If you happen to be an emerging media ‘believer,’ or a high-tech gadget connoisseur, you might be interested in taking a glance at this paper about the demands mobile devices place on spectrum allocation, and this paper to see the FCC’s spectrum plan.

 Addressing the ‘spectrum crunch’ issue is part of the FCC’s broader National Broadband Plan, and a central goal of Chairman Genachowski’s forward-looking agenda.

If you aren’t up to date on the issue of spectrum crunch, I’ll offer a brief, hopefully somewhat accurate, lay explanation.  First, management of the limited electromagnetic spectrum is a central duty of the FCC, inherited from its predecessor the Federal Radio Commission (except federal bands, managed by the NTIA).  If you want to see a very cool visual representation of the wireless spectrum allocation, check out the FCC’s Spectrum Dashboard.  Satellite, aviation, navigation, cellular telephone, low and high power television and radio, and (of course) broadcast television all operate within specific MHz ranges for which they must be licensed.

Mobile devices with data transfer capabilities operate on licensed spectrum space, and the rapid adoption of these devices has lead to a radical increase in the demand for ‘broadband’ wireless access.  The details are in the white paper I mentioned above, but in short, the FCC foresees a spectrum crunch, and is therefore looking to re-allocate spectrum space.  While they are concerned with accommodating end users, the urgency comes from a need for innovative space.  As mobile devices become more diverse and complicated, we will need a substantial experimental spectrum space for testing wireless data-transfer products.

The FCC has therefore established this goal in the National Broadband Plan: “Recommendation 5.8: The FCC should make 500 megahertz newly available for broadband use within the next 10 years, of which 300 megahertz between 225 MHz and 3.7 GHz should be made newly available for mobile use within five years.”  By all indications, they seem to be sticking to it; workshops are occurring right now.  October 21, 2010 was the ‘Spectrum Summit,’ one of many events aimed publicly discussing the plan to expand broadband infrastructure.

While technological innovations can improve the efficiency of spectrum usage, there is no expectation that we will ‘innovate’ new space ahead of demand.  Even when those opportunities come along, the track record isn’t promising.  For example, the FCC extended broadcast licenses for digital transmission free of charge.  Digital signals require less spectrum ‘space,’ but the surplus was gifted to analog licensees with the expectation that the additional space would be used for over-air HD programming.  It is more commonly used for multicasting; if you have channels with dashes (i.e. 12-2), you’re seeing digital channels that existing analogue broadcast operators received completely free as an incentive to upgrade their equipment for digital broadcast.  So despite the spectrum-saving innovation, we are no better off than in 1996 because we gave the space away instead of auctioning it off.  I suppose it’s feasible that legislators really believed HD was worth the estimated $70 billion giveaway (see http://www.nader.org/releases/63099.html under “Digital Spectrum Giveaway”).

Fast-forward to 2009 when the NAB released this warning to broadcasters, foreseeing the inevitable suggestion that the needed spectrum might come from the rapidly failing broadcast television industry.  The plan is to buy-back up to 120 MHz of spectrum allocation back from broadcast television.  The Commission could just wait for the licenses to expire, refuse to renew them, and reclaim the space - but apparently that wouldn’t be fair to the companies that have benefited for decades from virtually free use of a public resource in exchange for theoretical “public interest” requirements.  And, as the Commission (foot)notes, the “timing and quantity depends on Congressional action to grant incentive auction authority as well as voluntary participation of broadcasters in an auction.”

I offer this background as a preface to my commentary:

First: with the decline of newspapers, and with radio news offerings being slim at best, broadcast television is one of the few remaining cheap sources of news if you don’t have cable or Internet access.  This buyback could be devastating for those on the wrong side of the digital divide.  Just as it’s possible that no broadcaster would participate in an auction, it’s also possible that, for example, Hearst could decide that this would be a good time to liquidate their 29 station broadcast operation (reaching 18% of households according to Hearst).  For those without cable TV or the Internet, this could be a serious problem in terms of ability to access mass-media civic content.  As it happens, cable access is fairly pervasive – after all, many apartment buildings include cable in the rent.  But still, I think it is worth considering the implications of giving up on broadcast television for those who might rely on it.

Second: if the FCC is signaling their willingness to give up on broadcast television, they could jeopardize their regulatory authority in other areas, namely cable and the Internet.  The FCC plays an interesting game called “ancillary jurisdiction” – a term that was recently propelled to the forefront by Comcast v. FCC (decided April, 2010).  If you want to know about modern cable regulation, you should probably start with the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (as amended by Title III of Telecomm ’96).  Prior to that Congressional authorization, a number of cases [392 U.S. 157 (1968), 406 U.S. 649 (1972), 440 U.S. 689 (1979)] established the notion of “ancillary jurisdiction” to justify FCC authority over cable because the goals were similar to the protections in place for broadcast television (also, the FCC has a vested interest in regulating cable to protect broadcast – a la ‘must carry rules’ - precisely because its disappearance could have serious democratic implications, but that’s a separate paper).  In principle, the Commission can claim jurisdiction over non-broadcast media as long as the purpose of doing so is reasonably ancillary to an enumerated duty.  Well, if the broadcast television space is re-purposed for mobile devices, the question becomes: ancillary to what?  It seems increasingly clear that Congress needs to issue a new, modernized mandate instead of relying on the Commission and the courts to do battle over re-purposing standards originally designed for a single-medium regulatory endeavor.  As it is, the over-broad interpretations of “reasonably ancillary” are out of hand.

A quick note responding to the YouTube "It Gets Better" campaign. I think it's great that social media could facilitate this sort of outreach. I'll leave social commentary for someone more eloquent and qualified, but I think it's interesting from a social media messaging standpoint; I can watch (and also hear) a video of Tim Gunn talk about a sexual-identity related suicide attempt / cry for help from his own youth and offer a heartfelt message of hope, while reading comment messages like "YO SOMEONE SHUT THIS FUCKING FAGGOT UP IT DOESNT GET BETTER WHEN U HAVE DICKS GOING UP YOUR ASS YOU SHOULD OF KILLED YOURSELF." And I can see responses to that message, like "wow, you're sick. go die" or "So don't partake in a homosexual sexual encounter. Problem solved." It appears this video/comment space is facilitating the weeding out of hateful tensions- assuming that commenter was expressing a serious belief and not just shooting off to get a reaction. But more importantly, I think even anonymous hate messages are useful to the speaker. I think it's safe to assume that messages like that reinforce rather than demean the message, especially in this context where it's clear who is speaking more sense and truth.  Seeing hate speech in a space immediate to the anti-hate messaging prevents viewers from ignoring the contrast, and underscores the urgency of (in this instance) Gunn's message.

It also brought to mind a bell hooks piece I was assigned for a different class. "Power to the Pussy: We Don't Wanna be Dicks in Drag," criticizes Madonna's transformation from female empowerment symbol to an artist who uses visual cues that promote sexually fetishized (not to mention demeaning) images of homosexuality, or at least promotes a patriarchal notion of sexuality for commercial reasons.

So I couldn't help but feel a little put off when I saw Ke$ha made a video submission.

Consider lyrics like: "I don’t really care where you live at / Just turn around boy and let me hit that / Don't be a little bitch with your chit chat / Just show me where your dick's at" and "I'm talking about everybody getting crunk, crunk / Boys tryin' to touch my junk, junk / Gonna smack him if he getting too drunk, drunk"

Ke$ha may not invoke the same level of visual prejudice as late-career Madonna, but she does contribute to the ever-growing cultural market for sexual objectification and erotic social capital that lead to a society that prioritizes a very specific type of sexually-charged and gender-related speech and action. These highly-visible and well known popular culture elements lay the groundwork for discriminatory evaluations and attitudes. It's completely inane to say that we, as a society, value a "be yourself" mentality when daily life is filled with increasingly tenacious and pervasive images of sexual behavior that not only favor, but elaborately celebrate heterosexuality. Am I saying we need more pro-gay imagery in the mass media? Not really, although it wouldn't be a terrible thing for heterosexuals to endure some discomfort over exposure to long-suppressed imagery if it meant a long-term cultural shift toward a more equitable 'normal' that wasn't so exclusive.

At the end of the day, I lean toward the realist notion that market power determines mass media imagery, and heterosexuals have more market power than homosexuals. It would be worth exploring whether homosexuals are suppressed in their ability to express themselves in the marketplace, and whether advocacy from heterosexuals could help correct that. I wouldn't be interested in buying gay visual art, for example, but I think it's a civil right for gay people to have access to it.  When heterosexual consumers overwhelmingly respond to sexually charged messaging, sexuality becomes the central feature of the art, and therefore a central criteria in its admission to the marketplace.  It might not seem like a great social advocacy plan - "correct for marketplace inhibitions" - but frankly in the United States, market power reigns supreme, and empowerment in the marketplace is essential to the resolution of social inequality. Just ask African Americans who weren't allowed to buy homes in certain neighborhoods. Next to the right to vote, access to an equitable share of the market serving your interests is a key civil rights issue.

So if Ke$ha really wants to help, maybe she should turn her attentions to producing music that doesn't celebrate an aggrandized conception of heterosexuality. An unrealistic expectation? Maybe, but I'd like to see someone besides people like Elton John, Ellen DeGeneres, Adam Lambert, or Rufus Wainwright try. You know, maybe an artist who isn't actually gay themselves could use their content to speak to equality. "Your Woman" by White Town is a good example.  Maybe it's happening on a larger scale; I'm not really that in-touch with the pop music scene. Anyone know of artists who do that ?

Maybe I've given Ke$ha an unfair shake, after all, in interviews she says she isn't gay or straight. Then again, as Katy Perry knows, it's ok for a girl to kiss a girl and like it. But as I'm sure someone else has asked - is it ok for a boy to kiss a boy and like it? More importantly, would we allow that sort of talk into the marketplace unchallenged? Lambert's AMA experience and the recent outcry against including homosexual teasing as part of anti-bullying campaigns (http://www.outloudopinion.com/2010/10/05/cnn-conservative-anti-gay-groups-are-part-of-the-bullying-problem/) tell me no.

I asked myself today if it could be that CNN is starting to look like a real public interest press.  Today, Fareed Zakaria (host of CNN’s “GPS,” and also editor of Newsweek), who is quite possibly the best public interest journalist on cable, had an interview with Wen Jiabao, Premier of China.  It was the first Western media interview with Jiabao since Dr. Zakaria interviewed him in 2008.

On the very next segment, CNN’s “Reliable Sources” with Howard Kurtz discussed the Rick Sanchez firing.  It’s a shame they finally fired him for comments on a radio program – the trash he routinely pumped out on his own program should have done it, but I suppose they were holding off until Parker/Spitzer.  Regardless, the firing is a good lineup change.  Sanchez simply had a lousy editorial lineup and his off-the-cuff delivery came off as amateurish and often clownish.  He so rarely covered issues of substance, and with so little competence, that he usually seemed to be impeding the delivery of news rather than facilitating it.  The man simply isn’t sharp enough to have a prime spot on one of the highest profile networks in the United States.

But look who’s coming to dinner – Eliot Spitzer!  Those of us with exposure to media studies harbor more favor toward him than the public at large, due to his work as New York state Attorney General in exposing and prosecuting Sony’s massive payola cartel (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/8700936).  He actually did a lot of great things as A.G., and wasn’t a terrible (though certainly more political) governor.  It’s a shame those elements of his career were lost to the scandal, although if you will recall, he did the right thing by resigning right away and not whining about it.  My point is, even if he isn’t the guy I’d want taking my daughter to prom, he’s a great political mind and has a great professional record.  The fact that CNN took him on, even though some people will tune out due to his philandering, shows a commitment to providing content that will almost surely advance the public interest.

I will point out one key thing Dr. Zakaria and Mr. Spitzer share in common – education.  Rick Sanchez has a B.A. from the University of Minnesota in journalism, a fine education for a network journalist maybe.  Fareed Zakaria holds a B.A. from Yale and a Ph.D. from Harvard in political science.  Eliot Spitzer holds a B.A. from Princeton and a J.D. from – you guessed it – Harvard.

I think CNN is starting to figure out the true meaning of diversity – hire people who do the job well, regardless of whether they were born in Mumbai or the Bronx.  Then again, if I were recruiting anchors, I might be obsessed with finding more like the Harvard-educated (she graduated later in her career) Soledad O'Brien –holy grail of racial neutrality (a Cuban mother and an Australian father of Irish decent), and an excellent journalist. 

Now if anyone actually reads this blog, they will doubtless accuse me of promoting an elitist ivy-league conception of the press.  Maybe I like the idea that an ivy education actually does mean those graduates are smarter.  Bill O'Reilly (say what you will about his politics, the man is a journalist and no dullard) has Harvard credentials, while fear-mongers Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck (who run their programs like religious services) have earned zero college degrees between them. 

But as a practical matter, I’m really talking about the need for credentials in general at the highest, most visible levels of journalism.  Howard Kurtz didn’t graduate from an ivy, but he did come out of the Colombia University’s prestigious journalism program.  Walter Cronkite didn’t have much in the way of education, and he holds a special place as the most trusted man in America… although Dan Rather didn’t either and he had all the integrity of a paper cup.  John King and wife Dana Bash hold B.A.s only, and both are solid public interest journalists.

In the end, cable networks like CNN are simply too important as public information brokers to hold on to Rick Sanchez types until they screw up.  I’m glad to see they’ve retained shows like GPS that aren’t riveting entertainment, but provide an important gateway for viewers to better understand the world.  And I’m glad they’re willing to bring on people like Spitzer who can contribute to discourse in a meaningful way, even at the potential expense of viewership.  That's what public interest journalism looks like.