Powell's "2006 is not the date"

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Delivered-To: dfarber+ () ux13 sp cs cmu edu
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 15:46:58 -0800
From: Michael Gold <gold () sri com>
Subject: Powell's "2006 is not the date"
X-Sender: mgold () mail sric-bi com

Dave, I don't subscribe to your list but I'm aware you follow this sort of
thing and I may have found something others have missed, or pehaps I'm just
confused.

Summary: Not only will US analog terrestrial TV broadcasts continue after
2006, but the law concerning analog license extensions has a loophole that
looks to me as if analog TV could continue indefinitely; even after 85% of
US households have DTTV receivers, the benchmark most often expressed by
digirati. Conceptually, when this loophole is combined with analog
must-carry, analog might continue even when there are zero analog receivers
remaining in service.

You may have noticed that Michael Powell acknowledged at CES that "2006 is
not the date" for analog broadcasts to end, although I doubt that will ever
end the rumor, at least until 2007. The fact that he even had to say it
indicates the persistence of the myth.

He indicated that the statute calls for analog broadcasts to end when 85%
of "the country" (or "the public" in another report) has a digital TV
receiver (apparently, any ATSC receiver qualifies, whether integrated into
a display, or in the form of a set top box; incidentally, the law actually
specifies that analog license extensions are available for each "market",
apparently meaning on a region-by-region, case-by-case basis.)

But when I went back to look at what the law really says, I find that
analog license extensions are potentially available even after 15% or less
of the TV households in a region have no DTTV receiver. Rather, extensions
are available as long as 15% have no DTTV receiver +and+ have no pay TV
service that carries at least some digital programming from each of the
region's DTTV broadcasters! The crucial "and" appears in section
309(j)(14)(iii)(I) of Title 47 of the U.S. Code, aka the the Communications
Act of 1934, in this case as amended by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997
(H.R. 2015, Section 3003).

Now it so happens that around 85% of US households have pay TV, but there
are regions where penetration is higher, and regions where it's lower.
Moreover, a significant part of the pay TV audience receives service via
satellite, many in rural regions where it's not "engineeringly feasible" to
carry all the terrestrial broadcasters. I speculate that there also may be
urban markets where total pay TV penetration is lower than 85%. And at
least the last time I looked, the rules on pay-TV must-carry for digital
programming are still not fully resolved, with both cable and satellite
pleading non-feasibility--so yet another uncontrollable factor that decides
the end of analog broadcasts may be the willingness or not for pay TV
services to carry digital terrestrial programming.

I suspect a typographic error in the law, but if I worked for a TV station
I would certainly argue otherwise. I also suspect that the Supreme Court
will eventually need to straighten this out. There is also the possibility
that I'm just confused, in which case I'd appreciate if someone would
clarify section 309's labyrinth of requirements and exceptions in plainer
English.

In any event, the lack of realism about the end of analog seems likely to
disappoint taxpayers with an unfulfilled promise of auctions expected to
provide budget relief; telecom ratepayers are left with unfulfilled
promises of spectrum flexibilty; and those who would like to see more
unlicenced spectrum available will be disappointed if the outcome is for
the broadcast industry to end up netting more, not less spectrum.

References

``A Chat with the Communications Chief", Mark Hackman, ABC News,13 January
2004, available at
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/ZDM/FCC_powell_CES_pcmag040113.html

TITLE 47  > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > Sec. 309.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/309.html
Scroll down for section (j)

Regards,

-MG
Michael Gold, Senior Research Engineer, Digital Futures
SRI Consulting Business Intelligence
An SRI International Partner Company
333 Ravenswood Avenue, Menlo Park, CA, 94025
650 859 6354 (voice)
650 859 4544 (fax)
mgold () sric-bi com or gold () sri com
http://www.sric-bi.com

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/