public interest. 

The Commissioner also expressed some degree of skepticism about the ability of the FCC to do anything to enhance the operation of Digital Television in the VHF band. Recounting his experience as acting FCC Chairman during the final phases of the DTV transition, and the Commission’s attempts to overcome issues that arose after stations converted to digital on VHF channels, he indicated that any real changes that would make VHF channels more useful for DTV might well be a very difficult process – but he had no objection to the FCC exploring the issue. 

Finally, he said that he hoped that parties would address whether reallocation of TV spectrum to broadband would indeed benefit consumers. He asked whether auctions of more wireless spectrum would actually lead to lower prices and more consumer-friendly wireless broadband options.

Commissioner McDowell echoed Commissioner Copps in praising the public interest benefits of broadcast television and in recounting the difficulties of using VHF channels for DTV operations during the DTV transition. McDowell raised some interesting issues not highlighted in the comments of other Commissioners, asking why broadcasters themselves could not provide some or all of the wireless broadband service that the FCC seeks. McDowell noted that broadcasters can already provide ancillary and supplemental services on portions of their television channels. If there is such a need for wireless uses of this spectrum, broadcasters themselves might be able to provide that service as an ancillary and supplemental service. McDowell specifically asked a few questions about this ability on which he would like to see comments, including:

  • Whether broadband through ancillary TV spectrum is technically feasible
  • How would it work?
  • Would such uses be faster to implement than the reclaiming of the spectrum and the use of incentive auctions?
  • Would such uses be more efficient than the other proposals being considered by the FCC?

Commissioner Clyburn was also generally supportive of exploring the issues raised by the Commission, but she was particularly concerned about the impact that any repurposing of the spectrum would have on those who are particularly reliant on over-the-air television. She stated that, during the DTV transition, the FCC noted that senior citizens and the poor were particularly reliant on over-the-air TV, and could be most impacted by any change to TV accessibility.

Commissioner Attwell Baker also had her own particular take on these issues. Commissioner Attwell Baker stated that it was important that the FCC approach these issues with an open mind – not with a preconceived notion of the final outcome. She also noted, as we have in prior articles on this topic, that it has been less than a year and a half since the end of the DTV transition, so that it was important that the FCC not now take actions that could lock any service provider into today’s technology – perhaps an indication that the FCC should not take decisions that will lock television broadcasters into their current business model. Instead, any decision should allow them to adopt new technologies – perhaps including technologies like the Mobile DTV systems that will soon roll out. Commissioner Attwell Baker’s comments were also notable for her suggestion that other technologies – like MPEG 4 instead of MPEG 2, OFDM technologies instead of the current ATSC digital television standard, and cellularized television operations – should be explored. Finally, the Commissioner suggested that the Commission should also consider the impact of its decision on the broadcaster’s public interest obligations. Should the same public interest obligations apply to a broadcaster who is sharing spectrum as currently apply to broadcasters who have a full 6 MHz to exploit?

Chairman Genachowski spoke last, and was obviously most enthusiastic about the proposal. He is looking to wireless broadband to spur the economy and to maintain American industrial competitiveness, and has identified the “beachfront” spectrum of broadcasters as ideal for this use. He was particularly concerned with broadcasters who were not now currently using their entire 6 MHz allocation – likening a television channel to a train, and the unused capacity to empty boxcars. He suggested that channel sharing arrangements would give broadcasters the opportunity to cooperatively fill the empty boxcars. He also remarked that it was an inefficient use of the spectrum to dedicate so much of it to a service that only 10% of the population use (claiming that only 10% of the population gets their video programming over the air). The Chairman said that this was the time to begin exploring the issues raised by this proposal, even before Congress has approved incentive auctions, as the FCC will be poised to move quickly once that authority is granted. 

There are obviously weighty issues to be discussed in this proceeding.  We will write more about the proposals when we have reviewed the full texts of the FCC rulemaking notice. But all interested parties should be prepared to file comments on the important issues raised by the NPRM when the comment filing dates are established. 
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on November 26, 2010 by David Oxenford

The Future of the Broadcast Media - As the FCC Meeting Next Week Considers What to Do With the TV Spectrum

After Thanksgiving - everyone's thoughts turn to technology policy.  Well, maybe not everyone, but reading Thursday's New York Times, David Pogue wrote his column celebrating his 10th anniversary in the paper with observations about truths that he has discovered about the technology world.  Many of those same truths apply to broadcast policy, and are particularly relevant with a week coming up in which the FCC may take its first steps toward dramatically reshaping the media landscape as it considers the future of the television spectrum, and potentially repurposing some of that spectrum for wireless broadband.  Pogue's first observation was that new technology does not replace old technology - instead it merely provides more choice to the consumer.  He points out that TV did not replace radio, and that satellite radio didn't replace radio either.  Instead, these services became complements, perhaps eroding the audience of the established technology in some ways, and perhaps making the older technology redefine its mission, but the older technology survived, and remained relevant.  We've written similar observations about the future of radio - it's a technology that reaches masses with no incremental costs for adding new listeners - and is now and, for the foreseeable future will be, the most efficient way to reach large audiences with popular formats.

It is a similar story with other communications media.  And we sometimes over-react to short term trends believing that some audience erosion for a particular technology will result in its doom, when in fact it may just result in some form of re-invention.  In the last two years, we've seen print media go from being left for dead, to being part of one of the most talked about media deals of the last month - the merger between the Daily Beast and Newsweek to bring a print component to a new media darling.  Television, too, is not dead yet - it still the most watched source of video programming, whether distributed over the air or through some multichannel video transmission source, with over-the-air programming about to get a new take as mobile DTV begins its roll-out in the coming months. Recently, there has even been the occasional article about consumers "cutting the cord" - relying on over-the-air TV, supplemented by web video content, to drop their cable or satellite connection.  As Pogue suggests, all these media will continue to survive and offer choices to consumers.  But Pogue does not take into account the potential impact of a fundamental change in regulatory policy that intervenes to disrupt the natural progression of the marketplace.

At next Tuesday's FCC meeting, the Commission will begin its consideration of the future of over-the-air TV, as initially laid out in its Broadband Plan.  While we will see the specifics of the FCC action this coming week, they are rumored to include proposals to encourage the compression of the TV band - encouraging TV stations to move into the VHF band (apparently, despite laws imposed by physics, not by man, which have thus far dictated that these channels suffer from more interference and worse coverage than DTV stations that operate on UHF channels), to share channels (by multicasting programming now appearing on separate channels, perhaps in Standard Definition instead of true HD), and, in some cases, to surrender channels entirely in exchange for some share of auction proceeds from so-called "incentive auctions."   How these changes will be implemented will be seen after the meeting.  Assuming that the changes are voluntary options afforded to broadcasters and not mandates, the changes may assist in the natural evolution of television.  But, if mandated or otherwise forced (e.g. through spectrum taxes on some perceived value of the frequencies), then regulatory changes may artificially affect the natural progression of the media.

Pogue also notes his observation that people often have very personal reactions to technology, and those reactions can color their perceptions about whether change is good or bad - with two people looking at the same change but from different personal biases having completely different reactions to the same change.  We have noted that how a personal bias can affect the reaction to regulatory events, for instance in reaction to changes in rules regarding HD radio, with some detractors being the first to comment on any post we write about that technology, convinced that it will do nothing but degrade the FM band, while others see it as a way to bring new life to radio.  That same observation applies to the changes being considered for TV.  Some, apparently including many at the FCC, see broadband, and wireless broadband in particular, as the way in which people will receive entertainment and information in the future - essentially dooming TV as we have known it for the past 70 years.  Others see a renaissance of over-the-air television being upon us with the new potential of the Digital Television transition being recognized through new opportunities for programmers on multi-cast channels and, with mobile DTV just beginning to be rolled out, for new services that will reinvent the service for the future.  After all, it has been less than 18 months since the digital transition for over-the-air TV was completed.  Another truism we have heard about technology is that people tend to overreact to changes in the short-term, while underestimating those changes in the long term.  Of course, those long-term consequences are the most difficult to predict.  One hopes that the actions of the government in the upcoming week don't reflect the attitudes of a few who overestimate the impact of new technologies and artificially restrict the choices of consumers in selecting their own media future. 
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on July 19, 2010 by David Oxenford

FCC Authorizes Mobile DTV Receivers Without Analog Tuners - Further Signals of the End of Analog LPTV, and Raises Questions of Recapture of TV Spectrum for Broadband

Last week, the FCC's Media Bureau granted waivers of the requirement that television tuners be capable of receiving both analog and digital television transmissions, but only with respect to tuners meant for mobile use.  The FCC justified the waivers of the All Channel Receiver Act given the technological constraints that an analog reception chip would put on mobile receivers meant for the reception of the Mobile/Handheld Digital Television Standard (A/153) signals.  This signal is being tested now to allow television broadcasters to provide mobile programming in addition to their current over-the-air broadcast signals - a service planned for commercial roll out at the end of the year.  These waivers, granted in response to requests by Dell and LG Electronics, not only signal the seriousness with which this new service is being regarded, but also provide evidence of the coming end of analog television, now used solely by LPTV stations.   

In considering the waiver, the Commission recognized that the only television stations that would be affected by the lack of an analog tuner were LPTV stations, and no such stations opposed the waiver request.  As one of the waiver proponents noted, analog television signals were not meant for mobile reception, and thus the lack of such a receiver in a mobile device was no big loss.  Moreover, the FCC noted that the digital conversion of LPTV stations has already begun, in that it no longer accepts applications for new analog LPTV stations.  The Commission reiterated that it will soon set a date for the final conversion of the last analog LPTV stations to digital.  Thus, the failure to receive analog would be, at most, a temporary issue.

The order allows mobile receivers to leave out not only the analog tuner, but also a tuner that is capable of receiving normal over-the-air digital television pictures, as long as their is a clear disclosure to consumers that these tuners are not capable of receiving normal analog or digital television programming.  Thus, these will be dedicated devices for the new mobile television service. 

One interesting note is that the success of this service will make it more difficult for the Commission to reclaim television spectrum for broadband use.  The old VHF channels, still used by some television stations, though much less congested than in analog days, are reportedly not very good for mobile use.  Were the Commission to try to take back television spectrum for broadband use, where could they put the TV stations displaced from the reclaimed spectrum, especially if they have successful mobile operations?  Thus, the services which this ruling promotes may help to shape the debate about the broadband recapture. 
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,