Updates from Patrick McFadden Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Patrick McFadden 11:36 am on May 3, 2017 Permalink  

    Rules, Schmules 

    Although it’s one of only four nationwide wireless carriers and has its corporate roots in a foreign state-run monopoly, T-Mobile fancies itself the brash outsider in the wireless marketplace. The company touts itself as the “Un-carrier.” It doesn’t play by the same rules as other wireless carriers, and it’s not afraid to say so.

    Literally:

    tmobile

    Pursuing that self-image can be a slippery slope, however. Like a teenage boy playacting at being a rebel by growing his hair out, wearing a leather jacket to class and stealing a car for a joyride, T-Mobile sometimes overdoes it. For example, T-Mobile was recently cited for marketing “unlimited” data plans while in reality throttling heavy data users and has also been the subject of recent stories alleging fraudulent, predatory cramming and upselling practices. One might suggest that the company has gotten a wee bit carried away with this whole “breaking the rules of wireless” thing.

    T-Mobile also has a small problem with accuracy, or what some might call the truth. Let’s not forget that T-Mobile is the company that went to absurd lengths in stomping its magenta sneakers about the need for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to set aside spectrum in the incentive auction for everyone not named AT&T and Verizon, going so far as to come up with the world’s most pathetic superhero movie to try to make its point. According to T-Mobile, this set-aside was critical to prevent Verizon and AT&T from foreclosing the Un-carrier’s access to “low-band” spectrum.

    Was it though? At the end of the day, Verizon and Sprint didn’t even bid in the auction, and AT&T barely scratched the auction’s surface, spending a fraction of what T-Mobile did. Oops. Our bad, guys.

    Since no one seemed to notice that T-Mobile was full of, let’s say, “magenta,” T-Mobile figured it would raise its game. The company hired an economist to estimate how many stations would be repacked following the auction. Never mind that the economist in question was previously best known for predicting that wireless carriers would bid $84 billion in the incentive auction. Yes, that guy definitely had a lot of credibility.

    Has anyone pointed out that T-Mobile and its trade association had it all wrong? Nope.

    At this point, we are all almost daring T-Mobile to stay on its “Un-carrier” or “We-don’t-follow-any-rules” roll. As Charlie Ergen would say, as long as no one notices, why not go bigger, bolder?

    Taking a page from the DISH auction playbook, T-Mobile’s CEO, John Legere, decided to blatantly ignore the FCC’s strict rules against talking about the auction results before the end of its official “quiet period,” and instead boasted about T-Mobile’s self-proclaimed success. While other bidders dutifully obeyed the FCC’s mandatory quiet period, T-Mobile figured that it had gotten away with just about everything else, so why bother containing its excitement.

    We’ll see if the government has anything to say about T-Mobile’s willingness to flaunt its rules in this instance and whether the powers that be will finally catch on to T-Mobile’s pattern of “Un-following” the rules and playing fast and loose with “Un-facts.” Yes, the FCC should take experienced auction player T-Mobile to task for its plain violation of the rules. But the government should also take a moment to ponder the pattern and wonder just how much it can take T-Mobile at its “Un-word.”

    What the FCC does next has important implications for broadcasters and their viewers across the country. T-Mobile’s latest project is to cram – no pun intended, I swear – down everyone’s throat a nearly wholesale reorganization of broadcast television stations in record time. Never mind if it relies on faulty assumptions and heavy handshakes and leaves underserved communities without access to over-the-air television or radio. Hey, rules are meant to be broken, right?

    Trouble is, they aren’t. T-Mobile should be held to the same standard as everyone else. The FCC can no longer rely on T-Mobile’s now consistently dubious claims. The company has fallen in love with its Un-carrier status so much so that it believes the rules – the FCC’s, the Federal Trade Commission’s or the laws of physics – no longer matter. But the rules are there to protect American consumers, and we have little doubt this FCC will now enforce them.

     
  • Patrick McFadden 11:05 am on February 27, 2017 Permalink  

    Radio Silence 

    Relocating television stations to new channels following the close of the TV broadcast spectrum incentive auction will be the most complex transition the Federal Communications Commission has ever overseen. We know that many stations will be repacked, we know that there are constraints on the resources available to perform this work, and we know there are hugely complex interference relationships between broadcast television stations.

    But we don’t yet have a full picture as to which stations will be moving to new channels, and what the ramifications of those moves will be. For example, many towers that are home to repacked television stations are also home to FM radio stations, which are not being repacked.

    During the incentive auction rulemaking, NAB and others asked the Commission to allow repacked television stations to reimburse other broadcasters, including FM stations located near repacked television stations, for costs those stations might incur during the repack. It seems reasonable to us that, if an FM station, an innocent bystander to the repack, needs to construct alternative facilities to stay on the air during repacking work performed on a nearby television station, this should be considered a reasonable expense associated with the repack. The FCC disagreed, citing the language of the legislation authorizing the incentive auction.

    Regardless, those FM stations and their millions of listeners are still there. They still face the real possibility that repacking may disrupt their operations, even though they have literally nothing to do with the incentive auction. Work on nearby television antennas may require FM stations to reduce power, or seek alternate facilities. A repacking plan that does not take FM stations into consideration risks depriving listeners of local radio on which they rely. The right answer is to coordinate repacking efforts to minimize disruption, while also reimbursing bystander stations for costs they incur to maintain service – not to make them collateral damage.

    Over the coming months, the scope of work for the repack will become increasingly clear. The FCC has already informed television stations, confidentially, of their new channel assignments, and in April we expect the FCC to release this information publicly, providing a more definite understanding of the post-auction landscape. A balanced, reasonable repacking plan will treat all stakeholders fairly, including all affected broadcast stations, whether they are repacked or not.

     
  • Patrick McFadden 11:12 am on December 9, 2016 Permalink  

    ATVA’s New Trick: Slow Rolling Next Generation TV 

    The American Television Alliance (ATVA), one of the leading voices of the pay-TV industry, has a big problem. Up until now, ATVA’s primary raison d’être (that’s French for “how do we get people to keep funding us”) has been retransmission consent. When pay-TV companies want to resell programming from local television stations, they typically negotiate with local stations for that right. ATVA’s entire policy agenda revolved around trying to drive up its members’ profit margins by talking the government into interfering in private contractual negotiations on their behalf.

    Unfortunately, ATVA had a bad year in that regard. Not a routinely bad year, more of a Charlie Sheen meltdown kind of year. ATVA’s retransmission consent campaign fell completely flat.

    (In fairness, in order to prevail, ATVA would have to convince the government that your cable company is actually a sympathetic victim that just can’t quite squeeze enough money out of you every month. This was always a long shot.)

    Having failed to hoodwink regulators into profitable market manipulation, ATVA is desperately seeking to raison a little more être heading into 2017 to justify continued contributions from its pay-TV benefactors. And ATVA thinks it has just the ticket: stifling innovation to protect its members from competition.

    In April, broadcasters, together with representatives of the consumer electronics industry and public safety, asked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to allow broadcasters to voluntarily use a new transmission standard that can offer better pictures, better sound, enhanced emergency alerting and expanded opportunities for diverse programming. It’s called Next Generation TV, and we think you’re going to love it.

    ATVA knows this. Some of its members are beginning to offer 4K, ultra-high-definition programming, as are over-the-top service providers. If you’ve shopped for a television set lately, you know that 4K capability is becoming ubiquitous. It certainly seems to be where the market is headed. The only way broadcasters can offer such programming, and thus the only way consumers have the option of receiving this programming for free, is if the FCC allows broadcasters to deploy Next Generation TV.

    And voila, ATVA’s 2017 membership renewal campaign: Slow Rolling Innovation to Protect Pay-TV Providers from Competition! (They’re still workshopping that slogan.) Want to take advantage of your new 4K television? If ATVA can stall approval of Next Gen TV, you won’t have a free over-the-air option for ultra-high-definition programming. ATVA’s members will be the only game in town. That ought to keep the checks rolling in!

    So ATVA is earnestly advising the FCC that it should take special care to understand whether Next Gen TV “would allow broadcasters to collect the benefits of the transition…while externalizing much of the associated costs to others.”[1] They’ve even italicized benefits and costs to make sure the FCC notices.

    There’s just one problem with ATVA’s 2017 fundraising drive: it’s transparently, embarrassingly anti-consumer. Stunning pictures, more immersive audio, enhanced emergency alerts and more diverse programming? Those are all benefits for consumers. Broadcasters are not seeking to externalize costs; they are expressly seeking permission from the FCC to make significant investments in their facilities to improve the service they offer – without government subsidies, without additional spectrum and without leaving viewers behind. It’s one thing to paint yourself into a rhetorical corner, it’s quite another to actually highlight the words paint and corner to make sure no one misses them.

    We’re confident the FCC, once again, won’t be fooled. ATVA will just have to go back to the drawing board.

    [1] Letter from Mike Chappell, Executive Director, ATVA to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 16-142 (Dec. 2, 2016) (emphasis in original).

     
  • Patrick McFadden 12:50 pm on June 24, 2016 Permalink
    Tags: DISH,   

    Dishceptive Advertising 

    It’s not at all uncommon for us to find ourselves marveling at DISH’s signature cocktail of chutzpah and hypocrisy. DISH is the common denominator in roughly three out of four service disruptions resulting from retransmission consent impasses, yet, when its customers lose access to programming they value because of DISH’s intransigence, DISH brazenly rolls out a carefully orchestrated campaign to blame broadcasters in an effort to secure regulatory favors from the FCC. In DISH’s latest broadcaster hold-up – this time with Tribune Broadcasting – it has taken things one step further and publicly announced it is suing its negotiating partner in federal district court. And, upon reading the complaint, we have to admit that DISH has really outdone itself this time.

    DISH’s suit concerns advertisements and websites Tribune has used to educate viewers as to why they can’t view Tribune’s programming on DISH. DISH accuses Tribune of tarnishing and diluting the value of DISH’s trademarks by using words like “dishgusting” and “dishturbing” to describe DISH’s conduct. So, from the outset, it’s clear that DISH’s suit is a very serious, credible attempt to enforce its rights and is totally worth a court’s time (and absolutely should not have been filed in Comic Sans font).

    DISH is also outraged that Tribune would suggest that DISH customers who are frustrated by their inability to receive Tribune programming consider switching to another service provider. According to DISH, urging customers to switch service providers causes real harm because, when customers do switch, DISH cannot get them back. Given how sensitive the company appears to be about dishparagement, someone should alert DISH that it just admitted that customers who try another service provider are a bit like Taylor Swift – they are never, ever, ever getting back together with DISH.

    Besides, isn’t trying to get customers to choose your service offerings instead of your competitors’ sort of the whole point of advertising? DISH itself uses advertising to try to convince customers of other service providers – including DirecTV, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Charter and Verizon – to switch to DISH. The complaint seems dishingenuous, at best.

    But it’s not just that customers may leave. DISH is also extremely frustrated that customers call DISH to complain, or get more information. DISH is clearly dishappointed at the prospect of having to spend more time talking to dishgruntled customers who are frustrated by the dishruption in their service.

    DISH’s super serious, thoughtful complaint that you definitely should not take lightly or make fun of in any way also accuses Tribune of making dishceptive claims by asserting that customers gave DISH the lowest rating for value in a 2015 customer service survey. According to DISH, it didn’t really finish last for value in that survey; rather, the company finished tied for last. In effect, DISH is claiming that Tribune is off base because even though DISH received the lowest rating, it shared that honor with other companies. Put differently, DISH’s lawsuit is premised in part on the notion that, while its customers think DISH provides terrible value, they don’t think it provides uniquely terrible value. It’s more a run of the mill terrible value. This is such an important dishtinction that DISH adds in a footnote that the company again finished tied for last for value in a 2016 survey. Just so everyone knows this wasn’t an anomaly.

    At bottom, of course, this suit is nothing more than a dishtraction. DISH’s subscribers currently can’t access programming they value through DISH because DISH would rather pay below-market rates for programming. That’s what this dishpute boils down to. If the company really wanted to provide a dishincentive for customers to leave, it might consider engineering fewer service dishruptions that deprive customers of their desired programming.

     
  • Patrick McFadden 1:20 pm on March 23, 2016 Permalink
    Tags: , ,   

    Time to Stick to the Facts and Find the Right Answer 

    These are exciting times. The long-anticipated broadcast television spectrum incentive auction is scheduled to begin in less than one week. Designing the reverse and forward auctions has been a herculean task, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) staff deserves a great deal of credit for bringing the auction to this point in a timely fashion. But, unfortunately for the Commission, once the auction is complete, its work is only half done. That’s because the end of the auction brings perhaps the most challenging phase of all: repacking many hundreds – if not more than a thousand – broadcasters to new frequencies in the television band.

    As NAB has repeatedly documented, broadcasters have serious concerns about the arduous repacking process ahead. After all, it took the better part of a decade and three extensions of time to complete the digital television (DTV) transition, which involved relocating far fewer broadcasters, did not rely on flash cuts and was buttressed by tens of millions of dollars designed to help consumers make the switch to digital. Above all, however, the greatest worry with respect to the upcoming 600 MHz transition is the Commission’s current rule requiring every broadcaster to complete its involuntary relocation within only 39 months following the auction. If the FCC is serious about repacking as many as 1,300 broadcasters, anyone who has any understanding of the broadcast industry knows that it is impossible to accomplish that task in such a short period of time.

    Fortunately, the FCC commissioners have uniformly recognized the challenges associated with the repack and have indicated in testimony before Congress that – despite the current rules – they in no way want to see any broadcaster forced off the air for reasons beyond their control.

    On the other hand, the FCC’s chairman has continued to insist that the 39-month timeline is sound. When pressed by Congress to defend that deadline given that the FCC has not done any serious analysis of what it would actually take to conduct a nationwide repack, the chairman explained that 39 months was a reasonable timeline, because, after all, even NAB had originally suggested that 30 months would be sufficient. This answer is disingenuous, and given that it has been repeated on several occasions by Commission staff, it’s time to address and bury it once and for all.

    More than three years ago, NAB submitted its initial comments in the incentive auction proceeding (then under Chairman Julius Genachowski) recommending that the FCC extend its proposed timeline for moving stations to new channels following the upcoming broadcast spectrum incentive auction. The FCC had proposed a minuscule 18-month timeline, to which NAB responded, “[t]he 18-month construction time frame proposed in the Notice for relocating stations is unrealistically short.”[1] At the time, NAB assumed, as many did, that the Commission was considering relocating “approximately 400 to 500 stations.”[2] Thus, NAB recommended that the FCC extend the deadline to 30 months, which should be enough time to “allow most stations to complete” the transition.[3] In addition, to stretch that 30 months as long as possible, NAB also proposed that “the forward auction should not be deemed completed until, or after, the time at which stations file their construction permit applications,”[4] which the Commission did not adopt. And finally, NAB made clear that “based on television stations’ experiences in the DTV transition, stations in certain metropolitan areas (such as New York City and Denver) and stations in border areas requiring international coordination could require substantially longer than even three years to construct new facilities.”[5]

    Thus, not only did NAB rely on information at the time that suggested only 400 to 500 stations would move, and seek to push back the starting point for the timetable until after construction permits were issued, we also asserted that even repacking all of 400 to 500 of stations would require more than 30 months.

    Beyond those inconvenient details, there have been three important developments in the intervening three-plus years. First, the FCC released a set of sample repacking scenarios in the summer of 2014, suggesting that the Commission is likely to repack far more stations than NAB anticipated in our 2013 comments. Instead of moving perhaps 400 stations to new channels, the FCC’s publicly released simulations suggested that the FCC could require more than 1,300 stations to relocate. Second, once the FCC released this data, NAB commissioned a study – the first of its kind – to examine each of the challenging elements that make up a nationwide repack of many hundreds or more than 1,000 stations. Third, in May 2014, the FCC surprised everyone by adopting a “death penalty” repacking rule that would require stations unable to complete their transitions within 39 months – no matter what the reason – to go off the air. The rule did not contemplate any exceptions or extensions – a rigid and inflexible deadline that no one anticipated.

    Faced with this new information, NAB re-evaluated the timeline for the upcoming broadcaster transition. It became immediately clear that 39 months would not provide sufficient time to repack the number of stations the Commission was anticipating. As a result, NAB has asked the Commission to establish aggressive, but achievable, deadlines for repacked television stations after the auction, when more is known about many stations will move, where they are located and to which channels they will be moved.

    This evolution is certainly reasonable. New facts and circumstances demand new solutions. While it is concerning that some continue to hide behind comments NAB submitted more than three years ago under different circumstances, it’s frightening that these same officials are hiding at all. The point of the repacking conversation is not to prove who is right; rather it’s to get it right. As the FCC pivots to thinking about repacking – which is now likely less than a year away – rather than being cute about past comments, it should actually engage and wrestle with the enormously complex repacking problem ahead. Only that course will give the broadcasting and wireless industries confidence that the post-auction transition will be a success.

    [1] Comments of the National Association of Broadcasters at 50, GN Docket No. 12-268 (Jan. 25, 2013).

    [2] Id. at 50.

    [3] Id. (emphasis added).

    [4] Id.

    [5] Id. (emphasis added).

     
  • Patrick McFadden 12:09 pm on February 16, 2016 Permalink  

    The Best Things in Life Are Free (Even When You’re Worth More Than Half a Trillion Dollars) 

    “I don’t care how much money you have, free stuff is always a good thing.”
    – Queen Latifah

    While I don’t believe that Queen Latifah had Google in mind when she uttered this well-known line, she might as well have.

    Google has a lot of money. Not just a lot of money, but A LOT of money. Sporting a market capitalization of $548 billion, Google has passed Apple as the most valuable company on the planet.

    Thus, it’s safe to assume that, if Google wanted or needed something, it could afford to buy it. For example, Google has expressed an interest in “low band” spectrum. Given its interest in spectrum, one would assume that Google would be a major player heading into the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) upcoming broadcast spectrum incentive auction. This auction will feature as much as 100 megahertz of prime low band spectrum. It would be a perfect opportunity for Google to acquire spectrum usage rights, and Google’s participation would have the added benefits of raising billions in auction revenues for the government and helping to ensure the auction’s success.

    However, despite its interest in using spectrum, Google isn’t going to play in the auction. Sorry, Congress. Sorry, FCC. No dice.

    Why did Google decide to sit out yet another spectrum auction? The smart money is on Google recognizing Queen Latifah was really on to something. Even if you’re worth well more than half a trillion dollars, free stuff is still a good thing.

    Rather than bid in the auction, Google believes it has found access to free spectrum it can monetize. For the past year, Google has helped lead the charge behind the scenes to push the FCC to simply reallocate spectrum during the auction process for Googley purposes. Reallocation has no price tag. It’s just a gift. In this instance, Google has managed to convince the FCC to consider taking even more channels away from free, over-the-air television after the auction, and designating them for companies like Google. Never mind that this would kill off more free, diverse and rural television service across the country. Never mind that it will hamper innovation by companies not named Google. And never mind that it will crush any hopes of new and diverse entrants into the broadcast industry. If Google sees an opportunity to throw its $548 billion weight around and wind up with some spectrum schwag, why not do it?

    It’s also not for Google to care whether or not this is the right outcome for the country. Let’s face it, Google and its interest-group contractors can’t articulate any tangible benefits for the government’s gift. If the FCC moves forward with its Google Channel proposal it would be asking us to simply give Google the benefit of the doubt. The FCC isn’t attaching any specific public interest obligations to users of this spectrum, or heck, even requiring the spectrum be used at all. It’s really all up to Google.

    I suppose we can’t really blame Google, though. It’s our fault, not Google’s. If Google can keep pulling favors from the government to add to its $548 billion bottom line, more power to it. It’s up to all of us – most of all the FCC – to not keep giving things to Google for free. It seems we’ve made a habit of it. The Commission should recognize that it created a disincentive for Google to participate in the auction and will continue to dissuade Google from investing in all kinds of things if it keeps handing over the keys to the kingdom.

    For as Google well knows, it doesn’t matter how much money you have, it’s still much better to get something for free.

     
  • Patrick McFadden 12:04 pm on February 5, 2016 Permalink  

    ATVA: What Acorn? 

    The American Television Alliance (ATVA) – the pay-TV industry’s leading voice these days – needs our collective help. It appears that our friends are suffering from a serious case of Chicken Little Syndrome. You remember Chicken Little, right? That’s the poor little chicken who believed that the sky was falling after she was hit on the head by an acorn falling from a nearby tree. Chicken Little was so alarmed she spread panic throughout the town – all because of an acorn.

    ATVA’s acorn is retransmission consent. When pay-TV companies seek to carry most local broadcast television stations, they have to negotiate with broadcasters for the right to do so. The overwhelming majority of these negotiations are uneventful and routine. They are business negotiations, conducted at arm’s length by sophisticated actors. As with any business negotiation, however, occasionally the parties struggle to come to terms. Infrequently, this results in a broadcast station’s removal from a particular pay-TV system until a deal can be reached.

    ATVA’s actions – and indeed its entire purpose – would make even Chicken Little blush. Unlike the unwitting Chicken Little, ATVA spends day and night fervently hoping that one of the many thousands of retransmission consent negotiations between TV broadcasters and multichannel video programming distributors go south and hit ATVA squarely on its head.

    You see, ATVA was conceived to create hysteria. ATVA’s strategy is to wait for an isolated example of a hiccup in negotiations – an acorn falling – and overreact in the most spectacular fashion possible. It’s as though ATVA has set up shop by the side of a busy road, just waiting for a car accident. Then, when an accident happens, ATVA sets off flares and air horns, and unfurls a banner triumphantly declaring, “SEE? I TOLD YOU THE HORSELESS CARRIAGE WOULD NEVER WORK!” ATVA wants you to ignore the hundreds of cars passing by without incident and focus only on that accident. If they make enough noise and sound scary enough, maybe someone will pay attention. That’s why, for ATVA, it’s not enough to turn a molehill into a mountain – the mountain always has to be Vesuvius and Pompeii always has to be on the cusp of being buried by ash.

    There are countless examples of ATVA’s strategy, including the recent impasse between Nexstar Broadcasting and Cox Cable. As the extended agreement between the parties expired, ATVA fired up its outrage machine (patent pending) and penned a Chicken Little letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). ATVA claimed that, even though Cox isn’t an ATVA member and ATVA has no specific knowledge about the parties’ negotiations, ATVA nevertheless knew “exactly what is going on here,” and that Nexstar was engaged in a “shakedown.” ATVA claimed that FCC intervention in the market was urgently needed to protect the poor, tiny, helpless, cable company (that happens to be the third largest cable provider in the country).

    What ATVA doesn’t tell you is that Nexstar had, up to that point, successfully negotiated 1,200 retransmission consent agreements with pay-TV companies over the last 11 years. That’s right. 1,200 successful negotiations. But, when the 1,201st stumbles because a cable company holds out for lower rates or possibly even to trick regulators into action? The system is broken! Government intervention is desperately needed! The sky is falling!

    ATVA’s hysteria reflexes have to be razor sharp because it generally has only a narrow window of opportunity to put out exaggerated and misleading claims regarding these exceedingly rare disputes. In this case, ATVA didn’t have a moment to waste to stage its very public case of the vapors. Nexstar and Cox resolved their contractual impasse without great fanfare, despite ATVA’s convulsions. The parties reached an agreement without new heavy-handed government regulations, despite ATVA’s grandstanding. Good thing ATVA didn’t wait a day to see what happened – they would have wasted a perfectly good acorn.

    You might think that maintaining a constant, breathless stream of hyperbole would get exhausting after a while, but it’s the only real strategy ATVA has. After all, telling you the truth – that your cable company just doesn’t think it’s making enough money off of you – isn’t exactly a winner.

     
  • Patrick McFadden 12:24 pm on September 11, 2015 Permalink
    Tags: ,   

    Some Changes for a More Balanced Auction 

    Yesterday, NAB filed a limited petition for reconsideration of the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) recent “Procedures Public Notice” laying out additional details concerning the forthcoming broadcast spectrum incentive auction. First, we’re asking the Commission to reconsider its decision to relocate TV stations in the duplex gap, which eliminates the only remaining exclusive use spectrum available for wireless microphones broadcasters use to cover breaking news and emergencies. Second, we’re asking the Commission to reconsider the level of market variability it will permit in light of recent progress made in international coordination with Canada and Mexico. We’re limiting our request for reconsideration to those two issues primarily because they are subject to quick fixes. The Commission could grant our request without in any way threatening its target March 29, 2016 start date for the auction.

    Separately, we are also seeking clarification as to whether the FCC’s current incentive auction design is consistent with the Spectrum Act’s requirement that the incentive auction be voluntary for broadcasters – or whether the FCC’s chosen mechanism will effectively nudge broadcasters into participating.

    Here’s the issue. The natural consequence of the FCC’s variable band plan is that some broadcasters will be assigned channels that are in the new wireless band – that is, they will be operating on channels that are used by wireless carriers in other markets. For a long time, the FCC had been suggesting that broadcasters would be randomly selected to be placed into the wireless band, and it would not be based on whether and to what extent they participated in the auction. Obviously, it would be alarming if the FCC made judgments based on participation.

    The recent Procedures Public Notice, however, could be read to suggest the FCC has decided that only non-participating stations will be placed in the wireless band if the auction successfully closes at the initial clearing target. In addition, it appears that the only other stations that could be added to that list are broadcasters who participate but drop out in one stage, only to see the auction move on to another stage because it could not close. In other words, if the auction fails to close at that initial stage, the only additional stations that can be relocated to the wireless bands are stations that drop out because their asking price is too high. This doesn’t exactly sound “voluntary” to most broadcasters.

    While the Commission doesn’t seem to believe there is any harm to broadcasters if they are assigned a channel in the wireless band because they will receive the same protections in the repacking process as other stations, no broadcaster would voluntarily choose relocation there.

    Television stations operating co- or adjacent channel to new wireless licensees will be extremely limited in terms of their ability to expand their facilities after the auction. As a practical matter, this may constrain their ability to relocate, increase their service area or even innovate. Further, broadcasters, as well as the Commission itself, are all too familiar with the uncertainty and disputes surrounding television stations operating on channel 51 and wireless carriers operating in the 700 MHz Lower A Block. Stations on channel 51 are protected by the Commission’s rules, just as the Commission is now promising to protect stations stranded in the 600 MHz band. Those protections, however, have not prevented costly and time-consuming disputes. Similarly, a broadcaster that has a station relocated in the 600 MHz band will have to factor the prospect of ongoing inter-service interference issues into its business plans.

    The bottom line is that a broadcaster placed in the wireless band will be surrounded by wireless operations that are incompatible with, and hostile to, the broadcaster’s continued operations. It would be as if one’s home was forcibly relocated to a commercially-zoned neighborhood; the home might be identical, but it would not be as comfortable, and certainly not as valuable.

    Our hope is that the confusion emerging from the Procedures PN is just that and that broadcasters do not now have to factor in their participation decision the potential penalty of being shipped to the wireless band. The incentive auction can be a tremendous success as a voluntary auction and broadcasters – not just the speculators – are eager to keep the process moving swiftly.

     
  • Patrick McFadden 11:04 am on April 30, 2015 Permalink
    Tags: ,   

    What to Expect When You Are Expecting (TV White Spaces Comments) 

    Last month, NAB filed a petition asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to amend certain rules governing the use of TV White Spaces (TVWS) devices. In particular, we asked the FCC to require fixed TVWS devices to eliminate the illusory notion of “professional installation,” an undefined concept that allows an installer to enter the location of a device in the TVWS database. We’re asking the FCC to require automatic geolocation capability, and to hold database administrators accountable for falsified information entered into the database.

    While oppositions and comments on our petition are not due until tomorrow, the responses are predictable, and, in the public interest we thought we’d provide a little primer to what you are likely to see from TV white space proponents and their proxies.

    TVWS COMMENT #1: “NAB cannot identify a single instance of harmful interference caused by an unlicensed device.”

    This is a personal favorite, because it’s misleading on so many different levels. First, it’s a little like saying you shouldn’t wear a seatbelt because you haven’t yet had a car accident, or you shouldn’t have homeowners insurance because your house hasn’t yet burned down. No adult uses this approach in real life. Instead, we take reasonable precautions, precisely to avoid bad outcomes we can clearly anticipate. Second, there’s no surefire way to know if there has been harmful interference to licensed services from unlicensed devices. If a television viewer can’t receive a particular channel, she has no way of knowing if that’s due to a neighbor’s use of a TVWS device; she may just assume she can’t receive that channel and give up. Third, there are less than 600 TVWS devices operating nationwide right now. Yes, in the entire United States. Saying TVWS devices haven’t yet caused interference is a little like saying you haven’t yet been attacked by Bigfoot. It’s a true statement, but it doesn’t prove anything, and you probably don’t want to brag about it in public.

    TVWS COMMENT #2: “Problem? What problem? The FCC has cleaned up the database.”

    Not long after NAB filed its petition, the FCC went to work to clean up the database. TVWS enthusiasts are likely to say that the database has now been thoroughly scrubbed and polished and, as a result, there is no longer a problem. This is the equivalent of a teenager telling his parents he cleaned his room when all he did was shovel everything into the closet and slam the door. What you won’t hear is that anyone – yes, even you! – can register a TVWS device in the database right now, using a falsified location, and get access to channels you should not be able to use. Are you in Washington, D.C. and stuck without a single vacant TVWS channel? Don’t worry! You can easily register your device and enter its location as rural Montana to get access to channels that are currently occupied by local licensed users. This is the result of an obviously broken system destined to lead to interference problems.

    TVWS COMMENT #3: “TV White Spaces are really, really cool.”

    They may try to distract you. Because they don’t want to acknowledge the problem, and because they can’t deny the risk of interference, one or more TVWS enthusiasts will point at a really shiny object, and hope you look. They’ll wax poetic about the untapped, limitless benefits of more unlicensed spectrum for their corporate financiers. They’ll promise “Super WiFi,” “WiFi on steroids,” increased broadband competition, and expanded rural service. Of course, they won’t acknowledge that there are only a few hundred of these devices operating right now, five years and counting after the FCC approved the current rules.

    TVWS COMMENT #4: “NAB’s petition is premature. Don’t worry.”

    Kicking the can down the road is a great way to try to outlast the opposition. Some will argue that, even if there is a problem, the FCC can easily fix it later. This is, of course, shortsighted; rumor has it horses are really hard to chase down once they’ve been let out of the barn. Instead, a more reasonable approach is to establish clear rules of the road and allow manufacturers to start incorporating automatic geolocation capability in new devices before the market heats up. If, and it’s a big if, white spaces technology ever actually does live up to the rather large promises its proponents have been making, retrofitting thousands or hundreds of thousands of devices to incorporate geolocation capability will be costly and disruptive. That’s exactly the outcome NAB is trying to avoid.

    NAB is eager to create an environment in which TV White Spaces can be used effectively while protecting existing licensed users. That’s why we have proposed only modest rule changes to help make White Spaces work for everyone. The rules already require some TVWS devices to have automatic geolocation capability – we’re merely asking the FCC to extend that requirement to fixed devices, which transmit at high power. We’re also asking the FCC to take the simple step of incorporating some basic accountability into its database administrator rules, so as to avoid the next batch of John Q. Public registrations with addresses in Anytown, USA, and phone numbers of 867-5309. These changes aren’t complicated, and they aren’t costly. Let’s get this done.

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel
%d bloggers like this: