Texas consumers brought into incentive auction loop


Staff member
From The Article:
The controversy surrounding the possibility of incentive spectrum auctions in order to free airspace for mobile broadband has to date been an inside-baseball issue – red hot among stakeholders, and off the radar among consumers. But the people of Beaumont-Port Arthur have recently received a primer on the topic.

An article at orangeleader.com reminded readers of the uncertainty they faced just a few short years ago during the digital transition and warned them that the cycle may well be kicking in again in the near future.

The search for spectrum was explained in very general terms, and consumers were informed that the results could be loss of local news service, emergency information and high-quality programming. It also noted that the ability of surviving broadcasters to innovate may be damaged, and referred interested readers to NAB’s The Future of TV: Learn How You Can Protect the Future of Free, Local Television and Keep the News, Emergency Information and HD Programs You Love for further information.

RBR-TVBR observation: The NAB has been taking steps to bring consumers up to speed on how another round of spectrum reallocation may affect them personally. It will serve broadcasters well to participate in the effort with all due enthusiasm – the business you save may be your own.
Read More: Texas consumers brought into incentive auction loop - Radio & Television Business Report


Moderator, , Webmaster of Cache Free TV
Staff member
Unlike the digital transition and the accompanying loss of channels, this round of the wireless spectrum grab is going unnoticed by the very people who it affects most - users of free OTA TV. The FCC and government has not informed anyone through PSA's or in any manner about what's at stake here.

Call me cynical, buy I'm sure that's on purpose, so this slides through under the radar.

All this just so internet providers don't have to lay cables, but worse, it will just end up serving urban smartphone users and will not provide any more rural high speed broadband than what is now available. Isn't that is the premise of this spectrum grab, to provide "last - mile" for rural broadband users? I know in my rural location, we have plenty of wired and wireless internet options, but we're pretty much out of available channels for TV, save a few VHF frequencies.

If they cut to only 31 channels here, it would be a disaster for OTA viewers, not to mention the companies and governments that have built transmitters and translators to provide my area with 30 channels of news, weather, and entertainment.


Most carriers who hold PCS licenses almost never build out in rural America. For rural areas with PCS coverage, it's mainly along a major highway or interstate. Sprint has at least made some attempt to build out in some rural areas where they think they could make money. T-Mobile overall has refused to build out in rural America. The same thing has happened with the AWS licenses that the wireless carriers hold now, that it's only being built out in major cities. T-Mobile has used their AWS licenses in existing markets, but made no attempt to use it to build out in markets they don't already hold PCS (T-Mobile's AWS licenses cover all 50 states). With the pending merger of T-Mobile USA & AT&T, all their coverage overlaps, & should not be allowed to merge, when they're both part of the big 4. AT&T cares mostly about major cities. Verizon Wireless also primarily cares about major cities, but they have made attempts at covering rural America.