Mario Orazio /
04.05.2011 09:00 PM
Look Out! They're After Our Spectrum!

You might not have noticed, fellow broadcasters, that "they" are really after our spectrum. Why, just recently Gary Shapiro, venerated leader of the CEA, (or as I like to call 'em, see-ya) and former booster-in-chief of TV set sales, opened the Consumer Electronics Show with a complaint that broadcasters are "squatting" on RF spectrum, impeding our wireless broadband futures. Squatting! Oh my ears and whiskers, as Horace Rumpole might say. Squatting! Let's have a brief review of the "ownership" of the aforementioned television broadcast spectrum, why don't we?

The Communications Act of 1934, the Congressional Act that established the regulation of the U.S. airwaves, enshrined the concept that in the USA, the airwaves belong to the people, and established the Federal Communications Commission to regulate said airwaves. Section 307(a) of that Act declares: "The Commission, if public convenience, interest, or necessity will be served thereby, subject to the limitations of this Act, shall grant to any applicant therefore a station license provided for by this Act."

So, this bargain was struck between the broadcaster and the people who owned the spectrum: we the people will let you use this broadcast channel to ply your trade, subject to the regulations of the FCC, and you, in turn, will use it to serve the public convenience, interest, or necessity by providing entertainment, news, alerts and warnings, and other programming that serves the greater good. All that worked well for a long time, until the demands for RF spectrum began multiplying.


The UHF television spectrum in the U.S., initially incorporating channels 14 to 82, was largely unused, save by a few entities such as an educational television channel in Houston, Texas, until congress mandated the incorporation of UHF tuners into all TV sets sold, sometime in the 1970s. As time passed, various needs arose, in public service communications and other quarters, and portions of the UHF television spectrum started being allocated to services other than TV. By then, the UHF TV broadcast spectrum stopped at channel 68.

Somebody got the bright idea in the 1980s that high-definition television would be a good thing to do. After a lot of to-ing and fro-ing, and research, and testing, and politicking, we reached the point where we decided that we would launch digital television broadcasting, aka DTV. DTV would be, as its name implies, digital, and it would incorporate, in addition to HDTV, the ability to broadcast SDTV, and just plain data. As someone in my past career used to say, "it's not just television broadcasting, it's a digital pipeline into the home."


In order to make the transition from analog to digital TV, as there was still a considerable supply of unoccupied UHF spectrum around, the FCC lent every broadcast TV station a second channel, and said, "Build a DTV station on it, and someday, you will be required to shut your analog station off, and give up one of the two channels you will temporarily occupy." That happened. We saw it, and it was good. HDTV was, and is, being broadcast, along with, in many cases, multiple subchannels, expanding the services offered by a broadcast station. Plans began to be made for a mobile broadcasting service.

Every U.S. television station spent the money and resources to put a digital signal on the air, then shut off their analog signal, freeing a lot of spectrum in the bargain. Five minutes later, there was a different message: "You broadcast guys are not putting the spectrum to its optimum use. Give it up, so we can use it for wireless data transmission, and we might pay you something for it." Now, we are told we are "squatting".

Gordon Smith, the president of the NAB, got it about right in his response to Mr. Shapiro's comments. He said that there probably isn't enough spectrum in the universe to accommodate this dream of transmitting everything to everyone individually.

And take a look at what these spectrum-enviers have in mind. The chief technology officer of Verizon said that sending all that video-on-demand stuff out over the cell network will probably clog it up royally. So, the answer is to transmit it, one-to-one, via separate RF signals. Sure looks to yours truly like this is a way to wrest RF spectrum from free over-the-air broadcasters and sell it to paid video services.


And Julius Genachowski, chairman of the FCC, is singing the same tune, saying that broadcasters are not putting the spectrum they occupy to its highest use. Earth to Julius… Get a clue! The FCC was created to serve the public convenience, interest, and necessity! Have you heard, J., that TV antenna sales are at an all-time high in the U.S.? Looks a lot like the public wants to watch free broadcast TV, otherwise why are they buying all those TV antennas? Doesn't that make broadcast television, ipso facto, the "highest use" of the spectrum it is occupying?

We don't yet know, of course, what will come of mobile DTV broadcasting. But many, if not most, DTV stations are filling up their respective 6 MHz blocks with subchannels. There is, for example, a DTV station in the Los Angeles area that carries no HDTV signal, but does carry 7 or 8 SD subchannels. Sandwich mobile into this, and TV broadcasters and the public are getting more and more out of a 6 MHz piece of spectrum.

We have already seen broadcasters get the short end of the stick as far as the spectrum allocations go. The original plan was to put all DTV stations on channels 14-62. They ended up on channels 2-52. That most certainly happened because broadband spectrum lusters realized that low VHF channels stink for digital transmission. Now, broadband spectrum lusters want the whole enchilada. In their perfect world, they would get all that spectrum to use for VOD, and they wouldn't have the broadcasters to compete with any more. But this couldn't happen, could it?

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: Brian Smith
Wed, 04-06-2011 08:49 AM Report Comment
The CEA operated website isn't helping much either. The ultra conservative results provided by this site misleads rural people into believing that TV reception is not available at their location when in reality it is. If the results provided by antennaweb were accurate I estimate that 75% of the U.S. could not get reliable TV reception. This results in fewer TV antennas in operation and less opposition to those who want to take the spectrum away. Denny Duplessis
Posted by: Brian Smith
Thu, 04-07-2011 06:43 PM Report Comment
Has anyone looked at a spectrum map recently? The biggest spectrum hog is the Federal Government! Between military, restricted and reserved bandwidth you could put all of broadcasting and communications in a fraction of that space and have spectrum left over!
Posted by: Brian Smith
Wed, 04-06-2011 05:07 PM Report Comment
This is total nonsense. Is the general public better off by (i) having an ungodly number of over-the-air television channels (broadcasting infomercials mostly, because there is no other real profitable way to run these channels as advertising-driven businesses) or (ii) by having cheaper and faster access to wireless broadband? Take a poll, my friend, the answer is obvious. There are a huge number of money losing stations, particularly in major markets. Having these stations sell their spectrum is a win for them, and a huge win for the public at large. The larger broadcasters don't need to participate, its their choice, but they should take their heads out of the sand - they are on the wrong side of this issue.
Posted by: Brian Smith
Wed, 04-06-2011 06:41 PM Report Comment
First there were channels 1 to 13. Then they added 14 to 83 (not 82). Somewhere we gave back channels 1 and then later channels 70 to 83 (we had 2 to 69, not 68). Of course now we're limited to channels 2 to 51 but channels 2 to 6 are not all that great for ATSC. Certainly if everyone wants their own personal video feed (I'd like 2 or 3 myself), then we need a lot more spectrum (or one heck of a new technology to make it possible).
Posted by: Brian Smith
Wed, 04-06-2011 09:17 PM Report Comment
Amen Brother! Good article! One leetle quibble though... Hate to contradict your remaining functional brain cell (Tilly was her name?), but the first non-commercial educational TV station on the air in the US of A, that station in Houston, good ole KUHT, has been on an assigned frequency of Channel 8 since Ike was president and DuMont was growing Acorns into Oaks...never on UHF. And that all-channel legislation was effective in the 1964 model year, vice the 70's. And, the UHF band was most definitely NOT largely unused at first, after the Sixth Report and Order...many UHF stations across the fruited plain went on-the-air in 1953 and 1954, only to be dark by 1955. It was worse than unused, it was tried and failed...due to the FCC's optimistic vision of UHF's potential in mid-50's TV set America.
Posted by: Brian Smith
Thu, 04-07-2011 09:46 AM Report Comment
Auction off the spectrum and use the proceeds to buy free satellite TV for life for everyone in America. It's hard to think of a more wasteful, inefficient use of the airwaves than broadcasting.

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