Posted on August 18, 2011 by David Oxenford

The Debate Continues Over Using TV Spectrum for Wireless Broadband - Incentive Auctions, International Considerations, Deficit Reduction, and Public Safety All Play a Role

The debate over repurposing some of the television spectrum for wireless broadband have been raging over the normally quiet Washington summer, as issues as diverse as the budget negotiations, the tenth anniversary of 9-11 and international treaties all play their part in the discussions.  Whatever changes are made could have a profound impact on TV broadcasters nationwide, not just those in the congested metropolitan markets where everyone acknowledges that any spectrum crunch that may exist would be most acute.  This week, Congressman John Dingell, long one of the most influential Congressmen on telecommunications issues, complained that the FCC was deliberately withholding details of its plans for spectrum allocation - plans that the National Association of Broadcasters have challenged as unworkable as they would doom over-the-air television in many markets, especially those near the Canadian border.  With all the issues swirling around the spectrum reallocation debate, the realistic timing of any reallocation of the spectrum and the real impact on the free over-the-air television broadcast industry are becoming major issues being considered in Washington.

The FCC has been pursuing the idea of repurposing some of the television spectrum for wireless broadband use since well before the Broadband Report was issued last year.  As we summarized in our review of the Broadband Report, the FCC suggested that as much as 120 MHz of television spectrum could be reallocated from TV to wireless broadband uses.  The FCC and the consumer electronics and wireless industries have contended that there is a looming spectrum crunch, particularly in major markets, as smart phones, tablets and other connected devices become a bigger part of the lives of many consumers in serving not only their entertainment needs, but also providing information and business services.  The FCC's Broadband Report thought that as much as 500 MHz of spectrum would eventually be needed, and that 120 MHz could come from the television spectrum, which proponents feel has been underutilized by broadcasters since the digital television transition in 2009.  Proponents of the reallocation contend most consumers get their TV service not over the air, but from cable or satellite providers, so the need for spectrum dedicated to broadcast television is far less than it was 70 years ago when the television service was first popularized.  Broadcasters, of course disagree with that assessment, contending that the digital transition is still very new, and that uses of the digital spectrum - including a mobile DTV service and multicast channels - are just developing.  Moreover, TV broadcasters have argued that their digital offerings, when combined with Internet service, are providing an option to many to "cut the cord" from pay TV options, leading to more over-the-air viewing.  In recent weeks, as detailed below, the National Association of Broadcasters has also been contending that the proposed reallocation would irreparably damage the over-the-air television industry, especially in markets in the Northeast and near the Canadian border where, in some markets, the reallocation would be impossible without ending most or all over-the-air television service.  The radically different pictures painted by the participants in this debate have led to some of the recent charges that the FCC is being less than forthcoming about the manner in which this transition would occur and the impact that it would have on broadcast TV. 

120 MHz is 20 television channels, and they are proposed to come from the UHF band, where most digital television stations now operate.  As part of the digital transition, the television band shrunk from Channel 2 through 69, to today's band which ends at Channel 51.  Most of the band formerly used for Channels 51 to 69 has already been auctioned off to wireless users - including a large swath that had been purchased by Qualcomm for its MediaFlo service that never took off and has already been abandoned, with the channels used by that service having been sold to AT&T, subject to FCC approval.  The FCC's current proposal, which was outlined in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (see our summary here) is to have "incentive auctions" to convince some television broadcasters to sell their channels to the FCC and cease broadcast operations, at which point the FCC would re-pack the television band into a much smaller part of the spectrum - theoretically reclaiming TV channels 32-51 for broadband use. These auctions cannot be held until the FCC is granted authority by Congress.  While several bills dealing with such authority have been introduced, none has yet made its way through either House of Congress.

The NAB has recently been reporting on a study it completed questioning whether a re-packing to Channels 2-31 is even possible.  The NAB study is said to demonstrate that, in many markets in the Northeast, and in markets near the Canadian border, sufficient channels in this range do not exist because of the protection needed to other broadcast and wireless users, and due to international treaty obligations (especially to Canada).  According to the NAB study, in Detroit, there would be no room on the spectrum for any of the existing television stations to continue their operations, and in markets like Seattle, Buffalo and Philadelphia, more than half the stations would have no place to go if this reclamation took place.  While the FCC and other repacking proponents have accused the NAB of engaging in scare tactics, they have not thus far specifically refuted the NAB's findings.  The failure to provide specific information about the mechanics of the repacking, after a request to do so, prompted Michigan Congressman John Dingell to write a stern letter to the FCC about their failure to respond to his requests for information (see this article in TV NewsCheck with links to the correspondence between Dingell and the FCC).

Beyond the possible impact in these specific markets identified by the NAB, why are broadcasters concerned?  There are a number of issues that they simply don't feel comfortable with under the various FCC proposals.  These include issues such as following:

  • How would incentive auctions work?  The auctions that are supposed to incentivize television stations to go out of business or to share frequencies with other broadcasters have not been detailed.  As the US treasury is looking to make money from the auctions to help reduce the Federal deficit, how much money will be left over to pay TV stations to give up their channels?
  • How will the repacking work?  Will stations be able to keep their current coverage area and interference protections?  Will they be forced to move to VHF channels, which so far have not been successfully used for digital operations (see our summary of the issues with DTV on VHF channels and a request in this week's FCC Public Notices of a station proposing to move from VHF to a UHF channel because of the difficulties of VHF reception, even after two power increases unsuccessfully attempted to improve that VHF signal).
  • If there is repacking into channels 2-31, who will pay the costs for TV stations that currently operate on channels 32-51 to move?  To make spectrum available nationwide to wireless carriers, the repacking will take place across the country, not just in the major metropolitan areas where the spectrum crunch is most acute.  Many stations, especially those in small markets, are still trying to recoup the substantial sums spent just two years ago to convert to digital, and needing to spend more to change channels could be a burden on many stations.  Will there be money to accommodate these costs from the proceeds of the incentive auctions?

Beyond the technical issues that are involved, other matters are driving the push for spectrum auctions. In the recent debt ceiling talks on Capitol Hill, one potential source of revenue to help reduce the budget deficit was spectrum auctions - presumably talking about the proceeds from the reclamation of parts of the television spectrum.  With the new Super Committee in Congress looking for all sorts of ways to reduce the deficit, one can expect that these auctions will be back on the table in the coming months.  The need for money for deficit reduction and the needs to reimburse broadcasters for their channels and for any government-mandated channel changes may clash in these upcoming talks.

With the impending 10th anniversary of the 9-11 attacks, there is also a press for better utilization of spectrum by first responders.  Some of the television spectrum that has already been reclaimed was to be used by public safety entities but, even though the spectrum has been available for years, it has not yet been deployed - at least partially because of funding issues.  Given the perceived value of the spectrum, and the lack of Federal money to pay for a spectrum buildout, auctions are also seen as a potential funding mechanism for public safety if these reserved channels are retained.  If so, that will put more pressure on the auction proceeds available to fund the buy-out of broadcasters.

Given all of these competing pressures, and broadcasters' practical concerns about their future, there is no telling when and if the repurposing of TV spectrum for broadband will take place.  The digital television transition itself took over 10 years, and in many ways, the issues here are more complex - fitting more stations into smaller spectrum, and figuring out how to compensate them for moving.  Watch for these issues to continue to be debated in the coming months, as the FCC continues its proceedings to design the incentive auctions and TV transition, and as Congress struggles with implementing legislation at the same time that it tries to reduce the Federal debt.  Look for a major struggle ahead. 

 

 
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted on April 14, 2011 by David Oxenford

As Broadcasters Return From NAB Convention, FCC Extends Date for Comments on Policies Leading to Repurposing TV Spectrum for Broadband

The FCC has granted a one week extension for reply comments in the proceeding looking to take many of the preliminary steps toward incentive auctions by which the FCC would reclaim parts of television spectrum for use by wireless broadband companies.  Comments are now due on April 25.  We wrote about the many issues in this proceeding, here.  Issues include the sharing of channels by independent television stations, whether stations that share spectrum are entitled to must carry rights under governing law, and how the FCC can change the digital television operational rules to make the use of VHF frequencies, where stations operating on those channels have experienced severe technical issues after the digital transition, more friendly for digital operations if the television spectrum needs to be repacked so that contiguous portions of the UHF band can be auctioned to wireless companies.

The extension was requested by a number of broadcast groups, partially based on the fact that the NAB Convention in Las Vegas has just concluded, and that there was much discussion at the Convention on the topic - including much discussion from FCC officials.  The broadcast community wanted the opportunity to respond to digest and respond to these discussions, thus the need for the brief extension.  This remains a very hot issue, with the FCC officials who attended the NAB Conference clearly pushing the agenda advanced in the Broadband Plan to reclaim some of the television spectrum for wireless uses.  Thus, these replay comments are very important, as they may set the stage for the incentive auctions and possible repacking of the television spectrum that may follow. 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on February 6, 2011 by David Oxenford

While Few Vie for New VHF TV Stations in NJ and Delaware, FCC Sets Comment Date on Improving VHF Digital Reception and TV Channel Sharing With Must Carry Rights As Ways to Help Clear TV Band for Broadband Users

The FCC's auction of new VHF TV channels in New Jersey and Delaware (about which we have written many times including here) has resulted in only three qualified bidders.  Despite this lack of interest in these VHF channels, the FCC seems to be looking at VHF as a way to facilitate its announced plans for the clearing of significant portions of the television spectrum for wireless broadband use.  The Commission this week set the comment date - March 18, 2011 - on ways to overcome the issues that have been posed to TV stations that have remained in VHF channels after the digital transition.  In the same proceeding, the FCC also seeks comments on allowing TV stations to share the same 6 MHz channel, with both stations retaining their cable and satellite must-carry rights.  That same proceeding implies that we may well have seen the last new over-the-air television stations.  This crucial proceeding on the future of the television band requires careful attention by all parties who may be affected by the many proposals contained in this relatively compact Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

The first part of the FCC's proposal (about which we previously wrote here), is to look at ways to get some of the television stations to give up their current channel to allow the FCC to use it for broadband, and having that station share another station's channel to continue to provide its program service on what is the equivalent of a digital subchannel.  The proposal to encourage multiple TV stations to share the same 6 MHz channel raises many issues.  First, the FCC recognizes that the proposal may result in some television stations giving up their ability to broadcast in High Definition (one of the principal reasons for the initial transition to digital), but suggests that stations sharing the same channel could work out "dynamic arrangements" to allow sharing the spectrum flexibly, increasing the portion digital bandwidth allocated to one station when it has programming that would benefit from higher definition, while switching some of the bandwidth allocation to the other station at other times. 

While the Commission assumes that each station will continue to exist as an independent station even when sharing a channel with another station, many of its questions in this proceeding seem to signal uncertainty about this conclusion.  Issues on which the Commission seeks comment include:

  • What effect will channel sharing have on the deployment of HD programming and mobile television?  The Commission does not ask about 3-D television, which some broadcasters have begun to experiment with, and might be worth a comment if there are those who expect that to be part of the television future that could be affected by channel sharing arrangements.
  • In channel sharing, would each station be able to maintain a Standard Definition signal at all times?
  • The Commission assumes that each station sharing a single channel (and thus a single transmission facility) would retain a separate license, and be individually responsible for FCC-rule compliance (e.g. EAS, indecency, children's television, political broadcasting, etc).  How would responsibility over the technical compliance be apportioned?
  • Should commercial and non-commercial stations be allowed to share the same channel?  Could commercial stations share channels that have, to this point, been reserved for noncommercial educational uses?
  • Will there be a loss in service to the public from such combinations?  Will there be television "white" and "gray" areas created, i.e. areas where there will be no over-the-air television service or only a single service?
  • Should cable and satellite service be included when evaluating questions of loss of service?
  • What impact should channel sharing have on other FCC rules, like the media ownership rules?

Perhaps the biggest issue with channel sharing is the cable and satellite carriage issue, which raised a number of issues for the Commission.  The issues, summarized below, also demonstrate the Commission's tentativeness in its conclusion that two stations sharing the same channel are really independent stations.

The Commission suggests that television broadcasters who elect to share channels would both be entitled to full must-carry rights on cable and satellite, even though these rights are currently accorded only to the primary video stream on any television station.  Thus, if two stations, who each currently operate on a 6 MHz channel were to combine their operations, then each would continue to have full must carry rights, even though one of those 6 MHz channels has been returned to the FCC for other uses.  This obviously raises issues.  Questions raised by the FCC include:

  • Are both of such stations "licensed and operating on a channel regularly assigned to its community", which is what is required by the statute covering mandatory cable carriage for commercial stations.?
  • For noncommercial stations, are both stations licensed to a specific principal community that has a Noise Limited Signal Contour over the cable headend, again the standard for carriage?
  • Are both stations still located in the DMA of the cable system?
  • What if one station on a shared channel elects must-carry, while the other elects retransmission consent.  Does that make any difference since the FCC proposes to recognize each as a primary station?
  • Are there any technical issues that would make mandatory carriage of such stations problematic?

The Commission also suggests that the ability of a station to elect channel sharing would be limited to those stations that currently (as of the date of the NPRM) have "existing applications, construction permits, or licenses."  Does this imply that future stations have no ability to later decide to combine their operations with another station in their area?  Or does this imply that there will be no future stations?  What will happen to those in the current VHF auction referenced in the first paragraph? 

 In opening television spectrum for wireless, the FCC has one significant problem, especially in congested areas like the Northeast.  Even if some stations choose to combine their operations, to open broad swaths of spectrum for wireless uses, the FCC will have to repack television stations into a smaller part of the band.  But that would require using the VHF channels which, in the experience of television broadcasters all around the country, is problematic for digital operations. Noise from other electronic devices and other coverage issues simply make that spectrum inferior for digital television operations.  So what is the FCC to do?  The Commission seeks comments on proposals to make VHF stations more digital friendly.  Questions include:

  • Will increasing the power permitted for VHF digital operations overcome interference issues?  How would this affect interference to other stations?  Would it overcome interference? (Some engineers at a recent FCC forum on the issue were skeptical)
  • To overcome potential interference that could arise from increased power, the FCC states that some have suggested that required distance between co-channel stations be increased, but also states that it finds it desirable to not increase such spacings.  Will spacings have to be increased? 
  • Will vertical polarization of stations decrease their susceptibility to interference?
  • Could the Commission establish mandatory performance standards for indoor antennas, and would that have an effect on the performance of VHF digital television stations?  Does the FCC have authority to do so?
  • Are there other ways to increase digital television operations on VHF channels?

The FCC also asks for comments on whether the current television spectrum should be redesignated in the FCC rules as shared-use spectrum, shared between television stations and wireless users.

Comments on these important issues are due on March 18, 2011, and replies on April 18, 2011.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
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: , , , , , , , , , , , ,