WASHINGTON-The Federal Communications Commission took several actions to try to clarify the transition from analog to digital TV broadcasting and when the wireless industry will have access to those channels.
The commission declined to set out a mandatory band-clearing plan for the 700 MHz band (746-806 MHz) being vacated by TV broadcasters as they migrate to digital; punted on whether cable operators are required to carry both broadcasters’ analog and digital signals; and suggested to Congress that it change the law requiring broadcasters to vacate channels 52-69 on Jan. 1, 2007. The agency also said Congress should charge broadcasters below channel 51 if they choose to keep their analog channel after 2007.
Congress in 1999 directed the FCC to auction 36 megahertz of the 60-69 spectrum after reserving 24 megahertz for public safety.
The FCC held one auction last fall for two guard bands totaling six megahertz to protect public-safety operations from interference. Last week, the FCC conditionally granted the licenses from that auction.
When will the broadcasters leave?
It is not exactly clear how much the actions will help the wireless industry get its hands on the 700 MHz spectrum in a timely fashion.
Congress gave TV broadcasters an extra channel (six megahertz) of spectrum so they could transition from analog to digital without stranding consumers who had not invested in digital receivers.
In addition, notwithstanding that Congress ordered the FCC to auction off portions of channels 60-69 to commercial wireless entities, Congress said the broadcasters do not have to give back their extra channel until at least 2007 or when 85 percent of the homes in their viewing area were capable of receiving digital signals, whichever is later.
In a final letter to Capitol Hill before he left the FCC, Chairman William Kennard urged Congress to change the rules about when TV broadcasters must give up their analog channel.
One of the changes would eliminate the 85-percent threshold for channels 52-69. This would not completely clear these channels for wireless use since there are digital-only allotments and these broadcasters would not be required to move, but it would substantially reduce the incumbent problem.
“It is worth noting that the efficiency of the auction would be enhanced if bidders had a clear idea in advance of when the spectrum would actually become available to them. Adopting this proposal in advance of the auction would not only give bidders that clear idea, but would likely increase the `portion of the value of the public spectrum resource’ that Congress has directed the commission to recover,” said Kennard.
The 700 MHz auction is scheduled for March 6, but Verizon Wireless has asked that this be delayed until September.
The other change would charge broadcasters operating on channels 2-51 if they choose to keep their extra channel past 2006. The charges would accelerate over time.
“The post-2006 charge on broadcasters in the core that continue analog broadcasting will provide those broadcasters with an economic incentive to speed their transition from analog to digital transmissions. This will increase the number of stations transmitting digitally and provide further incentives for consumers to buy DTV receivers,” said Kennard.
No mandatory band-clearing plan
In declining to set a mandatory band-clearing plan, the FCC said it would “allow the private sector to determine the band-clearing mechanisms that will best suit broadcasters’ and potential new 700 MHz licensees’ needs. … It is not necessary or appropriate at this time to adopt cost-sharing rules, cost caps, or cost-recovery guidelines to assist in clearing the 700 MHz.”
There had been some fear among wireless carriers that broadcasters would hold the carriers hostage to pay for their relocation even after paying what could be billions of dollars for the spectrum.
The FCC’s actions do not preclude such blackmail but could in the end speed up the process. If the FCC had set out a specific band-clearing plan that broadcasters didn’t like, broadcasters would probably have sued. Such legal action would have delayed negotiations between broadcasters and wireless carriers. By not acting to set out a specific plan, negotiations can now go forward.
Dual-carriage dilemma
In another action, the FCC punted on whether cable operators must carry both the analog and digital signals of broadcasters. While it tentatively concluded that such a rule might run into constitutional problems, it is further studying the issue for the time being.
“The FCC sent a message today that the constitutional hurdles to imposing a dual must carry requirement are high. … We oppose a government mandate to carry the analog and digital versions of every broadcast station-especially when it would result in cable networks being dropped in many places. … For this reason, the FCC’s decision not to require dual carriage is good for consumers,” said Robert Sachs, president and chief executive officer of the National Cable Television Association.
The National Association of Broadcasters-a lobbying powerhouse on Capitol Hill-is expected to ask Congress to mandate dual carriage.
Some had believed that if cable had been required to carry both signals, broadcasters would be more willing to vacate their analog channel knowing the digital signal would still be carried on cable systems.
