Deborah D. McAdams /
11.30.2010 12:00 AM
FCC Opens TV Spectrum for Broadband Use
Baker calls for exploration of MPEG-4 and OFDM
WASHINGTON: The Federal Communications Commission today took the first step to open television broadcast spectrum for broadband use. The commissioners unanimously approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to add new allocations for fixed and land mobile services in the TV spectrum that would be co-primary with broadcasting. The additional designation would make television spectrum equally available at auction for broadcasting and wireless broadband.

The notice also proposes a framework of rules to allow two or more TV stations to operate on a single 6 MHz channel--the current allocation for one full-power TV station license. Channel-sharing stations would retain must-carry rights, the FCC’s Alan Stillwell said. Channel-sharing would not increase or decrease carriage rights on any type of multichannel system. The docket will be open for comment on the technical feasibility of channel sharing.

The third major proposal in today’s NRPM involves “increasing utility of VHF bands for TV services,” Stillwell said. Reception of digital TV at very high frequency channels--2-13--is not nearly what it was for analog broadcasting. Digital VHF has proven notoriously poor, as observed by transmission expert Doug Lung more than six years ago. (See Low-band VHF DTV Revisited,” from TV Technology, May 5, 2004.)

The FCC’s notice proposes to increase the allowable maximum power for broadcasters in VHF channels--with considerations for interference--and to establish minimum performance standards of indoor antennas.

A VHF reception solution will be a tall order, Commissioner Michael Copps allowed. He recounted the difficulties of resolving the flood of VHF reception complaints following the June 2009 digital transition.

“Real remedies were few and far between,” he said.

Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker wasn’t at the agency for the DTV transition, but noted that it was only “a year and five months” since broadcasters did the deed. She was the only one of the five commissioners who said current transmission and compression schemes ought to be reconsidered.

“In the future, there needs to be a discussion of the sharing of broadcast and broadband in the TV bands,” including a migration from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 compression, and from ATSC to OFDM transmission. She also suggested exploring a cellular infrastructure for broadcasting.

Baker said the FCC also needed support from Congress   to carry out its intentions, particularly with regard to incentive auctions. The concept behind incentive auctions is to give broadcasters who voluntarily relinquish spectrum licenses a piece of the resulting auction proceeds. The FCC has no legislative mechanism to conduct such a procedure.

Commissioner Robert McDowell approved the item but questioned it as the most efficient route to achieve nationwide wireless broadband--the commission’s stated goal. Broadcasters are already allowed to offer alternatives services, including data services he said.

“How would this work in the context of wireless broadband?” he asked rhetorically. “Would this approach be a faster means of getting wireless broadband into the market as opposed to channel sharing?”

McDowell was around for the DTV transition and recalled the VHF issues as well.

“Industry and FCC engineers scrambled to overcome reception and interference issues in the VHF channels,” he said. “Before the FCC moves broadcasters back into those channels, I want to understand the ramifications.”

Copps said the procedure to open broadcast spectrum for wireless broadband should be approached with “cautious optimism.” He voiced support for the broadcast industry, while chiding it for not doing more in the name of public interest. In that regard, he said much of the broadcast spectrum goes “underutilized.”

“Public interest multicasting remains all too much a concept, but not a reality,” he said.

The people affected by spectrum policy don’t think about it, he said. They just want their phones and TVs to work. And auctioning off massive amounts of spectrum to incumbent wireless providers isn’t going to result in cheaper service, he said.
-- Deborah D. McAdams

Post New Comment
If you are already a member, or would like to receive email alerts as new comments are
made, please login or register.

Enter the code shown above:

(Note: If you cannot read the numbers in the above
image, reload the page to generate a new one.)

Posted by: Deborah McAdams
Tue, 11-30-2010 05:54 PM Report Comment
But look at the image quality of those PBS multicast channels. In 6 MHz, there's room for one channel of full quality HD. That's what ATSC was designed for. Broadcasters who put out one HD channel are absolutely using their whole ration of spectrum.
Posted by: Deborah McAdams
Tue, 11-30-2010 09:41 PM Report Comment
From : "The WETA HD channel presents primetime programs in dazzling high-definition television — featuring crystal clear video and high-quality audio that is especially noticeable to viewers watching on high-definition TV sets." NOVA and NATURE look pretty good to these old eyes on WETA HD. Somehow WETA is putting out 3 SD channels and 1 HD channel.
Posted by: Deborah McAdams
Wed, 12-01-2010 02:14 AM Report Comment
How is it possible that in the nation's largest TV market (New York City), digital signals only reach 50% of the former (analog) viewing area? This leaves hundreds of thousands of us without the option to ditch cable and satellite. Further, how did the FCC ever come up with the idea to put both New York City and Hartford CBS stations on the same digital channel 33? This is causing 25% of the viewers in the NYC DMA to end up receiving the Hartford CBS station and not the local New York City CBS station. One of these stations ought to be assigned a different frequency, and all of the New York, NY stations should be allowed to increase their power to pre-digital levels so that the entire market is once again covered.
Posted by: Deborah McAdams
Wed, 12-01-2010 11:54 AM Report Comment
Pay attention people - this is not about spectrum. The business model for broadband wireless doesn't work so long as viewers have the option of free broadcast television. You need to kill off the "free" (ad-supported) option so that EVERY viewer in America is required to subscribe to some service for connectivity. This is about money and who gets it. OTA broadcasters have been getting it for decades and now the telcos and Googles of the world want a turn. We have the best Guv'mint that money can buy in the United States, a fact not lost on the lobbyists who make their living prowling the halls of Congress. The loss of spectrum is a rigged deal - it's game over for OTA broadcasting.
Posted by: Deborah McAdams
Wed, 12-01-2010 04:37 PM Report Comment
Here in LA we have two and a half PBS stations: KCET, KLCS, and about half the time you can get a signal on KOCE. (Yes, as of 1-1-11, it'll be one and a half.) NOVA is almost always on one of the SD feeds. It looks like crap, but it's worth watching for the content.
Posted by: Deborah McAdams
Tue, 11-30-2010 12:42 PM Report Comment
“Public interest multicasting remains all too much a concept, but not a reality,” he said. Except for PBS stations, this is sadly true. Use it or lose it, broadcasters.
Posted by: Deborah McAdams
Tue, 11-30-2010 02:43 PM Report Comment
Sure wish we'd put up some more of those weather radar channels, while we had the spectrum.
Posted by: Deborah McAdams
Wed, 06-01-2011 04:11 PM Report Comment
Not so CW has HD and 4 subchannels in standard definition. In South Florida, We get 62 digital and HD channels with our DTV Green Dish. We cut our cord years ago.

Thursday 11:07 AM
The Best Deconstruction of a 4K Shoot You'll Ever Read
With higher resolutions and larger HD screens, wide shots using very wide lenses can be a problem because they allow viewers to see that infinity doesn’t quite resolve into perfect sharpness.

Featured Articles
Discover TV Technology