FCC: WEAKER STATIONS SHOULD DOUBLE AND TRIPLE UP TO HELP WIRELESS BROADBAND

[gregg75]

Looks like they've made a plan A................could plan B be that far ahead?

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/2012/04/27/59043/fcc-gives-tv-channelsharing-green-light

 

[Markxxx]

I'd like to hear from Trip and the other engineers on this board on the technical details and possible difficulties or ease of doing this.

 

[dhett]

Whew! I was sweating bullets wondering if channel sharing would ever be approved. :

 

[w9wi]

Dave, judging from how often the phrase "...future proceeding..." appears in the document, you'd better keep sweating

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-45A1.pdf

Mark: seriously, many of the details are missing.

From an engineering standpoint there is absolutely *nothing* new here. This is the same subchannel thing that's been going on since the first ATSC digital stations went on the air. The difference is regulatory; under channel sharing, the various subchannels will originate at different studios & with separately-owned companies. Given that many existing DTV stations have studio-transmitter links, using either fiber or microwave, doing a sharing thing is really no different from doing a standalone STL thing. There is absolutely no engineering challenge here.

Here's the highlights as I see them:

- At this time, only stations that participate in the "incentive auction" are allowed to share channels.

The incentive auction process envisioned stations allowing the FCC to sell their entire spectrum; the station would get a cut of the revenue, but would have no channel & would go off the air.

What I see the channel sharing thing doing, is that two stations agree to participate in the auction. One channel is sold; the station cut of the revenue is split between them; and so is the remaining channel, allowing both stations to continue to operate.

- Sharing is voluntary. At least at this time, the FCC will not force any station to share with any other station. Nor will the FCC decide who a volunteering station will share with -- that is to be worked out between the stations.

- Each station must keep at least enough spectrum to run one SD program. Beyond that, the FCC does not intend to get involved in determining how the channel is split up.

- Each sharing station will have a separate license. Each will have its own callsign; each will be individually responsible for compliance with the various programming & clerical regulations. The proceeding doesn't say how responsibility for technical compliance is to be handled.

- Only full-power and Class A stations may participate. (they'd discussed including LPTV stations in the sharing mix but decided not to)

They anticipate cases where a Class A station will surrender its channel & share with a full-power station. That would (usually) involve the Class A station operating at a far higher power than is currently allowed for Class A's. (they figured out there was no way for two stations in a sharing arrangement to operate at different powers -- they didn't seem to realize that in the initial inquiry!) One of the "...future proceeding..." things is how to handle this situation.

- Commercial and non-commercial stations may share. Again, they haven't decided whether to allow such an arrangement to happen on a non-commercial reserved channel. The tone of the text suggests they're inclined to allow it.

- Each station in the sharing arrangement gets the same must-carry rights (on one program stream) they have now.

 

[gregg75]

I can't see many stations taking them up on this. Sure, you get a bit of money up front but far
more could be made down the line (they'd be giving that up). Only stations about to go under or trending downward might consider this.

THEN, the FCC goes to plan B............and takes and forces what they want.....unless the
broadcasters can rally and stop the slam dunk.

 

[dhett]

I couldn't find anything new anywhere in the document, from any viewpoint. As far as I can see, everything is proceeding exactly as the FCC initially envisioned it.

I loved how they the FCC states that they "...agree with the view expressed by several commenters that participation in a channel sharing arrangement has the potential to benefit broadcasters and the viewing public..." Looks like the commenters expressing that view were all broadband wireless providers. Imagine that. (para. 12)

I also loved how broadcasters' legitimate technical concerns were brushed aside as unfounded. (para. 14)

And the beat goes on.

 

[kenglish]

I'd like to hear from Trip and the other engineers on this board on the technical details and possible difficulties or ease of doing this.

Remember the years 1998-2007, which were called the "Digital TV Transition"?
We get to do that whole darn thing all over again.
Of course, we don't have "transition channels" to work with.
Or, the kinds of money that was available back then (private or government).
And, with broadband being available to many people, how many stations would even bother with the expense?
Of course, moving so many viewers to broadband would just make the "Spectrum Crunch" even worse.

Time to start all over, and do it "right" this time. Just don't know what "right" is....everything in technology (and government) is a moving target. :

 

[kenglish]

Just saw the headline on the FCC website:
"Innovation In The TV Bands: Channel Sharing"

Next, we'll hear, "Back to the Future: All Radio to be Amplitude Modulation".

 

[Darth_vader]

If I understand the gimmick, this is basically the same thing they've been doing for years in the UK. Maybe our mate BMR can come in and clear it up. (BMR??)

"Time to start all over, and do it 'right' this time. Just don't know what 'right' is....everything in technology (and government) is a moving target."

For starters, doing a "transition" to DVB-T, which they should have gone with from the beginning. Then we'd be more-or-less "standardised" with most of the world. (But since when has anything ever actually followed "standards" here? I mean, just look at the kludgy language and the kludgy measurement system.) Probably will never happen, since DVB systems are built on functionality, whilst the ATSC system is built on marketing.

 

[TheBigA]

What we're missing here is the easy solution. If the goal for wireless companies is to own spectrum, and broadcasters have it, why don't wireless companies simply buy TV stations and shut them down? I understand it's much easier to have the government come in and do the dirty work, but the telecom companies have unlimited cash, and the FCC seems to want to cater to their needs. We all know TV operators would love to be bailed out. Sell to AT&T or Verizon, and the problem is solved.

 

[azumanga]

...doing a "transition" to DVB-T, which they should have gone with from the beginning. Then we'd be more-or-less "standardised" with most of the world. (But since when has anything ever actually followed "standards" here? I mean, just look at the kludgy language and the kludgy measurement system.) Probably will never happen, since DVB systems are built on functionality, whilst the ATSC system is built on marketing.

That, and plus the fact that we'll have to do the set conversion thing all over again, just like it was in 2009, when those with analog sets had to buy converters so they could continue to use their sets. If the FCC should decide to replace ATSC with DVB-T, they would have to do it all over again, as most digital sets and converters sold in the US support ATSC only.

 

[kenglish]

If we do it all over again, we might want to look even closer at how it's done in Europe.
In the UK and other Northern European countries, all the channels come from one transmitter location in each town (not exactly a "market" or DMA), and the signals are all carried by one Transmission Provider.
So, there are not dozens of transmitter sites in a single market, like in the USA.

Also, the channels are usually all national feeds, or regional feeds of major providers. So, the same "Mux" is sent out in many areas. There are few local feeds, and few opportunities for local advertising (not a problem, if you pay for TV via taxes ).

I see some great difficulties in some markets if several stations decide to "Channel Share", in getting STL (Studio-to-Transmitter Link) capacity. Either the stations have to keep sending programming to their original transmitter sites, and move the multiplexing and PSIP equipment to the transmitter, or they have to create a different STL carrying the "secondary" station(s) to the "primary" station, where the signals would be combined and sent to the transmitters. The FCC has already opened the STL frequencies up to the broadband industry, so I wonder how difficult it may be to license any more paths and frequencies.
Also, I wonder if the FCC has made any provisions for the "Broadcast Auxiliary" frequencies being licensed to "non-stations". Right now, they are tied to the primary broadcast license.

And, finally, I have to wonder how this "retransmission" thing would hold up in Court....since I'm sure the Cable and DBS people will take it there. What's to stop a "primary" station from adding numerous sub-channels, from numerous would-be "stations", and expecting them all to get carriage? You could say that they have to be "licensed", but doesn't that preclude anyone else from entering the market? So, someone could argue that the FCC is preventing new entrants in the local TV market, and preventing "diversity". At the same time, the Cable and DBS folks could argue that the stations that are piggy-backing are not the same as "real" stations, like when the retrans rules were made (likely to add fuel to their arguments about eliminating retrans all together).

Sounds like the Lawyers will make the most money on this deal.

 

[w9wi]

If we do it all over again, we might want to look even closer at how it's done in Europe.
In the UK and other Northern European countries, all the channels come from one transmitter location in each town (not exactly a "market" or DMA), and the signals are all carried by one Transmission Provider.
So, there are not dozens of transmitter sites in a single market, like in the USA.

There's certainly a lot to be said for this model...

Also, I wonder if the FCC has made any provisions for the "Broadcast Auxiliary" frequencies being licensed to "non-stations". Right now, they are tied to the primary broadcast license.

Well, they did make it clear each station in a channel-sharing arrangement will have its own license.

While last week's release didn't make it clear, I think you need to assume each station will be jointly responsible for the transmitter. Each station is going to be a "real" station with a "primary" license -- neither station in a sharing arrangement is going to be "secondary".

And, finally, I have to wonder how this "retransmission" thing would hold up in Court....since I'm sure the Cable and DBS people will take it there. What's to stop a "primary" station from adding numerous sub-channels, from numerous would-be "stations", and expecting them all to get carriage? You could say that they have to be "licensed", but doesn't that preclude anyone else from entering the market? So, someone could argue that the FCC is preventing new entrants in the local TV market, and preventing "diversity". At the same time, the Cable and DBS folks could argue that the stations that are piggy-backing are not the same as "real" stations, like when the retrans rules were made (likely to add fuel to their arguments about eliminating retrans all together).

To some degree this comes back to my response to the previous paragraph. Both stations are "primary", neither is "piggybacking".

The Commission indicated that, at least at this time, channel-sharing is only open to existing stations. It cannot be used to create completely new stations. Cable/DBS made it clear in their comments they were firmly opposed* to the creation of any additional must-carry obligations. The FCC made it equally clear that cable/DBS has nothing to worry about. That thing Ion tried to do last fall? -- not going to happen.

Will someone sue? Well, there's money out there, so I'm sure someone will be filling out the forms. But I think this thing was done in full cooperation with the cable/DBS industry. Note that one of the larger victims of a suit will be not broadcasters, but broadbanders.. as any suit will delay redistribution of this spectrum.

* serious understatement

 

[kenglish]

I put the terms "primary" and "piggyback" in quotes, to indicate how many people (especially Cable and DBS) will look at them.
Unless the stations all change to new channels, it will be hard for folks to see a station as separate, if it's carried on an existing station's channel.

Just a thought....I wonder how many sets and STB's will operate properly, if we assign different "virtual (major) channel" numbers within a single RF channel. Seems like there were some minor problems with USDTV doing that, but they also used Channel "99", so it was never to be confused with a real OTA channel.

Maybe it really would be better to allow markets to consolidate all their transmission facilities in to one entity...perhaps even to license a "Transmission Provider", and numerous "Programming Providers, in each market. Similar to the UK and other European channels.

 

[fybush]

I put the terms "primary" and "piggyback" in quotes, to indicate how many people (especially Cable and DBS) will look at them.
Unless the stations all change to new channels, it will be hard for folks to see a station as separate, if it's carried on an existing station's channel.

Most "folks" will never know, unless they work within the industry. If they tune to "channel 5" to watch NBC and "channel 4" to watch ABC, as long as Brian Williams shows up when they punch in "5" and Diane Sawyer shows up when they punch in "4," 99.999% of viewers will have no idea what the underlying transport stream is that's bringing them those "channels."

I have no idea what backbone is connecting my ISP to whatever server is running boards.radio-info.com, or what IP address this site is using. Why would I care? As long as the content I expect shows up at the address where I expect to find it, the transmission mechanism is of no relevance to me so long as it works (and so long as I'm not the one responsible for maintaining it.)

For the vast majority of viewers who are already watching cable or satellite, it's entirely likely that those separate "channels" are already arriving combined on a single MUX anyway.

Just a thought....I wonder how many sets and STB's will operate properly, if we assign different "virtual (major) channel" numbers within a single RF channel. Seems like there were some minor problems with USDTV doing that, but they also used Channel "99", so it was never to be confused with a real OTA channel.

There are already stations doing this, for a variety of reasons, and I haven't had any issues tuning them in with any of the receivers I use - Insignia/Zenith CECB, Magnavox (Funai) DVR or a USB tuner stick.

Maybe it really would be better to allow markets to consolidate all their transmission facilities in to one entity...perhaps even to license a "Transmission Provider", and numerous "Programming Providers, in each market. Similar to the UK and other European channels.

And perhaps eventually we'll get there. In a sense, broadcasters are already doing this to reach the majority of their viewers - aren't Dish and Direct and the local cable company a "transmission provider," at least in the technical sense you describe above?

 

[w9wi]

I put the terms "primary" and "piggyback" in quotes, to indicate how many people (especially Cable and DBS) will look at them.

I think you may be underestimating the extent to which cable/DBS has already shaped this thing.

I would argue that channel-splitting is a slight positive for the cable/DBS industries. For a couple of reasons:

1. By making spectrum compression (the deletion of channels 38-50, or whatever they end up taking) possible, channel-splitting reduces the chances completely new OTA stations with must-carry rights can be created in the future.

2. Right now, must-carry only applies to one program stream on any given transmitter. However, that's not a permanent given. Channel-splitting limits the number of programs a given licensee may transmit. Thus, if the FCC does change its mind in the future & require carriage of multiple program streams per station, there will be fewer program streams to carry.

3. Stations that agree to channel splitting are limited in the technical quality of the primary stream they do transmit. A station that's airing home-shopping today & agrees to split with, say, an ethnic station, if they decide to switch to CBS in a year or two, they won't be able to deliver the same quality HD picture as the NBC station that kept its entire channel. The channel-splitting station will be less competitive, less of an impact on the cable system's ability to sell advertising on non-OTA channels.

None of these are *huge* positives for cable/DBS, but they are positives. I don't think they have any objections to this thing.

Unless the stations all change to new channels, it will be hard for folks to see a station as separate, if it's carried on an existing station's channel.

I fully expect each station in a sharing arrangement will keep its current minor & major channels. If KPNZ moves in with KUCW, you're still going to punch in 24.1 to watch KPNZ and 30.1 to watch KUCW. Viewers won't know anything happened. (provided they listen when you remind them to rescan) Yeah, your TV will now tune to channel 48 to watch KPNZ (instead of 24) but the viewer will never notice.

As Scott says, this has been done before. (at least, on some translators, although I believe it's also happened on full-power stations)

As I wrote on my blog & for WTFDA, there is absolutely ZERO technical challenge in channel-splitting. The issues are 100% regulatory, economic, and clerical.

 

[vchimpanzee]

Let me make sure I understand what this means.

In my area, WXLV (ABC) and WMYV (My) share a transmitter site. Each one has a subchannel playing music videos. What they could do is have all four subchannels on one channel, either the one that is now WXLV or the one that is now WMYV. WFMY, which is on one of those channels that appears likely to be deleted for broadband, could take over the other and broadcast from its own site.

 

[Darth_vader]

@Scott Fybush--

IP: 72.79.72.50 (main site)
72.29.72.50 (boards)

There ya go. Inputting to http://toolserver.org/~chm/whois.php , the first two or three sets of digits in the IP address that shows on your posts when you're logged in to this site, will tell you what your ISP backend is.

 

[w9wi]

Let me make sure I understand what this means.

In my area, WXLV (ABC) and WMYV (My) share a transmitter site. Each one has a subchannel playing music videos. What they could do is have all four subchannels on one channel, either the one that is now WXLV or the one that is now WMYV. WFMY, which is on one of those channels that appears likely to be deleted for broadband, could take over the other and broadcast from its own site.

Yes, that's a possible scenario.

WXLV 45.1 ABC & 45.2 The Country Network, on RF channel 29.
WMYV 48.1 My & 48.2 The Cool TV, on RF channel 33.
WFMY 2.1 CBS & 2.2 weather, on RF channel 51.

- WMYV agrees to surrender RF channel 33 to the incentive auction.
- They and WXLV (which are co-owned IIRC?) agree to share RF channel 29.
- The existing WXLV transmitter is fed four programs: WXLV's existing 45.1 and 45.2, and WMYV's existing 48.1 and 48.2. (and viewers continue to use the same channel numbers to watch these programs, although they'll need to rescan for 48.1 and 48.2 to work)
- The FCC orders WFMY to move from RF channel 51 to RF channel 33.
- (theoretically WFMY would convert their existing transmitter site from RF 51 to RF33. I suspect in practice they'd end up buying the old WMYV transmission facility. The money to buy it would theoretically come from the auction proceedings, see below.)
- The FCC auctions RF channel 51.
- Some of the money the FCC makes selling RF-51 goes to WFMY to pay for their expenses in moving to RF-33.
- Some of the money the FCC makes selling RF-51 goes to WMYV, to pay for the half-channel they sold.
- Some of the money the FCC makes selling RF-51 goes to WXLV, to pay for the half-channel they sold.
- The FCC hands the rest of the money over to the Treasury.

The one flaw I see in this specific scenario is that I'm not so sure WXLV would be willing to crank up the compression enough to allow them to run ABC in HD and three other programs in SD. It's not difficult to see other combinations where the question of bandwidth for HD isn't an issue.

 

[fybush]

@Scott Fybush--

IP: 72.79.72.50 (main site)
72.29.72.50 (boards)

There ya go. Inputting to http://toolserver.org/~chm/whois.php , the first two or three sets of digits in the IP address that shows on your posts when you're logged in to this site, will tell you what your ISP backend is.

Yes, I'm perfectly capable of finding out that information myself, should I need it.

My point is that assuming everything's working correctly at my ISP and at radio-info's server farm, I don't need to know that information. If I want to get to the radio-info boards, I type "boards.radio-info.com" and there they are. And the beauty of it is, radio-info can relocate its servers somewhere else, or I could switch to a different ISP, and it still wouldn't matter.

The brand is "radio-info.com," not "72.29.72.50," just as the brand on my local CBS affiliate is "channel 8," not "656-662 MHz."