E-mail  |  Print  |  Share  |  Back to Home
For full, free access to TVNewsCheck.com, register today. It's fast, easy and free. If already registered, click here to log in.
Close Window

LIN, Nexstar, Sinclair Vs. Spectrum Grab

By Harry A. Jessell
TVNewsCheck, Nov 16 2009, 9:00 AM ET

A coalition of TV stations group led by LIN, Nexstar and Sinclair challenged the claim that TV broadcasting spectrum is being used inefficiently and should be reallocated and auctioned to wireless broadband operators.

"Broadcasting services bring vast efficiencies to our national communications infrastructure through their ability to serve ‘one to many' in small bandwidth segments, and those efficiencies cannot be achieved in any other way," the station groups say in comments on broadband access in which the reallocate-and-auction idea has been advanced.

Story continues after the ad

"The robustness of broadcast reception and use is not affected whether there are 100 viewers or 100,000 viewers, unlike contention access platforms such as mobile wireless, on which service is seriously degraded or even lost as the number of users increases," the broadcasters say.

"At bottom, the reclamation proponent's proposals are anti-competitive and intended to make consumers pay for many of the services they now get for the most advantageous price: free."

The coalition also includes Pappas Telecasting, MPS Media, Manship Media and New Age Media. The comments were prepared by John Hane of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman.

Their voices in opposition to reallocation will be added to those of other broadcasters who submitted comments last week: the National Association of Broadcasters and the Association of Maximum Service Television, which filed jointly, and another coalition of station groups including Media General, Gray Television, Meredith Broadcasting and Allbritton.

The LIN-Nexstar-led coalition also argues that their efficiency will grow as broadcasters introduce mobile DTV and entrepreneurs find more innovative ways to use the spectrum.

The coalition cites new TiVo DVRs with broadcast tuners and Sezmi, which is leasing broadcast spectrum to provide a wireless cable service.

"Sezmi has focused on making ATSC easier to receive and to use, and plans to pack even more television service into existing broadcast channels," it says.

"To unlock the unique delivery efficiency of ATSC broadcast, Sezmi created a ‘smart reception system' that provides "cutting-edge indoor reception."

Rather than reallocating broadcast spectrum, it says, the FCC should allow broadcasters to use their spectrum even more efficiently by relaxing the station ownership rules and jettisoning "archaic" technical rules.

"Ownership limits make it impossible for any broadcast licensee to launch a new, coast-to-coast service, and the ownership and technical rules prevent anyone from using broadcast spectrum to introduce a game-changing service in any local market," the coalition claims.

Comments (6) - Post a comment

HowardMBurgers Nicknameposted 117 days, 5 hours, 2 minutes ago
From a technical perspective, the problem is that even if the ATSC DTV modulation standard were changed to allow for the latest more efficient compression standard, broadcasters and consumers will be impacted with having to purchase new encoding equipment and (for OTA received consumers) new Set Top Boxes or TV's. Geez, we're less than a year into the DTV transition. Telling a broadcaster or consumer in these economic times that they will need to spend a bunch of money to replace perfectly good equipment because the government (once again) wants more spectrum, will go over like a fart in an elevator.
TVGuy Nicknameposted 117 days, 4 hours, 49 minutes ago
WELL said, Howard (except maybe the elevator comment, but I get your point). MORE change and buying MORE equipment is the LAST thing consumers need in these harrowing times.
Chip Harwood posted 117 days, 4 hours, 40 minutes ago
The point is use the spectrum now ideas like Sezmi have been tried and failed remember US Broadcasting Fox and several other Groups spent $150+ million in 2005-2006-- 23 channels not going to get any consumer but bad credit, no ESPN, Turner, Or Viacom services on it! Please if that was a good idea the phone companies would gone that route!
As for mobile no model yet, or in the near future, cable took $3 Billion in spots sales in 2008 that's real money go after that with multicast! If you wait for someone to just pay/lease it from you for you play right in the hands of those who want the spectrum be pro-active it's not just real estate.
PhillyPhlash Nicknameposted 117 days, 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
If local broadcasters provided an all-news digichannel along with old movie and TV rerun channels ready out there, that, combined with existing local and network programming, would be enough for many cable viewers to drop pay TV, put up an outdoor antenna rig and go all free OTA. THAT'S why the broadband and cable providers want to grab spectrum -- to kill the competition. Broadcasters who are owned by Big cable/telco/broadband will not be permitted to compete. The solution; prevent cross-ownership of cable/broadband and broadcast properties -- and kill deals like the proposed Comcast acquisition of NBCU as anticompetitive.
PSIPthing Nicknameposted 117 days, 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
so, every local broadcaster has to provide a local all-news virtual channel, along with lightly-watched rerun channel AND combine that with local and network programming, and this would "be enough" for "many cable viewers to drop" "pay tv?" The basic technical problems is that there isn;t enough bandwidth to do a good HDTV service and these other channels, and there isn't enough revenue to cover the costs of anything more than a news-rechash channel. You are simply wrong about cable tv systems being "competition" for broadcasters. It's more of a symbiotic/parasitic relationship. Cable can't and won't do local programming, and broadcast doesn't have enought bandwidth to compete with 200-channel cable systems (cable which also has Internet access revenues.)
PhillyPhlash Nicknameposted 116 days, 14 hours, 39 minutes ago
Yes, many cable subs who bought cable to get a better picture an all-news network could live without paying $50+ a month for cable -- and would if they knew that a rooftop antenna can bring in 20 or more channels in many markets. Broadcast stations can handle two HD streams and a third SD channel with some additional but barely noticeable compression.

Glad you mentioned cable's broken promises regarding local origination. Perhaps TVNC could do a story about how many franchise deals Comcast has reneged on in that regard. Cable did great L.O. in the early days of cable. Manhattan had two robust local cable channels way back in the early '70s, as did other cities. L.O. flourished into the mid-'80s. Then cable got greedy, finagled its way out of what many thought were binding franchise commitments for studio, equipment and channel resources for L.O. Comcast was a prime offender, and that's yet another reason why the government should turn thumbs-down on its proposed deal for NBCU. The company's idea of public service is running community events and doing news shows and some talking head programs, carbon copies of local broadcast TV. In Philly, the best grassroots community and arts programming is produced by WYBE, an independent public TV outlet. Community TV is long gone from most Comcast franchises.
E-mail  |  Print  |  Share  |  Back to Home
More Business Stories |
More DTV Stories |
More Law Stories |
More Cash For Spectrum Stories

Classifieds

Search All

The Market

  Symbol Last Change (%)
     Nasdaq 2291.28 +2.88 (+0.13%)
     NYSE 7241.24 -10.95 (-0.15%)
     S&P 500 1126.42 +0.22 (+0.02%)
Quotes delayed at least 20 mins.
Get quotes, news, data
Source: FinancialContent.com

Ratings

Overnights, adults 18-49 for Mar 9, 2010
  • 1.  fox5.6/15
  • 2.  cbs3.4/9
  • 3.  nbc2.9/8
  • 4.  abc2.4/7
  • 5.  uni1.3/4
  • 6.  upn0.7/2
Source: Nielsen Media Research