[opendtv] Re: TV Technology: Was the Incentive Auction Necessary?
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 06:45:47 -0500
On Jan 16, 2018, at 9:12 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I think this spectrum could have been made available, for uses where it
actually makes sense, just because in these locations, it would have been TV
white space. Regardless, the longer term effects should not be too
significant anyway, even according to the ATSC 3.0 narrative? That narrative
being, believably enough, that TV is heading toward on demand and
interactivity. TV industry use of spectrum that is suboptimal for two-way
comms and high capacity, especially in high density environments, should
diminish over time.
I think Bert has a point here, however, as we transition to “Internet TV” the
600 MHz spectrum is likely to INCREASE in value because of it’s inherent
characteristics- the ability to cover larger areas and to penetrate buildings.
There are a number of reasons the auction did not produce the expected
revenues. This article, which explains why Sprint did not participate, offers
one of those reasons:
https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/sprint-cfo-robbiati-600-mhz-spectrum-past
“We did not participate in the 600 MHz (auction) not because we didn’t have
money at the time, or we were under-resourced for it,” he said. “It is simply
spectrum that is spectrum of the past. The world is moving toward
high-capacity wireless data networks, and in that world the best and most
efficient spectrum that is needed for that… is mid-band spectrum, the
spectrum that we have, the 2.5 GHz spectrum.”
Robbiati also noted that the TV broadcasters’ airwaves currently up for grabs
may not be available for several years. The FCC has issued a 39-month
repacking plan for that spectrum, enabling the broadcasters to move to other
airwaves while their former spectrum is reshuffled for wireless use.
Keep in mind that this auction was authorized in 2012. It was delayed several
times, and now the winners will need to wait several more years to use it in
most areas of the country.
Because of the delays it now looks like 5G will be deployed in the same
timeframe. What is more important is to understand where the low hanging fruit
is. Demand for cellular is highest in urban areas, where 5G in millimeter wave
spectrum will provide the most band for the buck.
Another issue that impacted the auction results was that the number of stations
taking the buyout was lower than expected. My guess is that many of these
stations believe they will get more money by waiting for the industry
consolidation that is likely to occur if the ownership caps are raised or
eliminated.
The good news is that IF this spectrum is not coveted by the big wireless
operators it will be more affordable for smaller operators and for new
start-ups in the wireless broadband business.
Although the 600 MHz spectrum is not useful for 5G, there are a number of new
techniques for its use that improve the prospects for its use. Traditional
cellular radio techniques and towers do not use spectrum efficiently,
especially at lower frequencies; it was difficult to control propagation over
large areas in the 600 and 700 MHz bands. As we have already seen with the
T-Mobile, using MIMO antennas it is possible to get much higher spectral reuse
from a single tower; and with appropriate receive antennas, the spectrum will
be ideal for wireless broadband in rural areas.
And then there is the other reality...
Who really cares what broadcasters do with their remaining spectrum?
We may well see new services develop in the 600 and 700 MHz band that are
focused on downstreambits for audio and video streaming...
Regards
Craig
Other related posts: