Spectrum Wars: The Hidden Battle

PacketMaster writes: "The USA Today is carrying an interesting commentary entitled All-but-secret battle rages over fate of airwaves. The article sheds light on some topics that many people are completely ignorant on - the fight over the broadcast spectrum. The most interesting tidbit is that the current broadcasters, who were given the new digital spectrum for applications like HDTV for free, now want to keep their old ones too and auction them off for industry profit to help pay for the transition to the new spectrum."

Comments

socialize costs, privatize profits

[gokubi]

Gore Vidal, the great American essayist, novelist and playright said, "When you hear the word privitization, there is a burglar lurking."

Midair collisions

[Erasei]

I think one of the problems we will start seeing before long is interference. With more and more people/devices crowding into a static amount of space (until more of the spectrum is released) it is bound to get a little bumpy. How long until your wireless network won't work when you sign on to your local wireless "last-mile" provider?

Digital Radio

[Anonymous Coward]

I think digital radio would be a logical first step before digital TV - there's tons of wasted spectrum b/c of the pathetically outdated mandatory distance frequencies.

Fix the easy stuff first (or at least concurrently).

Re:Digital Radio

[John Miles]

It's not clear what you mean by "wasted spectrum," or what benefits you expect to come from reclaiming it.

The entire AM broadcast band takes up the same bandwidth as one-fourth of a conventional TV channel. Like the entire MF/HF spectrum, it's completely useless for anything besides voice communication due to limited bandwidth and excessive noise.

The entire FM broadcast band occupies the equivalent of 5 TV channels. Any attempt to monkey with the FM BC allocation will render hundreds of millions of home and car radios obsolete. If you think DTV is a political boondoggle that offers insufficient benefits to consumers, you wouldn't want to think about messing with FM.

Re:Digital Radio

[silicon_synapse]

There are several providers of satellite radio. The target market is mostly high end cars. Two popular ones are Sirius Radio and XM Radio. If I had the money, I'd love to give it a try. I believe they're subscription based, but it's probably well worth it. Has anyone here used such a service?

Where are the Politicians?

[eander315]

Maybe some reporter, somewhere, now will decide to focus his or her attention on a potential $200-billion rape of the American taxpayer.

Aren't our elected officials supposed to at least TRY to protect their electorate from this kind of thing? $200 BILLION is a lot of money! I don't think we should have to rely on one or two reporters to stop a $200 BILLION theft. It would be nice if our elected officials would stop counting their kickbacks, bribes and lobbyist money and start doing their jobs.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something, but...

[LordNimon]

Or are they just inefficiently allocated or something?

You think?

The rest of the world waits until the U.S. is finished making the mistakes that often come when a new technology is introduced. The problem is that once we realize we've made mistakes, our "solution" is to patch things up, not throw the whole thing out and start over. In the meantime, the rest of the world says, "Ok, the U.S. has invented this technology and discovered some of the problems. Now how can we implement it correctly?"

nice summary

[S. Allen]

The public knows little about this; even some experts are unaware of the machinations. Not surprisingly, television has not covered it. But the consequences, for all of us, are staggering. Given the stakes, and the power of the players, it will get attention eventually ? but if past experience is any guide, only after the critical decisions have been made. Maybe some reporter, somewhere, now will decide to focus his or her attention on a potential $200-billion rape of the American taxpayer.

The machinations on Capitol Hill are increasingly out of control. Of course the broadcasters will get their cake and eat it too (selling spectrum they were given for free) since they only have to funnel a small % of the proceeds to suddenly supportive senators.
Let's dispense with the formalities and just post a large for-sale sign outside the capitol:

laws and regulations starting in the low 500's. modern and convenient. spaciously appointed. no need to wait.

US problems

[jahjeremy]

The most damning quote:

After Congress gave broadcasters public airwaves worth $70 billion -- or far more -- on the condition that they would return their analog spectrum to the public in a timely fashion, they now want to keep both, auction one off and pocket the proceeds!

Reeks of typical American corporate machinations.
1) Get something for the government for free / dirt cheap.
2) Go back on the contract / agreement.
3) Make bucketloads of cash.
4) Government (and taxpayers) suck it up

With analog TV, digital TV, satellite TV, cellphones, emergency services, police and fire communications, etc., we have a serious shortage of spectrum.

Rather than a a shortage of bandwidth, I think the true problem in the States is a lack of decent, informed, relatively unbiased regulation headed by the Fed and too many interested parties such as corporations with a lot of money and lawyers.

HDTV is a disaster

[YIAAL]

The whole HDTV plan is a disaster. No one is buying HDTV (and, reports to the contrary, I don't think it looks significantly better, so I don't think anyone will). You can't force people to buy it, and you can't deploy it when no one has it.

It's a spectrum-hungry technology that no one really wants. Plus, it's a big selloff to companies that don't deserve the help.

Real Privatization

[Arandir]

This quasi-privatization of the airwaves combines the worst of both worlds, with few, if any, of the best. All the worst of government regulation, and all the worst of business since they control a product which someone else owns.

Let's have real privatization of the airwaves. Yes, their is a fixed amount of frequencies available, but the market works for other fixed resources, like real estate. Will there be some large players that will grab up large chunks of frequencies? Of course! But I would rather have half a dozen mega conglomerates competing with each other, than a single government agency accountable to no one at all. (and of course, government regulation has done nothing to hinder the current crop of megacorps, but plenty to keep the small independent off the market)

How would it work in practice? Just take a look at the internet. Next to zero regulation, backbones that in many areas are fixed resources, heavy commercialization, yet there are unlimited opportunities for individuals, non-profits, and other noncommercial organizations.

Re:Real Privatization

[Arandir]

If the airwaves were NOT regulated, then what is to stop me from broadcasting at the same frequency you are? If you start talking about protocols or laws, then you are sliding down the path to regulation.

Privatizing the airwaves means that frequencies would be owned just like any other property. Without government regulation it will be harder to protect and defend these properties (just like the lack of trespass laws would make it harder to defend your home), but it can be done.

In an anarcho-capitalist society (as an example), if everyone started broadcasting on whatever frequency seemed most convenient at the time, very shortly all of the broadcasters would agree on certain rules of the road, and enforce them through contracts. In an anarcho-socialist society (to take another example), individuals and companies could not own property, but syndicates and collectives would manage the unowned resources (they would "own" those resources in all but name) and they would make similar agreements with each other regarding the airwaves.

The management of the airwaves is an old and settled topic on both the libertarian and socialist spectrum. Only those advocating mixed economies still consider it an insoluble problem.

The airwaves belong just as much to me as they do to anybody else; don't be so eager about taking away my property.

When a certain resource is limited, property is the most efficient means of allocating it. Even under pure socialist dogma, property will still exist in all but name. Consider other limited resources, like airspace. Private airports are every bit as efficient as public airports in managing the use of the airspace around them.

Of course, the airwaves are much more complicated than other forms of property, even intellectual property. How can you own something that is everywhere? How can someone else be justified in owning broadcast rights for a frequency that anyone can receive anywhere? The problem is, the airwaves are still limited, and in order to be of use, someone has to control/own them, and odds are it won't be you. It might be the government (who still won't let you broacast on them despite the fact that they give lip service to the public being the actual owners), a corporation, a cooperative, a wealthy individual, etc.

Sure you get a single vote with the government. But you also get multiple votes with commercial firms. With governments it's a winner-take-all election, but with business it's a share-the-pie arrangement. Piss off enough customers and see your market share erode. Please everyone in the world and you'll still have competition.

It's TV

[Anonymous Coward]

The US gives a lot of spectrum to TV (and the military, but that's another story). So, Americans are behind in cell phone technology, but get to watch more TV channels (even without cable).Network Magazine has an interesting article about this.

For those of you who didn't read the article...

[trcooper]

Which seems to be quite a few knee-jerk posters...

The point of the article was that the broadcast industry wants to profit from the sale of the analog spectrum they agreed to return to the public in 2006. They were given the new spectrum, valued at over 70 billion, for free. So, they want to take our property, and sell it.

In addition the current military spectrum is very much desired. The military would either like to keep it, or obtain the anaolog spectrum from broadcasters. Some folks in congress want to auction off the military spectrum, and the debate is whether the money goes to the military to help convert to another spectrum, or to other programs.

Re:They want their cake AND eat it?

[Detritus]

It isn't "their spectrum" in the first place. They hold licenses to broadcast in the public interest and convenience. The licenses are not a property right, they are a privilege that can be modified or terminated at any time. Sometimes they forget that.

Eben Moglen talked about this 4 years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Eben Moglen (Prof. at Columbia Univ. and General Counsel for the FSF) was talking about the spectrum giveaway to TV broadcasters 4 years ago. See here. Interesting historical perspective.

Re:OT: What's up with this?

[Fat Casper]

Because it is valuable public property, it gets auctioned off- if it's being used for commercial (private profits) interests, the people deserve to be paid fairly for it.

DTV != HDTV

[dragons_flight]

Digital Television != High Definition Television.

Of course HDTV typically has a digital signal (some countries actually have tried analog high-def signals), but digital television just means using a digital signal instead of analog and that can include the contemporary TV format.

Afterall digital cable companies and satelite providers already commonly transmit digital signals of contemporary sized and formatted television programs.

The plan was to transmit over air TV signals digitally because it is a more efficient use of spectrum than analog and then retire the analog transmissions once there was sufficient penetration of TVs that could read and decode digital signals.

Of course the companies would like to get everyone behind the higher res, wider, bandwidth hungry HDTV format and spew that all over the air waves as well or exclusively, but personally that seems more like a marketing gimmick than an especially useful technology. Even if digital broadcasting takes off, don't expect all the shows on the air to be HDTV formatted, at least not any time soon.

Information on spectrum giveaway and renewal

[Sarcasmooo!]

The digital spectrum, estimated to be worth $70 billion, was given away in 1996, to existing broadcasters. Prior to that, the spectrum was public property due to be auctioned off to broadcasters; after all, who but the public as a whole could be justified in having defacto ownership of something so widespread and intangible? Auctions like these created a balance of public interests, and offered opportunities to American businesses. By 'renting' this public property, business could flourish while operating under guidelines that ensured the public's airwaves would serve the public good. A plutocratic minority would love to tell you about how the evil government is censoring their broadcasts, but the truth is that airwaves that are won through these auctions are regulated by a 'public good' that is defined by public commentary to the FCC. These auctions are the ultimate example of free-market in a democracy, because the buck stops at the people.

But with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, it was Trent Lott who prohibited the auctions, and forced the FCC to give licenses away. The act also prohibited consideration of anyone but the renewal applicant for the license, assuring that only the owners of the ill-gotten licenses would be keeping them, and I quote:

`(4) COMPETITOR CONSIDERATION PROHIBITED- In making the
determinations specified in paragraph (1) or (2), the
Commission shall not consider whether the public interest,
convenience, and necessity might be served by the grant of a
license to a person other than the renewal applicant.'.

You do the math.

Deciding whether to side with the FCC or with Corporate America in this matter is easy. I live in a democracy; if I don't like the government I can run for office and change it. I don't like Carnivore, Echelon, the DMCA, and I would like to play a significant role in having the NSA and the CIA dissolved and opened to the scrutiny of the world. Why does it work this way when 90% of the country, left and right, libertarian and conservative, doesn't like it? Why can't I change the way this government works? It's because no one takes office without large corporate donors behind them, and no one campaigns without the millions of dollars needed to get themselves on corporate airwaves. The public would never know your name, and that would gaurantee you a sideline seat for the election debates that, by the way, happen to be corporate-sponsored as well. It's one big joke.

Sirius Radio

[dpilot]

Aren't they a subsidiary of Sirius Cybernetics?

You know, the inventors of the talking doors...

The first ones with their back against the wall when the revolution comes.

No, we won't see problems with interference

[megalomang]

The reason that the spectrum is partitioned off is precisely why we won't have interference. Each band is regulated and has either sufficient guard band so that the energy "leakage" into adjacent bands is minimal or simply has a prescribed permissable leakage that the adjacent band can tolerate.

Digital communication is inherently immune to noise caused by several types of interference. Many channel encoding schemes exist precisely to deal with interference that is typical of the frequency range of the band, doppler effects, echoes, etc. Yes, there is a statistically small amount of bit error you will receive given a statistically small amount of noise energy present in the band, but there is no recent trend of rising noise energy in any given frequency band.

So don't worry, your phone, tv, AM/FM radio, talkabout, bluetooth device, etc will not eventually stop working due to the noise level passing some magic threshold.

For more info, look at the frequency allocation on the FCC web pages:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf