FCC May Buy Back Airwaves

[TheBigA]

This is an interesting idea. Don't know how feasible it is.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/feb2010/tc20100210_185317.htm

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I don't think most of us have ever grappled with this idea that "the spectrum" has it's limits. Those of us who have been on this planet for awhile have become ver accepting of the idea that there is always some new band to dedicate to some new level of service.

Reminds me of the days when there was always more land out on the frontier, just waiting for the taking.

Reminds me of the days when there was always more oil to be located and captured by the wildcatter.

I had already decided that one of these days in one of these conversations when we discussed what role, if any, the government or civilization as a whole, had in begging, suggesting or ordering broadcasters to include certain programming in their schedule, and someone came up with the claim: The broadcaster NOW OWNS that frequency, I had the ultimate challenge. O.K. If you OWN your frequency let's see how far you get when you take the audio off the transmitter and try leasing it to Steve Jobs to send content to his new iPads.

I do remember 12 years ago when a Georgia entrepreneur was busy buying up radio stations because the coming of digital radio was going to make it possible to lease out all the digital capability for data distribution. He was so sure that the ownership of the data ability was going to be so valuable that he apparently had no plan on how to use the traditional audio. The bankruptcy was over long, long ago.

What would it do to broadcasting and programming if the government were to announce that the spectrum available for audio broadcasting would soon be pruned severely.

Well, that reminds me I must turn off the computer for awhile and go do the annual ritual of pruning my Crepe Myrtles.

 

[oaktree]

I think it's a good idea.

End saturation, interference and the misunderstanding that "anybody can be a broadcaster." Would the government do this to McDonald's or Subway because there are too many of them? Of course not. The marketplace decides.

But in broadcasting, things are different. Radio is for "listening" not merely for "hearing" -- and it seems, now, that here on these threads, we read more about "how bag signals are," "I can't DX AM because of interference," "To much IBOC crap to hear anything," and "Why does ever small burg think it is going to be successful as a money-making business?"

Oh, and don't forget the "Do we really need a squillion AM daytimers?" Do we need any?

Broadcasters do not own their frequencies -- they lease the spectrum for fees and licensing by the government -- a reflection of it being "the people's airwaves." Does having a million choices make it better for the listening public? In my opinion, no, not all all. Moving a frequently fickle audience to another fragmented choice just adds more clutter, more interference and more advertising fragmentation -- making it less likely for many to to be successful.

I mean, it might look cool to have a 9 tower direction, 25,000 watt AM station -- but cutting that puppy down to 189 watts at night -- not so good. Yeah, all those blinking lights and that nice Harris a'humming may seem like what the ultimate dream is, but it's not. Same with many Class A FMs, many that can't outdistance a killowatt graveyard AM -- and they are doing so well, either, in too many cases.

So, thin it out instead of more auctions and allocations to nowhere. Sure, the richest and the biggest will own them, but how many people really are going to be able to afford to not only own, but successfully own, serve and operate a successful radio station -- no matter the "format"? The format is the least of the equation -- and in too many instances in large markets and small ... it painfully shows.

Such a move would make radio stations more valuable and, inherently, better for their markets IF they are operated correctly.

There are too many stations. In my market of 253,000 souls, there are 26 in-market stations, not counting the over 100 others stuck between two major top 10 markets, two top 50 markets and a bunch of 100+ size markets -- many part of an Arbitron rated MSA.

Owners today are getting the message, maybe. "So, I'm not making any money, but I have something some sucker will want to buy because that's why I bought this thing that runs on satellite, has baseball on day and night six months or so a year and I am putting food on my table. I may be rated #20 ... but someone will buy." Yeah, well, think again. Not at the outrageous speculative prices that Clear Channel shoved down everyone's throats over the last 12 years. And IBOC isn't making one station worth any more. Too much choice? Hell, even SiriusXM is commercial free on 65 of it's music channels. Wonder why?

The problem will be, how to decide who gets the boot. In Canada, they move AM to FM where they can. In Mexico, they are moving off the AM band, and yet, here, we keep having auctions and allocations that are unneeded.

Does an LA with 15-million people and with 80+ radio stations make it a good market, when the only stations talked about are the top 20-25 in the market? (Maybe?) Or a station in Resume Speed, Nebraska that has 14 stations covering a population of 50,000 people?

Now, with the Internet, if only those who know how to make a buck as much as they do in programming music jukeboxes, then, radio would really get the message.

 

[TheBigA]

The part I don't understand is that the FCC needs spectrum pace for smart phones...meanwhile it's trying to cram in more stations on the existing AM & FM bands through LPFM and HD radio, and add more owners through its diversity and minority ownership initiatives. Seems like the game plan is more smaller broadcasters and fewer big ones, or as we say in ancient Greece: Divide and conquor.

Actually, in re-reading this article it seems to be more targeted to TV. I doubt they could use radio frequencies for smart phones.

 

[kenglish]

Hey! If the Government is willing to give a couple of million dollars or so to each of us who currently work in broadcasting, I'll take the money and run!
But, I doubt they really care anything about the employees.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Hey! If the Government is willing to give a couple of million dollars or so to each of us who currently work in broadcasting, I'll take the money and run!
But, I doubt they really care anything about the employees.

I have vivid memories of the era when the Federal government was being pushed to deal with the fact that we had too many small farms. Having grown up on a small farm I had a front row seat. There was this fifty year transition where mule-power was replaced by tractor power and then farm automation; The period when those who stayed behind in World War II to grow essential food and commodities learned new ways of productivity, and then when everyone came home from that war, factories had available workers and available capacity, so they began building these new fangled cotton picking machines, automated hay-balers, etc. etc. etc.

You may remember a science lesson from Oklahoma city, the bombing, and Mr. McVey. What were the ingredients of his bomb? Farm fertilizer. When WWII ended the people who had geared up to make explosives owned factories and had workers about to be unemployed. So the Feds turned the County Agent system loose to teach farmers to use more and more fertilizer. Soon we were up to our belly buttons in surplus farm products. We began paying farmers to let land sit idle. We began paying farmers to convert to non-surplus crops.

Here is where the whole scenario "bit us in the butt!" Even though they paid farmers not to farm (fully), they DID NOT pay the ginner not to gin cotton, they did NOT pay the crop duster to not pollute the air with poisons, they did NOT PAY the truck driver to not haul seeds, fertilizer and harvested crop. They did NOT PAY the railroad to not haul the fertilizer and the seed and the crop. They DID NOT pay the department store to not sell overhauls, the standard farmer uniform of the day. To solve one economic problem (the small farmer) we totally polluted the well for oodles and gobs of other workers and businesses.

Managing the transition away from broadcasting will be painful for someone.... whether we simply stand by and let nature take it's course, or if government tries to step in and manage the demolition of stations and the industry.

 

[Silkie]

Hmmm...sounds like eminent domain of air rights, leading to possibly limiting air rights, not unlike the situation in which mineral rights beneath the property are no longer included in real property rights. Property rights once included everything down to the core of the earth, and as high as the stratosphere.

 

[FreddyE1977]

Not a fan of this idea. They are going to spend MORE of my tax money (not like they aren't doing a lot of that
anyhow these days) to pay a private company to vacate a bit of spectruim which the government gave them in
the first place? Are you kidding me???

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

They are going to spend MORE of my tax money (not like they aren't doing a lot of that
anyhow these days) to pay a private company to vacate a bit of spectruim which the government gave them in
the first place?

This is all speculation on our part for now. Early broadcasters did get their place on the dial for no fee to the government. They did however invest in land and equipment and buildings, some of which become worth much less if the no longer "own" the place on the dial.

More recent broadcasters... the ones on the FM dial... have paid to get their place on the dial.

If this plan were to ever come about, this would be the logic you would be asked to accept/believe: The government will buy the place on the dial from broadcasters for what it is worth as a broadcast use bit of spectrum and then SELL it to people wanting to use it for cell phones, itablets, and other devices that we haven't seen yet which can justify paying a VERY HIGH PRICE for that "cheap" space.

I wouldn't stay up late tonight counting the money you may get for your place on the dial if you are the current owner of some broadcast spectrum.... nor would I get too drunk crying over all your spilled tax money paid out to buy these spaces. Pulling a project like this together in Washington takes years and years and years and years to become reality.

 

[Tower Lights]

Actually, in re-reading this article it seems to be more targeted to TV. I doubt they could use radio frequencies for smart phones.

You are probably correct, they would most likely be wanting the high end of the UHF TV band. Of course they just took a sizeable chunk of that band in the conversion to DTV, cost TV broadcasters a fortune and did not pay them anything. As another poster said AM and FM broadcasters should not get excited about the possibility of a buyout, probably is not going to happen, at least not for the purpose covered in the quoted article.

 

[Carmine5]

This proposal fails to pass the smell test. What we are seeing are lobby groups representing cell phone providers, like the CTIA, and MVSPs who are trying to eliminate a competitor--namely broadcast television. Everyone is eyeing the mobile DTV market and the last thing Verizon, satellite TV providers and similar entities need is a service that is offering mobile DTV for free.

Case in point, Dish TV just recently announced what they plan to do with their portion of the 700 MHz spectrum--spectrum that was recaptured from broadcast television. Dish TV wants to broadcast, ta-da, television! In this case ATSC M/H with conditional access, meaning mobile DTV on a subscription basis. So much for using the spectrum for wireless broadband.

The FCC's auction proposal is way too premature. Where is the promised spectrum inventory? What kind of accountability is there for the nearly 100 MHz of spectrum Sen. Snowe identified that cell phone providers and others are sitting on but not using? Since the heaviest user of spectrum is the US Government, why doesn't the FCC start there for reclaiming spectrum instead of pushing broadcast television to give up what amounts to only about 5% of UHF spectrum usage?

The problem is that, ultimately, services like mobile DTV will end up not being free but will be held hostage to exorbitant monthly subscription fees from the likes of AT&T, Verizon and the MVSPs.

Like I said this proposal just doesn't pass the smell test.

c5

 

[KTN Corp]

Oh, and don't forget the "Do we really need a squillion AM daytimers?" Do we need any?

Looking at Google Maps or Bing, KIKK is right next to a neighborhood. I wonder if the microwave in those houses sometimes starts singing the programming while it's on.

If the entire AM band was shut down, some sites are in prime suburban tracts. For example, KBME and KNTH transmitters are in prime homebuilding areas. In fact KBME is right across an unconnected segment of a major Houston boulevard from a recently minted subdivision. If the boulevard was connected, KNTH's site would be just up the street.

Think of the freed up land and development opportunities when the AM sites are gone and the only commercial broadcasting is on FM in "tower farms" and skyscraper antennas. KFI's and KNX's sites could accommodate better quality of life by eliminating the effects of high RF in the immediate area (no more singing from coil mattresses too) and the opportunity for the space to be used effectively. After moving KNX's all-news programming to sister KCBS-FM/HD1, there would be more park available to build features such as an ornamental lake, more baseball diamonds, or a soccer and/or a football field. KFI's site could be straightening out the parking lot and an additional small building. (One drawback to this plan: I remember back in the fall about the wildfire threat to Mt. Wilson and KNX's engineer said that their transmitter is in the L.A. Basin due to the characteristics of AM and won't be affected if the farm caught on fire. Of course that's not relevant to Eastern cities like Houston--especially if new primary antennas are built on top of the tallest skyscrapers downtown and the Missouri City sticks are kept as a backup facility.)

In Canada, they move AM to FM where they can. In Mexico, they are moving off the AM band, and yet, here, we keep having auctions and allocations that are unneeded.

AM is so crowded that it's hard to listen to at night. It's not worth saving due to the sound quality (as perceived by my iPod-loving generation, the Millennials) and the age of the band (90 years in mainstream use this decade). The FCC needs to concoct a plan like the transition to DTV to abolish the AM band. Maybe not renewing AM licenses is a start to thin out and kill the band.

Does an LA with 15-million people and with 80+ radio stations make it a good market, when the only stations talked about are the top 20-25 in the market? (Maybe?) Or a station in Resume Speed, Nebraska that has 14 stations covering a population of 50,000 people?

When I visit, I like to listen to KRTH, KNX, and try to fit KPFK in. I might try to get Marketplace on their native station.

 

[TheBigA]

The FCC needs to concoct a plan like the transition to DTV to abolish the AM band. Maybe not renewing AM licenses is a start to thin out and kill the band.

No, they're just going to subsidize the internet, so that should do the trick.

 

[country24]

What I'm hearing is that the FCC intends to reclaim all of the over-the-air TV spectrums, VHF and UHF. After all, most people watch TV from cable or satellite anyway. So why not cut out the middle man and let stations transmit directly to Dish, DirecTV and the local cable company. That would be a lot more efficient than picking up bits and pieces of the AM and/or FM bands.

 

[TheBigA]

What I'm hearing is that the FCC intends to reclaim all of the over-the-air TV spectrums, VHF and UHF. After all, most people watch TV from cable or satellite anyway. So why not cut out the middle man and let stations transmit directly to Dish, DirecTV and the local cable company. That would be a lot more efficient than picking up bits and pieces of the AM and/or FM bands.

Because that gives the public no choice except to pay for TV service, which is not fair. Right now, they at least have a choice of OTA for local channels. And about a third of the public does that.

The main occupier of spectrum space is the government itself. They're currently doing a full spectrum analysis to determine just how much of that they still need.

 

[landtuna]

What I'm hearing is that the FCC intends to reclaim all of the over-the-air TV spectrums, VHF and UHF. After all, most people watch TV from cable or satellite anyway. So why not cut out the middle man and let stations transmit directly to Dish, DirecTV and the local cable company. That would be a lot more efficient than picking up bits and pieces of the AM and/or FM bands.

Because that gives the public no choice except to pay for TV service, which is not fair. Right now, they at least have a choice of OTA for local channels. And about a third of the public does that.

I keep hearing that OTA viewing is only 15% of total households. You say 30%. Any closer estimate?

 

[TheBigA]

I keep hearing that OTA viewing is only 15% of total households. You say 30%. Any closer estimate?

NCTA says 50% of US homes can receive cable TV in 2008. Estimate that perhaps another 15% watch satellite. 5% fiber optic. What's that come to?

 

[KTN Corp]

After all, most people watch TV from cable or satellite anyway. So why not cut out the middle man and let stations transmit directly to Dish, DirecTV and the local cable company.

I'm surprised that people are ditching wireline phones for exclusively wireless households but ditched wireless television for wireline television. Anyone notice that contradiction?

On your second point, if the middle-man was cut out then they wouldn't be local television stations anymore but local feeds of a cable network such as FSN Houston, et al. Why not have NBC, CBS, ABC, and FOX as cable networks so that a viewer doesn't have to worry about a local PD's pre-emptions and time shifts?

 

[KeithE4]

I'm surprised that people are ditching wireline phones for exclusively wireless households but ditched wireless television for wireline television. Anyone notice that contradiction?

Different technologies. With conventional broadcast TV, one can get maybe 15 channels max. With cable or satellite (which is "wireless" BTW), it can be 250 or more. But you only make one phone call at a time. And nowadays, you essentially have a low-end PC right in your phone for web surfing and emailing.

On your second point, if the middle-man was cut out then they wouldn't be local television stations anymore but local feeds of a cable network such as FSN Houston, et al. Why not have NBC, CBS, ABC, and FOX as cable networks so that a viewer doesn't have to worry about a local PD's pre-emptions and time shifts?

The affiliation contracts signed now will probably be the last ones. Even if they're not, and local stations continue to run network programming, they'll be available not only cable or the bird, but on your cellphone and over the internet. Local TV stations in one form or another will exist, just not as standalone transmitters on frequencies between 54 and 698 MHz, and maybe not as many of them will be there if the networks do go dark.

The need for a high-powered transmitter and tower for the broadcasting of radio and television is fading. Fast. I can see half of today's radio and (more likely) TV stations being gone in 10 years, with at least two of the four major English-language TV networks being dark as well.

 

[Tower Lights]

I keep hearing that OTA viewing is only 15% of total households. You say 30%. Any closer estimate?

NCTA says 50% of US homes can receive cable TV in 2008. Estimate that perhaps another 15% watch satellite. 5% fiber optic. What's that come to?

Your missing the percent of the total households that do not have television. It may be hard to believe but there are many households that do not have a television, even in metro areas. I know of six myself and one is in my family.