When Max bought his hybrid electric vehicle in 2020, he loved being able to drive back and forth to his business without using a drop of gas. Then came the software updates. One dealership charged for something he thought was supposed to be free. The next was a black hole of never knowing when he would get the vehicle back. The experience halted his plan to buy a second HEV until something better came along.

Fortunately, something better is in the works. ATSC 3.0 broadcast technology would put vehicle software updates on par with cell phones and laptops — fast, seamless and largely unnoticed.

In the meantime, noted Roger Lanctot, “We are at this strange crossroads where not everyone is doing updating the same way.” A former director of global automotive connected mobility at Strategy Analytics who’s been involved in auto telematics since the early 2000s, Lanctot said there are updates via thumb drives, smartphone apps, private cellular networks and of course, dealership visits. None of these methods are ideal, uniform or data efficient.

The technology standards group responsible for ATSC 3.0 has understood its potential for the automotive industry for some time, but OEMs and their tier 1 suppliers are still learning about it, according to broadcast veteran Mark Barrington, who heads up the ATSC’s Automotive Implementation Team (IT8).

“The initial scope of work [of IT8] is building membership and participation and industry awareness,” Barrington said. “We’re raising the profile of what we’re doing. We’re building implementation guides for integration ATSC 3.0 into vehicles and what specs need to be agreed on.”

Software updates are just one of several vehicle applications that require ‘on’ connectivity. Besides crash and service notifications and roadside assistance, carmakers are looking at popular streaming platforms and the type of enhanced navigation capabilities necessary for autonomous driving functions.

“Because of the growing number of vehicle applications, automakers recognize that connectivity is no longer optional,” Lanctot said. “If you have hundreds of millions of lines of code in the car, you need a way to connect to the car and maintain it.”

As a result, vehicle data usage is on the rise, said Chip Goetzinger, a connected-vehicle specialist previously with Nissan and SiriusXM. Vehicle software is becoming dramatically more complex, with as many as 150 electronic control units, or ECUs, in a vehicle, with more and more lines of code on each. ECUs control one or more of the electronic systems in a vehicle, e.g., engine control, powertrain, transmission, brakes, timing, suspension, etc. Each essentially comprises a separate computer system.

“Both software and firmware are being updated more regularly,” Goetzinger said. “The way this works from an OEM standpoint — they must identify all vehicles that need updating, update them and confirm the updates. With a large number of vehicles, they have to carefully coordinate with the [wireless] carrier so as not to overwhelm the network.”

Automakers recognize the growing necessity of automotive connectivity. A few months of free satellite radio no longer cuts the mustard. Toyota, for example, is now providing a free 10-year trial period of its connected safety and service apps on several models. GM will offer eight years of free OnStar starting next year. New Volvos have complementary roadside assistance connectivity for four years, while certified used models come with five years. All are cellular dependent. This leaves customers exposed to the vulnerability of cellular networks, which sputter when congested or fail during weather or other natural events that broadcast technology typically withstands.

This is leading automakers to consider multimodal connectivity combining cellular, satellite, WiFi and C-V2X (vehicle-centric 3GPP), but virtually none of those technologies enable simultaneous mass downloads like ATSC 3.0.

Goetzinger emphasized that ATSC 3.0 would not replace cellular connectivity: “Given pros and cons of different methods, there will need to be several. There’s no backchannel with broadcast. Cellular is data inefficient for downloads but perfect for the backchannel. These are complementary capabilities that can keep costs down.”

Current methods for bringing data into vehicles fall into three categories, Goetzinger said, each with its own strengths and drawbacks:

Built-in connectivity involves the use of telematic control units, or TCUs. These are typically embedded cellular devices either added by the manufacturer or an aftermarket supplier. These provide access to core vehicle data but leave the OEM responsible for the cost of data. They also add to the cost of the vehicle and are subject to bricking when a network sunsets.

Brought in data uses a customer device paired to the vehicle or a WiFi connection. The data cost is covered by the customer or WiFi owner. This keeps the vehicle cost down but also limits access to core systems and data.

Beamed in data via AM/FM, satellite, GPS and eventually ATSC 3.0 TV signals. The upside is ensured data availability, global standards and lower cost. The downside is the one-way nature of the connection.

Even with the one-way limitation, ATSC 3.0 is a unique value proposition for automotive connectivity. In addition to simultaneous, over-the-air updates to hundreds, even thousands of vehicles, it can deliver high-definition audio and video, local and national content, high-resolution map data and more to moving vehicles— also simultaneously. This can bring the cost of vehicle data delivery down to pennies on the dollar.

“Another key advantage of ATSC 3.0 is that the network already exists,” Barrington said. There are thousands of TV stations across the United States transmitting signals that cover nearly all of the country, many of them transitioned or transitioning to ATSC 3.0, a global technology standard also adopted by South Korea, India and Brazil.

Furthermore, an automotive-grade ATSC 3.0 chipset is already available, and because because ATSC 3.0 is being built into TVs by major manufacturers, technology providers are embedding it. Google has integrated ATSC 3.o stacks into Android, Barrington said.

“Those chipsets are being deployed by the millions,” he said. “You’re not starting from a chip that doesn’t exist.”

IT8, the ATSC 3.0 automotive implementation team, is in the process of engaging OEMs and tier 1 suppliers. “There are service models and a conformance regime, so everyone knows it will work,” Barrington said. The group is open to ATSC members and non-member alike.

The information in this article is from a July 25th webinar entitled, “Automotive OTA Software and Services Using the ATSC 3.0 Wireless Network.” For more information, see the ATSC 3.0 Datacasting Webinar Series of white papers at https://www.atsc3advocate.com.

WASHINGTON—The $80 billion windfall predicted from the TV spectrum incentive auction failed to materialize eight months in. While broadcasters heeded the forecast and priced 126 MHz of TV spectrum at $86 billion in the first stage of the auction, wireless providers topped out at $23.1 billion for the 100 MHz offered for sale.

Demand in subsequent stages remained tepid, despite claims to the contrary in the months preceding the auction, when spectrum fever reached an apex with the prognostication of $80 billion in revenue.

“Perhaps the notion of a ‘spectrum crisis’ peddled in Washington for the last seven years is not as acute as policymakers were led to believe,” said Dennis Wharton, executive vice president of Communications for the National Association of Broadcasters, after the first stage of the auction concluded in late August.

FIRST OF ITS KIND
The incentive auction, which commenced March 29, is the first of its kind, with a two-step process where broadcasters name their price in a reverse auction and wireless providers bid in a forward auction.

The process is carried out on a software platform that shuffles stations into channel assignments between reverse auction rounds as the prices fall in 5 percent decrements. At zero, the reverse auction concludes, clearing costs are posted and forward auction bidding is scheduled. If bids fail to cover clearing costs and demand equals supply in the 40 top wireless licensing areas, the process starts again at a lower clearing target.

A second stage that started Sept. 13 brought the clearing target down to 114 MHz, which broadcasters priced at $54.6 billion in October. Wireless bidders came back a few days later at $21.5 billion for the 90 MHz offered, after a single, two-hour round of bidding.

By early Dec. 1, broadcasters priced a third-stage 108 MHz clearing target at $40.3 billion, while forward-auction bidding on Dec. 5 topped out at $19.7 billion for 80 MHz, also after a single, two-hour round.

Dan Hays, principal of PwC’s Strategy& said stage three results indicated wireless providers’ priorities have changed.

“The relatively quick completion of the third stage of the forward auction comes as no surprise given pre-auction indications from potential purchasers and the current state of the mobile industry in the United States,” he said. “Despite strong commitments to date from buyers in the forward auction, top-line proceeds may struggle to make it north of $20 billion as operators’ capital spending priorities have seemingly shifted away from spectrum at this time.”

At press time, the auction was set to proceed to a fourth stage with the reverse auction starting Dec. 13. Depending on continued broadcaster participation, the clearing target would fall to 84 MHz. (This article first appeared in the December issue of TV Technology magazine.)

AUCTION COULD CLOSE SOON
Clearing targets are based on 6 MHz increments— the bandwidth of a TV channel— but the spectrum is being sold to wireless providers in paired, 5 MHz blocks, with a portion designated to interference buffer zones. Consequently, buyers are bidding on less spectrum than broadcasters are selling.

This gap narrows significantly at 84 MHz because broadcast and wireless spectrum would be divided by a channel now occupied by radio astronomy. This would leave more channels for the post-auction TV station repack, meaning the FCC would have to provisionally “buy” fewer stations. E.g., 126 MHz left just nine TV channels in each market; 114 MHz left 11; 108 MHz leaves 12; and 84 MHz leaves 16 TV.

Marci Ryvicker Hays noted that at 84 MHz, “a significant reduction in the cost to clear broadcasters is likely, bringing the auction to a close after the start of the new year.”

Like Hays, Wells Fargo Senior Analyst Marci Ryvicker predicted a fourth stage before forward auction bidding concluded in the third.

“We still think this new $40 billion ‘ask’ is way too high for the incentive auction to conclude in Stage 3,” she wrote in an analyst note. “This should not be a surprise as we have been saying for a long time that the auction will take multiple stages—at least four—and that the most likely outcome is somewhere in the $25 billion to $35 billion range. We are thinking more on the low end at this point.”

That $25 billion target is half-a-million shy of a 2011 Congressional Budget Office projection for median net auction proceeds at 84 MHz, after broadcasters are compensated. The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, which authorized the auction, pegged proceeds at $28 billion, with $15 billion of that going toward a $30 billion extension of unemployment benefits.

Over time, these projections grew, particularly as broadcasters pushed back and speculators joined forces in the “Expanding Opportunities for Broadcasters Coalition,” led by former Disney lobbyist Preston Padden.

By October of 2014, the FCC released a report from New York investment bank Greenhill & Co., which cited “independent studies” that projected proceeds of $45 billion for 126 MHz. A footnote in the report revealed that the independent study comprised a June 13, 2014, ex parte filing describing a meeting among FCC staff and EOBC representatives, in which the $45 billion was extrapolated directly from a pledge by AT&T to buy 20 MHz for $9 billion.

In February of 2015, a month after 65 MHz of 1.7–2.1 GHz advanced wireless spectrum brought nearly $45 billion in the AWS-3 auction, the commission issued a revised Greenhill report that valued just the top stations in each of the 210 TV markets at $39 billion. The EOBC followed with a Kagan estimate predicting overall auction proceeds of up to $80 billion, while J.P. Morgan’s Alexia Quadrani stayed in the $25 billion to $35 billion range given the impact of AWS-3 on bidder cash reserves. The two biggest bidders in AWS-3, AT&T and Verizon, together spent $28.5 billion. In 2008, the two providers spent $16.3 billion in the 700 MHz auction of TV Channels 52–69, which raised $19.1 billion for 108 MHz in 261 bidding rounds over 38 days.

When third-stage bidding ended after one round in December, Padden called the auction “a joke.”

“This is not an auction. It is a joke and an abuse of the broadcasters, the FCC and the public who will be put through a disruptive repacking process that increasingly looks unjustified. The question is why the carriers lobbied so hard for a statute to authorize an auction of spectrum they don’t want. The carriers now have twice walked away from blocks of spectrum they told Congress was ‘vital’ and for which they predicted bidding as high as [$48 billion],” Padden said in an email, citing a Feb. 15, 2011 white paper.

See more TV Technology coverage at our spectrum auction silo.
Articles, documents referenced:
FCC Unveils Opening Prices in Forward Auction
Oct. 14, 2016—For example in top market New York, the closing clock price per spectrum block at the end of stage one of the forward auction was $477,249,780. The opening clock price in stage two increases 5% to $501,113,000. ~ B&C

Historic Incentive Auction Begins
March 28, 2016— The FCC’s auction system will determine a spectrum-clearing target between 42 and 144 MHz based on how many and which stations participate. ~ TV Technology

J.P. Morgan: FCC's 600 MHz incentive auction likely to fetch only $25B to $35B
Feb. 11, 2016— “Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we expect lower demand in this auction, as carrier balance sheets are stretched by the last auction and recent acquisitions—we don't expect Dish to be a substantial bidder, and private equity demand will be lower due to restrictions on Designed Entity bidding and the long time to usability.” ~Fierce Wireless

Sprint Bids Incentive Auction Adieu
Sept. 28, 2015— Sprint is sitting out the upcoming TV incentive spectrum auction. Marcelo Claure, CEO of the nation’s No. 4 carrier made the announcement on Saturday… Sprint also sat out last year’s AWS-3 auction, which raised around $45 billion and ignited new interest in the TV spectrum incentive auction. ~ TV Technology

Bidding and Prices in the AWS-3 Auction
May, 2015— The AWS-3 auction was a highly successful auction for taxpayers as it raised over $41 billion and freed up 65 MHz of spectrum…. In the 600 MHz auction, the setting will be similar with the exception that competitive carriers, especially those with little low-band spectrum, will be much more eager to acquire the low-band spectrum and AT&T and Verizon will be much more eager to foreclose this possibility. ~ Peter Cramton, Professor of Economics at the University of Maryland.

CBO Puts Broadcaster Auction Cut at 25-75 Percent
April 21, 2015—The CBO also hasn’t moved far from its original estimate for how much the auction is likely to net for the fed, from $24.5 billion in 2011 to a median of $25 billion now, according to correspondence between the CBO and a lawmaker. ~ TV Technology

Expanding Opportunities for Broadcasters Coalition Filing
Feb. 19, 2015— Even the more conservative Kagan estimate predicts Incentive Auction revenues to reach between $60 billion and $80 billion.~ EOBC FCC Filing

Kagan: Wireless Should Be Ready, Able for 2016 Auction
Feb. 18, 2015— The Big Four wireless carriers —Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint— and "very possibly" others, will be "fully engaged and sufficiently capitalized bidders" in a 2016 broadcast incentive auction that could raise as much as $80 billion from those wireless carriers. That is the major takeaway from a just-released Kagan study commissioned by the Expanding Opportunities for Broadcasters Coalition, which is definitely hoping that is the case. ~ B&C

FCC Proposes Top Station Opening Bids Totaling $39 Billion
Feb. 9, 2015—We took $38 billion and sliced that up per the interference formula, [the number of people covered by signal, and the number of signals with which it overlaps.] The major differences is the first Greenhill figures were estimated high-end payouts. It was a top-down approach. This is maximum opening bids designed to reflect robust auction participation. ~ TV Technology

FCC Aims to Clear 84 MHz of TV Spectrum
Dec. 11, 2014—Regulators today approved proposed proposals to clear 84 MHz of TV spectrum, establish opening bid prices and develop procedures to close the 2016 incentive auction. I.e., they suggested rules to recommend for final adoption in a Public Notice approved in a 3-2 party-line vote. ~ TV Technology

$45 Billion Auction Projection Rests on AT&T’s DirecTV Acquisition Pledge”
Oct. 2, 2014—The $45 billion being proffered as potential incentive auction proceeds was derived from AT&T’s commitment to spend $9 billion on 20 MHz of TV spectrum if its bid to buy DirecTV goes through. ~ TV Technology

Obama Signs Spectrum Auction Authority Bill
Feb. 23, 2012—The government expects to end up with around $15 billion from TV spectrum auctions after the set-asides. The sum is already calculated into offsetting $30 billion to extend unemployment benefits, also covered in the bill. ~ TV Technology

“Reclaimed TV Spectrum Valued at $28 Billion in Obama Jobs Bill”
Sept. 12, 2011—President Obama’s proposed jobs bill assumes that incentive TV spectrum auctions will bring around $28 billion in proceeds. ~ TV Technology

IN-BAND—Google has access to the entire TV band for unlicensed devices. It wants a 6 MHz channel of its own in the UHF band after the auction because the TV band will be more crowded. Fair enough. The TV band will be more crowded. But why should Google get 6 MHz of free UHF spectrum?

This is where broadcast adversaries start howling about how TV stations get free spectrum. The price of “free” in this case comprises more rules than a game of chess, except chess rules don’t change or carry a $325,000 fine if a player drops an f-bomb.

For decades, broadcasting has been a public-private partnership that works for both parties. Broadcasters clear a profit; the fed has an ever-ready communications platform. TV and radio stations provide local jobs; political candidates get free air time.

The airwaves were more or less useless before being homesteaded by broadcasters. Telephone companies then wanted to graze there, and have succeeded through $heer heft in Washington, D.C. At least telephone companies will leave a few tens of billions of dollars on the Treasury table.

What is Google proposing to pay for TV spectrum?

Google, which trades at more than $700 and is worth $517 billion?

Zero. Google is proposing to pay nothing for 6 MHz of spectrum.

Just like a broadcaster, right? So Google must be adhering to a set to strict stipulations, correct? There is but one: be Google.

Google knows more about all of us than any piddly spy agency could dream possible. Google is bound to do something amazing that will bring endless benefits to all of (shareholding) mankind, like 600 or so white-space devices, Hangouts or the self-driving auto hazard, perhaps.

Thus, Google has convinced the feds to consider giving it 6 MHz of UHF spectrum.

The game in Washington doesn’t get played any better than that.