My 2 Cents: The Airwaves Are Not Ichthyostegas
By Dom Serafini
For a few years now, many experts, pundits, politicians, broadcasters and
God knows who else, have been complaining that over-the-air frequencies are
no longer needed for television. And because, today, TV is consumed via other
forms of delivery, over-the- air stations and networks should give those frequencies
back to the government. This request has been directed, in particular, at public
or state-owned TV stations.
On the other hand, there are publications like Network Computing, which
came up with a front-cover story about retiring "the wire," because
wireless systems can do everything. Indeed, the magazine points out, "radio
[…offers] alternatives to expensive T1 lines," indicating T1 as high-capacity
telephone lines.
To some people, this "spectrum vs. wire" tug-of-war could seem somewhat
akin to "Intelligent Design": some sort of reverse evolution, as if
humans were to turn into primates.
For others, over-the-air broadcast goes against scientific evolution. In their
view, such primitive designs should evolve by vacating the spectrum. (As a sort
of Ichthyostega, the primordial creature that evolved from fish to land-going
animal by vacating the waters).
In the midst of all this, playing a sort of Solomon, are the Telcos: they worship
the wire, but love the airways for their cellular business. But, let's proceed
in order.
According to an editorial in Canada's The Globe and Mail, "Changing
technology has rendered the very idea of public airwaves obsolete...People today
get their audio and visual entertainment all sorts of ways, few of them on the
'public' airwaves."
Naturally, pressured by lobbyists and politicians, various governments around
the world are eager to get those frequencies back, in order to rake in billions
by selling them to the wireless sector, like any goods, instead of as a public
resource.
Now, throughout the history of broadcasting, we've witnessed a changing spectrum
of frequencies as a form of delivery: In the beginning there were the long waves,
later replaced my medium-waves (the so-called AM stations), which were subsequently
overshadowed by FM, then VHF (channel 2 through 13 in many countries), UHF (channels
14-83), SHF, EHF and so on.
We've reached a point where television is transported by so many over-the-air
frequencies that the spectrum is becoming very congested. It is exactly the opposite
of what some pundits want us to believe.
Listen to how Network Computing described this evolution: "Pity the
poor cable. This faithful carrier of network traffic has seen technology after
technology gain market share by vowing to put copper strands out of work. One
technology following through on that promise is wireless."
In addition, the wireless sector is working on a standard called WiMAX, which
promises the world at the tip of a finger-long antenna. This is why San Francisco
wants to become the first fully wireless city in the world.
According to Rainbow Broadband's Russ Hamm, as he was quoted by Mediaware magazine, "Wireless
is moving so quickly forward that we'll see a 100-MB connection within five years."
So, the question that we're facing is not whether over-the-air television is
obsolete, but how over-the-air television will evolve. Perhaps, VHF and UHF frequencies
are no longer part of this "Intelligent Design," but 900 MHz to 60
GHz frequencies are indeed.
Do I really care if RAI, TF1, NBC, City-TV, etc., are broadcast on VHF, UHF,
SHF or EHF frequencies?
Cellular, or mobile telephony, has proven that television coming from the airwaves
can be consumed anywhere. What will be important to have is a universal transport
technology, such as IPTV (Internet Protocol) and some space in the spectrum that,
contrary to some creationists' statements, still belongs to the general public--
not just to Microsoft et al.
Dom Serafini
