Broadcasting & Cable on
"Genachowski Plays FCC Waiting Game"

Broadcasting & Cable is a very biased source of information as they view themselves as advocates for broadcasting not just reporters. However they have very good sources in DC. An article dated 3/2/09 on their website reports the latest rumors on the next FCC chairman and other appointments to the Commission.

My personal guess is that no one wants to be FCC chairman until the DTV transition is finished in June. However, John Eggerton writes in B&C,

“My guess is they are trying to put together a package,” says a high-powered Washington communications player, “and they don't have it yet worked out with the Republicans and the White House and how those seats are going to be selected.”

Time will tell. The article is well worth reading if you want the latest rumors.

UPDATE 3/3/09

Broadcasting & Cable isn't always right. White House announcement of Genachowski nomination.

UPDATE 3/3/09

NYTimes: Broadcast TV Faces Struggle to Stay Viable

I was in the Capitol South Metro station in DC recently and noticed that NAB had bought all the advertising space in the station, used by many Congressional staffers as it is located adjacent to the House office buildings. The various NAB ads in the station talked about the pending advent of DTV, its wonders, and then had the surprising statement that the 100 most popular programs on TV are on "free TV". No proof or references were given for this claim. A senior NAB staffer I met at an FCBA meeting assured me it was correct. So, NAB could you please reply to this post with a reference or explanation why this claim is correct.

Today's NYT had a less optimistic article on the prospects for "free TV" in today's world.

"For decades, the big three, now big four, networks all had the same game plan: spend many millions to develop and produce scripted shows aimed at a mass audience and national advertisers, with a shelf life of years or decades as reruns in syndication.

...

The future for the networks, it seems, is more low-cost reality shows, more news and talk, and a greater effort to find new revenue streams, whether they be from receiving subscriber fees as cable channels do, or becoming cable networks themselves, an idea that has gained currency."

So how are the NAB members with the top 100 TV programs doing financially?

"Financially, the networks are on shaky ground, partly because they rely almost solely on advertising. CBS reported that for the fourth quarter of last year, as the recession deepened, operating income in its television segment declined 40 percent, even though it was by far the most-watched network. In the second week of February, CBS had 12 of the top 20 shows, according to Nielsen Media Research.

News Corporation, which owns Fox, reported operating income of $18 million in broadcast television, compared with $245 million a year ago. And Disney’s broadcasting business had a 60 percent drop in operating income.

...

Jeff Zucker, the chief of NBC Universal, has been more pessimistic, saying, “broadcast television is in a time of tremendous transition, and if we don’t attempt to change the model now, we could be in danger of becoming the automobile industry or the newspaper industry.

Recently, Robert A. Iger, the chief of the Walt Disney Company, surprised Wall Street when he acknowledged in a conference call with analysts and reporters that some of the company’s businesses were experiencing profound change as competition for people’s time increased and consumers were confronted with an abundance of choices. “This clearly has had an impact on broadcast television,” he said.

...

In the last three months of 2008, broadcast networks lost nearly three million viewers, or about 7 percent of their total audience. Overall television viewing is up, however, and some big cable networks, like USA and TNT, are attracting new viewers.”

Meanwhile FCC continues to protect broadcasters with their ever declining audiences. A big question not mentioned in the article is what will happen to over-the-air TV reception when the dust from the DTV transition settles in June. Many think CATV, DBS, and FiOS-like service will be the big gainer from the switch to DTV but it may be a year before we see hard data.

It is ironic that, as the book Defining Vision describes in detail, DTV results from an NAB initiative in the mid-1980s to derail increased land mobile sharing of UHF TV spectrum and preserve the spectrum hegemony of NAB members. (It was also supposed to save the US consumer electronics industry - something it clearly failed to do.)

Defining TV Success Downward

A graphic from the article

CTIA, NENA, APCO, and NPSTC Ask FCC to Act on Wireless Microphones and 700 MHz

On 2/23 CTIA - The Wireless Association®, the National Emergency Number Association ("NENA"), The Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials - International ("APCO"), and the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council ("NPSTC") filed a joint letter with FCC in WT Docket No. 08-167 asking it to act on the issues of wireless microphones' continued use of 700 MHz.

(Oddly the letter is not on the CTIA website even today, but was reported by FierceWireless.)

The letter stated,

"Harmful interference from unauthorized low-power devices operating in the 700 MHz band threatens to prevent licensees from realizing the benefits to public safety that the 700 MHz band promises. We understand that there is an item currently before the Commission to address low-power devices in the 700 MHz band and urge you to take action to curb the harmful use of these low-power devices.

It is of critical importance that low-power auxiliary devices do not cause harmful interference to critical communications - and the commercial communications that enable ordinary Americans to reach public safety in their moments of need. As both public safety and commercial licensees begin to utilize spectrum from broadcasters who have completed their digital transition, we ask that the Commission take action to clear the 700 MHz band of unauthorized low-power auxiliary users. By clarifying in an Order that low-power auxiliary devices must not interfere with authorized public safety and commercial licensees, and that those devices must accept all interference from licensed users, the Commission sends a strong signal to all users of these devices that the public safety benefits of the 700 MHz spectrum outweigh any - licensed or unauthorized - use of the band."

The joint parties then said they

"urge the Commission to require that operation of all low-power auxiliary devices in the 700 MHz band cease no later than one year from the adoption of an Order and issue a Consumer Advisory informing the public. Additionally, in order to speed the deployment of public safety and commercial systems in the 700 MHz band, the Commission should require low-power users to cease operation within 60 days of notice that a licensee intends to initiate or change its wireless operations such that the low-power devices will likely cause interference."

As we pointed out previously, this 60 day issue - originally proposed by NAB, MSTV and Shure - has the practical problem that almost all wireless microphones in use are illegal and hence not in any public database. (Perhaps Shure has such a database internally and might be willing to share it in exchange for immunity from criminal prosecution of their clients?)

So far Shure and fellow travelers have not addressed the points raised in this joint filing.

Is It the 2nd or 3rd Digital Transition?

I have written previously about what NCTA calls the "2nd DTV transition" - the switch of basic tier cable signals, e.g. CNN, C-SPAN, from analog format to the euphonious, consumer friendly "64-QAM" format. But now that the over-the-air switch is a double event in February and June, is the cable event the 3rd transition?

I note that FCC has improved its consumer information on this issue somewhat:

"Does the DTV transition affect TV sets that are connected to cable services?

No. If you subscribe to cable service, the DTV transition should not affect any TV sets that are connected to your cable services. The DTV transition applies only to full-power broadcast television stations – stations that use the public airwaves to transmit their programming to viewers through a broadcast antenna.

Return to Questions

Is the FCC making cable companies switch to digital service?

No. Cable companies are not required to switch to digital service. Cable companies may choose to make their service all or partly digital, but they are not required to change from the analog service they offer today. In fact, the FCC requires cable companies to continue to provide local stations in analog as long as they provide any analog service, even after June 12, 2009.

Return to Questions

Can my cable company make me get a box to receive the cable channels I receive today without a box?

Some cable companies have decided to switch to digital service. This is a business decision made by the cable companies and is not required by the federal government. Your cable company may decide to move certain cable channels off of its analog service tier and onto a digital service tier, or it may decide to switch to all-digital service at once, so that there is no analog service tier for any subscribers. If your cable company decides to move some or all of the channels it provides onto a digital service tier, it may notify you that you need to get "digital cable" equipment to continue receiving that cable service. This may include renting or purchasing a digital cable set-top box or purchasing a digital cable ready TV equipped with a "CableCARD" slot. The digital cable equipment is different from the digital-to-analog converter boxes that are used to receive over-the-air broadcast signals. [Emphasis added]

Return to Questions"

Note the last sentence which indirectly explains the 8-VSB/64-QAM difference that we policy wonks know all about.

But do a sanity check. Ask your neighbors and the elderly with CATV if they know that they will soon either have to have new equipment or pay an additional charge for the basic tier non-must carry signals they have been watching with their analog TV sets.

Then reread the first sentence in the FCC quote: "If you subscribe to cable service, the DTV transition should not affect any TV sets that are connected to your cable services." This is legally correct, but how many people other than policy wonks really understand it at present?

Just be prepared for a major backlash unless this issued is clarified with the public. It is not enough for both NCTA and FCC to say that it isn't their fault. They should give the public realistic expectations and schedules.

Major Improvement on FCC dtv.gov Website

Congratulations to the new FCC team for improving the FCC's half of the feuding government DTV websites. The new design is much better and even has a video on converter connection on the top page. There is also a new nifty consumer oriented coverage map page that tells you what signals you might expect and how strong they should be.

There is a new news release on the status of the transition that does not read that it was intended for FCBA members or to blunt congressional questioning - but to actually help consumers. One minor criticism, realizing how hard it is to make the FCC consumer friendly quickly, the attachment to the new release still uses FCC jargon that consumers are unlikely to be familiar with and doesn't give even a glossary: DMA, Nite Lite, Nite Lite Plus, HardshipWVR.

TV White Space/TVBD R&O
Publication in Federal Register
(Expected) This Week

Remember the classic cartoon of the little boy sitting on the toilet with the caption that says "The job isn't finished until you complete the paperwork"? Well the same is true at FCC. The saga of Docket 04-186:

Event	Date
R&O Approval	11/4/08
Release of text	11/14/08
Release of Errata	1/4/09
FR Publication	2/18/09 ??

As a public service, I am giving a link to my interpretation of the Errata showing how it changed the original rules. Note there is no guarantee that the FR version of the new rules are the same as what I estimate they should be and the FR version is binding.

The publication will start a clock for the effective date of the new rules and will also open the door for appeals. It is expected that the broadcasters, perhaps together with their fellow travelers/odd companions at Shure, will not ask the FCC for reconsideration but will go directly to an obscure federal court thought to be supportive of vested interests. Others are expected to ask FCC directly for reconsideration of the details of the decision.

So don't expect TVBDs at your local Radio Shack in the next month or two.

UPDATE - Published 2/17/09
74 FR 7314,7332
(Citation is a link)

2nd UPDATE
Silicon Valley Mercury News reports that NAB & MSTV filed appeal on 2/27 in U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Washington Post Writes on DTV Transition:
"A Classic Tale of Breakdown"

Today's Post has a front page article on the DTV transition. Here is a memorable quote:

"The coupon program has both sufficient funds and system processing capabilities to achieve this goal, to distribute a total of more than 50 million coupons through March 31, 2009, and to do so without the creation of a large backlog ... Also, NTIA has built flexibility into the program to respond to various or unexpected events." Meredith Atwell Baker, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information (Head of NTIA), November 6, 2008

It describes how a bipartisan team of Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Tex.) began drafting a bill that would have waived the OMB accounting rules that limited the issued coupons to the account appropriated even though 40% were not being used and allowed first-class postage rather than 4 week "junk mail" delivery. However, they gave up due to Bush Administration opposition.

I only hope we learn from this problem and use the next few months more constructively.

FCC Beats NTIA
in Updating DTV Website!

In my previous post I speculated on how long it would take FCC to update its website to reflect the change in DTV transition. A poster suggested June 13th!

At the top of this post are snapshots of the two competing websites from FCC and NTIA. The FCC top page has been updated to reflect the June 12 date of the new legislation. However, NTIA still reports "7 days to the end of analog broadcasting".

Now in fairness to NTIA, the box to the right labeled "Coupon Program Update" has a link to a new page that says

"Congress passed the DTV Delay Act, which would postpone the conclusion of the digital television transition to June 12, 2009 and give U.S. households additional time to prepare for this historic switch. However, this legislation does not change the operation of the TV Converter Box Coupon Program at this time. The DTV Delay Act will allow the Coupon Program, upon request, to offer replacement coupons for those which have expired without being redeemed. However, this program change will not take effect until the Coupon Program receives additional funding."

But that page, in turn has a link to a "Consumer Guide" that says,

"If you have an analog TV and rely on a rooftop antenna or “rabbit ears,” a TV converter box is one option to transition to digital TV on or before February 17, 2009. The TV Converter Box Coupon Program has reached its funding ceiling. If you waited until 2009 to apply for a coupon, your coupon application will be put on a waiting list. Coupon requests from eligible households will only be filled as funds from expiring coupons become available. Coupons will be mailed on a first-come, first-served basis as funding becomes available"

Maybe if NTIA and FCC combined their resources better so NTIA focused on the mechanics of coupon distribution and used FCC provided material for background they could both do a better job. But cooperation is not a long tradition between these 2 agencies unfortunately.

Using the Additional Time for the DTV Transition

Now that Congress has, for whatever reason, extended the DTV transition, FCC and NTIA will look like the SEC at this week's hearing if they don't take advantage of the time to try to improve things. The image at top is from FCC's website today - the date of the transition has not been changed yet. Shall we start a pool on when it will be changed? Feel to post your own guess to this blog below.

I have commented in the past on the "battling DTV websites" of NTIA and FCC: www.dtv.gov and www.dtv2009.gov . While NTIA is tasked by law to give out the famous coupons, the information they give on related issues is not always the same as FCC's. I am not saying whose is better - but why can't they agree to use the same information on the details?

I was looking recently at the foreign language information available on both websites. Here is a table of what's there along with Census data:

Language	Total Speakers in US	Speakers Whose English Ability Rated "Not Well" or "Not at All"	DTV Information at FCC Site	DTV Information at NTIA Site
Spanish	28,101,052	7,931,848	Yes	Yes
Chinese	2,022,143	571,123	Yes(2)	Yes (2)
Vietnamese	1,009,627	326,971	Yes	Yes
Korean	894,063	264,420	Yes	Yes
Russian	706,242	192,294	Yes	Yes
French	1,643,838	145,580	Yes	Yes
Portuguese	564,630	118,723	Yes
Polish	667,414	112,487	Yes
Italian	1,008,370	111,249	Yes
Japanese	477,997	89,677	Yes
French Creole	453,368	85,598	Yes
Tagalog	1,224,241	85,217	Yes	Yes
German	1,382,613	84,254
Arabic	614,582	71,128	Yes
Armenian	202,708	45,685
Persian/Farsi	312,085	43,135	Yes
Greek	365,436	37,562	Yes
Gujarathii	235,988	30,340
Urdu	262,900	26,146
Hindi	317,057	19,936
Cambodian/ Kmer	182,000		Yes
Navajo	178,000		Yes
Hmong	168,000		Yes	Yes
Laotian	149,000		Yes
Serbocroatian	130,000		Yes (Bosnian)
Romanian	114,000
Amharic	82,000		Yes	Yes
Samoan	57,000
Ilocano	50,000		Yes
Somali	43,000		Yes
Tongan	24,000		Yes
Dakota/Lakota	24,000
Kurdish	10,000
Yup'ik	16,000		Yes
Sudanese	?		Yes
Sources:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-29.pdf
http://www.usefoundation.org/userdata/file/Research/languages_of_the_usa.pdf
Somali data - http://paa2006.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=61036 Both FCC and NTIA have traditional Chinese characters (PRC) and simplified characters (Taiwan)

The second column gives the total number of speakers of each language in the US and the third gives, more importantly, the number of speakers who can't speak English well. The data is based on the 2000 census and hence isn't good for recent refugees from Sudan and Somalia. It also only has English speaking data for the top 20 languages. I did not include one language on the NTIA site that I think is Laotian or Cambodian.

I suspect this data shows that if your congressman has influence, you are much more likely to get information in your language. Thus the 16,000 Yup'ik speakers get information from FCC, but not NTIA, while the 86,000 German speakers with bad English don't. NTIA also ignores Portuguese, Polish, Italian, Japanese, and French Creole which account for 517,000 people with poor English ability. If you want some clues as to why a language was chosen, check out the geographic distribution of each language and you can guess which congressman pressured which agency. For example did Ted Stevens ask for Yup'ik while no one spoke up for Armenian?

In the case of the Hmong, an interesting question is whether the older immigrants who don't speak English can read Hmong since it was only a spoken language until the late 20th century. Similarly, there are Navajos in rural areas who avoided compulsory education and don't speak English but it is not clear if they can read Navajo.

The new team at FCC inherited a real mess as they all realize. I hope they can make real progress soon. I also hope they remember to explain to the public what NCTA calls the "Second DTV Transition" this has a real potential to embarrass everyone involved unless the cable industry explains better what is happening.

Learning from the Past:

It Rarely Happens at FCC

I attended Comm. McDowell's talk to the FCBA yesterday as it marked a welcome change from the ancienne regime. In his talk Comm. McDowell said,

"Many of our most valued team members are nearing retirement age. We need to do more to recruit and retain highly-qualified professionals to fill their large shoes. I hope our next budget will give us adequate resources to address this growing challenge."

This was a noncontroversial statement similar to statements made by many others. But what struck me that here, as in many other issues, FCC never seems to want to address the root cause of the problem and possible long term solutions.

Why are so many people at FCC nearing retirement age?

(This is similar to the key social problem in Japan called the "aging society". People all over the world get older, so this is not a new phenomena. The population in Japan is decreasing because for more than 20 years the birth rate is one of the lowest in the world and there is virtually no immigration.)

FCC is having a staffing crisis due to retirement because during the Reagan Administration there was virtually no hiring of entry level career civil servants. I was in the military at the end of the Vietnam War when the military had to downsize similar to the downsizing at FCC in the 1980s. But the personnel managers in the military knew that they had to still keep recruiting privates and lieutenants even though the force size was decreasing. Why? A personnel system is a big pipeline with people going in one end and coming out the other end. One wants at a given time a certain ratio of colonels to lieutenants and GS-15s to GS-9s. If one cuts off entry level hiring for a short period there is no major harm, but when this is repeated year after year it inevitably leads to a misbalance of ages and work experience in the staff. That is the root casue of the present staffing problem at FCC.

During the Reagan era input was cut to essentially zero. No one wanted to make hard decisiosn about pruning the existing staff so it continued to move through the pipeline with no new input. Because there was virtually no outside hiring, middle management jobs were filled almost solely from within without the benefit of the real competition that is the theory of the civil service system. While this was viewed favorably by those lucky enough to be eligible for promotion, the lack of personnel Darwinism further weakened the staff pool.

To save money even more, the Commission refused to pay relocation costs of non-Washington employees to move to headquarters. This cut off an historic flow of people with practical handson experience dealing with licensees and problems in the field in the former FOB. Historically, these FOB alumni in policy positions added a needed touch of reality to policy deliberations. (Sadly, this false frugality in forbidding relocation cost payments continues today. Is it legal? I am not sure.)

Training funds were also cut during this period. Most government agencies that employ engineers offer master's degree programs. FCC stopped doing so in the Reagan era and only began again under Chairman Powell. Thus for 20 years there were few, if any, FCC engineers getting the advanced training they needed to follow technological trends.

The root cause here is yo-yo budgets that lead to massive mood swings in personnel policies with no attention to their long term implications after the incumbent chairman leaves. FCC needs a long term personnel policy with enough flexibility to deal with budget problems. It needs to sell OMB and the appropriations committees on such a strategy to ensure long term staffing requirements are met. What is the optimal size for FCC? I don't know. But turning off hiring and training for years at time does not lead to a better agency.

MBR: FTC -> FCC

For those of you who don't read the Federal Trade Commission website, which is a lot better in many ways than the FCC's, last Friday the following announcement was posted:

Bureau of Consumer Protection Deputy Director Richards to Leave FTC

Federal Trade Commission Chairman William E. Kovacic announced today that Mary Beth Richards, Deputy Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, will leave the agency to return to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and that Mary K. Engle, currently Associate Director in the Bureau’s Division of Advertising Practices, will serve as Acting Deputy Director. ...

“Mary Beth is an outstanding public servant,” Chairman Kovacic said. “Her work for the Commission on behalf of American consumers is greatly valued, as it surely will be when she returns to the FCC.”

Richards joined the FTC in 2006 after 23 years with the FCC. As Deputy Director, she has worked on a broad range of matters, including identity theft prevention, fraudulent marketing practices, order enforcement, debt collection and other financial services matters, and implementation of the U.S. SAFE WEB Act. ...

The Bureau of Consumer Protection enforces consumer protection laws and trade regulation rules, investigates business practices, sues law violators, develops rules to protect consumers, and provides consumer and business education.

I worked alongside Mary Beth in the old FCC Field Operations Bureau, now Enforcement Bureau, and less directly when she was in the Office of the Managing Director. She was one of the most wonderful people I ever worked alongside with, a very dedicated career civil servant. In OMD she handled many key administrative matters such as reorganizations. One might assume that her return is in anticipation of activity in this area once a long term chairman is named.

Welcome back to FCC, MBR. It is a sign of more rational management.

[The photo above is from 1993 during her FOB period. Could not find a more recent one, but didn't think she would mind.]