There are battle lines being drawn and heavy artillery being mobilized as broadcasters prepare to go to war with the wireless industry over control of the spectrum.

What’s that?  The idea of spectrum allocation makes your eyes glaze over quicker than a PBS documentary on the fascinating life of slugs?  You are certainly not alone.  In fact, most Americans do not even know what a spectrum is.  Simply put, it is defined area on which transmission waves ride for television, radio, satellite, wireless devices and countless other uses.  Unfortunately there is not an infinite supply for the FCC to manage.

For years, television and radio stations gobbled up most of it with their analog signals.  Conversion to digital technology helped broadcasters be more efficient with the spectrum and it was a good thing since mobile phone usage was exploding.  As more & more technologies emerge there is an even greater demand for the precious commodity.

Enter FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and his decision appoint a special advisor to look into slicing up the television spectrum allotment even more to create new wireless opportunities.  As you might suspect, this has not gone over well among the handful of media conglomerates than own the vast majority of all American stations.  Mark Aitken of Sinclair Broadcasting immediately ranted to TV Technology magazine that “it’s clear that they (the FCC) are gunning to shut down broadcasting.” Obviously that is an exaggeration but it exemplifies the feeling of many broadcasters.

On the other side of the argument, you have wireless providers drooling and the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division calling for the changes to help create new options for broadband providers to handle the skyrocketing demands of smartphone users.  The DOJ’s Christine Varney tells Information Week:

“Given the potential of wireless services to reach underserved areas and to provide an alternative to wireline broadband providers in other areas, the (FCC’s) primary tool for promoting broadband competition should be freeing up spectrum.”

So what are the implications for those of us who don’t live and die by frequencies on a daily basis?  Whichever decision the FCC makes it will either have a strong impact on the services that TV stations can offer or it may curtail technological developments and overcrowd our existing wireless infrastructure.  There are no win-win scenarios in this battle.

On one hand, my twenty years in television has me very sympathetic to their plight on the heels of their forced upgrade to digital that cost them millions upon millions of dollars.  But on the other hand, we have to face the fact that only an increasingly smaller group of Americans get their television signal from over the airwaves.  Most either use cable or satellite to receive their programming.  And as smartphones and the next wave of wireless devices grow more common by the day, we are reaching a point where something has to give.  Is the best use of our spectrum into the future tied to the aging television industry or to wireless?  I think the answer is obvious.  But it is essential that as we make room for new technology that we don’t cripple broadcasting in the process.