Unfortunately, You Can't Make

the Wireless Microphone

Problem Go

Away by Taking a Different

Tack in TV White Spaces

There seem to be repeated rumors coming out of FCC that maybe they should take a different approach to utilizing TV "white spaces" by licensing them for broadband. Perhaps some think this will solve the wireless microphone problem painlessly - it won't.


TV white spaces are the inevitable result of TV broadcast licensing, especially when there is uneven terrain and uneven population distribution. There will always be places where there is no usable TV signal on a channel and were lower power use of that channel by other services is possible without interference. Under analog TV there was a lot more such white space due to the "UHF taboos" necessary to avoid neighboring channel interference to TV sets with mediocre selectivity. (FCC efforts in the 1970s to improve TV selectivity and decrease white spaces went down in flames due to broadcaster opposition.)


Wireless mics can use TV white space to provide a useful service, but in doing so inevitably use spectrum inefficiently compared to other possible users of white space. Why? Wireless mic use is intermittent in both space and time and only uses a tiny fraction of the space/time/spectrum resource made available by TV white spaces. Hence use is heavy in the Broadway theatre district of Manhattan and in a few other theatre districts. Use is heavy near churches for a few hours a week. But reserving TV white spaces for the exclusive use of wireless mics denies the spectrum to other that can use it much more intensely.


The current wireless mic mess is a result of both benign neglect of FCC towards this sector and aggressive merchandising by mainly Shure, Inc. to large numbers of users ineligible under current FCC rules to use them. (The hypocrisy of the TV broadcasters for opposing Part 74 eligibility for the churches and theatres for years, if not decades, and then becoming Shure's "best buddy" during Docket 04-186 is certainly a case of "strange bedfellows".)


I have repeatedly written here that "wireless mics are a legitimate use of spectrum (that) deserves more from FCC than benign neglect that allows most users only criminal spectrum squatting" . Yet FCC has taken no action even on the relatively simple issue in Docket 08-166 of evicting wireless mics from the spectrum that is now licensed to others after the DTV transition, let alone the more complex issue in Docket 08-167 of whether action should be taken against anyone for flaunting the Commission's rules and creating a de facto reallocation of spectrum.


The only way to avoid the inefficient use of white space that would result from preserving the present squatting of large numbers of users is to move towards a new method of serving wireless mic needs that does not give them exclusive, hence inefficient, spectrum. Let me note that CMRS licensees already have the regulatory flexibility offer femtocell-like systems that transmit wireless mic signals on CMRS spectrum without interconnection to the public network - one way connections from the microphone to the theatre/church audio panel. While the microphones and analog-to-digital convertors (DAC) used in cell phones are not of sufficient sound quality for many wireless mic applications, there is enough CMRS bandwidth available now to permit adequate quality with better mics and DACs. If the CMRS crowd really wants 800 MHz below 3 GHz , maybe it should seriously think about helping FCC by proposing a practical alternative to the wireless mic impasse.


Another approach to solving wireless mic spectrum problems is to move this use to another band where it will have a compatible spectrum sharing partner. Since wireless mics are a distinctly short range service, such sharing should be possible. For starters, the 1435-1525 MHz aeronautical telemetry band might be considered.


But letting wireless mics just sit in white spaces will inevitably cause problems for both the current policy adopted under Docket 04-186 and any alternative path the Commission might go down.

Wireless Mics are a Legitimate Use of Spectrum:
They Deserve More from FCC than
Benign Neglect that Allows Most Users
Only Criminal Spectrum Squatting

My former FCC boss, Dale Hatfield, used to say "if you are looking for interesting new ideas in spectrum policy, look what people are doing illegally and legalize it."

Well most wireless microphone use at present is illegal, a point that many people like to ignore - like the elephant in the room. Why are they illegal? Most wireless microphones in the US are physically Part 74 (broadcast auxiliary) devices operating in UHF TV spectrum in "white space channels" and require licenses. Only those industries specifically enumerated in Part 74 are eligible for such licenses and these are basically only NAB members and Hollywood moguls - all of whom have effective lobbyists in Washington. It is a cozy arrangement born in a different era of both technology and spectrum policy but it is a bad anachronism.

How did we get there?

In ancient history there was only analog television in UHF spectrum. The "UHF taboos" that resulted from both NTSC technology and 1953 estimates of how well future production TV sets could reject signals on nearby channels became self fulfilling prophecies and resulted in only 1 out of 6 channels being used in a given city. There was always tons of white space under this regulatory scheme. The "club" of broadcasters in a given city knew each other well and could work out deals to use this white space in support of their operations without interference. They sought and received FCC blessing for this exclusive use, although at some point Hollywood weighed in and became eligible also. Live theater productions, live concerts, churches, and conference centers are not eligible under Part 74 so their only legal options are low powered unlicensed systems that are secondary (and hence have greater risks of receiving interference) or Part 90 systems with complicated licensing requirements that probably have license transaction costs that exceed hardware costs in many cases.

Some unethical manufacturers and their dealers took advantage of this scenario and started marketing Part 74 wireless mics to noneligibles and "fuzzified" the legal issues. One even has on its website a "Wireless Frequency Finder" to help its customers find frequencies to use illegally. Apparently the FCC has turned a blind eye to this situation for years.

Lord Nelson raising his telescope to his blind eye in the Battle of Copenhagen

That was then, this is now

All of this was tolerable when spectrum was not in great demand, the dominant spectrum policy model was "command and control", there were few technical options for other use of the this spectrum, and there was plenty of white space. But that is all obsolete or becoming obsolete. Even as I write this the 700 MHz auction is winding down and next year TV channels 52-69 will be in the hands of new licensees who will expect to use them after a multibillion dollar auction. The NPRM in Docket 04-186 proposed 3 different options to use white space for broadband distribution in both urban and rural areas. While the broadcasters question the listen-before-talk option and have dragged everyone into obscure testing issues as a delaying tactic, the other 2 options are still on the table without significant objections.

The same wireless mic manufacturers who created the present lawless situation want the FCC to kill off the 04-186 proposals and allowed endless illegal squatting of their customers. The basic problem is that this would result in negligible overall use of a valuable resource: In the best circumstances the spectrum would be used heavily in the Broadway theater district, near megachurches on Sundays, and on the Las Vegas Strip. In terms of space and time, overall spectrum use would be negligible and it would be denied to all other classes of users.

The new technology proposed in 04-186 would result in much greater spectrum user and benefit to both the economy and society, but this should not mean that wireless mic users should be "thrown to the dogs". The users of wireless mics perform valuable are entitled to spectrum access, but access consistent with the current concepts of spectrum policy. They seem to demand continued exclusive access to "free spectrum" - even for clearly commercial operations. Guys, that is not the current era of spectrum policy.

Options for the future

But FCC should find a way to legitimize spectrum access for these users. Keeping them in the UHF-TV band will deny this spectrum to more valuable users but just as FCC relocated hospital-based medical telemetry out of this band into other bands where sharing was feasible, it should enter into a dialog with the wireless mic community (amnesty?) to find new spectrum home(s) where wireless mic use can share with other users on an interference free basis. Maybe there is a need for a coordinator who will charge fees like in the UK. (JFMG is the Ofcom-designated coordinator what what is called "PMSE" in UK-speak.) Unlicensed use and Part 90 use remains an option for users with modest requirements. Audio-Technica, a major supplier, has invested in and developed high reliability ultrawideband-based systems that can

Audio-Technica UWB-based wireless microphone system using MSSI's technology

satisfy the needs of users with needs for less than 14 units in a theater and can live with 12 kHz upper audio range - adequate for many users, but not opera. (This appears not to be a basic technical limit, but rather problems of an initial design of a niche product that uses off the shelf components.) A previous post here described how a AWS (3G) spectrum-based service could serve upper end users with high density and high audio quality requirements. Yes, it would result in increased costs for spectrum access. But that is the past 20 years of spectrum policy in the US and many other countries.

Finally, one problem the US wireless microphone manufacturers face is that they are relatively small firms with niche markets and do not have a good R&D base or volumes that easily justify custom integrated circuits. Thus they tend to stay with the existing technology and not press the margins to get new products. Thus they also are spending money on lawyers to press the FCC rather than innovating - like the medical telemetry people did when they noticed the same problem with the TV band. Ausio-Technica, as mentioned above, stands out as a recent innovator because they contracted with Multispectral Solutions (MSSI) of Germantown, MD for their new UWB product. They didn't spend all their money on lawyers!

Conservative wireless mic companies watch out! The problem isn't just Docket 04-186, Sony is entering your field too with new technology. Surf over to www.sonybiz.net/go-digital and you will see that Sony believes that digital will work for wireless mics and has entered the UK market. Fortunately for the not so nimble US manufacturers the present Sony models only work in 798-862 MHz and can't be used (legally) in the US market except in a small segment that will disappear in 11 months. But it wouldn't take much to move these to another band other than UHF-TV. Marrying the Sony analog-to-digital conversion technology to 3G/AWS cell phone technology should also be straightforward.

But the key issue is that FCC is not now considering any other options for wireless mics at the moment. The status quo is an inefficient anachronistic use of valuable spectrum and will have real problems next year when the 700 MHz auction winners claim their spectrum.

Possible options that should be examined should include the possibility of opening a new band, other than UHF TV. that is more compatible with sharing with the wireless mic industry as it actually exists today along with use of more efficient technology than the current de facto monoculture of FM. The demands of the wireless mic users that the new spectrum access should have no cost should be considered but should not be treated as a "non-negotiable demand". UK wireless mic users pay for access so there is a relevant precedent. The longer FCC ignores this issue, the more difficult it will become.

================================
Harold Feld has published an interesting follow up to this post entitled "700 MHz Aftermath: Verizon, AT&T & the $16 Billion Termites"

New Wireless Microphone Complaint and Petition

This week the Public Interest Spectrum Coalition filed with FCC a complaint about the massive marketing of wireless microphones to users who could not legally use them - creating de facto allocations and service rules without the benefit of policy deliberations and consideration of the long term implications.

This petition results, in part, from some work I did for the New America Foundation, a PISC member. The concepts are also related to my March 10, 2008 post entitled "Wireless Mics are a Legitimate Use of Spectrum:They Deserve More from FCC than Benign Neglect that Allows Most Users Only Criminal Spectrum Squatting".

The basic points of the FCC filing are:

• Begin an investigation against Shure, Inc., and the other manufacturers listed in the informal complaint, for willfully and knowingly marketing and selling wireless microphones to unauthorized users for ineligible purposes in violation of Part 74, Subpart H, and for engagingin deceptive advertising practices designed to persuade ineligible users such as houses of worship, theaters, corporate event venues, and members of the general public that they could legally purchase and operate wireless microphones operating on vacant broadcast UHF Channels without a license and for purposes prohibited by the Commission;

•Grant a general amnesty to all unauthorized users of wireless microphones deceived by the
illegal and deceptive marketing of manufacturers, permit use of the illegal equipment on a
going forward basis until the Commission authorizes the proposed GWMS, and require those
manufacturers that engaged in illegal marketing to migrate the unauthorized users of Part 74,
Subpart H equipment to the new GWMS by replacing equipment authorized for Part 74,
Subpart H with equipment authorized for use in the GWMS;

•Immediately reclassify all licensed wireless microphone systems operating pursuant to Part 74, Subpart H as secondary to all advanced wireless service (AWS) and public safety systems authorized to operate on television Channels 52-69 following the shut off of analog television transmission;

• Order that manufacture, sale, and advertisement for sale of wireless microphone systems operating on channels 52-69 cease immediately; and

• Create a new “General Wireless Microphone Service” (GWMS) licensed by rule pursuant to Section 307(e) to operate on vacant broadcast UHF channels below Channel 52 on a secondary basis to broadcast licensees and individually licensed wireless microphone systems, and authorized on a primary basis to operate on the 2020-25 Band currently authorized for broadcast ancillary service (BAS) and under consideration for reallocation in Docket Nos. WT 07-195, WT 04-356 (“AWS-2/AWS-3 Proceeding”).

It has always amazed me that in a law and order-oriented Republican administration this lawless behavior has been tolerated even when it involves the illegal and dangerous use of public safety spectrum. (In the case of immigration reforms, don't most Republicans think that those who have violated the law should not be given amnesty and should go to the "back of the line" with respect to benefits? In this case, the "liberal" members of PISC are at least consistent with the liberal view of immigration issues. It will be interesting to see how Republicans view the issue.)

Indeed, it is amazing that this complaint comes from PISC, not CTIA or its cellular behemoth members that have recently spent billions for the spectrum that Shure encourages their customers to use and not from APCO that hounds the FCC for more spectrum but has ignored protecting the spectrum from such intruders. (While there may not be a documented case of wireless mic interference to public safety in the FCC records, we all know that public safety systems frequently have marginal repeater coverage inside buildings. (Remember what happened at the World Trade Center when the firemen couldn't get receive the order to evacuate?) When the downlink signal is marginal, small cochannel signals can easily cause interference. So CTIA and APCO members might want to ask their trade associations why they have been ignoring this spectrum squatting for so long.

Discussion in Harold Feld's blog including exchange with Henry Cohen, an engineer active in Broadway use of wireless mics.

AP story

Chicago Tribune story. Includes this discussion of Shure's views,

Shure spokesman Mark Brunner said the company is aware of the potential interference problem from the digital transition and hasn't sold products for that spectrum since late 2007. [Wow - they stopped in the past year. Maybe they finally read something in USA Today about the 700 MHz auction! Maybe news travels slowly "outside the Beltway? What have they told customers that bought this equipment? The world wonders. - MM]

As for the broader issue of how so many unauthorized users were allowed to purchase wireless microphones, Brunner said technological advances and market practices of the last several years simply overtook the outdated FCC rules.

"Those rules were written several decades ago, when wireless microphones were a bit more crude than they are today. … Over time, no interference complaint has really resulted," Brunner said. "The technology got better and more industries decided they were interested in using these products. … The rules were never really updated to reflect that."

Did it ever occur to Shure to ask FCC to change its rules rather than selling hardware to users who use of it would be in violation of criminal law and might endanger public safety where the FCC's tolerance of interference risk is rightfully near zero?

"Broadcasters Ponder

FCC Spectrum

Reclamation"

A recent Broadcasting and Cable article had this surprising headline.

The article started with this revelation,

A source confirms that broadcasters at last week's NAB board meeting in Dallas discussed the possibility of turning much of their digital spectrum back in to the government in exchange for a cut of the proceeds when that spectrum was reauctioned for wireless broadband. "There was not much support for the idea," said the source.

The "not much support" was not surprising. But the mere fact that they discussed a socially progressive potential economic stimulus concept that flies in the face of rigid broadcaster dogma and someone in the sacred inner circles of NAB had the temerity to leak it is what is surprising.

The issue at hand is the so called "big bang" proposal by Evan Kwerel and John Williams of FCC in 2002 in OPP Working Paper 38 in conjunction with the FCC's Spectrum Policy Task Force.

The abstract of the report states,

To facilitate the rapid transition from administrative allocation of spectrum to market allocation, this paper proposes that the FCC (1) reallocate restricted spectrum to flexible use; (2) conduct large-scale, two-sided auctions of spectrum voluntarily offered by incumbents together with any unassigned spectrum held by the FCC, and (3) provide incumbents with incentives to participate in such “band restructuring” auctions by immediately granting participants flexibility and allowing them to keep the proceeds from the
sale of their spectrum.

The proposal was not well received at the time.

But perhaps the NAB Board had read your blogger's comments to the FCC Innovation NOI.

Since NAB paid so much attention, here is the section they probably were thinking about:

Para. 54 (of the NOI) seeks comment on “innovations in the use of renewable energy and other green technology to makes wireless networks more energy efficient or address other environmental concerns.” At the risk of saying the obvious, the TV broadcast band uses a large amount of electric power to transmit RF signals that are actually received by an ever decreasing number of subscribers. The main apparent need for these transmitters is to guarantee to broadcast licensees “must carry” status with CATV systems. The use of electric power and the RF occupancy appears to be mainly a byproduct of this desired endgoal that gives 90+% of the viewership of licensed TV broadcasters. While over-the-air broadcasting gives consumers access to broadcast signals at no marginal cost compared to the pricing of MVDS service, policy options exist to offer basic MVDS service as comparable cost. For example, part of fees from new users utilizing former TV spectrum could be used to finance “lifeline” MVDS service.

MSS has no objection to giving present TV broadcasters long term must carry status, but questions why this must be accompanied with the waste of electric power and squatting on spectrum to deny it to others. While it is no possible under present law to let broadcasters keep must carry status without transmitting largely “unreceived” signals, MSS urges the Commission to explore and make recommendations to Congress for giving TV broadcasters incentives to cease using large amounts of electric power and cease filling spectrum with largely unwatched signals while retaining today’s must carry rights.

Reuters coverage: U.S. broadcasters balking at FCC spectrum plan

Wireless
Microphone Update:

The Twisted Logic of NAB and MSTV - Now Locked
in Conflict with APCO and CTIA

Faithful readers will recall that we have talked a lot here about the saga of wireless microphone use in UHF-TV channels. While we have discussed that most wireless microphone use is illegal, we have also stated that "wireless mics are a legitimate use of spectrum (that) deserves more from FCC than benign neglect that allows most users only criminal spectrum squatting. (3/10/2008)

While CTIA and the cellular establishment were ignoring the wireless mic issue and seeing the TV whitespace docket (04-186) as a way to covet more spectrum and while the public safety establishment was asleep on this issue, concentrating on the D block, SpectrumTalk reported a year ago that FCC had still taken no action to evict legal, let alone illegal, wireless microphones from the 700 MHz band (TV channels 52-69) -- even as they were giving part of the band to public safety users for critical needs and auctioning off the rest for billions. (11/26/07)

Well, finally FCC woke up after the PISC petition/complaint. In August FCC released an NPRM/Order in Dockets 08-166 & 08-167 addressing the petition and announced (at long last) "that the Commission’s Enforcement Bureau has initiated an investigation relating to the marketing practices of various manufacturers of wireless microphones." (However, there is no visible sign of that investigation or its results.)

The order part of the NPRM/Order was amusing. It stated,

"In light of our tentative conclusion above not to permit the operation of low power auxiliary stations on 700 MHz Band frequencies (698-806 MHz) following the end of the DTV transition, we also find that continuing to accept new license applications for low power auxiliary station licenses that involve the operation of such stations on this spectrum after February 17, 2009 would impair the objectives that we are proposing in this proceeding." (para. 23)

The problem here is that the vast majority of all users here are not licensed since their use is illegal. Therefore, stopping new licenses will have no impact. Indeed, it is unlikely that any new licenses are issued normally. There are only 156 current legal licenses in the whole country for wireless microphones and other low power auxiliary equipment in the 700 MHz band. (It is likely that many broadcaster wireless microphone operators who are eligible for licenses have never applied for them, why should they if no one else does?)

How did we get into this mess? The comments of Nady Systems, Inc. are both candid and informative (a refreshing change from their self serving competitor, Shure., Inc.):

"The FCC's Policy Toward Unlicensed Wireless Microphone Use Was
Tacit Allowance and Benign Neglect

Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s. John Nady several times raised with FCC officials the question of whether FCC regulations needed changing so that the growing class of wireless microphone users who were ineligible to be licensed under the existing rules could become officially authorized. The officials told him that there is no need to change the licensing regulations - a cumbersome process - because since the FCC has not received complaints of wireless microphone interference with TV reception unlicensed use is not a problem. For over thirty years. the FCC has known about unlicensed wireless microphone use in the TV spectrum for purposes not authorized by regulation and has tacitly allowed that use to continue. For example, in opening up the 171-216 MHz TV spectrum to wireless microphones, the Commission noted '..the need for wireless microphones used in special events coverage and in dramatic presentationshaving a large number of performers:') The Commission stated: 'We are confident that groups other than broadcast licensees can use these frequencies responsibly. obtaining the benefits of such use while being aware of the interference possibilities associated with it.' In 1992. the Commission observed, 'commentators argue that experience with wireless microphones in the TV spectrum has shown that devices of this type end up being used by all sorts of people in places where they are not authorized by the rules')

The FCC's policy of benign neglect toward unlicensed wireless microphone use in the TV spectrum has allowed the wireless microphone industry to develop technologically, fill a market need, enabled prices to come down as a result of volume production and opened up the benefits of wireless microphones to professionals not limited to the TV radio-motion picture industry."

There is an important moral here: when the Commission focuses its efforts almost entirely on petitions from major parties and ignores actual technical and market developments, its rules drift farther and farther away from reality. "Rule maintenance" is needed to prevent this, but that is not a sexy topic at FCC and gets little management attention. Focusing policy resources on "buying IBM" is less risky for managers at FCC. But technology and the communications market move at "Internet speed" while government regulations move at "government speed".


Which brings us to the 10/3/08 joint comments of MSTV and NAB. Having aligned themselves with Shure in Docket 04-186, MSTV/NAB continue to follow Shure's policy of protecting its lawless user base even though NAB usually advocates strict compliance with Title III licensing. The really twisted logic is at the very beginning of the comments, not hidden in the middle or an obscure footnote):

"MSTV and NAB propose that wireless microphone operation on a specific frequency and geographic area end upon the earlier of (1) sixty days prior to the date on which the 700 MHz wireless entrant intends to begin service, per a notice sent to the affected wireless microphone licensees, or (2) February 2012.
...
Under the plan proposed by MSTV and NAB, any commercial wireless or public safety licensee will be able to ensure that its frequency is cleared of wireless microphone use prior to beginning service — even if that date of first service is February 17, 2009." (emphasis added)

Questions for MSTV/NAB: As has been said repeatedly in both 04-186 and 08-166/7, without any contradiction at all in the public record, the vast majority of wireless microphone users are unlicensed and not eligible for licenses. Indeed, they are in criminal violation of 47 U.S.C. 301. No one knows who they are or where they are. (In the past NAB has opposed expanding Part 74 eligibility so NAB is not exactly an innocent party here.) So how does the public safety licensee or auction winner find these people to give them 60 day notice to vacate?

But MSTV/NAB are not just worried about the illegal users. They add,

"Adoption of such a short timeframe for licensed wireless microphones to transition to other bands inevitably will result in service disruptions. Re-tuning equipment to cease operation in the 700 MHz band will cost on average $50,000 to $75,000 per station. Stations’ budgets, which already have been completed for the year, do not account for this expense; station resources have been allocated to complete the digital television transition. Even if stations could afford to purchase new equipment to operate in different bands in such a short timeframe, manufacturers may not be able to meet the unexpected demand. Of course, a significant increase in demand is also likely to add to the cost of obtaining new or re-tuned equipment."

Dane Ericksen, a former FCC enforcement official and prominent broadcast consultant, blasts away all the MSTV/NAB arguments (as well as the wireless mic interests') in his reply comments. ( Guess no more consulting work for him from MSTV or NAB. They are both reputed to demand "loyalty" from their consultants.)

Did not MSTV/NAB members, of all people, know that the DTV transition was coming? Had they read about the 700 MHz auction? Even their favorite magazine, Broadcasting & Cable, wrote about the 700 MHz auction!

Are MSTV/NAB members paupers? Maybe NTIA should issue special coupons for low income broadcasters to subsidize their wireless mic replacements?

Please explain under your plan how "any commercial wireless or public safety licensee will be able to ensure that its frequency is cleared of wireless microphone use prior to beginning service — even if that date of first service is February 17, 2009."

We promise to post without editing, any reply from broadcasters and wireless mic interests (and others) as long as the wording is appropriate for current FCC broadcasting content limits. (Fleeting expletives OK.)

This 700 MHz issue has now become an "irresistible force/immovable object" topic as CTIA and APCO ("APCO urges the Commission to take aggressive steps to eliminate those nonconforming uses as quickly as possible") have staked out opposing positions. MSTV and NAB usually get their way at FCC in practice, but this time they may have "bitten off more than they can chew".

"Comparing the benefits of spectrum used for over-the-air television broadcasting and those of spectrum used for wireless broadband services"

"It is a bit of a mystery to me why we can't explore the idea 

that broadcasters might want to sell their spectrum

and that we have to close that dialogue down"- Blair Levin, FCC

Reacting surprisingly quickly to your blogger's suggestion in his comments to the Wireless Innovation Inquiry, Docket 09-157, FCC issued yesterday a public notice cryptically entitled "Data Sought on Uses of Spectrum".  A key question tells what is going on here:

"What factors should the Commission consider when examining and comparing the benefits of spectrum used for over-the-air television broadcasting and those of spectrum used for wireless broadband services?"

FCC is now actually asking for the benefits of over-the-air television!  What happened to the good old days when NAB, AT&T, and the "major mobile (equipment) manufacturer" controlled all aspects of FCC policy among them?


Your blogger's suggestion of September 22, 2009 (72 days ago) said:

Para. 54 (of the Spectrum Innovation NOI) seeks comment on “innovations in the use of renewable energy and other green technology to makes wireless networks more energy efficient or address other environmental concerns.” At the risk of saying the obvious, the TV broadcast band uses a large amount of electric power to transmit RF signals that are actually received by an ever decreasing number of subscribers. The main apparent need for these transmitters is to guarantee to broadcast licensees “must carry” status with CATV systems. The use of electric power and the RF occupancy appears to be mainly a byproduct of this desired endgoal that gives 90+% of the viewership of licensed TV broadcasters. While over-the- air broadcasting gives consumers access to broadcast signals at no marginal cost compared to the pricing of MVDS service, policy options exist to offer basic MVDS service as comparable cost. For example, part of fees from new users utilizing former TV spectrum could be used to finance “lifeline” MVDS service.

MSS has no objection to giving present TV broadcasters long term must carry status, but questions why this must be accompanied with the waste of electric power and squatting on spectrum to deny it to others. While it is not possible under present law to let broadcasters keep must carry status without transmitting largely “unreceived” signals, MSS urges the Commission to explore and make recommendations to Congress for giving TV broadcasters incentives to cease using large amounts of electric power and cease filling spectrum with largely unwatched signals while retaining today’s must carry rights.

No broadcaster commented directly on this point, although MSTV and NAB in joint reply comments of November 5 (28 days ago) chose to mischaracterize it - no doubt to avoid addressing the point in question.   In a footnote, the giants of the broadcasting industry said

 "One commenter, Marcus Spectrum Solutions LLC (“MSS”) argued that broadcasters should stop broadcasting and simply rely on cable carriage. See Comments of Marcus Spectrum Solutions LLC (“MSS”) at 10. The MSS approach ignores the public policy goals of universal broadcast service, would strand consumer and government investment in DTV reception equipment, and would deprive consumers of new services such as mobile video."

Apparently, NAB and MSTV's attempt to take this issue off the field of consideration has backfired. The PN has questions like

3.    What would be the impact to the U.S. economy and public welfare if the coverage of free over- the-air broadcast television was diminished to accommodate a repacking of stations to recover spectrum?

There may be opportunities for broadcasters to share 6 MHz channels in a market without significantly disrupting the free over-the-air television service that consumers enjoy today. Stations sharing channels may be able to trade capacity (in Mbps) between or among themselves. We note that the number of broadcasting stations sharing a single 6 MHz channel would affect the number and type of signals that each can broadcast.

[The last quote deals with something not widely known in the US: In the UK, most DTV TV broadcasts use shared transmitters owned and operated by a nonbroadcaster, Arqiva.  These transmitters send 4 SDTV signals in 1 TV channel.  UK broadcasters, e.g. US citizen Rupert Murdoch, produce programming and sell advertising, but do not have the equivalent of Part 73 licenses.  FCC seems tobe asking whether this could be done here.  With present technology is it not possible to multiplex several HDTV programs, particularly sports with lots of motion, on a single transmitter.]

CTIA was clearly pleased with the PN.  They previously said the US faced a "spectrum crisis unless significant additional spectrum was allocated for licensed CMRS".   The day of the PN, CTIA, CEA, and " more than 100 of America' most innovative companies" sent a letter to FCC saying

 “Our nation's ability to lead the world in innovation and technology is threatened by the lack of sufficient spectrum available for wireless broadband applications and services. As the Chairman has said, there is a looming spectrum crisis. We applaud your candid acknowledgment of this fact and appreciate your efforts to close the spectrum gap.

“A veritable revolution is underway in which consumers and businesses rely on laptops, increasingly sophisticated smartphones, and other wireless devices to access bandwidth-intensive applications, content and services. This has led to an explosion in innovation, technological improvements, job creation, productivity and consumer welfare gains. It will also create a real strain on the nation's Internet infrastructure. Without more spectrum, America's global leadership in innovation and technology is threatened.

“The undersigned urge you to allocate more spectrum for wireless broadband as soon as possible. Please let us know how we can help.”

NAB was more restrained,

"Broadband deployment to unserved areas is a worthy goal, and broadcasters believe we can help the FCC accomplish its mission without stifling growth opportunities of free and local TV stations and the millions of viewers that we serve. We would hope policymakers would remember that after spending $15 billion upgrading to the next generation of television, broadcasters just returned to the government more than a quarter of the spectrum used for free and local TV service."

Audio recording of Progress and Freedom Foundation December 1 event on the same basic issue.

Let's Make a Deal:
Broadcasters, Mobile Broadband,
and a Market in Spectrum

A PFF Congressional Seminar

===================================================

 UPDATE

12/4/09 NY Times has an article on yet another aspect of declining use of over-the-air TV signals. It starts with an amusing anecdote of how a broadcasting mogul could not convince her own daughter to take a TV set to college because the daughter would rather use IP video:

Web-TV Divide Is Back in Focus With NBC Sale

As she prepared her daughter for college, Anne Sweeney insisted that a television be among the dorm room accessories. 

“Mom, you don’t understand. I don’t need it,” her 19-year-old responded, saying she could watch whatever she wanted on her computer, at no charge.

That flustered Ms. Sweeney, who happens to be the president of the Disney-ABC Television Group.

“You’re going to have a television if I have to nail it to your wall,” she told her daughter, according to comments she made at a Reuters event this week. “You have to have one.”

But she does not, actually.

The Progress & Freedom Foundation
Presents

Let's Make a Deal: Broadcasters, Mobile Broadband, and a Market in Spectrum

Proposals to have television broadcasters return a portion of their spectrum for re-allocation and auction for next-generation mobile broadband and data services have been met with strong reactions from broadcasters. Is re-allocation of spectrum necessary to encourage broadband expansion? Would compensation for broadcasters be adequate? Will Congress go along with such a deal, or would it be blocked as contrary to "the public interest?" These and other policy issues will be discussed at " Let's Make a Deal: Broadcasters, Mobile Broadband, and a Market in Spectrum ," a Congressional Seminar hosted by The Progress & Freedom Foundation.

Speakers include FCC's Blair Levin, Coleman Bazelon of The Brattle Group, Kostas Liopiros of The Sun Fire Group David Donovan, President of the Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc., and John Hane, Counsel in the communications practice group of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP to discuss if a "grand bargain" to re-allocate spectrum is wise and if it is a feasible option to free spectrum for mobile services. Adam Thierer, President of The Progress & Freedom Foundation, will act as moderator of the event.

" Let's Make a Deal: Broadcasters, Mobile Broadband, and a Market in Spectrum ," will be held Tuesday, December 1st from 9:00am to 11:00am in the Holeman Lounge, 13th Floor, at the National Press Club, 529 14th Street, NW in Washington, DC. Those interested in attending can register here. Questions should be directed to Allison Bringardner at abringardner@pff.org or 202-289-8928.

Your blogger presented a similar proposal in his comments to the Wireless Innovation Inquiry, Docket 09-157:

Para. 54 (of the NOI) seeks comment on “innovations in the use of renewable energy and other green technology to makes wireless networks more energy efficient or address other environmental concerns.” At the risk of saying the obvious, the TV broadcast band uses a large amount of electric power to transmit RF signals that are actually received by an ever decreasing number of subscribers. The main apparent need for these transmitters is to guarantee to broadcast licensees “must carry” status with CATV systems. The use of electric power and the RF occupancy appears to be mainly a byproduct of this desired endgoal that gives 90+% of the viewership of licensed TV broadcasters. While over-the- air broadcasting gives consumers access to broadcast signals at no marginal cost compared to the pricing of MVDS service, policy options exist to offer basic MVDS service as comparable cost. For example, part of fees from new users utilizing former TV spectrum could be used to finance “lifeline” MVDS service.

MSS has no objection to giving present TV broadcasters long term must carry status, but questions why this must be accompanied with the waste of electric power and squatting on spectrum to deny it to others. While it is not possible under present law to let broadcasters keep must carry status without transmitting largely “unreceived” signals, MSS urges the Commission to explore and make recommendations to Congress for giving TV broadcasters incentives to cease using large amounts of electric power and cease filling spectrum with largely unwatched signals while retaining today’s must carry rights.

No broadcaster commented directly on this point, although MSTV and NAB in joint reply comments chose to mischaracterize it - no doubt to avoid addressing the point in question. Thus it is interesting to see that MSTV's president will be present at the PFF forum.

=====

UPDATE

Transcript of event

Shure Cleans Up Its Act - A Little Bit

In a previous post I reported that Shure was ignoring public safety use of TV channels 14-20 in making recommendations to their generally not legally eligible customers for their illegal use of UHF spectrum. A mutual acquaintance discussed this with Shure and reported back that it was an unintended software bug and that they had intended to warn the illegal users, i.e. their customers, to avoid public safety spectrum. He also reported that Shure would correct this specific problem.

The good news is that Shure has acted as promised.

Shure's listing of Chicago UHF spectrum use in channels 14-51

Above is the latest data from Shure's "Wireless Frequency Finder". (See, who needs Chairman Martin and the FCC?) In the case of Chicago, channels 14 and 15 are clearly marked as used by "safety" just like 47 CFR 90.303 says. Perhaps APCO will give Shure an award for this support to public safety?

Indeed Shure goes beyond this if you look a little higher in the spectrum.

Shure's listing of Chicago UHF spectrum use in channels 29-69

Now Shure even advises this customers that channel 68 and 69 have been "reallocated for public safety". Shure also advises that US customers avoid purchasing "UA band" (782.125 - 805.750 MHz) systems although in 2004 they were hyping this band. (Let's ignore the issue that Canada will use the same public safety block as the US and there is no guidance for Canadian clients - Industry Canada will have to handle that one alone.)

But why channels 68 & 69?

Upper 700 MHz band plan

Above is the current 700 MHz band plan. You can see why Shure's UA band is such a problem. Is Shure offering a deal to those who were tricked into buying them in recent years? But why the focus on channels 68 and 69? Note that there are 2 public safety blocks here in the former channels 62-64 and the former channels 67-69. Note also that the famous "D block" covers the remainder of channels 62 and 67 and, if the FCC ever resolves the auction issues of this band and public/private sharing, will carry public safety traffic at times of heavy load. Why are only 68 and 69 identified as worthy of special attention?

Oddly, on another part of its website Shure does say that "the FCC has reallocated four UHF TV channels for use by Public Safety stations" but doesn't mention what they are. Also, if D block is included there are 6 channels that will be used by public safety. But in any case, all wireless mics (legal and illegal) should be totally out of channels 51-69 by February!

A non-public safety issue I noticed in the Shure tables above deals with channel 55. Note that Shure does not identify any present TV use of it in Chicago. They're right! However, did Shure miss the news in Wikipedia that Qualcomm has a nationwide license on channel 55 for its MediaFLO service (which is resold to consumers under other names by AT&T and Verizon Wireless)? Qualcomm MediaFLO is secondary to TV stations until next February but is now operational in the cities listed below:
Note that MediaFLO is operational in Chicago on channel 55 as well as a lot of other cities. While it is secondary with respect to licensed TV stations, I am reasonably certain that it is primary with respect to noneligible/illegal users of their spectrum. It also is a potential source of interference to wireless microphones if they are near a transmitter site. (And wireless microphones are a potential source of interference to consumers using MediaFLO-based services.)

Readers interested in more news on wireless microphones are referred to the recent post on the PISC complaint that alleges that not only is Shure's customers' use of these frequencies illegal but that Shure itself is acting illegally

"for willfully and knowingly marketing and selling wireless microphones to unauthorized users for ineligible purposes in violation of Part 74, Subpart H, and for engaging in deceptive advertising practices designed to persuade ineligible users such as houses of worship, theaters, corporate event venues, and members of the general public that they could legally purchase and operate wireless microphones operating on vacant broadcast UHF Channels without a license and for purposes prohibited by the Commission;"

and to my recent FCC filing pointing out the CEPT, the European spectrum regulator, has proposed to move wireless microphones to an entirely new band as part of their digital transition.

As I have said before, wireless microphones are a legitimate use of spectrum and deserve more from FCC than benign neglect that allows most users only criminal spectrum squatting. I have advocate a responsible solution to this mess; PISC includes with their complaint a responsible proposal for solving the problem; but Shure seems to just demand the status quo. FCC is strangely silent on the wireless microphone issue other than considering offers of venues, many of which are illegal users, for Docket 04-186 testing of wireless microphone detection.

My client, Adaptrum, pragmatically also supports protection of wireless microphone users but has told FCC that a combination of safe harbors (for small users) and well placed beacons would be more effective than the passive detection advocated by other Docket 04-186 proponents.

Update

I just discovered that the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) wrote Chmn. Martin on June 30, 2008. The letter stated,

• The Commission should take specific action to ensure that all
  manufacturers cease certifying, marketing and importing wireless microphones and
  similar devices capable of operating in the public safety 700 MHz band spectrum
• NPSTC recommends the Commission expeditiously initiate an aggressive and rational transition within which users must find other solutions for any microphones operating on the 700 MHz public safety spectrum
• Unlicensed microphones present a different situation. Legally, unlicensed
  wireless microphones already have no authority to operate.
  
• (The Commission should) expeditiously issue a Public Notice targeted toward wireless microphone manufacturers and dealers advising of the transition in use of the 763-775/793-805 MHz spectrum and need to cease unlicensed operations in those band segments.

In view of the great apparent interest in public safety at FCC it is amazing that no action has been taken on any of these points in the more than a month since the letter was sent.

Oddly, NPSTC did not address the issue I have raised about the legal ambiguity of wireless microphone use of land mobile spectrun in TV channels 14-20.