EuroWire November 2016

35 / 88

Transatlantic cable
November 2016 33
According to Bloomberg , the proposal under consideration is
that Massachusetts join the Atlantic Time Zone, covering eastern
Canada, the Caribbean and parts of South America.
No longer observing Daylight Saving Time (DST), residents
would thus avoid the pesky chore of re-setting their clocks in
spring and summer. From November to March, the sun would
set an hour later than it does now. (“Massachusetts Could Swap
Time Zones for Later Winter Sunsets,” 29th August)
The sun would rise an hour later too, of course. But, wrote
Mr Moroney and Ms Mostue, “The thinking is that darkness in
the morning is less depressing than darkness at the end of the
day.”
Whether this might be enough to keep college graduates from
eeing Massachusetts should be clearer next year. As part of
an economic development measure a legislative commission
was established by Gov Baker to probe the matter. The
commissioners must report their ndings by July.
† The Bloomberg reporters provided some incidental
information on Daylight Saving Time, customarily traced to
a 1784 essay by Benjamin Franklin. To conserve on fuel by
reducing evening use of lighting, Germany in 1916 became
the rst country to adopt DST.
The USA temporarily adopted it two years later, and most
states later made it mandatory. Today, only Hawaii and most
of Arizona – perhaps to be joined by Massachusetts – do not
observe DST.
Telecom
An American auction for the reallocation
of UHF spectrum pits TV broadcasters
against telecoms, producing no winner
“So what happened to the spectrum crisis?”
The question, posed by Guy Daniels of TelecomTV, is a legitimate
one. For some time it had been generally understood that
wireless operators in the USA, feeling themselves to be
dangerously short of bandwidth, would give much for an
additional slice of that critical asset.
On 30th August, the abrupt halt of the rst stage of the Federal
Communications Commission’s 600MHz incentive auction
proved otherwise. Forward bidding topped out at just $23
billion, below the level needed to continue the proceedings and
well short of the $88bn target set by the FCC.
Mr Daniels, who in earlier coverage foresaw di culties with
“the world’s most complex and mind-numbing spectrum
auction,” was ready with an explanation. In his view this was a
complicated a air that pitted TV broadcasters against wireless
operators.
The broadcaster-bidders had to voluntarily relinquish UHF
spectrum rights in exchange for a portion of the proceeds from
the forward auction: at which point the mobile broadband
providers were expected to make their bids in the reverse
auction for the released UHF spectrum, in the mobile-friendly
600MHz band.
The process involved “repacking” channels to the remaining
broadcast television stations to create contiguous blocks of
cleared spectrum suitable for exible use.
The reverse and forward auctions would be integrated in a
series of rounds, each consisting of a reverse-auction and a
forward-auction bidding process, with additional stages to be
run if necessary.
“Well, [that is] now proven necessary,” wrote Mr Daniels. “But not
for the reasons the FCC had hoped.” (“US Wireless Operators Only
Interested in New Spectrum if the Price Is Right [and It’s Not],”
1st September)
The FCC announced that the incentive auction had closed, after
27 rounds, without meeting the conditions necessary to extend
to a further round. The agency, left with no choice but to restart
the entire process, announced Stage 2 with bidding to begin
13th September.
This would not be a new round of forward bids but a process ab
initio – with a new reverse auction for broadcasters, followed by
another series of forward bidding rounds for wireless operators.
(Mr Daniels did say it was complex.)
To avoid a repetition of the failed rst stage, the FCC set a lower
target of 114MHz for Stage 2 (actually 90MHz of re-usable
spectrum plus guard bands, compared with a 126MHz total
in Stage 1). With less spectrum on o er – nine blocks of paired
spectrum instead of ten – it was hoped that the relative scarcity
would push up bids from the wireless operators.
“The TV industry also believes that this second stage means
that its broadcast members will receive less money for their
relinquished spectrum,” wrote Mr Daniels on 1st September.
“Spotting the winners here is nigh on impossible.”
What do the experts say?
“NAB is surprised by the modest participation by wireless
carriers in the rst stage of the TV auction,” said National
Association of Broadcasters spokesman Dennis Wharton.
“Perhaps the notion of a ‘spectrum crisis’ peddled in Washington
for the last seven years is not as acute as policymakers were
led to believe. We look forward to the second round of the
auction where wireless carriers will be a orded another bidding
opportunity.”
To Dan Hays, principal of the strategy and consulting group at
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the outcome of the auction was
unsurprising if disappointing to some. “The results demonstrate
just how much pressure the mobile industry continues to face
to limit its capital spending,” he told TelecomTV. “The ball is now
back in the court of TV broadcasters, who will need to decide
whether to accept lower prices for their spectrum or bet on
future opportunities to cash in on their airwaves.”
Berge Ayvazian, senior analyst at Wireless 20/20, suggested
to Dan Meyer of that it would take some
extraordinary diplomacy on behalf of the FCC to bridge the gap
between what it appears mobile telecom operators are willing
to spend and what it appears TV broadcasters want for their
spectrum holdings.
Mr Ayvazian also noted that telecom operators “might not be
as gung-ho for low-band spectrum” in light of the future focus
of 5G services on higher-band spectrum to support increased
capacity needs – not broader coverage.
† Those monitoring the FCC auction could expect four weeks
of reverse bidding followed by two weeks of forward
bidding. By November, they should know if the second stage
will be any more successful than the rst.
Dorothy Fabian – USA Editor