Information from Broadcast Industry Insiders
Commission releases satellite tv act orders – outdoor antenna standard preserved !!
Last week, the Commission released three Orders and a Public Notice implementing various provisions of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (STELA). Among the most significant rulings, the Commission, in response to recommendations of NAB and the network affiliate associations, affirmed the “outdoor” antenna standard for determining whether a household can receive a local network television station for purposes of eligibility to receive a distant, duplicating network television station.
In the final days before STELA’s passage, language was inserted into the legislation, without the broadcast industry’s knowledge or consent, that satellite carriers used before the FCC to argue that Congress intended in STELA to adopt an “indoor” antenna standard for the purpose of determining eligibility to receive a duplicating distant network station. The FCC, however, rejected the satellite industry’s argument. Preservation of the “outdoor” antenna standard is a significant victory for the NAB and the broadcast television industry.
Other key elements of the Orders are as follows:
Significantly Viewed. Over the objections of the broadcast industry, the Commission interpreted the new law to allow satellite carriers to import a duplicating adjacent market “significantly viewed” network station in a variety of circumstances, including if the satellite carrier and the local affiliate are at an impasse in retransmission consent negotiations. This ruling reverses a ruling by the Commission in 2005 on this very point. Under the Commission’s new interpretation (which NAB and the affiliate associations believe to be erroneous and contrary to the intent of Congress), a satellite carrier may import a duplicating adjacent market “significantly viewed” network station if it is providing any local-into-local service in a market. It is no longer necessary under the Commission’s ruling that a satellite uplink and retransmit a specific local affiliate before importing a “significantly viewed” affiliate of the same network from an adjacent market.
Satellite carriers support the FCC’s interpretation in the belief it will compromise the retransmission consent negotiating ability of local affiliates with satellite carriers in those markets that are heavily overshadowed by “significantly viewed” affiliates from adjacent markets. However, the Commission stated that if satellite carriers abuse the ruling and begin to offer out-of-market duplicating network affiliates rather than retransmitting local affiliates, it would reconsider and revisit the ruling.
In a change broadcasters did not oppose, the new rules eliminate the requirement that satellite carriers retransmit the “equivalent or entire bandwidth” of the local station as a condition of carriage of a “significantly viewed” station. Instead, the new rules impose a “High Definition (HD) format” requirement. Thus, a satellite carrier may not import a “significantly viewed” network station in HD if the satellite carrier is not also retransmitting the local station affiliated with the same network in HD, if the local station makes the HD format available.
The new rules related to “significantly viewed” stations go into effect December 29, 2010.
Signal Prediction. Another Commission Order establishes a point-to-point predictive model to determine the ability of individual households to receive an over-the-air digital television broadcast signal at the intensity level needed for service through the use of an antenna. The new digital Individual Location Longley-Rice (ILLR) model will be used to “reliably and presumptively” determine whether individual households are eligible to receive the signals of distant network-affiliated digital television stations, including digital TV translator and low power television stations, from their satellite carrier (the existing analog ILLR model will continue to be used for analog TV translator and low power television stations). (Generally, to be eligible, a subscriber must be “unserved” by local stations affiliated with the same network.)
As noted, the Commission has affirmed in this Order the current standard for an outdoor antenna, at a height of 6 meters above ground for one-story structures and 9 meters above ground for taller structures, as the basis for predicting digital television signal strengths at individual locations in the digital ILLR model.
This Order also includes a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that requests comment on possible modifications to the digital ILLR model to “improve the accuracy and reliability of its predictions.” Comments are due 30 days after publication of the Notice in the Federal Register, and reply comments are due within 45 days of publication. (Publication has not yet occurred.)
Signal Strength Measurement. The third Order amends the FCC’s rules to include measurement procedures to determine the strength of a DTV signal at a specific location. As with the digital ILLR model described above, these new signal strength measurement procedures will be used to determine whether households are eligible, under STELA, to receive distant DTV network signals retransmitted by satellite carriers.
The Commission has affirmed that the measurement procedure requires the use of an outdoor antenna to determine subscriber eligibility to receive distant network signals. This outdoor test is the approach that was favored by broadcasters and opposed by satellite carriers.
Public Notice Request For Comment. Finally, in the Public Notice, the FCC seeks comment on the “appropriate methodologies, metrics, data sources, and level of granularity” to include in its required report to Congress on the availability throughout each local market of television service from “in-state” stations. The data to be collected and presented in the report relates to potential market modification. The report is required by STELA and due within 18 months of STELA’s enactment – no later than August 27, 2011. Broadcasters will wish to weigh in on the issues in the Public Notice. Comments are due within 45 days of publication in the Federal Register, and reply comments are due within 75 days of publication. (Publication has not yet occurred.) We will provide a separate summary of this Public Notice.
Last week, the Commission released three Orders and a Public Notice implementing various provisions of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (STELA). Among the most significant rulings, the Commission, in response to recommendations of NAB and the network affiliate associations, affirmed the “outdoor” antenna standard for determining whether a household can receive a local network television station for purposes of eligibility to receive a distant, duplicating network television station.
In the final days before STELA’s passage, language was inserted into the legislation, without the broadcast industry’s knowledge or consent, that satellite carriers used before the FCC to argue that Congress intended in STELA to adopt an “indoor” antenna standard for the purpose of determining eligibility to receive a duplicating distant network station. The FCC, however, rejected the satellite industry’s argument. Preservation of the “outdoor” antenna standard is a significant victory for the NAB and the broadcast television industry.
Other key elements of the Orders are as follows:
Significantly Viewed. Over the objections of the broadcast industry, the Commission interpreted the new law to allow satellite carriers to import a duplicating adjacent market “significantly viewed” network station in a variety of circumstances, including if the satellite carrier and the local affiliate are at an impasse in retransmission consent negotiations. This ruling reverses a ruling by the Commission in 2005 on this very point. Under the Commission’s new interpretation (which NAB and the affiliate associations believe to be erroneous and contrary to the intent of Congress), a satellite carrier may import a duplicating adjacent market “significantly viewed” network station if it is providing any local-into-local service in a market. It is no longer necessary under the Commission’s ruling that a satellite uplink and retransmit a specific local affiliate before importing a “significantly viewed” affiliate of the same network from an adjacent market.
Satellite carriers support the FCC’s interpretation in the belief it will compromise the retransmission consent negotiating ability of local affiliates with satellite carriers in those markets that are heavily overshadowed by “significantly viewed” affiliates from adjacent markets. However, the Commission stated that if satellite carriers abuse the ruling and begin to offer out-of-market duplicating network affiliates rather than retransmitting local affiliates, it would reconsider and revisit the ruling.
In a change broadcasters did not oppose, the new rules eliminate the requirement that satellite carriers retransmit the “equivalent or entire bandwidth” of the local station as a condition of carriage of a “significantly viewed” station. Instead, the new rules impose a “High Definition (HD) format” requirement. Thus, a satellite carrier may not import a “significantly viewed” network station in HD if the satellite carrier is not also retransmitting the local station affiliated with the same network in HD, if the local station makes the HD format available.
The new rules related to “significantly viewed” stations go into effect December 29, 2010.
Signal Prediction. Another Commission Order establishes a point-to-point predictive model to determine the ability of individual households to receive an over-the-air digital television broadcast signal at the intensity level needed for service through the use of an antenna. The new digital Individual Location Longley-Rice (ILLR) model will be used to “reliably and presumptively” determine whether individual households are eligible to receive the signals of distant network-affiliated digital television stations, including digital TV translator and low power television stations, from their satellite carrier (the existing analog ILLR model will continue to be used for analog TV translator and low power television stations). (Generally, to be eligible, a subscriber must be “unserved” by local stations affiliated with the same network.)
As noted, the Commission has affirmed in this Order the current standard for an outdoor antenna, at a height of 6 meters above ground for one-story structures and 9 meters above ground for taller structures, as the basis for predicting digital television signal strengths at individual locations in the digital ILLR model.
This Order also includes a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that requests comment on possible modifications to the digital ILLR model to “improve the accuracy and reliability of its predictions.” Comments are due 30 days after publication of the Notice in the Federal Register, and reply comments are due within 45 days of publication. (Publication has not yet occurred.)
Signal Strength Measurement. The third Order amends the FCC’s rules to include measurement procedures to determine the strength of a DTV signal at a specific location. As with the digital ILLR model described above, these new signal strength measurement procedures will be used to determine whether households are eligible, under STELA, to receive distant DTV network signals retransmitted by satellite carriers.
The Commission has affirmed that the measurement procedure requires the use of an outdoor antenna to determine subscriber eligibility to receive distant network signals. This outdoor test is the approach that was favored by broadcasters and opposed by satellite carriers.
Public Notice Request For Comment. Finally, in the Public Notice, the FCC seeks comment on the “appropriate methodologies, metrics, data sources, and level of granularity” to include in its required report to Congress on the availability throughout each local market of television service from “in-state” stations. The data to be collected and presented in the report relates to potential market modification. The report is required by STELA and due within 18 months of STELA’s enactment – no later than August 27, 2011. Broadcasters will wish to weigh in on the issues in the Public Notice. Comments are due within 45 days of publication in the Federal Register, and reply comments are due within 75 days of publication. (Publication has not yet occurred.) We will provide a separate summary of this Public Notice.
Fcc will consider retrans reform and market mod
December 15, 2010
FCC WILL CONSIDER RETRANS REFORM AND MARKET MOD
I.
Retrans Proceeding
The Chief of the FCC’s Media Bureau announced last week that the Commission
will issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking related to the television retransmission consent process. Although no formal Notice has yet been issued, he stated that the Commission will “take a broad look” at actions the FCC may take, under its current legal authority, to “advance the statutory objectives of allowing retrans fees to be set by market forces while protecting the interests of consumers.”
The announcement was not welcome news for television broadcasters, particularly in light of another proceeding the FCC just initiated, in response to a Congressional directive, to look at the current way “local markets” (i.e., DMAs) are defined by Nielsen and whether DMAs should be enlarged to include all TV stations in a state—the issue, in short, is should the current DMA market definition be enlarged to allow MVPDs to import every television station within a state into counties now assigned to an out-of-state DMA?
These two proceedings could have precedent-setting implications for the television industry and should be carefully followed by all television stations. While the prospect of Congressional action on retrans has lessened considerably with Republican control of the U.S. House, there are a number of regulatory actions the FCC could take in these two proceedings without legislation that could considerably weaken the ability of local stations to negotiate compensatory retrans arrangements with MVPDs. For example, MVPDs have long argued they should be able to negotiate for carriage of out-of-market network-affiliated stations if a retrans agreement with the inmarket affiliate is not reached—notwithstanding the program exclusivity protections networks and syndicated programming providers offer by contract to local stations.
MVPDs have suggested—and the Commission may now consider the merits of the suggestions—that a station should not be permitted to sign a network affiliation or program syndication agreement that prohibits the station from granting retrans consent to MVPDs for carriage anywhere outside the station’s local market (without regard to whether the station is “significantly viewed” in that area).
Such a rule would enable cable operators and satellite carriers to negotiate with dozens, if not hundreds (depending on how the rule might be configured), of stations affiliated with the same network or program provider. The effect would be to diminish each station’s local program exclusivity and, in turn, diminish the leverage the station may have in retrans negotiations with MVPDs.
Although Republicans in Congress might well be concerned about such extensive government intrusion into, and interference by the Commission with, private contractual agreements between networks, program suppliers, and stations, the three Democrats on the Commission may or may not share that concern. That remains to be seen. The Commission’s proposed Notice is apparently in the developmental stage, so the exact proposals under consideration are still unknown. However, the Chief of the Media Bureau indicated the Notice would address the following issues:
Good Faith Negotiation. The new retransmission consent rulemaking will likely consider whether the FCC should provide more guidance on the meaning of the existing “good faith negotiation” requirement to “guide the negotiating parties” and to reduce the number of unsuccessful negotiations and dropped signals. (The number of negotiations resulting in any disruption of service, according to NAB, is less than 1%─de minimis, of course, in the context of literally thousands of program carriage negotiations taking place every day.) The Commission may seek to identify negotiating practices that, in addition to those under the Commission’s current rules and policies, would be considered per se violations of the statutory duty to negotiate in “good faith.”
It is noteworthy that the announcement indicated some of these concepts may also be applied, for the first time, to MVPD negotiations with cable and satellite networks. Various MVPDs have argued stations should not be permitted to bundle retrans negotiations with non-broadcast programming services, or to negotiate for more than one station in a group of commonly-owned stations, or to negotiate for more than one channel. Some MVPDs contend stations should not be permitted to own more than one Big 4 Network affiliate in the same market or affiliate with a Big 4 channel if the station’s primary channel is also affiliated with a Big 4 Network. And some MVPDs have argued the “good faith” negotiating requirement should prevent stations from attempting to restrict the importation of duplicating, adjacent market, “significantly viewed” stations. The FCC may also seek to provide additional guidance on the meaning and scope of the “totality of the circumstances” test used to evaluate whether parties have, in fact, negotiated in good faith.
Limitation On Program Exclusivity. As noted above, among the troubling implications of last week’s announcement is the possibility the Commission might eliminate the network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity protections entered into by contract between networks, program syndicators, and local stations. The Commission, for example, could consider, as some MVPDs have requested, enacting a rule to prevent stations from signing network affiliation or syndication agreements that prohibit the station from granting MVPD retransmission consent outside the station’s DMA or where the station is “significantly viewed”—thus leaving MVPDs with the ability to negotiate with duplicating affiliates anywhere in the country. The adverse financial implications resulting both from audience fragmentation and diminished retrans negotiating leverage are obvious. An expansion of Commission regulatory authority of this magnitude would be
unprecedented.
Notification Requirements. We are told the Notice may consider whether the FCC’s existing consumer notification rules that require cable and satellite operators to notify consumers of a partial interruption in service can or could apply to broadcasters when negotiating retrans agreements. If so, television stations could be required to notify viewers before television signals are pulled from cable or satellite systems when acceptable retransmission consent terms cannot be reached. Many stations now voluntarily provide on-air viewer alerts in these circumstances.
Remove Marketplace Interference. The rulemaking may examine existing FCC rules that have the potential, as the Chief of the Media Bureau said, to “interfere with market negotiations.” The Bureau Chief, however, did not offer specific examples of the rules under consideration, but he said the Commission is concerned that its existing rules may give one side or the other an “unfair advantage” in retransmission consent negotiations. Presumably, the rulemaking would look at all aspects of the negotiating process for unfair advantages.
State Of The Marketplace. The rulemaking will examine the state of the retransmission consent marketplace and explore whether recent high-profile negotiation disputes are anomalies or evidence of a continuing pattern.
It is unclear at this point how soon the FCC will issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and begin the new retransmission consent proceeding. The Commission’s next public meeting is scheduled for December 21, 2010, but, as of December 13, 2010, the Notice had not been placed on the agenda. Therefore, it may be January 2011 (or later) before the proceeding begins.
II.
Market Modification Proceeding Equally important, the Commission, three weeks ago, issued a Public Notice
seeking comment on the “appropriate methodologies, metrics, data sources, and level of granularity” to include in a report the Commission is required to submit to Congress on the availability throughout each local market of television service from “in-state” stations. The new satellite act (STELA) requires the Commission to issue a report containing an analysis of (1) the number of households in a state that receive the signals of local broadcast stations assigned to a community of license located in a different state, (2) the extent to which consumers in each local market have access to in-state broadcast programming over the air or from an MVPD, and (3) whether there are alternatives to the use of DMAs to define local markets that would provide more consumers with in-state broadcast programming.
The data to be collected and presented by the Commission relates to long-standing efforts by MVPDs to modify the existing Nielsen DMA market definition and expand the geographic scope of the compulsory copyright license. The result of this kind of market modification, of course, would reduce the geographic area of network and syndicated program exclusivity protection for certain stations whose DMAs include counties located in an adjacent state and would lead to the introduction of new, duplicating signals. Specifically, here are some of the issues on which the Commission seeks comment in this proceeding:
* How to measure whether a station is “received” for purposes of determining the number of households in a state that receive the signals of local television stations located in a different state. The FCC proposes to assume
that all households within a station’s predicted service area receive the station’s signal and all households outside the predicted service area do not receive the station’s signal.
* Whether the intent of Congress in requiring this FCC report is to identify geographic areas and associated populations within specific states that have “limited” access to in-state broadcast programming, and (if so) how the FCC should aggregate and analyze the data to identify such geographic areas and populations. The Commission proposes to collect, aggregate, and compare data on in-state programming on both a DMA basis and a county basis. The Public Notice asks if the FCC should consider other criteria to evaluate the extent to which consumers have access to in-state programming, including the network affiliation of stations or whether stations offer local news.
* Whether or not it is appropriate to use the Longley-Rice methodology to measure consumer access to in-state broadcast programming received over the air.
* What concerns are there with the FCC’s proposal to request, in order to measure consumer access to in-state broadcast programming received through an MVPD, that cable operators provide data on the TV stations they
carry and whether they carry the same TV stations throughout the DMA, county, or other geographic area. Similarly, what concerns are there with the FCC’s proposal to request that satellite operators provide data on the
broadcast stations they carry in each market, including “significantly viewed” signals, and whether they carry the same stations throughout the market.
* What are the possible alternatives to the use of the DMA to define local markets. One proposal in the Public Notice is to define geographic markets in terms of the 50 states plus the District of Columbia (i.e., 51 local markets instead of 210 DMAs). Alternatively, states could be divided into multiple markets based on the stations covering different portions of a particular state. Still another possibility is to modify DMAs so that they do not cross state lines.
* What are the effects of the alternatives to the use of DMAs on viewers, the advertising market, the number of stations carried by MVPDs, and the ownership of broadcast television stations. Broadcasters may wish to submit to the FCC input on this important proceeding. Comments are due January 24, 2011, and reply comments are due February 22, 2011.
The NAB is currently reviewing both proceedings and is coordinating with all
affected broadcast interests. This Association, as well, is following these proceedings
carefully and coordinating with NAB.
December 15, 2010
FCC WILL CONSIDER RETRANS REFORM AND MARKET MOD
I.
Retrans Proceeding
The Chief of the FCC’s Media Bureau announced last week that the Commission
will issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking related to the television retransmission consent process. Although no formal Notice has yet been issued, he stated that the Commission will “take a broad look” at actions the FCC may take, under its current legal authority, to “advance the statutory objectives of allowing retrans fees to be set by market forces while protecting the interests of consumers.”
The announcement was not welcome news for television broadcasters, particularly in light of another proceeding the FCC just initiated, in response to a Congressional directive, to look at the current way “local markets” (i.e., DMAs) are defined by Nielsen and whether DMAs should be enlarged to include all TV stations in a state—the issue, in short, is should the current DMA market definition be enlarged to allow MVPDs to import every television station within a state into counties now assigned to an out-of-state DMA?
These two proceedings could have precedent-setting implications for the television industry and should be carefully followed by all television stations. While the prospect of Congressional action on retrans has lessened considerably with Republican control of the U.S. House, there are a number of regulatory actions the FCC could take in these two proceedings without legislation that could considerably weaken the ability of local stations to negotiate compensatory retrans arrangements with MVPDs. For example, MVPDs have long argued they should be able to negotiate for carriage of out-of-market network-affiliated stations if a retrans agreement with the inmarket affiliate is not reached—notwithstanding the program exclusivity protections networks and syndicated programming providers offer by contract to local stations.
MVPDs have suggested—and the Commission may now consider the merits of the suggestions—that a station should not be permitted to sign a network affiliation or program syndication agreement that prohibits the station from granting retrans consent to MVPDs for carriage anywhere outside the station’s local market (without regard to whether the station is “significantly viewed” in that area).
Such a rule would enable cable operators and satellite carriers to negotiate with dozens, if not hundreds (depending on how the rule might be configured), of stations affiliated with the same network or program provider. The effect would be to diminish each station’s local program exclusivity and, in turn, diminish the leverage the station may have in retrans negotiations with MVPDs.
Although Republicans in Congress might well be concerned about such extensive government intrusion into, and interference by the Commission with, private contractual agreements between networks, program suppliers, and stations, the three Democrats on the Commission may or may not share that concern. That remains to be seen. The Commission’s proposed Notice is apparently in the developmental stage, so the exact proposals under consideration are still unknown. However, the Chief of the Media Bureau indicated the Notice would address the following issues:
Good Faith Negotiation. The new retransmission consent rulemaking will likely consider whether the FCC should provide more guidance on the meaning of the existing “good faith negotiation” requirement to “guide the negotiating parties” and to reduce the number of unsuccessful negotiations and dropped signals. (The number of negotiations resulting in any disruption of service, according to NAB, is less than 1%─de minimis, of course, in the context of literally thousands of program carriage negotiations taking place every day.) The Commission may seek to identify negotiating practices that, in addition to those under the Commission’s current rules and policies, would be considered per se violations of the statutory duty to negotiate in “good faith.”
It is noteworthy that the announcement indicated some of these concepts may also be applied, for the first time, to MVPD negotiations with cable and satellite networks. Various MVPDs have argued stations should not be permitted to bundle retrans negotiations with non-broadcast programming services, or to negotiate for more than one station in a group of commonly-owned stations, or to negotiate for more than one channel. Some MVPDs contend stations should not be permitted to own more than one Big 4 Network affiliate in the same market or affiliate with a Big 4 channel if the station’s primary channel is also affiliated with a Big 4 Network. And some MVPDs have argued the “good faith” negotiating requirement should prevent stations from attempting to restrict the importation of duplicating, adjacent market, “significantly viewed” stations. The FCC may also seek to provide additional guidance on the meaning and scope of the “totality of the circumstances” test used to evaluate whether parties have, in fact, negotiated in good faith.
Limitation On Program Exclusivity. As noted above, among the troubling implications of last week’s announcement is the possibility the Commission might eliminate the network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity protections entered into by contract between networks, program syndicators, and local stations. The Commission, for example, could consider, as some MVPDs have requested, enacting a rule to prevent stations from signing network affiliation or syndication agreements that prohibit the station from granting MVPD retransmission consent outside the station’s DMA or where the station is “significantly viewed”—thus leaving MVPDs with the ability to negotiate with duplicating affiliates anywhere in the country. The adverse financial implications resulting both from audience fragmentation and diminished retrans negotiating leverage are obvious. An expansion of Commission regulatory authority of this magnitude would be
unprecedented.
Notification Requirements. We are told the Notice may consider whether the FCC’s existing consumer notification rules that require cable and satellite operators to notify consumers of a partial interruption in service can or could apply to broadcasters when negotiating retrans agreements. If so, television stations could be required to notify viewers before television signals are pulled from cable or satellite systems when acceptable retransmission consent terms cannot be reached. Many stations now voluntarily provide on-air viewer alerts in these circumstances.
Remove Marketplace Interference. The rulemaking may examine existing FCC rules that have the potential, as the Chief of the Media Bureau said, to “interfere with market negotiations.” The Bureau Chief, however, did not offer specific examples of the rules under consideration, but he said the Commission is concerned that its existing rules may give one side or the other an “unfair advantage” in retransmission consent negotiations. Presumably, the rulemaking would look at all aspects of the negotiating process for unfair advantages.
State Of The Marketplace. The rulemaking will examine the state of the retransmission consent marketplace and explore whether recent high-profile negotiation disputes are anomalies or evidence of a continuing pattern.
It is unclear at this point how soon the FCC will issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and begin the new retransmission consent proceeding. The Commission’s next public meeting is scheduled for December 21, 2010, but, as of December 13, 2010, the Notice had not been placed on the agenda. Therefore, it may be January 2011 (or later) before the proceeding begins.
II.
Market Modification Proceeding Equally important, the Commission, three weeks ago, issued a Public Notice
seeking comment on the “appropriate methodologies, metrics, data sources, and level of granularity” to include in a report the Commission is required to submit to Congress on the availability throughout each local market of television service from “in-state” stations. The new satellite act (STELA) requires the Commission to issue a report containing an analysis of (1) the number of households in a state that receive the signals of local broadcast stations assigned to a community of license located in a different state, (2) the extent to which consumers in each local market have access to in-state broadcast programming over the air or from an MVPD, and (3) whether there are alternatives to the use of DMAs to define local markets that would provide more consumers with in-state broadcast programming.
The data to be collected and presented by the Commission relates to long-standing efforts by MVPDs to modify the existing Nielsen DMA market definition and expand the geographic scope of the compulsory copyright license. The result of this kind of market modification, of course, would reduce the geographic area of network and syndicated program exclusivity protection for certain stations whose DMAs include counties located in an adjacent state and would lead to the introduction of new, duplicating signals. Specifically, here are some of the issues on which the Commission seeks comment in this proceeding:
* How to measure whether a station is “received” for purposes of determining the number of households in a state that receive the signals of local television stations located in a different state. The FCC proposes to assume
that all households within a station’s predicted service area receive the station’s signal and all households outside the predicted service area do not receive the station’s signal.
* Whether the intent of Congress in requiring this FCC report is to identify geographic areas and associated populations within specific states that have “limited” access to in-state broadcast programming, and (if so) how the FCC should aggregate and analyze the data to identify such geographic areas and populations. The Commission proposes to collect, aggregate, and compare data on in-state programming on both a DMA basis and a county basis. The Public Notice asks if the FCC should consider other criteria to evaluate the extent to which consumers have access to in-state programming, including the network affiliation of stations or whether stations offer local news.
* Whether or not it is appropriate to use the Longley-Rice methodology to measure consumer access to in-state broadcast programming received over the air.
* What concerns are there with the FCC’s proposal to request, in order to measure consumer access to in-state broadcast programming received through an MVPD, that cable operators provide data on the TV stations they
carry and whether they carry the same TV stations throughout the DMA, county, or other geographic area. Similarly, what concerns are there with the FCC’s proposal to request that satellite operators provide data on the
broadcast stations they carry in each market, including “significantly viewed” signals, and whether they carry the same stations throughout the market.
* What are the possible alternatives to the use of the DMA to define local markets. One proposal in the Public Notice is to define geographic markets in terms of the 50 states plus the District of Columbia (i.e., 51 local markets instead of 210 DMAs). Alternatively, states could be divided into multiple markets based on the stations covering different portions of a particular state. Still another possibility is to modify DMAs so that they do not cross state lines.
* What are the effects of the alternatives to the use of DMAs on viewers, the advertising market, the number of stations carried by MVPDs, and the ownership of broadcast television stations. Broadcasters may wish to submit to the FCC input on this important proceeding. Comments are due January 24, 2011, and reply comments are due February 22, 2011.
The NAB is currently reviewing both proceedings and is coordinating with all
affected broadcast interests. This Association, as well, is following these proceedings
carefully and coordinating with NAB.
Last edited:
Former FEMA Director Urges D Block Auction
December 14, 2010
Former FEMA Director Urges D Block Auction
During a keynote at the National Press Club, former FEMA Director and CEO of Witt Associates James Lee Witt joined a broad-based group of stakeholders calling for a public auction of valuable 700 MHz spectrum as the most efficient and effective way to ensure construction of a nationwide, interoperable broadband network for our nation’s first responders.
Witt was joined by a panel of experts from industry, public safety and public interest spectrum groups including Dennis Roberson, former CTO of Motorola; John Kneuer, former Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information at NTIA; Joe Hanna, former President of the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials International (APCO); Harold Feld, Legal Director of Public Knowledge; and Steven Berry, President and CEO of the Rural Cellular Association (RCA).
The event was sponsored by Connect Public Safety Now, a broad-based coalition of wireless broadband providers, rural communications groups, public interest organizations and think tanks, advocating for a public auction of the D Block as articulated in the FCC’s National Broadband Plan. Two leading organizations representing first responders, the Fraternal Order of Police and the International Association of Fire Fighters, have also expressed public support for an auction of the D Block.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would support that, as 700 MHz. is part of the old TV band plan starting at channel 53, which is no longer in use by TV Broadcasters. It would not have an effect on DTV broadcasters now, as that band was given back during the DTV transition.
There are already license holders there from the DTV transition auction, but it is way under utilized, and should be re-claimed for the Broadband Industry, instead of taking a service that is still used off the air, so a small handful of owners and investors can get filthy rich. It would not require this entire D Block to support first responders needs in the first place using radio trunking technology, and what is left could be used for the broadband robber barons to get their wish of extreme riches, and not kill DTV entirely.
The spectrum thieves claim all of this is going to be needed for the economic benefit of the entire country, but can someone please explain how giving a publicly owned resource to private industry for obscene profits is going to help the economy?
Wasn't this given as one of the main reasons for the DTV Transition in the first place? Where is the logic? I can answer that for myself, GREEEEEEEEEEED !!!
December 14, 2010
Former FEMA Director Urges D Block Auction
During a keynote at the National Press Club, former FEMA Director and CEO of Witt Associates James Lee Witt joined a broad-based group of stakeholders calling for a public auction of valuable 700 MHz spectrum as the most efficient and effective way to ensure construction of a nationwide, interoperable broadband network for our nation’s first responders.
Witt was joined by a panel of experts from industry, public safety and public interest spectrum groups including Dennis Roberson, former CTO of Motorola; John Kneuer, former Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information at NTIA; Joe Hanna, former President of the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials International (APCO); Harold Feld, Legal Director of Public Knowledge; and Steven Berry, President and CEO of the Rural Cellular Association (RCA).
The event was sponsored by Connect Public Safety Now, a broad-based coalition of wireless broadband providers, rural communications groups, public interest organizations and think tanks, advocating for a public auction of the D Block as articulated in the FCC’s National Broadband Plan. Two leading organizations representing first responders, the Fraternal Order of Police and the International Association of Fire Fighters, have also expressed public support for an auction of the D Block.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would support that, as 700 MHz. is part of the old TV band plan starting at channel 53, which is no longer in use by TV Broadcasters. It would not have an effect on DTV broadcasters now, as that band was given back during the DTV transition.
There are already license holders there from the DTV transition auction, but it is way under utilized, and should be re-claimed for the Broadband Industry, instead of taking a service that is still used off the air, so a small handful of owners and investors can get filthy rich. It would not require this entire D Block to support first responders needs in the first place using radio trunking technology, and what is left could be used for the broadband robber barons to get their wish of extreme riches, and not kill DTV entirely.
The spectrum thieves claim all of this is going to be needed for the economic benefit of the entire country, but can someone please explain how giving a publicly owned resource to private industry for obscene profits is going to help the economy?
Wasn't this given as one of the main reasons for the DTV Transition in the first place? Where is the logic? I can answer that for myself, GREEEEEEEEEEED !!!
Last edited:
FOX:
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Excerpt from:[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Da...C-10-196A1.pdf[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]STATEMENT OF [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]CHAIRMAN JULIUS GENACHOWSKI
Re: [FONT=TimesNewRoman,BoldItalic][FONT=TimesNewRoman,BoldItalic][FONT=TimesNewRoman,BoldItalic]Innovation in the Broadcast Television Bands: Allocations, Channel Sharing and [FONT=TimesNewRoman,BoldItalic][FONT=TimesNewRoman,BoldItalic][FONT=TimesNewRoman,BoldItalic]Improvements to VHF, [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]ET Docket No. 10-235, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
In the end, it's all about this:
It would also yield significant revenue for the Treasury. (And wireless providers)
It would also yield significant revenue for the Treasury. (And wireless providers)
Special report - commission begins spectrum proceedings
Part 1
December 16, 2010
COMMISSION BEGINS SPECTRUM PROCEEDINGS
The FCC has released three Notices that set the stage for the Commission to seek to
“reclaim” 120 MHz of spectrum from television broadcasters for wireless broadband uses.
The Notices launch new proceedings that generally follow the recommendations of the
National Broadband Plan (the “Plan”), released in March 2010. Ultimately, the
Commission’s goal, as stated in the Plan, is to reclaim a total of 500 MHz from various
bands (including 120 MHz from the TV band) to satisfy the so-called “spectrum crunch”
created by bandwidth-hungry wireless broadband devices.
The most significant new Notice for broadcasters proposes three major actions
related to television spectrum. First, the Commission proposes to add new spectrum
allocations for fixed and mobile services in the band where television channels 2-36 and
38-51 currently operate. These new allocations would be co-primary with existing
broadcast operations on these channels. As “co-primary” services, TV and wireless
broadband operations would be on an equal footing for purposes of resolving interference
concerns. This poses obvious technical concerns for affected stations.
Second, the Commission proposes to establish a framework to permit two or more
television stations to share a single 6 MHz channel. This idea was suggested in the Plan as
one means to free spectrum so that more would be available for wireless broadband uses
(and possibly auctioned, as discussed below). At least for now, the Commission proposes
channel sharing by TV stations on a voluntary basis.
Third, the Notice proposes to improve television reception in the VHF band (TV
channels 2-13). Many broadcasters operating on VHF spectrum, especially those in the
northeastern United States, have experienced reception difficulties in the wake of the full
power DTV transition. UHF spectrum is believed to have more desirable technical
characteristics for wireless broadband (and broadcast) use, so the Commission is seeking
ways to improve VHF for television broadcasters. Specifically, the Notice proposes to
allow certain VHF stations to increase their maximum allowed operating power and to
establish indoor antenna standards to improve viewer reception of VHF stations. These
efforts, while generally positive for certain stations, strongly suggest that the Commission
plans to “reclaim” the best spectrum—UHF—for wireless broadband use.
A key component of the Plan’s proposals to free spectrum for wireless broadband
was the idea that the FCC would hold “incentive auctions,” whereby television
broadcasters would be allowed to voluntarily relinquish spectrum in exchange for
payment. This proposal has been roundly criticized by some broadcasters who wish to
take advantage of their HD and multicasting capabilities made possible by the DTV
transition. The FCC has acknowledged before, and acknowledged in the public meeting in
which the TV spectrum Notice was adopted, that its statutory authority to conduct
spectrum “incentive auctions” is uncertain. So, without clear statutory authority, the
Commission did not in the TV spectrum Notice include measures for voluntary spectrum
auctions. However, in presenting the Notice at the public meeting, the Commission made
plain that the Notice would work in concert with the “possibility” of incentive auctions, if
Congress authorizes them.
A more detailed summary of the three proposals made in the television spectrum
Notice, and the corresponding issues on which the FCC seeks comment, is attached as
Attachment A. Broadcasters may wish to weigh in on the issues raised in this Notice.
Comments in this proceeding are due 45 days after publication in the Federal Register, and
reply comments are due 75 days after publication.
A separate Notice proposes to allow “increased opportunities for experimentation
and innovation” in the Experimental Radio Services. This Notice proposes to create a new
kind of experimental license, called a “program experimental license,” that would allow
qualified institutions “broad authority” to conduct an ongoing program of research and
experimentation under a single experimental authorization. For example, this Notice
proposes to create a medical program experimental license that would allow hospitals and
other health care institutions to operate and test new medical devices that use wireless
telecommunications technologies for therapeutic, monitoring, and diagnostic purposes.
Comments in this proceeding are due 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, and
reply comments are due 60 days after publication.
Finally, the Commission released a Notice of Inquiry that seeks comment from the
public about ways in which “dynamic spectrum access” radios and techniques can
“promote more intensive and efficient use of radio spectrum.” For example, this Notice
asks commenters whether a real-time database similar to the TV band database to be used
by wireless devices operating in TV “white spaces” could be used in other spectrum bands.
Comments in this proceeding are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, and
reply comments are due 90 days after publication.
As of December 15, 2010, none of the Notices has yet been published in the
Federal Register.
We will continue to monitor the spectrum proceedings and inform you of
significant developments.
Attachment A
Summary Of TV Spectrum Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking
The television spectrum Notice proposes three major actions related to TV
spectrum: (1) add new allocations for fixed and mobile services in the band where
television channels 2-36 and 38-51 currently operate—these new allocations would be
co-primary with existing broadcast operations on these channels, (2) establish a
framework to permit two or more television stations to share a single 6 MHz channel, and
(3) improve reception in the VHF band by, for example, increasing the maximum
allowed operating power for certain VHF stations and establishing indoor antenna
standards. These proposals and the issues open for comment are summarized below.
I. New Spectrum Allocations
The Notice proposes to amend the FCC’s spectrum allocations to make a
“significant portion” of the spectrum currently used by broadcast TV stations available
for “flexible use, including fixed and mobile wireless broadband” use. To carry out this
objective, the FCC proposes to add allocations for fixed and mobile uses in the band
where television channels 2-36 and 38-51 operate. These new wireless broadband
services would be designated as “co-primary” with broadcast TV service. As “coprimary”
services, TV and wireless broadband operations in the band would be on an
equal footing for purposes of resolving interference concerns.
According to the Notice, the Commission’s goal in allowing new, potentially
competing uses into the affected TV channels is to “adopt a band plan that will provide
for flexible use while continuing to support the needs of the television service.” Whether
and the extent to which any harm would be done to television service is as yet unclear.
The Notice seeks comment on its proposal to add new allocations.
II. 6 MHz Channel Sharing
The Notice proposes to establish a framework to permit two or more television
stations to share a single 6 MHz channel, and it seeks comment on this plan. According
to the Notice, the Commission “anticipate providing broadcast stations an opportunity
to voluntarily elect to share a channel.” In other words, the Commission—at least for
now—plans for channel sharing to be voluntary for TV broadcasters.
The FCC seeks comment on the development of an appropriate regulatory
structure for voluntary television channel sharing that will “preserve over-the-air
television as a healthy, viable medium going forward, in a way that would benefit
consumers overall, while establishing mechanisms to make available additional spectrum
for flexible broadband uses.”
Here are the other principal issues open for comment related to the channel
sharing proposal:
* HD And Other Transmission Issues. According to the Notice, the
Commission envisions, consistent with the National Broadband Plan, that two stations
could each generally broadcast one primary HD video stream over a shared 6 MHz
channel, or more than two stations broadcasting only in SD could share a 6 MHz channel.
However, broadcasters have previously expressed concerns that sharing a single channel
would not be practical because it would not provide sufficient transmission capacity for
two or more stations to offer the highest quality HD programming simultaneously.
Stations have also been concerned that channel sharing could impact or eliminate current
and future DTV services, such as expansion of HD programming and deployment of
mobile DTV service. The Commission seeks comment on these issues and related
concerns.
* Requirement To Transmit At Least One Free Over-The-Air Signal. The
FCC seeks comment on whether stations sharing a single 6 MHz channel would be able
to comply with the existing FCC requirement to operate at least one channel over the air
free to consumers. The Commission also seeks comment on other approaches to channel
sharing that involve sub-channel (i.e., multicast) services, such as mobile services.
* Maintain Current Station Obligations. The Commission seeks comment
on how TV stations may most effectively coordinate their individual rights and
responsibilities as licensees when operating under a channel sharing arrangement. The
Notice states that the FCC intends to retain for shared channel licensees as much as
possible of its existing policy framework for allocating, licensing, and operating
television stations. Despite sharing a single channel and transmission facility, the Notice
proposes that each station will continue to be licensed and operated separately, have its
own call sign, and be separately subject to all of the Commission’s obligations, rules, and
policies. Each station’s programming obligations will remain the same (e.g., children’s
programming, political broadcasting, EAS, etc.), and a station will not be responsible for
the programming or violations of any other station sharing its channel.
Moreover, the Notice specifically states that it does not propose that channel
sharing, from a technological perspective, would entail a fixed split of the 6 MHz channel
into two 3 MHz blocks. Rather, the capacity of the 6 MHz would be shared, and
according to the Notice, the parties would determine, between themselves, the precise
manner in which that 6 MHz capacity would be shared. The Notice does not propose any
specific rules of the road for TV stations to negotiate channel sharing arrangements.
Finally, the Notice explicitly states that the FCC will seek to change its existing
policies and rules only where necessary to implement a shared channel licensing scheme.
* Preservation Of Must-Carry Rights. The FCC seeks comment on the
impact of channel sharing on the must-carry rights of both commercial and
noncommercial stations electing to share a channel. According to the Notice, the
proposed rules are designed to “ensure that stations voluntarily electing to share a
channel retain their existing rights to mandatory carriage,” and the FCC seeks comment
on this issue. The Notice states that the FCC intends to adopt a channel sharing
framework that neither increases nor decreases the carriage rights of any broadcaster on
any type of system (cable or satellite). Therefore, according to the Notice, the FCC
anticipates that, regardless of the number of licensed stations sharing a 6 MHz channel,
each would continue to have at least one, but only one, “primary” stream of programming
entitled to carriage. (Recall that the Commission in 2005 rejected mandatory carriage of
multicast streams.)
Specifically, the Notice asks:
Ø Are there any unique aspects of channel sharing that could prevent a TV
broadcaster from achieving the necessary thresholds for mandatory
carriage on any cable or satellite system on which it is currently carried?
Would there be any technical differences, from the satellite or cable
operator’s perspective, if two or more of these streams on a shared channel
were the “primary” streams of different, individually licensed stations?
Are there other technical issues that are unique to channel sharing?
Ø How would stations’ carriage rights be affected if one sharing station
elects retransmission consent and the other elects must carry?
Ø Are there any technical implications for carrying one stream of a broadcast
channel while not carrying another?
Ø What changes would be necessary for stations to make to their proposed
shared transmission facility to ensure continued carriage for sharing
stations (e.g., to deliver a “good quality signal” to the cable or satellite
provider), and, in general, what matters must be resolved by the stations
themselves to ensure the success of channel sharing?
Ø Should the Commission allow low power TV, Class A, and TV translator
stations to operate on shared channels, both among themselves and with
full power stations?
Ø Should sharing stations have any special obligation to identify their
“primary” signals at the time they elect carriage?
* Channel Sharing Limited To Existing Licensees And Permittees. The FCC
seeks comment on its proposal to limit channel sharing only to television stations with
existing applications, construction permits, or licenses as of November 30, 2010. The
dual goals of the channel sharing proposal, according to the Notice, are to allow
broadcasters to promote “economic operating efficiency” and to provide a “path” for
stations to make their spectrum available for new broadband services while continuing to
operate. These stated goals suggest the current Commission’s strong intention to free
spectrum one way or the other. It also makes clear that the goal is not to open
opportunities for new broadcast voices to enter the market but to allow existing
broadcasters to coexist while using less bandwidth.
* Channel Sharing Between Commercial And Noncommercial Stations. The
Commission seeks comment on whether commercial and noncommercial stations should
be permitted to share a single television channel, and, if so, how a shared channel might
- 4 -
be partitioned or designated to preserve the noncommercial station’s status. For example,
should a commercial station be allowed to operate on a shared channel reserved for
noncommercial use?
* Service Loss Considerations. The Commission seeks comment on
whether to require that a certain level of television service be preserved in the shared
channel environment. Specifically, the Notice asks if the FCC should consider any
prospective loss of television service when determining whether to permit stations to
make the modifications to their transmission facilities necessary to achieve channel
sharing. Because stations sharing a single television channel must operate from a single
transmission facility, changes to one or more of the stations’ existing facilities will be
necessary for sharing to occur. Such changes could result in a loss of television service
to some viewers (and could also result in gains to television service).
part 2 in next post..
Part 1
December 16, 2010
COMMISSION BEGINS SPECTRUM PROCEEDINGS
The FCC has released three Notices that set the stage for the Commission to seek to
“reclaim” 120 MHz of spectrum from television broadcasters for wireless broadband uses.
The Notices launch new proceedings that generally follow the recommendations of the
National Broadband Plan (the “Plan”), released in March 2010. Ultimately, the
Commission’s goal, as stated in the Plan, is to reclaim a total of 500 MHz from various
bands (including 120 MHz from the TV band) to satisfy the so-called “spectrum crunch”
created by bandwidth-hungry wireless broadband devices.
The most significant new Notice for broadcasters proposes three major actions
related to television spectrum. First, the Commission proposes to add new spectrum
allocations for fixed and mobile services in the band where television channels 2-36 and
38-51 currently operate. These new allocations would be co-primary with existing
broadcast operations on these channels. As “co-primary” services, TV and wireless
broadband operations would be on an equal footing for purposes of resolving interference
concerns. This poses obvious technical concerns for affected stations.
Second, the Commission proposes to establish a framework to permit two or more
television stations to share a single 6 MHz channel. This idea was suggested in the Plan as
one means to free spectrum so that more would be available for wireless broadband uses
(and possibly auctioned, as discussed below). At least for now, the Commission proposes
channel sharing by TV stations on a voluntary basis.
Third, the Notice proposes to improve television reception in the VHF band (TV
channels 2-13). Many broadcasters operating on VHF spectrum, especially those in the
northeastern United States, have experienced reception difficulties in the wake of the full
power DTV transition. UHF spectrum is believed to have more desirable technical
characteristics for wireless broadband (and broadcast) use, so the Commission is seeking
ways to improve VHF for television broadcasters. Specifically, the Notice proposes to
allow certain VHF stations to increase their maximum allowed operating power and to
establish indoor antenna standards to improve viewer reception of VHF stations. These
efforts, while generally positive for certain stations, strongly suggest that the Commission
plans to “reclaim” the best spectrum—UHF—for wireless broadband use.
A key component of the Plan’s proposals to free spectrum for wireless broadband
was the idea that the FCC would hold “incentive auctions,” whereby television
broadcasters would be allowed to voluntarily relinquish spectrum in exchange for
payment. This proposal has been roundly criticized by some broadcasters who wish to
take advantage of their HD and multicasting capabilities made possible by the DTV
transition. The FCC has acknowledged before, and acknowledged in the public meeting in
which the TV spectrum Notice was adopted, that its statutory authority to conduct
spectrum “incentive auctions” is uncertain. So, without clear statutory authority, the
Commission did not in the TV spectrum Notice include measures for voluntary spectrum
auctions. However, in presenting the Notice at the public meeting, the Commission made
plain that the Notice would work in concert with the “possibility” of incentive auctions, if
Congress authorizes them.
A more detailed summary of the three proposals made in the television spectrum
Notice, and the corresponding issues on which the FCC seeks comment, is attached as
Attachment A. Broadcasters may wish to weigh in on the issues raised in this Notice.
Comments in this proceeding are due 45 days after publication in the Federal Register, and
reply comments are due 75 days after publication.
A separate Notice proposes to allow “increased opportunities for experimentation
and innovation” in the Experimental Radio Services. This Notice proposes to create a new
kind of experimental license, called a “program experimental license,” that would allow
qualified institutions “broad authority” to conduct an ongoing program of research and
experimentation under a single experimental authorization. For example, this Notice
proposes to create a medical program experimental license that would allow hospitals and
other health care institutions to operate and test new medical devices that use wireless
telecommunications technologies for therapeutic, monitoring, and diagnostic purposes.
Comments in this proceeding are due 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, and
reply comments are due 60 days after publication.
Finally, the Commission released a Notice of Inquiry that seeks comment from the
public about ways in which “dynamic spectrum access” radios and techniques can
“promote more intensive and efficient use of radio spectrum.” For example, this Notice
asks commenters whether a real-time database similar to the TV band database to be used
by wireless devices operating in TV “white spaces” could be used in other spectrum bands.
Comments in this proceeding are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, and
reply comments are due 90 days after publication.
As of December 15, 2010, none of the Notices has yet been published in the
Federal Register.
We will continue to monitor the spectrum proceedings and inform you of
significant developments.
Attachment A
Summary Of TV Spectrum Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking
The television spectrum Notice proposes three major actions related to TV
spectrum: (1) add new allocations for fixed and mobile services in the band where
television channels 2-36 and 38-51 currently operate—these new allocations would be
co-primary with existing broadcast operations on these channels, (2) establish a
framework to permit two or more television stations to share a single 6 MHz channel, and
(3) improve reception in the VHF band by, for example, increasing the maximum
allowed operating power for certain VHF stations and establishing indoor antenna
standards. These proposals and the issues open for comment are summarized below.
I. New Spectrum Allocations
The Notice proposes to amend the FCC’s spectrum allocations to make a
“significant portion” of the spectrum currently used by broadcast TV stations available
for “flexible use, including fixed and mobile wireless broadband” use. To carry out this
objective, the FCC proposes to add allocations for fixed and mobile uses in the band
where television channels 2-36 and 38-51 operate. These new wireless broadband
services would be designated as “co-primary” with broadcast TV service. As “coprimary”
services, TV and wireless broadband operations in the band would be on an
equal footing for purposes of resolving interference concerns.
According to the Notice, the Commission’s goal in allowing new, potentially
competing uses into the affected TV channels is to “adopt a band plan that will provide
for flexible use while continuing to support the needs of the television service.” Whether
and the extent to which any harm would be done to television service is as yet unclear.
The Notice seeks comment on its proposal to add new allocations.
II. 6 MHz Channel Sharing
The Notice proposes to establish a framework to permit two or more television
stations to share a single 6 MHz channel, and it seeks comment on this plan. According
to the Notice, the Commission “anticipate providing broadcast stations an opportunity
to voluntarily elect to share a channel.” In other words, the Commission—at least for
now—plans for channel sharing to be voluntary for TV broadcasters.
The FCC seeks comment on the development of an appropriate regulatory
structure for voluntary television channel sharing that will “preserve over-the-air
television as a healthy, viable medium going forward, in a way that would benefit
consumers overall, while establishing mechanisms to make available additional spectrum
for flexible broadband uses.”
Here are the other principal issues open for comment related to the channel
sharing proposal:
* HD And Other Transmission Issues. According to the Notice, the
Commission envisions, consistent with the National Broadband Plan, that two stations
could each generally broadcast one primary HD video stream over a shared 6 MHz
channel, or more than two stations broadcasting only in SD could share a 6 MHz channel.
However, broadcasters have previously expressed concerns that sharing a single channel
would not be practical because it would not provide sufficient transmission capacity for
two or more stations to offer the highest quality HD programming simultaneously.
Stations have also been concerned that channel sharing could impact or eliminate current
and future DTV services, such as expansion of HD programming and deployment of
mobile DTV service. The Commission seeks comment on these issues and related
concerns.
* Requirement To Transmit At Least One Free Over-The-Air Signal. The
FCC seeks comment on whether stations sharing a single 6 MHz channel would be able
to comply with the existing FCC requirement to operate at least one channel over the air
free to consumers. The Commission also seeks comment on other approaches to channel
sharing that involve sub-channel (i.e., multicast) services, such as mobile services.
* Maintain Current Station Obligations. The Commission seeks comment
on how TV stations may most effectively coordinate their individual rights and
responsibilities as licensees when operating under a channel sharing arrangement. The
Notice states that the FCC intends to retain for shared channel licensees as much as
possible of its existing policy framework for allocating, licensing, and operating
television stations. Despite sharing a single channel and transmission facility, the Notice
proposes that each station will continue to be licensed and operated separately, have its
own call sign, and be separately subject to all of the Commission’s obligations, rules, and
policies. Each station’s programming obligations will remain the same (e.g., children’s
programming, political broadcasting, EAS, etc.), and a station will not be responsible for
the programming or violations of any other station sharing its channel.
Moreover, the Notice specifically states that it does not propose that channel
sharing, from a technological perspective, would entail a fixed split of the 6 MHz channel
into two 3 MHz blocks. Rather, the capacity of the 6 MHz would be shared, and
according to the Notice, the parties would determine, between themselves, the precise
manner in which that 6 MHz capacity would be shared. The Notice does not propose any
specific rules of the road for TV stations to negotiate channel sharing arrangements.
Finally, the Notice explicitly states that the FCC will seek to change its existing
policies and rules only where necessary to implement a shared channel licensing scheme.
* Preservation Of Must-Carry Rights. The FCC seeks comment on the
impact of channel sharing on the must-carry rights of both commercial and
noncommercial stations electing to share a channel. According to the Notice, the
proposed rules are designed to “ensure that stations voluntarily electing to share a
channel retain their existing rights to mandatory carriage,” and the FCC seeks comment
on this issue. The Notice states that the FCC intends to adopt a channel sharing
framework that neither increases nor decreases the carriage rights of any broadcaster on
any type of system (cable or satellite). Therefore, according to the Notice, the FCC
anticipates that, regardless of the number of licensed stations sharing a 6 MHz channel,
each would continue to have at least one, but only one, “primary” stream of programming
entitled to carriage. (Recall that the Commission in 2005 rejected mandatory carriage of
multicast streams.)
Specifically, the Notice asks:
Ø Are there any unique aspects of channel sharing that could prevent a TV
broadcaster from achieving the necessary thresholds for mandatory
carriage on any cable or satellite system on which it is currently carried?
Would there be any technical differences, from the satellite or cable
operator’s perspective, if two or more of these streams on a shared channel
were the “primary” streams of different, individually licensed stations?
Are there other technical issues that are unique to channel sharing?
Ø How would stations’ carriage rights be affected if one sharing station
elects retransmission consent and the other elects must carry?
Ø Are there any technical implications for carrying one stream of a broadcast
channel while not carrying another?
Ø What changes would be necessary for stations to make to their proposed
shared transmission facility to ensure continued carriage for sharing
stations (e.g., to deliver a “good quality signal” to the cable or satellite
provider), and, in general, what matters must be resolved by the stations
themselves to ensure the success of channel sharing?
Ø Should the Commission allow low power TV, Class A, and TV translator
stations to operate on shared channels, both among themselves and with
full power stations?
Ø Should sharing stations have any special obligation to identify their
“primary” signals at the time they elect carriage?
* Channel Sharing Limited To Existing Licensees And Permittees. The FCC
seeks comment on its proposal to limit channel sharing only to television stations with
existing applications, construction permits, or licenses as of November 30, 2010. The
dual goals of the channel sharing proposal, according to the Notice, are to allow
broadcasters to promote “economic operating efficiency” and to provide a “path” for
stations to make their spectrum available for new broadband services while continuing to
operate. These stated goals suggest the current Commission’s strong intention to free
spectrum one way or the other. It also makes clear that the goal is not to open
opportunities for new broadcast voices to enter the market but to allow existing
broadcasters to coexist while using less bandwidth.
* Channel Sharing Between Commercial And Noncommercial Stations. The
Commission seeks comment on whether commercial and noncommercial stations should
be permitted to share a single television channel, and, if so, how a shared channel might
- 4 -
be partitioned or designated to preserve the noncommercial station’s status. For example,
should a commercial station be allowed to operate on a shared channel reserved for
noncommercial use?
* Service Loss Considerations. The Commission seeks comment on
whether to require that a certain level of television service be preserved in the shared
channel environment. Specifically, the Notice asks if the FCC should consider any
prospective loss of television service when determining whether to permit stations to
make the modifications to their transmission facilities necessary to achieve channel
sharing. Because stations sharing a single television channel must operate from a single
transmission facility, changes to one or more of the stations’ existing facilities will be
necessary for sharing to occur. Such changes could result in a loss of television service
to some viewers (and could also result in gains to television service).
part 2 in next post..
Special report - commission begins spectrum proceedings Part 2
Part 2 continued
The Commission’s policy in evaluating service losses in other contexts is to
consider and evaluate any “counterbalancing factors” to justify the service loss. In terms
of counterbalancing factors, the Commission has examined whether gain areas will be
created, including establishment of first television service, second television service, first
network service, etc. The Commission may also consider the availability of other
television services in the loss area as well as whether the population that would lose
service is outside the station’s DMA and is predicted to receive the same network
programming from a station in their home DMA. The Notice asks whether to consider
these factors in a similar fashion when evaluating losses that result from facility
modifications and relocations related to channel sharing.
Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether, in weighing the public
interest benefits that will result from channel sharing, it should consider mitigating
circumstances. For example, should the FCC consider percentage of local cable
penetration or satellite use in the loss area? Should sharing stations be allowed to offset
otherwise disqualifying service losses by offering to deploy on-channel Digital
Transmission Systems (DTS) or other technical measures to restore service to the loss
area?
* Other Issues. Additionally, the FCC seeks comment on other areas of
interest with respect to channel sharing. For example, what is the impact of channel
sharing on the media ownership rules?
III. Improving VHF Reception
Many broadcasters operating on VHF spectrum (TV channels 2-13), especially
low-VHF (TV channels 2-6) stations in the northeastern United States, have experienced
reception difficulties in the wake of the DTV transition. Broadcasters in the UHF
channels (TV channels 14-51) have experienced fewer reported reception issues. The
Notice suggests that the Commission intends to shift the more desirable UHF spectrum to
“flexible use”—i.e., including use by wireless broadband—while leaving the more
problematic VHF spectrum to television broadcasters. To be clear, however, the Notice
states that the Commission intends “to treat stakeholders in a fair and equitable manner
through procedures established in later action.”
To this end, the Notice seeks comment on the steps needed to increase the utility
of VHF spectrum for television stations and on any necessary technical changes to its
rules, broadcast transmission equipment, or television receiver technology that will
improve VHF for television broadcasters. The Notice states that the Commission is
“seeking solutions to the VHF digital TV reception difficulties.” According to the
Notice, the Commission is (as discussed below) considering changes to the DTV
operating rules to mitigate or overcome these challenges and is evaluating other possible
solutions, including the possibility of indoor antenna performances standards, to make the
VHF channels more useful to broadcasters. The FCC seeks comment on these issues.
* VHF Band Noise/Power Increases. One of the problems with indoor VHF
reception is “noise” or interference from nearby (typically in the same room) consumer
electronics. The Commission seeks comment on whether there are actions it could take
to reduce noise levels in the VHF channels used by some television stations. The Notice
states that, at least at this time, the FCC does not intend to reduce the permitted level of
noise in the VHF band because the FCC rules limiting “spurious emissions” from
consumer electronics have been crafted to provide protection of licensed services while
allowing production of economically viable consumer devices.
The Commission requests comment on an alternate approach to overcome noise
by increasing the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N ratio). The Notice proposes to permit certain
VHF stations to increase their operating power. A number of stations operating on high-
VHF channels have already received special temporary authority to increase their
effective radiated power (ERP) and have, according to the Notice, been able to improve
their service. To this end, the Notice proposes to raise the nominal maximum allowed
ERP for low-VHF stations in FCC television Zone I (i.e., much of the northeastern and
mid-Atlantic U.S. and Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and parts of
Michigan and Wisconsin) from 10 kW to 40 kW and for high-VHF stations in Zone I
from 30 kW to 120 kW if the station’s antenna height above average terrain is 305 meters
or less. At antenna heights above 305 meters, the maximum power for both low-VHF
and high-VHF stations would be lower. However, the Notice does not propose to raise
the maximum power limits for VHF stations in FCC television Zones II and III (together,
these zones comprise all areas of the U.S. that are not in Zone I), because, according to
the Notice, the existing limits still afford those stations the ability to provide stronger
signals indoors to consumers who view their signals at locations close to their
transmitters. Stations requesting power increases under the proposed new limits would
be required to protect other full power television stations from new interference under the
existing rules for desired-to-undesired (D/U) signals limits. The Notice requests
comment on this proposal and suggestions for alternative approaches, including both
power limits and interference protection. The Notice also suggests certain changes to
antenna polarization as a means to improve reception by indoor viewers.
* No Proposed Change To Minimum Distance Separations. The proposal to
allow increases in power raises the collateral issue of whether the FCC should also
increase the minimum distance requirements for new, post-transition channel allotments.
Stations on new allotments that operate at the proposed new power limits and are at or
close to the current minimum distances relative to other stations could cause more
interference to such stations (and vice versa) than would occur under the current power
limits. Increasing those distances would resolve the interference concerns but would also
tend to limit opportunities for new stations or for stations that wish to change channels
(which would require modifying the allotment on which they operate). The Notice states
that the FCC believes it should maintain the current distance standards for new and
changed allotments to avoid “further limiting opportunities” for new allotments.
Therefore, the Notice does not propose to change the minimum distance requirements for
new and modified allotments. The FCC requests comment on this plan. (For parties who
advocate that the FCC increase the minimum distance requirements, the Notice asks these
parties to submit suggestions for new minimum distance standards.
* Indoor Antenna Standards. The Notice proposes to establish indoor
antenna standards as a way to combat VHF reception problems. According to the Notice,
the antenna used to receive signals is a “critical element” for television service. For
example, if an antenna has a very low ability to receive signals or if the level of the
desired signal is low, reception may not be possible. Therefore, the Notice proposes to
establish standards to ensure that indoor antennas are effective for channel reception.
This is a change in policy as the Commission has not previously regulated indoor
antennas—indeed, the FCC requests comment on its legal authority to establish indoor
antenna standards.
The FCC seeks comment, information, and suggestions regarding the need for,
and desirability of, standards for indoor antennas. Specifically, the Notice proposes to
require that indoor antennas comply with the industry-set standards in ANSI/CEA-2032-
A, “Indoor TV Receiving Antenna Performance Standard” (dated February 2009), and
the FCC seeks comment on this proposal. The ANSI/CEA-2032-A standards define test
and measurement procedures for determining the performance of indoor TV receiving
antennas. Under this proposal, all indoor television antennas would be required to meet
the ANSI/CEA-2032-A standards for reception of low-VHF, high-VHF, and UHF
signals. Additionally, to ensure compliance with these standards, indoor antennas would
be subject to the “verification” equipment procedure in the FCC’s rules. Antennas that
are built-in to, or designed for use with, specific devices such as portable television
receivers, dongles, laptop computers, and similar TV reception equipment would not be
required to meet the standards.
* Other Approaches/Solutions For Improving Reception Of VHF TV
Services. In addition to power increases for certain VHF stations and standards for
indoor antennas, the Notice states that the Commission intends to consider additional
options for improving television service in the VHF band. Interested parties are invited
to submit ideas and suggestions for additional measures the FCC could take to improve
reception of television signals on VHF channels. The Notice invites parties to submit
materials, information, and analyses describing conditions that contribute to VHF
reception difficulties and ideas to overcome or mitigate them.
Comments on the Notice are due 45 days after publication in the Federal
Register, and reply comments are due 75 days after publication. As of
December 15, 2010, publication has not yet occurred.
Part 2 continued
The Commission’s policy in evaluating service losses in other contexts is to
consider and evaluate any “counterbalancing factors” to justify the service loss. In terms
of counterbalancing factors, the Commission has examined whether gain areas will be
created, including establishment of first television service, second television service, first
network service, etc. The Commission may also consider the availability of other
television services in the loss area as well as whether the population that would lose
service is outside the station’s DMA and is predicted to receive the same network
programming from a station in their home DMA. The Notice asks whether to consider
these factors in a similar fashion when evaluating losses that result from facility
modifications and relocations related to channel sharing.
Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether, in weighing the public
interest benefits that will result from channel sharing, it should consider mitigating
circumstances. For example, should the FCC consider percentage of local cable
penetration or satellite use in the loss area? Should sharing stations be allowed to offset
otherwise disqualifying service losses by offering to deploy on-channel Digital
Transmission Systems (DTS) or other technical measures to restore service to the loss
area?
* Other Issues. Additionally, the FCC seeks comment on other areas of
interest with respect to channel sharing. For example, what is the impact of channel
sharing on the media ownership rules?
III. Improving VHF Reception
Many broadcasters operating on VHF spectrum (TV channels 2-13), especially
low-VHF (TV channels 2-6) stations in the northeastern United States, have experienced
reception difficulties in the wake of the DTV transition. Broadcasters in the UHF
channels (TV channels 14-51) have experienced fewer reported reception issues. The
Notice suggests that the Commission intends to shift the more desirable UHF spectrum to
“flexible use”—i.e., including use by wireless broadband—while leaving the more
problematic VHF spectrum to television broadcasters. To be clear, however, the Notice
states that the Commission intends “to treat stakeholders in a fair and equitable manner
through procedures established in later action.”
To this end, the Notice seeks comment on the steps needed to increase the utility
of VHF spectrum for television stations and on any necessary technical changes to its
rules, broadcast transmission equipment, or television receiver technology that will
improve VHF for television broadcasters. The Notice states that the Commission is
“seeking solutions to the VHF digital TV reception difficulties.” According to the
Notice, the Commission is (as discussed below) considering changes to the DTV
operating rules to mitigate or overcome these challenges and is evaluating other possible
solutions, including the possibility of indoor antenna performances standards, to make the
VHF channels more useful to broadcasters. The FCC seeks comment on these issues.
* VHF Band Noise/Power Increases. One of the problems with indoor VHF
reception is “noise” or interference from nearby (typically in the same room) consumer
electronics. The Commission seeks comment on whether there are actions it could take
to reduce noise levels in the VHF channels used by some television stations. The Notice
states that, at least at this time, the FCC does not intend to reduce the permitted level of
noise in the VHF band because the FCC rules limiting “spurious emissions” from
consumer electronics have been crafted to provide protection of licensed services while
allowing production of economically viable consumer devices.
The Commission requests comment on an alternate approach to overcome noise
by increasing the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N ratio). The Notice proposes to permit certain
VHF stations to increase their operating power. A number of stations operating on high-
VHF channels have already received special temporary authority to increase their
effective radiated power (ERP) and have, according to the Notice, been able to improve
their service. To this end, the Notice proposes to raise the nominal maximum allowed
ERP for low-VHF stations in FCC television Zone I (i.e., much of the northeastern and
mid-Atlantic U.S. and Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and parts of
Michigan and Wisconsin) from 10 kW to 40 kW and for high-VHF stations in Zone I
from 30 kW to 120 kW if the station’s antenna height above average terrain is 305 meters
or less. At antenna heights above 305 meters, the maximum power for both low-VHF
and high-VHF stations would be lower. However, the Notice does not propose to raise
the maximum power limits for VHF stations in FCC television Zones II and III (together,
these zones comprise all areas of the U.S. that are not in Zone I), because, according to
the Notice, the existing limits still afford those stations the ability to provide stronger
signals indoors to consumers who view their signals at locations close to their
transmitters. Stations requesting power increases under the proposed new limits would
be required to protect other full power television stations from new interference under the
existing rules for desired-to-undesired (D/U) signals limits. The Notice requests
comment on this proposal and suggestions for alternative approaches, including both
power limits and interference protection. The Notice also suggests certain changes to
antenna polarization as a means to improve reception by indoor viewers.
* No Proposed Change To Minimum Distance Separations. The proposal to
allow increases in power raises the collateral issue of whether the FCC should also
increase the minimum distance requirements for new, post-transition channel allotments.
Stations on new allotments that operate at the proposed new power limits and are at or
close to the current minimum distances relative to other stations could cause more
interference to such stations (and vice versa) than would occur under the current power
limits. Increasing those distances would resolve the interference concerns but would also
tend to limit opportunities for new stations or for stations that wish to change channels
(which would require modifying the allotment on which they operate). The Notice states
that the FCC believes it should maintain the current distance standards for new and
changed allotments to avoid “further limiting opportunities” for new allotments.
Therefore, the Notice does not propose to change the minimum distance requirements for
new and modified allotments. The FCC requests comment on this plan. (For parties who
advocate that the FCC increase the minimum distance requirements, the Notice asks these
parties to submit suggestions for new minimum distance standards.
* Indoor Antenna Standards. The Notice proposes to establish indoor
antenna standards as a way to combat VHF reception problems. According to the Notice,
the antenna used to receive signals is a “critical element” for television service. For
example, if an antenna has a very low ability to receive signals or if the level of the
desired signal is low, reception may not be possible. Therefore, the Notice proposes to
establish standards to ensure that indoor antennas are effective for channel reception.
This is a change in policy as the Commission has not previously regulated indoor
antennas—indeed, the FCC requests comment on its legal authority to establish indoor
antenna standards.
The FCC seeks comment, information, and suggestions regarding the need for,
and desirability of, standards for indoor antennas. Specifically, the Notice proposes to
require that indoor antennas comply with the industry-set standards in ANSI/CEA-2032-
A, “Indoor TV Receiving Antenna Performance Standard” (dated February 2009), and
the FCC seeks comment on this proposal. The ANSI/CEA-2032-A standards define test
and measurement procedures for determining the performance of indoor TV receiving
antennas. Under this proposal, all indoor television antennas would be required to meet
the ANSI/CEA-2032-A standards for reception of low-VHF, high-VHF, and UHF
signals. Additionally, to ensure compliance with these standards, indoor antennas would
be subject to the “verification” equipment procedure in the FCC’s rules. Antennas that
are built-in to, or designed for use with, specific devices such as portable television
receivers, dongles, laptop computers, and similar TV reception equipment would not be
required to meet the standards.
* Other Approaches/Solutions For Improving Reception Of VHF TV
Services. In addition to power increases for certain VHF stations and standards for
indoor antennas, the Notice states that the Commission intends to consider additional
options for improving television service in the VHF band. Interested parties are invited
to submit ideas and suggestions for additional measures the FCC could take to improve
reception of television signals on VHF channels. The Notice invites parties to submit
materials, information, and analyses describing conditions that contribute to VHF
reception difficulties and ideas to overcome or mitigate them.
Comments on the Notice are due 45 days after publication in the Federal
Register, and reply comments are due 75 days after publication. As of
December 15, 2010, publication has not yet occurred.
It is already happening.
Denied Locals, TWC Importing Distant Signals.
From this article.
http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/2010/12/16/47829/denied-locals-twc-importing-distant-signals
Denied Locals, TWC Importing Distant Signals.
From this article.
http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/2010/12/16/47829/denied-locals-twc-importing-distant-signals
Breaking News: Genachowski Wins Net Neutrality Fight, But Court Battle Looms
The issue of Net Neutrality in some ways, parallels the battle for the take over of "The Peoples Air Waves" for extremely obscene profits for a small handful of investors of those individual companies. We have seen many examples of this in past history from the very dawn of mankind. In the past, this usually manifested itself in the area of the control of energy, but the concept has graduated to other parts of our society wherever one sees an opportunity to take something from someone else without earning it. Greed is a basic part of every human beings soul, and it takes a lot of testicular fortitude to resist it's temptation.
It seems to be an epidemic going around in political circles that some how keeps the testicular fortitude levels of our political representatives at an all time low, as proven by the effort to push OTA TV to dinosaur status only two years after billions were spent by that industry to convert to Digital Broadcasting.
We now have a quality entertainment product that is comparable in every way to satellite and cable delivered programming services (As well as an Emergency Communications Network), and in most cases, it's video quality surpasses those two services by a large margin. There are also indications that it's popularity is growing at an unprecedented rate due to several factors such as the economy, and the ridiculously high prices now charged by the pay TV services.
Consumers are speaking out with their pocket books at all of the factors that make pay TV a luxury they can no longer afford. People like the forums resident business expert BITCHER seem to thrive on the phrase "Whatever the Market will bear".
Well it seems now that the limit of "Whatever the Market will bear" has been reached for a lot of consumers, but no one is paying attention, or seems to care. All that matters after all of the closed door meetings and under the table deals is whatever is best for big business is best for "The Sheeple", which is how most politicians view their own constituents, except at election time of course.
Does it surprise anyone that "the vote is split between party lines"? Party politics along with the WELFARE STATE CONCEPT is zapping the life out of this country, and leading it down the road to financial ruin. All we have to do is look at the UK, Greece, France, and other WELFARE type states to see that it simply is not sustainable when as many people stay at home as there are those who actually go to work to provide revenue for the couch setters and the wasteful government.
Our couch setting ratio in this country grows larger with every single day that passes, and us poor saps (Literally) who get up and go to work every day are getting the BONE THROWN TO US every time we collect our ever decreasing paychecks, which will be used to give to the couch setters, the illegal aliens and wasteful politicians, while the ones who actually earned it are getting little benefit for the labor they are forced to perform just to benefit someone else.
(The couch setting ratio is defined as anyone who performs no labor, or pays no taxes due to loopholes, laziness etc., and that number in this country is currently around 48%). Almost half of our population PAYS NO TAXES !! How could anyone with even half a brain expect this type of unfair and unbalanced tax system to ever be sustainable? DUH !! Even Homer Simpson gets that !!
We are approaching the breaking point in this country, and the so called "Leaders" from both parties are to bull headed to compromise or negotiate, and do the "Peoples Work" that they were elected to do in the first place. The outcome of the debate over Net Neutrality could very well set the benchmark for the outcome of the theft of the airwaves from the "Sheeple".
We need to keep an eye on these proceedings outcome to gain some insight as to the fate of OTA TV. If they rule in favor of the broadbanders on this issue, we will then be able to see the writing on the wall in regards to the final outcome of the wants of the "AIRWAVE THIEVES" commonly known as the Cell Phone and Broadband industries.
I was going to attach a copy of the FCC proceedings regarding Net Nutrality that took place on December 21 and 22 of this year, but as usual everything on this forum that is not typed directly into this window is impossible to do or find the link to allow it. The older software was much easier to use for that purpose. I click on manage attachments and I think I am actually uploading it, but NO..Its no where to be found. Strange, as that was the original intent of this post to present the outcome of two days of FCC proceedings on Net Neutrality, but I guess you won't get to see it because I can not figure out how to actually attach it to this post..Sorry about that...DUH !!
The issue of Net Neutrality in some ways, parallels the battle for the take over of "The Peoples Air Waves" for extremely obscene profits for a small handful of investors of those individual companies. We have seen many examples of this in past history from the very dawn of mankind. In the past, this usually manifested itself in the area of the control of energy, but the concept has graduated to other parts of our society wherever one sees an opportunity to take something from someone else without earning it. Greed is a basic part of every human beings soul, and it takes a lot of testicular fortitude to resist it's temptation.
It seems to be an epidemic going around in political circles that some how keeps the testicular fortitude levels of our political representatives at an all time low, as proven by the effort to push OTA TV to dinosaur status only two years after billions were spent by that industry to convert to Digital Broadcasting.
We now have a quality entertainment product that is comparable in every way to satellite and cable delivered programming services (As well as an Emergency Communications Network), and in most cases, it's video quality surpasses those two services by a large margin. There are also indications that it's popularity is growing at an unprecedented rate due to several factors such as the economy, and the ridiculously high prices now charged by the pay TV services.
Consumers are speaking out with their pocket books at all of the factors that make pay TV a luxury they can no longer afford. People like the forums resident business expert BITCHER seem to thrive on the phrase "Whatever the Market will bear".
Well it seems now that the limit of "Whatever the Market will bear" has been reached for a lot of consumers, but no one is paying attention, or seems to care. All that matters after all of the closed door meetings and under the table deals is whatever is best for big business is best for "The Sheeple", which is how most politicians view their own constituents, except at election time of course.
Does it surprise anyone that "the vote is split between party lines"? Party politics along with the WELFARE STATE CONCEPT is zapping the life out of this country, and leading it down the road to financial ruin. All we have to do is look at the UK, Greece, France, and other WELFARE type states to see that it simply is not sustainable when as many people stay at home as there are those who actually go to work to provide revenue for the couch setters and the wasteful government.
Our couch setting ratio in this country grows larger with every single day that passes, and us poor saps (Literally) who get up and go to work every day are getting the BONE THROWN TO US every time we collect our ever decreasing paychecks, which will be used to give to the couch setters, the illegal aliens and wasteful politicians, while the ones who actually earned it are getting little benefit for the labor they are forced to perform just to benefit someone else.
(The couch setting ratio is defined as anyone who performs no labor, or pays no taxes due to loopholes, laziness etc., and that number in this country is currently around 48%). Almost half of our population PAYS NO TAXES !! How could anyone with even half a brain expect this type of unfair and unbalanced tax system to ever be sustainable? DUH !! Even Homer Simpson gets that !!
We are approaching the breaking point in this country, and the so called "Leaders" from both parties are to bull headed to compromise or negotiate, and do the "Peoples Work" that they were elected to do in the first place. The outcome of the debate over Net Neutrality could very well set the benchmark for the outcome of the theft of the airwaves from the "Sheeple".
We need to keep an eye on these proceedings outcome to gain some insight as to the fate of OTA TV. If they rule in favor of the broadbanders on this issue, we will then be able to see the writing on the wall in regards to the final outcome of the wants of the "AIRWAVE THIEVES" commonly known as the Cell Phone and Broadband industries.
I was going to attach a copy of the FCC proceedings regarding Net Nutrality that took place on December 21 and 22 of this year, but as usual everything on this forum that is not typed directly into this window is impossible to do or find the link to allow it. The older software was much easier to use for that purpose. I click on manage attachments and I think I am actually uploading it, but NO..Its no where to be found. Strange, as that was the original intent of this post to present the outcome of two days of FCC proceedings on Net Neutrality, but I guess you won't get to see it because I can not figure out how to actually attach it to this post..Sorry about that...DUH !!
Last edited:
Throw the bums out... we need new blood:
Even Ralphie Wiggum would be better.
Wiggum on the Issues:
Immigration – “Stranger danger!”
Government Spending – “I only have this much moneys.”
Party Politics – “Everyone is invited to my party!”
Ethics – “I’m Ralph Wiggum and I’ve been a good boy.”
Foreign Relations – “When we’re mad we’ll use our words. Then the rest of the world will play nice with us. And the only boom-booms will be in our pants.”
Even Ralphie Wiggum would be better.
Wiggum on the Issues:
Immigration – “Stranger danger!”
Government Spending – “I only have this much moneys.”
Party Politics – “Everyone is invited to my party!”
Ethics – “I’m Ralph Wiggum and I’ve been a good boy.”
Foreign Relations – “When we’re mad we’ll use our words. Then the rest of the world will play nice with us. And the only boom-booms will be in our pants.”
Net Neutrality … Just Can't Win
December 21, 2010
Net Neutrality … Just Can't Win
By Michael Grebb - Welcome To CableFax :: Coverage of trends and news affecting the cable TV, satellite and broadband landscape, including Internet and mobile
Net Neutrality … Just Can't Win :: CableFax Portal
Sometimes you just can’t please everybody—especially if you’re the FCC chairman. With the FCC’s Pseudo-Net-Neutrality-Lite order today, the agency has boldly gone where so many Washington policymakers have gone before: The Land of Universal Hatred. It’s what happens when a reasonable guy like Julius Genachowski tries to listen to all sides and craft policy that reeks of that dirty word “compromise.” In Washington, this willingness to bend is considered a good deed. And here no good deed goes unpunished.
So with the vote today, Genachowski is now getting it from both sides of the political spectrum. Liberals view him as a back-stabbing turncoat who has trampled the basic principles of net neutrality and, by extension, broken one of President Obama’s key campaign pledges to take on the special interests and protect Internet openness. Oh, the progressives have known net neutrality, they have worked with it… and you sir are no net neutrality! Meanwhile, Republicans are also miffed—but not for the same reasons, of course. For conservatives, the FCC’s action is yet another example of government intrusion into the private lives of multi-billion-dollar corporations.
If they want to favor data traffic, so be it! They bought, built and paid for those wires! In fact, Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) took to the Senate floor on Tues to decry the Obama Administration’s REAL plan: A government takeover of the Internet, including death panels. OK, he didn’t say anything about death panels. But he and other Republicans don’t like this compromise any more than the liberals who think it’s a giveaway to big corporations. And in Washington, when both sides of the political spectrum hate something, it usually signals half-way decent policy.
The truth is that Genachowski could never win with this thing. Liberal and consumer groups want a world in which cable and telcos essentially can do nothing to manage traffic. That’s great for Google, but it only leads to higher prices for consumers and probably less overall investment in infrastructure. On the other hand, doing nothing probably would tempt at least some bad actors to do some nasty things at some point—such as “managing” traffic in ways that favored their own services and hamstrung other players that compete with incumbent services.
The solution always had to lie somewhere in the middle. And while it makes sense that the apparent lack of opposition by cable and telco lobbyists to Genachowski’s plan gives net neutrality advocates much pause, the truth is that this was really the best deal the industry could get. The lack of vitriol doesn’t mean the cable or telco operators are happy about all this; they’re merely resigned to the fact that this is the best deal possible. Are there loopholes? Sure. But there’s also a complaint process. And Those Who Own the Wires and Of Whom We Do Not Speak certainly know that everyone—and we mean everyone—is watching them closely.
The FCC did the best it could here. Both sides of the political spectrum need to chill out and give this compromise a chance to work in the marketplace. With such scrutiny on big cable and telco ops, rest assured that any shenanigans will be quickly exposed and ultimately remedied. The Internet is safe. For now.
(Michael Grebb is executive editor of CableFAX).
December 21, 2010
Net Neutrality … Just Can't Win
By Michael Grebb - Welcome To CableFax :: Coverage of trends and news affecting the cable TV, satellite and broadband landscape, including Internet and mobile
Net Neutrality … Just Can't Win :: CableFax Portal
Sometimes you just can’t please everybody—especially if you’re the FCC chairman. With the FCC’s Pseudo-Net-Neutrality-Lite order today, the agency has boldly gone where so many Washington policymakers have gone before: The Land of Universal Hatred. It’s what happens when a reasonable guy like Julius Genachowski tries to listen to all sides and craft policy that reeks of that dirty word “compromise.” In Washington, this willingness to bend is considered a good deed. And here no good deed goes unpunished.
So with the vote today, Genachowski is now getting it from both sides of the political spectrum. Liberals view him as a back-stabbing turncoat who has trampled the basic principles of net neutrality and, by extension, broken one of President Obama’s key campaign pledges to take on the special interests and protect Internet openness. Oh, the progressives have known net neutrality, they have worked with it… and you sir are no net neutrality! Meanwhile, Republicans are also miffed—but not for the same reasons, of course. For conservatives, the FCC’s action is yet another example of government intrusion into the private lives of multi-billion-dollar corporations.
If they want to favor data traffic, so be it! They bought, built and paid for those wires! In fact, Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) took to the Senate floor on Tues to decry the Obama Administration’s REAL plan: A government takeover of the Internet, including death panels. OK, he didn’t say anything about death panels. But he and other Republicans don’t like this compromise any more than the liberals who think it’s a giveaway to big corporations. And in Washington, when both sides of the political spectrum hate something, it usually signals half-way decent policy.
The truth is that Genachowski could never win with this thing. Liberal and consumer groups want a world in which cable and telcos essentially can do nothing to manage traffic. That’s great for Google, but it only leads to higher prices for consumers and probably less overall investment in infrastructure. On the other hand, doing nothing probably would tempt at least some bad actors to do some nasty things at some point—such as “managing” traffic in ways that favored their own services and hamstrung other players that compete with incumbent services.
The solution always had to lie somewhere in the middle. And while it makes sense that the apparent lack of opposition by cable and telco lobbyists to Genachowski’s plan gives net neutrality advocates much pause, the truth is that this was really the best deal the industry could get. The lack of vitriol doesn’t mean the cable or telco operators are happy about all this; they’re merely resigned to the fact that this is the best deal possible. Are there loopholes? Sure. But there’s also a complaint process. And Those Who Own the Wires and Of Whom We Do Not Speak certainly know that everyone—and we mean everyone—is watching them closely.
The FCC did the best it could here. Both sides of the political spectrum need to chill out and give this compromise a chance to work in the marketplace. With such scrutiny on big cable and telco ops, rest assured that any shenanigans will be quickly exposed and ultimately remedied. The Internet is safe. For now.
(Michael Grebb is executive editor of CableFAX).
I think the compromise is not at all a bad deal: It frees wired users from the kind of traffic shaping that has occured recently, while allowing wireless connections to have certain bandwidth intensive services restricted - as WE all know, wireless is limited by the laws of physics in its ability to provide unlimited bandwidth to almost limitless users.
Perhaps this decision will help to encourage Mobile DTV and FM radio to be included with more mobile devices to help ease the burden on the limited spectrum available.
But there is also the queston of whether the FCC has the legal authority to carry this out.
Perhaps this decision will help to encourage Mobile DTV and FM radio to be included with more mobile devices to help ease the burden on the limited spectrum available.
But there is also the queston of whether the FCC has the legal authority to carry this out.
Compromise is something that today's politicians think they actually need to get extra rewards for, beside their own salary for actually doing something. The media acts as if it is some kind of big miracle that a "Compromise" was reached today, so lets all take the day off, and we may even make a national holiday out of this historic landmark decision to actually do their job for a change. Is that a change we can believe in...I would think not.
Throw the bums out... we need new blood:
Even Ralphie Wiggum would be better.
Wiggum on the Issues:
Immigration – “Stranger danger!”
Government Spending – “I only have this much moneys.”
Party Politics – “Everyone is invited to my party!”
Ethics – “I’m Ralph Wiggum and I’ve been a good boy.”
Foreign Relations – “When we’re mad we’ll use our words. Then the rest of the world will play nice with us. And the only boom-booms will be in our pants.”
Even Ralphie Wiggum would be better.
Wiggum on the Issues:
Immigration – “Stranger danger!”
Government Spending – “I only have this much moneys.”
Party Politics – “Everyone is invited to my party!”
Ethics – “I’m Ralph Wiggum and I’ve been a good boy.”
Foreign Relations – “When we’re mad we’ll use our words. Then the rest of the world will play nice with us. And the only boom-booms will be in our pants.”
President obama signs commercial loudness law for television stations
PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNS COMMERCIAL
LOUDNESS LAW FOR TELEVISION STATIONS
Part 1
President Obama has signed the Commercial Advertisement Loudness
Mitigation Act. The CALM Act was passed by Congress on December 2,
2010. The new law generally requires television broadcasters to keep
commercials at the same volume as the programs during which they are
run.
LOW-POWER FM BILL PASSES
HOUSE AND SENATE
In the waning days of the lame-duck congressional session, the House of
Representatives voted to approve the Local Community Radio Act of 2010
(H.R. 6533), which would, among other things, require the FCC to
eliminate third-adjacent minimum distance separation requirements
between low-power FM stations and full-service FM, FM translator, and
FM booster stations. Following passage in the House, the Senate
approved the House version of the bill.
COPYRIGHT ROYALTY BOARD ISSUES
WEB STREAMING RATES FOR 2011-2015
The Copyright Royalty Board has released a decision that sets royalty
rates for 2011-2015 for noninteractive webcasting services, including
terrestrial radio broadcasters that stream programming on the Internet.
COMMERCE DEPARTMENT CALLS FOR
ONLINE PRIVACY BILL OF RIGHTS
The U.S. Department of Commerce has issued a report calling for the
adoption of a “Privacy Bill of Rights” to protect online consumers’
personal information and data and the creation of a new federal office to
develop related rules.
PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNS COMMERCIAL
LOUDNESS LAW FOR TELEVISION STATIONS
President Obama has signed the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation
Act (“CALM Act”). The CALM Act was passed by Congress on December 2, 2010. The
new law generally requires television broadcasters to keep commercials at the same
volume as the programs during which they are run.
As previously reported, the CALM Act requires the FCC, by December 15, 2011,
to adopt regulations that require television stations to comply with ATSC’s A/85
standard—ATSC’s recommended practices for establishing and maintaining audio
loudness for digital television. The Act requires that the FCC’s rules go into effect one
year from the date the new rules are adopted. Therefore, it will likely be December 2012
before the FCC begins enforcing the new rules. However, television broadcasters will
wish to review the ATSC A/85 standard carefully, as compliance with the standard may
require them to purchase and install additional equipment by the time the rules go into
effect in 2012.
Television stations and MVPDs who are able to demonstrate that obtaining
equipment to comply with the FCC’s loudness rules would result in “financial hardship”
may be granted a waiver for one year by the FCC, with an additional year, if necessary.
The CALM Act does not define what constitutes a “financial hardship,” but presumably
the FCC will provide guidance when it adopts new rules to implement the CALM Act.
The CALM Act also includes a provision that allows any television station that
“installs, utilizes, and maintains” equipment and associated software in compliance with
the FCC’s loudness rules (once adopted) to be deemed in compliance with the
Commission’s loudness rules. We will monitor the proceedings required to implement the
CALM Act and apprise you of significant developments.
LOW-POWER FM BILL PASSES HOUSE AND SENATE
In the waning days of the lame-duck congressional session, the House of
Representatives voted to approve the Local Community Radio Act of 2010 (H.R. 6533),
which would, among other things, require the FCC to eliminate third-adjacent minimum
distance separation requirements between low-power FM stations and full-service FM, FM
translator, and FM booster stations. Following passage in the House, the Senate approved
the House version of the bill, and, as of December 27, 2010, the bill awaits President
Obama’s signature.
The bill attempts to provide certain additional interference protections for
broadcasters that were not included in earlier versions of the bill. However, the
elimination of third-adjacent channel protection continues to raise the possibility of
harmful interference to full-power FM stations and is of continued concern to broadcasters.
Fortunately, the bill requires low-power stations to report complaints of interference and to
take measures to remediate the problem. Whether these requirements will prove to be
adequate remains to be seen.
With a few important exceptions (detailed below), the bill is largely the same as the
version that passed the House in December 2009 (H.R. 1147), which we reported on in our
Legal Memorandum dated January 7, 2010. The earlier version of the bill, however, was
never voted on by the Senate.
Here is a summary of the bill that passed Congress and will become law once
signed by President Obama:
* Removal Of Certain Third-Adjacent Channel Minimum Distance Separation
Requirements. The bill requires the FCC to remove third-adjacent
minimum distance separation requirements between (1) low-power FM
stations and (2) full-service FM, FM translator, and FM booster stations.
* Second-Adjacent Channel Separation Requirements. The version of the bill
passed by Congress, in contrast to previous versions, expressly provides
that the FCC shall not amend its current rules to reduce the minimum cochannel
and first- and second-adjacent channel distance separation
requirements. However, the bill sets out a waiver process whereby any
low-power FM station may be granted a waiver of the second-adjacent
channel distance separation requirements if it can establish, “using methods
of predicting interference taking into account all relevant factors,” that its
proposed operations will not result in interference to any authorized radio
service. (Presumably the FCC will clarify what showing is acceptable
through a rulemaking proceeding.) Any low-power FM station that is
granted such a waiver must immediately suspend operations if it is notified
by the FCC that it is causing interference to the reception of an existing or
modified full-service FM station, and it cannot resume operations until it
either eliminates the interference or demonstrates that it did not cause the
interference.
* Compliance With Certain Minimum Distance Separation Requirements For
Radio Reading Services. The bill requires the FCC to apply its existing
minimum distance separation requirements (presumably including bandadjacency
protection) for full-power FM stations, FM translator stations,
and FM booster stations that broadcast radio reading services via an analog
subcarrier frequency to avoid potential interference by low-power FM
stations.
* Licensing Considerations And Availability Of Spectrum. The bill requires
the FCC, when considering applications for new FM translator stations, FM
booster stations, and low-power FM stations, to ensure that licenses are
available to FM translator stations, FM booster stations, and low-power FM
stations and that licensing decisions are made based on “the needs of the
local community.” The bill as amended still does not specifically define
any criteria for determining the needs of the local community. In contrast
to earlier versions, the 2010 version of the bill also affirms that FM
translator stations, FM booster stations, and low-power FM stations will
“remain equal in status [with respect to each other] and secondary to
existing and modified full-service FM stations.”
* Modification Of Certain Low-Power FM Rules. The bill requires the FCC
to amend the rules authorizing operation of low-power FM stations to
(1) prescribe protection for co-channels and first- and second-adjacent
channels, and (2) prohibit applicants that have engaged in the unlicensed
operation of any station from obtaining a low-power FM license. The bill
also renders invalid any license issued to a low-power FM station before
April 2, 2001, that does not comply with the rule amendments adopted by
the Commission.
* Protection Of FM Translator Input Signals. The bill requires the
Commission to modify its rules to address the potential for predicted
interference to FM translator input signals on third-adjacent channels.
* Procedures For Remediation Of Interference. The bill requires the FCC to
amend its interference complaint process (Section 73.810 of the FCC’s
Rules) in the following ways:
(1) For those low-power FM stations licensed at locations that do not satisfy
third-adjacent channel spacing requirements, the FCC must provide the
same interference protections that FM translator stations and FM
booster stations are required to provide under existing (as of the date
of enactment) interference rules. Generally, under these FCC rules, if
interference cannot be properly eliminated by the application of suitable
techniques, the offending FM translator or booster station must suspend
operations and may not resume operations until the interference has
been eliminated.
(2) For a period of one year after a new low-power FM station is
constructed on a third-adjacent channel, the low-power FM station must
broadcast periodic announcements alerting listeners that interference
they experience could be the result of the operation of the low-power
FM station on a third-adjacent channel. The low-power station must
instruct affected listeners to contact the station to report any
interference. The FCC must require all newly constructed low-power
FM stations on third-adjacent channels to (a) notify the Commission and
all affected stations on third-adjacent channels of an interference
complaint by electronic communication within 48 hours after the receipt
of such complaint, and (b) cooperate in addressing any such
interference.
(3) Low-power FM stations on third-adjacent channels must address
complaints of interference within the protected contour of an affected
station and will be “encouraged” to address all other interference
complaints, including complaints to the FCC based on interference to a
full-service FM station, an FM translator station, or an FM booster
station by the transmitter site of a low-power FM station on a thirdadjacent
channel at any distance from the full-service FM station, FM
translator station, or FM booster station. The Commission must provide
notice to the low-power FM station of the existence of such interference
within seven calendar days of the receipt of a complaint from a listener
or another station.
(4) To the extent possible, the FCC must grant a low-power FM station on a
third-adjacent channel the technical flexibility to remediate interference
through the colocation of its transmission facilities with any other
station on a third-adjacent channel.
(5) With respect to interference complaints, the FCC must (a) permit the
submission of informal evidence of interference, including any
engineering analysis that an affected station may commission; (b) accept
complaints based on interference to a full-service FM station, FM
translator station, or FM booster station by the transmitter site of a lowpower
FM station on a third-adjacent channel at any distance from the
full-service FM station, FM translator station, or FM booster station;
and (c) accept complaints of interference to mobile reception.
(6) For full-service FM stations that are licensed in significantly populated
states (more than 3,000,000 population and a population density greater
than 1,000 people per one square mile), the FCC must require all lowpower
FM stations licensed after the date of enactment of the bill and
located on third-adjacent, second-adjacent, first-adjacent, or co-channels
to such full-service FM stations to provide the same interference
remediation requirements to complaints of interference, without regard
to whether such complaints of interference occur within or outside of
the protected contour of such stations, under the same interference
complaint and remediation procedures that FM translator stations and
FM booster stations are required to provide to full-service stations as set
forth in the FCC rules (Section 74.1203). This provision was added to
the 2010 version of the bill and offers some additional protection to fullpower
FM stations located in larger markets.
* FCC Study On Impact Of LPFM Stations On Full-Power Commercial FM
Stations. The bill requires the FCC to conduct an economic study of the
impact that low-power FM stations will have on full-power commercial FM
stations. No later than one year after enactment of the bill, the FCC must
submit a report of the study to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation and the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce. However, the study and report requirement must not affect the
licensing of new low-power FM stations as otherwise permitted by the act.
President Obama is expected to sign the bill soon. We will monitor Commission
proceedings to implement the law and apprise you of significant developments.
COPYRIGHT ROYALTY BOARD ISSUES WEB
STREAMING RATES FOR 2011-2015
The Copyright Royalty Board has released a decision that sets royalty rates for 2011-
2015 for noninteractive webcasting services, including terrestrial radio broadcasters that
stream music on the Internet. The rates established by the Board apply to webcasters who
declined to “opt in” to various voluntary settlement agreements reached in 2009 between
SoundExchange and NAB (for commercial radio stations) and the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting (for certain noncommercial radio stations). The Board has adopted the same
rates for 2011-2015 as those provided in these two settlement agreements. In other words,
the same performance royalty rates will apply to commercial radio stations for 2011-2015
regardless of whether the stations opted in to the NAB-SoundExchange settlement. (For
additional information on the settlement agreements, please refer to our Legal Memorandum
dated March 20, 2009.)
The Board adopted the following streaming royalty rates for commercial terrestrial
radio broadcasters for the period 2011-2015:
Year Rate Per Performance
2011 $0.0017
2012 $0.0020
2013 $0.0022
2014 $0.0023
2015 $0.0025
A “performance” generally means each instance in which any portion of a song is played to a
listener. (Performance royalties are not required to be paid for “incidental” performances.
To be considered “incidental,” the music use: (1) must make “no more than incidental use of
sound recordings including, but not limited to, brief musical transitions in and out of
commercials or program segments, brief performances during news, talk and sports
programming, brief background performances during disk jockey announcements, brief
performances during commercials of sixty seconds or less in duration, or brief performances
during sporting or other public events”; and (2) must “not contain an entire sound recording”
or “feature a particular sound recording of more than thirty seconds,” unless it is ambient
music that is background at a public event.)
The minimum annual streaming fee for commercial radio stations is $500 per year
for each individual stream (e.g., broadcast simulcast, HD radio side channel, or web-only
stream). However, for any group owner, the per-stream minimum fee is capped at $50,000.
Also, where a broadcaster provides identical programming streams that originate from the
same website, such multiple streams will be treated as a single stream for purposes of the
minimum fee (provided that the performances are aggregated in calculating royalty fees).
The rates for commercial terrestrial radio stations discussed above are identical to the
royalty rates established in the NAB-SoundExchange agreement for commercial terrestrial
radio stations. In fact, the Board specifically considered this agreement as evidence of the
market rate for streaming radio signals. SoundExchange proposed, but the Board rejected, a
per-performance fee starting at $0.0021 in 2011 and escalating to $0.0029 in 2015.
Additionally, the Board adopted a “small broadcaster” reporting waiver identical to
the one provided in the NAB-SoundExchange agreement. Commercial radio stations that
qualify as “small broadcasters” may submit a $100 annual proxy fee in lieu of submitting
records of use reports. Generally, “small broadcaster” means a station that webcasts an
aggregate of fewer than 27,777 Aggregate Tuning Hours (ATH) per calendar year (roughly
the same number of performances that are covered under the minimum $500 fee).
Broadcasters who do not qualify for this limited waiver generally are required to submit
periodic reports of use. The Board also adopted royalty rates for noncommercial radio
stations that declined to “opt in” to the CPB-SoundExchange settlement agreement. Generally,
each noncommercial webcaster must pay a minimum annual fee of $500 per individual channel
or stream, which covers streaming up to 159,140 ATH per month. In any month that a
noncommercial station streams more than 159,410 ATH, the webcaster must pay
additional royalty fees on a per-performance basis that is identical to the rates described in
the table above for commercial stations. Again, this structure is identical to the settlement
reached between SoundExchange and CPB in 2009.
In addition to setting the performance royalty rates for the 2011-2015, the Board
officially adopted the settlement agreements reached between NAB and SoundExchange
and CPB and SoundExchange. The settlements resolved several royalty issues between
SoundExchange and terrestrial radio broadcasters, including royalty rates for the period
2006-2010 and 2011-2015. The agreements were required to be filed with the Copyright
Office, with an opportunity for the affected parties to comment, pursuant to the Webcaster
PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNS COMMERCIAL
LOUDNESS LAW FOR TELEVISION STATIONS
Part 1
President Obama has signed the Commercial Advertisement Loudness
Mitigation Act. The CALM Act was passed by Congress on December 2,
2010. The new law generally requires television broadcasters to keep
commercials at the same volume as the programs during which they are
run.
LOW-POWER FM BILL PASSES
HOUSE AND SENATE
In the waning days of the lame-duck congressional session, the House of
Representatives voted to approve the Local Community Radio Act of 2010
(H.R. 6533), which would, among other things, require the FCC to
eliminate third-adjacent minimum distance separation requirements
between low-power FM stations and full-service FM, FM translator, and
FM booster stations. Following passage in the House, the Senate
approved the House version of the bill.
COPYRIGHT ROYALTY BOARD ISSUES
WEB STREAMING RATES FOR 2011-2015
The Copyright Royalty Board has released a decision that sets royalty
rates for 2011-2015 for noninteractive webcasting services, including
terrestrial radio broadcasters that stream programming on the Internet.
COMMERCE DEPARTMENT CALLS FOR
ONLINE PRIVACY BILL OF RIGHTS
The U.S. Department of Commerce has issued a report calling for the
adoption of a “Privacy Bill of Rights” to protect online consumers’
personal information and data and the creation of a new federal office to
develop related rules.
PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNS COMMERCIAL
LOUDNESS LAW FOR TELEVISION STATIONS
President Obama has signed the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation
Act (“CALM Act”). The CALM Act was passed by Congress on December 2, 2010. The
new law generally requires television broadcasters to keep commercials at the same
volume as the programs during which they are run.
As previously reported, the CALM Act requires the FCC, by December 15, 2011,
to adopt regulations that require television stations to comply with ATSC’s A/85
standard—ATSC’s recommended practices for establishing and maintaining audio
loudness for digital television. The Act requires that the FCC’s rules go into effect one
year from the date the new rules are adopted. Therefore, it will likely be December 2012
before the FCC begins enforcing the new rules. However, television broadcasters will
wish to review the ATSC A/85 standard carefully, as compliance with the standard may
require them to purchase and install additional equipment by the time the rules go into
effect in 2012.
Television stations and MVPDs who are able to demonstrate that obtaining
equipment to comply with the FCC’s loudness rules would result in “financial hardship”
may be granted a waiver for one year by the FCC, with an additional year, if necessary.
The CALM Act does not define what constitutes a “financial hardship,” but presumably
the FCC will provide guidance when it adopts new rules to implement the CALM Act.
The CALM Act also includes a provision that allows any television station that
“installs, utilizes, and maintains” equipment and associated software in compliance with
the FCC’s loudness rules (once adopted) to be deemed in compliance with the
Commission’s loudness rules. We will monitor the proceedings required to implement the
CALM Act and apprise you of significant developments.
LOW-POWER FM BILL PASSES HOUSE AND SENATE
In the waning days of the lame-duck congressional session, the House of
Representatives voted to approve the Local Community Radio Act of 2010 (H.R. 6533),
which would, among other things, require the FCC to eliminate third-adjacent minimum
distance separation requirements between low-power FM stations and full-service FM, FM
translator, and FM booster stations. Following passage in the House, the Senate approved
the House version of the bill, and, as of December 27, 2010, the bill awaits President
Obama’s signature.
The bill attempts to provide certain additional interference protections for
broadcasters that were not included in earlier versions of the bill. However, the
elimination of third-adjacent channel protection continues to raise the possibility of
harmful interference to full-power FM stations and is of continued concern to broadcasters.
Fortunately, the bill requires low-power stations to report complaints of interference and to
take measures to remediate the problem. Whether these requirements will prove to be
adequate remains to be seen.
With a few important exceptions (detailed below), the bill is largely the same as the
version that passed the House in December 2009 (H.R. 1147), which we reported on in our
Legal Memorandum dated January 7, 2010. The earlier version of the bill, however, was
never voted on by the Senate.
Here is a summary of the bill that passed Congress and will become law once
signed by President Obama:
* Removal Of Certain Third-Adjacent Channel Minimum Distance Separation
Requirements. The bill requires the FCC to remove third-adjacent
minimum distance separation requirements between (1) low-power FM
stations and (2) full-service FM, FM translator, and FM booster stations.
* Second-Adjacent Channel Separation Requirements. The version of the bill
passed by Congress, in contrast to previous versions, expressly provides
that the FCC shall not amend its current rules to reduce the minimum cochannel
and first- and second-adjacent channel distance separation
requirements. However, the bill sets out a waiver process whereby any
low-power FM station may be granted a waiver of the second-adjacent
channel distance separation requirements if it can establish, “using methods
of predicting interference taking into account all relevant factors,” that its
proposed operations will not result in interference to any authorized radio
service. (Presumably the FCC will clarify what showing is acceptable
through a rulemaking proceeding.) Any low-power FM station that is
granted such a waiver must immediately suspend operations if it is notified
by the FCC that it is causing interference to the reception of an existing or
modified full-service FM station, and it cannot resume operations until it
either eliminates the interference or demonstrates that it did not cause the
interference.
* Compliance With Certain Minimum Distance Separation Requirements For
Radio Reading Services. The bill requires the FCC to apply its existing
minimum distance separation requirements (presumably including bandadjacency
protection) for full-power FM stations, FM translator stations,
and FM booster stations that broadcast radio reading services via an analog
subcarrier frequency to avoid potential interference by low-power FM
stations.
* Licensing Considerations And Availability Of Spectrum. The bill requires
the FCC, when considering applications for new FM translator stations, FM
booster stations, and low-power FM stations, to ensure that licenses are
available to FM translator stations, FM booster stations, and low-power FM
stations and that licensing decisions are made based on “the needs of the
local community.” The bill as amended still does not specifically define
any criteria for determining the needs of the local community. In contrast
to earlier versions, the 2010 version of the bill also affirms that FM
translator stations, FM booster stations, and low-power FM stations will
“remain equal in status [with respect to each other] and secondary to
existing and modified full-service FM stations.”
* Modification Of Certain Low-Power FM Rules. The bill requires the FCC
to amend the rules authorizing operation of low-power FM stations to
(1) prescribe protection for co-channels and first- and second-adjacent
channels, and (2) prohibit applicants that have engaged in the unlicensed
operation of any station from obtaining a low-power FM license. The bill
also renders invalid any license issued to a low-power FM station before
April 2, 2001, that does not comply with the rule amendments adopted by
the Commission.
* Protection Of FM Translator Input Signals. The bill requires the
Commission to modify its rules to address the potential for predicted
interference to FM translator input signals on third-adjacent channels.
* Procedures For Remediation Of Interference. The bill requires the FCC to
amend its interference complaint process (Section 73.810 of the FCC’s
Rules) in the following ways:
(1) For those low-power FM stations licensed at locations that do not satisfy
third-adjacent channel spacing requirements, the FCC must provide the
same interference protections that FM translator stations and FM
booster stations are required to provide under existing (as of the date
of enactment) interference rules. Generally, under these FCC rules, if
interference cannot be properly eliminated by the application of suitable
techniques, the offending FM translator or booster station must suspend
operations and may not resume operations until the interference has
been eliminated.
(2) For a period of one year after a new low-power FM station is
constructed on a third-adjacent channel, the low-power FM station must
broadcast periodic announcements alerting listeners that interference
they experience could be the result of the operation of the low-power
FM station on a third-adjacent channel. The low-power station must
instruct affected listeners to contact the station to report any
interference. The FCC must require all newly constructed low-power
FM stations on third-adjacent channels to (a) notify the Commission and
all affected stations on third-adjacent channels of an interference
complaint by electronic communication within 48 hours after the receipt
of such complaint, and (b) cooperate in addressing any such
interference.
(3) Low-power FM stations on third-adjacent channels must address
complaints of interference within the protected contour of an affected
station and will be “encouraged” to address all other interference
complaints, including complaints to the FCC based on interference to a
full-service FM station, an FM translator station, or an FM booster
station by the transmitter site of a low-power FM station on a thirdadjacent
channel at any distance from the full-service FM station, FM
translator station, or FM booster station. The Commission must provide
notice to the low-power FM station of the existence of such interference
within seven calendar days of the receipt of a complaint from a listener
or another station.
(4) To the extent possible, the FCC must grant a low-power FM station on a
third-adjacent channel the technical flexibility to remediate interference
through the colocation of its transmission facilities with any other
station on a third-adjacent channel.
(5) With respect to interference complaints, the FCC must (a) permit the
submission of informal evidence of interference, including any
engineering analysis that an affected station may commission; (b) accept
complaints based on interference to a full-service FM station, FM
translator station, or FM booster station by the transmitter site of a lowpower
FM station on a third-adjacent channel at any distance from the
full-service FM station, FM translator station, or FM booster station;
and (c) accept complaints of interference to mobile reception.
(6) For full-service FM stations that are licensed in significantly populated
states (more than 3,000,000 population and a population density greater
than 1,000 people per one square mile), the FCC must require all lowpower
FM stations licensed after the date of enactment of the bill and
located on third-adjacent, second-adjacent, first-adjacent, or co-channels
to such full-service FM stations to provide the same interference
remediation requirements to complaints of interference, without regard
to whether such complaints of interference occur within or outside of
the protected contour of such stations, under the same interference
complaint and remediation procedures that FM translator stations and
FM booster stations are required to provide to full-service stations as set
forth in the FCC rules (Section 74.1203). This provision was added to
the 2010 version of the bill and offers some additional protection to fullpower
FM stations located in larger markets.
* FCC Study On Impact Of LPFM Stations On Full-Power Commercial FM
Stations. The bill requires the FCC to conduct an economic study of the
impact that low-power FM stations will have on full-power commercial FM
stations. No later than one year after enactment of the bill, the FCC must
submit a report of the study to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation and the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce. However, the study and report requirement must not affect the
licensing of new low-power FM stations as otherwise permitted by the act.
President Obama is expected to sign the bill soon. We will monitor Commission
proceedings to implement the law and apprise you of significant developments.
COPYRIGHT ROYALTY BOARD ISSUES WEB
STREAMING RATES FOR 2011-2015
The Copyright Royalty Board has released a decision that sets royalty rates for 2011-
2015 for noninteractive webcasting services, including terrestrial radio broadcasters that
stream music on the Internet. The rates established by the Board apply to webcasters who
declined to “opt in” to various voluntary settlement agreements reached in 2009 between
SoundExchange and NAB (for commercial radio stations) and the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting (for certain noncommercial radio stations). The Board has adopted the same
rates for 2011-2015 as those provided in these two settlement agreements. In other words,
the same performance royalty rates will apply to commercial radio stations for 2011-2015
regardless of whether the stations opted in to the NAB-SoundExchange settlement. (For
additional information on the settlement agreements, please refer to our Legal Memorandum
dated March 20, 2009.)
The Board adopted the following streaming royalty rates for commercial terrestrial
radio broadcasters for the period 2011-2015:
Year Rate Per Performance
2011 $0.0017
2012 $0.0020
2013 $0.0022
2014 $0.0023
2015 $0.0025
A “performance” generally means each instance in which any portion of a song is played to a
listener. (Performance royalties are not required to be paid for “incidental” performances.
To be considered “incidental,” the music use: (1) must make “no more than incidental use of
sound recordings including, but not limited to, brief musical transitions in and out of
commercials or program segments, brief performances during news, talk and sports
programming, brief background performances during disk jockey announcements, brief
performances during commercials of sixty seconds or less in duration, or brief performances
during sporting or other public events”; and (2) must “not contain an entire sound recording”
or “feature a particular sound recording of more than thirty seconds,” unless it is ambient
music that is background at a public event.)
The minimum annual streaming fee for commercial radio stations is $500 per year
for each individual stream (e.g., broadcast simulcast, HD radio side channel, or web-only
stream). However, for any group owner, the per-stream minimum fee is capped at $50,000.
Also, where a broadcaster provides identical programming streams that originate from the
same website, such multiple streams will be treated as a single stream for purposes of the
minimum fee (provided that the performances are aggregated in calculating royalty fees).
The rates for commercial terrestrial radio stations discussed above are identical to the
royalty rates established in the NAB-SoundExchange agreement for commercial terrestrial
radio stations. In fact, the Board specifically considered this agreement as evidence of the
market rate for streaming radio signals. SoundExchange proposed, but the Board rejected, a
per-performance fee starting at $0.0021 in 2011 and escalating to $0.0029 in 2015.
Additionally, the Board adopted a “small broadcaster” reporting waiver identical to
the one provided in the NAB-SoundExchange agreement. Commercial radio stations that
qualify as “small broadcasters” may submit a $100 annual proxy fee in lieu of submitting
records of use reports. Generally, “small broadcaster” means a station that webcasts an
aggregate of fewer than 27,777 Aggregate Tuning Hours (ATH) per calendar year (roughly
the same number of performances that are covered under the minimum $500 fee).
Broadcasters who do not qualify for this limited waiver generally are required to submit
periodic reports of use. The Board also adopted royalty rates for noncommercial radio
stations that declined to “opt in” to the CPB-SoundExchange settlement agreement. Generally,
each noncommercial webcaster must pay a minimum annual fee of $500 per individual channel
or stream, which covers streaming up to 159,140 ATH per month. In any month that a
noncommercial station streams more than 159,410 ATH, the webcaster must pay
additional royalty fees on a per-performance basis that is identical to the rates described in
the table above for commercial stations. Again, this structure is identical to the settlement
reached between SoundExchange and CPB in 2009.
In addition to setting the performance royalty rates for the 2011-2015, the Board
officially adopted the settlement agreements reached between NAB and SoundExchange
and CPB and SoundExchange. The settlements resolved several royalty issues between
SoundExchange and terrestrial radio broadcasters, including royalty rates for the period
2006-2010 and 2011-2015. The agreements were required to be filed with the Copyright
Office, with an opportunity for the affected parties to comment, pursuant to the Webcaster
PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNS COMMERCIAL LOUDNESS LAW FOR TELEVISION STATIONS Part 2
Settlement Act of 2008.
The parties involved in the rate-setting procedure (i.e., those who participated and are
not subject to the settlement agreements) may petition the Board for rehearing or file an
appeal. Therefore, the rates could be subject to a future legal challenge. We will continue to
monitor the proceeding and apprise you of significant developments.
The Board’s recent decision, the SoundExchange settlement agreements, and the
copyright licensing requirements for webcasting are fairly complicated and extensive. Radio
broadcasters streaming their signals over the Internet or considering streaming in the future
will wish to consult with their legal counsel.
COMMERCE DEPARTMENT CALLS FOR
ONLINE PRIVACY BILL OF RIGHTS
The U.S. Department of Commerce has issued a report calling for the adoption of a
“Privacy Bill of Rights” to protect online consumers’ personal information and data and
the creation of a new federal office to develop related rules. The report, issued by the
Department’s Internet Policy Task Force, details a series of initial recommendations aimed
at protecting the privacy of online consumers while also “ensuring the Internet remains a
platform that spurs innovation, job creation, and economic growth.” While the report
largely advocates self-regulation by private industry, it also calls for some new legislation
and stepped-up enforcement efforts by the Federal Trade Commission.
Here are the key recommendations of the report:
* Establish “Fair Information Practice Principles” Comparable To A
“Privacy Bill Of Rights” For Online Consumers. The report recommends
the development of a set of guiding principles concerning how companies
with a presence online collect and use personal information for commercial
purposes. These principles would be recognized by the federal government
and would serve as a foundation for online consumer data privacy. They
would build on existing Fair Information Practice Principles that are widely
used among privacy experts as core obligations and would prompt
companies to be more transparent about their use of consumer information.
Companies would be expected to (1) provide greater detail about why data
is collected and how it is used; (2) put clearer limits on the use of data; and
increase their use of audits and other ways to bolster accountability.
* Develop Enforceable Privacy Codes Of Conduct In Specific Sectors With
Stakeholders. The report recommends that in considering new policies for
commercial privacy the government enlist the expertise of industry,
consumer groups, privacy advocates, and other stakeholders in particular
industries to create voluntary codes of conduct that safeguard personal
information and promote informed consent in instances where consumers
are asked to provide personal data.
* Create A Privacy Policy Office In The Department Of Commerce. The
report recommends establishing a privacy policy office in the Department
of Commerce that would work with the FTC, the Executive Office of the
President, and other federal entities to examine commercial uses of personal
information and evaluate whether uncertainty or gaps in consumer privacy
protection exist. The new office would convene meetings and discussions
with various stakeholders, and, with respect to specific areas of concern,
would help develop enforceable privacy codes of conduct for companies,
but the new office would not have any independent enforcement authority.
* Encourage Global Interoperability To Spur Innovation And Trade. The
report recommends that the government work together with its international
trading partners to find means of bridging differences in privacy
frameworks to reduce the significant costs of business compliance.
* Harmonize Disparate Security Breach Notification Rules. As an initial step
towards consideration of a new online privacy framework, the report
recommends looking at ways to harmonize the standards for businesses to
notify customers about commercial data security breaches. This national
approach to commercial data breaches might provide increased clarity to
consumers, streamline industry compliance, and allow businesses to
develop a strong, nationwide data management strategy. This national
approach, enacted through federal legislation, could, according to the report,
help to reconcile inconsistent state laws, authorize enforcement by the FTC,
and preserve state authorities’ existing enforcement power.
* Review The Electronic Communications Privacy Act For The Cloud
Computing Environment. The report recommends that the Obama
Administration review the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
(“ECPA”) to address privacy protection concerns in cloud computing and
location-based services. A goal of this effort would be to ensure that, as
technology and market conditions change, the ECPA continues to
appropriately protect individuals’ privacy expectations and punish unlawful
access and disclosure of consumer data.
Notably, the Commerce Department report—unlike a recent FTC report on online
privacy—does not call for the development of enhanced “do-not-track” capabilities (i.e.,
measures that allow consumers to easily “opt out” of all online tracking, preferably
through their own internet browser). This is good news for online ad companies and
companies—like broadcasters—that rely on revenue from online advertisements.
The recommendations made in the report are preliminary and, in some cases,
somewhat vague at this stage. The Commerce Department is seeking public comment, due
by January 28, 2011, on the report and has said the report is a “work in progress” that will
likely be refined in response to those comments.
Settlement Act of 2008.
The parties involved in the rate-setting procedure (i.e., those who participated and are
not subject to the settlement agreements) may petition the Board for rehearing or file an
appeal. Therefore, the rates could be subject to a future legal challenge. We will continue to
monitor the proceeding and apprise you of significant developments.
The Board’s recent decision, the SoundExchange settlement agreements, and the
copyright licensing requirements for webcasting are fairly complicated and extensive. Radio
broadcasters streaming their signals over the Internet or considering streaming in the future
will wish to consult with their legal counsel.
COMMERCE DEPARTMENT CALLS FOR
ONLINE PRIVACY BILL OF RIGHTS
The U.S. Department of Commerce has issued a report calling for the adoption of a
“Privacy Bill of Rights” to protect online consumers’ personal information and data and
the creation of a new federal office to develop related rules. The report, issued by the
Department’s Internet Policy Task Force, details a series of initial recommendations aimed
at protecting the privacy of online consumers while also “ensuring the Internet remains a
platform that spurs innovation, job creation, and economic growth.” While the report
largely advocates self-regulation by private industry, it also calls for some new legislation
and stepped-up enforcement efforts by the Federal Trade Commission.
Here are the key recommendations of the report:
* Establish “Fair Information Practice Principles” Comparable To A
“Privacy Bill Of Rights” For Online Consumers. The report recommends
the development of a set of guiding principles concerning how companies
with a presence online collect and use personal information for commercial
purposes. These principles would be recognized by the federal government
and would serve as a foundation for online consumer data privacy. They
would build on existing Fair Information Practice Principles that are widely
used among privacy experts as core obligations and would prompt
companies to be more transparent about their use of consumer information.
Companies would be expected to (1) provide greater detail about why data
is collected and how it is used; (2) put clearer limits on the use of data; and
increase their use of audits and other ways to bolster accountability.
* Develop Enforceable Privacy Codes Of Conduct In Specific Sectors With
Stakeholders. The report recommends that in considering new policies for
commercial privacy the government enlist the expertise of industry,
consumer groups, privacy advocates, and other stakeholders in particular
industries to create voluntary codes of conduct that safeguard personal
information and promote informed consent in instances where consumers
are asked to provide personal data.
* Create A Privacy Policy Office In The Department Of Commerce. The
report recommends establishing a privacy policy office in the Department
of Commerce that would work with the FTC, the Executive Office of the
President, and other federal entities to examine commercial uses of personal
information and evaluate whether uncertainty or gaps in consumer privacy
protection exist. The new office would convene meetings and discussions
with various stakeholders, and, with respect to specific areas of concern,
would help develop enforceable privacy codes of conduct for companies,
but the new office would not have any independent enforcement authority.
* Encourage Global Interoperability To Spur Innovation And Trade. The
report recommends that the government work together with its international
trading partners to find means of bridging differences in privacy
frameworks to reduce the significant costs of business compliance.
* Harmonize Disparate Security Breach Notification Rules. As an initial step
towards consideration of a new online privacy framework, the report
recommends looking at ways to harmonize the standards for businesses to
notify customers about commercial data security breaches. This national
approach to commercial data breaches might provide increased clarity to
consumers, streamline industry compliance, and allow businesses to
develop a strong, nationwide data management strategy. This national
approach, enacted through federal legislation, could, according to the report,
help to reconcile inconsistent state laws, authorize enforcement by the FTC,
and preserve state authorities’ existing enforcement power.
* Review The Electronic Communications Privacy Act For The Cloud
Computing Environment. The report recommends that the Obama
Administration review the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
(“ECPA”) to address privacy protection concerns in cloud computing and
location-based services. A goal of this effort would be to ensure that, as
technology and market conditions change, the ECPA continues to
appropriately protect individuals’ privacy expectations and punish unlawful
access and disclosure of consumer data.
Notably, the Commerce Department report—unlike a recent FTC report on online
privacy—does not call for the development of enhanced “do-not-track” capabilities (i.e.,
measures that allow consumers to easily “opt out” of all online tracking, preferably
through their own internet browser). This is good news for online ad companies and
companies—like broadcasters—that rely on revenue from online advertisements.
The recommendations made in the report are preliminary and, in some cases,
somewhat vague at this stage. The Commerce Department is seeking public comment, due
by January 28, 2011, on the report and has said the report is a “work in progress” that will
likely be refined in response to those comments.
FCC Formalizes Broadband Proposal
FCC Formalizes Broadband Proposal
by John Merli, 12.20.2010 TV Technology Magazine
http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/110938
WASHINGTON—Broadcast industry reaction to the FCC's late November formal proposal to free up spectrum for use as part of a National Broadband Plan for America was largely negative, as expected, with some engineers saying some of the proposed technical goals the commission wants to accomplish seem to defy the law of physics.
On Nov. 30, the FCC unanimously approved a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (FCC 10-196) on a NBP that seeks to change TV band service rules that would permit fixed and mobile service "co-primary" users with UHF/VHF stations. One proposal would allow "channel-sharing" to permit more than one station to share the allotted 6 MHz in order to free up more spectrum for wireless broadband services.
"Channel-sharing has very little chance of being implemented on a voluntary basis, in my opinion," said Sterling Davis, vice president for technical operations at Atlanta-based Cox Media Group, owner of 15 TV stations. "Most broadcasters are probably not interested in doing that. I'm not sure there's any upside to it. It seems to preclude ever being able to transmit anything in HD—or anything in a mobile mode. So you'd have to relegate your station to just transmitting low-definition programming forever into the future," Davis said.
VHF A NON-STARTER
Most stations and broadcast groups contacted were still assessing what to make of the FCC's proposals, but the overall feeling appears to be one of wariness. "I'm not exactly sure how all of this will shake out [and] I don't think anyone else is, either," said Drew Rhodes, general manager of WLTZ-TV in Columbus, Ga. (DMA 128) owned by SagamoreHill Broadcasting. "However, it's sure exciting to play 'television' right now—especially if you're in an entrepreneurial company.
"We're not interested in participating in a voluntary auction, but we would not be opposed to other stations doing so," Rhodes added. "I can't say I'm as knowledgeable as others on 'channel-sharing,' but it seems that any loss in a station's allotted spectrum is giving away some future possibilities. We believe in the future of broadcast television in the small markets and look forward to expanding our station's offerings in the digital age."
The FCC proposals aimed at eventually re-purposing up to 120 MHz of spectrum for non-broadcast services also seek ways to boost VHF reception—potentially as a means for the FCC to expedite moving some broadcasters out of the more digital-friendly UHF band. But FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, prior to the unanimous NPRM vote, conceded in written remarks that improving VHF service would be difficult: "We looked everywhere we could during the DTV transition, and real remedies were few and far between. Let's hope the months ahead lead us to some genuine innovation," Copps said.
But Mark Aitken, director of advanced technology at Baltimore-based Sinclair Broadcast Group, thinks the VHF issue is simply a non-starter. "The FCC and everybody else knew for more than a decade that low-vee [VHF] wasn't going to work for digital broadcasting for all sorts of technical reasons. At channel 2, for example, there's upwards of a 20-db handicap in terms of receivability," Aitken said.
"For VHF, I don't think there are any solutions," said Cox Media's Davis, "and trying to solve them with technology isn't going to work. We pointed all this out at a [June 2010] meeting with the FCC. They were told there's no magical way to change physics to make that work. Everybody's abandoning [VHF] just as fast as they can because it doesn't work… Upping the power may help a bit, but it's not anywhere near what would solve the problem—which is, you can't increase [VHF] power because of interference."
Sterling Davis, vice president for technical operations, Cox Media Group
In his NPRM remarks, Copps also said, "It's no secret that I have been disappointed that so much of the spectrum dividend that accrued to broadcasters as a result of the DTV transition goes dramatically under-utilized. I am not interested in pushing broadcasters somewhere else…but public interest multicasting remains, all too often, a concept—not a reality."
TOO SOON?
Yet Sinclair's Aitken, whose group represents 58 stations in 35 markets, thinks it's been too soon since the June 2009 conversion to accurately judge how local broadcasters might still diversify their spectrum. "At this point, we're just getting our engines revved up. You've got stations out there doing deals on [multicast] programming that two years ago wouldn't have been possible, and we're doing it for real money—partly because we've become the new opening to markets for… programming that largely won't be accommodated within today's satellite-cable-fiber infrastructure."
A spokesman for Hearst Television and owner of 29 TV stations, said his group "fully concurs with NAB" on the issue. NAB, for its part, said after the November vote that "[we] have no quarrel with incentive auctions that are truly voluntary… [but] NAB will oppose government-mandated signal strength degradations or limitations—and new spectrum taxes that threaten the future of free and local broadcasting." In a Dec. 6 update to its members, NAB noted the FCC "would still need authority from Congress before it could move forward with any incentive spectrum auction."
Vincent Sadusky, president/CEO of Providence, RI-based LIN Media, which owns 32 stations in 17 markets, said he's hopeful in the end the NBP proposals will afford broadcasters "increased flexibility for innovative spectrum use, while ensuring that viewers do not lose access to free terrestrial services. Broadcasters should have the flexibility to provide free programming simultaneously using multiple standards—such as ATSC, ATSC-M/H, LTE, W-Max and so on—so important news and programming can be conveyed to consumers on a wide veariety of popular devices."
Reply comments to the NPRM are due Jan. 20, 2011.
_________________________________________________
And as always, the FCC will likely overstep its bounds here, as is typical of the current administration, and some engineers saying some of the proposed technical goals the commission wants to accomplish seem to defy the law of physics. Could that be because there are no technical or engineering types allowed on the FCC's Board any more?
FCC Formalizes Broadband Proposal
by John Merli, 12.20.2010 TV Technology Magazine
http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/110938
WASHINGTON—Broadcast industry reaction to the FCC's late November formal proposal to free up spectrum for use as part of a National Broadband Plan for America was largely negative, as expected, with some engineers saying some of the proposed technical goals the commission wants to accomplish seem to defy the law of physics.
On Nov. 30, the FCC unanimously approved a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (FCC 10-196) on a NBP that seeks to change TV band service rules that would permit fixed and mobile service "co-primary" users with UHF/VHF stations. One proposal would allow "channel-sharing" to permit more than one station to share the allotted 6 MHz in order to free up more spectrum for wireless broadband services.
"Channel-sharing has very little chance of being implemented on a voluntary basis, in my opinion," said Sterling Davis, vice president for technical operations at Atlanta-based Cox Media Group, owner of 15 TV stations. "Most broadcasters are probably not interested in doing that. I'm not sure there's any upside to it. It seems to preclude ever being able to transmit anything in HD—or anything in a mobile mode. So you'd have to relegate your station to just transmitting low-definition programming forever into the future," Davis said.
VHF A NON-STARTER
Most stations and broadcast groups contacted were still assessing what to make of the FCC's proposals, but the overall feeling appears to be one of wariness. "I'm not exactly sure how all of this will shake out [and] I don't think anyone else is, either," said Drew Rhodes, general manager of WLTZ-TV in Columbus, Ga. (DMA 128) owned by SagamoreHill Broadcasting. "However, it's sure exciting to play 'television' right now—especially if you're in an entrepreneurial company.
"We're not interested in participating in a voluntary auction, but we would not be opposed to other stations doing so," Rhodes added. "I can't say I'm as knowledgeable as others on 'channel-sharing,' but it seems that any loss in a station's allotted spectrum is giving away some future possibilities. We believe in the future of broadcast television in the small markets and look forward to expanding our station's offerings in the digital age."
The FCC proposals aimed at eventually re-purposing up to 120 MHz of spectrum for non-broadcast services also seek ways to boost VHF reception—potentially as a means for the FCC to expedite moving some broadcasters out of the more digital-friendly UHF band. But FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, prior to the unanimous NPRM vote, conceded in written remarks that improving VHF service would be difficult: "We looked everywhere we could during the DTV transition, and real remedies were few and far between. Let's hope the months ahead lead us to some genuine innovation," Copps said.
But Mark Aitken, director of advanced technology at Baltimore-based Sinclair Broadcast Group, thinks the VHF issue is simply a non-starter. "The FCC and everybody else knew for more than a decade that low-vee [VHF] wasn't going to work for digital broadcasting for all sorts of technical reasons. At channel 2, for example, there's upwards of a 20-db handicap in terms of receivability," Aitken said.
"For VHF, I don't think there are any solutions," said Cox Media's Davis, "and trying to solve them with technology isn't going to work. We pointed all this out at a [June 2010] meeting with the FCC. They were told there's no magical way to change physics to make that work. Everybody's abandoning [VHF] just as fast as they can because it doesn't work… Upping the power may help a bit, but it's not anywhere near what would solve the problem—which is, you can't increase [VHF] power because of interference."
Sterling Davis, vice president for technical operations, Cox Media Group
In his NPRM remarks, Copps also said, "It's no secret that I have been disappointed that so much of the spectrum dividend that accrued to broadcasters as a result of the DTV transition goes dramatically under-utilized. I am not interested in pushing broadcasters somewhere else…but public interest multicasting remains, all too often, a concept—not a reality."
TOO SOON?
Yet Sinclair's Aitken, whose group represents 58 stations in 35 markets, thinks it's been too soon since the June 2009 conversion to accurately judge how local broadcasters might still diversify their spectrum. "At this point, we're just getting our engines revved up. You've got stations out there doing deals on [multicast] programming that two years ago wouldn't have been possible, and we're doing it for real money—partly because we've become the new opening to markets for… programming that largely won't be accommodated within today's satellite-cable-fiber infrastructure."
A spokesman for Hearst Television and owner of 29 TV stations, said his group "fully concurs with NAB" on the issue. NAB, for its part, said after the November vote that "[we] have no quarrel with incentive auctions that are truly voluntary… [but] NAB will oppose government-mandated signal strength degradations or limitations—and new spectrum taxes that threaten the future of free and local broadcasting." In a Dec. 6 update to its members, NAB noted the FCC "would still need authority from Congress before it could move forward with any incentive spectrum auction."
Vincent Sadusky, president/CEO of Providence, RI-based LIN Media, which owns 32 stations in 17 markets, said he's hopeful in the end the NBP proposals will afford broadcasters "increased flexibility for innovative spectrum use, while ensuring that viewers do not lose access to free terrestrial services. Broadcasters should have the flexibility to provide free programming simultaneously using multiple standards—such as ATSC, ATSC-M/H, LTE, W-Max and so on—so important news and programming can be conveyed to consumers on a wide veariety of popular devices."
Reply comments to the NPRM are due Jan. 20, 2011.
_________________________________________________
And as always, the FCC will likely overstep its bounds here, as is typical of the current administration, and some engineers saying some of the proposed technical goals the commission wants to accomplish seem to defy the law of physics. Could that be because there are no technical or engineering types allowed on the FCC's Board any more?
Last edited:
Orange Julius is lying again
CES: Genachowski: More TV Spectrum Could Be Reclaimed Within Two Years
FCC Chairman Reiterates Warning About 'Spectrum Crunch'
By Todd Spangler -- Multichannel News, 1/7/2011 6:03:21 PM
Las Vegas — Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski reiterated his position that the U.S. faces a "spectrum crunch" and said that if the agency gets the Congressional go-ahead it could reclaim wireless spectrum from TV broadcasters and auction it within two years.
"We all know this will happen, unless enough people raise hell with their representatives in Washington, but there are just not enough people interested, or even aware that they are about to loose free over the air TV"
Genachowski, in a speech at the Consumer Electronics Show here Friday, said mobile broadband was critical to fueling the country's economic growth and keeping it globally competitive.
"So, can you tell me how this big waste of spectrum that includes facebook, twitter, my space, and online TV such as Direc TV NFL package and the History channels new live TV app is supposed to be "fueling the country's economic growth"?"
"The consumer electronics industry is going wireless... We need to free up more spectrum," Genachowski said. "Unleashing mobile spectrum is at the top of the FCC's 2011 agenda."
"Hey idiot (Genachowski) there is not enough spectrum in the entire range from DC to Daylight to satisfy all of the wireless products now envisioned by the electronics industry, and do we really need washing machines and refrigerators that are connected to the internet ?"
He added, "We could be in a position, if Congress acts, to auction this spectrum in the next year or two and get that on the market... Every day we have a delay we'll have a cost to the U.S. in terms of our global competitiveness."
"If Congress acts ( to rob the spectrum from its current users, and we all know that they will act on this), as they think this will save us from financial disaster, but how does filling the already full pockets of the spectrum barons really help the American economy, when all of that profit will not be reinvested, but will go to the stock holders instead?"
He called wireless spectrum "the oxygen that sustains our mobile devices," adding, "This invisible infrastructure is the backbone of a growing percentage of our economy and our lives."
"Genachowski is really out in left field here. Show us the proof that this is the great savior of our economy, before you rape an industry that has already suffered from the heavy hand of "Big Brother" or is he just acting on speculation and visions of big dollars in his bank account?"
In a response to Genachowski's prepared remarks, the National Association of Broadcasters noted that TV broadcasters just returned 108 MHz of spectrum -- nearly one-third of the industry's allocated resources -- to the federal government through the transition to digital TV.
"And the broadcasters are still paying off the debt of the Digital transition, and now since we have a bigger player eying a resource already in use by others, they will be stepped on again and now have to pay the ultimate price of extinction"
"Broadcasters have no quarrel with an incentive auction that is truly voluntary," NAB executive vice president of communications Dennis Wharton said. "Simply put, broadcast television is far and away the most efficient user of spectrum because of a 'one-to-many' transmission system that is remarkably reliable in a communications era best known for inconsistent 'one-to-one' cellphone connections."
""They have already lied about the voluntary aspect of the spectrum theft, and Genachowski even admitted it, so is that anything new? it seems they are blind in Washington, and the unfortunate Gifford's shooting won't do anything to change "Business As usual, which is the business of big business" to the detriment of the "PEOPLE" they are supposed to represent."
Genachowski did acknowledge that the 700-MHz band spectrum reclaimed with the digital TV transition in 2009 would help but that it wasn't going to be enough to meet demand.
"So since you are very poor leaders with no vision of the future, you are now going to destroy and industry whom you already have piled forced financial burden upon without looking to the future and seeing where this would lead? You are like a bunch of spoiled children who are never satisfied with enough. You ALWAYS want more than you deserve or are worthy of"
About 300 MHz of spectrum is set aside for TV broadcasters in the U.S. However, Genachowski said, the percentage of viewers who rely on over-the-air television -- rather than receiving their TV from cable and satellite services -- has declined to less than 10%.
"We all know that is an absolute BOLD FACE LIE, and these people will say anything to justify their actions, even to the point of lying to the public. Ok Orange Julius, show us your sources for these numbers, when EVERYONE ELSE INSIDE THE INDUSTRY KNOWS THIS IS NOT TRUE YOU LIAR"
The FCC chairman cited studies forecasting a 35-fold increase in mobile broadband usage over the next five years, and he said he felt that was probably conservative. "It's a huge gap and it's one we have to close," he said.
"He can site a study, but not show who did it, or where the numbers came from. Show us the study you quoted Orange Julius".
Voluntary incentive spectrum auctions are an essential tool for enabling mobile innovation, Genachowski said, pointing out that such auctions could generate billions of dollars for the U.S. government.
"Pointing out that such auctions could generate billions of dollars for the U.S. government. HERE IS THE HEART OF THE MATTER, it's all about the money. Lets just say "TO HELL" with the need for a reliable Emergency Communications network for the safety of the people when 'THE SAND PEOPLE" still want to annihilate this country and its people".
"How can we justify shielding broadcast spectrum from market forces?" he asked rhetorically. "It's time to take the necessary steps to ensure that spectrum will be the great enabler of mobile innovation in the 21st century, not a chokepoint."
"So Mobile inovation (READ DOLLARS) are more important than the safety and welfare OF ALL AMERICANS, not just the ones who can afford Cell Phones or Broadband access"
After his prepared remarks, Genachowski was interviewed by Consumer Electronics Association president and CEO Gary Shapiro -- who is clearly aligned with the FCC on the need for spectrum reclamation. Shapiro, in his keynote Thursday kicking off CES, accused broadcasters of "squatting on our broadband future" by not relinquishing spectrum.
Who is this guy to say that broadcasters are "squatting on our broadband future" I bet he would be reluctant to define "Our", and if he did, I would bet that it would not include OTA Broadcasters in his definition of "Our".
Last month, the FCC in a 3-2 vote approved network-neutrality rules, which forbid broadband providers from blocking or degrading access to websites or applications -- with provisions for reasonable network management -- and mandates that operators disclose their network management practices.
Shapiro questioned whether network neutrality rules would be necessary if there were a more competitive wireless broadband market. Genachowski responded, "Driving competition in the United States is incredibly important. Where there's insufficient competition we need to act."
So they don't view OTA as "Competition", and that will be especially true when they come knocking on the door to turn off the new transmitters forever, and then there will truly be no "Competition" left.
In a meeting with reporters afterward, when asked what the FCC would do if broadcasters did not voluntarily give back the spectrum, Genachowski said, "I think it will work... We've put together a proposal that I think will be appealing to the market."
"We've put together a proposal that I think will be appealing to the market", Yeah, it will be appealing the broadband market, and to hell with the OTA broadcast market or the consumer, lets give it all to the spectrum thieves. These people in DC are supposed to be doing "The Peoples Work", but robbing a natural resource from THE PEOPLE and giving it to private enterprise purely for profit is not my vision of "THE PEOPLES WORK", and no matter how anyone spins this, that is what they are planning to do, regardless of what THE PEOPLE want.
Genachowski declined to comment about the FCC's review of the Comcast deal for NBC Universal. "It's moving forward in the review process," he said.
The FCC is due to vote on whether to approve Comcast's deal for NBC Universal. The commission is expected approve the transaction, but possibly with dissents on individual conditions, Multichannel News reported.
At the outset of his speech, Genachowski ribbed Shapiro for promoting his new book, The Comeback: How Innovation Will Restore the American Dream, with posters plastered all over the Las Vegas Convention Center. He quipped that the CEA chief had made CES "the most elaborate book-launch party in history.
END OF ARTICLE
What they are doing here is criminal, simply because of the complicated way the internet works. Cell phones will be useless in a major power outage, but the one to hundreds of thousands method of broadcasting can still reach the potential hundreds of thousands of people at the SAME TIME during an extended Power Outage. DTV receivers are now available that can run on DC battery power, and even solar cells.
How is your precious Cell Phone going to work when the cell site near your house has been without power for days, and all of the millions of broadband routers that make up the infrastructure are off due to the power issues, and you will not even have a workable way to know why all of this is happening because your friendly Government took away a reliable Emergency Communications method, and replaced it with one that is filled with potential failure points. UNFORTUNATELY, your chosen method of communications WILL NOT WORK without electricityy to power the enormously complicated Cell and Broadband infrastructure that all of today's digital idiots think we should rely on for our nations safety and Emergency communications.
The revenue and tax potential is blinding everyone to the original reason Broadcasters where given access to THE PEOPLES AIRWAVES. The FED seems to think it belongs to them, and tax dollars and revenue for a small handful of investors or stock holders, and filling their own pockets full of dollars in the process, gives them the right to give away a PUBLICLY OWNED RESOURCE to greedy robber barons for private profits.
I think the PUBLIC'S AIRWAVES should be a source of revenue for the PEOPLE,or should at least be used for the good of ALL OF THE PEOPLE, and not a cash cow for the broadband and Cell Phone industry. Take some of these obscene profits and put them towards this countries debt, and then it could be somewhat justified, as that could be declared as equal to the "PUBLIC SERVICE" that broadcasters now provide for their use of THE PUBLIC'S AIRWAVES !
They simply do not have any type of regulation or mandate to use the spectrum for the good of everyone, and they want their cake to eat without any stipulations involved that could hinder the rivers of cash that we all know will be flowing into their greedy pockets once the theft of the airwaves is complete, and it will be complete if they have their way and ignore the will of THE PEOPLE once again like they always do when TAX DOLLARS OR PRIVATE PROFIT is concerned.
CES: Genachowski: More TV Spectrum Could Be Reclaimed Within Two Years
FCC Chairman Reiterates Warning About 'Spectrum Crunch'
By Todd Spangler -- Multichannel News, 1/7/2011 6:03:21 PM
Las Vegas — Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski reiterated his position that the U.S. faces a "spectrum crunch" and said that if the agency gets the Congressional go-ahead it could reclaim wireless spectrum from TV broadcasters and auction it within two years.
"We all know this will happen, unless enough people raise hell with their representatives in Washington, but there are just not enough people interested, or even aware that they are about to loose free over the air TV"
Genachowski, in a speech at the Consumer Electronics Show here Friday, said mobile broadband was critical to fueling the country's economic growth and keeping it globally competitive.
"So, can you tell me how this big waste of spectrum that includes facebook, twitter, my space, and online TV such as Direc TV NFL package and the History channels new live TV app is supposed to be "fueling the country's economic growth"?"
"The consumer electronics industry is going wireless... We need to free up more spectrum," Genachowski said. "Unleashing mobile spectrum is at the top of the FCC's 2011 agenda."
"Hey idiot (Genachowski) there is not enough spectrum in the entire range from DC to Daylight to satisfy all of the wireless products now envisioned by the electronics industry, and do we really need washing machines and refrigerators that are connected to the internet ?"
He added, "We could be in a position, if Congress acts, to auction this spectrum in the next year or two and get that on the market... Every day we have a delay we'll have a cost to the U.S. in terms of our global competitiveness."
"If Congress acts ( to rob the spectrum from its current users, and we all know that they will act on this), as they think this will save us from financial disaster, but how does filling the already full pockets of the spectrum barons really help the American economy, when all of that profit will not be reinvested, but will go to the stock holders instead?"
He called wireless spectrum "the oxygen that sustains our mobile devices," adding, "This invisible infrastructure is the backbone of a growing percentage of our economy and our lives."
"Genachowski is really out in left field here. Show us the proof that this is the great savior of our economy, before you rape an industry that has already suffered from the heavy hand of "Big Brother" or is he just acting on speculation and visions of big dollars in his bank account?"
In a response to Genachowski's prepared remarks, the National Association of Broadcasters noted that TV broadcasters just returned 108 MHz of spectrum -- nearly one-third of the industry's allocated resources -- to the federal government through the transition to digital TV.
"And the broadcasters are still paying off the debt of the Digital transition, and now since we have a bigger player eying a resource already in use by others, they will be stepped on again and now have to pay the ultimate price of extinction"
"Broadcasters have no quarrel with an incentive auction that is truly voluntary," NAB executive vice president of communications Dennis Wharton said. "Simply put, broadcast television is far and away the most efficient user of spectrum because of a 'one-to-many' transmission system that is remarkably reliable in a communications era best known for inconsistent 'one-to-one' cellphone connections."
""They have already lied about the voluntary aspect of the spectrum theft, and Genachowski even admitted it, so is that anything new? it seems they are blind in Washington, and the unfortunate Gifford's shooting won't do anything to change "Business As usual, which is the business of big business" to the detriment of the "PEOPLE" they are supposed to represent."
Genachowski did acknowledge that the 700-MHz band spectrum reclaimed with the digital TV transition in 2009 would help but that it wasn't going to be enough to meet demand.
"So since you are very poor leaders with no vision of the future, you are now going to destroy and industry whom you already have piled forced financial burden upon without looking to the future and seeing where this would lead? You are like a bunch of spoiled children who are never satisfied with enough. You ALWAYS want more than you deserve or are worthy of"
About 300 MHz of spectrum is set aside for TV broadcasters in the U.S. However, Genachowski said, the percentage of viewers who rely on over-the-air television -- rather than receiving their TV from cable and satellite services -- has declined to less than 10%.
"We all know that is an absolute BOLD FACE LIE, and these people will say anything to justify their actions, even to the point of lying to the public. Ok Orange Julius, show us your sources for these numbers, when EVERYONE ELSE INSIDE THE INDUSTRY KNOWS THIS IS NOT TRUE YOU LIAR"
The FCC chairman cited studies forecasting a 35-fold increase in mobile broadband usage over the next five years, and he said he felt that was probably conservative. "It's a huge gap and it's one we have to close," he said.
"He can site a study, but not show who did it, or where the numbers came from. Show us the study you quoted Orange Julius".
Voluntary incentive spectrum auctions are an essential tool for enabling mobile innovation, Genachowski said, pointing out that such auctions could generate billions of dollars for the U.S. government.
"Pointing out that such auctions could generate billions of dollars for the U.S. government. HERE IS THE HEART OF THE MATTER, it's all about the money. Lets just say "TO HELL" with the need for a reliable Emergency Communications network for the safety of the people when 'THE SAND PEOPLE" still want to annihilate this country and its people".
"How can we justify shielding broadcast spectrum from market forces?" he asked rhetorically. "It's time to take the necessary steps to ensure that spectrum will be the great enabler of mobile innovation in the 21st century, not a chokepoint."
"So Mobile inovation (READ DOLLARS) are more important than the safety and welfare OF ALL AMERICANS, not just the ones who can afford Cell Phones or Broadband access"
After his prepared remarks, Genachowski was interviewed by Consumer Electronics Association president and CEO Gary Shapiro -- who is clearly aligned with the FCC on the need for spectrum reclamation. Shapiro, in his keynote Thursday kicking off CES, accused broadcasters of "squatting on our broadband future" by not relinquishing spectrum.
Who is this guy to say that broadcasters are "squatting on our broadband future" I bet he would be reluctant to define "Our", and if he did, I would bet that it would not include OTA Broadcasters in his definition of "Our".
Last month, the FCC in a 3-2 vote approved network-neutrality rules, which forbid broadband providers from blocking or degrading access to websites or applications -- with provisions for reasonable network management -- and mandates that operators disclose their network management practices.
Shapiro questioned whether network neutrality rules would be necessary if there were a more competitive wireless broadband market. Genachowski responded, "Driving competition in the United States is incredibly important. Where there's insufficient competition we need to act."
So they don't view OTA as "Competition", and that will be especially true when they come knocking on the door to turn off the new transmitters forever, and then there will truly be no "Competition" left.
In a meeting with reporters afterward, when asked what the FCC would do if broadcasters did not voluntarily give back the spectrum, Genachowski said, "I think it will work... We've put together a proposal that I think will be appealing to the market."
"We've put together a proposal that I think will be appealing to the market", Yeah, it will be appealing the broadband market, and to hell with the OTA broadcast market or the consumer, lets give it all to the spectrum thieves. These people in DC are supposed to be doing "The Peoples Work", but robbing a natural resource from THE PEOPLE and giving it to private enterprise purely for profit is not my vision of "THE PEOPLES WORK", and no matter how anyone spins this, that is what they are planning to do, regardless of what THE PEOPLE want.
Genachowski declined to comment about the FCC's review of the Comcast deal for NBC Universal. "It's moving forward in the review process," he said.
The FCC is due to vote on whether to approve Comcast's deal for NBC Universal. The commission is expected approve the transaction, but possibly with dissents on individual conditions, Multichannel News reported.
At the outset of his speech, Genachowski ribbed Shapiro for promoting his new book, The Comeback: How Innovation Will Restore the American Dream, with posters plastered all over the Las Vegas Convention Center. He quipped that the CEA chief had made CES "the most elaborate book-launch party in history.
END OF ARTICLE
What they are doing here is criminal, simply because of the complicated way the internet works. Cell phones will be useless in a major power outage, but the one to hundreds of thousands method of broadcasting can still reach the potential hundreds of thousands of people at the SAME TIME during an extended Power Outage. DTV receivers are now available that can run on DC battery power, and even solar cells.
How is your precious Cell Phone going to work when the cell site near your house has been without power for days, and all of the millions of broadband routers that make up the infrastructure are off due to the power issues, and you will not even have a workable way to know why all of this is happening because your friendly Government took away a reliable Emergency Communications method, and replaced it with one that is filled with potential failure points. UNFORTUNATELY, your chosen method of communications WILL NOT WORK without electricityy to power the enormously complicated Cell and Broadband infrastructure that all of today's digital idiots think we should rely on for our nations safety and Emergency communications.
The revenue and tax potential is blinding everyone to the original reason Broadcasters where given access to THE PEOPLES AIRWAVES. The FED seems to think it belongs to them, and tax dollars and revenue for a small handful of investors or stock holders, and filling their own pockets full of dollars in the process, gives them the right to give away a PUBLICLY OWNED RESOURCE to greedy robber barons for private profits.
I think the PUBLIC'S AIRWAVES should be a source of revenue for the PEOPLE,or should at least be used for the good of ALL OF THE PEOPLE, and not a cash cow for the broadband and Cell Phone industry. Take some of these obscene profits and put them towards this countries debt, and then it could be somewhat justified, as that could be declared as equal to the "PUBLIC SERVICE" that broadcasters now provide for their use of THE PUBLIC'S AIRWAVES !
They simply do not have any type of regulation or mandate to use the spectrum for the good of everyone, and they want their cake to eat without any stipulations involved that could hinder the rivers of cash that we all know will be flowing into their greedy pockets once the theft of the airwaves is complete, and it will be complete if they have their way and ignore the will of THE PEOPLE once again like they always do when TAX DOLLARS OR PRIVATE PROFIT is concerned.
Last edited:
$1.2 MILLION INDECENCY FINE AGAINST ABC TV STATIONS overturned !!
SECOND CIRCUIT OVERTURNS FCC $1.2 MILLION
INDECENCY FINE AGAINST ABC TV STATIONS
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has—for the second time in less than a year—earlier this month rejected as unconstitutional an attempt by the Federal Communications Commission to fine stations for broadcasting material the FCC claimed was indecent and threw out $1.2 million in fines imposed against 43 ABC-affiliated and ABC-owned television stations. These two decisions pave the way for the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of the FCC’s indecency regulations—and until the Supreme Court rules, the validity of the FCC’s indecency enforcement policies are in doubt.
The recent decision in ABC Inc. et al. v. FCC, issued on January 4, 2011, arose from a 2003 episode of NYPD Blue in which the nude buttocks of one of the characters was visible to viewers. In 2008, the FCC issued a Forfeiture Order declaring the depiction of the nude buttocks for less than seven second indecent and fining 43 ABC-affiliated stations a total of $1.2 million. The ABC Network, the ABC Television Affiliates Association, and the ABC-affiliated stations petitioned the Second Circuit to review the Forfeiture Order.
In throwing out the penalties, the Second Circuit relied almost entirely on its 2010 decision in Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, which rejected as unconstitutional the FCC’s attempt to fine Fox stations for airing “fleeting, unscripted” expletives uttered during the Billboard Music Awards shows in 2002 and 2003. In Fox, the Court held that the FCC’s indecency policy was unconstitutionally vague because it gave too much discretion to the Commission to decide what constitutes indecency without giving sufficient guidance to broadcasters to know what material would be deemed indecent.
In the NYPD Blue opinion, the Court made clear that Fox had invalidated the FCC’s entire indecency scheme, not just its “fleeting expletive” policy. Because the indecency policy had already been rejected in Fox, the NYPD Blue fines were similarly invalidated. In essence, the Court held that the Fox decision mandated that it also reject the NYPD Blue fines.
The stage is now set for the Supreme Court to examine squarely the constitutionality of the Commission’s indecency policy. In 2009, when the Fox case first reached the Supreme Court, the Court upheld the “fleeting expletive” policy on procedural grounds, but sent the case back to the Second Circuit to address whether the policy comports with the First Amendment. The Second Circuit held that it did not. The FCC had asked the Second Circuit to re-hear the Fox case, but that request was rejected in November 2010. Thus, the Commission’s next step is to appeal again to the Supreme Court, this time to review the constitutional issue. The Commission must file its appeal by February 21, 2011.
The Third Circuit is still reviewing its decision—also on remand from the Supreme Court—overturning as arbitrary and capricious the FCC’s $550,000 fine against CBS stations arising from Janet Jackson’s performance during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show.
SECOND CIRCUIT OVERTURNS FCC $1.2 MILLION
INDECENCY FINE AGAINST ABC TV STATIONS
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has—for the second time in less than a year—earlier this month rejected as unconstitutional an attempt by the Federal Communications Commission to fine stations for broadcasting material the FCC claimed was indecent and threw out $1.2 million in fines imposed against 43 ABC-affiliated and ABC-owned television stations. These two decisions pave the way for the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of the FCC’s indecency regulations—and until the Supreme Court rules, the validity of the FCC’s indecency enforcement policies are in doubt.
The recent decision in ABC Inc. et al. v. FCC, issued on January 4, 2011, arose from a 2003 episode of NYPD Blue in which the nude buttocks of one of the characters was visible to viewers. In 2008, the FCC issued a Forfeiture Order declaring the depiction of the nude buttocks for less than seven second indecent and fining 43 ABC-affiliated stations a total of $1.2 million. The ABC Network, the ABC Television Affiliates Association, and the ABC-affiliated stations petitioned the Second Circuit to review the Forfeiture Order.
In throwing out the penalties, the Second Circuit relied almost entirely on its 2010 decision in Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, which rejected as unconstitutional the FCC’s attempt to fine Fox stations for airing “fleeting, unscripted” expletives uttered during the Billboard Music Awards shows in 2002 and 2003. In Fox, the Court held that the FCC’s indecency policy was unconstitutionally vague because it gave too much discretion to the Commission to decide what constitutes indecency without giving sufficient guidance to broadcasters to know what material would be deemed indecent.
In the NYPD Blue opinion, the Court made clear that Fox had invalidated the FCC’s entire indecency scheme, not just its “fleeting expletive” policy. Because the indecency policy had already been rejected in Fox, the NYPD Blue fines were similarly invalidated. In essence, the Court held that the Fox decision mandated that it also reject the NYPD Blue fines.
The stage is now set for the Supreme Court to examine squarely the constitutionality of the Commission’s indecency policy. In 2009, when the Fox case first reached the Supreme Court, the Court upheld the “fleeting expletive” policy on procedural grounds, but sent the case back to the Second Circuit to address whether the policy comports with the First Amendment. The Second Circuit held that it did not. The FCC had asked the Second Circuit to re-hear the Fox case, but that request was rejected in November 2010. Thus, the Commission’s next step is to appeal again to the Supreme Court, this time to review the constitutional issue. The Commission must file its appeal by February 21, 2011.
The Third Circuit is still reviewing its decision—also on remand from the Supreme Court—overturning as arbitrary and capricious the FCC’s $550,000 fine against CBS stations arising from Janet Jackson’s performance during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show.