UPDATED

Genachowski Defends Incentive Auctions

The FCC chairman addresses what he calls "misimpressions," saying there is no spectrum hoarding by cable and wireless companies; that there is already a spectrum inventory; that spectrum subleasing by broadcasters won't solve the broadband spectrum shortage; and emphasizd that any  spectrum repacking would be limited and stations would be fully reimbursed for any moves and "we would propose that stations not be forced to move from the UHF band to the VHF band; rather, any such moves would be purely voluntary."

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski charged today that “some who want to preserve the status quo” are floating “misimpressions” about the FCC incentive auction plan.

Genachowski did not name names, but the assertions that he characterized as “misimpressions” have all been made by broadcasters.

The incentive auction would allow broadcasters who voluntarily give up some or all of their spectrum to share in the proceeds from the auction of that spectrum to wireless broadband operators. It’s part of the FCC’s larger National Broadband Plan, which among other things seeks to reallocate 120 MHz of spectrum from broadcast to broadband.

According to the unnamed critics, Genachowski said, cable and wireless companies are “hoarding” unused spectrum that could readily remedy any wireless spectrum shortage. “That’s just not true,” he said in a speech at the Mobile Future Forum in Washington. “It is not hoarding if a company paid millions or billions of dollars for spectrum at auction and is complying with the FCC’s build-out rules. There is no evidence of non-compliance.”

The critics have also demanded a inventory of current spectrum usage to see what spectrum is available before going after broadcast spectrum.

But that’s already been done, Genachowski said. “Our inventory confirms that there are no hidden vacant lots of commercial airwaves, but that there are a few areas well-suited to mobile broadband, such as the TV and MSS bands.

BRAND CONNECTIONS

“We certainly know more than enough about existing spectrum uses to move forward with a mechanism that would simply bring new market-based options to these bands.”

Another misimpression is that broadcasters could sub-lease spectrum to wireless providers on their own, Genachowski said. “This won’t solve the spectrum crisis because it won’t free up contiguous blocks of spectrum over broad geographic areas, which is what’s needed for mobile broadband,” he said.

“Keep in mind that the original broadcast allocation — the one that still exists — is a checkerboard approach with large gaps between full-power broadcast assignments.

“Freeing up, say, 6 MHz on ch. 9 in Detroit and 3 MHz on ch. 36 in Albuquerque and 6 MHz on ch. 28 in San Francisco won’t allow mobile providers to offer the kinds of nationwide mobile services that consumers demand. 

Genachowski also said he understands that some broadcasters have concerns about the channel realignment that would follow a reallocation of broadcast spectrum — the so-called repacking.

“Our plan would seek to minimize the number of stations affected, and it calls for fully reimbursing broadcasters’ costs for such moves. Plus, we would propose that stations not be forced to move from the UHF band to the VHF band; rather, any such moves would be purely voluntary — indeed, we have suggested that stations willing to do so could participate in the auction and put a price on a UHF-to-VHF move.”

Genachowski said the FCC is committed to limiting any loss of broadcast service to the public. “In fact, we anticipate that the consumer impact of realignment will be quite small, as any shift in broadcaster frequencies will merely require that over-the-air viewers rescan their televisions or converter boxes.

“The simple truth — the overarching context for the few easily addressable questions that have been raised about incentive auctions — is that the enormous benefits to consumers and to our economy of incentive auctions overwhelm the potential costs.”

Reacting to the speech and the tacit criticism of broadcasting’s position, NAB President Gordon Smith said that he was “encouraged by [Genachowski’s] repeated promise that reclamation of additional TV spectrum will be entirely voluntary, and that broadcasters who don’t ‘volunteer’ would be forced into inferior bands.

However, Smith also asked for “an independent study to confirm Chairman Genachowski’s assurances that spectrum suitable for wireless broadband is not lying fallow, given recent verbatim remarks to the contrary from current FCC licensees.”

Smith is among those who have accused cable and telephone companies of hoarding spectrum.


Comments (12)

Leave a Reply

Kathryn Miller says:

March 16, 2011 at 5:17 pm

so, am I “misinterpreting” that the FCC doesn’t have, and must have, but won’t get, the authority to do these ‘auctions’ that only LPTV stations are interested in? And, am I “misinterpreting” that he has effectively announced the outcome of a spectrum inventory when his agency has yet to start it? What is this guy smoking?

    Kathryn Miller says:

    March 16, 2011 at 5:19 pm

    and, in my reading of the Comm Act, the FCC cannot permit any loss of broadcast service. Gonna be hard to overcome that one, so ignore it, too, while the Chairman rolls another one.

Ellen Samrock says:

March 16, 2011 at 6:38 pm

I don’t know of any stations that would voluntarily go to VHF. So what is to become of the VHF band? And how can Genachowski promise minimizing disruption to broadcast television while freeing up 120 MHz of spectrum–UHF spectrum, the spectrum best suited for DTV? The only thing that I can think of is shifting around, channel sharing and/or deleting LPTV and translator stations–secondary services. After all the FCC never used the word “voluntary” when addressing LPTV and translators.

LG Baines says:

March 16, 2011 at 9:25 pm

It’s been reported that in a July 14 letter to Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller in response to the Senator’s request that the FCC begin a comprehensive spectrum survey, Chairman Genachowski said it had started, and it would cover “existing spectrum allocation, assignment, and utilization.” Those results have not been compiled and released to the public. The key word here is “utilization.”

Also, the 300 MHz the Commission estimates it needs by 2014 relies a Cisco forecast that has opaque or questionable methodology that, I suspect, underestimates offloading to Wi-Fi and other technologies, and underestimates reduced demand from the transition from flat rate to tiered mobile data pricing. Those effects will reduce spectrum demand.

    LG Baines says:

    March 17, 2011 at 7:48 am

    One other point on the Cisco forecast. It is a marketing document supporting the company’s line of mobile broadband core network products, including for video (hence the name, Visual Networking Index).

    See http://www.cisco.com/en/US/netsol/ns973/networking_solutions_market_segment_solution.html

    This is a conflict of interest. Cisco’s forecast is the highest of the three forecasts used by the FCC to come up with the 300 MHz figure (the others are from Yankee Group and Coda, independent research firms). High estimates serve Cisco’s interest in selling equipment. It’s not as objective, however, as the other two. When you throw out the Cisco forecast from the average, which I think the FCC should do, that 300 MHz figure drops quite a bit. We don’t want to base spectrum policy on a company’s promotional literature.

    Regarding the Chairman’s call for 500 MHz longer term, fine.

    Ellen Samrock says:

    March 17, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    Which is why Gordon Smith is right to ask for an independent study on spectrum allocation. As it is, spectrum reclamation and even the NBP itself is too tainted with conflict of interest/special interest issues to be taken seriously.

    Kathryn Miller says:

    March 17, 2011 at 11:59 pm

    and, just foolish is Cisco, since they allege that they make broadcast gear.

Warren Harmon says:

March 17, 2011 at 1:02 am

The whole problem is the agenda of our corrupt administration putting clowns in the FCC that are nothing more than Puppets. This spectrum grab is bad enough, how about the FORCED destruction of GPS due to enemy of the state, Obama, and HIS LightSquared buddies putting 40,000 1500 watt terrestrial transmitters in the space band adjoining 1.57542 Ghz. FORCING the FCC to grant the waver. It is so bad that the industry has had to form a coalition, take a look for yourself at http://saveourgps.org

Trudy Handel says:

March 17, 2011 at 8:11 am

If his spectrum inventory has been done, where is it?

    Ellen Samrock says:

    March 17, 2011 at 12:26 pm

    Supposedly all the information is available on the spectrum dashboard. However, I’m not sure Congress is too happy with an FCC chairman who flippantly suggests that they ‘look it up on our website.’

Eric McCaffery says:

March 17, 2011 at 4:41 pm

Sorry for the “misimpressions,” Mr. Chairman. But have you ever considered that broadcasters’ visceral distrust of you might have something to do with the guy you saw fit to appoint as you “scholar in residence”? You know, the one who wrote that the FCC should drive them from the business through the imposition of needless but crippling regulation? By the way, what exactly is that worthy gentleman doing to earn his keep at our expense? Inquiring taxpayers want to know.

    Kathryn Miller says:

    March 18, 2011 at 12:01 am

    let’s hope the guy spends all his time playing hoops with the President.