Ofcom Takes on Susan Boyle Issue

The UK press has reported that the FCC's UK counterpart, Ofcom,

"has launched an investigation to determine whether ITV, the network that produces and airs Britain’s Got Talent, violated the broadcasting code when Susan Boyle was allowed on the finale despite showing clear signs she was heading for a mental breakdown. Reports in the British media indicate that viewers had complained to ITV prior to Saturday when the finale took place, which would mean the producers deliberately chose to ignore all concerns for the sake of the 19 million audience recorded."

Whether this is a good idea or not is not something I am expert in. Readers may recall that I am an admirer of Ofcom's spectrum policy in general. I boldly predict that spectrum policy development at Ofcom will continue at its normal pace and will not be affected by the distraction of the Boyle issue.

The key thing to note here is that Ofcom is able to "rub its stomach and pat its head" at the same time because top management knows how to delegate to its top managers in the several product lines such as broadcast content, spectrum management, broadband policy, etc.

By contrast FCC in recent history can only focus on one issue at a time and the other issues lie fallow while the issue du jour gets all the attention.

I hope the new FCC leadership team learns something from how Ofcom can do multiple things at the same time and clean up the present spectrum policy backlog after June 12.

Ofcom Continues its Leadership Role in Spectrum Policy with Bold Proposals for 275-3000 GHz


FCC was once the world's leader in innovative spectrum policy and admired by its counterparts throughout the world. But the UK's Ofcom may be taking that title away with a massive wave of activity in a variety of spectrum policy areas. Shown here is the summary of a 9/26 document proposing that spectrum from 275 to 3000 GHz be all unlicensed.

It makes sense -- most of the reasons for starting radio licensing don't apply to such high frequencies where propagation is very different and most systems very directional.

But more importantly, why don't we see bold ideas coming from FCC these days?

UK's Ofcom Proposes Unlicensed TV White Space Devices


Yesterday, the FCC's UK progressive counterpart, released a long awaited report entitled "Digital Dividend Review:A statement on our approach to awarding the digital dividend". "Digital dividend" is Eurospeak for what happens to TV spectrum after the end of the DTV transition, analogous to the FCC's 700 MHz auctions.

Ofcom stated (in peculiar UK spelling) the following points that I strongly agree with:

This decision matters for several reasons:

• spectrum is an essential input in the modern world. Its use underpins 3% of the UK’s gross domestic product (GDP) and generates wide reaching benefits for citizens and consumers. But spectrum is a scarce resource, so how it is managed is a critical issue;
• the spectrum presently used by analogue terrestrial television is exceptional because it can readily be used to provide high bandwidth services over long distances and into buildings; and
• the opportunity to put this spectrum to new use does not arise often. Analogue television has been its main use for many decades, under a framework that dates back to 1961.

... Under the Communications Act 2003, our duties are to further the interests of citizens and consumers and to secure the optimal use of spectrum. Our objective for the DDR is to award the digital dividend in a way that maximises the total value to society from its future use. This includes value both to citizens and to consumers.

• 
  

These would be admirable goals in any country. Then comes the real shocker, the UK counterpart of the FCC's Docket 04-186 proposals for white space/"interleaved spectrum" in UK-speak:

1.34 We propose to allow licence exempt use of interleaved spectrum for cognitive devices. Some licence exempt uses are able to coexist successfully with higher power licensed uses. Cognitive radio is a new technology that can detect spectrum that is otherwise unused and transmit without causing harmful interference. It has the potential to support a wide range of uses, including high speed always on broadband. It is particularly suited to operating in interleaved spectrum, where significant capacity is often unused at any one location at least some of the time.

1.35 We see significant scope for cognitive equipment using interleaved spectrum to emerge and to benefit from international economies of scale. But use of equipment in the UK will need to protect licensed users of this spectrum, including DTT and PMSE, against harmful interference. We will not allow cognitive equipment to use interleaved spectrum until we are satisfied on this point.

1.36 We think that allowing licence exempt cognitive use of interleaved spectrum is likely to be justified. Allowing access in this way will overcome the coordination problem they would otherwise face while imposing limited costs on other potential uses. We also think it is likely to encourage more innovation and competition in the provision of services, promoting the interests of citizens and consumers.

... 6.26 In contrast, cognitive devices could make flexible use of interleaved spectrum without causing harmful interference to licensed users. This would allow many of the applications set out above to be delivered at a low opportunity cost, resulting in substantial benefits. Other applications and innovations might also be spurred by the availability of a large pool of interleaved spectrum for licence exempt use.

6.27 Cognitive use of interleaved spectrum would depend on the development of effective spectrum sensing technology that would avoid transmitting in channels used by licensed services. Devices are being developed by a number of manufacturers, including Microsoft, Motorola and Philips. These companies have each submitted devices to the FCC for testing in the US. These devices are primarily designed to detect DTT and wireless microphone signals and, as such, would be suited for use in interleaved spectrum in the UK.

6.28 We therefore propose to allow cognitive technologies to use interleaved spectrum on a licence exempt basis subject to establishing that the probability of harmful interference to licensed users will be low. It is likely that the total value generated would be greater than the opportunity cost of allowing licence exempt cognitive access. The total value would be composed of the private value of foreseen
applications, which we estimate to be approximately £150-250m (NPV over 20 years), as well as benefits that would come from innovation and new services. There may also be broader social benefits. Because cognitive devices do not need to be exclusively assigned rights to spectrum and should automatically avoid interfering with licensed services, the opportunity cost should be low.

6.29 We would need to specify a number of parameters to which equipment would need to adhere. Early measurements made by the FCC suggest that such spectrum sensing is possible but careful certification might be needed.* It may take some years to undertake the work necessary to gain appropriate international harmonisation. (Emphasis added)

* Looks like Ofcom reads the FCC documents differently than MSTV and NAB! - MJM

In UK-speak, wireless microphones are called "programme making and special events"/PMSE and handled on a strictly licensed basis, apparently without the wholesale violations as in the US, by a private coordinator, JFMG, Ltd., who charges fees to all PMSE users based on the amount of usage. Unlike the FCC, Ofcom is making explicit plans for PMSE after the digital transition and they will have to pay for spectrum use, as is the general trend for spectrum access in both US and UK. Oddly, in the US both the legal and (majority) illegal wireless microphones users assume they have a constitutional right to free spectrum use with existing equipment in perpetuity, unlike most spectrum users.

On the PMSE issue, Ofcom states

1.41 We have decided to reserve most of the available interleaved spectrum to meet the needs of PMSE users. PMSE is an existing use of interleaved spectrum. It comprises a large and diverse community of businesses, community organisations and individuals. We think that PMSE users would find it difficult to coordinate a bid for access to spectrum, and we think there is a high risk of market failure as result. However, with a careful transition, they can move to accessing spectrum via market mechanisms in the future.

1.42 We will award a single package of interleaved spectrum to a licensee that will act as a band manager. To help PMSE users with the transition to market mechanisms, we will use criteria designed to ensure that the band manager’s interests are aligned with those of PMSE users. The band manager will pay a charge for the spectrum based on Administered Incentive Pricing (AIP) and will be able to earn revenue by charging its customers for access. But regulation will ensure that it has to meet reasonable demand from PMSE users on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. So long as these obligations are met, the band manager will be able to allow others to make use of its spectrum.

1.43 We have decided that channel 69 should continue to be available for PMSE use throughout the UK on a licensed basis. We will also promote greater licence exempt use of channel 70 for PMSE, in the interests of community users.

So one TV channel (#69 in the UK channel plan whihc is not the same as the US plan) will be available for wireless microphones through the coordinator independent of any auction. Some of the remaining white space will available to wireless microphones through the coordination.

In another UK development that will be bound to displease the US broadcast establishment, Ofcom has published proposals to squeeze multiple HDTV transmissions into a single DTV transmitter. Remember when we thought TV broadcasters should get one new 6 MHz channel for their old NTSC channel because 6 MHz was needed for HDTV? Ofcom stated,

1.14 We have identified two technical advances that together could result in a very significant increase in the DTT (=digital terrestrial television in Eurospeak) platform’s capacity. These relate to improvements in the standards used (a) for coding (compressing) information, to squeeze as much as possible into a given amount of spectrum, and (b) in its physical transmission.

1.15 The two changes are:

• An improved video and audio coding compression standard called MPEG-4 . This is expected (over time) to operate at up to double the efficiency of the coding standard that is used at the moment on DTT, MPEG-2. This means that a DTT multiplex* could carry up to twice as many services using MPEG-4 as can currently be achieved using MPEG-2, whilst maintaining similar picture quality.
• A new transmission standard, known as DVB-T2. This is expected to deliver an increase of at least 30% in the capacity of a DTT multiplex over the current standard, whilst maintaining the same coverage. This standard is a development of the existing DVB-T standard used in the UK since 1998. DVB-T2 is still undergoing development by DVB in Geneva, but is expected to be finalised in spring 2008.

1.16 It is important to note that MPEG-4 and DVB-T2 differ in one important respect. MPEG-4 can be introduced within a multiplex (so it can offer a mix of services coded in MPEG-2 and MPEG-4). But the introduction of DVB-T2 requires a whole multiplex to be converted from DVB-T. This is, of course, a larger step-change.

1.17 The introduction of these two technologies could, if combined, increase the capacity of a multiplex by up to 160%. This is a very large increase. It is the equivalent of raising the number of Standard Definition (SD) services that can be carried on a DTT multiplex from around eight currently to around 13-15 at DSO, and over 20 in the longer term. HD is generally regarded as unfeasible on DTT in the UK without use of MPEG-4: but with the use of these two technologies combined, a single DTT multiplex could in time offer at least four HD services.

* DTT = digital terrestrial transmission. In UK and many European countries, broadcasters do not own and operate their own transmitter, rather DTV signals are transmitted on multiplexed transmitters owned by a middle man with several signals on each transmitter and channel. Under present UK policy no HDTV is transmitted over the air because it was thought that multiplexing HDTV signals was impossible. Now Ofcom thinks it is possible. - MJM

Now UK channels are different than US channels so all the details don't apply here. But the nagging question is whether the US erred in giving established broadcasters 6 MHz for HDTV and whether we could get our own "digital dividend" by making TV broadcasters double up on multiplex transmitters. I suppose the suggestion will not get me an invitation to the next NAB convention.

I wrote the following article for the March 2007 issue of PolicyTracker, a London-based European spectrum newsletter and am using it here with their kind permission. So if the spelling seems a little unusual ... The wireless microphone issue is now getting a lot of attention at both FCC and the UK's Ofcom.

Wireless mics can enter the digital era

Complaints from the theatrical community in both the US and the UK are unjustified, says consultant Michael Marcus. He argues the problem is not an engineering one, but an issue of policy and economics.

A friend of mine in the US recently mentioned that he heard Sir Andrew Lloyd Weber on National Public Radio, the closest thing in the U.S. to BBC Radio 4, talking about the U.K.’s wireless microphone problem and the resulting threat to live theatre in London. I don’t know if any comparable U.S. figures have gone to London to give media coverage about their wireless microphone problem with FCC which allegedly threatens Superbowl coverage. How did this all start? In the days of analog TV, limitations of receiver technology made “whitespace”, i.e. vacant TV channels in a given area inevitable. Use of FM wireless microphones in this whitespace by broadcasters and theatres was a simple way to recycle this idle spectrum for something useful. Limiting eligibility to a small set of users meant they could mutually agree on its use. In this era, there was relatively little demand for spectrum anyway and no viable alternative for manual coordination. A lot has changed. DTV can use a higher fraction of available spectrum in a given region since receivers are more robust than analog receivers. This more intensive use of spectrum/ channels creates the “digital dividend” issue: one can either have more TV signals in the same amount of spectrum or pack the existing signals into a smaller TV band and ‘recycle” the remaining spectrum In the U.S. the TV stations of channels 2-69 will be packed into channels 2-51 in February 2009 as directed by Congress. There is also much more demand for wireless spectrum today than there was when the current wireless microphone use first developed. New cognitive radio technology now offers a more flexible alternative alternative to manual coordination of limited users for whitespace use. Thus a major policy challenge in both countries is how to address the needs for wireless microphones in today’s environment. In the U.K. Ofcom has proposed reserving one TV channel exclusively for wireless microphones. The broadcasters and theatres, ably represented by Sir Andrew, have stated that this will not be enough because they can only use today’s analog technology since digital technology will lead to audio delays that are unacceptable in live performance. ( See Digital Dividend Review: Ofcom fails to placate PMSE sector PolicyTracker 20.12.06) Now as a great admirer of Sir Andrew’s music, I am disappointed that he has taken to making poor engineering judgments. Does analog-to-digital conversion (DAC) always lead to large delays? No! No fee spectrum is part of the problem Linear predictive coding (LPC) is a DAC technology developed in the late 1970s for highly efficient compression of voice to binary data and is widely used in cell phones. Like other types of “source coding”, e.g. .zip and .jpg files, LPC involves a trade-off between delay and compression efficiency. But there are LPC parameter choices that trade-off delay for output data rate. There are also traditional DAC technologies without source coding where the delay is limited to the sampling interval, a small fraction of a millisecond. In wireless microphone applications distances are short so low data rates are not critical since the total amount of spectrum resource consumed in terms of bandwidth times area is small. 3G cellular technology can handle arbitrary digital streams including DAC from wireless microphones. Does the 3G industry offer a high quality wireless microphone today? No. There is no demand and hence no product development for spectrum efficient wireless microphones as long as low tech FM units have access to free spectrum use. Free spectrum is always cheaper than efficient wireless technology! Ofcom has proposed to dedicate one TV channel to wireless microphone use. In the U.S. FCC has proposed in Docket 04-186 to allow new unlicensed “TV band devices” to use TV whitespace alongside wireless microphones. The wireless microphone interests in the U.S. have strongly objected to the FCC proposals citing the technical complexity of protecting wireless microphones, which in theory are licensed, from the new unlicensed devices. They conveniently ignore the fact that most wireless microphone use in the U.S. appears to be by users who are not eligible for licenses under present FCC rules. Wireless microphones have real societal value as their proponents on both sides of the Atlantic argue. But the exclusive dedication of whitespace spectrum to them as in the U.S. status quo and the Ofcom proposal is clearly an inefficient use of spectrum since the spectrum use of this narrow application in time and space is quite limited. In view of the growing demand for all spectrum uses it makes more sense to accommodate the wireless microphone requirements in bands that are shared with other users and can give the wireless microphone systems the quality they need. The U.K. wireless microphone anti-digital claim is either a smoke screen to avoid increased costs for spectrum and equipment or arises from technical confusion. In any case, it is unlikely that there will be any development of more efficient alternatives for wireless microphones as long as regulators in the U.S. and U.K. allow indefinite use of today’s low tech models and don’t consider the opportunity cost of denying the whitespace spectrum to other users who could use it more effectively. •

FCC Bites into the Child Obesity Issue
(Photograph courtesy of Wikipedia)

[See 7/5/07 update at bottom]

When I wrote a post a few weeks ago above the FCC's UK counterpart, Ofcom, having problems with its attempt at regulating food advertising for children, I did not anticipate that there was FCC interest in this issue. Yet this week on the FCC website appeared "FCC Announces List of Participants on Task Force on "Media and Childhood Obesity: Today and Tomorrow". It turns out that this is not new news. On September 23, 2006 Senator Sam Brownback announced that he "joined FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and FCC Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate to announce the formation of a government and industry task force to examine the impact of media and advertising on children’s health." Yes, the same Sen. Brownback who announced his bid for the presidency on January 25.

Child obesity is a serious problem in many countries. The French government is concerned about it, although a casual look around Paris shows that the problem is minor compared to in the US. The American Obesity Association reports about 15.5 percent of adolescents (ages 12 to 19) and 15.3 percent of children (ages 6 to 11) are obese. It is commonly felt that TV advertising is likely to be a contributing factor to this epidemic.

The ever chaotic FCC website now has created a web page on the issue. It can clearly be seen that this is a high priority, or at least high visibility project, because it has a more sophisticated design* than the normal FCC web pages where the public interacts with the FCC with great difficulty on the day-to-day business of FCC. It even has both "shockwave" animation and music, probably a first for FCC. (This on the website that has no way of finding ongoing rulemakings - if you don't know the docket number - and still uses a search engine dating to the early Clinton Administration!) FCC: if you must use expensive audiovisual techniques on your website to show that you are au courant, when don't you use them constructively to make an audiovisual presentation of why child obesity is important? It isn't clear what the audiovisual effects add to this webpage other than cost.

The formulation of this effort as a "task force" involving members of Congress neatly avoids the transparency requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act - for reasons that are never mentioned. For an FCC that advocates transparency for its foreign counterparts this is rather odd.

So I applaud the FCC's entry into this important area and hope that it is more than a political charade. I urge FCC to review what Ofcom has done in this area by going to their "Food Advertising" home page and by searching on their site for other background material on "obesity" that includes the minutes of their advisory committee on the topic. (In doing this search you probably will notice that Ofcom's search engine is a lot more effective than that of the FCC site.) As my earlier post on Ofcom and cheese points out, Ofcom's well intended efforts in this area have had some problems. I hope FCC can learn from these and develop a constructive plan of action including voluntary action by the industries involved as much as possible. Bill Clinton's efforts to remove junk food vending machines from schools shows that voluntary action can have a key role but the threat of effective regulation is a real motivator.
===============================

Update from FCC homepage:

2/13/07
The scheduled Wednesday, February 14, 2007, meeting of the Task Force, “Media and Childhood Obesity: Today and Tomorrow” has been cancelled because of the weather. The Task Force will reschedule the meeting for a future date.

* It is amusing to note that even with the extra attention lavished on this website, it has problems indicating the usual lack of quality control at FCC these days: On the site's Recent Actions page , as of this writing, the top 2 links to FCC's announcement of the task force and Comm. Tate's 1/23/07 statement don't work. The nonfunctioning links used on this page are http://www.fcc.gov/obesity/documents/nr012307.pdf and http://www.fcc.gov/obesity/documents/stdtt012307.pdf while the correct links are http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269715A1.pdf and http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269714A1.pdf.
[This has now been corrected.]

===========
7/5/07 FCC website announces " Extension of Task Force on Media and Childhood Obesity"

UK's Ofcom Stumbles Over ... Cheese!

First, New Year's Greetings to all!

Readers may feel that I am overly harsh on FCC and too admiring of the UK's Ofcom - their new FCC counterpart. My cable service is out of action here in Paris (people who don't like their cable provider in the US have never encountered Paris' Noos which is worse in everyway possible). The International Herald Tribune has taken a multiday holiday, so I celebrated New Year's Day by buying a copy of The Daily Telegraph ("printed in Brussels").

An article entitled "Labelling cheese as junk food 'unfair' " caught my eye. This article shows that Ofcom, whose spectrum policies I generally admire, is capable of major screwups. The broadcasting side of Ofcom has tried to regulate food advertising to children and has relied on a formulistic approach to defining "junk food". As a result, cheese advertising is forbidden during children's programming, but Diet Coke is OK. The formula assumes 100g (3.5 oz.) servings of any product or condiment and as a result ketchup and Marmite (UK's answer to peanut butter) can't be advertised since 100g of each is is not healthy, even though the usual serving is less.

Of course, the basic lesson here is that regulation seems to be a helpful government tool, but when you try to write a regulation that is clear and understandable and has consensus support you sometimes end up with something that isn't worth doing.

Here is the text of the article. A similar BBC report is here.

New advertising rules that will officially label cheese as "junk food" were condemned yesterday by the dairy industry as unfair, misleading and counter-productive.

Under regulations coming into force this month, broadcasters will be banned from advertising cheese during children's television programmes or in shows with a large proportion of child viewers, such as The Simpsons and Hollyoaks.

The ban is part of a government drive to crack down on junk food adverts on television, which is designed to reduce the exposure of children to foods high in fat, salt and sugar.

It follows evidence that TV commercials have an indirect impact on children's eating behaviour and are contributing to the obesity epidemic.

However, the dairy industry says the rules, which are being introduced by the television regulator Ofcom, are a nonsense.

Under the nutrient profiling model used to distinguish junk food from "healthy" food, cheese is officially labelled as more unhealthy than sugary cereals, cheeseburgers, double chocolate chip cake and full fat crisps.

The industry points out that if breast milk were covered by the rules, it too would be classed as junk food.

Dan Rogerson, the Liberal Democrat MP for North Cornwall, who chairs the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Cheese, branded the model as "simplistic and counter-productive".

He said: "How preposterous that Ofcom restrictions should be based on a model so flawed as to take cheese off the air, while diet cola, which has no nutritional value whatever, is left firmly on children's menus. It has to be perverse that while milk may be advertised, a wholesome product made from milk — cheese — cannot."

Ofcom published its draft conclusions on junk food adverts in November and is expected to release its final report within weeks.

Its initial report went much further than expected. It proposed banning the advertising of all foods classified as high in fat, salt and sugar during programmes made for children under 16, on dedicated children's channels and during programmes with a higher than average proportion of child viewers.

However, the ban only covered specific foods, not brands. So while McDonald's cannot advertise burgers during children's programmes, it could promote its restaurants.

The rules also proposed a ban on cartoon characters for adverts aimed at primary school age children shown at any time of the day.

The most controversial part of the proposals is the use of the nutrient profiling model drawn up by the Food Standards Agency.

The model assesses the fat, sugar and salt content in a 100g or 100ml serving of a food or drink — rather than a typical serving.

The food industry says the use of the FSA model has led to anomalies.

Tomato ketchup, for instance, contains a high proportion of sugar and salt and is counted as a high fat, salt and sugar food — even though most people only eat a small amount with a meal. Marmite, which contains 11 per cent salt, is also counted as junk food — even though most people eat only a few grams on bread.

The British Cheese Board says the typical portion size of cheese is 30g to 40g, the size of a small matchbox, not the 100g used in the FSA nutrient profiling model.

If a typical portion sized was used in the model, most cheese would be exempt from the ban, it says.

Nigel White, a spokesman for the board, said: "Cheese is one of the most nutritionally complete foods and can play an important part of a healthy balanced diet for children of all ages."