Print
Email
/ 08.25.2011 12:00AM
McAdams On: Unconditional Surrender
ENOUGH, ALREADY: Broadcasters just lost another channel this week
in a clever end run executed by the you-know-who. Our friends in the wireless
industry scored another victory by convincing the Inveigled Communications
Commission to freeze Ch. 51, the top end of the broadcast spectrum.
Broadcasters transmitting on Ch. 51 were maybe interfering with wireless
operations on Ch. 52, they whinged. And so the Wireless Communications
Commission said, “Alas, we must wipe TV stations from the face of Ch. 51! So
let it be written, so let it be done.”
The preceding was not an actual recounting of events at the FCC, but an
absurdist approximation imagined on deadline. Let us first acknowledge that the
commission comprises hundreds of hard-working, earnest people unlikely to
benefit in any way from the agency’s decisions; and a handful of others setting
the agenda who may or may not dress up as Rameses II.
The full saga of Ch. 51 begins in another blockbuster epic that occurred in a
galaxy far, far away, where Tom Hanks carried that shoebox phone through the
streets of New York in “Splash.” The scene left phone company moguls with
dollar signs where their eyeballs were, enabling them to see a future where
everyone carried a shoebox phone. All they would need is spectrum. More and
more spectrum. All the spectrum in the world. . .
bwa ha ha ha ha. (This, too, is an approximation. I hope.)
And so it was 30 years ago that the offensive on broadcast TV commenced. Most
people familiar with this ongoing tale of intrigue recall that the 2009
transition to digital television was instigated by wireless industry demands
for spectrum. Broadcasters were kind of sitting there like ducks in a barrel of
real estate no one else wanted for the previous five decades. Their strategists
countered the wireless offensive by saying broadcasters needed the spectrum for
high-definition TV. The Japanese had HDTV, see, and we couldn’t possibly let
Japan win the race toward higher resolution. And for reasons beyond anything I
can imagine, this argument worked. For a while. Then in June, 2009,
broadcasters relinquished the 108 MHz from Chs. 52 to 69.
These channels, as we know, were auctioned off to the you-know-who, which knew
as well as any second grader that 51 and 52 are next to each other. The folks
in the FCC Pharaoh’s office knew it, too, but they decided against leaving an
empty channel between the services. They instead allowed the folks who bought
Ch. 52 licenses to design wireless networks that would reject interference
from TV stations transmitting on Ch. 51. But that determination was made nearly
10 years ago, and
you-know-who since
forgot there were broadcasters on Ch. 51. Or the commission did. Or someone
did, because all of a sudden, interference from Ch. 51 is now a problem--interference
that was the wireless industry’s technical responsibility when the spectrum was
reallocated. Their technical resolution is, if anything, interesting--removal
of all broadcaster operations from Ch. 51.
It’s clear at this point that the wireless industry will stop at nothing to
eliminate broadcasting. If it can’t push another wholesale reallocation through
Congress, it will chip away at TV spectrum one channel at a time. Will anyone
notice the loss of one TV channel here and there? Not likely. That’s why the
broadcast industry should simply and collectively surrender.
All TV station licensees should agree on a date to turn over the broadcast
spectrum to the wireless industry and get it over with. Then they should all
proceed with a coordinated publicity campaign to inform the public they will no
longer fight the wireless industry’s hold on Washington, and that free,
over-the-air TV service will cease to exist in the United States. They could
even simultaneously throw up a test pattern for a few minutes just to drive the
point home--literally. Because that’s where this debate belongs.
~ Deborah D. McAdams
Print
Email
Tuesday 12:00AM
Networks, DISH Sue Each Other Over Hopper
"We believe this is a clear violation of copyright law and we intend to stop it.”