The FCC’s UHF TV Diet Plan: Slimming Down the Free TV Dial to Make Room for Expensive Wireless Broadband

By the end of this month, the Federal Communications Commission will vote on proposed rules governing a planned 2014 auction that will allow over the air TV stations to surrender their “free TV” channels in return for money from the nation’s wireless phone companies looking for more mobile broadband spectrum.

The Commission is considering reallocating UHF TV channels 31-51 for mobile data, compacting the nation’s over the air TV stations onto VHF channels 2-13 and UHF channels 14-30. But the FCC also expects many stations, particularly smaller independent or specialty channels in large cities, will be happier surrendering their broadcast TV licenses in return for cash compensation.

If the five FCC commissioners approve the plan, it will be the largest spectrum auction since 2008, and could earn the U.S. treasury billions, tempered by payouts to television stations agreeing to shut down their transmitters, and to compensate remaining stations for the cost of moving operations to a new channel number, when necessary.

“To ensure ongoing innovation in mobile broadband, we must pursue several strategies vigorously: freeing up more spectrum for both licensed use and for unlicensed services like Wi-Fi; driving faster speeds, greater capacity, and ubiquitous mobile Internet coverage; and taking additional steps to ensure that our invisible infrastructure for mobile innovation can meet the needs of the 21st century,” the agency’s chairman, Julius Genachowski, said in a statement.

The controversial auction would compensate broadcasters even before the FCC knows exactly how much spectrum it will eventually have available to auction to wireless carriers. Nobody is sure how many stations will ultimately choose to abandon their over-the-air audiences, but an FCC report predicts the largest number of station losses would be in large metropolitan areas, which often have more than a dozen stations devoted to infomercials/home shopping, ethnic shows, religious programming, and independent network affiliates. The FCC suspects some of these lower-rated stations will see the money as a strong incentive to surrender their broadcast licenses.

Genachowski

The FCC considered several spectrum-saving proposals that would free up as much channel space as possible to resell to wireless operators. One proposal would have full power broadcast outlets switch to low-powered cellular-style transmitter networks to reduce the potential interference on an increasingly crowded dial. But that proved unpopular and expensive for broadcasters. Instead, the FCC predicts stations could effectively share channels and still retain HD service. For example, a local CBS station could agree to surrender its license and broadcast instead over the transmitting facilities of the local NBC station, splitting one station’s allocated channel bandwidth in half. Other stations will be relocated on the dial or moved to different transmitter sites to reduce potential interference from stations in nearby cities.

Stations that do not require an HD service could share space with those serving several standard definition channels to the public. These are typically public, educational, or ethnic-oriented broadcasters.

As a consequence, the FCC says many stations might have to give up on their “multicast” standard definition secondary services — the 24 hour local weather or news channel, Me-TV, This TV, Retro TV, Antenna TV, and Bounce, for example, because there would be insufficient bandwidth when two services sharing one channel are transmitting in HD.

The FCC does not believe stations would mind too much, quoting from RBR/TVBR:

“So far, nobody’s been able to figure out what can go on a digital side channel and pay for its own presence there. Mostly it’s been used as a revenue-neutral or money-losing place to put 24-hour weather… Nobody watches these things in strong enough numbers to generate any advertising revenue.”

But the FCC did recognize that certain viewers in fringe reception zones could experience a loss of service — one that could be addressed by subsidizing improved antennas for homeowners or requiring cable or satellite operators to develop a “lifeline” television service consisting of local broadcasters, either for free or at a minimal monthly cost.

Some consumer groups worry that any forthcoming spectrum auction would be dominated by Verizon Wireless and AT&T — the nation’s two largest carriers, who could easily outbid smaller cell phone companies also clamoring for spectrum. During the last auction in 2008, which netted nearly $20 billion, Verizon Wireless walked away with the bulk of the spectrum on offer. Without auction rules setting aside significant spectrum for smaller competitors, both dominant carriers could lock up one of the last spectrum auctions for the next 5-10 years, cementing their de facto duopoly.

The FCC is considering reworking its market concentration rules before the bidding begins, which could constrain Verizon and AT&T from bidding and winning the bulk of available frequencies in the cities where they dominate.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg FCC Chair on Spectrum Auctions 9-10-12.flv[/flv]

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski talks about rising demand for mobile broadband access and the outlook for spectrum auctions to free up more airwaves. He speaks with Cory Johnson on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.”  (7 minutes)

Earlier this year, Bell Canada announced a blockbuster $3.38 billion offer to buy Astral Media, Inc. It is just the latest rush towards media concentration in Canada as the country’s largest cable and phone companies acquire a growing number of television networks, cable services, radio and broadcast television outlets, magazines, and other media.

Bell Canada already owns CTV – a major broadcast network, and TSN sports. Now it is back for more — Astral Media, the company that owns HBO Canada, The Movie Network, Family, Viewers Choice and lots more.

If this deal wins approval, one company will control 37.6% of TV viewing in Canada, more than twice the amount of its largest competitor. It means Bell will be able to set rates for some of Canada’s most popular cable networks and shows — putting competitors at a major disadvantage and forcing you to pay more to watch.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Say No to Bell Canada.flv[/flv]

Say No to Bell’s ad campaign fighting Bell Canada’s attempt to buy Astral Media.  (1 minute)

The federal government has to approve this deal, and a growing number of competing media companies, consumer groups, and politicians are coming together to oppose it.

Stop the Cap! believes Bell Canada owns too much already, and has repeatedly demonstrated that when it flexes its marketplace muscle, consumers pay more for less service. Add your voice against this deal by submitting a letter to Canada’s Ministers of Heritage and Industry, the Competition Bureau, the CRTC and your Member of Parliament and visiting the other opposition websites noted below.

No company needs to own and control 79 TV channels, 107 radio stations and more than 100 major Canadian news, entertainment, and cultural websites.

Even smaller Canadian cable companies fear this deal. Cogeco Cable, Eastlink, and Quebecor (parent company of Vidéotron), have joined forces to launch saynotobell.ca, a website to help consumers fight back. Quebec-based consumer group Option consommateurs has its own online petition in French, and Openmedia’s Stop the Takeover Coalition includes a range of pro-consumer forces opposed to the deal:

• OpenMedia.ca
• the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
• the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC)
• Canada Without Poverty and the CWP Advocacy Network,
• the Canadian Media Guild (which represents over 6,000 media workers, including those from CBC, Reuters, the Canadian Press, and Shaw Media),
• the Consumers’ Association of Canada,
• the Council of Canadians (Canada’s largest citizens’ group),
• the Council of Senior Citizens’ Organizations of British Columbia (COSCO),
• Union des consommateurs.

Some of the arguments against the deal to consider:

• Bell Canada’s TV audience share would be 50% greater than the share of any TV network in the US, Japan, UK, Australia, France, and Russia. It would allow one corporation to control the programming (including news) on a scale not seen outside of countries like Italy, Brazil, and Mexico. When politicians have that much control of the media, they use it to influence viewers. Would Bell do any different?
• Bell can set the rates, terms, and bundling requirements for popular cable programming and services. They have already shown a willingness to tell independent ISPs they must set usage limits on their customers just as Bell does already. What would stop them from insisting you subscribe to more services in order to watch the programming you want?
• Mergers=job losses and cost cutting to pay for inflated bonuses and “cost savings” to help finance these blockbuster deals. Without competition, original Canadian productions can be slashed to the bone or canceled altogether. Why deliver quality when you can limit viewers’ alternative choices instead?
• America allowed media consolidation in radio and television and turned vibrant local stations into corporate money-machines at the expense of local news, original shows, and local content. How many radio stations in the United States now operate like automated electronic jukeboxes? How many local TV newscasts signed off for good to “save money.” Can Canadian local news, weather, and informational programming survive Bell’s ax? If it happened in the United States, it can happen in Canada too.

Ensure diversity by disconnecting this Bell deal permanently, and tell your elected leaders to stop allowing endless media consolidation.

[flv width=”576″ height=”344″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Globe and Mail How much of a competition threat is Bells Astral deal 8-24-12.flv[/flv]

The Globe and Mail considers the issue of Bell’s takeover bid for Astral Media. How will it affect Canadian consumers? (2 minutes)

Outside of a handful of consumer groups, just about everyone — including one “anti-tax” Republican on the Federal Communications Commission — favors the imposition of a new broadband tax on your Internet connection.

It is all a part of the Federal Communications Commission’s effort to transform a badly-outdated Universal Service Fund (USF) into the Connect America Fund (CAF) — an ongoing project to help defray the costs of wiring rural America for broadband service.

Phone and cable companies are on board. So are several state regulators. Even search engine giant Google favors applying a surcharge to consumer bills to retire a funding formula currently dependent on declining landline phone revenue.

In April, the FCC began accepting comments on its proposal to expand the number of telecommunications services subject to the surcharge, currently found on telephone bills. The FCC has proposed a number of possible taxes including the new broadband fee, a tax on text messages, or moving to a flat fee for each phone line instead of a variable tax rate (currently around 18%).

Virtually every major telecommunications company provisionally supports the new tax, for at least three reasons:

1. Most can benefit from future CAF funding opportunities, dipping into the fund to help subsidize expanding broadband into areas where current “return on private investment”-standards make deployment unprofitable;
2. Consumers will pay the tax, not providers;
3. The companies are confident their fierce lobbying will get the FCC to drop a proposed requirement the fee be included in the advertised price of broadband service. They want the fee broken out separately on customer bills, in part because they fear higher-advertised-prices for broadband will discourage customers from buying.

Google also supports the new tax because they profit from a larger broadband audience accessing their web pages and services. If the FCC were to tax online services, as Google fears, it would be bad news.

“Saddling these offerings with new, direct USF contribution obligations is likely to restrict innovative options for all communications consumers and cause immediate and lasting harm to the users, pioneers, and innovators of Internet-based services,” Google argued.

The Fiber to the Home Council, another industry group, was disturbed by one FCC proposal that would levy an increasingly higher percentage of the new tax on customers with progressively faster high speed connections. Although the Council agreed with many consumer groups that any new broadband tax would discourage broadband adoption, it was alarmed with the proposition of taxing consumers the most for selecting the highest speed broadband tiers.

“The Commission should not impose a fee that increases with greater performance capabilities (capacity/speed) because that would discourage plant and service upgrades and hinder the expansion of critically important high-speed broadband services,” the Council wrote in its comments to the FCC.

The Fiber to the Home Council is concerned about one proposal that would levy increasingly higher taxes the higher your connection speed.

With 19 million Americans currently unable to obtain broadband service, adding a new tax on existing broadband customers’ bills would bring in millions that the CAF will ultimately award to rural landline providers and cable operators to encourage them to expand their broadband networks.

But consumer groups including Free Press worry the new tax would rob Peter to pay Paul, and further discourage poor Americans who can’t afford current broadband prices from ever signing up for service.

“In other words, as the Commission reforms the overall USF system in the name of greater broadband adoption, particularly among rural, poor and elderly consumers, assessing [a broadband tax] could lead to an overall lower level of broadband adoption, despite the availability of new broadband subsidies,” writes Free Press research director S. Derek Turner in an official filing with the FCC.

Free Press called the current comments from industry players largely as expected.

“Industry commenters simply offered self-serving proposals that will ensure that their (but not necessarily their customers’) contribution burdens are as low as possible,” Turner wrote. “We instead are strongly encouraging the Commission to conduct actual cost-benefit analysis prior to adopting rule changes that could have massive unintended consequences for consumers.”

Thinks a broadband tax will reduce broadband adoption.

Outside of a small handful of remarks from end users, the overwhelming majority of comments received by the FCC are from providers, industry groups, and telecommunications regulators. Almost none come from actual consumers, who will ultimately pay the proposed tax.

Some conservative anti-tax groups have been alarmed by the tax expansion and Republican FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell’s apparent support of it. McDowell issued a statement in April declaring his support for reform of the USF system to broaden the tax to additional telecommunications users:

[…] “To put the importance of contribution reform into perspective, the contribution factor, a type of tax paid by telephone consumers, has risen each year from approximately 5.5 percent in 1998 to almost 18 percent in the first quarter of this year. This trend is unacceptable because it is unsustainable. Furthermore, the cryptic language on consumers’ phone bills, combined with the skyrocketing “tax” rate, has produced a new form of “bill shock.” We must tame this wild automatic tax increase as soon as possible.

[…] “Controversy, however, should not deter us from lowering the tax rate while broadening the base according to the authority granted to us by Congress. The current pool of contributors is shrinking. It must be expanded, but we must do so only within our statutory authority while keeping in mind the international implications of our actions.”

Phillip “At Least They Are Transparent About Robbing You” Dampier

The unassailable truth is that if there is a right way for a company to treat its customers and a wrong way, AT&T will always choose the wrong way. It’s the primary reason I refuse to do business with them.

The company’s recent decision to block Apple FaceTime for customers who refuse to be herded to one of AT&T’s new Mobile Share plans is another shot across the bow of Net Neutrality, which declares customers should be able to use the applications and services of their choosing — particularly on networks where they pay for those choices.

Principal #1 of Net Neutrality: Companies should not be playing favorites with applications or services by blocking or restricting those a provider does not favor.

AT&T’s response: ‘Whatever.’

The predictable outrage of customers should have come as no surprise to AT&T, but somehow it did.

The company picked testy senior vice president for regulatory affairs Bob Quinn to mount a rapid defense against the pitchfork-and-torch-yielding throngs on AT&T’s Public Policy Blog. That was their second mistake.

Quinn, who spent last December valiantly defending AT&T against its too-precious CupcakeGate mini-scandal, conjured up this pretzel-twisted logic tap dance to explain away its latest boorish behavior:

Providers of mobile broadband Internet access service are subject to two net neutrality requirements: (1) a transparency requirement pursuant to which they must disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of their broadband Internet access services; and (2) a no-blocking requirement under which they are prohibited, subject to reasonable network management, from blocking applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services.

AT&T’s plans for FaceTime will not violate either requirement.  Our policies regarding FaceTime will be fully transparent to all consumers, and no one has argued to the contrary.  There is no transparency issue here.

Nor is there a blocking issue.  The FCC’s net neutrality rules do not regulate the availability to customers of applications that are preloaded on phones.  Indeed, the rules do not require that providers make available any preloaded apps.  Rather, they address whether customers are able to download apps that compete with our voice or video telephony services.   AT&T does not restrict customers from downloading any such lawful applications, and there are several video chat apps available in the various app stores serving particular operating systems. (I won’t name any of them for fear that I will be accused by these same groups of discriminating in favor of those apps.  But just go to your app store on your device and type “video chat.”)  Therefore, there is no net neutrality violation.

A company lecturing its customers for daring to question its decisions is always a good way to enhance those warm and fuzzy feelings people have about America’s least-liked wireless phone company. Quinn first scolds customers and consumer groups about their “knee jerk reaction,” for being upset about the issue. Then he declares they have “rushed to judgment,” using a turn of phrase not heard since O.J. Simpson’s defense team pounded it to death, and look where that ultimately got us.

The crux of AT&T’s argument is they get a free pass to “block and herd” because Apple FaceTime was pre-installed on customer phones. Therefore, since AT&T didn’t block you from downloading an app you already had, it cannot possibly be a Net Neutrality violation. Because as we all know, Net Neutrality is only about download blocking.

At least AT&T is keeping their promise to be transparent. They have, indeed, fully informed you they are mugging you while in the process of mugging you. Full disclosure… matters.

Somehow, I missed the “preinstalled does not count” section in the Federal Communications Commission’s December 2010 order to providers telling them to preserve the free and open Internet. So I spent last night with this legalese page-turner (194 pages to be exact) to refresh my memory.

Nope, it isn’t in there. You can read it for yourself from the link above.

So it isn’t me. It is them, making up the rules as they go, again.

Quinn graciously offers customers one concession: AT&T will allow you to use Apple FaceTime over your own home Wi-Fi network. Gosh thanks!

For customers addicted to FaceTime, AT&T’s solution is an expensive plan change. An average customer currently paying $70 for 450-barely used voice minutes and 3GB of data will find FaceTime off-limits on AT&T’s network unless they “upgrade” to AT&T’s $95 Mobile Share plan, which gets you only 1GB of data, but endless voice minutes you don’t want and unlimited texting you don’t need.

Result: Pay $25 more a month and get your data allowance slashed by 2/3rds. That’s a deal — AT&T-style.

But it is one some customers are through taking. Nalin Kuachusri:

The new FaceTime restrictions will usher in the end of my 12+ year relationship with AT&T. I’m tired of the consistent manipulation of plans and features to extract more and more money for services I don’t need. For example: there used to be several text-message options (200, 1000, 1500, unlimited) so I could choose and pay for the one that fit my usage best. Then there was the option to move from unlimited data to 2GB/month to save $5. That was great for me and fit my usage. Then I was forced to move back to $30/month if I wanted to add tethering where I’ll get an extra GB that I’ll never use. Finally, after 12 years as a customer with an account in good standing, I was not allowed to unlock my phone for my 10-day trip to Europe so I could get a local SIM. I couldn’t be happier to give you one final $200 payment as an early-termination fee so I can move to Verizon.

Unfortunately for Kuachusri, the bosses at Verizon Wireless are likely slapping themselves silly because they did not come up with the idea first.

Insiders at the Federal Communications Commission have leaked word all five commissioners have cast their votes in favor of a controversial partnership deal between Verizon Wireless and the nation’s largest cable operators to cross-market products and services to customers.

Three Democrats and two Republicans have approved both the marketing agreement and a spectrum transfer deal from cable operators to Verizon Wireless.  Republicans did not approve of an order mandating a data roaming obligation or the recognition the FCC has the authority to oversee the marketing agreement, but both will remain part of the final order.

The Justice Department earlier approved the modified deal that includes a time limit on the marketing partnership and restricts certain cross-marketing in FiOS-wired areas.

FCC chairman Julius Genachowski said the spectrum transfer was urgently needed to address wireless spectrum shortages. But consumer groups opposed the deal, calling it anti-competitive and anti-consumer. Some unions also say the deal comes close to collusion and will lead to Verizon further pulling back from its fiber upgrade FiOS in favor of selling cable subscriptions.