FCC Chairman Julius Genchowski held a press briefing this afternoon to give an update on communications infrastructure after Hurricane Irene battered much of the East Coast. The good news is that while some cable systems, wireless and wireline providers are out of service, Genachowski says, “there hasn’t been major damage to our communications infrastructure.” He also reports that “broadcast and radio are largely unaffected.”

I have family in Northern New Jersey who I checked in with yesterday and today. They saw a lot of wind and rain, and were certainly glad that they could rely on local television coverage all night long. They also said that their weather radio reliably went off regularly throughout the night as the Weather Service issued alerts.

Even though Irene’s impact wasn’t as severe as many feared, there still was a lot of damage, and some people were injured or lost their lives. Our condolences go out to those who lost loved ones during the storm.

source: wikimedia commons

The Federal Communications Commission’s long awaited Order to fix interference problems between Sirius XM [SIRI] and the neighboring Wireless Communications Services (WCS) band is published. Here’s hoping it will at long last resolve this feud, and allow for peaceful coexistence on the 2.3 MHz band. At least that’s the idea, says FCC Chair Julius Genachowski.

“I am pleased that by taking a fresh look at the WCS rules, we are able to create an environment for innovative, cutting-edge mobile products and services in a spectrum band that has essentially remained fallow for years,” Genachowski said on Thursday, “while still protecting adjacent band services from harmful interference and providing important clarity about the long-term operation of satellite radio terrestrial repeaters.”

We’ve been covering this issue for months here at Radio Survivor (see links to related stories at bottom of this piece), and we’ll spare you the hairy technical details. The Order sets up permanent rules for Sirius’s terrestrial repeaters and power level limits for WCS mobile and portable stations.

So now 25 MHz of WCS band is unleashed for wireless broadband, which is kind of exciting!  The FCC’s Order says that WCS license holders have to get moving:

“For mobile and point-to-multipoint services, WCS licensees must serve 40 percent of a license area’s population within 42 months, and 75 percent within 72 months. For fixed point-to-point services, WCS licensees must construct and operate 15 point-to-point links per million persons in a license area within 42 months, and 30 links within 72 months, together with a minimum payload capacity to ensure that the spectrum is used intensively. Licensees will not be required to satisfy submarket construction requirements.”

Here’s hoping that everybody will accept this as a workable compromise.

DJ Genachowski

The National Association of Broadcasters wraps up its annual national trade show in Las Vegas tomorrow. Radio has its own annual show, so at the big one it tends to take a back seat to television when it comes to big announcements. Nevertheless, when FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski gave his remarks [PDF] to the crowd on Tuesday, he had a few things to say about radio.

First, the Chairman revealed his own secret radio past, telling attendees that he was “a radio DJ while in high school, spinning disks — literally — on an old carrier current station.” I must note that means young Julius was actually broadcasting without a license. But I also presume his high school station operated legally under Part 15 rules for AM carrier current, which also kept his signal confined to school grounds.

Genachowski laid out the statistic that “radio has actually grown its over-the-air audience by almost 10 percent over the last decade.” If accurate that about matches the growth in the US population over the same period (based upon the Census Bureau’s current population estimate of 309,069,148). He also touted a couple of the bones the Commission recently threw to the radio industry, authorizing the HD Radio power increase and allowing AM stations to have translator repeater stations on the FM dial.

Genachowski used most of his time to defend the FCC’s controversial proposal to ask TV broadcasters to sell back some spectrum space to be repurposed for wireless broadband. Still, he did make a nod towards the upcoming ownership rules review, saying that the Commission will issue a Notice of Inquiry “soon.” At the moment its up to tea leaf readers to decipher what will be up for consideration. Genachowski’s only comments on the rules review amounted to vague pronouncements of respect for “the traditional Communications Act values of competition, localism, and diversity,” while acknowledging that “an America with universal broadband access and deployment looks different from one without.”

At least it’s nice to hear the FCC Chairman give some props to radio, especially since he didn’t attend last year’s NAB Radio Show (Commissioners Atwell-Baker and Clyburn went instead). We’ll see if he chooses to grace this year’s.

“What will the National Broadband Plan mean for this marketplace of artists, radio station owners, Internet entrepreneurs, and music lovers?” he asked at a meeting of the Country Music Association’s Board of Directors on Wednesday. The answer is that it will get more rural country music lovers on line.

One thing is for sure, Genachowski had a good time delivering this pitch . “You thought I was going to say something about my wife leaving me, my dog and my truck, didn’t you?” the FCC’s boss asked the Board.

Relevance needed

But seriously folks, the meat and potatoes of the talk was that the venues for selling country music are going to the Internet. The challenge is to get the country music market to the ‘Net too, Genachowski explained:

“Wal-Mart, who is by far the largest seller of country music, continues to cut down on floor space for CDs.

Why? Well, people increasingly buy music online.

However, according to a CMA survey last June, only 50 percent of core country fans have Internet access at home.

This is, in part, a deployment issue that our National Broadband Plan intends to tackle through a reform of the Universal Service fund. The Plan is intended to get broadband deployed to unserved households around the nation over the next several years. But part of the problem is also an ‘adoption’ problem: 42 percent of core country musicfans who are offline, say they are not interested in getting online.

This dovetails with recent findings by the FCC’s Broadband Team regarding non-adopters. ‘Relevance’ is a key factor cited by people who do not subscribe to high speed Internet access. They don’t see what the Internet can do for them or why it is a service they should subscribe to.”

For Radio Survivor readers not deeply enmeshed in FCC policy, the Universal Service Fund helps subsidize the phone bills of low income people (many of them rural) and rural phone service providers. The National Broadband Plan is going to recommend that the USF be expanded to subsidize high speed Internet as well. In fact, lots of folks in Congress think that any rural telco that gets USF money should have to provide Internet service within X number of years (probably five or so).

Actually, there are studies that suggest that there are very few low income people who don’t know that they need broadband—especially these days when if you want a job at a place like Wal-Mart, you’ve got to apply on line. The price and availability of the service is the real deterrent. But it makes sense that Genachowski would quote CWA’s stats when talking to them. And sure enough, if rural Internet is more widely available and cheaper, more country music fans will doubtless sign up.

I fall to pieces

Anyway, you’ve got to read the end of the talk. “My staff decided to translate this whole speech into ‘Nashvillese’,” Genachowski concluded, “and here’s what they came up with:”

“When I think of those “Country Roads” and “Wide Open Spaces” without broadband, I “Fall to Pieces” and say that’s “Crazy.” We need to address these “Unanswered Prayers.”

“As FCC Chairman, I have friends in high places and “Friends in Low Places,” and I’m pulled to and fro on policy issues, but “I Walk the Line.” That’s because telecomm politics is like a “Ring of Fire.” First I have Senator Rockefeller telling me about a “Coal Miner’s Daughter” who can’t get wireless service in some “Foggy Mountain Breakdown.” Next, “I’m on the Road Again” to where “The Grass is Blue” and “A Boy Named Sue” stops me and says we need super-duper fast broadband all the way from “Boulder to Birmingham” – and beyond, to “Galveston” and “El Paso.” He complains that his slow dial-up service can’t get to “Amarillo by Morning” and laments that America has gone round & round for years without a National Broadband Plan and plaintively asks, “Will the Circle Be Unbroken”?

“I explain – to the “Boy Named Sue” – that this issue is “Always on my Mind” and the lack of a Plan should not make him “Hurt” or a “Man of Constant Sorrow” with his “Blue Eyes Crying in the Rain.” Instead, I tell him to “Take it Easy ” — “Don’t Rock the Jukebox”…just try to “Keep on the Sunny Side” and dream “Sweet Dreams” — because a National Broadband Plan is coming. Next week.”

“We are extremely disturbed by the proposal,” Karmazin confided in a letter sent to the agency’s Chair, Julius Genachowski. “The proposed rules seem to bear little resemblance to the technical record in this proceeding. More importantly, the proposal raises the real and direct threat of crippling interference to our 35 million current listeners and the 90 million satellite radio-equipped vehicles that will share the road with mobile WCS by 2015.”

As we’ve reported, Sirius XM and the owners of spectrum in the Wireless Communications Services band have been wrangling for years about how to avoid interference, given the nearness of their licenses to each other in the 2.3 GHz zone. The owners of WCS, which include AT&T, Comcast, and NextWave, want to step up use of the region for broadband, but these interference concerns have gotten in the way.

Last year, WCS reps proposed compromise limits on transmission power for WCS base stations and Sirius XM repeaters. But Sirius questions whether the interference tests conducted in Ashburn, Virginia upon which the recommendation was based would be as accurate as looking at Clearwire’s WiMAX network in the Philadelphia area, especially when it comes to mobile video use. “As this data was based on the real-world functioning of an operational WiMAX system, it provides a more transparent look into mobile handset performance than any other WiMAX-related information or description previously filed in these proceedings,” the company wrote last month.

WCS and Sirius XM engineers had a meeting about the FCC’s latest proposals on Tuesday. We don’t have a copy of the plan, but here’s the rest of Karmazin’s reaction to it:

“• We were told bluntly that the staff proposal would enable the deployment of WCS ‘usage models’ that would cause interference to satellite radio consumers.

• The staff proposal for WCS mobile transmitters in the C and D blocks — the blocks immediately adjacent to our satellites — would double the power levels the WCS licensees themselves asked for, and would exceed the levels the WCS licensees themselves demonstrated in Ashburn, Virginia.

We were told not to worry that the relaxed WCS technical standards might cause interference to satellite radio because WCS licensees would bear the ultimate responsibility to avoid interference. The staff offered no details about any sort of coordination or complaint process that would identify and eliminate sources of interference created by WCS networks—and particularly mobile transmitters. This entire process presumes that consumers would complain instead of just discontinuing their subscriptions. Any such cumbersome, after-the-fact system would not work to protect consumers and would place the Commission in the impossible role of policing interference to all of our subscribers.”

All this comes in the context of the FCC’s efforts to get more  licenses to the wireless sector, which is experiencing a huge shortfall of the spectrum it needs to meet mobile broadband demand. The Commission is expected to publicly unveil the plan for WCS (or at least an outline) when its National Broadband Plan is unveiled on the 16th.

But the sneak preview is getting a pretty major pan from Sirius XM. “This cannot be the result the Commission intends,” Karmazin’s letter concludes. “I urge you to establish a process that allows the Commission and all parties to better understand the real impact of the proposed rules.”

“The Commission recently adopted rules giving priority to Tribes in getting broadcast radio licenses in Tribal communities. These rules will give precedence to federally-recognized American Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages that want to set up new radio stations that serve communities on Tribal lands. Many of the comments we received in the broadband context encouraged the FCC to establish a similar priority for wireless licenses. The National Broadband Plan will recommend that the Commission look at expanding any Tribal priority policy to include the process for licensing fixed and mobile wireless licenses covering Tribal lands.”

That’s the National Broadband Plan that the FCC will release on March 16, BTW. This can’t come too soon as far as I’m concerned. Broadband penetration out on the res is somewhere between five and ten percent, according to FCC stats. Even plain old telephone penetration is only around 65 percent.

On top of that, Genachowski says the NBP will propose:

· Creating a separate Tribal Broadband Fund to support sustainable deployment and adoptionprograms in Indian Country;

· Providing funding to upgrade connectivity for federal facilities on Tribal lands,  including those managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Indian Education, and the Indian Health Service; and

· Allowing more members of the Tribal community to share connectivity funded by the E-rate and Rural Health Care programs.

Those last programs come out of the FCC’s Universal Service Fund. The Health Care program finances connectivity for rural medical centers; E-Rate offers cash to wire up schools and libraries. Despite the huge digital divide, there’s a lot of really creative wireless stuff going on in Indian country. Hopefully this will bring out more.

“The Plan proposes resolving longstanding debates about how to maximize the value of spectrum in bands such as the Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) or Wireless Communications Service (WCS) by giving  licensees the option of new flexibility to put the spectrum toward mobile broadband use—or the option of voluntarily transferring the license to someone else who will.”

We’ve been watching the WCS fight for a while here at Radio Survivor, and (more significantly) so have Volvo, Ford, Chrysler, Comcast, AT&T, NextWave, and quite a few members of the House of Representatives, all of whom have communicated with the FCC on this matter (Mercedes-Benz just filed a week ago).

Here again is the “longstanding debate,” in a nutshell. As the table below indicates, Sirius XM transmits its content over spectrum very close in proximity to the Wireless Communications Services band.

The owners of that WCS spectrum, which include AT&T, Comcast, and NextWave, want to step up use of the band for wireless communications services, but the sticky question is how to avoid interference with Sirius XM repeater towers (and vice versa). Last year, WCS reps proposed compromise limits on transmission power for WCS base stations and Sirius XM repeaters of 2,000 watts average EIRP and 400 watts average EIRP per 1MHz. But Sirius XM still insisted that:

“tests and demonstrations that Sirius XM and WCS licensees jointly performed this summer in Ashburn, Virginia, to demonstrate the interference potential of WCS mobile devices to satellite radio service. Sirius XM stated that the results of the tests confirmed that some implementations of mobile broadband devices in the WCS spectrum would have little potential to cause interference to satellite reception while other implementations would cause significant harm to Sirius XM’s 18 million customers. Sirius XM stated that the primary focus of the pending proceedings should be to define WCS operating parameters to ensure that WCS broadband services and devices are compatible with adjacent band satellite radio operations.”

And just last month Sirius told the FCC that Clearwire’s WiMAX mobile service in Philadelphia would provide a more realistic assessment of interference potential than the Ashburn tests.

Meanwhile more auto companies are siding with Sirius on this question. Here’s Mercedes-Benz’s concern:

“We urge the FCC to be cautious and ensure that satellite radio is not degraded by changing the established rules for WCS operations. Sirius XM Radio has spent billions of dollars developing networks that are based on the understanding that mobile WCS devices would not interfere. MBUSA had this same understanding since we have already deployed over 800,000 vehicles with this technology. Unlike cell phones, automobiles are not discarded every year or two – these satellite radios will remain operational and in circulation for years to come.”

Ditto say Hyundai and Land Rover North America.

So it will be interesting to see how the National Broadband Plan proposes to resolve this question. Is the FCC going to propose that Sirius XM allow some of its spectrum licenses to be leased or auctioned to WCS? Just a speculation, of course, but that’s what Genachowski’s comment seems to suggest. March 16th is the day that the FCC unveils the plan, so perhaps we’ll know then.

source: FCC

Fifteen members of the House of Representatives, all Democrats serving rural areas, have written to the Federal Communications Commission urging them to get on the ball regarding a big chunk of wireless spectrum in the 2.3 GHz area that needs new rules. Developers want to get some WiMAX action going in said Wireless Communications Services (WCS) band. And Sirius XM satellite radio is involved in the story. First, here’s the reps’ statement:

“The 2.3 GHz WCS spectrum has been mostly sitting fallow for over a decade in large part because final technical rules have not been adopted,” they wrote. “Until final rules exist, equipment manufacturers and wireless network operators cannot offer consumers cost-effective wireless mobile broadband services. In rural areas, where the need for these services is particularly acute, it is critical we make spectrum available without further delay.”

The Dems include the member of Congress with my favorite name: Zack Space of Ohio.

What does this have to do with Sirius XM? If you followed the Great Debate over the proposed and now consummated merger of the Sirius and XM satellite radio services, you know that most of the issues associated with that marriage have now been resolved. But not all. First, the FCC still has to figure out who gets those “qualified entity” (minority oriented) channels that the merger parties promised to allocate as a public interest requirement. Well over a year after the merger, that still hasn’t been worked out.

Then there’s the ongoing struggle between Sirius and the wireless industry over the so-called spectrum band, which is reserved for pinpoint accurate wireless transmission. What’s the problem here? Well, look at this handy little graphic produced by the FCC (top left), plus this table we’ve produced just for your benefit (you’re welcome). As you can see, Sirius XM is plunked right in the middle of the WCS bands. It’s got that red Digitial Audio Radio Satellite (DARS) band in the middle of the graphic.

So there’s been a huge amount of debate, much of it quite contentious, about whether WCS activity interferes or could interfere with Sirius XM transmissions. Sirius insists that various coexistence scenarios proposed by the WCS Coalition pose a threat. The coalition, which represents the spectrum area’s owners (among them AT&T, Comcast, and NextWave) say that Sirius’ claims are exaggerated.

This fight has been going on since even before Sirius proposed to acquire XM. I can’t say I understand why it’s taken so long for the FCC to get a handle on it. But help seems to be on the way. Now there’s a “looming spectrum crisis,” according to the Commission. Big wireless warns its running out of the bandwidth it needs to handle the enormous surge in smartphone demand. Even the agency’s Chair Julius Genachowski says it’s a top challenge and crucial to expanding broadband deployment across the country.

So now making more wireless spectrum available is a big cause—Exhibit A that Congressional letter. Maybe this will put some fire under the FCC to get this issue out the door. Hope springs eternal.

Rep. Mike Doyle (second on left) with some kind of robot that hopefully will get Congress to pass his Low Power FM bill.

Congressmember Mike Doyle (D-PA) came to today’s House Commerce subcommittee hearing on the Federal Communications Commission with a question posed to all the new Commissioners. “Do you recommend that Congress lift the restrictions on LPFM stations—the so-called ‘third adjacent protections’?”

“Based on what I know, yes,” new Chair Julius Genachowski quickly replied. “Yes,” responded new Commissioner Mignon Clyburn. “Yes,” somewhat faintly declared her new Republican colleague Meredith Attwell Baker.

“Ok! It’s unanimous, Mr. Chairman,” Doyle happily announced. “Thank you very much. It is my hope that our esteemed Chairman will allow us to do a markup and pass this legislation soon.” That would be Commerce Committee Chair Rick Boucher (D-VA).

The legislation in question is H.R.1147 – Local Community Radio Act of 2009, which would eliminate the tough restrictions on setting up Low Power FM stations that Congress slapped on the service in 2000. There’s a parallel bill in the Senate sponsored by Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and co-sponsored by John McCain (R-AZ).

“We are very pleased that the Commission has again voiced their support for this important bill, which would allow community radio to expand into thousands of towns, cities and neighborhoods throughout the US,” declared Cory Fischer-Hoffman, Campaign Director at the Prometheus Radio Project in a statement sent to us.

The problem is that this is the third time that the FCC’s Commissioners have unanimously pledged allegiance to this worthy cause. A 2003 study showed that LPFMs don’t interfere with full power stations at the third adjacent channel. Yet no bill ever gets to the Presidents’ desk.

It is unclear to us who has to get a head noogie for this law to go forward, but here at Radio Survivor we’ve got at least thirty knuckles ready for the task.

FCC Fairness Doctrine enforcer, back in the Bad Old Days

Federal Communications Commission Chair Julius Genachowski is in hot water with the right wing talk radio crowd. They’ve discovered that his Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer, Mark Lloyd, is a co-author of that noted and/or notorious study, The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio. So Senator Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa, has written Genachowski an open letter, expressing worry that Lloyd’s presence at the FCC may signal a return to [insert Vampire flick music here] the Fairness Doctrine, which Genachowski has promised not to bring back.

“I am concerned that despite his statements that the Fairness Doctrine is unnecessary, Mr. Lloyd supports a backdoor method of furthering the goals of the Fairness Doctrine by other means,” Grassley wrote.

This missive was quickly followed by the usual alarmist headlines: New FCC Chief Supports the Fairness Doctrine . . . Fairness Doctrine Raises Its Ugly Head Under New FCC ‘Diversity Czar’ . . . Mark Lloyd: FCC Chief Diversity Officer Seeks to Punish Conservative Broadcasters.

You don’t even have to read these articles to get the idea. Hopefully people will eventually calm down about this stuff. Here’s my attempt at rational thinking on the matter.

Not shutting down perspectives

The FCC upheld the Fairness Doctrine for almost 40 years. It required radio and television stations to provide reasonable access to contrasting points of view. The Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality in 1969. Liberals blame the rightward drift of media on its abandonment by the Commission in 1987. Conservatives says its return would kill free speech—theirs’ in particular (and isn’t that what usually matters most).

As Grassley noted, Structural Imbalance did not call for the return of the Fairness Doctrine, although it observed that over 90 percent of weekday talk radio programming is conservative. Here, in fact, is what the article says:

“Simply reinstating the Fairness Doctrine will do little to address the gap between conservative and progressive talk unless the underlying elements of the public trustee doctrine are enforced, in particular, the requirements of local accountability and the reasonable airing of important matters,” Lloyd and six other authors from Free Press and the Center for American Progress wrote. “The key principle here is not shutting down one perspective or another—it is making sure that communities are informed about a range of local and national public affairs.”

Interestingly, hardly anyone challenges the paper’s assertion that conservatives overwhelmingly dominate talk radio. But Lloyd et al also made a lot of recommendations that conservative critics charge are, shall we say, “Fairnessdoctrinesque.”

“This analysis suggests that any effort to encourage more responsive and balanced radio programming will first require steps to increase localism and diversify radio station ownership to better meet local and community needs,” they wrote, and came up with three ways to achieve this goal:

Provide a license to radio broadcasters for a term no longer than three years.

Require radio broadcast licensees to regularly show that they are operating on behalf of the public interest and provide public documentation and viewing of how they are meeting these obligations.

Demand that the radio broadcast licensee announce when its license is about to expire and demonstrate how the public can participate in the process to determine whether the license should be extended. In addition, the FCC should be required to maintain a website to conduct on-line discussions and facilitate interaction with the public about licensee conduct.

In fact, none of these measures would constitute the Fairness Doctrine, per se. A recent Congressional Research Service analysis defined the Fairness Doctrine as “a content-based restriction on speech because it requires a government agent, the FCC, to examine the speech of private actors and to make subjective judgments regarding the fairness of the speech.” That’s exactly right. The Doctrine forced the Commission to evaluate the politics of radio and television stations on a case by case basis and decide whether to take what it saw as corrective steps. These recommendations are not nearly that intrusive.

But they do flow from the assumption that the government should be involved in encouraging “balanced radio programming.” And that’s where I part company with the article. I don’t think the  state should regulate radio stations directly or indirectly with an eye towards adjusting their politics.

Baseline needs

I do think, however, that the FCC has a responsibility to make sure that radio stations provide communities with certain baseline services. People should be able to get first rate coverage about emergency situations from their radio stations. Some licenses fail quite spectacularly in this area.

The public should also be able to get top quality news about local issues, most importantly news about elections and government. And local musicians and non-profit groups should be heard from and about, frequently, on the radio. Serious FCC requirements that these things happen would not interfere with anyone’s politics. Conservative stations could offer these services with a conservative perspective; liberal stations could offer them via a liberal slant.

There will be some, of course, who will call this the Fairness Doctrine as well. They just want the big right wing talk dinosaurs to rule the radio airwaves, and to heck with everything else. They’re always yelling about free speech. But all they really care about is theirs’. I just hope there are enough people in this discussion who know that radio is about more than pleasing the dittoheads.