FCC Duplex Plan Bad News For Broadcasters

The promise of the incentive auction was that volunteering broadcasters would be paid for the value of their spectrum. The duplex gap plan seems designed instead artificially to reduce the prices the FCC may have to pay in crowded and border markets. If the FCC is going to be the honest broker it claims to be in the upcoming auction, it should not be placing its finger on the scale.

A dispute about something called the “duplex gap” derailed FCC Chairman Wheeler’s plan to adopt final rules for the incentive auction at the FCC’s July meeting, and the continuing controversy over the duplex gap has not stopped and could affect the chairman’s backup plan to adopt auction rules today (Aug. 6). If the FCC does not change its plan, its decision could reduce the values stations receive in the auction in many markets and harm broadcasters’ ability to cover breaking news and sports.

What is the “duplex gap”?  Unlike broadcasting where transmissions are one-way from stations to receivers, wireless broadband service involves two-way transmissions since information flows both from cell sites to mobile devices and from those devices back to cell sites and then to the Internet or telephone networks.

Because so-called “uplink” and “downlink” transmissions can interfere with each other (if for no other reason because the downlink signal is typically far stronger than the uplink signal from mobile phones and other devices), wireless spectrum is frequently licensed in paired bands, with one band designated for uplink and the other for downlink and with those bands separated from each other.

In the spectrum to be assigned to wireless after the incentive auction and repacking, the FCC decided to split the new wireless band into uplink and downlink frequencies and, to avoid interference between those bands, plans an 11 MHz “duplex gap” between them. The current argument concerns what to do with that in-between spectrum.

In the FCC’s 2014 auction decision, it decided to use the duplex gap to provide spectrum for wireless microphones and “white spaces” devices (gadgets that use vacant TV channels to transmit data) which might not be able to operate in the post-repacking TV band. The FCC now wants to change that decision and instead assign TV stations to the duplex gap — which will be in the middle of the new wireless band — in at least some markets. Why is this happening?

The FCC’s goal is to clear the largest possible nationwide band for wireless service minimizing the amount of variation between markets, and in particular to avoid having only a limited amount of wireless spectrum available in the largest markets, like New York and Los Angeles. The FCC faces particular problems in border areas since it must protect Canadian and Mexican television allocations.


If too many TV stations remain broadcasting to fit into the repacked TV band,  some stations in those markets and the largest markets will remain on channels that, in most of the rest of the country, will be assigned to wireless service, reducing the amount or quality of spectrum that will be available in the forward auction. The rules require that wireless carriers protect those stations from interference, but the experience of digital stations that were assigned to ch. 51, which is adjacent to wireless spectrum, tells us that neither the wireless carriers nor the broadcasters placed in the wireless band are likely to be happy.

The FCC’s first attempt to get around these problems was called Dynamic Reserve Pricing. Under DRP, even if the FCC did not have enough channels remaining in the new TV band to repack all stations that did not relinquish spectrum, it proposed to keep reducing the auction prices, and said that it would put the “excess” stations in the wireless band, creating interference in up to 20% of wireless channels across the country. No one liked DRP: wireless companies objected to dealing with such high levels of interference; broadcasters viewed it as a scheme to reduce station prices below their true value. The FCC says that DRP will be abandoned in the final rules.

The FCC’s duplex gap proposal is, in effect, the “son of DRP.”  The FCC proposes that in markets where not “enough” stations participate in the auction or drop out of the bidding, it may put at least one TV station into the duplex gap. The FCC released simulations that showed this affecting six to eight markets, but other simulations show stations in up to 30 markets could end up in the duplex gap.

Among the reasons for doubting the accuracy of the FCC’s simulations are that it assumed that all Canadian stations will remain on their existing channel and that the U.S. could locate stations on any channel now reserved for so-called “phantom” Canadian allocations. That is what the FCC hopes the Canadians will permit, but the current Industry Canada plan is different and would leave fewer channels for the FCC to play with.

Allowing stations to be placed into the duplex gap will certainly result in interference both to and from wireless providers. The FCC says it needs to do this to conduct a successful auction even if fewer broadcasters sell their spectrum than the FCC wants. What the FCC does not say is that by using the duplex gap, the FCC can increase the number of channels where it can repack stations, permitting it to reduce the prices it will pay for TV spectrum.

Of course, there is another obvious way the FCC could solve this problem: it could increase the opening bids for stations in markets where it thinks spectrum will be tight. That would bring in more station bidders and reduce the need to find more post-auction TV spectrum. The FCC apparently has rejected that idea.

Why should broadcasters care?  First, in markets where TV stations are in the duplex gap, the already limited spectrum available for wireless microphones would either shrink or disappear. The FCC says it will find other spectrum, but who knows whether it will offer the same capacity or what costs moving to that band would entail.

Wireless microphones are absolutely essential for news and sports coverage and the FCC’s plan could leave stations, particularly in markets like New York and Los Angeles, without the spectrum they need to produce news and sports.

Second, it will leave some stations in second-class status. TV manufacturers may resist building tuners to receive those stations, particularly since they will have to include filters for wireless signals for the markets where those channels are not used for TV. These stations will face perpetual battles over interference with their wireless neighbors and if the ch. 51 experience is any guide, will eventually be pressured to move. And if Canada follows through with its plan to repack its stations and allows more spectrum to be devoted to wireless in border areas, stations placed into the duplex gap or the wireless bands might have to move again, but the FCC would have no funds available to pay for those costs.

Finally, the promise of the incentive auction was that volunteering broadcasters would be paid for the value of their spectrum. The duplex gap plan seems designed instead artificially to reduce the prices the FCC may have to pay in crowded and border markets. If the FCC is going to be the honest broker it claims to be in the upcoming auction, it should not be placing its finger on the scale.

The FCC should give up its plan and use the duplex gap for wireless mikes and other unlicensed uses, and pay stations what their spectrum is worth.

Jack Goodman practices communications law in Washington. He was previously general counsel of the National Association of Broadcasters, where he was NAB’s chief legislative counsel on the 1992 Cable Act. He can be reached at [email protected].

Comments (7)

Leave a Reply

Liz Sidoti and Bob Lewis says:

August 6, 2015 at 8:46 am

Excellent discussion of the duplex gap issue. Jack has given some good advice that the FCC should follow. Broadcasters should continue to pressure Congress to bring Wheeler back to this position. Thanks, Jack.

Daniel Webster says:

August 6, 2015 at 9:28 am

There are no data to assess the effect on wireless of putting TV stations in the duplex(er) gap, and the effect will vary depending upon the duplexer design, which will be determined only after the amount of spectrum for wireless is known. TV in the duplex gap means a crap-shoot for wireless and that uncertainty will depress prices.

Gene Johnson says:

August 6, 2015 at 10:51 am

Well stated Jack. It appears that Chairman Wheeler’s disdain for broadcasting, and broadcasters, and a goal to minimize what the FCC might have to pay out in the auction, have combined to make for a potential policy decision that could create more problems than it solves, and could perhaps provide further support for the inevitable judicial appeals that will follow. Whatever happened to the KISS principle (keep it simple stupid)? If the auction is supposed to reflect market prices for the spectrum, and allow the market to operate in making that determination, then let it do so.

Ellen Samrock says:

August 6, 2015 at 11:38 am

Here’s the problem: the FCC is trying to re-order a band, the TV band, that is actively used by a number of industries–not just broadcasters. WiFi and wireless mics were fitting in very well within the guard bands. It’s a complex ecosystem that has been working. If this were abandoned spectrum from a long dead industry then it would be easy. By trying to sell off spectrum that is as heavily used as the TV band is, the government is asking for a world of hurt and confusion. And in the end, they’re going to get a failed auction.


August 6, 2015 at 2:05 pm

Let’s make this easy…when was there ever an FCC plan that was good for broadcasters????

Amneris Vargas says:

August 12, 2015 at 2:47 pm

Chairman Wheeler, in his blog today, said he proposing taking the FCC’s “thumb off scale” regarding network non dup. He’s should work for the Chinese government, as he’s skilled at reducing value of currency. Broadcast currency that is…

Ellen Samrock says:

August 19, 2015 at 4:36 pm

Greg Walden has made it plain to Wheeler and the FCC that favoring unlicensed users over licensed is illegal. So putting stations in the duplex gap so as to free up channels for unlicensed use is OUT.