We’ll All Be Rooned (or will we?)

  The future of the Australian UHF TV band is murky and complex.  If you are looking for the single-page executive summary, sadly there is none.

 That some part(s) of the UHF TV spectrum will be auctioned off is a fact.  That this will leave us without spectrum is a myth.  That is not even the major threat.  Read on, if you dare.

Current speculation is based around indications the government will sell off much of the spectrum we use for wireless mikes.  That is almost certainly true… but that impending threat may be the least of our problems.  Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy ride!

ONE PICTURE WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS.

 The UHF Television spectrum is 520 to 820MHz here in Australia.

Below are three graphics which show the current ‘occupancy’ in Sydney.  The reason why there are three, instead of a single scan, is because the ‘aspect ratio’ of the whole UHF TV band would make the charts ‘vertically challenged’ and difficult to interpret.

 I am focusing on Sydney for two reasons.  I cannot conveniently monitor other capitals, and Sydney represents the ‘worse-case scenario’, i.e. if the sky isn’t falling down in Sydney, the rest of the states are pretty safe.

 Chart ‘A’ shows 520 to 620MHz.

 INSERT PICTURES HERE

The Analogue channels are highlighted in GREEN; Digital channels in  PINK.  As can be seen, this spectrum is quite cluttered and this is about as ugly as it gets. 

Channels 36, 37 and 38 are low level as they originate from Illawarra.  They are less problematic for us because of their lower signal strength.  If you are shooting at high spots around Sydney, the southern beaches, or south of the Georges River, they can be a serious interference source.  You need to appreciate they are there, even if not strikingly obvious on my graphic.

I have also included scans of 620 to 720MHz (Chart B), and 720 to 820MHz (Chart C).  You will note that they appear uncluttered and a less ‘hostile’ environment – at least for now.

While the VHF band is also subject to a major revamp, most of us vacated that band years ago, so I will ignore VHF in this discussion.

WHITE SPACE

Looking at the entire 520 to 820 spectrum, one point is obvious; the overwhelming majority of channels are unused. 

 These scans were not taken in the Simpson Desert, this is Sydney. 

 Unused channels are termed as ‘White Space’; i.e. a channel which is unused in that specific region.  Because White Space varies from location to location, we need to be aware of this and exploit it. 

 Under our entitlement to use Low Interference Potential Devices (LIPDs), in White Space only, it is unlawful to operate on any TV channel which is active in that area.  If you suffer interference from a television transmitter, it is NOT because they are on your channel; in reality, you are unlawfully on their channel. 

 That is the incontrovertible, if inconvenient, truth.

 Our industry pays nothing, zip, zilch, for our entitlement to use White Space for wireless mikes.  This privilege is extended to few others under ACMA’s Class Licensing provision.  Apart from the CB band (try using your wireless mikes down there ;-) cordless 'phones, remote garage door wireless links, etc., free licensing is mostly restricted to some emergency services as it would be unfair to tax volunteers for providing an essential community service.

 Bluetooth and WiFi (2.4 GHz) is also license-free, but has poor range.  With relatively few exceptions, most radio licenses have annual fees.  

 INTERFERENCE?  WHAT INTERFERENCE?

With so little activity obvious on charts B & C, why is interference from television such a problem for us?  The UHF TV spectrum is mostly vacant even in major cities. If you threw a dart at the current spectrum you would be very unlikely to land on an occupied channel.  This so-called ‘interference problem’ arose mostly from tradition and ignorance.

HISTORY

When I joined Geoff Grist’s Audio Services Corporation (ASC) in 1994, most UHF systems sold were in the region 520 to 603MHz.  At that time, SBS channel 28 was one of the very few channels below 603MHz.  Avoid SBS-28 and community TV on channel 31, and you were fine. 

From 1994 onwards, Geoff sold virtually every Audio Ltd 2020 system on frequencies ranging from 563 to 571MHz.  When Lectrosonics brought out their synthesized 200 series, ASC settled on Block 22 (563 to 588MHz) as their preferred stock option.  At the time, it was entirely safe and reasonable to sell in that band.  Curiously, other importers appeared to follow our example and brought in gear on similar frequencies. 

If you look at chart ‘A’ now, you can, with the infinite wisdom of hindsight, clearly see the folly of that policy.  The problem channels came on air in 1999, two years after I left ASC.

 Despite the obvious interference conflict, systems on this spectrum were sold, by several importers, up to 2003 or later. 

In 2003, I picked up the agency for Audio Ltd and set about reprogramming all of the RMS 2020 systems that had been sold on the ‘bad’ spectrum of 563 to 571MHz.  Eighty systems later, I had converted most of these to White Space thus restoring their performance and usability.

 I also frequency shifted countless Lectrosonics 195 systems. Unfortunately, I could not salvage the synthesized Block 22 models.  These continue to suffer interference in Sydney and this situation is unlikely to change after 2013.

 The reality is that many, avoidable, interference problems were sold to unsuspecting clients.  

 To borrow the Grail Knight’s advice to Indiana Jones; “Choose wisely”

THE FUTURE

In the 520 to 620MHz scan of Chart A, try to visualize it without the GREEN channels.  At the end of 2013, these will be unceremoniously switched off.  Your first impression might be that this part of the spectrum will be improved.  That may be far from true.

 Spectrum regulators worldwide are under pressure to sell of UHF television spectrum to mobile phone providers and wireless ISPs who could make a fortune on-selling services within this prime spectrum.

In the US, a recent auction for 62MHz of the 700MHz band fetched $20 billion USD.  To facilitate this auction, they kicked all TV transmitters, and wireless mike users off 698 to 806MHz.  The Europeans went in a different direction by hacking off segments at the top and bottom of their UHF TV spectrum. 

 To fully appreciate the situation, you need to read the below PDF file which explains it far better than I could.  I’ll wait patiently for your return.

The Digital Dividend – what is it?

DECISIONS, DECISIONS!

ACMA has several options to consider. 

It could hack off the bottom of the band, but that is unlikely as it currently supports high powered transmissions in heavily populated urban areas.  Difficult indeed, with large potential for voter backlash.  That would indeed be a ‘courageous decision' Minister.

 They could sell off the 600MHz segment which has a mish-mash of high and low powered systems, or.

They could hack off 720 to 820MHz which is mostly used for regional translators of relatively low power.  A problem there might be the vast number of translators. 

 A previous ACMA discussion paper, released in March 2006, titled 'Future use of unassigned television channels' broached the 'Digital Dividend' enigma and short listed the above while adding the following comment:

"The least disruptive option is likely to involve spectrum in the middle of the UHF band with channels in the 40s and 50s”

 (i.e. above 610 but below 750 MHz)."

Less disruptive perhaps, but possibly less attractive as it would spit the UHF TV spectrum into two segments.  This option, if adopted, is very unlikely to involve all of 610 to 750.  It would probably be an 80MHz slice, or less, within the ‘window’ of 610 to 750MHz.  That option, if chosen, almost certainly would also include ‘pruning off’ 799 to 820MHz.

Given the very limited number of options available to ACMA, anyone’s guess, no matter how misguided or misinformed, has a good chance of being prophetic.  There has been no shortage of uninformed speculation out there in Film & TV Land.  Exactly which spectrum will be lost to Digital Dividend is beyond my ken.  Wait and see!

Obviously I have an opinion as to the likely result, but there is enough speculation out there without me adding to the scuttlebutt. 

I have hidden my prediction at the bottom of this page.  The text is white so it does not appear in view on a white background.  If you want to peek, I'm sure you'll find a way.. 

When the discussion paper comes out, stakeholders will be invited to comment on the options ACMA have identified.  The biggest stakeholders are the TV networks who currently use (and pay for) the spectrum.  Switching off their analogue transmitters is no great burden since they have largely addressed the cost and effort of installing simultaneous digital coverage.

What will hurt the networks is that no matter what spectrum ACMA sells off, it must have some of their existing digital transmitters on it.  These will have to be shifted elsewhere involving further costs.

If we presume ACMA sells off 740 to 820MHz, there are hundreds of translators that will have to be relocated elsewhere in the band.  You might think that if your wireless mike systems are below 740MHz, you will be unaffected by the reshuffle.  Think again; that is unlikely. 

When the analogues are switched off, at the end of 2013, the remaining spectrum will look like Swiss cheese with many holes.  Spectrum ‘holes’ are hard to sell.  As these channels will not be uniformly available across the nation, who would want to buy assignments that work only in some areas?  To make it both efficient and saleable, spectrum needs to be contiguous and nation-wide. 

To facilitate this, ACMA would like to clear out perhaps one third of the UHF band and ‘re-stack’ what is left.  This is a formidable task that will inconvenience many current users, but open a door for new technologies.

ACMA, and the Minister, The Hon. Stephen Conroy, are not out to 'screw' anyone, despite what some theorist contributors to the Australian Freelance Forum might believe.  

Internationally, regulatory agencies are planning similar strategies.  Only those with severe paranoia think the entire world is out to get them.  If not for changes, we would be still watching black and white Television in 625 line 4:3 format with mono audio. 

Changes often involve cost and inconvenience.  Change is inevitable - except from a vending machine.

The world demands new technologies.  Anyone who thinks that the UHF band should be left alone as some sort of ‘traditional reservation’ for sound recordists (who pay no fees) is living in Fantasy Land.

The reason why the US segment sold for 20 billion dollars is because it is that valuable.  Radio spectrum is a public resource and ACMA is charged with the responsibility of administering it in the best interests of the Australian community and economy.  Our government is unlikely to get anywhere near as much money because of our lower population.  For every Australian citizen, the US has fourteen.  Do the maths.

BACK TO THE FUTURE

When the analogue transmitters are switched off at the end of 2013, you might expect the spectrum to look less cluttered.  After all, analogue transmitters comprise a large proportion of the current transmitters. 

Unfortunately, instead of fewer channels in the same spectrum, the reality is that we will have fewer transmitters in less spectrum.  That part which is auctioned off will be unavailable to us, or the television networks. 

To theorize for one moment, if we switched off one third of all transmitters today and reshuffled the remaining ones into two thirds of the current spectrum, the remaining band would be no more cluttered than it is now.  We would still have the same ratio of used spectrum to White Space.

Our immediate problem is we do not know for certain which part of the UHF spectrum will be sold off.  Until we see ACMA’s Green Paper on the subject, we are speculating.  Even then, it will be subject to public submissions.  Many of these will be compiled by engineers and legal eagles at the behest of media barons and IT giants. 

Understandably, the Telcos and ISP conglomerates will be lobbying the Minister to sell off a large slice.  The TV Networks will argue for less of a sell-off.  While the Telcos will be enthusiastically waving their chequebooks, TV networks have enormous political clout.  If your party is in government, the last thing you would do is to raise the ire of a media mogul. A hostile media could cost you dearly at any election.

All stakeholders will be represented and have their objections considered.  It goes without saying that Film & TV will be well represented; or will it?

It has been said (usually by me ;-) that there are three types of people in the world, viz.

• Those who make things happen.
• Those that watch things happen
• Those that wonder what happened

IMHO, judging by the standard of discussion and debate thus far, I remain far from convinced you will be well represented.

That some part(s) of the UHF TV spectrum will be auctioned off is a fact.  That this will leave us without spectrum is the myth.

That is not even the major threat.  Read on, if you dare.

BEYOND THE FUTURE (abandon all hope ye that venture below)

There is a possible further threat beyond the looming spectrum sell-off.  You will be aware that our industry, in the USA, has lost all spectrum access above 698MHz. That was a mere inconvenience.

There is an even more sinister picture emerging there.

Even after the major reshuffle of the TV spectrum in the US, there was plenty of ‘White Space’ left in the remaining spectrum when the analogue transmitters recently went ‘dark’.  The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) is currently flirting with major IT interests who want to ‘share’ this White Space below 698MHz. These players, of much the same ilk as those who bid on the 700MHz band, want ‘shared access’ to the remaining ‘White Space’, i.e. they want to use the spectrum when sound recordists are not using it.

How would they know you are not using that ‘White Space’?  Easy, they would use ‘intelligent spectrum sensing receivers’ to scan the spectrum and look for unused White Space. These receivers would be pre-programmed with a database of TV transmitters for the area.

If you were using White Space, the intelligent receiver would look elsewhere for an unoccupied channel. The problem with this is that many sound recordists go home at night to their families or a hotel room. Unless you left your gear on 24/7, they could theoretically grab your channel and start transmission. When would they stop?  The proponents for these systems claim that they would scan the channel every 30 or 60 seconds to check you had not returned.  Do you think that might work when your wireless mike signal travels only a few hundred metres?  

These systems will facilitate wireless ISP access on TV spectrum as an alternative to the 2.4GHz WiFi spectrum (currently an overcrowded garbage bin). You might arrive on set next morning to find every second laptop in town is using ‘your’ channel for browsing and email.

Having already lost everything above 698MHz., sharing ‘White Space’ below 698MHz, might be the last nail into the US coffin.

Statistically, for every sound recordist who wants to use ‘White Space’, there may be 1,000 punters who would like wireless broadband.

 The interested parties in White Space below 698MHz, include some that bid for 698MHz and above in the US. The winners in that auction were Verizon, AT&T and Openness.  Google is one possible future contender.  The names of Microsoft, Philips and Motorola have also been mentioned in connection with intelligent hardware systems. How do you feel about a ‘toe to toe’ stoush with them over who needs White Space the most?  The politicians might view their proposals as servicing millions of voters, versus our tiny vote.

 This system is notionally called White Fi.  If you doubt their resolve and commitment to White Fi, read how far Microsoft has progressed at this URL.  White Fi RF technology

 Could this happen here in Australia?  Perhaps. There is an old Chinese proverb which runs along the lines of “Never stand between a politician and a pot of money”. Wait and see what happens.

Should we be worried? Perhaps.  I hasten to reiterate, this is not a threat that has been indicated (yet) for Australia, but if it surfaces as an option in ACMA’s Green paper, be afraid, be very afraid.  If not, it is still a future threat.  When the Minister sees the FCC making big money for the US Government, would it not go through his mind that we could do it here?

Whether we lose the 600 or 700 MHz band may be irrelevant if our politicians follow the FCC decision to ‘share’ White Space spectrum.  The spectrum which survives might change immensely and we could be fighting off the Huns and Visigoths of the computer and telecom industries for the bones of what is left.
If you do want to take them on, you will need an industry lobby group somewhat stronger than one which seems only capable of conducting an annual back-slapping fest.  You will need a representative body with the balls and brains to provide a convincing case on your behalf.

 With apologies to Ernesto Miranda… You have the right to remain silent.  If you choose to exercise this right, a self-appointed idiot will act on your behalf.

DIE HARD - WITH A VENGEANCE.

Unless the TV networks, the production companies, theatre groups, freelance recordists, Media Alliance and importers band together as a united force, the future looks bleak.  This is not a turf war between the above groups.  We have a common interest in minimising spectrum loss to ISP and Telco providers.  We are all in the same industry and we are all under threat.  We need to send one simple and unambiguous message to Canberra.  Ten separate submissions will dilute our case and confuse the pollies.

It will not serve us one iota to simply complain about impending loss.  We need to present a case for the spectrum we need for our industry.  Note that I use the word NEED, not want. 

That submission must contain a ‘call to arms’ statement of what we need to survive.  Never presume they know what we need, because they don’t.

Never present a politician with a problem.  Any problem has to be encapsulated within the same framework as your preferred solution.

It needs to be reducible to the concept:

Faced with the loss of spectrum due to the Digital Dividend restructuring of the UHF TV bands 4/5, we need 'XYZ' spectrum in order to maintain our contribution towards theatrical arts, news gathering, film and TV productions that reflect Australian values and culture.

The only alternative advice I can offer is to hang onto your shotgun/boom-pole and keep your XLR to XLR leads in good nick.

© 2009 Microphone Magic.

 ACMA has been planning for years to sell off 799 to 820MHz.  I believe they will extend this to 740 to 820MHz.

Although ACMA have previously hinted at the 600 to 700MHz region, that would break the TV spectrum into two segregated bands.  They are unlikely to cut both ends of the TV spectrum as the lower end is firmly entrenched with high powered transmitters in metro areas.  The fact that ACMA already has plans to 'restore' UHF channel  27 (519 to 526MHz) would suggest they are not about to cut that end.  740 to 820MHz would give them contiguous spectrum and is the logical choice.  Despite this, politics always takes precedence over logic so nothing is ever certain.