TV Broadcasters Looking At Public Safety As Justification For Next Government Handout
from the smoke-mirrors-etc. dept
Plenty of broadcasters are still upset over the digital TV transition, in which they lost their analog spectrum rights -- rights which they never had to pay for -- as the FCC sought to reclaim it and put it towards more efficient and useful purposes. Getting the analog spectrum for free, and then having it replaced with the digital spectrum, again for free, was a massive government handout that's formed the bedrock of broadcasters' businesses. It's a tradeoff that's worked well: the broadcasters get the chance to make some money, and the public gets free over-the-air TV. But broadcasters are now looking for another handout, making noise that the FCC should mandate that every cell phone sold in the US have a digital TV receiver in it (via Ars Technica). It's a great plan, according to broadcasters, because (of course) it will make us all safer. The TVs in every phone are apparently the best way to distribute information in case of public-safety emergencies, so we should all have them. Never mind, of course, that when there aren't emergencies on, we can all tune in to great television programming brought to us by our totally altruistic broadcaster friends.Apparently it's a foolproof plan, because first, the FCC could mandate it (just like they took away the analog channels, we are reminded), and second, Americans replace their phones so frequently, that the life-saving feature could make its way into most of our phones within 5 years. One major oversight in the piece, though: there's no mention of who's going to pay for all of these tuners, which we'll interpret to mean that it sure as hell won't be the broadcasters who will conveniently then rely on them to help generate revenues. If the real interest here is public safety, why not mandate plain old radio receivers, which are much cheaper, and much more easily integrated into mobile phones? Maybe because public safety isn't the real interest?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: digital tv, fcc, handouts, public safety
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, I don't mind the idea of cell phones having built in radio receivers. But for it to be mandatory? No thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When millions are apparently abandoning TV in favour of other entertainment options, what sense does it make to mandate its usage in unrelated devices? It makes no sense, unless of course you're running one of the stations that people are abandoning...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That doesn't change the fact that it would probably only take a minor change in tower hardware to have it relay the same message to each connected phone in the case of an emergency. Which would also be a great way of notifying all affected users that emergency services calls could disrupt regular service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because nobody has a radio in their car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What would be really useful
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What would be really useful
"there's no mention of who's going to pay for all of these tuners, which we'll interpret to mean that it sure as hell won't be the broadcasters"
and if the broadcasters are so benevolent in their attempt to compel the FCC to require that cell phones have these "safety devices" why don't these same benevolent broadcasters extend their altruistic benevolence to the extent of offering to pay to place these devices inside cell phones?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What would be really useful
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What would be really useful
Apart from the level of information possible, the TV signal has no real advantage over SMS (and the SMS could include a bit.ly link with additional information).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What would be really useful
and to say that it would be a systematic problem is nonsense, transferring a couple of text messages is far easier, cheaper, and less problematic than implementing televisions inside cell phones.
"and some people would only get their messages hours later."
and how would this be any less of a problem with built in televisions? Do you expect most people to be tuning into their cell phone televisions every five minutes? and with text messages the phone alerts you of a text message in opposed to a television where one must actively find a specific time to tune in.
It's so amazing how these broadcasters are benevolent enough to lobby the FCC to do something in the best interest of the broadcasters but they're not benevolent enough to offer to pay for any of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What would be really useful
Still doesn't stop a lot of people from missing the broadcast, of course, but I imagine that people are at least considering this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What would be really useful
Then how is that any less of a systematic problem than sending everyone text messages instead?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What would be really useful
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What would be really useful
For the record, the TV stations are investing $100k each transmitter for digital mobile TV broadcast equipment. They also will pay for the ongoing TV content and emergency broadcast equipment.
That doesn't mean they're not very biased, as Carlo indicated in his article, but you're wrong that they're not paying for any of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What would be really useful
It's that they are not paying for the spectrum.
So they still are not paying for it.
Unlike verizon which paid for the re released spectrum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What would be really useful
"they're not benevolent enough to offer to pay for any of it."
That is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What would be really useful
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What would be really useful
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What would be really useful
Rather like how various transits informs people of system problems and delays.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What would be really useful
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course the cellphone industry would never allow this anyways since they're still trying to sell the same content to their subscribers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HELP ME HELP ME
yea riiiiiight.
HAHA scam part 3
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
here comes the USA propoganda wagon
so that all the GOVT propaganda gets watched by everyone MUHAHA
when will the fascism end?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: here comes the USA propoganda wagon
With the blood of tyrants, and patriots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Source
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Source
(I don't block ads, they're just dicks with a broken business model)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Source
You use ad blockers - your call.
Techdirt doesn't see any point in blocking you - Mike's call
Ars relies on their ad revenue - their call.
No egregious actions in any of that.
I don't see where "TD advocates supporting such a site" just from finding a story there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Free" Spectrum?
The American people got free coupons good for $40 off of a $40 converter box - the broadcasters got a deadline - spend $X,000,000 on new digital transmission equipment or go off the air.
The public outcry over the transition was huge and it basically cost them nothing (financially) and for most people they gained access to more channels and better picture quality. The broadcasters got stuck with a huge bill for a new transmitter, had to eat the cost of hundreds of person-hours of work to get switched over, had to give up a lot of advertising inventory to run the mandatory "The Big Switch Is Coming!" spots over and over and we got nothing from the government.
You may not like the fact the government "gave" the digital spectrum to TV broadcasters, but you seem to overlook the fact that TV broadcasters have to turn around and "give" their broadcasts back to the community for free. The public gains access to free television broadcasts, that is the public's compensation for "giving away spectrum".
Other than radio, I don't know of any other privately owned businesses that are "given free spectrum" and then turn around and provide a free service in return.
If you want to gripe about companies "taking our spectrum" take it up with the cell phone companies who don't give it back to the public, but sell it back at grossly inflated rates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Free" Spectrum?
Also, "provide a free service"... Have you ever watched TV? I don't think 50/50 ads/content is the same as free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Free" Spectrum?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Free" Spectrum?
Tech 1: OMG, you're so hip but you drive a minivan?
Tech 2: Yeah, I'm an artist and need a big vehicle blah blah...the Sienna is just the right size and that back-up camera thing? OMG, best thing since sliced bread...blah blah...
The public gets TV for free...pfft, please cry moar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Free" Spectrum?
Except they were not given that spectrum, they had to pay a tremendous amount of money to acquire the rights to deliver services on that spectrum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Free" Spectrum?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Free" Spectrum?
Yes, the TV broadcasters WERE given their spectrum licenses for free. It was the 1940s, an era when we had little appreciation for the value and scarcity of our RF spectrum. You also act like the cellular companies got a similar windfall. BS, they pay BILLIONS for their spectrum at auction. And how much did they get? Let's have a look at this FCC PDF chart:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf
Do you see the blue areas everyone? That is TV and AM Radio! Holy @#$@#! Remember that lower frequencies travel better and you will see that broadcasters (Radio and TV) got not just the lion's share of the spectrum, but also the best spectrum! Where is cellular telephony on the chart? Look for the tiny pink slivers at 800MHz, 1700MHz, 1900MHz, 2100 and 2500MHz, and the recently re-distributed pink slivers in the 700MHz range (all on the row of 300MHz to 3GHz). Give me a break! Cellphone companies have a good thing going, but it ain't nothin' compared to TV.
And what of the digital TV migration? The Broadcasters should have been undertaking the migration to digital on their own initiative. Modern businesses should occasionally update to modern technology...or would you argue that using the 1940s technology is adequate? What other business can succeed without updating their core technology for decades?
Why didn't broadcasters upgrade on their own? Well, the main reason is chicken and egg: if just one TV station upgrades, where will it get content, and where will it find an audience with HDTVs? So, really, what the broadcasters needed was an independent authority to mandate a date for the upgrades. Then the studios, broadcasters, cable operators, TV makers, and customers could all make the switch together. Damn, what a help it would be if some centralized body could make that all happen simultaneously, that would really help the TV broadcasters with timing their upgrades. But government sucks, right?
Lastly, as others point out, don't act like the US public gets TV for free. There is a very palpable trade-off between the amount of advertising we see and the amount of content we are offered. Further, most Americans (>80%) pay for satellite, FiOS, uVerse, or cable TV ($60/mo) and STILL get our spectrum wasted on shitty shows and STILL see ads. Americans subscribed to cable because the broadcasters were using some crappy 1940s technology to broadcast to us, the signals were bad and ghosted, so we paid for better cabled signal. The cablecos, in turn, give the TV stations a big chunk of our money to bring us the stations we were already supposed to have for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pedantry
RF spectrum is neither analog or digital. It is a state of electro-magnetism and is for the most part agnostic as to the the type of transmission scheme employed to excite electro-magnetic forces.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pedantry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pedantry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pedantry
OK, correct if you're talking physics. But as licensed by the FCC, the technology and purpose of the spectrum is usually stipulated in the license. Thus, in practice RF spectrum often IS analog or digital.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pedantry
When one talks of RF spectrum, one is in fact talking about a physical state. It is the type of service that is analog or digital. In fact, the same spectrum can have both analog and digital services allocated to it simultaneously. For example, the UHF-TV band has full power digital TV service and full power analog TV service within 50 miles of the Mexican border, both analog and digital booster and translator services, both analog and digital LPTV, and both analog and digital broadcast auxiliary operations. The two-way way radio bands (VHF and UHF) have both analog and digital operations with no differentiation indicated on the licenses.
RF spectrum is agnostic with regards to transmission scheme.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Broadcast TV in emergency
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Broadcast TV in emergency
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Broadcast TV in emergency
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RF space
-steps down from soapbox
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RF space
Absolutely wrong. *ALL* wireless mics/coms/IEMs/IFBs operating in the UHF-TV spectrum requires a license regardless of RF power output level, as per CFR47 Part 74.832.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because they need a much longer antenna? All cell phones with FM radio I have seen so far will only receive radio if the wired headset is plugged in (the headset wire doubles as an antenna via some ingenious tricks).
That said, all the cell phones with digital TV I have seen so far have an ugly retractile antenna.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cell networks are not equal to normal internet networks in respect to who can use it or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also I haven't watched broadcast TV in more than 10 years, cable channels only for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes. Public safety and For the children! Right.
We're fighting against billboards in our community and they're pulling that card too. Except that these bulletins are hardly frequent (luckily) and hardly anyone is far from a TV, radio, internet or other people for such news, so the rest of the time I'll just have a casino ad the size of an 18 wheeler looming over my once clear-skied backyard of 15 years.
At least I can turn off a phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arguing both sides
I'll also mention that I am consulting for one start-up (Rosum) that would benefit from mobile digital TV receivers in phones.
That said, the only argument I can make against Carlo is that the broadcasters might be on the side of the people on this issue...just by chance.
You see, free to air digital TV broadcasts hit Japan and Korea so far, and have been extremely popular. The majority of Japanese consumers CHOOSE to buy a cellphone with a TV tuner in it. The reason they do so is because the additional cost is small (~$5), and then they get free TV to their phone for the life of the phone. Compare that to MobiTV, VCast, or FLO in the US, which want between $10 and $15 a month for video.
The main reason that we don't see much mobile TV here in the US is because the carriers control our devices. And the carrier vision of mobile TV is a unicast signal for which they can be the gatekeepers, and sell you through a augmented data plan, a FLO subscription, etc. They want in the revenue stream. They have absolutely no interest in a free-to-air digital TV broadcast that doesn't pass through their tollbooth. So they are NOT going to subsidize phones that have these tuners.
...and there's the big difference. In Japan and Korea, consumers choose and buy their own phones at independent retailers, while in the USA, carriers choose the phones and subsidize them. We get cheaper phones, but pay for them over our 2yr contracts. And we also lose the "free market" benefit of having the suppliers (Nokia, Samsung, LG) meet our demand (instead of the carrier's).
Don't you find it odd that you CANNOT buy a single brand of free-to-air TV phone in the USA? The digital signals are out there. Surely some consumers would want one. We are lacking consumer choice. Sure looks like something's wrong with the functioning of the free market to me. American consumers don't even have any idea that the devices exist.
So free-to-air digital TV in the US will have a tougher battle, because it interferes with the carrier business model around mobile video. The TV broadcasters, in this case, are trying to find a way to break through the carrier stranglehold. And while their public safety argument rings hollow, I would like to see Americans have the option of viewing their broadcasts. I mean, we gave them our damned spectrum to broadcast TV, and we're not even using it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arguing both sides
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People think!
Now lets look at other places where it could be used. Do you think your boss will be happy if you are watching TV on the job? Or you teacher if you are in school? How about walking into someone or something while watching? The Playboy channel while in church would go over really big with the Mrs. :)
Come to think of it I could do a lot of this on my Droid right now but I'm not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: People think!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a great idea!
If only this technology only existed...
Oh. Wait.
http://www.mobull.usf.edu/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Net Public Safety loss
[ link to this | view in chronology ]