There’s another television drama taking place — this one is between over-the-air broadcasters and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
You may recall that TV recently went through a digital conversion. Over-the-air (OTA) broadcasters had to upgrade to digital transmitters at significant cost and switch to new broadcasting frequencies. The portion of the spectrum they abandoned was either used for public safety communication or auctioned off to wireless communication companies. Now there appears to be an effort to take part of television’s new broadcast spectrum away as well. Television Broadcast reported in December:
The focus on spectrum use has intensified since the Obama Administration charged the FCC with developing a nationwide wireless broadband network. The commission must present its plan by February [17]. FCC officials started floating the idea of using TV spectrum for broadband in the fall. Several interested parties have glommed onto the notion, from academics to lobbyists to economists, who say broadband is a more efficient use of the spectrum currently dedicated to delivery TV signals.
Another publication, TV Technology, gives some additional details:
…The Wireless Association (formerly known as the Cellular Telephone Association) asked the FCC to examine reallocation of broadcast spectrum to prepare for the “looming spectrum crisis.” They cited Congress’s directive that the FCC must conduct an inventory of all available spectrum with recommendations for greater efficiency….
In early December, the commission issued an urgent request for additional data from broadcasters, citing a “concern that the United States will not have spectrum sufficient to meet the demand for wireless broadband services in the near future.”
The wording of the FCC “data request” triggered even greater fears, exacerbated by the FCC’s unusually short three-week turnaround period. In its official notice, the commission explained that its “inquiry takes into account the value that the United States puts on free, over-the-air television, while also exploring market-based mechanisms for television broadcasters to contribute to the broadband effort any spectrum in excess of that which they need to meet their public interest obligations and remain financially viable.”
For many broadcasters, that sounded like a threat to reduce TV bandwidth to standard-definition capacity and eliminate ancillary channel bandwidth.
In other words, broadcasters are concerned that the FCC is considering limiting them to one standard-definition channel and no subchannels to free up as much spectrum as possible for wireless devices. They argue this would effectively kill OTA television’s viability and mean the only way to get high-definition content would be through services like www.aaasatellite.tv that provide good quality with a really good price. It would also be “the largest bait and switch [scheme] on consumers in the history of our country,” according to Perry Sook, chairman/president/CEO of Nexstar Broadcasting Group (the company that owns WMBD-TV, channel 31, locally).
Television Broadcast now says that the FCC is backing off the idea of an enforced reallocation of spectrum, and is considering a “voluntary opportunity” instead. Nevertheless, the wireless industry’s “spectrum grab” ambitions aren’t dampened:
Wireless industry lobby chief Steve Largent has said his sector will need 800 MHz of additional spectrum in six years…. “We continue to believe that all spectrum should be on the table for potential reallocation, including the almost 300 MHz allocated for broadcast television use, which is spectrum most favorable to mobile broadband. We look forward to working with the commission and the broadband team to consider mechanisms to put spectrum to its highest use.”
Broadcasters point out that the government spent $2 billion promoting digital television and subsidizing set-top TV converter boxes. Furthermore, broadcasters were required without subsidy to upgrade their transmitters to HD digital. Reclaiming TV’s spectrum for other uses would be throwing all that public and private money down the drain. Furthermore, television has a “public interest mandate” (they are required to provide educational and informational content in order to broadcast OTA) that wireless companies do not, making TV more entitled to the spectrum in many broadcasters’ minds.
The fight for spectrum isn’t over. As they say on TV, “stay tuned….”
From a selfish standpoint, I hope TV wins out on this one. We have the converter box/antenna for our viewing.
You mean we might lose one of the 300 sports channels or home shopping networks? Let’s organize a tea party to protest! I’ll bring the cookies.
No, Charlie, we wouldn’t lose any of those. Those are on cable. The wireless grab would affect over-the-air broadcast stations. So, people who get their TV with an antenna and pull in WHOI, WEEK, WMBD, WTVP, and WAOE would be the losers.
CJ, my first impression is to differ with you on this one. Relative to the entire viewership:
…people who get their TV with an antenna and pull in WHOI, WEEK, WMBD, WTVP, and WAOE would be the losers…
are in an ever increasing minority. And, those five stations no longer receive the ratings that they once did. Further, the cable and sat. providers are offering low cost service between 10-20 per month and now have the technology in place via the digital cable box to have each subscriber billed according to a’ la carte channel selection, if they were so inclined or compelled. I for one think that they should be so compelled partly because the cable companies are double dipping anyway, in selling the eyeballs of subscribers to advertisers. Accordingly, it should not actually cost Comcast or other cable subscribers to offer those five channels to anyone with lines that are already in a residence. The cost, would be maintaining of the lines on the interior of the structure, and/or equipment set up to receive and convert the signal.
Likewise the DISH and DirecTV could be required to provide a satellite signal of the major networks to anyone who put up a dish, but I think that might already be the case – that those and other channels via satellite are freely available to anyone who makes the one time expense of a dish and converter.
Technology has already dramatically lowered the cost of broadcasting and receiving an array of signals. I suspect that this is just a case of the major networks, not wanting to share the last bit of advertising market that they can currently claim – people who don’t want to pay for cable and that cable is coming back with a posture attempting to project their market as being better or having higher value.
What will happen is that the demographics that are not on cable or satellite television or watching via the internet, are going to continue to decrease as that segment of the population ages and technology regardless of the corporate posturing is going to continue to decrease the cost of alternative media.
I don’t know if Comcasts attempt to grab content a couple of months ago by the deal with….NBC???, but I and others think the price they paid showed how stupid they “Comcast” as they could have created their own competitive or picked up shows like Southland, and formed their own channel for a fraction of what they paid otherwise.
The other problem with broadcast is that while cable is getting easier and cheaper to Nielsen eyeballs….not so with broadcast….and again, the demographics on broadcast….people who don’t have the money, or who are too cheap to spend it – it would be obvious to advertisers that the route to go is to spend those advertising dollars on specific buys on shows provided by cable providers where the provider can digitally record every flick of your remote. No?
“So, people who get their TV with an antenna and pull in WHOI, WEEK, WMBD, WTVP, and WAOE would be the losers.”
Or WINNERS… depending upon your opinion of those stations… kidding, just kidding.
“…people who get their TV with an antenna and pull in WHOI, WEEK, WMBD, WTVP, and WAOE would be the losers…
are in an ever increasing minority. And, those five stations no longer receive the ratings that they once did. Further, the cable and sat. providers are offering low cost service between 10-20 per month and now have the technology in place via the digital cable box to have each subscriber billed according to a’ la carte channel selection, if they were so inclined or compelled.”
Hmmm…..so because we are in an “ever increasing minority” we should be forced to pay just because everyone else is? No thanks.
The point of canceling our DirecTV was because we didn’t watch T.V enough to justify paying for it, whether it’s 5, 10, 15 or 20 bucks a month. I’m not quite sure where you’re getting your cable or satellite T.V. for 10-20 month, but if you are more power to you. And do you think the cable or satellite providers are ever going to offer an a’la carte option? Way too many households in this country need their 100+ channels.
“and again, the demographics on broadcast….people who don’t have the money, or who are too cheap to spend it”
At least you don’t paint with a broad brush.
Mazr… do you recall what radio and TV used to cost? Why was that?
Charlie, TV used to be free and I would assume it was determined that the majority wanted and would pay for more choices.
And radio? I’ve never paid for radio broadcasts, unless you count the replacement costs for batteries.
I’m not quite sure what that has to do with my argument. I know one thing. T.V. channel viewing is not really missed in our household. And if it comes down to paying for the locals, we’ll leave it altogether.
Satellite TV users will definitely grow in the following years and also satellite internet users.*;;