FCC Heading For The White Open Spaces
Upcoming Commission meeting may finally give green light to new technology
The FCC has announced that it plans to take up the long-pending white space proceeding at its upcoming September 23 meeting. Since that proceeding has been largely out of the spotlight for the better part of 18 months, it seemed a good idea to remind our readers, and ourselves, of the issues on the table in the white space proceeding and how the Commission has addressed those issues to date.
The white space proceeding started in 2002 with a reasonably straight-forward premise. Every city has dozens of TV channels, with exceptional propagation characteristics, sitting empty. Why not use them for something? Low-power, unlicensed wireless devices operating on these unused channels – channels dubbed “white spaces” because they show up in white on a frequency map – could be deployed for a variety of uses, thereby increasing the efficient use of the spectrum. What’s not to like?
In theory, the concept looks great. But in practice, potential problems abound.
The primary concern, of course, is interference to other spectrum users. Each unlicensed device constitutes a potential source of interference if its operator happens to turn it on in the wrong place at the wrong time. And because the device is unlicensed, neither the FCC nor the victim of the interference will have any easy way of identifying the source of the interference.
The white space proceeding has thus been an effort to take advantage of the potential for wide-spread use of low-power, unlicensed devices on TV frequencies while protecting licensed users of those frequencies. Those licensed users include not only TV stations, but also wireless microphone users (a broad universe which includes not only TV and movie producers, but also churches, theaters and live music venues).
Back in 2002 the Commission kicked things off with a Notice of Inquiry relating to the possible use of portions of the TV band for unlicensed use. From that beginning, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 2004, which led to a First Report and Order in 2006, and then a Second Report and Order in 2008. The Commission’s deliberations were complicated by the fact that, throughout this time, the TV band was in the process of the digital transition, a process which wasn’t completed for full-power stations until June, 2009.
Meanwhile, a range of white space gadgets – now renamed “television band devices” (TVBDs) – was being developed by various proponents eager to get in on the ground floor of what many perceive to be a singular opportunity to create vast new and lucrative markets. In 2007, and again in 2008, the Commission tested out a number of prototype TVBDs in the field and in its lab. The goal was to see whether the devices could provide protection against interference.
The FCC advanced two basic approaches to interference protection. In one, the TVBD is capable of: (a) accurately identifying its own location (through GPS technology); and (b) cross-checking that location against a database of existing licensed spectrum users in that area. That cross-check process would preclude use of any frequency already licensed for use within a certain area. In the second approach, the TVBD is equipped with sensing capability allowing it to “sniff out” other uses of the TV band and automatically switch channels to avoid interference to such other uses.
Through several rounds of testing – testing which did not necessarily duplicate all real-world conditions – the “sniff out” technology did not fare particularly well. Still, the FCC concluded that the results demonstrated a “proof of concept”. In 2008 it adopted rules to authorize TVBDs under certain conditions. (As my colleague Mitchell Lazarus observed at the time, the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk also demonstrated the feasibility of powered, heavier-than-air, flight as a “proof of concept”, but it still took 30 more years for the check-in lines to form at O’Hare.)
The 2008 rules did not give an unequivocal green light to TVBDs, however. The rules imposed three constraints:
- Operation is flatly prohibited on certain channels, and in certain areas, and on some channels in some areas.
- Every TVBD must know where it is, and have a current list of open channels for that location, or else it must operate under the direct control of a TVBD having that information. (Manufacturers can bypass this rule by undertaking extra procedures; see below).
- Every TVBD must sense the spectrum for incumbents on the channel it is using.
The details were stringent. Device locations, for example, must be determined to within 50 meters, a requirement that only GPS can fulfill today. The catalog of available channels must be updated at least daily. Sensing must achieve a detection level of -114 dBm, equivalent to 0.004 trillionths of a watt – yet even this sensitivity could miss TV signals that are viewable with a good outdoor antenna.
Under the rules, TVBDs must be certified by the FCC before they can be marketed. To protect incumbent users of the TV band from millions of interference-causing renegade TVBDs, the Commission added extraordinary steps to the usual certification process. First, the manufacturer must test the device itself. Next, the Commission re-runs the tests, both in its lab and then again on the mean streets of America. Finally, the Commission seeks public comment on the TVBDs’ test results. Only after the successful conclusion of this stringent certification process would the Commission permit the importation and sale of any TVBD.
While the rules were technically adopted in 2008, they have not, for the most part, yet taken effect. Approval by the Office of Management and Budget is necessary before crucial elements of the new rules can be implemented. (Those crucial elements include the rules concerning the database of occupied channels and the procedures for approving sensing-only devices.) Also, to the extent that the protection system requires the existence of a comprehensive, accurate, frequently-updated database which TVBDs may check against, TVBDs can’t be rolled out until that database is in place. To date, that database is still on the drawing boards. (The Commission did invite proposals for the design and maintenance of such a database in November, 2009.)
Also, the Commission still has to resolve issues raised in 17 petitions seeking reconsideration of the 2008 rules. The petitioners include:
- broadcast-related interests who seek a return to square one, arguing that the record does not support any unlicensed devices on TV channels;
- LPTV stations that lack needed protection for still-ongoing analog operations;
- petitioners objecting to a great many specific technical rules, including emission limits, separation requirements, sensing levels, power levels for first-adjacent channels, special procedures for sensing-only devices, and fixed base station heights, among others;
- cable satellite TV providers that claim inadequate protection for headends and cable-ready TV sets; and
- those presenting other issues: real-time operation of the database that catalogs available TV channels; database information security and registration requirements; pending negotiations with the Mexican government; rejected proposals, such as licensed use of white space frequencies; and too many more to list here.
Additionally, an appeal of the rules is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, although that has been held in abeyance while the FCC works through the reconsiderations and database development.
So when the Commission rolls up its sleeves to tackle the white space proceeding at its September 23 meeting, it will theoretically be trying to (a) resolve the pending petitions for reconsideration and (b) get the database set up.
While those are already complex problems, they are further complicated by the brooding omnipresence that casts its shadow on everything the Commission does these days: the National Broadband Plan (NBP). The NBP expressly recommended that the Commission move forward with the white-spaces proceeding. That makes sense, since the NBP is all about increasing the efficient use of spectrum while encouraging technological innovation.
But the NBP also entails the possibility – if not substantial likelihood – that the FCC may reallocate up to 120 MHz of TV spectrum for broadband use. That in turn would require “repacking” of the remaining TV spectrum by moving existing TV stations from the reallocated spectrum to channels in the remaining TV band. The repacking process would almost certainly increase congestion in the TV band, which could reduce available white space and thus complicate the roll-out of white space devices.
There is much at stake in the highly technical, highly contentious white space proceeding. The Commission has thus far struggled to strike a workable balance between protection of incumbent licensees and the desire to unleash innovative TVBD services. Presumably that struggle continues. Just among ourselves, we think it might even continue beyond the September 23 meeting.
What makes this, and similar issues, so contentious is we have a battle of competing fantasies. As well as the overwhelming sense that even the "professionals" in this field haven't a clue.
Exhibit 1 is an article from a competing firm entitled: "FCC Ready to Tap Returned TV Spectrum with New White Spaces Order;" which is a confused mishmash of misinformation and error.
I haven't watched over-the-air (OTA) TV signals in over thirty years. I live 8 miles from a full-power UHF station--couldn't see either the analog nor the replacement digital signal off air. Fantasy #1 is that, nationwide, there is any significant audience for OTA TV. Most TV transmitters are being run just to feed cable TV headends. If a mechanism existed to allow these stations to sell their coverage area to non-broadcast digital services, the FCC mailbox would be filled with canceled licenses. Of course, once the transmitter went dark, the cable systems would drop those channels in a heartbeat.
Fantasy #2 is the competing fantasy of the designers of all the new digital toys--that if they just had enough spectrum everyone could have unlimited broadband feeds in the palm of their hands. There isn't enough spectrum from DC to light to handle that kind of demand. Luckily, below 400 mhz or so, antenna requirements become too unwieldy to attract Silicon Valley's gadget makers.
Of course there is a third fantasy--that the Commission will actually enforce Part 15 rules once thousands of Chinese-made "TVBD" devices flood the market.
Thank you for your comments. While I can't speak to your "Exhibit 1" about bloggers on other sites, I do have some thoughts about your "fantasies".
First, I agree that the current regime for over-the-air television is not perfect. Cable and television broadcasters share in a symbiotic relationship where both benefit from the other’s existence. Broadcasters get coverage outside of their service area within their DMA, and cable companies are able to provide network and other local programming to their subscribers. As the current retransmission consent negotiations demonstrate, each side still has value to bring to the table. Moreover, television broadcasters are still the main source for local programming (news, sports), which cable and online sources have not yet been able to replicate. The TV industry is obviously in flux, especially after the costly DTV transition, and the possibility of losing more spectrum to the National Broadband Plan is very real (even if broadcasters might be allowed to share in auction proceeds from the disposition of that spectrum). Still, it might be too early to call for broadcasters to throw in the towel.
Second, I would argue that CTIA, CEA and the device manufacturers have yet to establish that there is a spectrum shortage to justify the reclamation of the 120 MHz of TV spectrum. The wireless industry is transitioning to more efficient uses of their spectrum (LTE), which has yet to be completed, and which may result in more of their current spectrum being available for re-use within their markets. Television broadcasters had less than year after the transition to begin to study and implement alternative uses of their digital spectrum before they were forced to justify their continued existence under the National Broadband Plan. Perhaps the same challenge should be put to the wireless industry before engaging in a new, costly television repacking process.
Finally, you have hit the nail on head. Once those devices have been approved and are out in the country, it will be exceedingly difficult to rein them in should they cause interference to incumbent users of the spectrum. The FCC has taken a fairly cautious approach -- imposing a multi-levels certification process -- but we will have to wait to see whether the Commission waters down that process in the September 23rd Order.
Thanks again.
Lee
I agree that broadcasters should not throw in the towel, but some may want to fight to a draw.
Let’s say they don’t. They can reiterate good arguments they have made, and make some new ones.
For example, as the NAB has observed, there is anecdotal evidence that more cable and satellite viewers are cutting the cord and going with a combination of internet video and broadcast reception. The multiple channels per station are proving popular. On Capitol Hill, the local Wireless Internet Service Provider (WISP) recently started a side business installing outdoor TV antennas on homes. There is no hard data on this recent conversion that I have seen, however.
Broadcasters could do more with the disconnect of the wireless industry saying broadcasting is a waste of spectrum, when the wireless industry itself invests R&D in broadcast services, which are standardized and updated in the most-popular cellular air-interface standards.
Do all all of the wireless spectrum requirement estimates adequately take into account the rapid growth in offloading smartphone data to Wi-Fi and femtocells? Also, when looking closely at the impressive graphs of exponentially-increasing data requirement estimates, what is the biggest component? Video. ("If there were only a way to get video to lots of people at once.")
Broadcasters could also object to the lack of progress on the Spectrum Inventory, especially with regard to federal spectrum administered by NTIA. I think we won’t get much out of NTIA this go-around, so there can be good mileage here.
The above can buy the broadcasters time. But, do all broadcasters really want that? Are the broadcasters that are saying no today going to turn down an offer of, say, the appraised value of their station plus 10 percent?
I think the 120 MHz can be put to a higher and better use at some point. So, I support the Commission’s plan for the voluntary surrender of broadcast spectrum in exchange for payment from auction proceeds. It doesn’t have to be throwing in the towel. The broadcasters shouldn't settle for less than a mutually-beneficial transaction.
Steve -
Thank you for your comments.
I agree that some - maybe even many - broadcasters might be inclined to turn in their licenses in exchange for compensation. But what compensation would they get? None of the pending bills before Congress establishes how the pay-back would be calculated, much less precisely how much any broadcaster would be guaranteed to receive. Instead, the current proposals would merely grant the FCC the general authority to compensate broadcasters at some level left entirely to the FCC's discretion. Since the Commission seems to doubt that television broadcasting is an efficient use of the spectrum (that's the take-home message from the National Broadband Plan, at least as I read it), I think broadcasters should be very nervous about signing up for the buy-out plan just yet.
Simply put, there is no guarantee that the Commission will adopt rules that would set up a reimbursement regime for "mutually-beneficial" transactions. Once television broadcasters have agreed to the plan on the Hill, they may find themselves getting pennies on the dollar from the FCC. This is especially true for LPTV broadcasters. While they are technically "secondary" to full-power television stations with respect to interference concerns, they are nevertheless licensed stations that have been found to serve the public interest. These licensees may already be getting squeezed out under the NBP's repacking plan, and neither Congress nor the FCC has shown any interest in protecting the service in the future, especially if such protection would mean less spectrum for wireless broadband use.
Thanks again.
Lee