AVS Official Topic - The FCC & Broadcast Spectrum - Page 6

Originally Posted by kenglish

Although I don't have a Ham License, can I join ARRL anyway...just so I have another voice in Washington?

Earlier this week, Seidenberg was interviewed by Wall Street Journal deputy managing editor Alan Murray for an event hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations. When asked by an audience member about the FCC's plan to auction of spectrum currently held by TV broadcasters for mobile use, Seidenberg said that the FCC should not "tinker with this."

"I think the market's going to settle this," Seidenberg said, according to Multichannel News. "So in the long term, if we can't show that we have applications and services to utilize that spectrum better than the broadcasters, then the broadcasters will keep the spectrum."

Originally Posted by JeffAHayes

...the interviews with Capitol Broadcast owner Jim Goodmon -- were excellent.

He made some very salient points most of us have pounded time and again in this thread. What I fail to understand is that -- especially in light of the fact that a former FCC official appears to have publicly admitted he deliberately delayed the digital TV transition NOT to give viewers more "time to prepare," but to screw with broadcasters and cost them more money -- this battle isn't a REGULAR part of the nightly news, both local AND National... If the idiots in news departments continue to sit on their hands while the FCC gains traction, they may find broadcast TV as archaic as button shoes!
Jeff

Let me now address some myths about incentive auctions.

Myth #1: The plan is to confiscate broadcasters’ spectrum and drive broadcasters out of business.

Not so. Again, the incentive auction plan is voluntary. No one will be forced to participate. In fact, this is the opposite of a confiscation; it would be an economic boost to broadcasters that elect to participate.

Also it’s important to note that that the broadband plan anticipates that broadcast spectrum would be less than 25 percent of the 500 MHz target in the broadband plan. No spectrum stone is being unturned.

Myth #2: The plan will diminish voices and harm the values of broadcast diversity and localism.

To the contrary, giving broadcasters new options and an additional source of financing should strengthen the industry and bolster the public interest.

The plan could bring the greatest benefits to broadcasters that provide programming to underrepresented portions of a local community.

Because the advertising base is smaller, the traditional broadcast model has always been a challenge for such broadcasters, and digital fragmentation is putting more pressure on the business model. It’s a particular challenge for these stations to invest in new streams of overthe-air digital programming where that programming isn’t subject to must carry.

The incentive auction plan would give local broadcasters serving minority or other underrepresented audiences a new choice: share spectrum, continue programming and carriage, reduce operating costs, and gain a capital infusion. For some broadcasters, it could make the difference in having a business and staying on the air.

Myth #3: The Plan will prevent broadcasters from deploying Mobile DTV.

Another misperception. I’m pleased that the DTV transition has enabled the development of standards and the launch of market trials for mobile DTV. Our job is not to predict innovation or business models, but to enable them. Under the incentive auction plan, broadcasters will be able to provide mobile DTV, both licensees that choose to retain all 6 megahertz, and those that choose to share.

Myth #4: Consumers will need to purchase new equipment

Not the case. First, of course, the plan would have no effect at all on viewers who receive their broadcast signals from cable, telephone or satellite providers. Viewers who receive their broadcast signals over-the-air would simply need to rescan their current TVs or converter boxes. And to the extent a transition would impose any new costs on broadcasters themselves, those costs could be covered by the auction proceeds.

Originally Posted by Falcon_77


#1: Voluntary unless not enough spectrum is recovered.
#2: An additional source of financing? What, a one-time payment? What about 2 years down the road?
#3: Of course, it doesn't *prevent* it as long as the broadcaster in question retains some spectrum, but exactly how many Mobile DTV channels would be available on a channel with 2 HD signals? The large number of existing sub-channels seems to be getting completely ignored as well.
#4: Would it be as simple as re-scanning for stations shoved into Low-VHF?

Sometimes I wonder if the FCC is basing its analysis on finding some way to relocate excess spectrum from, say, Central Nevada to NYC, etc.

Originally Posted by dkreichen1968

Below is the FCCs proposed fee schedule for 2010. You would think we were still analog since the fees (taxes) are much higher for VHF than UHF while here in the real world UHF carries further and has less interference than VHF. The FCC needs to come in out of the rain.

Other nations are moving forward, he said. Germany is set to auction more than 340 MHz, and Japan is making 500 MHz available for mobile broadband. The FCC’s own National Broadband Plan calls for 500 MHz in new spectrum.

Originally Posted by BCF68

Also both Japan and Germany are about the size of Montana. So sure they don't as much spectrum for TV. They also don't have as many networks as the US as far as I know.

Originally Posted by dkreichen1968

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/articles/...aily.2/?page=1

Underlying the venture is a clear message from the TV groups to the FCC: We don't want to give up any of our spectrum. In fact, we are likely to seek left-over spectrum from other broadcasters so that we can increase the number of channels and markets where we can offer service.

Originally Posted by Falcon_77

Are these fees still based on the old analog channel? I remember reading that but don't know if it was for '09 or '10.

As an example, in markets 11 to 25, a VHF station would pay $60,531, while a UHF station would pay only $24,843

Bellaria was formerly an executive with Charter Communications. He emphasized that the FCC did not intend to wrench spectrum from broadcasters who did not want to participate. Dave Donovan, president of MSTV said his members are likely to decline. Most of the board folks here aren't interested in the voluntary mechanism, he said.

Most will choose not to participate, Bellaria said, but the FCC nonetheless believes that enough will do so to clear 120 MHz. When he reiterated the position at one point, a wave of grumbles went through the room.

Bellaria addressed them. Look, when you got married, did you start planning for it not to work? he queried. Well, we're still in the honeymoon period.

Paul Karpowicz, president of Meredith's local media group was on the panel. Half of all marriages end in divorce, he parried.

One key point that emerged spectrum designated for nationwide broadband will not have to be contiguous across the country, but it likely would be in high-population corridors such as the East Coast.