Television broadcasters are crying foul over the FCC's recently announced vision for the nation's wireless broadband plan, which would require them to give up valuable spectrum so wireless broadband companies can use it instead.
Broadcast television is more relevant than ever now that it's purely digital, argue broadcasters and their investors, because so many people carry color screens around with them these days, and all a smartphone or tablet needs to in order to be a portable television receiver is a small piece of receiver hardware already installed in many cellphones around the world (though few in the U.S. have them).
On the other hand, wireless broadband providers argue, the smartphone explosion -- not to mention tablets, if those catch on -- will require more wireless bandwidth than they currently have. And not just for video. So, the FCC should give them more room on the spectrum dial to deliver it.
We'd like cheap, ubiquitous wireless broadband as much as any other smartphone or laptop lugger. And it may seem absurd that something like over-the-air television would hold back something as vital as fast, ubiquitous, wireless internet. But this is not a black-and-white issue.
As amusing as we and others find it to mock AT&T for its slow or non-existent data coverage, the semi-acknowledged reason for that network congestion is the runaway success of the iPhone. It encourages increased wireless data usage -- including video delivered in an inefficient, server-to-a-phone way.
This is one of the main reasons the FCC wants to switch some of the television broadcasters' wireless spectrum to cellphone companies in the first place: so they can improve or maintain their service as more people stream video and other data to their portable devices.
The National Association of Broadcasters counters that digital, over-the-air broadcasts are far more efficient at delivering certain types of video to a large number of viewers, and they have a good point.
"I think it's a false choice to think it has to be either broadband or broadcasting," said NAB executive vice president Dennis Wharton. "[Broadcast] is a one-to-everyone transmission system as opposed to a one-to-one transmission system as used by the internet and cellphone providers … We are much more spectrum-efficient than are other communications providers."
The FCC's proposal would require broadcasters to return 120 MHz to the government so it can be auctioned off in 2012 or 2013. Broadcasters say this would pack them into an even tighter slice of spectrum, increasing the interference between broadcast channels and killing niche programming such as foreign-language and religious channels.
Wharton also claims Verizon and AT&T haven't yet deployed any of the 108 MHz of wireless spectrum gained during the nation's switch to purely digital television broadcasts, which required television broadcasters to " skinny down" from channels 2 through 69 to 2 through 51 -- a 27 percent reduction.
"Now we're being asked to return more spectrum to the government, and we think there's a way to work with government to maybe accomplish the goals that they are seeking without threatening all the television stations throughout the country," said Wharton.
Just one problem: Americans have been able to watch mobile television for decades on handheld devices, including analog television receivers, and they haven't exhibited any significant urge to do so.
Wharton claims demand for live local digital television programming will increase on mobile devices -- especially those coming from Dell, which is particularly interested in receiving broadcast television -- because they don't require people to carry an extra screen around. And he's correct that if people do watch more mobile television delivered by broadcast, it could free up at least a small slice of wireless data bandwidth that would otherwise have gone to the same television programming delivered in a less efficient (one-to-one) way.
MobiTV sits in an interesting junction of this whole mess, which all sides agree will take months or years to sort out; the only legislation likely to happen this year is an official inventory of who has what so far. MobiTV delivers television programs over wireless data connections for an extra $10 tacked onto a phone bill, so it has alliances with both dogs in this fight: television networks and wireless data networks.
"Spectrum allocation is always a contentious issue," said Cedric Fernandes, VP of Technology, MobiTV. "We are somewhat indifferent, as we have enabling technologies that allow for the efficient distribution of mobile video over broadcast and/or 3G and 4G radio networks."
He means this in the context of keeping options open for his business, but the underlying point is more important: It doesn't make a difference how video gets from point A to point B. What matters is an efficient use of the airwaves. A dynamic mix of one-to-one and broadcast programming, with cooperation from both sides, could be the best way to achieve that.
For example, if Nielsen, wireless networks, app developers and other entities noticed that a significant number of viewers are watching a particular show over the internet, the show's signal could eventually flip to over-the-air broadcast. If niche broadcast shows have fewer viewers in a given area, it could eventually change to internet and mobile data connections. Users wouldn't even need to notice or care which way it's delivered, so long as the same software played it back, which would be simple from a technical perspective.
And as wireless data devices decrease in price and coverage increases, it should be possible for any household to access programming that's only available on the internet or cellular data networks, even if it means connecting a cellphone to a television set.
This way, niche programming would be presented on a medium that can handle it -- the internet and mobile networks -- while stuff everyone wants to watch at a certain time, such as sports, news, sitcoms and reality shows, could take to the broadcast airwaves, easing strain on the internet and mobile networks. All of the stakeholders appear to have something to gain in this scenario, but cooperating to achieve it could be a different story.
The National Association of Broadcasters says it is willing to work with the government and wireless data providers, according to Wharton. The model we propose is already in place, in the form of Jelli, a web-user-controlled radio station that dictates which songs play in near-real-time during some slots on San Francisco's Live 105 and all of the programming on Australia's 24-Hour Choose the Hits station.
This is not to say that a rush of mobile television viewers should be able to vote a show off the airwaves and onto the internet in real time, because that would leave over-the-air-only viewers of niche shows in the lurch too often. But if shows were able to migrate between broadcast and one-to-one airwaves as needed, it would only help our large nation piece together a uniform high-speed, wireless data network, and everyone seems to want that.
See Also:
- Obama Urges DTV Delay as Time, Money Runs Out
- Killing the DTV Delay: We Dodged a Bullet
- DTV Switch Reveals Hitch; Viewers Lose Local Stations
- Mobile TV Tries to Break Into Prime Time
- Americans Don't Care About Mobile TV
- Web/Mobile Video Will Overtake TV By 2013: Research Group
Photo courtesy of Flickr/[shaorang](http://www.flickr.com/photos/shaorang/3149926874/)
