I read the press release headline titled spectrum exhaust and admittedly didn’t know what it meant. A web search showed nine of the first ten news results related to vehicles’ exhaust systems. The one result that did relate to RF spectrum was a press release in a PR newsroom.
However, broadcasters should really be concerned about spectrum exhaust because it will affect our future. Let’s look deeper into what spectrum exhaust is and how it could affect you (and your station’s) future.
Yesterday, Phoenix Center for advanced legal & economic public policy studies released an economic study called, “Wireless Competition Under Spectrum Exhaust”. While readable, portions of the report use math way over my head, so let me summarize the English portions for you.
A limited supply can be good
The study looks at how the constraint of spectrum totally changes the often predicted outcome with respect to product price. In my words, the study says that the conventional viewpoint
that having fewer mobile broadband suppliers (primarily cell phone companies) results in poorer service and higher prices is—bunk!
If the report is correct, Genachowski’s FCC is woefully misinterpreting (purposefully or not) what might happen if ATT and T-Mobile had been allowed to merge. The Phoenix Center’s simplified conclusion is, government policies that prevent incumbent carriers from acquiring more spectrum by auction or acquisition can actually do more harm rather than good.
For broadcasters this means, Obama’s plan to take away your spectrum to serve his planned greater good is based on phony science. Giving more spectrum to vendors like Verizon or Sprint and preventing these companies from merging to create efficiencies will not benefit the masses.
Bureaucratic bungling
The FCC and Obama’s WH continue to beat the need more spectrum drum. The WH repeats, the tired phrase, the spectrum crunch will hinder future innovation. The National Broadband Plan demands 500MHz be immediately identified stripped away from current users and sold to the highest bidder. Under this scheme, broadcasters’ role is to cough up much of that spectrum.
Anyone who has watched Congress, the WH, the FCC and Washington bureaucrats disagree on most everything won’t be surprised that little progress has been made on Obama’s grand plan. Even the FCC admits that clawing back spectrum and then relocating it could take years. As Martha Stewart would say, “And that’s a good thing.”
What the Phoenix Center report does discuss their research into the conventional wisdom of more competition always being better for pricing and service. Says the report, in an environment of constrained supply, the mere limitation of spectrum “turns the standard thinking on the relationship between prices and concentration on its head—i.e., in the case of spectrum exhaust, fewer firms lead to lower prices [emphasis added].
Said the report, “…our analysis finds that under a binding spectrum constraint, competition among few firms will produce lower prices and possibly increase sector investment and employment than [will] competition among many firms. As a result, spectrum exhaust policies that aggressively seek to engineer entry into the mobile market—such as efforts to impede incumbent carriers from acquiring more spectrum via either auction or acquisition—may do harm rather than good.
The result is that if broadband companies, see little to no spectrum in the auction pipeline, these providers will see mergers and acquisitions as the best way to acquire more spectrum. In simple terms, the ATT/T-Mobile merger was about spectrum. And, according to the report, such merges can result in better service and lower prices.
Even the FCC staff admitted as much in the agency’s own Fourteenth and Fifteenth Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS) reports: “Shares of subscribers and measures of concentration are not synonymous with market power—the ability to charge prices above the competitive level for a sustained period of time.[M]arket concentration, by itself, is an imperfect indicator of market power [emphasis added].” (pdf here)
Continuing, FCC staff claimed that there was the presumption that any ATT/T-Mobile merger would “create or enhance market power of [the company] creating significant potential for competitive harm …to consumers”. But as the Phoenix indicated the FCC was merely parroting unproven business factors in an environment of constrained spectrum.
The Phoenix report goes into excruciating mathematical detail about Cournot models, equilibrium quantity, capacity constraint, HHI symmetry, complete with graphs. That section reminded me of college calculus. You can read it if you want. But, the report’s conclusion is summarized on page 16, Figure 1.
With a limited amount of spectrum, called binding constraint, “the more firms there are in the industry, the higher are prices [emphasis added]. The spectrum constraint turns the standard thinking on the relationship between prices and concentration on its head—i.e., in the case of spectrum exhaust, fewer firms lead to lower prices.”
The report concludes: “In the case of spectrum exhaust, too many sellers will reduce consumer welfare: prices are higher and quantities are lower than those arising from a more concentrated structure. As a result, policies that impede incumbent carriers from acquiring more spectrum—via either auction or acquisition—may do harm rather than good.”
Never mind the truth, my mind is made up says the FCC. The WH and the Genachowski’s crew are about to screw up a good thing for consumers.
What do you think? Respond on the link below or via email; editor@broadcastengineering.com
“Dear Google user, We’re getting rid of over 60 different privacy policies across Google and replacing them with one that’s a lot shorter and easier to read. Our new policy covers multiple products and features, reflecting our desire to create one beautifully simple and intuitive experience across Google.
If you’re signed into Google, we can do things like suggest search queries – or tailor your search results – based on the interests you’ve expressed in Google+, Gmail, and YouTube.
We believe this stuff matters, so please take a few minutes to read our updated Privacy Policy and Terms of Service at http://www.google.com/policies. These changes will take effect on March 1, 2012.”
I don’t have a Gmail account, I thought. I don’t even use Google search because it tacks and logs every inquiry. How could Google have my company email address and consider me a user?
A quick search of my own database of passwords, email accounts and contacts showed that in fact, I do (did), have a Gmail account.
When my company provided me an Android phone two years ago, I had to sign up for Gmail so I could purchase applications. I’d totally forgotten about it. Now that I have an iPhone, I have no need for a Gmail account.
This personal contact with Google, plus the barrage of news and uproar about how Google is now replacing some 60 user private policies with an all encompassing version caught my attention. Perhaps I shouldn’t care because I don’t use the Gmail account or Google search. But, plenty of others are concerned about the company’s merging of user data across many products. The Internet blogs are replete with the sky is falling, and Google is evil type comments.
Pushing back, Google’s Director of Engineering for Google Analytics, Paul Muret, said on Tuesday, “You may have already heard that Google is rolling out a new main privacy policy on March 1. With these changes, the privacy policy will be easier to read, and will help us create one beautifully simple, intuitive user experience across Google products and services. The new privacy policy makes it clear that if you’re signed in, we may combine information you’ve provided from one service with information from other services - helping us treat you as a single user across all our products.”
He continues, “If you’re signed into Google, we can do things like suggest search queries – or tailor your search results – based on the interests you’ve expressed in Google+, Gmail, and YouTube.”
Hold on a second. Just because I once clicked on an article about some starlet’s new movie using RED cameras doesn’t mean I want to see gossip links about her latest Hollywood escapades listed in search results.
Lest you think Google is the only one wanting to track you, today the Hawaiian House of Representatives has scheduled a hearing on a new bill (PDF) requiring the creation of virtual dossiers on its residents. The measure, H.B. 2288, would require ISPs to record “Internet destination history information” (every click where you go on the Internet) and “subscriber’s information” (precisely who you are). That data would have to stored for two years.
Even Obama’s DOJ has yet to require Internet Service Providers keep a record of every web site you visit. So far the DOJ is lobbing just that ISPs record Internet Protocol addresses assigned to individuals—your IP address.
Before someone think that it would be too expensive to store all of this data, consider this. According to a December, 2011 report from the Brookings Institute, by John Villasenor, the information identifying the physical location of each of one million people to an accuracy of 15-feet, at 5-minute intervals, 24 hours a day for a full year could easily be stored in a 1TB drive, at a cost of about $50 at today’s prices. To record this information about 50 million people, the cost would be under $3000.
I admit to being more on the side of “They are out to get me” camp than some others. But anytime a corporation or someone from Big G says they’re here to help, my guard is raised.
Google may not be quite as large as Big Government, but from this desk, it’s starting to act like it is.
Count me Google gone.
Are you concerned? Will you still use Google products? Leave a comment below or reply at editor@broadcastengineering.com
Belkin, a familiar producer of smart phone and tablet accessories, is teaming up with the Mobile Content Venture (MCV) to extend the Dyle Mobile TV service, which could connect 120 million devices already in the market to Mobile TV signals.
Dyle is the brand name for the MCV’s new mobile TV service. It represents a joint venture of 16 broadcast TV groups, including content companies and local station owners. Dyle-equipped devices will be able to receive OTA ATSC-M/H broadcast signals. The Dyle interface enables a searchable channel guide for the real-time programming.
Unfortunately, if you go to the Dyle site, you won’t find much additional information. The website says, “Coming soon!” However, you can input your email address so you’ll be notified as announcements are made.
Another important part of the MDTV rollout challenge has been getting support from smart phone manufacturers. The agreement with Belkin will help MCV get Dyle technology into potentially millions of cell-phone accessories.
Until now, there was no unifying umbrella for identifying if a mobile product is capable of receiving OTA broadcasts from local affiliates. Dyle branding will help solve that identification dilemma.
The content side of this equation is being addressed by MCV, an organization composed of 15 broadcast groups. One of their goals is to spread awareness of the availability of local TV for mobile and help consumers identify products that can pick up those local signals. As electronics manufacturers begin using the Dyle branding, viewers can be confident that the device can indeed receive broadcast TV signals.
While live mobile TV has surged around the world, acceptance in the U.S. has been on a less well adopted. And, the demise of Qualcomm’s FLO TV didn’t help. When FLO TV died, the company’s CEO, Paul Jacobs said, “It turned out that people didn’t want to watch TV on a handset.”
Many disagreed with that position. MobiTV is still alive and available for viewing on a variety of devices and across iOS, Palm and MS platforms. The mobile TV platform delivered 1.5 billion minutes to 15 million subscribers just last year.
Even so, most mobile video viewing relies on rentals or downloads, as opposed to a live signal.
Broadcasters can hope that Dyle will help grow the appetite for live local TV, making it the next big wave in mobile TV options. Belkin’s Dyle-branded MDTV product should be available first quarter of this year.
At a Monday, January 9th, CES press event, Dyle representatives said the service would launch this year, refusing to be more specific. At launch, the service is targeted to have 33 markets, each with two TV stations’ programming.
Is your station part of the service’s launch? Share your experiences.
In the October issue, EOM column author Anthony Gargano writes, “Is the broadcast community asleep at the switch? It certainly appears so. H-e-l-l-o-o?! Are you awake out there? Microsoft, Google, the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), the International Association for the Wireless Telecommunications Industry (CTIA) and what seems like a cast of thousands all seemingly being aided and abetted by the FCC are on a mission. They want to evict you from your frequency, taking away your most valuable asset: your spectrum!
It is dumbfounding to see the lack of any meaningful effort at engaging the public about this threat to the broadcast community.”
This Broadcast Engineering reader agrees, and asks why broadcasters are quiet on the spectrum issue.
“Regarding Anthony Gargano’s EOM column in the October, 2011 BE (sorry I’m a bit behind in my reading), he is absolutely correct! Here in the Washington, DC area radio spots have been running regularly on the primary news/info station extolling the virtues of “more spectrum for wireless broadband.” These spots are sponsored by the CTIA and are nothing but rhetoric aimed at getting the public to call their representatives. The public is quite enamored with their wireless phones and internet devices. They have no concept of how “spectrum” is really used, or why, and they may not realize what will be lost if broadcasting is squeezed out.
Where are the competing spots from the broadcasting industry???”
A Broadcast Engineering reader provides his thoughts on the recent nation-wide EAS test. Did it work? See below.
Good day…
A few years ago I once commented on an article you had written about the EAS (former EBS) system in the country. You may recall how I reported how I felt the over testing of the system was tantamount to ‘crying wolf’ and how a lot of the public mostly ignores the alerts even when there is something substantive broadcast.
This last weeks nationwide test failed in my opinion if for nothing else than for the unintelligible quality of the audio that I heard on the several stations that I found carrying the test. I quickly tuned around the band on a device that a consumer would have easy access to - a car radio.
Broadcast Engineering reader and noted expert on HDTV, projectors and ATSC reception, Pete Putman today offered his thoughts on the FCC’s latest suggestion.
October 13th, 2011
A news story in the Wednesday 10/12 edition of the New York Times announced that the Federal Communications Commission is partnering with Best Buy’s Geek Squad to teach Americans how to use the Internet and take full advantage of broadband services that are available to them.
According to the story, only 68% of Americans are taking advantage of broadband access. The author of the article compares that rate unfavorably to South Korea, where over 90% of Koreans use available broadband services.
What do you get when 75,000 enthusiastic music fans per day converge in the center of Austin, TX’s Zilker park for three hot days, and then add 130 bands playing across eight stages for almost 12 hours per day? In Texas, you get what’s called Austin City Limits Music Festival, or using the common local moniker, ACL. In this part of the country, this is a big deal. In addition, much of this event’s content becomes a core component of the PBS show, Austin City Limits.
I was fortunate to be invited to attend ACL, which was my first outdoor music festival. To call the event impressive doesn’t do justice to the festivities—or the behind-the-scenes technology.
Want to help others learn about broadcast and production technology?
Broadcast Engineering is now hiring knowledgeable and experienced engineers, operators and managers on a freelance basis to create training materials for our readers. You must have experience in the technology arena in which you propose to write or present. We want the tutorials to be produced by those with first-hand experience.
Three types of training materials are currently under development: webcasts, eBooks and multi-segment video courses. For an example of current products, check out these links:
New research says that consumers are putting the brakes on purchases of new TV sets. Perhaps in response to lost jobs, foreclosures and other financial factors, American viewers’ plans to buy new TV sets have plunged to record low levels.
Are you the kind of person who communicates well? Do you have your own forum or post on other technical forums? Would you like to help create an active dialog space for Broadcast Engineering readers?
Shortly we’ll be launching a technical forum where engineers, operators, managers and other broadcast and production personnel can engage in a dialog between themselves and other experts. In the forum, readers will be able to ask questions, provide feedback and, in general, talk with others who share your needs and concerns. The Broadcast Engineering forum will become the perfect place to let others know how you feel about a broad range of technical, regulatory and other professional topics or to ask questions when you need help.
Broadcast Engineering editorial director Brad Dick offers his thoughts and insights on the changes in the industry. For more, check out his monthly Editorial in Broadcast Engineering magazine. To start up a conversation on about one of Brad's posts, visit the Forum.
