Broadcasters Fear FCC Vacant-Channel Plan

An FCC proposal that would set aside up to two UHF channels in every TV market for Wi-Fi and other unlicensed wireless services could interfere with the ability of broadcasters to switch to next-gen ATSC 3.0 broadcast technology and make it even harder for low-power stations to find new homes after the agency’s incentive auction next year, broadcasters say.

“This proposal amounts to a spectrum giveaway to subsidize multibillion dollar corporations at the direct expense of existing broadcast services and our tens of millions of viewers,” says NAB spokesman Dennis Wharton.

“In many ways, it’s one of the most insidious [anti-broadcaster] initiatives the FCC has put on the table,” adds Mark Aitken, Sinclair Broadcast Group VP of advanced technology.

“What they [the FCC] are doing is requiring us, licensed services, to protect unlicensed services,” says Mike Gravino, director of the LPTV Spectrum Rights Coalition. “It’s an existential threat to the entire broadcast industry.”

But Google, Microsoft and other proponents of the new UHF TV spectrum set-asides insist that the FCC’s so-called vacant-channel initiative is in the best interests of consumers — and that broadcasters are grossly exaggerating the potential harm to stations.

“Adoption of the vacant-channel rules will provide the minimum amount of spectrum resources and certainty needed to support the development of a robust unlicensed ecosystem  . . . while imposing only a small and justifiable burden on broadcasters,” Google says in FCC comments.

Some broadcast industry insiders see the proposal as a clear swipe at broadcasters. They also say it may be tough for broadcasters to derail the proposal.

The proposal was adopted last June with the support of the three Democratic commissioners led by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler.

“We believe our proposal … will not significantly burden broadcast applicants in terms of either the continued availability of channels in all areas or the administrative burdens of compliance,” the FCC staff says.

With Wheeler solidly behind the proposal, broadcasters’ hopes for a turnaround lie with at least one of the two other Democratic commissioners — Jessica Rosenworcel and Mignon Clyburn — wavering in their support and the two Republican commissioners — Ajit Pai and Michael O’Rielly — remaining steadfast in their opposition.

“When it comes to the repacked UHF broadcast television band, full-power television stations should receive top priority,” said Pai in voting against the measure in June.

The proposal is backed by a broad and powerful constituency that covets low-band UHF spectrum to make Wi-Fi more widespread and more reliable.

“It [low-band UHF] allows for better coverage and higher quality for consumer Wi-Fi,” says Michael Calabrese, director of the New America Foundation’s Wireless Future Project, which has also been lobbying for unlicensed spectrum.

Many of the backers are organized under the banner of the Wi-Fi Alliance, whose members include Apple, Microsoft, Broadcom, Cisco, Comcast, Dell, Huawei Technologies, Intel, LG Electronics, Nokia, Quaalcom, Samsung Electronics, Sony and T-Moble.

“As unlicensed spectrum increasingly becomes critical for Internet access and other important applications, preserving two vacant channels for unlicensed operations will energize innovation in white space device technologies,” Wi-Fi Alliance says in an FCC filing.

The unlicensed spectrum is used not only for Wi-Fi, but for a variety of popular technologies, including garage door openers, baby monitors, remote control toys and security systems.

“[N]on-broadcasters overwhelmingly support the commission’s conclusion that the consumer benefits of a healthy unlicensed ecosystem in low-band spectrum greatly outweighs the light burden on broadcasters,” says Microsoft in FCC comments.

With its incentive auction next spring, the FCC expects to repurpose TV spectrum to wireless carriers by buying channels from willing broadcasters and then auctioning them to wireless carriers.

Following the auction, the FCC plans to repack the old TV band, segregating TV stations in the lower half so that the stations and wireless carriers in the upper half don’t interfere with each other.

The June proposal, in essence, plops a channel or two for unlicensed services in the broadcasters’ end of the repacked band.

It would force low-power broadcasters — and potentially full-power broadcasters — to protect the channels for unlicensed service, that is, to avoid interfering with them.

Broadcasters say the proposal, by reducing the channel space available for broadcasting, will make it harder for displaced LPTVs and translators to find new homes after the auctions.

Broadcasters also warn that the proposal could severely retard, or even derail, the rollout of ATSC 3.0 by making it more difficult to transition consumers to the new standard and to build single frequency networks. Single frequency networks (SFNs) would rebroadcast the ATSC 3.0 signals, insuring that they reach all homes within their markets as well as smartphones and other mobile devices.

Implementing an SFN “likely will involve some changes to participating stations’ service area contours to enable both stations to reach critical parts of their audiences and prevent the emergence of gaps that could cause existing viewers to lose service,” says the Pearl consortium of leading TV stating groups in an FCC filing.

“Such modifications could become impractical or impossible if licensees must not only prevent harmful interference to other television stations but must also protect channels used only by unlicensed services.”

The NAB seconds the Pearl station group in its comments, saying that the proposal would “severely hamper” stations from adopting the new standard by largely preventing them from expanding their coverage in any direction.

“The commission should be concerned about the possibility of foreclosing future innovation in the broadcast television band,” it says.

“Freezing broadcasters in time and locking them into their current business model only reduces the potential for intermodal competition and improved viewer experiences in the future,” it adds.

The FCC’s June proposal is part of a larger campaign by high-tech companies to secure plenty of unlicensed spectrum.

Bending to the demand, the FCC previously said that it plans to make additional spectrum available for unlicensed use around UHF ch. 37 — a channel that is currently used for radio astronomy and wireless medical telemetry.

In addition, the FCC has proposed to permit unlicensed operations in the so-called “duplex gap” of the repacked TV band — a guard band or buffer zone between the uplink and downlink frequencies.

“They [Google and Microsoft] just want more and better and cheaper access to the Internet, and that’s what this [FCC] proposal means,” a source close to the issue says.

The unlicensed spectrum might also be used for wireless microphones by news gatherers and sports and concert producers. And that has some broadcasters supporting the FCC proposal.

But a coalition of the major broadcast networks and their affiliates told the FCC in October that unlicensed spectrum for wireless mics should be found elsewhere.

“Setting aside spectrum for the future of wireless microphones — and for the future of unlicensed white spaces devices for that matter — can and should be accomplished by finding those services their own places in the spectrum bands [such as the duplex gap and the guard bands between the future TV and wireless bands],” the coalition says.

“Protecting and promoting these services should not come at the cost of stunting the ability of full-power television stations to provide great service to local viewers.”

Broadcasters have been intensifying their lobbying efforts at the FCC of late, hoping to convince a majority of the commissioners that its plan to insert channels into the shrunken, post-auction TV band is a bad idea.

 “If Google and Microsoft wish to structure their business models around access to spectrum, they should not count on the government to provide them with an expansive testing ground with no discernible public interest benefit; rather, they should participate in the incentive auction the FCC is using to create this new neighborhood,” says the NAB in its latest comments.

“At the very least, the FCC should not permit these multi-billion-dollar multinational corporations to profit from the displacement of television translators and low-power television stations currently providing critical services for free to millions of Americans.”

The coalition of networks and affiliates say it’s a simple matter of sound and equitable spectrum policy. “The FCC should not subordinate full-power television stations to any other service within the TV stations’ home band.”

“It’s a fundamental change of the use of the band,” adds Sinclair’s Aitken. “The incentive auction was supposed to be business as usual after the auction. This [proposal] fundamentally changes the rules.”