The primary focus of most progressives when it comes to evaluating the FCC under President Obama has been the way that the FCC has pushed for Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is, of course, important for ensuring that the very small number of companies that control America's access to the Internet can't censor and manipulate what we can see online.
So why is it that another aspect of the FCC's Broadband Plan would actually have the effect of taking spectrum from small, independent broadcasters and turning it over to these same big media companies? There's a huge disconnect here...
(Updated to add links)
The policy that I'm referring to is the FCC's expressed goal of taking 120 MHz from the broadcast television spectrum and making it available for broadband use. This is a proposal that is superficially appealing, but actually represents horrible public policy. It also represents the triumph of right wing economic policy in spectrum management -- something I am truly saddened to see being pushed by the most progressive presidential adminstration in several decades.
For those who aren't familiar with this initiative, the FCC has recently set a goal of finding 500 MHz of additional spectrum for wireless broadband services, in order to avoid future congestion in these services. The spectrum in question is currently used for various purposes, but my focus will be on the 120 MHz that is currently assigned for broadcast television service. That 120 MHz translates to 20 TV channels. Prior to the digital television transition, there were 67 channels in the broadcast TV band (2 through 36 and 38 through 69, since channel 37 was and is reserved for radio astronomy). Following the digital transition, that number was reduced to 49 channels. If the Obama FCC has it's way, that number would drop again, all the way down to 29 channels -- less than half the number that existed prior to the digital transition.
The first problem is that 29 channels won't accomodate the number of stations currently on the air in large markets. For example, in Dallas/Fort Worth, we have 18 full power TV stations, plus another 10 low power stations. But since some channels need to be left clear because they are used in adjacent cities, the reality is that there just wouldn't be enough space to accomodate all those stations. The situation in markets like New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and San Francisco is similarly tight.
So the cold truth is that if this Broadband Plan succeeds in taking 20 channels from the broadcast TV service, stations that are on the air today will be forced to go off the air. The stations that go off the air will either be low power stations or independently owned full power stations. The stations that would survive the band packing process are going to be those owned by companies with the deepest pockets and the greatest financial resources -- in other words, those owned by the biggest media companies. While the full powered stations that would be forced off would receive some sort of financial compensation, the result is still reduced ownership diversity.
It should almost go without saying that if existing stations are forced off the air, there will certainly be no room for any new stations in the future. The broadcast television band will effectively be closed off to new ownership and new voices.
And while some may argue that cable, satellite, and the Internet offer an alternative that makes broadcast television unnecessary, that simply isn't so.
With cable and satellite, everything that goes into a subscriber's home is controlled by a single company -- no matter how many channels may be offered, the result is inherently a loss in ownership diversity. As many attempted start up cable channels have discovered, it is virtually impossible for an independently owned cable channel to get significant distribution in today's consolidated media environment.
As for the Internet -- it's a great resource and a great way of reaching the public. But it's no substitute for broadcast television, at least not when presenting full motion video is the goal. Consider that one of the lower rated television stations in the Dallas area might get 10,000 households tuning in at any given time, and then contemplate the resources required to simultaneously stream video to that many different viewers -- and that's just a single market. Broadcast television is just a far more efficient way to mass distribute video than is the Internet.
Finally, there's the matter of what will happen to the spectrum that the FCC proposes to take from the broadcast TV service: it will be auctioned off to the highest bidder. As was demonstrated in the recent 700 MHz auctions (that reassigned the spectrum taken from broadcast TV after last year's digital transition), the winning bidders were usually either AT&T or Verizon. In short, it was worth more for AT&T and Verizon to keep that spectrum out of the hands of potential competitors than it was worth to those potential competitors. There's every reason in the world to believe that the same thing would happen with any additional spectrum taken from the broadcast TV service.
So the bottom line is that if the FCC goes through with their plan to transfer spectrum from broadcast TV to wireless broadband, it will effectively be taking spectrum from small businesses and independently owned companies in order to sell it off to AT&T and Verizon -- who will warehouse that spectrum in order to keep competition at bay.
And they call this progressive media and telecommunications policy?
What the FCC should do instead is this:
- Force AT&T and Verizon to either use or divest the spectrum they are currently sitting on.
- Assign additional spectrum to broadband services that is currently being used for non-broadcast applications. Put rules in place to prevent incumbent service providers from bidding for this spectrum or buying it from those who do bid for it.
- Nurture the broadcast TV environment to encourage independently owned broadcasters instead of penalizing them.
Links:
FCC's official site for Broadband Plan (Note: spectrum use is discussed in chapter 5)
TV Technology: FCC Spectrum Analysis Doesn't Add Up
Article on impact of plan to low power TV