Hey, Guys, the Record's Stuck

Seems Julius Genachowski's FCC is playing the same song and now the record's stuck.  [The CD's skipping; the file's stuck in a nested loop.]

 

The title is broadband and the commission continues to yodel about the lack of penetration.  They're claiming less than 30 percent of Americans have access to their definition of broadband, 100Mbps.

 

In their 706 Report to Congress they presented this number as the goal and then lamented (is that a legal term?) that we're not there.

 

Interesting, though, that the report is totally out of date.  Current estimates put availability at approximately 80 percent of households.  That doesn't mean that 80 percent want/will sign up for such data rates.  If we look at growth of other technologies - television set penetration, color TV, CD, cable, and so on, we'll see that the growth curve for home data connections is much steeper than preceding technologies. 

 

It's important to remember that use of the Internet builds on many of these other technologies.  The integration of DOCSIS 3.0 by cable contributes immensely to the ability to deliver 100Mbps - or more - and that penetration continues to grow, approaching maturity.

 

Add to that the number of wireless user and you can get blown away by total usage, regardless of speed.

 

But back to that 100Mbps, a few comments:

• Who decided that 100Mbps is the goal? 
• How many people want it?
• If 100Mbps is the Chevy Volt of data, why is the commission working so hard to secure this level of access for everyone?
• What part does diversification play in the commission's goal?  By that I mean, 100Mbps can replace over-the-air television and, consequently, dilute the value of companies like Disney, Comcast/NBC Universal, and similar organizations?
• On the coattails of the comment directly above, how hard is the commission looking at the vertical and horizontal integration of existing operations, e.g., Comcast/NBC/Universal
• Is it reasonable for the commission to be able to divert funds - on their own, with no oversight from congress - to support the buildout of 100Mbps? 
• We're all paying into the fund on every telephone bill.  What do we have to show for it?
• The marketplace was responsible for most of the growth of every other technological advance.  Why does the government need to be involved?  Demand trumps technology every time.
• US prices for data rates are, on the whole, from 25% to 100% higher than those in other countries.  Competition will help.  Government builds will not.

Here's an excerpt from the home page of the FCC's "Connecting America" portion of fcc.gov:  Broadband has gone from being a luxury to a necessity for full participation in our economy and society – for all Americans. For that reason, the FCC has adopted comprehensive reforms of its Universal Service Fund (USF) and Intercarrier Compensation (ICC) systems to accelerate broadband build-out to the 18 million Americans living in rural areas who currently have no access to robust broadband infrastructure. This reform will expand the benefits of high-speed Internet to millions of consumers in every part of the country by transforming the existing USF into a new Connect America Fund (CAF) focused on broadband.

Consumers everywhere – both urban and rural – will benefit. Reform will not only drive economic growth in rural America, but will expand the online marketplace nationwide, creating jobs and businesses opportunities across the country.

 

Commissioner Ajit Pai summed it up well:  “If we are willing to set an objective with no intent of reaching it, then I suppose that this is not a problem, but if we believe instead that data should drive our decisions - not vice versa - then section 706(b) can never be a reliable authority for implementing good policy since we will eventually be forced to concede once again that broadband is being deployed in a timely and reasonable fashion.”  A little gobbledegoop but you get it.

 

So, I ask the commission - and congress - to get the facts straight.  Then, give a second thought to spending more money, money which really should have congress' approval, for expansion of this level of broadband.

 

Pick up the tone arm and move the stylus, flick the CD player with your finger, or move farther down the file...but stop trying to provide something ahead of the marketplace.  You'll save time, unintended consequences, money and angst.  And there's nothing better than saved angst.

 

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0827/FCC-12-90A1.pdf

http://www.internetworldstats.com/am/us.htm

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/connecting-america

Pass the Worcestershire - and my Low Def TV. You, Me, TV, and the FCC

Let me see…you promise me a huge thick steak.  But I have to buy a new grill to cook it.  I buy the grill.  Then you tell me that you only want me to have half a steak and also want me to let my neighbor put his half steak on my grill next to mine.

Kind of what happened last week when the FCC issued an unofficial announcement of its Report & Order regarding television broadcasters sharing channels.

Simply explained, broadcasters are being offered the opportunity to share their assigned channels for rewards to be named – someday.  In their words,

 

“…making a significant portion of spectrum currently used by the broadcast television service available for new uses. The Report and Order, in anticipation of a future incentive auction to address the nation’s growing demand for wireless broadband, allows multiple broadcast stations to elect to stream individual programming while sharing a single channel.

The new rules promote innovation and investment in mobile communications, and help ensure the United States keeps pace with the global wireless revolution. The rules also help preserve broadcast television as a healthy, viable medium. Specifically, the Report and Order establishes a framework for how two or more television licensees may voluntarily share a single six MHz channel in conjunction with the auction process…”

Just so we all understand – as much as possible given the available information – The commission is asking stations to give up part of their spectrum by sharing their 6 megahertz channel with others.  This is undefined except for a later statement, “…stations will need to retain at least one standard definition programming stream to meet the FCC’s requirement of providing an over-the-air video broadcast at no direct charge to viewers, they will have the flexibility of tailoring their channel sharing agreements to meet their individual programming and economic needs…”.  In other words, it’s not important how they share or how many share, as long as each can maintain one free over-the-air SD programming channel.

What’s wrong with this picture?Anyone remember the Communications Act of 1996?  Right.  It solidified the digital broadcast industry in the US.  It did so by forcing stations to move from analog to digital broadcasting over a period of time.  Yes, if you thought, “Yeah, and it was a looooong period of time,” you are correct.  No less than 4 delays were implemented before the final date of June 12, 2009.  But shut off the analog, we did.  And most of the VHF stations elected or were forced to move to UHF frequencies¹.

Through the period from 1996 to the analog shutoff, broadcasters retooled totally.  Nearly every piece of equipment had to be replaced.  Worse, so did the interconnections.  Routing gigabit signals around a station was quite different from sending 4.5 megahertz down a piece of 75 ohm coax with a BNC on each end.  New cameras, new processors, switchers, STL’s, transmitters, upconverters for transmitting standard definition and NTSC signals.  In fact, imagine a newscaster sitting at the news desk and someone sitting at home.  Now think about every piece of gear in between.  OK.  Replace it!

Did you leave out the receiver?  Replace that with either a new HD receiver or a converter box to receive the digital signal over the air and output an NTSC signal for an existing “TV set.”

At this point, let’s take a step back.  The original concept for digital was not implemented to give us better television.  If that were the case, we probably wouldn’t have adopted 8-VSB.  It was done so that VHF frequencies would be vacated and available for auction, the money going to the US treasury.  Follow the money.  It was about the buck.

While we’re still in the Wayback machine, please recall that Congress, in its low bandwidth intelligence, suddenly realized that the new rules would make obsolete every existing set in the country.  Soooo, they embarked on a coupon program – every household was eligible for 2 coupons which would give them a shiny new converter for between zero and ten dollars.  Actual cost?  About $45 to $50.  The difference was to come out of the original spectrum auction.  And recall, too, that paying for those converters all but wiped out the revenue from the auction.  Go figure.

Back to today – well, last week.

Sharing, eh?

Here are some implications to think about: 

·    Broadcasters spent a lot of money on equipment to provide high definition signals

o    1080i requires the entire 6 mHz channel a broadcaster is assigned 

o    Sharing channels will mean no more 1080i...possibly no 720p

o    The lower bandwidth required means broadcasters wasted a lot of money meeting standards implemented by a government that now proposes – less than 3 years later – to change them

·    Consumers have purchased tens of millions of high definition receivers which shortly may have little high definition to receive

·    The middle men – cable, telco and satellite have ponied up plenty to accurately decode and re-encode broadcasters’ signals.   No HD to decode?  OK, more room for other channels.  More competition for broadcasters

So the over-the-air gang is being asked to voluntarily combine some of their signals onto a single channel.  Give up major opportunities to compete via the additional channels they can provide within the digital envelope.  And the commission’s reasoning?  Greater penetration of personal communications service.  Yes.  More frequencies for WIMAX, 3G, 4G, 4-1/2G, G minor 7 and what’s to come.  As far as our FCC is concerned, everyone should have access to broadband anywhere and everywhere, 24/7.

I took you through what that looks like back here:

http://scopefocus.blogspot.com/2011/07/working-out-of-your-element.html .  In many places, there isn’t that much bandwidth from DC to even gamma rays!  Yes, I exaggerate; given the toxic effects of gamma rays, I doubt we’ll be using that “band” soon.

The bottom line is the average consumer is going to lose a lot of what he/she bought that flatscreen for.  The average broadcaster (who voluntarily pairs with another) gives up either some high definition formats or some additional channels – and revenue – and gets to drive his new Porche of a system at VW speeds…and we all get to wait.  For the other shoe to drop.  The one that will fall if broadcasters don’t volunteer or if there aren’t enough volunteers.  Then the Ed Markeys of the world will set their sights on all broadcasters.  But, first, of course, they’ll make sure that Congress still gets the lowest advertising rates available on the stations they haven’t already put out of business.

¹As it turned out, little real-world study of propagation was done prior to implementation of the 8-VSB standard that US broadcasters use.  Fact is, overall reception and building penetration is better on the UHF frequencies than on high-VHF frequencies and even more so than low-VHF frequencies.  So the folks who bit the bullet and transitioned to UHF gained instead of lost.  And, instead of losing their original channel identities, they were able to maintain virtual channel numbers.  e.g., channel moving channel 2 to channel 48 was a physical change but to the audience, it still appeared as and was tuned as channel 2.  At least no need to change the logo.