[SBE] The Future - What can we do about it.

[Dan Slentz]

Dennis has some excellent suggestions, Barry (and fellow SBE members).  Realizing the limited resources and political clout of the SBE, I'd suggest we work with SMPTE and NAB to form a stronger coalition to make this happen.  
I think we understand our TV audience has eroded.  Before we're put in the coffin and buried, I'd like to hope we can work towards improving our audiences or at least play a part in the future decision of the spectrum.  At the very least, as the current holders of this spectrum, give us "first dibs" at future technology using the this spectrum (a bit of "eminent domain strategy").
Dan




________________________________
From: Dennis C. Brown <d.c.brown at att.net>
To: sbe member discussion mail list <sbe at sbe.org>
Sent: Fri, March 19, 2010 3:32:37 PM
Subject: Re: [SBE] The Future - What can we do about it.

I suggest the following:

  Former FCC Chairman, the late James H. Quello, explained what the FCC does, thusly:  "We take very difficult legal, technical and economic questions and to those questions we give political answers."  For some years, the FCC's political thinking has revolved around economics with legal and technical considerations often in second and third place.  The FCC is thinking in terms of the economic value of spectrum when used for various purposes.  It is under political pressure from various interests to improve broadband penetration and it is going to do something to satisfy those political interests.  SBE's objective should be to preserve and advance broadcast engineer employment.  That means that SBE should seek to limit the damage to broadcast engineer employment and to postpone the date on which any damage occurs.

    Economics:  Economists love to study.  SBE should analyze the economics of the proposal, hire economists to counter the proposal, and call for a great deal more, years more, study of the economics.  Argue the comparative economic merits of reallocating spectrum from someone else, rather than from broadcasting.

    Legal:  For the government to share auction proceeds with broadcast owners would require amendments to the Communications Act.  SBE should be involved in lobbying Congress for the most favorable, most postponed, legislation possible.  Broadcast owners will be resistant in proportion to the extent that they won't get their "fair share" of the auction revenues.  Among the arguments that SBE can raise are that, in the United States' current financial position, the United States can't afford to split the auction revenue; and the broadcaster is entitled to no more buyout compensation, if any, than current revenues times the number of years remaining on its license.  SBE could lobby for protection of stakeholders such as broadcast engineers by the government's providing copious quantities of funds for occupational retraining and retirement compensation.  If there is to be a split of revenues, demand that the broadcaster be required to buy out
 displayed employees.  Recognize that there will be a split between broadcasters which want a buyout opportunity and those which don't.  Make an ally of the category which doesn't want to surrender and take a coordinated position on the economics.

    Technical.  Whatever the plan is, broadcast engineers are the ones to show that it won't work.  Call for more, oh my, years more, technical study, especially in light of the FCC's surprisingly wrong projections of digital VHF propagation and the limited extent of knowledge of ATSC reception problems and solutions.

    In short, SBE should use all three avenues, economic, legal, and technical to make it difficult for the FCC to act.  SBE's forte is engineering but SBE cannot neglect the opportunity to approach the problem from all three vectors.

    We need to recognize that this is not the first time that reallocation of spectrum to satisfy political demand has been proposed or has occurred.  For example, there is no TV Channel 1 because the FCC took it from TV and gave it to land mobile and then to the Amateurs.  To accommodate Nextel, the FCC forced thousands of small business land mobile entrepreneurs to swap channels with Nextel.  To accommodate various interests, the FCC reallocated TV spectrum above 700 MHz and destroyed some of the value of hundreds of millions of TV receivers.  To accommodate the FCC's desire to decrease bandwidth, thousands of land mobile radios will become obsolete in the next few months.  We cannot underestimate the tenacity of the FCC once it makes a decision.  But it makes decisions slowly.  In this case, the slower, the better.

Curt Brown

On 3/19/2010 4:22 PM, Barry Thomas wrote:

> I laid the gauntlet out; let me be the first to offer an answer:

> 

> 

> The chair of our Atlanta SBE Chapter, #5, is committing one of the monthly meetings to just this issue.

> 

> 

> 

> Full disclosure, Bill asked me to be on the panel since I'm the national Government Relations Chair but you get the idea.  Details at www.broadcast.net/~sbe5 (links, bio info, etc.)

> 

> 

> 

> 

> Barry Thomas, CPBE CBNT

> _______________________________________________

> The SBE Roundtable, SBE at sbe.org

> To unsubscribe, go to http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/options/sbe

> 

> http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/sbe

> 

>    

_______________________________________________
The SBE Roundtable, SBE at sbe.org
To unsubscribe, go to http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/options/sbe

http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/sbe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/sbe/attachments/20100319/537c9564/attachment.html>