[opendtv] Four Items to Watch in the FCC's TV Spectrum Plan
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 16:48:57 -0600
"Will the Obama administration be able get the Republican House of
Representatives to agree to it?"
Good question.
This whole "one size fits all" attempt at increasing wireless broadband
spectrum is wrongheaded, IMO, and I hope the new Congress will figure it out.
Joe Barton did hint at some changes afoot, but who knows. I've never been able
to figure out the party affilitation of OTA TV policies.
Where the TV spectrum is most heavily used is exactly where the low frequencies
of the TV bands are least optimal for two-way wireless. Conversely, in areas
where there's plenty of unused TV spectrum is where large cells, for cellular
two-way, do make sense.
So it seems so obvious that this new attempt at wholesale spectrum-grab by the
FCC has to be stopped, in favor of a market by market assessment and regulation
tailored to each market. And it doesn't even seem difficult to achieve this!
Furthermore, in those markets where population densities are low and plenty of
open TV channels exist, I'll bet you'll find that TV is already using the lower
frequencies. Which would reduce any need for TV spectrum repacking.
Bert
------------------------------------
http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/109198
Four Items to Watch in the FCC's TV Spectrum Plan
by Doug Lung, 11.11.2010.
One of the items on the agenda for the Nov. 30 FCC Open Meeting includes a
notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comments on rules that would facilitate
the most efficient use of the UHF and VHF TV bands.
The commission says that the proposals are "an important step toward the
agency's spectrum goals as outlined in the National Broadband Plan," and they
would eliminate several obstacles to establishment of mobile broadband service
in spectrum currently reserved for TV broadcasters. This usage would be made
possible through "innovations such as channel sharing and generating increased
value within the VHF band."
I've previously discussed the National Broadband Plan (NBP) and its
recommendation that 120 MHz-almost half of the usable TV spectrum-be
reallocated from broadcast television service (and white space devices) to
wireless broadband. The FCC and the Obama administration have said repeatedly
that any relinquishment of spectrum, either through channel sharing or giving
up off-air broadcasting completely, would be voluntary. However, there are four
things that should be looked for in the Nov. 30th NPRM, in order to understand
the real impact of the proposed rules on TV broadcasting.
* Will stations that voluntarily decide not to give up their spectrum be able
to stay on their existing channels? For example, WRC-TV, the NBC O&O in
Washington DC, is unlikely to give up its spectrum or share a channel, as it's
already broadcasting HD, two multicast channels, and Mobile DTV, thus fully
occupying the Channel 48 allocation it was given. The CBS O&O in Los Angeles is
on Channel 43. The wireless companies want contiguous spectrum. If the FCC
follows the same plan as when reallocating channels 70-83 for cellular and SMR
and, just last year, channels 52-69, stations in the upper UHF spectrum have
reason to worry. This leads to the next question....
* If the FCC reallocates a contiguous block of spectrum starting at Channel
51-and working down-what happens to the stations on the upper UHF channels? One
hint is the agenda note about making VHF spectrum more valuable for
broadcasting. Unfortunately, for Mobile DTV (perhaps the most promising and
highest value use of spectrum for broadcasting), VHF doesn't work very well.
Even the high-band VHF channels have problems getting a signal to handheld
devices due to a huge disadvantage in antenna efficiency. Granting a 10 dB
boost in effective radiated power will help, but is unlikely to fully offset
the loss in antenna efficiency and the high level of electrical noise at VHF.
Further, generating this much power at VHF will be difficult due to the size of
the transmitting antenna. A VHF antenna with the same gain as a UHF antenna
would need to be about four times larger. In most cases, this is not physically
possible. Will a UHF station with excellent coverage be forced to take a VHF
channel with little indoor-and practically no-handheld DTV coverage?
* Who pays? Repacking spectrum means moving stations to different channels and
possibly different sites. For most stations, changing channels will mean
installing at least one new transmission facility in order to avoid
interrupting programming. In the event there isn't sufficient space on an
existing tower, both an interim and a final facility would need to be
constructed. Costs are likely to be close to, or even exceeding, $2 million per
station. Will the wireless companies pay for these moves or will broadcasters
be forced to pay the cost themselves in order to voluntarily retain their
spectrum?
* What happens if there isn't enough TV spectrum for both the broadcasters who
don't voluntarily give up their spectrum and the 120 MHz the FCC wants to give
to the wireless companies? Will the Commission accept less than 120 MHz in
those markets where there isn't enough spectrum, even if all the stations share
channels? Will stations have to compete for the few remaining channels? Who
gets stuck on VHF? What happens to the losers?
Remember that the Nov. 30 document will be a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, not
the final law. Congress must pass a law allowing the FCC to carry out its
"incentive auction" plan.
Will the Obama administration be able get the Republican House of
Representatives to agree to it?
The NBP implies a 2013 date for freeing up this spectrum. I would be surprised
if Congressional approval is received and final rules issued before the end of
2011. Considering the amount of time it took the FCC and broadcasters to
complete the DTV transition-which involved adding a new service rather than
moving an existing one-two years for such a drastic change seems unrealistic
unless broadcasters who want to retain their spectrum are able to do so on
their existing channels. If the wireless companies and other NBP proponents
want fast access to TV spectrum-as I see it-they will have to accept the
reality that the spectrum they receive may not be contiguous. Some of it might
even be below 300 MHz.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
- » [opendtv] Four Items to Watch in the FCC's TV Spectrum Plan - Manfredi, Albert E
