Updates from March, 2018 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • alisonneplokh 9:32 am on March 13, 2018 Permalink  

    The Negative Sum Game 

    Microsoft would have you believe their proposal to require broadcasters to hold open at least one additional channel in the broadcast band for unlicensed use is not a zero-sum game. They are right, but not in the way they want you to believe.

    TV white spaces held a lot of promise over a decade ago. Perhaps it still does today – by letting unlicensed devices use channels TV stations aren’t using, there is the possibility to make more efficient use of spectrum and provide new services, potentially including additional options for rural broadband access. Broadcasters don’t have any problem with letting Microsoft use truly vacant channels, provided that broadcasters don’t permanently cede their rights to build on those channels in the process. NAB has and will continue to work with Microsoft and other TV white spaces proponents to make reasonable rule changes that improve the ability of unlicensed devices to make use of vacant TV channels.

    But that’s not at all what Microsoft’s “vacant channel” ask is about. Microsoft’s ask is not about using vacant channels, it’s about creating vacant channels. Microsoft is asking the Federal Communications Commission to require that, before broadcasters can make any changes to their existing licenses, they first ask whether there would still be at least one channel available for unlicensed use throughout their entire service area. This creates several costs to broadcasters and their viewers:

    1. No matter what Microsoft says, this is not a win-win proposal. The only way this creates extra space for unlicensed use is by denying a broadcaster a channel. Whether this broadcaster is a major network affiliate delivering high-demand programming and top-notch local and national news, a public broadcaster delivering high-quality educational programming, or an independent broadcaster delivering in-language programming to minority communities, this policy means one less voice in the media market. Microsoft maintains this would be a very rare scenario. But that evades the point that this policy is either irrelevant (because there are plenty of empty channels) or is harmful because it deprives viewers of service.
    2. Broadcasters would have to hold open a channel, even if nobody has any interest in using it. Whether it’s that the particular market in question has no demand for white spaces or that the whole white spaces idea is never successful, broadcasters can’t retain or expand broadcast service, because it would violate Microsoft’s proposed rule. White spaces is supposed to be about letting people camp on empty lots, not forcing broadcasters to leave their lots empty just in case someone wants to come along and pitch a tent, even if nobody ever does. Effectively, Microsoft gets squatters’ rights without even having to go through the trouble of squatting.
    3. Even if there is plenty of space available, broadcasters have to spend money to prove that. A few thousand dollars to conduct a study might sound like a small issue when you envision a large broadcast group, but this also applies to rural low-power television stations and TV translators that operate on a shoestring budget and are often community funded. And, multiply that “small number” by thousands of broadcast stations across the country, and you get to a really big problem.

    Calling this a zero-sum game is actually optimistic. At best, this proposal creates winners – the massive Microsoft Corporation – and losers – local broadcasters and their viewers. But most likely, everyone loses.

     

  • 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).

     

  • Rick Kaplan 11:52 am on July 22, 2015 Permalink
    Tags:   

    You Want Breaking News Coverage? Then Mind the Gap 

    When was the last time you turned to TV to follow details of breaking news as it unfolded – the real, on-the-ground coverage from reporters in the field? In the first half of this year alone, we learned firsthand about the civil unrest in Baltimore following the death of Freddie Gray, followed with bated breath the manhunt throughout local communities in upstate New York for two convicted murders who had escaped from prison, watched crowds of Americans gather on the South Carolina State House grounds to see a flag come down and heard from those rallying on the Supreme Court steps from local TV reporters at the scene.

    If you care about live, on-the-ground coverage of events that are shaping our world – then you care about something called the duplex gap.

    Last year, the FCC announced it would no longer reserve two channels in each market within the TV band for critical wireless microphone use, which is essential for broadcaster coverage of breaking news and emergencies. Instead, the FCC decided to set aside space for wireless microphones in the duplex gap, a vacant lot of spectrum located within the wireless band. Wireless mics’ new home in the duplex gap was by no means a perfect solution, but it was all the FCC said it could manage, and broadcasters have done their best over the past year to start figuring out exactly how to make these new digs work.

    But just as mics were getting ready to settle into their new home, the FCC just last month said there was one more catch: this real estate would not be available everywhere, as the FCC will place TV stations themselves in the duplex gap in certain markets after the spectrum auction. When a TV station sets up shop in the gap, no other service can use it, including the mics used by reporters rushing to cover tragedy, weather emergencies and other critical events on the ground.

    This was quite a change from the FCC’s initial promise, so many parties, including FCC commissioners, asked Commission staff to explain why this about-face was necessary. In producing its information, the staff revealed that it had only done an analysis of one possible scenario for each of three spectrum recovery targets, but staff argued that data showed that in certain markets the FCC needed to put stations in the duplex gap. Chairman Wheeler has said that the number of affected markets would be no more than six. This proposed change is very bad news for newsgatherers who rely on wireless mics to report the news, for viewers who depend upon local and national reporters to get in the middle of a story and public safety officials, who work hand-in-hand with local broadcasters to keep the public and first responders safe.

    But the FCC staff is insistent on undoing the original compromise and broadcasters are now in a pickle. We support the auction and want to see it succeed. But we also know we need wireless microphone technology to ably cover the news and keep our communities safe.

    So yesterday NAB proposed a new compromise (or “recompromise”) – one that is far from ideal for us – but one that at least holds the Commission to its (new) word, and asks that no more than one station in each of six markets (if necessary) are put in the duplex gap to avoid widespread elimination of wireless microphone use to cover local news. Six markets is damage enough, especially if one of them is the second-largest. But if that’s the number, then let’s agree to it, figure out alternative solutions in those markets for wireless mics and go forward.

    If the answer, however, is that it’s potentially more than six markets, the FCC has a major credibility problem. If the goalposts move again, we should all be wary of what’s in store for this auction. For it to be successful, we all need to be able to trust the FCC.

    Broadcasters have met the FCC far more than halfway. Now let’s put it in ink and move on to the auction and better solutions for broadcasters, their viewers and public safety.

     

  • Rick Kaplan 1:10 pm on September 10, 2014 Permalink  

    Sorry to Disappoint, But NAB Is Playing It Straight Up 

    FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler certainly traveled a great distance simply to accuse the NAB yesterday in Las Vegas of seeking to delay or derail his upcoming broadcast spectrum incentive auction. With all due respect Mr. Chairman, I fear that your comments are not only wrong, but will create the very uncertainties and distractions you say you want to avoid.

    At both the CCA and CTIA wireless conferences, the Chairman seemed overly preoccupied by NAB’s lawsuit to overturn certain targeted elements of the Commission’s incentive auction order. Among other related comments, in his prepared remarks the Chairman noted that, if NAB “w[as] to win, the effect would be to delay the auction, notwithstanding NAB’s claims to the contrary.”

    The NAB “claims” to which the Chairman refers is a blog I recently wrote that details everything NAB is doing to have our legal concerns addressed as soon as possible. NAB did not file a petition for reconsideration first, as T-Mobile and Sprint did, which would have given us another layer of process behind which to hide if we really were aiming for delay. We did not wait until the last minute in the 60-day period during which legal challenges could be filed; we filed on day one. And we affirmatively sought and were granted expedited review of our lawsuit to ensure that it moved rapidly. Hard to assail our efforts to move as expeditiously as possible.

    What the Chairman was really saying, however, is that, if NAB wins, then NAB will have caused the auction to be delayed. I guess in one sense that is correct, as the court finding that the FCC acted unlawfully would necessitate a reworking of the rules in question. But if the court finds in our favor, isn’t it the FCC that is responsible for the delay? NAB has laid out why we believe the FCC has acted outside the law in a few distinct areas. We have even proposed numerous compromise solutions that seek to help the FCC achieve what it wants while not harming broadcasters or skirting the law. So if the FCC insists on seeing the litigation through and loses, then it has no one else to blame but itself. Don’t pin that on us.

    Look, I’ve been around a bit and I get it. It’s easy to blame the broadcasters when everyone else is chomping at the bit to get our spectrum – whether free (“unlicensed”), paid for in full (AT&T/Verizon Wireless) or at a discounted, government-subsidized rate (T-Mobile, Sprint, DISH).  It’s certainly easier to point the finger at someone else rather than ponder other potentially misguided policy decisions that have undermined trust with the very industries needed to participate in the auction. Easier than blaming the rocky net neutrality proceeding which has sucked nearly all of the air out of the auction room and scared wireless carriers into focusing solely on whether they will be subject to a bevy of new government regulation. Easier than blaming the frayed trust with broadcasters as a result of forcing them to unwind scores of sharing arrangements that had only recently been expressly blessed by the Commission. Easier than blaming the fact that, until just recently, senior FCC leadership has shown little interest in collaborating with broadcasters who are interested in continuing to serve their communities. And it is definitely easier than blaming the fact that would-be spectrum sellers still have no idea what kind of return they can reasonably expect in the auction.

    Despite all of these unfortunate self-created obstacles, we at NAB still believe this auction can be a success. We strongly recommend avoiding further finger pointing and getting to the table to try to find the best solutions for all stakeholders. Inventing rumors of wireless carrier disinterest or about NAB “elements” that don’t like the auction is a waste of everyone’s time. NAB has worked very well with all other industries in this proceeding, even when we’ve disagreed with them. We all have an auction to run. NAB is ready. We are willing. But it would sure help if we had a partner at the helm of the FCC.

     

  • Rick Kaplan 9:12 am on May 23, 2014 Permalink  

    The Point of Being a Ninja Is to Avoid Attention 

    As my 8-year-old works to navigate the travails of making friends in second grade, one of his most unfortunate emerging strategies has been to do silly things to get his peers’ attention. He took that approach to a new level this week when he spent some quality time with the school principal after dumping chocolate milk out of the school bus window on a dare.

    I was reminded of that incident when, in another second-grade moment, CEA’s CEO Gary Shapiro dumped his chocolate milk out of the window with a silly and misguided missive in The Hill (“Broadcasters’ madness hurting the public,” May 21).

    Mr. Shapiro’s innovative thesis is that NAB “implor[es] the federal government for all sorts of favors while completely ignoring what the public wants and needs.” As Exhibit A, he suggests that broadcasters have “done all [they] can to delay implementation of voluntary spectrum auctions,” and that “the NAB has dragged its feet since the law passed and is seemingly discouraging broadcasters from participating in the auction.” Mr. Shaprio’s Exhibit B is broadcasters’ suit against Aereo, an Internet service that takes free, over-the-air broadcasts and converts and repackages them and sells them to consumers for a fee.

    At the outset, Mr. Shapiro’s high-level thesis is absurd. He conveniently ignores the incredible and life-saving coverage broadcasters recently provided in communities hit hard by severe weather events. I may be way off base here, but I think what the public “wants and needs” is information that helps them stay informed and stay safe. These are services radio and television broadcasters provide across the country on a regular basis, and they are unequaled.

    In fact, if CEA really cared about the public interest, it would lean on its wireless carrier and device members to take the simple step of unlocking the FM chips already in their phones. Then, when the wireless alert system is activated to say “check your local media,” a consumer could simply hit a button and have instant access to a local radio station that provides critical information.

    With respect to the voluntary broadcast spectrum incentive auction, Mr. Shapiro is completely out to lunch. His initial claim, that broadcasters are doing all they can to delay implementation of the auction, has zero basis in fact. Indeed, he does not, and cannot, point to a single instance where NAB has attempted to delay the auction.

    NAB has been constructively engaged in the auction process at least as much as any other entity, and has consistently provided concrete solutions for every problem we have identified. We have faithfully lived up to our public statements that we will do what we can to give the voluntary incentive auction the best chance for success. At the same time, it is essential that the auction remains faithful to Congress’s intent of keeping it voluntary, and NAB will work to ensure that broadcasters who want to remain on the air and continue serving their communities can do so without any repercussions.

    What Mr. Shapiro also overlooks is how NAB played a major facilitating role in what is likely to be a $10-$15 billion auction this year of AWS-3 spectrum. As the FCC scratched its head to figure out how to auction largely valueless unpaired spectrum to meet a Congressional mandate, NAB, along with the Department of Defense worked quickly to develop a sharing framework that enabled the FCC to pair that spectrum. NAB gained nothing from that endeavor. We simply recognized that there was a significant public good to be gained by sharing our spectrum with DoD, and found a way to make it happen. NAB has clearly done its part.

    Mr. Shapiro’s second auction claim, namely that NAB is “seemingly” discouraging broadcasters from participating in the auction borders on libel. How are we “seemingly” doing this? Are we “actually” doing it or “seemingly”? I don’t even really understand his point, beyond its goal of attempting to poison the well with an irresponsible suggestion.

    That comment is akin to us saying that because CEA vigorously opposed basic laws and regulations that made electronics accessible to disabled Americans, “CEA seemingly doesn’t care about Americans with disabilities.” Or that, “CEA’s members seemingly exploit children overseas for cheap labor.” Or that, because its members manufacture millions of shiny new objects that end up polluting our oceans and landfills every day, “CEA seemingly supports devastating the environment.”

    I’m not saying these things are true, but hey, it may seem like they are.

    The other nonsensical point in Mr. Shapiro’s piece is his attack on broadcasters for taking Aereo to court. His argument is that, because broadcasters are supposed to provide their content for free, broadcasters can’t and shouldn’t prevent someone else from taking that content and selling it for profit. That makes no sense and is wholly inconsistent with his own advocacy on behalf of his members. I am confident that his members would not support the notion that they should pour a ton of investment into new technologies only to have their competitors steal it and sell it as their own.

    As Mr. Shapiro knows all too well, there are very good reasons why the law provides copyright and patent protection. Those protections are not merely there to coddle multi-national electronics manufacturers, but to protect the innovations of America’s broadcasters as well.

    NAB has an unofficial internal rule that we only respond to Mr. Shapiro’s comments once for every three or four of his outbursts. This is because, like my second-grader, if you react to something an attention-seeker does, it encourages them to keep doing it. And perhaps this blog is the equivalent of laughing at my son’s milk-scapade. But given the importance of the issues discussed, and the forum in which Mr. Shapiro elected to express his views, we believe it makes sense to correct the record.

    As I explained to my second-grader, there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to get people’s attention. In my son’s case, getting attention from others is best done through his intelligence, thoughtfulness and appropriate sense of humor. In Mr. Shapiro’s case, it’s attempting to stick to the facts, and also taking a good, long look in the mirror before penning another piece in The Hill.

     

  • Zamir Ahmed 9:49 am on May 21, 2014 Permalink  

    Broadcasters Show Their Commitment to Public Safety 

    Much attention has been paid to KSFY (Sioux Falls, S.D.) anchor Nancy Naeve’s recent on-air rebuke of viewers who complained about the station breaking into regular programming to report on a tornado in the area on May 11. It has been heartening to see that a vast majority of those weighing in on the subject have supported broadcasters putting their public safety commitment above all else.

    The video of Naeve is just the latest example of broadcasters being credited for educating the public about staying safe when danger is approaching. Tupelo, Miss. residents have praised WTVA meteorologist Matt Laubhan for saving their lives during a tornado outbreak in April, after his on-air evacuation order to station personnel led many viewers to seek shelter.

    Radio and television broadcasters are serious about our roles as “first informers.” We do not take lightly a decision to preempt regular programming with live reporting regarding emergency situations. Broadcasting is very often the first place residents, and many first responders, turn to for information when danger is headed towards a community.

    However, the recent order from the FCC on the incentive auction could significantly interfere with television stations’ ability to keep their audiences informed.

    The incentive auction order proposes changes to the methodology and software that determines the coverage area of a broadcaster’s signal and the potential elimination of TV translators that could result in millions of viewers being left without access to the local television programming that they currently rely on. As NAB has made clear to the Commission, these proposed changes dramatically alter broadcasters’ coverage areas and the population they serve today. In more densely populated areas where TV stations are located in cities closer together, viewers may be able to receive signals from other nearby broadcasters. That’s an option that may not exist in lesser populated areas where TV stations are farther apart, such as in Sioux Falls. That could be the difference between life and death for some.

    The tornado that KSFY reported on that sparked the complaints touched down in Hospers, Iowa – about 70 miles from the station’s base of Sioux Falls. Under the FCC’s proposed signal contour methodology, those residents in the path of the storm might not have seen the lifesaving emergency information KSFY provided. In many areas of the country, particularly rural states, broadcast stations may be unable to reach significant portions of the populations due to terrain or geographic reasons. Translators allow broadcasters to fill in gaps in this coverage by transmitting their signal. Americans should not be put at risk to natural disasters because the translator service they used to watch broadcast TV was not protected by the FCC.

    NAB is supportive of a broadcast spectrum incentive auction that is truly voluntary. We believe in a future that is both broadcasting and broadband, a partnership that can be particularly beneficial when it comes to public safety. It appears our friends in the wireless industry believe so as well.

    CTIA-The Wireless Association recently tweeted an article about a cellphone alert awakening Charlotte, N.C. residents to an approaching tornado. The alert directed residents to tune into their local broadcast television station for more information. It is a perfect example of how broadband and broadcasting can work hand-in-hand to save lives.

    As the FCC proceeds with creating a framework for the incentive auction, it must refrain from instituting rules that jeopardize the pledge broadcasters’ have made to serve their communities during times of need. We take that pledge seriously. We hope the FCC does too.

     

  • Rick Kaplan 11:47 am on June 25, 2013 Permalink
    Tags: , , , Genachowski, , Spectrum Act, Wireless   

    What Consensus Really Means and the Importance of Driving It 

    In December, the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee conducted an oversight hearing on the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) implementation of the Spectrum Act, and specifically the Commission’s work on the upcoming voluntary broadcast incentive auction. One of the most instructive moments of the hearing occurred during a series of questions posed to then-FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski by Rep. Ed Markey (MA-5). The congressman repeatedly asked Genachowski varying versions of the following questions:

    So again, do you have a process that’s totally fair to the broadcasters and to the wireless industry that’s in place? Have you had them in your office simultaneously with their engineers to talk about the issue so that you can hear and your experts can hear the differences which they have?

    . . . .

    Do you ever have a meeting yourself with the engineers in the room with the other, you know, from all industries you’re sitting there with you? Are engineers hearing the disagreements?

    The congressman was pushing the chairman to see if he and/or his staff were taking an active leadership role and directly engaging with industry to tackle this extremely complex proceeding. In effect, he was urging the FCC to drive consensus – to bring stakeholders together to see if there is a sweet spot where those most affected by the auction can find value and buy into the process. Thus, rather than passively perusing the filed comments in a back room and then eventually one day producing a final order seemingly out of thin air, he was suggesting that the FCC should be getting everyone in a room and driving towards a decision.

    Had that happened yet at that point? No.

    Has it happened in the more than six months since the Commission was urged to do so? No. (That is, unless we count a lone public workshop that was followed up in record time by a Public Notice unsurprisingly having little to do with what was actually achieved at the workshop).

    In the absence of a staff process designed to drive consensus through openness, transparency and engagement, however, diverse industries and public interest groups have assembled on our own to work through the various challenges presented by the auction and attendant broadcaster repacking. These conversations have led to a great deal of progress, and even consensus on some major issues.

    Have we found unanimity? Of course not. To be clear; reaching consensus is not the same thing as unanimity. Certainly everyone doesn’t have to agree for a general consensus to emerge. Our work has moved the ball far down the field on typically contentious issues. And we believe strongly that the Commission staff should have adopted, and should be adopting, a “get in the room together” approach so we can achieve an expeditious and successful conclusion to the pre-auction process.

    Industry and public interest progress is nowhere more apparent than the general consensus that emerged concerning the defining feature of the band plan offered in the original incentive auction Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which widely separated the wireless uplinks and downlinks and placed in between them high-powered broadcast operations. By sitting down together – outside the traditional and somewhat opaque FCC comment process – every company and organization invested in the outcome of the auction (except literally one) agreed that the proposal was an engineering nonstarter. This conclusion was facilitated by broadcast, licensed wireless and unlicensed wireless engineers conferring, sharing information and working towards what would best serve the public interest.

    Last Friday, the FCC posted a blog entitled, “A Band Plan that Serves the Public Interest,” which along with some previous staff remarks, appears to imply in response to growing criticism over the staff’s proposed plans, that only the Commission, and not industry or the public interest community, has the public interest truly in mind. Nothing could be further from the truth, especially in this instance where what is at stake is delivering high quality broadcast and wireless signals to consumers. Indeed, a band plan in the public interest is most likely to result from a process that engages stakeholders in a meaningful fashion and thoroughly examines all of the thorny issues involved.

    We do not appear, however, to be headed in that direction. Most notably, in its unyielding quest and determination for reclaiming variable amounts of spectrum in different markets, the inherent interference consequences of a variable approach are simply being ignored. The staff steadfastly refuses to study the issue with any rigor, model it or even ask a single question about it.

    With respect to the challenges of variability, NAB has itself adopted a “getting everyone in the room” philosophy, even without the incentive auction staff leading the way. At stake is significant co- and adjacent channel interference that affects broadcast and wireless operations and arises under most variable band plans. The problem in the most basic terms is this: If Market A (e.g., New York) clears less spectrum than adjacent Market B (e.g., Philadelphia) and therefore Market A continues to have broadcast operations on channel X (e.g., channel 46) while Market B moves to wireless operations on that same channel, the wireless and broadcast operations on that shared channel will interfere with one another. There is no doubt this is a serious issue. And even though the Wireless Bureau dismissed the problem without any analysis (in a nonsensical footnote in its Public Notice), following the bureau’s Public Notice, AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Qualcomm, Ericsson and others have joined in to second the notion that further work on the subject is required.

    We understand why variability could be of great benefit to the Commission’s auction designers at Stanford, but its potential positives do not necessitate that we should turn a blind eye to inconvenient engineering realities. As we’ve learned from a number of interference missteps in the not-so-distant past, including the frustration on the part of the wireless industry with the interference between channel 51 and the 700 MHz A block, even if you look the other way and pretend there’s nothing to see, interference will come back to bite you where it counts one way or another.

    Even though we’ve identified a serious concern, we are not arguing that we are at the end of the variability road. We are merely stating that we’ve identified a potentially fundamental problem and, at the very least, this must be the beginning of the road. It’s not enough to say, as the blog post did, that “[b]y implementing a band plan that supports variation between markets, we would not be forced to limit the auction to the amount of spectrum available in the least cleared markets.” While true, that completely neglects the question precedent of whether, from an engineering perspective, variability is possible or even wise.

    Once again, rather than cross our fingers and simply hope that we don’t end up on the wrong end of an uninformed and therefore arbitrary decision, we’ve actively engaged with stakeholders across industries on the issue. We’ve laid out everything we know about co- and adjacent channel interference, not only in filings at the FCC, but in data we’ve openly shared throughout the commercial wireless and unlicensed industries.  We have one aim: to figure this issue out, one way or another, so that the Commission can truly have a successful and timely auction.

    We have also laid out an alternative plan should the interference inherent in variability not be worth its benefits. Our nationwide non-variable plan incorporates three relatively easy steps:

    • After setting a spectrum acquisition target (e.g., 84 MHz), lay out the various nationwide repacking scenarios to determine in what areas the Commission must have volunteers and how many it needs.
    • Determine how much revenue will likely be raised from a forward auction from the target amount of nationwide spectrum.
    • Use those anticipated (and soon to be realized) funds to pay broadcasters in areas where the spectrum is actually needed, and repack broadcasters to the nationwide spectrum target in markets where no volunteers are needed.

    This proposal helps the Commission maximize its use of the information it has up front – where it will, and will not, need participants under various scenarios – and then focus its financial incentive efforts on the areas where volunteers are truly needed. If this is done correctly, we believe the Commission can develop a great wireless band plan that clears the same robust amount in every market (international coordination notwithstanding), and leads to a harmonious balance between broadcasters and wireless operations in the new 600 MHz band. Furthermore, it eliminates the co- and adjacent channel interference threat that looms large under most variable scenarios.

    We remain committed to driving a process that is best for the public interest and thankfully the Acting Chair and Commissioners have each made clear that they recognize the need for engagement and balance among industries. By engaging with all stakeholders, we’ve been able to find large areas of general consensus on a number of issues, which should help the Commission move expeditiously in this process. We will continue this push, all with the aim of creating a band plan and auction that serves free, over-the-air broadcast viewers as well as licensed and unlicensed consumers, otherwise known as the public interest.

     

  • Rick Kaplan 11:36 am on May 21, 2013 Permalink
    Tags: Auction, , , ,   

    Working Toward an Effective Band Plan 

    Today AT&T, the National Association of Broadcasters and Verizon jointly posted the following blog:

    The TV broadcast spectrum incentive auction proceeding raises some of the most difficult engineering challenges the FCC has ever faced.  One thing is clear:  a successful auction must start with an effective band plan.  A band plan must seek to mitigate interference challenges to the greatest extent possible while offering blocks of spectrum best suited for deployment by U.S. wireless carriers.  Otherwise, it will drive down the value of the spectrum and likely undermine the auction’s success.

    With that in mind, broadcasters, wireless carriers and equipment manufacturers have spent an enormous amount of time, energy and expense reviewing and commenting on the optimal framework for the 600 MHz band.  Hundreds of pages of comments have been filed, two industry consensus letters have been submitted and the FCC just recently convened a day-long workshop to discuss this issue.  The result is growing consensus for adoption of a “down from 51” framework that seeks to maximize paired allocations and build guard bands only to meet engineering necessity.  This approach reflects the best collective engineering judgment of the companies most affected by the auction, including those that will spend billions of dollars to purchase 600 MHz licenses at auction and billions more to develop and deploy the spectrum in U.S. wireless networks.

    Despite these significant advances, on Chairman Julius Genachowski’s last day, a Public Notice was released seeking comment on two alternative band plan frameworks, one reversing the uplink and downlink allocations and one featuring time division duplex (TDD).  The first has absolutely no support in the record and the second adopts a technological approach contrary to the one proposed by the majority of U.S. carriers.  A fair reading of the Public Notice suggests that the FCC feels the consensus approach constrains its ability to adjust the band plan to meet market-by-market variations.  We believe, however, that this notice will consume resources better spent on dealing with other critical and as-yet-unanswered questions in this proceeding, such as how co-channel interference concerns could undermine the variability of any band plan and how the FCC plans to conduct an effective re-packing.

    Each of us of course will respond to the notice, but we don’t anticipate any fundamental shift in positions we’ve already taken in the record.  In the meantime, we are concerned about the apparent disconnect between the FCC and the various industries that will be critically affected by this auction.  Nothing about this auction will be easy, and, if we are to succeed, we must all work together to find solutions best designed to respond to broadcast industry concerns while meeting wireless industry requirements.

     

  • Gordon H. Smith 10:30 am on May 21, 2012 Permalink  

    Broadcasting as an engine for local economies 

    The following column was published in the May 21, 2012 edition of Politico.

    • * *

    Congress has been consumed in recent years with contentious debate on how best to preserve and enhance free and local broadcasting — the original wireless technology — while making available airwaves that can also be used to alleviate the much-hyped “spectrum crunch” for wireless broadband providers.

    We think lawmakers struck the right balance with legislation signed into law earlier this year that provides incentives for television stations that voluntarily choose to go out of business, but which acknowledges the enduring and indispensable role that local broadcasting plays in the fabric of American society.

    Lawmakers have good reason to want a healthy broadcast industry. Broadcast TV stations provide over 186 thousand jobs on an annual basis, which directly generates over $30 billion in gross domestic product. The ripple effect of TV broadcasting on the economy is even greater, with 1.54 million jobs and $716.43 billion in annual GDP attributed to the local television business.

    Those who dismiss the value of local television — or who would like to see broadcasting’s role in society diminished — seem clearly motivated by a desire to replace a free service available to all with a fee service available to some.

    Despite some of the criticism from broadcasting’s biggest critics, the facts are these:

    — The number of broadcast-only TV households is actually growing, not declining. A Knowledge Networks study last year found more than 17 million households representing 45.6 million consumers receive television exclusively through over-the-air (OTA) broadcast signals; that’s up from 42 million OTA viewers just the previous year.

    — The OTA-reliant population includes one out of four Asian-American and Spanish-speaking households and 17% of African-American homes. Pay TV “cord-cutting” is also a growing trend for younger viewers, and today one out of five adults age 18-34 is broadcast-only.

    — Broadcast channels continue to attract the most television viewers, with over 95 of the top 100 rated primetime programs each week appearing on a broadcast network. Marquee events like the Super Bowl, Final Four, World Series, Academy Awards and the Kentucky Derby are all on broadcast TV, and available free to every American.

    — When there’s an emergency weather situation, it is the local broadcaster that will be the source for information that often makes the difference between life and death. During the killer tornadoes that struck Joplin, MO and Tuscaloosa, AL last year, citizens and public officials credited local TV weather forecasters with saving scores of lives.

    A thriving broadcast TV industry can be partly attributed to new services ushered in by the analog-to-digital transition. Over-the-air HD channels provide a higher-quality viewing experience than is delivered through cable. New multicast channels have also expanded choices on the television dial, often catering foreign-language or other niche programming to previously underserved communities. For instance, Bounce TV, led by Martin Luther King III and former U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young, launched recently as the first over-the-air broadcast TV network for African-Americans.

    Broadcast services can also play a role in helping cellphone providers meet the increasing demand for video on their mobile devices. Broadcasters throughout the country are rolling out mobile DTV to provide on-the-go viewers with access to live and local programming anytime, anywhere on their smartphones, laptops and even the backseats of cars. Since mobile DTV is delivered to mobile devices using broadcasting’s ‘one-to-everyone’ architecture, data-hogging video would be kept off of mobile broadband’s inefficient ‘one-to-one’ infrastructure, freeing up space for less data-intensive services like text messaging and phone calls.

    During last August’s earthquake in the D.C. region, cellphone networks experienced widespread congestion, delayed service and tens of thousands of dropped calls. Some of this congestion was caused by consumers using their phones to go online to find local news about the earthquake, oftentimes on local TV stations’ website. With mobile DTV, Americans can stay off mobile broadband networks for information and instead receive continuous, lifesaving information from their local broadcaster during times of emergency.

    Complementing broadband with broadcast should not be the only approach to making spectrum usage more efficient. For months, NAB has called on the FCC to heed the calls of lawmakers such as Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison, John Kerry, Olympia Snowe and Mark Warner to conduct a comprehensive spectrum inventory. This inventory should not just identify services set aside on the spectrum dashboard, but rather uncover what companies and government agencies hold spectrum and what they plan to do with it.

    NAB has pointed out numerous instances in which telecom companies have purchased spectrum licenses but announced no plans to deploy it, raising questions about the pervasiveness of spectrum warehousing. Our calls were echoed only a few weeks ago by AT&T’s lobbyist. “Spectrum is in the hands of entities which either are sitting on it or not using it,” he told Politico. Even when spectrum is in the hands of those saying they need it the most, there are doubts that it’s being put to the best use. A recent study by Citigroup, the largest financial services network in the world, found only 192 MHz of the 538 MHz held by wireless carriers is in use.

    Getting more spectrum into the hands of wireless carriers may not even be the best solution to alleviate mobile broadband congestion. According to an article in The New York Times, Martin Cooper, the inventor of the cellphone, believes technologies like wi-fi and smart antennas would make better use of the network. “Every two and a half years, every spectrum crisis has gotten solved, and that’s going to keep happening,” Cooper said. “We already know today what the solutions are for the next 50 years.”

    Broadcasters stand ready and willing to work with policymakers to expand wireless broadband and address the other pressing issues facing the telecom industry. However, all stakeholders should reject glib and shortsighted solutions that might put in jeopardy the future of free and local TV. Broadcasting’s best days lay ahead as both an engine of local economies and as an integral part of tomorrow’s technological world.

     

← Older posts

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: