Matthew's Workbench » FCC

The end of free broadcast television?

Matthew Reed — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 16:25:30 +0000

Will free over-the-air broadcast television in the United States soon become a thing of the past? That prospect would have seemed impossible to me not too long ago, but I wonder if it is what the future holds.

Back in November 2009, the Consumer Electronics Association and CTIA (a wireless communications trade group) wrote a letter to the FCC requesting ways to “reduce the amount of spectrum assigned to broadcast television licensees.” You can see a copy of that letter here. Their key point comes at the end of the letter:

Without swift Commission action to identify and clear significant portions of electromagnetic spectrum below 3 GHz, consumers and businesses in this country will be unable to access the Internet and information sources so necessary to be competitive internationally.

The implication here seems obvious: why reserve large sections of broadcast spectrum for television when “fewer than ten percent of American households rely on over-the-air transmission to view broadcast content”?

There is enormous pressure at the moment to free up more bandwidth for wireless communications. Many long-time users of frequencies are thought to be at risk for relocation or removal. For example, it seems likely that amateur radio will lose rights to many frequencies, especially in the microwave range. But television is an especially rich target for the wireless companies because its frequencies are adjacent to the ones they use today.

VHF channels 1 to 13 were the first reserved for television back in the 1930’s. Channel 1 (which suffered from interference problems) was removed when broadcasting began in earnest following World War II. UHF channels were added in 1952, comprising channels 14 to 83.

Channels 70 to 83, which were mostly used for repeaters, were removed in 1983. More recently, channels 52 to 69 were removed as part of the digital broadcast conversion in 2009. So the television channels available today in the United States total 49: VHF channels 2 to 13 and UHF channels 14 to 51 (excluding channel 37 which is reserved for radio astronomy).

The situation is complicated by the fact that the VHF channels are not working out well for digital television. Many of the remaining digital VHF stations have requesting relocation to UHF channels. That means that the only widely usable channels for digital television are the 37 UHF channels.

In a separate proposal, the Consumer Electronics Association and CTIA have suggested replacing high-power television transmitters with networks of lower power transmitters. This approach, known as distributed transmission system or DTS, could reduce the number of channels required to cover an area. DTS isn’t a new idea and is considered one potential way to replace coverage lost in the digital television conversion. It would also have the advantage of working with existing televisions.

But their proposal estimates that between 100 to 180 MHz of bandwidth could be freed up. That would be the equivalent of 17 to 30 UHF channels. If thirty channels were removed from the UHF band (assuming that channel 37 remains unused), that would leave only seven UHF channels available for digital television. It’s hard to see how that could help but destroy over-the-air television.

A skeptical observer might wonder if the real issue is preventing competition with future wireless video services. For example, one of the uses of the recently vacated channels 52 to 69 is MediaFLO, a service created by Qualcomm. MediaFLO uses channel 55 to broadcast television to mobile devices.

Satellite Radio and the HD Radio Requirement

Matthew Reed — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:12:06 +0000

Back when there was debate about the Sirius and XM satellite radio merger, various groups suggested potential conditions that might be made part of the deal. Some were discarded but others were agreed upon. For example, both companies made an open device pledge that will allow manufacturers to add features to their receivers.

One frequently suggested condition was a requirement that all new satellite radios be capable of receiving terrestrial HD Radio stations. The FCC didn’t make that part of the deal, although they are still requesting public comments on the idea. Now Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) has introduced the “Radio All Digital Channel Receiver Act,” which would make the FCC implement that HD Radio requirement.

For obvious reasons, Clear Channel Communications and others that have invested heavily in HD Radio support this bill. Somewhat less obviously, General Motors and Toyota are opposed to it. They stated in a letter to the FCC: “The proponents of the proposed condition are seeking an unprecedented requirement regulating the choice of entertainment technologies in an automotive environment.”

There is precedent for the FCC mandating hardware, such as requiring UHF receivers and closed-captioning in televisions. But I still would tend to think this requirement will be a tough sell, especially with HD Radio not taking off with consumers the way many had expected.

An Expanded FM Band?

Matthew Reed — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 01:03:05 +0000

A group known as the Broadcast Maximization Committee, or BMC, made an interesting proposal to the FCC last month. They want to expand the FM radio band to encompass television channels 5 and 6 (the ordinary FM band is positioned between television channels 6 and 7). The goal for this would be to reduce interference. You can read their complete proposal here: TV Channel 5-6 Radio Proposal.

As part of the plan, most AM radio stations in the country would move to the expanded FM channels and broadcast in digital mode (presumably DRM+). The new band would be divided to allow for the former AM stations, low power stations, and other uses. The AM band, now free from overcrowding, could be used for fewer station or for some other purpose.

This is just a proposal and probably nothing will come of it. Some see it as competition to the 26MHz.us proposal, although I don’t see why the two couldn’t coexist. I’m unsure whether I think the BMC plan would be a good idea or whether it would create more problems than it solved.

Radio World has two good articles about the proposal: