Always a good column from Doug. I was thinking that continued specified use of
OET-69 should be putting broadcasters in the more congested markets between a
rock and a hard place? If co-channel interference between big sticks becomes an
issue, and I'm not sure how it would NOT become an issue, perhaps broadcasters
will have to resort to very low power translators, like 100 W or less, in parts
of their coverage area?
What are we talking about here? Giving up all spectrum above Ch 34? Crazy, man.
Bert
-----------------------------------------------
http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/broadcast-spectrum-auctions-now-law/212006
Doug Lung
02.24.2012 12:00AM
Broadcast Spectrum Auctions Now Law
President Obama has signed the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of
2012. The Act has the provisions I described in my article Walden Bill Would
let TV Stations Use Alternative Transmission Systems last December.
The provision requiring the FCC to "make all reasonable efforts to preserve, as of the date of
the enactment of this Act, the coverage area and population served of each broadcast television
license, as determined using the methodology described in OET Bulletin 69..." remains. Since
the Act was signed by President Obama Wednesday, this effectively freezes TV stations' coverage
where it is now. While nothing prevents the FCC from granting coverage increases, they are not
required to protect the expanded coverage during the repacking after the auctions are completed. It
isn't clear whether "the coverage area and population served" means current licensed
coverage or whether it will also include coverage expansion authorized by a construction permit or
requested in an application pending at the FCC. Stations that filed applications to move from a VHF
to UHF channel after May 31, 2011 are out of luck - the Act prohibits the FCC from granting VHF to
UHF channel change applications
filed after that date "unless such a reassignment will not decrease the total
amount of ultra high frequency spectrum made available for reallocation..."
The Walden bill's provision prohibiting the FCC from reallocating a UHF station to a VHF
channel remains, although stations can agree to exchange a UHF channel for a VHF channel
and receive compensation through the reverse auction. The status of LPTV stations is
unclear. The Act states, "Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to alter the
spectrum usage rights of low-power television stations." With the exception of Class
A stations, LPTV and translator stations are secondary users. Does this statement mean
they will remain secondary and be displaced in the repacking or their spectrum will be
protected?
While stations that agree to share a channel with another station will be
granted carriage rights on cable systems and other MVPDs-and funds will be
available to help the MVPDs make the change-there is no mention of carriage
rights for stations that give up all of their spectrum. If the station doesn't
have an over-the-air signal, it won't have cable carriage rights.
Stations that need to relocate to other channels will be reimbursed for relocation costs,
but the FCC is not required to pay this until three years after the completion of the
forward auction. The Act says "to the extent practicable, all such reassignments and
reallocations shall become effective simultaneously." Considering that a third or
more of all TV stations will need to switch channels, this isn't going to be easy.
Overall, the channel relocation is likely to be much more difficult than the analog
shutdown.
The rule allowing flexible use of broadcast spectrum in lieu of reimbursement for
relocation expenses remains: "a broadcast television licensee may accept, and the
Commission may grant as it considers appropriate, a waiver of the service rules of the
Commission to permit the licensee, subject to interference protections, to make flexible
use of the spectrum assigned to the licensee to provide services other than broadcast
television services. Such waiver shall only remain in effect while the licensee provides
at least 1 broadcast television program stream on such spectrum at no charge to the
public."
When will this happen? Under the Act, the FCC is required to complete the
auctions and relocation by Sept. 30, 2022. The Act does not specify a minimum
time period.
The Act includes a very odd section regarding channel 37. It allows reimbursement of cost
for "a channel 37 incumbent user, in order to relocate to other suitable spectrum,
provided that all such users can be relocated and that the total relocation costs of such
users do not exceed $300,000,000. For the purpose of this section, the spectrum made
available through relocation of channel 37 incumbent users shall be deemed as spectrum
reclaimed through a reverse auction under section 6403(a)." I didn't think there
were any incumbent channel 37 users except for medical devices and radio astronomy. The
interstellar objects can't be reallocated to another channel, even for $300,000,000, so
this would appear to apply to medical devices. Why would the FCC need to relocate
incumbent users unless it plans on using channel 37 for wireless broadband?
We have seen the problems poor receiver interference rejection can cause in the
LightSquared debacle. Section 6408 requires the Comptroller General of the
United States to conduct a study that includes the value of improving receiver
performance, improving the operation of services located in adjacent spectrum,
and narrowing the guard bands between adjacent spectrum use. This is unlikely
to affect interference studies for broadcaster to broadcaster interference,
since the Act specifies use of OET-69, but could impact the interference to
broadcast and broadcast auxiliary spectrum from other users. The study results
have to be submitted to Congress not later than one year after the enactment of
the Act.
Operators of microwave systems in the 11 GHz, 18 GHz and 23 GHz bands may see
tougher restrictions on bandwidth usage and antenna performance standards after
the GAO study required by the Act. The Comptroller General is required to
conduct a study and report on the rejection rate of applications, either by the
FCC or by private coordinators, for new links in these bands due to
interference with existing links. That study is due no later than 9 months
after enactment of the Act.
Thanks to the efforts of NAB and state broadcaster associations, the worst fears of what
would happen from the FCC implementing the recommendations of the National Broadband Plan
have been allayed, but there are still many unanswered questions. Perhaps foremost is
what the FCC will consider "all reasonable efforts" to protect coverage.
Currently the de-minimis interference level is 0.5 percent. Will that stick or will the
FCC try to move it back to the 2 percent per case or 10 percent total allowed during the
DTV transition? While the use of OET-69 provides some consistency with previous
interference studies, I've pointed out the problems with it, particularly the FCC's use
of the horizontal plane radiation pattern in determining protected contours for OET-69.
This results in stations in Los Angeles showing up with more coverage to the north than
south over Los Angeles, when in reality the opposite is true.
