A number of news sources report that the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and the Association for Maximum Service Television (MSTV) have begun print advertisements and television commercials in the Washington DC metropolitan area that rail against the potential use of vacant television broadcast channels by portable license-exempt devices. Reportedly, the television advertisements feature a classic scaremongering technique - displaying a simulation of potential impaired television reception of a television broadcast of a (Washington Redskins) football game because of interference from a license-exempt whitespace communications device.
Apparently the advertisements are merely the opening salvo of a much bigger campaign. A well-respected "Communications industry insider's publication" reports that the advertising blitz begins "an all-out fight", to be followed by an extensive and well-financed in-person lobbying campaign from television broadcasting interests such Disney (owners of the ABC television network), General Electric (owners of the NBC television network), several pro sports leagues, and other small television broadcasting groups. The goal of the "pressing the flesh" campaign with lawmakers and FCC regulators is to cajole against the possibility of portable license-exempt whitespaces devices. Interestingly (for two organizations ostensibly dedicated to the propagation of news and information), no mention whatsoever of this campaign was found in a scan of the Press Releases sections of both organizations.
(Click below to continue the story.)
But equally interesting... the "White Spaces Coalition", representing (ostensibly - a cited list of companies varies in different articles) Dell, EarthLink, Google, HP, Intel, Microsoft, Philips, and Samsung, the closest thing to a organized effort to open the unused television broadcast channels to license-exempt communications operations, does not have any real online presence to be referenced (no web site can be found, only a Wikipedia entry). This too is a a glaringly curious lack for a "high tech" organization promoting a method of Broadband Internet Access. To date, evidence that the "White Spaces Coalition" actually exists comes only from FCC filings and (mostly unattributed) quotes in news stories. Finally, recently, references have emerged to a law firm - Harris, Wiltshire, & Grannis, that is claimed to represent the White Spaces Coalition. Again, this lack of a dedicated online presence is a highly curious omission for an Internet-era organization.
Yet another amusing twist to this saga is that NAB and MSTV's interests are aligned with the "wireless microphone industry" whose primary concern seems to be to preserve the usability of simple Frequency Modulation (FM) type wireless microphones used at sporting events! (Is it really the case that these organizations are asking that US federal telecommunications policy be based on... potential impact to sporting events?!?!?!)
The crux of the two television broadcast organization's angst seems to be that portable devices may cause interference with reception of over-the-air reception of digital television broadcast (DTV) signals. The potential interference is caused when a license-exempt whitespace communications device does not detect the presence of a television broadcast signal on a particular channel and thus "chooses" to transmit on (what the license-exempt whitespace communications device perceives as) a vacant channel. The apparent presumption of NAB and MSTV is that a license-exempt whitespace communications device cannot be as sensitive as - in detecting (receiving a usable [enough] signal) a digital television receiver. That seems non-sensical; why couldn't a license-exempt whitespace communications device be built to be at least as sensitive to a digital television signal as a digital television receiver? When I originally proposed the idea of license-exempt communications use of television broadcast whitespace in 2002, I suggested the simple expedient of building in the relevant sections of a digital television tuner, so a license-exempt whitespace communications device would be at least as sensitive in detecting a usable digital television broadcast signal as would a digital television receiver.
A recent FCC survey cited in a BroadcastEngineering indicated that only 15% of television viewers make use of over-the-air television broadcast signals! Apparently 85% of television viewers are willing to pay the fees required so as not to receive their television programming from cable or satellite distribution. So... how big is the user base of over-the-air television viewers that the NAB and MSTV are trying to "protect" by their campaign?
How wide the gulf between the two sides is illustrated by the following excerpted quotes from an August 16, 2007 article by Marguerite Reardon - White-space spectrum debate rages:
"There are serious interference issues with unlicensed devices," said Dennis Wharton, spokesman for the National Association of Broadcasters. "Our suggestion to the FCC is, let's get through the analog transition to digital TV before we suggest introducing unlicensed devices onto airwaves that could cause disruption to millions of TV viewers."
and...
"We don't think anything the commission did in its testing in any way diminishes the potentiality of white-space devices," said Ed Thomas, former chief engineer at the FCC and now technology policy adviser and partner at Harris Wiltshire & Grannis, the firm representing the White Space Coalition. "We still believe that the white spaces could be used without causing harm to broadcasters. And we want to work with the commission to product the services of incumbent licensees."
The good news is that in a September 10, 2007 joint letter to FCC Chairman Martin (PDF link), both organizations seem to "support" (resigned that there will be) at least some license-exempt use of television whitespace to help provide Broadband Internet Access in rural areas (excerpts from the letter):
At the outset, however, we would like to emphasize a key point -- NAB and MSTV embrace the national goal of ubiquitous rural broadband deployment. We also believe that there are ways to utilize spectrum through fixed systems that can offer the advantages of broadband to rural consumers without threatening viewers who rely on over-the-air television. As we have noted throughout this proceeding, rules can be enacted to ensure that fixed systems do not cause harmful interference to all existing spectrum users.
Mr. Chairman, in order to achieve our national goals, broadcasters are committed to helping the FCC develop the necessary database to facilitate the deployment of fixed broadband systems in rural areas. We are prepared to work aggressively on the rural broadband issue towards a goal of ubiquitous broadband deployment in all 50 states and in tribal and other territories.
By Steve Stroh
This article is Copyright © 2007 by Steve Stroh except for indicated fair use exerpts. Excerpts and links are expressly permitted (and encouraged).
(This article was posted via Broadband Wireless Internet Access [BWIA]; in this case Sprint 1xEV-DO Rev. A).
Comments