Radio Companies Buying Spectrum

[TheBigA]

I posted a story on this a while back, and it's come up again. The FCC's Brendan Carr has proposed having radio stations buy spectrum rather than license it from the government. In that way, he suggests they could avoid "public interest responsibilities." He ignores the fact that it would save the FCC a lot of time & trouble overseeing the license process. This is something that telecom has already been doing for years. Of course they have a lot more money than broadcasters. But who's to say that an idea like this wouldn't open the door to new owners?

Now the president wants to charge broadcasters a spectrum fee. He thinks the airwaves are a "valuable resource." He's never owned a radio station. But he thinks the government is missing out on a lot of revenue. My view is that broadcasters are already transitioning their content to the internet.

Trump Targets Broadcasters Over Spectrum Use.

President Trump is again floating the idea of charging broadcasters’ spectrum use fees, arguing they should pay for access to valuable public airwaves. FCC Chair Brendan Carr says an alternative

www.insideradio.com

 

[Miss Tuned]

They do this in the Netherlands. Every few years, the FM spectrum is put up for auction and if you're an existing broadcaster, you have to re-bid or lose your spot. Here's one of the English-language articles I could find on the 2023 national spectrum auction:

Commercial radio stations secure nine FM frequencies for 152.8 million euros

The nine FM frequencies for commercial radio stations were awarded to DPG Media, Business News Radio, Financial News Radio, Mediahuis, and Talpa Radio. They submitted the highest bids in an auction that generated 152.8 million euros, the Ministry of Economic Affairs announced on Friday. The...

nltimes.nl

As far as I can see, it's an awful system. Commercial radio stations have to keep handing over increasing amounts of money to the government to make sure they can stay on the air, rather than investing that money in staffing and programming.

 

[ted chittenden]

I posted a story on this a while back, and it's come up again. The FCC's Brendan Carr has proposed having radio stations buy spectrum rather than license it from the government. In that way, he suggests they could avoid "public interest responsibilities." He ignores the fact that it would save the FCC a lot of time & trouble overseeing the license process. This is something that telecom has already been doing for years. Of course they have a lot more money than broadcasters. But who's to say that an idea like this wouldn't open the door to new owners?

Now the president wants to charge broadcasters a spectrum fee. He thinks the airwaves are a "valuable resource." He's never owned a radio station. But he thinks the government is missing out on a lot of revenue. My view is that broadcasters are already transitioning their content to the internet.

Trump Targets Broadcasters Over Spectrum Use.

President Trump is again floating the idea of charging broadcasters’ spectrum use fees, arguing they should pay for access to valuable public airwaves. FCC Chair Brendan Carr says an alternative

www.insideradio.com

Brendan Carr, like several other Trump officials in other areas (and not coincidentally the President himself) is lying about what previous, especially democratic, administrations did in this area (as well as others--these are people with vendettas after all). That said, radio spectrum is, and remains, a valuable resource. That resource may be less valuable to broadcasters because of the availability of the Internet, but, as I understand it, there are some other interests (mainly to do with business-to-business communications) that would love to have a piece of the spectrum currently utilized by radio and TV broadcasters.

 

[Miss Tuned]

there are some other interests (mainly to do with business-to-business communications) that would love to have a piece of the spectrum currently utilized by radio and TV broadcasters.

Isn't this what the whole TV repack was about? It's already been done on the TV spectrum, and the FM spectrum at 88-108 MHz isn't useful to the type of businesses who require high levels of data bandwidth which generally come about at the higher frequencies. VHF frequencies like that are not useful to cell companies - the signals travel too far so cell towers interfere with each other and get hit with atmospherics, and there's not enough bandwidth. You could turn off all FM radio and turn the band over to the cell carriers, and you'd have a tiny amount of extra bandwidth.

 

[ajaynejr]

The government would still have to oversee the use of the spectrum to prevent persistent interference violations.

 

[davideduardo]

Brendan Carr, like several other Trump officials in other areas (and not coincidentally the President himself) is lying about what previous, especially democratic, administrations did in this area (as well as others--these are people with vendettas after all).

Both parties have "vendettas" as it's pretty normal for them to say negative or even nasty things about each other. At least dueling is not legal today.

That said, radio spectrum is, and remains, a valuable resource. That resource may be less valuable to broadcasters because of the availability of the Internet, but, as I understand it, there are some other interests (mainly to do with business-to-business communications) that would love to have a piece of the spectrum currently utilized by radio and TV broadcasters.

The AM band is of little use to anyone now, as are most frequencies even up to the higher shortwave bands up to around 30 mHz. It's really debatable, too, whether 88 to 108 mHz would be of value to any kind of mobile or business communications, particularly if you consider that existing stations are likely to still be on that band for at perhaps another decade. .

 

[CTListener]

The AM band is of little use to anyone now, as are most frequencies even up to the higher shortwave bands up to around 30 mHz. It's really debatable, too, whether 88 to 108 mHz would be of value to any kind of mobile or business communications, particularly if you consider that existing stations are likely to still be on that band for at perhaps another decade. .

I remember reading a book called "200 Meters and Down" many years ago. It was a history of amateur radio, and noted that early users of radio were of the opinion that higher frequencies were practically useless. Amateurs started experimenting in the "vast wasteland" and found that signals transmitted on those frequencies could do some pretty amazing things. It wasn't long before regulators came along and herded the "hams" into their narrow HF bands and restricted what they could do there, setting the stage for commercial broadcasting and the many other uses those frequencies have been put to over the decades. Now that frequencies under 30 mHz -- and potentially under 108 mHz -- are on the verge of being discarded as practically useless once again, could we see them eventually turned back to the hams?

Of course, with the average age of the American radio amateur now at 75, it's doubtful that any significant number of them will still be among us, or have any lobbying power left with regulators, to make that happen. But still ... why not, if no one else can think of a use for them?

 

[ted chittenden]

The AM band is of little use to anyone now, as are most frequencies even up to the higher shortwave bands up to around 30 mHz. It's really debatable, too, whether 88 to 108 mHz would be of value to any kind of mobile or business communications, particularly if you consider that existing stations are likely to still be on that band for at perhaps another decade. .

I don't know if you caught it, but there was a report on WNYC's "On The Media," earlier this year that there are several companies who are seeking what is now shortwave spectrum for use as business-to-business transmissions. As I understand it, these transmissions would involve sending encoded information about stock prices and the like and that the average user hearing these would only hear a series of clicks.

 

[radiofan2023]

More info here from a few years ago:

“Market Makers” Want to Expand Their Use of Shortwave - Radio World

The FCC seeks comments on a proposal to use HF spectrum for financial data

www.radioworld.com

I guess it would be similar to the information you'd get with a Bloomberg Terminal, but use shortwave instead of the internet:

 

[Reverend]

The logic for charging for the use of spectrum is usually that there is either (a) scarcity, or (b) excess demand. Arguably in some markets either/both could apply but in others they do not. One of the ways of calculating the value of spectrum is to consider what else it could be used for. This is the TV/cellular issue where clearing spectrum from TV broadcasting to make way for cellular is meant to move the use of the spectrum to a higher value user with greater demand.

Arguably the FM band doesn't really have an alternative use. Equally, it's a relatively efficient way of distributing broadcast audio (just 200 kHz of spectrum for 1,000s of listeners). GSM used to carry just 8 phone calls in 200 kHz of spectrum. Antennas would be too large to fit into cellphones (remember those with an FM receiver that had to have the headphones plugged in to work because the headphone lead was used as the antenna). Similarly for cell towers. Also propagation is a problem, especially during Sporadic-E season (imagine roaming onto a Mexican network and the charges that would ensue in the summer months).

In any case, even when 'selling' spectrum the jurisdiction usually retains ownership - it's more of a lease, whether for a fixed period or indefinitely and there's always a clause that the government can take it back if it wants to.

Just my 10 cents worth...