Talk:2016 United States wireless spectrum auction

Good start

Still quite a bit to do. The various articles about what happens to USA (and world) TV spectrum with the fall of analog broadcasting and the rising hunger of mobile radio applications are poorly organized and connected. United States 2008 wireless spectrum auction for example is better written than this one but not well connected to and from various related articles. Less important, I am displeased with the flow of this one, without seeing quite how to make it better except maybe more material ought to move into the intro and the background section should be, umm, better somehow. Mainly, the explanations of how everything is connected, politically, economically, and radio-technically are, vaguely again, inadequate. I hope someone can figure how to turn my complaints into something actually useful; generally I like to be the one who does that but here I'm failing. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm just now seeing this. I wish I could tell you that I could improve things, but all I knew how to do was include the information that I found. One web site I go to calls this situation the end of broadcast TV as we know it or at least a second DTV transition in the United States. This explains the dire predictions and all these quotes from opponents. Whether they are needed I don't know. As I would find specific details, I would add them. All of this used to be in other articles but the section was getting too big.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Worldwide view?

I disagree with the inclusion of anything other than what is happening in the United States. If there is nothing worth reporting about Canada, why even mention it? I started the article because the process was described in one article as "spectrum reallocation". This gave me an opportunity to remove a lot of irrelevant detail from that article. As I say above, this process could mean the end of broadcast TV as we know it and, at the very least, amounts to a second DTV transition in the United States. On this fifth sixth anniversary of the original effective date of the first one, I have seen a lot of discussion on a couple of web sites I go to about the far-reaching effects of this process. Some feel only a few people are not subscribers to MVPDs. Others say people are tired of paying so much and are cutting the cord. But the changes could leave those people out in the cold. That's why it is important enough to have an article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

For about a year I haven't watched this article, having become as much a curator of Wikiphotos as of words. Coming back to it, yes, I think the topic rates a USA article, this country having peculiarly complex issues or at least, and perhaps as important, peculiarly copious publication on the topic. This in turn suggests a name change. Anyone agree or disagree? Propose new names? Jim.henderson (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I based my title on a section heading in National Broadband Plan (United States), but obviously that section heading would not say "(United States)", though that article had to be moved so it would be "(United States)". Therefore, having been about a U.S. topic, it wouldn't need such a qualification. Unless others can come up with spectrum reallocation in other countries, I would say that needs to happen here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's any issue with this being a US focused article, but if it is, the title should specify that. At present, the content in the "Other countries" section only makes select mention of the worldwide spectrum harmonization process (content could be built out a bit) and no other countries are mentioned except Canada. There is definitely room for expansion, so I have added the Globalize/US tag to the article to spur this. Snowy150 (talk) 06:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I've effectively fixed this problem by titling it what it has always been about but was never titled as such: the auction, initiated in 2016, of the 600 MHz band of UHF broadcast frequencies in the United States. The article discusses the rationale and leadup to the auction, the auction itself, and its effects. Its problem was, and always has been, that it was at a general page titled 'Spectrum allocation'.

There may be room on Wikipedia for an article with the very general topic of allocation of wireless spectrum around the world, but I think it would have to be made from scratch after redirects (almost all of which – again – are talking about the 2016 auction and its effects) are properly redirected directly here. Skybunny (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Tags added by User:Beland

I posted on User talk:Beland but never got a response. Here's what I said.

I noticed some tags in the article indicating something might not be quite right. I have to be at a library to look at one of the sources but I'm pretty sure I wasn't specific enough because the source assumed we knew "which auction" and to speculate would be WP:OR. I'm pretty sure I know "which auction" and since I put it in that section, it's probably clear. Another source might have more.

For the other source, I think I misunderstood and thought the AWS-3 auction was somehow connected to the repacking process. It might be. That other source does refer to having the AWS-3 auction out of the way so now we can prepare for the 600 MHz auction, which I think is the "Broadcast incentive auction" in the next section. The various sources don't make things clear because I guess they figure anyone reading them knows what they mean.

I've done my best to summarize what I can find but I still don't believe I have anything close to ideal coverage of the topic.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, it took a lot of research but I have more background on the AWS-3 auction. I found one source that said three auctions were required but I have no idea what the third one was. There is a connection with the incentive auction but I'm not absolutely sure whether the AWS-3 information even belongs in the article. The good news is that the incentive auction was one of the provisions of the same act as the AWS-3 auction. Right now I'm kind of forcing the AWS-3 information into the article without a clear justification. One of my problems is that a lot of sources have information but they're not what Wikipedia calls "reliable".— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Finally, my most recent improvements, not posted on the other person's talk page.

I looked and looked but couldn't find what the three required auctions were. I did find other information about one of the other two and added that, and more about the AWS-3 auction. I think I've tied together the various topics in such a way they fit here, but I'm sure more is needed. A lot more is needed.

Eventually, I went back to the source that said there were three auctions. The author messed up! I also messed up in thinking the Payroll Tax Cut required the three auctions. All the source said was that the auctions were required, so I didn't speculate on what required them, though it is likely the Payroll Tax Cut. And I linked that to its Wikipedia article twice already, or someone did. So I took that out. But the source does make clear what the three required auctions are. Two of the auctions are referred to as the third auction. Correcting that means I have all three.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Edits by User:Beland

@Vchimpanzee: Hey, sorry for the delay. Thanks for clarifying those points and digging into sources. I just made some further edits to add a bit more context and cut out some information that was useful while we were waiting for the next step to happen but has since been obviated by actual events. Reading the Advanced Wireless Services page (which it's great we're now linking to!) it looks like there may have also been AWS-1, AWS-2, and AWS-4 auctions. It's fine with me if we want to move the section on AWS-3 spectrum reallocation to that article, though it's worth a mention here because it does appear to have been an example of spectrum reallocation (just not the main TV-to-wireless spectrum transition). -- Beland (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts. I'm thinking you may have taken too much out. Some of what you removed looked kind of clumsy but I'm thinking there may have been some value to it, if it could be worded more professionally. Let me give it all another look.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay. It takes a little effort to see what was actually taken out.

The February 17, 2010 deadline was extended by a month. That was added in a previous paragraph.

Phil Bellaria, the director of the FCC broadband team, said any plan calling for broadcasters to give up spectrum would be voluntary, and the focus would be on more efficient use of existing spectrum rather than taking that away. Some stations might choose to be paid to give up their position, for example, and some might pair up with other stations using DTV subchannels (or two channels might both be primary channels within the same 6 MHz). Without voluntary action, though, changes could be mandated in 2011 or 2012. Do we say anywhere that spectrum needs to be used more efficiently? It is made clear later that subchannels are one way to do that. At some point I think these two possible methods need to be introduced, and then the details come later. I don't think it says anywhere that they were considering mandating changes in 2011 or 2012.

After taking over as FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler moved the incentive auction to mid-2015. Do we say that anywhere? I don't think so.

With a year to go, 77 stations were interested in giving up spectrum, I thought at the time the number of stations already interested would be relevant. Maybe it no longer is.

with the possible actions being to share a channel, going off the air, moving from UHF to VHF, or moving from high-VHF to low-VHF.'' Somehow the options need to be explained. They are later, but I feel like they need to be introduced, with more details later.

The FCC planned to pay 80 percent of expenses for commercial stations and 90 percent for noncommercial stations. Is this stated anywhere?

The estimated cost per station was between $2 million and $3 million. While total costs are mentioned, I think this is the only place anyone says what the per station expense would be.

Rick Kaplan of the NAB said, “It is likely that a 'successful auction' will require approximately 250 stations in the most congested markets (plus border markets) to volunteer to go off the air." Shouldn't this be said?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Most of these are instances of "something was expected to happen but something else happened in the end" and I think it's usually not interesting to say what what expected to happen since most of that is speculation and not appropriate for Wikipedia. Actually, putting all that in clutters things up a lot and makes it more boring and harder to find actual solid information. I find it more interesting to just find out when a decision was actually made, what the actual plan was, how many stations participated, what the actual costs were, etc. Minor delays in decision-making are not particularly notable. I agree we could explain more clearly what the options were for stations, but I think mostly only as actually announced (as opposed to reporting on pre-announcement speculation), unless there were possibilities that were particularly controversial that were decided against due to lobbying or something. -- Beland (talk) 05:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I took a second look at other text that remained and found something like this:

Phil Bellaria, the director of the FCC broadband team, said any plan calling for broadcasters to give up spectrum would be voluntary, and the focus would be on more efficient use of existing spectrum rather than taking that away. Some stations might choose to be paid to give up their position, for example, and some might pair up with other stations using DTV subchannels (or two channels might both be primary channels within the same 6 MHz). Without voluntary action, though, changes could be mandated in 2011 or 2012.

Since there is a statement that says essentially the same thing (though it doesn't mention efficient use), I think we're okay on that.

A lot of what was taken out did seem important at the time, but I guess if you're sure Wikipedia doesn't include such statements I just have to accept it. That's just not the way my mind works when I look at history. The FCC paying a percentage of costs does seem important, though, so if anything can be found saying this is what really happened, that should be there.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I left out one other paragraph you removed. There was a quote from an editorial about how this was the biggest undertaking anyone had attempted. I don't know if we're really communicating that this is true (if it is). But maybe we don't have to.

Would you be open to my emailing you the text of one source for a lot of what you took out, just so you can look and say for sure we don't need any of it? I couldn't copy copyrighted material even on a Wikipedia talk page. I don't know if you would have other access to the information.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

(from user talk page discussion) @Vchimpanzee: "FCC: We Want To Save Free TV" is available here. I think the only interesting thing from that article was that the "wireless and technology companies" were lobbying the FCC to end over-the-air HDTV broadcasting entirely, and allocate all the freed-up spectrum to wireless broadband, but after hearing from the National Association of Broadcasters, the agency said it would not do so. Feel free to send me "FCC Will Bid You 'Ado' in '15"; the only version of that I see is behind a paywall. -- Beland (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I think we have the basic information on some wanting to put an end to most broadcasting and the opposition to that. This is what got me interested in the first place because the TV/radio nerds were discussing the idea that broadcasting as we know it might end. It'll be another week before I have access to that second article but there's not much there. At that time I'll have to double-check your link to make sure it refers to the same content.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Excerpts from paywalled article

@Vchimpanzee: Thanks for emailing that article. I think there are two passages that might be worth updating the article with:

The forward auction will be over when the bids are sufficient to cover paying broadcasters for spectrum, $1.75 billion in moving expenses of broadcasters and multichannel video programming distributors, and whatever the FCC spends to conduct the auction.

and

The commission will initially pay 80% of moving costs for eligible commercial stations and MVPDs and 90% for noncommercial stations, with a "true up" deferral payment (let's call it a giant I0U) for the rest, assuming it can be covered by that $1.75 billion.

...assuming that's what actually happened. -- Beland (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

And the big question is how do we determine what actually happened? I hadn't thought of the possibility that it didn't.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Rescanning

Yesterday a newspaper article I read told people to rescan. I realized we don't say in this article exactly what that is, and Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a definition for it. I was wondering how we could solve that problem.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Wiktionary has a definition (see wikt:rescan) but it might be worthwhile to add a second definition referring to having a television scan for active channels. -- Beland (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Though it looks like a suitable definition has been added in this article, for readers here. -- Beland (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Should move have been made?

Should this move have happened? I want to hear what others think. Is the article adequately covering the intended subject? Is the new title enough to describe what is taking place?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The move looks sensible, as the scope of the content was very out of balance with the title. It might be worthwhile to start a new spectrum reallocation article which covers the history of doing that, worldwide. Perhaps starting with a list of reallocation events, including both spectrum auctions and non-auction reallocations. As for the content of this article, it looks like it needs to be updated in places. -- Beland (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

My intention with "Spectrum reallocation" was to address the specific process in the United States. I don't know if anyone would be willing to do other countries. This is where I got the title. I was attempting to cover the process described in that section.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure, then the new title definitely sounds right, given that spectrum reallocation happens all over the world. -- Beland (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)