Doug Lung /
01.13.2011 12:00AM
Views Aired at CES About Off-Air Television's Future

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, speaking at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas last week, emphasized the need to find more spectrum for wireless broadband to support all the nifty devices on display at CES. Much of that spectrum would come from existing TV channels.

CEA President Gary Shapiro said in his keynote address that television broadcasters were "squatting now on our broadband future." Chairman Genachowski's comments weren't as harsh.

"In the case of TV broadcasters, under our plan, a broadcaster could choose to contribute the 6 MHz channel it is using, or continue to broadcast by sharing a channel with one or more stations, or simply not participate and continue to broadcast as they do today," he said.

Shapiro offered his thoughts about the television broadcast industry.

"Television broadcasters are unhappy," he said. "…they have borrowed spectrum from the government and have seen their public audience shrink from 100 percent of Americans to under 10 percent. They are squatting on our broadband future. This spectrum needs to be repurposed and reused."

Genachowski mentioned Shapiro's new book The Comeback: How Innovation Will Restore the American Dream, at the start of his speech.

In the book, Shapiro says that broadcasting is an "incredibly inefficient" use of valuable spectrum. He compared the FCC's broadcast spectrum policy to granting horse and buggy makers exclusive use of the roads after the invention of the car.

As expected, the National Association of Broadcasters disagreed. Its spokesman, Dennis Wharton, had his own comments.

"Perhaps while he was writing his book, Gary missed the fact that broadcasters just gave back over a quarter of our airwaves after the DTV transition," Wharton said. "He may have also missed the pay TV cord-cutting phenomenon and the fact that TV antenna sales are soaring. Broadcasting, because it is a 'one-to-many' transmission service, is a far more efficient user of spectrum than the 'one-to-one' spectrum-hogging cellphone network."

The process of moving spectrum from free off-air TV to commercial wireless broadband services has just started. Congress needs to approve the "incentive auctions" the FCC would use to encourage broadcasters to voluntarily return spectrum and the commission needs to adopt rules for the auction and determine how the broadcast spectrum will be repacked.

Genachowski said that "Auctions of contiguous spectrum would unlock value and billions of dollars." [Emphasis added].

"Contiguous" implies that many TV stations would have to move to lower UHF slots, or even VHF channels, if they want to say on the air, as most of the existing UHF TV channels would need to disappear to meet the National Broadband Plan's goal of taking 120 MHz from broadcasting. UHF is the only TV band with that much contiguous spectrum.

Given the relatively low value (per market/per channel) assigned to the spectrum AT&T recently acquired from Qualcomm, could we see a scenario where broadcasters volunteer to give up the spectrum, then use the money they receive plus whatever extra amount is needed to "buy-back" the spectrum?

Under such a scenario, for that extra amount of money the broadcasters would no longer have to deal with all the public interest requirements the FCC has placed on TV broadcasting and would be free to use the most efficient modulation method possible (including multicarrier modulation like OFDM) to reach fixed, portable and mobile devices. Another benefit would be no worries about support for existing TV sets.

Under this scenario, TV broadcasting really wouldn't be killed off, and could advance without the regulatory constraints that it's been under for more than half a century.

Of course, depending on the business model, it may no longer be free.



Comments
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.)

1.
Posted by: Brian Smith
Thu, 01-13-2011 - 8:07PM Report Comment
Last I checked, the CEA is the successor to the RMA/RETMA/EIA, specifically the consumer electronics bit, which, at least in theory, includes manufacturers of broadcast TV reception devices. Were I a manufacturer of said devices, I would wonder how my Association dues were being spent, given the above pronouncements of the CEA's President. The CEA President slamming a multi-billion-dollar industry as "squatting on our broadband future", my how times have changed. I think it is time to SERIOUSLY consider the FCC's role as spectrum manager. It appears they view picking technological winners and losers as their role. Spectrum management has taken a backseat to...what? What has truly squelched our future is an agency whose 1934 roots have taken it well beyond its true mandate.
2.
Posted by: Brian Smith
Fri, 01-14-2011 - 10:05PM Report Comment
Shapiro's a lawyer, a front man, a hired mouthpiece nothing more, nothing less. I think he says whatever will make CEA members the most money, irrespective of other conditions. He doesn't need to know what he's talking about.
3.
Posted by: Brian Smith
Thu, 01-13-2011 - 10:02PM Report Comment
I agree that the broadcaster's use of the spectrum seems much more efficient and they can do a lot of the same things that the other big companies would be doing with the spectrum. With the cost of cable and satellite continuing to soar, it's no wonder that tv antenna sales are increasing. Most broadcaster's won't be able to afford to convert from UHF to VHF and the reception of VHF signals does not seem to work as well as UHF. Let's keep free over the air tv.




Wednesday 9:02AM
Analysts: TV Regs 'Not as Dire as We Thought'
We feel the negatives are known and are a lot more comfortable recommending the space.


 
Featured Articles
Discover TV Technology