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

NAB's Smith: SD-Only TV Is 'Non-Starter'

By Harry A. Jessell
TVNewsCheck, Nov 17 2009, 7:33 PM ET

NAB President Gordon Smith said that the NAB will strongly oppose any spectrum take-back scheme from the FCC that would prevent TV stations from broadcasting HDTV and reduce them to SD-only service.

"That's a non-starter," Smith said at the Media Institute in Washington Tuesday. "We will fight that fiercely. We should have the right to broadcast in high definition."

Story continues after the ad

Smith was reacting to the so-called cash-for-spectrum proposal floated last month by FCC staffer Blair Levin, who is heading the FCC study into how to expand high-speed broadband access in the U.S.

Under the proposal, the broadcasters would give up most of their spectrum in exchange for a share of the proceeds from auctioning the spectrum to wireless operators.

Each station would retain a small slice of spectrum so they could broadcast only a single SD service for viewers who still rely on over-the-air reception.

Despite his strong language, Smith said that he is "open to ideas" on reallocating broadcast spectrum and that NAB would not adopt a formal position on it until it saw a definitive proposal from the FCC.

However, Smith also suggested that the FCC would have trouble winning the necessary congressional approval for a proposal that would shift spectrum from a free service like broadcasting to a pay service like wireless broadband.

"I think I know how that argument plays out politically," he said. The graveyard is full of policies "hatched outside of a political reality."

Smith made a case for leaving broadcasting spectrum left intact. Broadcasting is the option that provides the "disadvantaged" with a free service that connect thems to "local news, sports, entertainment, weather."

And if its spectrum remains untouched, he said, stations will also soon offer a mobile DTV service that will allow consumers to take broadcasting along wherever they go.

"It's not hard for me to predict to you that this Apple [iPhone] and this Blackberry will be FM radios and mobile TVs too."

When broadcasters begin offering trial mobile DTV service in Washington in the coming months, he said, "you will see people start to appreciate again the role of free, over-the-air broadcasting."

Smith also suggested that the government could best help traditional media and the journalism they support by relaxing media ownership restrictions.

"There are ways for government to get out of the way of the newspaper business and allow some economies of scale so that we don't have to rely on the blogosphere for our news, which sometimes is not all that committed to the truth," he said.

Both parties have problems with the news media, Smith noted. Republicans generally don't like newspaper editorials and Democrats generally don't like radio "because of Rush Limbaugh. The truth is we need them both."

Smith, who served two terms in the U.S. Senate, urged broadcasters to take an active role in lobbying Congress.

"There is ... a grassroots army that can be mobilized, must be mobilized, in a constant re-education effort about the value of free, local, over-the-air. Lawmakers need to be reminded of the value of it over and over again.

"Broadcasters need to do that, perhaps better than we have been."

Comments (15) - Post a comment

PhillyPhlash Nicknameposted 114 days, 9 hours, 13 minutes ago
How does Smith respond to the argument that because broadcasters are licensees of public airwaves, they have no property rights to spectrum and thus no legal rationale to share in revenues from a spectrum auction? That's another political and legal reality that neither NAB nor the broadband spectrum grabbers has recognized. Viewers -- the people of the U.S. -- would have a greater legal right to share in such revenues than licensees whose use of the airwaves is a privilege granted by the people through the federal government.
GuyFawkes Nicknameposted 113 days, 19 hours, 48 minutes ago
Oh, OK, Philly. I don't know how Gordon Smith would respond to your argument but I'll tell you what you can do:
1) You can call the folks at, say, WPVI-TV (this assumes you do live in Philly...)
2) Ask them to hand over the airwaves to you -- since they in fact belong to you.
3) Once you get those airwaves handed back to you, decide whether you want to use them to provide local TV programming -- and all that entails including accurate weather, emergency alerts, informative journalism, etc. -- or just sell it to a wireless phone company that will not use it for local news/info/journalism
4) If you decide to use it for local TV, you can call your local bank and tell them you'll need:
a) $3 million to build out a digital-airwaves-compliant broadcast tower, transmitter and related equipment
b) Another $3 million for in-station/in-studio equipment: Editing systems, computers, cameras, hardware, software, cords, etc etc, all needed to fill those airwaves
c) another $2 million per year to power it all, as well as rent/taxes on your facilities
d) another $3 million per year for salaries for producers, reporters (unless you just want to use 22-yr-old bloggers -- oh but if you do you'll have to beef up your libel/slander insurance coverage), camera operators, news-van drivers, engineers, technicians, assistants, etc etc (and that's a price-break thanks to the fact that anchors have taken pay cuts)
e) oh and if you want your station tuned-to @ 4pm on any given weekday, you'll have to buy Oprah's show -- that might run you another $3 million per year
f) oh and if you want anyone watching your station @ 8 or 9pm you might need high-quality content they'll sit down to watch. You could always accept programming from the networks -- but oops -- looks like they'll want money back from you too....
g) Then tell your local bank you'll pay for it all via old fashioned advertising -- or better yet, selling ads on your website!
h) then wait to see how quickly your bank gets back to you...

As the popular saying goes, "Good Luck with That!" : )

Or maybe you and other "Peoples' Airwaves" flag-wavers could finally realize that TV broadcasters and the government have a partnership, and that it's in the government's best interests to have healthy partners that they listen to. And that the broadcasters have by and large done a damn fine job holding up their end of the bargain.
PhillyPhlash Nicknameposted 113 days, 16 hours, 49 minutes ago
You have missed my point, or at least, have distorted it. As someone who's been there, I'm all for local broadcasters. But licenses can be lost. Any scheme that would have stations share in the long-term value of spectrum will be legally nullified because licensees have no inherent property rights. Like other devotees of the Guy Fawkes school of reasoning (and lame psy ops), yours is faulty. Broadcasters should hang onto their spectrum, because without it, they are just another programming service that can be duplicated, replaced or dropped entirely by the owners of the distribution mode. At the risk of quoting a Commie, it's true that those who control the means of production (and distribution in this case) rule the roost.
Michael Palmer posted 113 days, 22 hours, 55 minutes ago
Less Spectrum for broadcasters? We need MORE spectrum to deliver MORE services, free of charge, over the air, to the millions of Arericans who depend on it. I'd like to have 10x my current spectrum, and become an over the air affiliate of CNN, ESPN, FOX News, etc on each different channel. I say throw the telecoms back on their heels and demand their spectrum, which they profit nicely, from while providing essentially nothing to the American people, without a monthly bill. Attack I say, the best defense is a good...
posted 113 days, 21 hours, 25 minutes ago
That's the spirit.
PSIPthing Nicknameposted 113 days, 16 hours, 53 minutes ago
this march has been going on since the 1970's, when channels above 70 started to disappear. It should have been strongly opposed then, but the arrival of mobile telephones on channels above 70 tended to settle that.
HowardMBurgers Nicknameposted 113 days, 22 hours, 35 minutes ago
Actually I think what the government is proposing is quite reasonable, assuming the money paid to the broadcaster by the broadband spectrum auction is worth giving up either multicasting or HD. You see the problem is that HD is a huge cost albatross and a money loser. For all the investment to date, not one TV station that produces programming in HD has made a cent in additional revenue. The vast majority of the TV watching public would rather have substance over HD. With the loss of compensation from networks, advertising revenue loss from the big three auto makers, and cable putting the squeeze on local broadcasters, the opportunity to be compensated for giving up HD today, could save many a station tomorrow. Besides, who's to say that with the advent of new compression technologies, stations that give up part of their spectrum couldn't eventually broadcast in HD in the future.
PSIPthing Nicknameposted 113 days, 16 hours, 48 minutes ago
your point of view tends to be contrary to fact. The cost deltal for sending out HDTV versus SDTV is minimal these days; perhaps $20,000, in many cases, less. Production is a different matter. But, has an SDTV network ever exceeded any HDTV content in ratings when broadcast over the air? I don't think so. Also, at least in markets I am familiar with, the stations that were early adopters of (expensive, to be sure) HDTV newscasts have found their newscasts become the ratings leaders. I can't say that they've made more money to date, but higher ratings = more revenue, and HDTV news appears to be a game changer. Your other points seem to be mere bean-counting about general industry conditions. Deal with them; don't blame them on HDTV. Imagine if we hadn't gone digital -- broadcast television would be simply dead.
HowardMBurgers Nicknameposted 113 days, 12 hours, 8 minutes ago
Sorry PSIP, but the facts are that absolutely no TV station in the US has seen ratings increases after going HD, whether that be local HD news production or network pass-through. Legacy ratings leaders have remained so, but no increases. Your case about cost is also inaccurate. A station will spend over a million dollars to convert their news production operation to HD. And that's just the studio. Depending on the number of field cameras, live trucks, and if they have a helicopter, add in another 2-3 million in that part of the conversion. All that for nothing more than remaining status quo. But if there are millions to be made by selling off a portion of your 6Mhz channel without the need to convert a perfectly good SD plant, then why not?
PSIPthing Nicknameposted 113 days, 11 hours, 1 minute ago
who is forcing stations to go HD? Aside from the market.
JohnnyHD Nicknameposted 113 days, 10 hours, 36 minutes ago
The whole re-purpose of the broadcast spectrum is just another plot by the CEA to sell more products and to put more money into the greedy hands of the broadband providers. Period! Now that we have OTA broadcast tv switched to digital and sold a whole bunch of new digital tv sets and converter boxes the CEA wants to sell more junk and make your new HD set obsolete in the process. Sure you can just get cable or DBS to get your HD fix but you end up paying them too. Nothing like OTA SD on a 60" screen. Yuk!
If you want to get Broadband to the masses just put some money in their pockets so they can pay the monthly charge. If spectrum is needed why not dump Satellite radio, or use the FM band, or tv channels 2-6? Or how about channels 51 to 69? Oh wait...sold it too soon before we could think about a good purpose for it.
HowardMBurgers Nicknameposted 113 days, 3 hours, 33 minutes ago
The problem that the FCC and Congress did not anticipate when they were looking at the opportunities for post-transition spectrum auctions, is how lower VHF TV channels were not going to be valuable to digitally-based providers. Now that the transition is done, they sure do. Certainly I would argue that the government should look at their own spectrum use before trying to poach broadcasters. There are giant chunks of desirable spectrum held in reserve for military and defense contractor (potential) use, yet the focus seems to always be on cutting from the smaller pie. To your other point, the fact is that OTA viewership represents about <10% of viewership nationwide and the ratio of people who own 60" TV's even smaller. If some stations opt to reduce their occupied bandwidth for a price, there would be a minimal impact to their ratings , but there could be a significant increase in revenue, albeit short-term.
E-mail  |  Print  |  Share  |  Back to Home
More DTV Stories |
More Law Stories |
More New Media Stories |
More Technology 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 8, 2010
  • 1.  cbs4.3/12
  • 2.  fox3.8/10
  • 3.  abc2.6/7
  • 4.  nbc1.7/5
  • 5.  uni1.4/4
  • 6.  upn0.9/2
Source: Nielsen Media Research