It seems that our FCC Chairman, along with a bad dream from the past, Reed Hundt (former FCC Chairman), and advocating taking away YOUR local TV. It seems that they want to double-dip the TV spectrum, take away more channels, and as was suggested in one conference "move television to the Internet". That's just what I want to do... watch TV off my computer.
What gets me is that Reed Hundt more than admitted that he pulled one over on the telephone industry. He also started the move from analog to digital, which was so very well managed by the government. I hope you detect the sarcasm in my writing. Now he wants to pull one over on the public? Sorry, no thank you Reed. I know your past
Please write to your Congressman and Senator and voice your opinion that free, over the air TV must not be touched. And suggest giving these two fellows their walking papers.
_______________________________________
Genachowski To TV: Take It Or Leave It
By Harry A. Jessell and Kim McAvoy
TVNewsCheck, Mar 17 2010, 9:01 AM ET
The FCC's National Broadband Plan comes down to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski saying this to broadcasters: We can do this the easy way or we can do it the hard way, but, make no mistake, we are going to take back 120 MHz of your spectrum and sell it to wireless providers so that more Americans can have faster mobile access to the Internet.
The easy way is for broadcasters to simply go along with the NBP's principal proposals:
* Acquiesce to a repacking of the broadcast plan to free up at least six channels (36 MHz)
* "Voluntarily" enter into arrangements under which two or more stations would share a single 6 MHz broadcast channel so the FCC can recover another 14 channels (84 MHz).
Stations that choose to give up all or some of their spectrum through channel sharing would be rewarded. They would be entitled to a percentage of the proceeds from the eventual auctioning of the spectrum to wireless providers.
However, if broadcasters fail to go for channel sharing and auction cash in sufficient numbers or if Congress fails to allow broadcasters in on the auction take, then the NBP says the FCC should do it the hard way.
That involves bulling ahead with the band repacking to recover at least six channels in the top part of the UHF band (chs. 46-51) over the broadcasters' objections and then forcing stations to double or triple up on channels by FCC fiat or by threats of hefty new spectrum fees.
Faced with recalcitrant broadcasters, the NBP says the FCC could also tear up the current system of so-called big-stick broadcasting and replace it will a cellular architecture that the FCC believes is more spectrum efficient and that would yield ample spectrum for auctioning.
Or, it could go forward with "overlay auctions" in which it broadcast spectrum is auctioned off to wireless providers. It would then be left to the auction winners to negotiate with broadcasters to clear the band.
The broadcast spectrum grab is just one of scores of proposals in the NBP, all aimed at putting affordable broadband access in the hands of most Americans at home and when they are on the go.
In fact, the 120 MHz that the NPB intends to squeeze out of broadcasting is just part of 300 MHz in new spectrum it intends to make available for wireless mobile within the next five years and 500 MHz total within the next 10.
Commercial broadcasting's trade groups in Washington — the NAB and MSTV — have been measured in their official responses to the NPB over the past two days, saying they hope to work with the FCC in meeting the nation's broadband needs.
But privately, broadcast lawyers and lobbyists were steamed by the NBP's call for repacking the band and they were no more interested in the cash-for-spectrum proposal than when NPB chief Blair Levin first floated the idea last fall. They were also unhappy with the NBP's implied threat of spectrum fees.
"Make no mistake, the historic public interest trade for the license has now been replaced by a spectrum tax that will be systematically ratcheted up to force broadcasters off their channels," says one longtime broadcaster. "The move is as transparent as it is cynical."
As things stand now, broadcasters remain determined to hang on to every last hertz of spectrum, a position that puts them on a collision course with Genachowski.
The broadcasters see the six-channel repacking proposal as little more than a spectrum grab. It would cause hundreds of UHF stations now on chs. 46 through 51 to move to new channels, some in the low VHF band that have been an over-the-air nightmare for the broadcasters now stuck there.
What's more, they and most other broadcasters in the UHF band would end up with reduced power, smaller service areas and more interference as the FCC packs all stations in the band closer together.
"The plan is urban renewal," says one broadcast rep. "It just levels certain portions of the broadcast spectrum nationwide."
Most broadcasters never liked the cash-for-spectrum idea, mostly because it takes them out of the digital game. They still believe they can capitalize on their digital spectrum through multicasting, mobile DTV and other schemes.
Significantly, the NBP downplays the potential for multicasting and mobile DTV, stating that revenue generated by multicasting "has been modest thus far and is forecast to remain so in the near term."
The NBP concedes that the consumers are interested in mobile video, but adds that whether they are interested in the type envisioned by broadcasters "has yet to be determined."
Broadcasters are also skeptical that Congress can be persuaded to allow them to share in proceeds from the auctioning of spectrum they might throw into the broadband pool. In the 1990s, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and others opposed giving broadcasters the temporary use of second channels so that they could make a smooth transition from analog to digital.
To the credit of Levin and the FCC, the formulation of the NBP has been a fairly open process. Which means that the broadcasters have been able to get a jump on their campaign to derail the plan. They already have their counter-arguments and talking points and have come up with research in support of them.
The broadcasters' basic tactic has been to challenge Genachowski's, Levin's and now the NBP's assertion that the America is facing a critical shortage of spectrum for mobile broadband that the nation will be left in the technological dust by virtually every country in the world if something isn't done pronto.
It's just not so, the broadcasters say with experts to back them up.
The broadcasters also argue that before the FCC goes around disrupting a service that has served America well for 60 years and been the model for broadcasting around the world, it had better make sure that there isn't other spectrum laying around doing little or nothing and that the wireless providers are making use of the spectrum they now have as efficiently as possible.
To that end, broadcasters are urging the government to conduct a full spectrum inventory to see precisely what we've got and how it's being used. If successful, the broadcasters will get a congressional moratorium on tampering with broadcast spectrum at least until the inventory is completed — a process they would no doubt like to see last longer than the Obama administration.
The broadcasters also say they have already sacrificed at the altar of broadband, giving up 108 MHz of spectrum when they completed the transition from analog to the more spectrum-efficient digital broadcasting last year. (Ironically, the NBP uses this fact against broadcasting, pointing out how much more valuable the broadcast spectrum was when it was auctioned for broadband use.)
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
Understanding the old Washington adage that you can't beat something with nothing and not altogether opposed to cashing in on excess spectrum if the price is right, broadcasters are offering to meet the needs of broadband providers by leasing portions of their channels to them. They say they simply need more flexibility in how they package the spectrum to make it more suitable for broadband.
By law, broadcasters are permitted to lease spectrum to non-broadcast users under certain conditions. Stations must still devote some portion of their channels for basic broadcast service, and they must pay a portion of the lease revenue to the government. Right now, the fee is set at 5%, but the FCC has the power to adjust that.
Evidence that the broadcasters have already been shopping around this idea is the statement that FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell issued yesterday upon release of the NBP.
"Focusing on this statutorily permissible and voluntary [emphasis his] mechanism for leasing parts of the airwaves may be an easier path to accelerating deployment of advanced wireless services than more coercive means," he said.
At a press briefing with reporters Tuesday, authors of the NBP pooh-poohed the broadcaster-lease option, saying that wireless providers were not interested in leasing small hunks of spectrum on a market-by-market basis.
Although it would be legally tough for the FCC to flat-out take away a station's license — a point the NBP acknowledges — the FCC has all kinds of authority to chip away at those channels by changing interference protection criteria and reducing power levels and even the allocated hertz per channel. Back in the 1980s, amid a raucous battle, the FCC came close to reducing the channel spacing between AM stations and repacking the band so that it could squeeze in more stations.
The NBP puts broadcast spectrum reallocation on a fast track. It calls for a vote on repacking and channel sharing in 2011, an auction of the freed-up spectrum in 2012 or 2013 and band transition and clearing in 2015.
To get to that vote next year means that the FCC will have to launch the necessary rulemaking proceeding this summer or early fall at the latest.
Assuming broadcasters can't get such a moratorium on spectrum tampering, they will have to come up with three votes at the FCC to block the 2011 vote.
Right now, it's not clear where those three votes would come from. Even if they can get the two Republicans, Meredith Atwell Baker and Robert McDowell — a big if — they would also have to bag one of two Democrats, newcomer Mignon Clyburn or Michael Copps.
(By the time the rulemaking come up for a vote next year, Copps may be gone. His term expires this June. The worst case scenario for broadcasters is Levin's succeeding him as many have speculated.)
To win Clyburn's vote, the broadcasters would probably have to sign off on all sorts of new public interest obligations. Clyburn signaled as much in her statement upon the release of the NBP, pointing out that it does not contain a "rigorous analysis" of the public interest implications of broadcast spectrum reallocation. "This is a serious concern given the broadcast spectrum is the lone spectrum through which our nation's public interest goals are effectuated."
The broadcasters already know that they will face determined foes in Genachowski and Levin, who believe they have economics and the best interests of the Republic on their side. They will do all they can to put the NBP into effect.
They see broadcasting as an inefficient use of spectrum and they see broadband as the superior medium and key to nation's competitiveness in the world economy.
They also believe they can take 120 MHz away from broadcasting without materially damaging the medium, pointing out that 90% of viewers watch broadcast signals via satellite or cable anyway and promising that channel-sharing stations will continue to enjoy must-carry rights.
The NBP also suggest that some auction proceeds could be used to pay for a lifeline broadcast service or cable and satellite systems for certain consumers, presumably the poor and elderly, who lose over-the-air service because of reduced coverage areas related to repacking.
As chairman of the FCC, Genachowski can bring all sorts of pressures to bear on broadcasters to get them to go along with repacking and channel sharing. With Clyburn and Copps (or his successor), he can load broadcasters up with additional public interest responsibilities, shut down the many loopholes in the duopoly rules that broadcasters have become adept at slipping through or even dilute their retransmission consent rights.
Just last week at a Hill hearing, Genachowski said the retrans framework has been under "active consideration' since last December, alarming broadcasters who are now enjoying a hefty revenue stream from the framework just as it is.
And you can bet that Genachowski and Levin have their Hill support lined up. No sooner had they sent up the NBP to Congress, than the Democratically controlled Senate Commerce Committee and House Subcommittee on Communications and the Internet announced hearings next week on the plan.
Those hearings, incidentally, will be a major test of the effectiveness of the NAB's new president, former Oregon Republican Senator Gordon Smith. If he's got members of those committees lined up to support broadcasting in the spectrum fight, this would be the time to hear from them.
So far, House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher (D-VA), House Commerce Committee Chairman Emeritus John Dingell (D-MI) and Senate Commerce Committee member Olympia Snowe (R-ME) have all expressed concern over forced reallocation of broadcast spectrum.
Working in the broadcasters' favor is that the NBP has many moving parts and that the NBP proponents will simply not be able to fight, let alone win, every battle. The plan's call for spurring a competitive retail market for cable and satellite set-top boxes, for instance, is highly controversial. It will be opposed by cable and satellite as well as the makers of their boxes.
For broadcasters to win, they have to remain united as possible in their opposition and avoid having individual stations or stations groups enticed by those auction proceeds from going to the FCC and seeking a separate peace. The NBP's cash-for-spectrum plan makes the most sense for weak stations in major markets, where broadband spectrum is tighest.
So far, the industry has hung together. But there are reports, not yet confirmed here, that a couple of substantial, but financially struggling groups may break ranks.
The NBP puts the NAB and the MSTV is the awkward position of opposing incentive auctions that would put money into the pockets of broadcasters who are desperately looking for a way out of the business.
Just as bad as the substance of the NBP is for broadcasters is the message that it sends to the investment community, whose money bets can make or break an industry. That message is that the chairman of the FCC, and presumably the Obama administration, no longer much cares about over-the-air broadcasting or, if you believe in the significance of faint praise, the service it provides.
When it formally unveiled the NBP at a commission meeting yesterday, Genachowski read a 2,300-word statement. Not once did he mention broadcasting or how the plan would affect it.
At the Genachowski FCC, broadcasting is apparently not even worth lip service anymore.
[ 3 comments ] ( 34 views ) | permalink |
( 3 / 383 )
Random Entry
