July 26, 2006 Some important FCC developments concerning the future of the broadcast band
By J.H. Snider Truth, Justice, and Telecom Policy http://quixote.blogs.com/telecompolicy/2006/07/some_important_.html While media reform activists have been preoccupied with telecom legislation on the Hill and the media ownership proceeding at the FCC, the NAB has been quietly moving ahead with critical initiatives at the FCC, especially in the radio bands. Here are some of the highlights: 1) The NAB has asked the FCC to drastically restrict the use of FM modulators in the FM band (See Report to National Association of Broadcasters Regarding Study and Measurements of Part 15 Devices Operating in the FM Broadcast Band by MSW, dated June 2, 2006 and later submitted to the FCC). FM modulators are unlicensed devices that use the white spaces between licensed channels in the FM band. Tens of millions are used by portable music players such as the iPod and satellite radio services such as XM Satellite. The NAB tested 17 FM modulators and found that 14 of the 17 were operating illegally. The NAB claims they use too much power and have out-of-band emissions and that this cause severe problems for the broadcasters' new digital radio (IBOC) service. Let's assume for the moment that these devices are indeed operating at higher than allowed power limits. Why would manufacturers do this and, if this has been a problem, why haven't more consumer complained about interference on current radio channels? In large markets with crowded radio dials such as in Washington, DC and New York, FM modulators tend not to work as well because of the strong nearby channels. So perhaps there is an incentive to provide FM modulators with higher power to deal with such situations. If so, why is this harmful? Why shouldn't I be able to listen to the music I want in my own car? Why not flip the question and ask whether the power levels the FCC granted for unlicensed devices operating in the FM white space are too low? If my use of an FM modulator harms the reception of an incumbent terrestrial radio broadcaster's channel in my own car, what potential harm does that do to anyone but myself? Why would I possibly care if the whole purpose of the FM modulator is to provide myself with more listening options by bypassing the radio programming of incumbent terrestrial radio broadcasters? Note that FM modulators only use empty radio channels within a given radio market, so even if two cars pass immediately adjacent to each other, there is no effect on an incumbent radio broadcaster. The only interference could be between the two FM modulators using the same channel. If the problem is out-of-band emissions, it's probably reasonable to throw the book at the manufacturers. But, if the real problem is slightly higher power levels, I think the broadcasters public interest argument is much harder. 2) The NAB has petitioned the FCC to allow AM radio broadcasters to acquire available FM frequencies for FM translator service within their own protected coverage areas (see Petition for Rulemaking of the National Association of Broadcasters to Permit AM Radio Stations' Use of FM Translators, July 17, 2006). The argument is that there are lots of gaps in AM coverage, especially at night when many stations are required to operate at lower power. The FM translators would thus allow the AM radio broadcasters to provide better broadcast service to the public. One of the most interesting features of the petition is the broadcasters' claims about all the wonderful public service they provide: more than $5 billion worth. The question is: why should the AM broadcasters be the recipient of such a huge spectrum giveaway? Might that spectrum be put to better alternative use? Note that each AM channel is 20 kHz wide (40 kHz after the digital radio transition) whereas each FM channel is 200 kHz wide (400 kHz after the digital radio transition). 3) Lastly, there is the big enchilada: FM multicasting rights, which are expected to come up for a vote at the FCC in the next few weeks. I have already written extensively about this proceeding on my blog and do not want to repeat myself here. But the key point is that this is pretty much the last time to point out to the FCC that it has given radio broadcasters double their licensed spectrum and the capacity to provide up to 20 times their current service levels (e.g., up to 20 FM programming streams per license) without asking for anything in return. Little noticed in the upcoming vote is that in addition to the report and order on multicasting (and other IBOC) issues, there is a further notice of proposed rulemaking that will cover such issues as the future of free radio and other public service obligations. I'd like the FCC to ask some of the following questions in this NPRM: should FM broadcasters be allowed to transition 95% or more of their spectrum to fee only services? If so, should they pay a tax/fee on those services? If not, why is there such a different taxing philosophy for fee-based TV and other telecommunications services? In other words, why should radio broadcasting be exempt from the principle of technological neutrality and regulatory convergence? Another issue concerns royalty fees for use of new digital FM radio devices. Unlike the current generation of analog FM radios, the largest incumbent radio broadcasters control patents on the digital radio standard and get a significant royalty fee whenever a digital radio is purchased. In the new world of digital radio services, this could pose a big problem. For example, let's suppose that the FCC ultimately decides that indoor GPS is a vital public service. America already has a free satellite delivered GPS service (thanks to the military), but it only works outdoors. Mobile telephone companies also provide a terrestrial GPS service that works indoors, but users have to subscribe to a mobile telephone service to receive this service and it doesn't work with unlicensed devices. I've been told that FM broadcasters intend to provide an indoor GPS service (the FM band is considered the gold standard for indoor GPS because of its ability to penetrate walls, even the concrete cinder blocks in my child's elementary school). The question is whether they will be able to charge for indoor GPS service or whether it should be provided as a free service, perhaps linked to America's new emergency alert system for location based alerts. And if it should be provided as a free service, should it be available inexpensively for unlicensed devices and other devices not primarily using the broadcast band? If, to pick up a "free" indoor GPS signal, an unlicensed device has to add $10 in royalties for a chip that costs only 10 cents to produce, is this in the public interest? In the TV band, I want to report on only one item. On July 18, 2006 the FCC released a notice granting digital licenses to translators and low power TV stations. This puts the final touches on one of the greatest FCC scams since the enactment of the Communications Act of 1934. In September 2004 the FCC granted TV translators and low power stations the digital rights it so controversially granted high power TV stations in 1997. But it actually went far beyond the grant of rights given to high power broadcasters in 1997. In the name of preserving and enhancing broadcast service, it has essentially allowed TV translators and low power TV the option to exit the broadcasting business, something it didn't dare to do for high power TV in 1997. Giving away all the rights in the name of providing more broadcast service is especially outrageous in the year 2006 because rural broadcast service can now be provided much more efficiently via local-into-local satellite TV and rural communities and Congress are crying out for more spectrum for rural broadband service. The FCC should use its new DBS proceeding to create a free local-into-local satellite TV service (see my comments on Docket 06-123), and be done with rural TV translators once and for all so that spectrum can be reallocated for broadband service. In December 2004 NAF and MAP filed a petition for reconsideration to prevent the FCC from continuing with this extraordinary giveaway of spectrum assets to incumbent licensees. The FCC did nothing for close to a year and then chose to simply ignore our petition. This public notice is the fruit of that outcome. Any petition to deny these free spectrum rights must be submitted to the FCC by August 17, 2006. So, in conclusion, I don't want to in any way dispute the importance of the high profile telecom debates currently raging in Washington, DC. But it's dangerous for us to ignore the low profile but still vital telecommunications policy issues that have been put into play. Of all the issues I've raised above, I believe that the future of FM modulators (unlicensed service in the FM band) may have the most political salience and be the best news story. Millions of iPod and satellite radio users could be quite interested to learn that the FCC says they are doing something illegal when using an unused radio channel within their own car or home. ================================ George Antunes, Political Science Dept University of Houston; Houston, TX 77204 Voice: 713-743-3923 Fax: 713-743-3927 antunes at uh dot edu Reply with a "Thank you" if you liked this post. _____________________________ MEDIANEWS mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
