Mario Orazio /
06.26.2012 01:00 PM
What Spectrum Crisis?
How about a crisis of integrity?

You might not have noticed, but there is a ginormous amount ofpressure being applied to broadcasters to auction off their spectrum and consolidate their signals on fewer RF channels. Now, Mario enjoys watching MPEG artifacts as much as the next viewer, but if these guys have their way, all the television stations in a given market will try to squeeze onto a single 6 MHz channel, and everyone will have to watch on a Dick Tracy wrist TV with a display 30 pixels wide, ’cuz with that kind of bandwidth limitation, even a smartphone-sized screen, will produce images that look like a pig’s breakfast.

Former FCC Commissioner Michael Copps recently said on C-SPAN that he thinks there is an abundance of spectrum that ain’t being used:  “There is alot of spectrum out there, and I don’t think anybody in the United States has very much of a clue exactly how much spectrum is lying fallow.”

In April, Verizon announced it planned to sell portions of spectrum it owns in a number of major markets; spectrum it purchased at FCC auction in 2008 and has been warehousing since. Said sale is contingent on Verizon’s getting approval to buy spectrum from four cable companies.Whatever. Certainly appears to Mario that Verizon has been sitting on unused spectrum for four years.

Further, no lesser figure than Martin Cooper, formerly of Motorola and named as the inventor of the cellphone, doesn’t think there’s a spectrum crisis, least ways not one that we can’t innovate our way out of.

In an interview with The New York Times, Cooper said, “Somehow in the last 100 years, every time there is a problem of getting more spectrum, there is a technology that comes along that solves that problem.” He cited technological developments such as improved antennas and techniques to offload mobile traffic to Wi-Fi networks, which, he says, could multiply the number of devices carriers can serve by a factor of at least 10. He specifically recommends the use of smart antennas on cell towers, which, rather than radiating in all directions, would direct RF energy at the phones in use.

Mr. Cooper further said, “Every two-and-a-half years, every spectrum crisis has gotten solved, and that’s going to keep happening. We already know today what the solutions are for the next 50 years.”

David P. Reed, one of the original architects of the Internet and a former MIT computer engineering professor, argues that saying a nation could run out of spectrumis like saying it could run out of a color, as spectrum is not finite.

Reed states there are technologies for transmitting and receiving signals that do not interfere with each other, and that the real reason cell carriers want to control spectrum is to keep it out of the hands of others and thereby protect their businesses.

And he ain’t the only one. The NAB has called for a “fulsome inventory” (methinks “complete inventory” would better convey the message, in light of the many definitions of “fulsome,” none of which really applies), to determine once and for all whether there is really a spectrum shortage,or if spectrum is being hoarded to limit competition.

The NAB has specifically stated that, based on public comments made by company executives in published reports, some companies are “hoarding” spectrum.

In late May, a report from a presidential advisory committee was completed, and publicly presented to the President’s Councilof Advisors on Science and Technology, aka PCAST, and will be presented to POTUS himself in June. The authors of said report include, among others, Eric Schmidt, chairman of Google; and Craig Mundie, chief research and strategy officer of Microsoft.

These authors believe that computerized, agile radio systems can share spectrum on a vastly more efficient basis, which “would make it possible to move from an era of scarcity to one of abundance.”

The report concludes that radio spectrum could be used as much as 40,000 times more efficiently than it is currently used, and it recommends an approach that could increase capacity 1,000-fold. This efficiency would be achieved by agile techniques that rapidly switch the frequencies on which a device transmits and receives based on a set of rules.

Well, this is an important issue to us broadcaster types, and there is enough smoke here to warrant checking for fire. Keep an eye on this one, dear readers.

The FCC’s zeal to promote channel-sharing pretty much runs in direct oppositionto what it said back in 1997, when it rejected arguments for TV channels less than 6 MHz wide, saying that the use of a full 6 MHz channel is “necessary to provide viewers and consumers the full benefits of digital television made possible by the DTV Standard, including high-definition television, standard-definition television and other digital services. The DTV Standard was premised on the use of 6MHz channels. To specify a different channel size… would not promote [the FCC’s] goals in adopting the DTV Standard.”

Fifteen years later, the FCC has sure changed its tune. And by the way, there has not been one single broadcaster on the FCC since James Quello retired back in 1998. Coincidence?

Mario Orazio is the pseudonym of a well-known television engineer who wishes to remain anonymous. E-mail him at

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, 06-29-2012 09:43 AM Report Comment
With the change to digital television and radio, broadcasters should also look at technology to increase capacity in there assigned bandwdith. That said if local broadcasters keep lessening their local impact (central casting, lack of local news or even local studios) then the FCC will need to look carefully at the public good TV and radio each broadcaster is providing in exchange for its channel assignments.
Posted by: Anonymous
Fri, 06-29-2012 10:16 AM Report Comment
One transmitter and tower would save money and allow a simple shared lease.
Posted by: Anonymous
Sat, 06-30-2012 05:15 PM Report Comment
Don't the same laws of physics apply to television broadcasters? If technological advancements can solve the spectrum shortage for wireless services, surely broadcasters could leverage these advancements and make better use of the spectrum they are currently using. Mario begins by talking about compression artifacts. Good point! I see almost as many artifacts in high definition HDTV broadcasts as I do on on YouTube. Technology has left the ATSC standard behind, as have most consumers - the vast majority of U.S. homes do not choose to get their TV fixes via an antenna. They "might" watch TV broadcasts on their smart phones or tablet computers, but even the ATSC M/H standard falls short of what the marketplace is looking for. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that the ATSC is looking towards Broadcast LTE as a next generation standard that would be compatible with the mobile devices people will be buying over the next decade. Broadcasters complaining about spectrum hoarding by telcos is like "the pot calling the kettle black." The transition to DTV began at the behest of broadcasters who wanted 12 MHz of spectrum to deliver HDTV to the masses. What stimulated this request by the NAB to the FCC? A proposal by the FCC in the early 1980's to take some spectrum from broadcasters for a new service - land mobile telephones. Big Stick television broadcasting is horribly inefficient in terms of spectrum reuse. Large chunks of spectrum in each television market cannot be used in order to protect the broadcasters within that market, and their "neighbors" in adjacent markets. Talk about keeping spectrum out of the hands of potential competitors. The truth is that most broadcasters do not want you to watch their Free Over-The-Air signals. They want you to subscribe to cable or DBS so that they can collect "a buck a month" from every subscriber in their market. Mario is right about one point - there IS a Crisis of Integrity when oligopolies, including the telcos, broadcasters, cable and DBS, conspire with politicians to hoard a public resource to prevent competition and collect monopoly rents. Craig Birkmaier Head Brewer Swamp Head Brewery
Posted by: Anonymous
Fri, 11-28-2014 10:05 AM Report Comment
Craig is right on point, makes good beer to. OTA spectrum is a commons. We the people allow broadcasters etc. to make a profit out of that commmons in return for a contribution to the public good. None of the solutions on the table provide public good equal to the value of the commons. Politicians are giving away what belongs to everybody and lining there own pockets.

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