Deborah D. McAdams /
03.30.2012 12:14 AM
McAdams On: The Great American Flimflam
This is so not about broadcasting...
OPACITY:Though it seems entirely contrary to all logic and reason, people sometimes ask me what I think of something. The current direction of spectrum policy, for example. I don’t have much to say, other than it will have been the biggest fraud perpetrated upon the American people in modern times. 

The wireless industry’s successful campaign to wrest control of the spectrum with the full assistance of the federal government is not merely about broadcasting. TV stations are a footnote in the main event, which is the systematic manipulation of the free market through political influence—and it is breathtaking. When a substantial portion of the population cannot afford whatever “national broadband plan” the government proposes to inflict, it will fall upon everyone else to subsidize it in the form of a tax collected directly by the phone companies.

And it won’t be minimal.

Let us review the events that bring us to this juncture, where wireless companies have laid the foundation to control all airborne content delivery. Remember that for decades, phone companies tried unsuccessfully to get into the TV business. Then people started abandoning landlines in droves in favor of cellphones. So the phone companies went after spectrum, providing Congress with a convenient “pay-for” to balance the budget.

So Congress spent $26 billion in 2006 budgeted from spectrum auctions that were not held until 2008 and brought in less than $20 billion. At no point did said Congress explain how it made up the other $6 billion, nor did it account for how—or how many times—the $20 billion was spent.

Consequently, 18 TV channels in every market across the country were eliminated in 2009 and 108 MHz of spectrum was redesignated for wireless communications. How much of that spectrum has been developed for wireless communications is not yet known. How many jobs it created, versus how many TV station personnel were axed, is not known. That’s because AT&T and Verizon, which won the bulk of the licenses, don’t have to say what they’re doing with them. Revealing build-out information isn’t “free-market” friendly, after all. Hoarding spectrum—now that’s free-market friendly. Not running a TV station on it. That’s inefficient use of spectrum, the wireless war cry goes. Bad. Very bad. Sitting on it and waiting for a price hike—that’s goooood.

A 2010 white paper on reassigning spectrum indicated that less than one-third of the 547 MHz designated for wireless service was actually in use. Then last year, we discover that the big cable and satellite TV providers have been sitting on wireless spectrum covering the entire country. But that’s OK. Because of the aforementioned free-market friendliness. However, hoarding spectrum also flies in the face of the government’s charter to manage the airwaves in the public interest. Woops. Pesky charter. But that was your grandpa’s federal government—the one supposedly concerned with upholding Democracy, or some such naive notion. Now the charter is to convince the public what is in its best interest, and that boils down to one thing—wireless broadband.

Spoiler alert: I am not some misanthropic, fossilized defender of the broadcast industry. Well, maybe I am, but that’s neither here nor there when it comes to the manner in which spectrum is being managed, purportedly to facilitate wireless broadband.

I want affordable mobile wireless broadband everywhere I go as much as the next person. Possibly more so, because I make my living virtually. I can play network hop-scotch in my sleep. There is nothing I would love more than a single, slim-profile device upon which I could work, edit video and images, hold conversations and move files—everywhere I go.

Would I personally vote to eliminate free TV service in exchange for reliable, ubiquitous broadband service? Maybe, but I don’t know. Neither the federal government nor the wireless industry has indicated how the network would be built, by whom, when, for how much, at what taxpayer expense and how much the service would eventually cost the very taxpayers who have already absorbed the $6 billion shortfall from the last TV spectrum auction.

And this concerns me.

I am supposed to trust the free market for the build-out and management of a national wireless broadband network, but not for the provisioning of spectrum necessary to do so. For that, I am supposed to trust the federal government to manage the process in my interest. Rhetoric about a “looming spectrum crisis” is most definitely not in my interest, nor does it tell me anything of factual substance. Unfortunately, the idea has so permeated the mainstream press that it is now assumed there will be a spectrum shortage for mobile communications, and that the only answer is dedicating more spectrum to the cause.

This conclusion was reached without even a cursory spectrum inventory, much less one identifying unused licenses, and offered for public comment. It was decided without any open discussion of developing more efficient wireless transmission standards, much less the antenna technology necessary for mobile broadband devices using UHF TV spectrum. The absence of such actions on the part of the federal government suggests that it had no interest whatsoever in considering alternatives to throwing more spectrum at the presumed spectrum shortage.

Since spectrum is finite, we are told, I’m not sure how throwing more of it at a growing shortage will resolve the problem long term. No, that will be up to the Americans vicariously being taxed in the form of wireless subscription fees for use of their own airwaves to fund the development of more efficient wireless transmission standards.

In the meantime, the march to reclaim the TV spectrum will not be deterred by nettlesome facts nor common sense, and it will be facilitated by friends of the wireless industry. This week alone, the Federal Communications Commission announced that its TV spectrum auction advisors included a cadre of vociferous wireless industry advocates; the Commerce Department “identified” 95 MHz of government spectrum for broadband, coincidentally including the bandwidth assigned for TV station newsgathering operations; and Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam said that the provider would offer mobile TV service by the end of the year.

Welcome to the free market “Hunger Games.”
~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: Anonymous
Fri, 03-30-2012 04:43 PM Report Comment
Misanthropic defender of the broadcast industry? You betcha... Fossilized? Nah!
Posted by: Anonymous
Fri, 03-30-2012 04:55 PM Report Comment
They have taken 800 mHz away from broadcasters. They the took 700 mHz. Now they want to take 600 mHz. Isn't it more a matter of wanting to put broadcasters out of business rather than need spectrum? If they really want spectrum best suited for transporting high bandwidths they should be looking at multi gHz bands. I fully expect the carriers will cast off these UHF frequencies in favor of much higher freqs before long.
Posted by: Anonymous
Fri, 03-30-2012 05:08 PM Report Comment
I really believe the first FlimFlam was the digital transition. Hundt brags that this was planned all along and they needed to get the Big broadcasters on board to take the rest of the spectrum. It was done with the transition pulling the wool over the public and broadcaster's eyes with the ultimate bait and switch.
Posted by: Anonymous
Fri, 03-30-2012 05:20 PM Report Comment
What's even more fun is the glistening incompetence with which they ignore their engineers. Between LightSquared, WhiteSpace, and unlicensed devices, maybe they'll land enough turds in the punchbowl to render wide swaths of the spectrum so unreliable as to be worthless. Interference products tend to hit higher frequencies than where they originate, so the delicious irony is that AM talk radio may be the main remaining viable application of wireless technology. Last man standing, the colossus towering over it all: Mr. Rush Limbaugh. Don'tcha just love it?
Posted by: Anonymous
Fri, 03-30-2012 05:20 PM Report Comment
As a former broadcast exec and now co-publisher of The Auto, I can say with knowledge that the spectrum rape sounds a lot like the alt fuel arguments made by oil lobbyists, right wing traitorous radio hosts and foreign prince bought and paid for politicos..."oil is finite, so let's prevent the implementation of a sane alt fuel program by screaming "drill baby drill". I wonder if the pinstriped anti-America crowd learn this rhetoric at a clandestine school for traitors, and then enter America's bloodstream coiled up in the nether regions of greedy CEO's and unpatriotic seems to be working. It's time methinks to do what Howard Beale (Peter Finch) screamed in Network "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!" out of our windows (and on our Twitter and Facebook pages.) I place the blame on the demise of free TV not only on the commission but on every greedy and ineffective broadcast exec who allowed it to happen...any GM that didn't use the power of the station's air to inform their audience about this travesty are know who you are - SHAME!
Posted by: Anonymous
Wed, 04-04-2012 03:54 PM Report Comment
Here's a question: How do other countries -- like in Europe f'rinstance -- divvy up their spectrum between TV, wireless, government, etc?

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