AVS Official Topic - The FCC & Broadcast Spectrum - Page 10 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #271 of 2861 Old 06-29-2010, 02:32 PM - Thread Starter
 
BCF68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,463
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by HTGuy09 View Post

How can we not make this political?!?!

because under McCain this would still be happening. In fact most likely at a FASTER pace. So blaming Obama as if to say under McCain or the republicans this wouldn't be happeing is delusional thinking.
BCF68 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #272 of 2861 Old 06-29-2010, 06:11 PM
Advanced Member
 
Desert Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bakersfield California
Posts: 982
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If it is not profitable for a cable company or landline phone company to provide high speed internet to a far-flung rural area, then it probably won't be profitable for a wireless company to put broadband internet cell towers in the area either. Not without a subsidy from the government. If the government is going to subsidize wireless broadband internet, they could just as easily subsidize wiring the area for cable or DSL.

How can we say "the digital transition is complete" when thousands of low power stations are still broadcasting in analog?
LOW POWER ANALOG NEEDS TO DIE NOW!!!
Desert Hawk is online now  
post #273 of 2861 Old 06-29-2010, 07:38 PM - Thread Starter
 
BCF68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,463
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Hawk View Post

If it is not profitable for a cable company or landline phone company to provide high speed internet to a far-flung rural area, then it probably won't be profitable for a wireless company to put broadband internet cell towers in the area either. Not without a subsidy from the government. If the government is going to subsidize wireless broadband internet, they could just as easily subsidize wiring the area for cable or DSL.

Except many areas alreayd have cell towers. For instance my friends. No cable no DSL. Verizon does in fact offer 3G though. Except a $60 PC data plan with a 5 GB monthly cap and $51.20 per GB overage isn't going to cut it. Now how giving Verizon 120 MHz from OTA TV is magically going to make them get rid of their caps or substantially raise them and lower the cost of their overages or eliminate them totally is beyond me. Unless the FCC specifically says that spectrum HAS to be used for broadband and there are restrictions on caps and overage fees I see this as a big FAIL.
BCF68 is offline  
post #274 of 2861 Old 06-30-2010, 04:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Macon, GA
Posts: 1,627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Are the greedy corporate jerks even thinking about what broadcast TV stations they might put out of business and how many more people will lose their jobs in this crap economy. What about the local news and the local programming. Not to mention the people who will do without TV because they don't want to give the greedy pay TV companies $100 a month to watch their crappy reality shows. When that tornado hits they won't know what hit them.

Broadcast TV - a vital national public resource
Jedi Master is offline  
post #275 of 2861 Old 06-30-2010, 10:04 AM
Advanced Member
 
ota.dt.man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic Region
Posts: 668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
+1

Also, all this ambiguity over the TV spectrum can't be helpful for antenna sales & installation services.
Should I continue to use a 2-69 antenna or switch to a 2-51, 7-51, or just a 14-51 model. No, wait UHF is now going to end at channel 46 or was that 45? No wait, maybe TV is going to move back to VHF. So now I need a 2-13 antena? Sounds like Abbott and Costello:
Quote:


Who's on first. What's on second. I don't know is on third.



So if we purchase a new antenna system for channels 7 to 69, even though channels 52-69 ceased to exist > a year ago, (the selection of rescaled antennas is very slim) how long will it be before need to replace it to match the TV spectrum again?
(Perhaps this is the FCC's idea for simulating the economy?)

Broadcast TV - a vital national public resource

Save Free HDTV: Facebook Page

Just say "no" to a never-ending subscription TV bill that increases faster than the rate of inflation.
ota.dt.man is offline  
post #276 of 2861 Old 06-30-2010, 03:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
kenglish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Posts: 5,409
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 31
FCC CHAIRMAN JULIUS GENACHOWSKI NAMES
DOUGLAS SICKER AS CHIEF TECHNOLOGIST

Washington, D.C. -- Today, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski announced Douglas C. Sicker as Chief Technologist of the Commission. Dr. Sicker will reside in the Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis and will advise the agency on technological issues.

I am delighted that Dr. Sicker is returning to provide the FCC with his broad and deep knowledge about the communications networks and technologies of today and tomorrow, said Chairman Genachowski. His technical expertise will help the FCC pursue policies that spur investment, create jobs, promote innovation, and advance our nation's global technology leadership.

Currently Dr. Sicker is Associate Professor in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Colorado at Boulder with a joint appointment in the Interdisciplinary Telecommunications Program. He recently served on the Omnibus Broadband Initiative working on matters related to research and development.

Prior to this he was Director of Global Architecture at Level 3 Communications, Inc. Before that, Dr. Sicker was Chief of the Network Technology Division at the Federal Communications Commission. He is a senior member of the IEEE, as well as a member of the ACM and the Internet Society. He has chaired and served on the program committees of numerous technical conferences including IEEE, DySPAN, ISART and TPRC. After leaving the FCC, he was the Chair of the Network Reliability and Interoperability Council steering committee, an FCC federal advisory committee that focuses on network reliability, wireline spectral integrity and Internet peering and interconnection. Dr. Sicker also served on the Technical Advisory Council of the FCC. His research interests include network and wireless systems, network security, and telecommunications policy. Dr. Sicker has research funded through the NSF, DARPA, the Internet Society and the Federal Aviation Administration. Dr. Sicker holds a Ph.D. from the University of Pittsburgh.

--FCC--

Ken English, Sr. Engineer, KSL-TV.
"The postings on this site are my own and don't necessarily represent the Company positions, strategies or opinions."
kenglish is offline  
post #277 of 2861 Old 06-30-2010, 08:36 PM
Advanced Member
 
Desert Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bakersfield California
Posts: 982
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
When I watch my 13 inch Durabrand tv in my backyard I use rabbit ears for channels 10-46. Supposedly we are getting an LP on 7 soon. There is also analog LP 58, which I don't watch. Yes, I watch digital LP channel 46 with rabbit ears!

How can we say "the digital transition is complete" when thousands of low power stations are still broadcasting in analog?
LOW POWER ANALOG NEEDS TO DIE NOW!!!
Desert Hawk is online now  
post #278 of 2861 Old 06-30-2010, 09:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Thomas Desmond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Plano, TX, USA
Posts: 2,335
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAX HD View Post

Gosh,I can't think of a better way to control the free flow of information other than put it in one big pipe with a valve and a filter on it.Can you?

Agreed. With cable or satellite service, one company essentially controls everything that you receive on your television. With an antenna, you're receiving programming controlled by as many different entities as there are separately owned full and low power television stations in range of your home.

Those who are concerned about the free flow of information should not only support the broadcasting model, but should be doing what they can to promote and expand it.
Thomas Desmond is offline  
post #279 of 2861 Old 07-01-2010, 12:25 AM
Advanced Member
 
dkreichen1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Monument, CO
Posts: 759
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Wireless ISPs have successfully used the 5.8 GHz band for their networks (with at least one raving customer review). So why isn't the FCC looking above 3.7 GHz for spectrum? Is their really something so special about spectrum below 700 MHz, and at what point does the antenna required not fit in the phone? This is suppose to be about competition, yet will their be more competition if the spectrum just gets sold to the usual list of suspects?

It's 2014 and you're still paying for television?
 

dkreichen1968 is offline  
post #280 of 2861 Old 07-01-2010, 06:51 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US | Age: 26
Posts: 14,456
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA Send a message via Yahoo to Trip in VA
5.8 GHz has rather poor building penetration, a problem if you're trying to provide Internet services to handheld devices.

- Trip

N4MJC

Comments are my own and not that of the FCC (my employer) or anyone else.

RabbitEars

"Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand..." - Rush "Witch Hunt"

Trip in VA is online now  
post #281 of 2861 Old 07-01-2010, 01:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Falcon_77's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: OC, CA
Posts: 2,602
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi Master View Post

Are the greedy corporate jerks even thinking about what broadcast TV stations they might put out of business and how many more people will lose their jobs in this crap economy. What about the local news and the local programming. Not to mention the people who will do without TV because they don't want to give the greedy pay TV companies $100 a month to watch their crappy reality shows. When that tornado hits they won't know what hit them.

This article may provide some clues:

Could 'Voluntary' Surrender of Spectrum Clear Channels 31-51?

http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/102900

Quote:


Another comment from Evan Kwerel tends to support my hypothesis. Talking about the compression panel's statement that you cannot combine two HD programs on one channel without sacrificing quality, multicast and mobile DTV, Krewel said, "All of your discussion seems to be thinking about networks and what the networks are doing. Networks aren't going anywhere. What we're thinking about is the fourth-tier station."

...

What is a "fourth-tier station"? Is it a religious station? Is it the channel that broadcasts Japanese Korean, or Indian programming? Is it the only Class A TV station providing local news to a community ignored by the big stations in the big city next door? Is it the second or third rated station offering Spanish language programming? Is it the PBS station that depends on viewers to cover operating expenses? Is it a station you watch?

Falcon_77 is offline  
post #282 of 2861 Old 07-01-2010, 04:24 PM
Advanced Member
 
dkreichen1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Monument, CO
Posts: 759
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

5.8 GHz has rather poor building penetration, a problem if you're trying to provide Internet services to handheld devices.

- Trip

But, the stated goal of the FCC is to increase access to broadband by increasing competition. Does that access have to be access through handheld devices? The whole wireless thing is to overcome the advantage of the wireline duopoly. If your using an outdoor antenna, it doesn't matter if the frequencies your using have poor penetration of buildings or not. Taking spectrum from broadcasting has some other goal than what the official line is, since that goal could be met with other frequencies.

Like the National Public Radio analyst said the day after the NBP was anounced: "You have to wonder about a plan that the people who caused the broadband problem in the first place (telecoms & cable companies) love."

It's 2014 and you're still paying for television?
 

dkreichen1968 is offline  
post #283 of 2861 Old 07-01-2010, 09:42 PM - Thread Starter
 
BCF68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,463
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

5.8 GHz has rather poor building penetration, a problem if you're trying to provide Internet services to handheld devices.

- Trip

The wireless companies are already working on 4G for wireless handheld devices and that's what the 700 MHz spectrum is for. The broadband plan is about providing RESIDENTIAL broadband in areas where cable or DSL can't reach. Since a home is stationary there isn't any reason why one couldn't require an outdoor antenna. People that have DishNetwork, DirecTv or satellite internet have to have those dishes mounted outside. What rule says the connection has to be indoors? Sure that would be preferable, but it's not necessary.
BCF68 is offline  
post #284 of 2861 Old 07-01-2010, 10:07 PM - Thread Starter
 
BCF68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,463
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcon_77 View Post

This article may provide some clues:

Could 'Voluntary' Surrender of Spectrum Clear Channels 31-51?

http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/102900

I will say this, LPs typically tend to be in SD and if they have the room I can see making them share channels. For example in Nashville you have a FP on CH 44 that has Jewelry Channel and a subchannel with A1 both in SD. On Ch 31 you have a LP with HSN also in SD. Any reason why HSN and Jewelry Channel can't share a frequency since neither broadcasts in HD? And I'm sure neither has plans to broadcast via mobile either.

I'm not sure why the FCC can't be happy with 38-51. 37 is for radio astronomy so that would make a nice cut-off point. The fact is if 38-51 isn't going to be enough bandwidth then adding 31-36 isn't going to help much.

I know the first part of the plan is to take away 45-51. Ok how about they do that, give it 5 years and if they need more THEN move beyond that. How do they know they'll need 31-51? How do they know that mobile technology won't advance to the point where more spectrum isn't needed?

Also channel sharing for HD would work is broadcasters used mpeg-4 and TVs and converter boxes had mpeg-4 tuners. By they don't. Even starting today you're talking 2025 before you could reasonably achieve enough mpeg-4 TV sets in houses to make the transition easy. So maybe the FCC needs to work on getting that done and hold off on the whole 31-51 thing until 2025. At least 31-36.

So

2015 reclaim 45-51
2020 reclaim 38-44( if necessary )
2025 reclaim 31-36( if necessary and as long as mpeg-4 standard )

Problem solved.
BCF68 is offline  
post #285 of 2861 Old 07-02-2010, 01:11 AM
Advanced Member
 
dkreichen1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Monument, CO
Posts: 759
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

The wireless companies are already working on 4G for wireless handheld devices and that's what the 700 MHz spectrum is for. The broadband plan is about providing RESIDENTIAL broadband in areas where cable or DSL can't reach. Since a home is stationary there isn't any reason why one couldn't require an outdoor antenna. People that have DishNetwork, DirecTv or satellite internet have to have those dishes mounted outside. What rule says the connection has to be indoors? Sure that would be preferable, but it's not necessary.

The fact is that companies could put up a tower and give 5 by 5 Mbps service to people within 10 miles with existing 5.8 GHz technology. If unused frequencies between 700 MHz and 5.8 GHz (or higher) were licenced at a reasonable rate to local companies there is no reason that competition couldn't be provided to the wireline duopoly. But, this isn't what this is about, it is about eliminating competition to the "usual suspects" while raising the maximum amount of tax money.

It's 2014 and you're still paying for television?
 

dkreichen1968 is offline  
post #286 of 2861 Old 07-02-2010, 06:24 AM
Advanced Member
 
ota.dt.man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic Region
Posts: 668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11

Quote:


The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States government, created, directed and empowered by Congressional statute (see 47 U.S.C. § 151 and 47 U.S.C. § 154), and with the majority of its commissioners appointed by the current President.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...ons_Commission

04-19-10:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland View Post

Form TV Technology:

Quote:


Let’s have a look-see at who is serving on the Commish today, why don’t we?

Chairman Julius Genachowski has a background in the computer/IT world. Uh oh! Aren’t those the guys who want our spectrum? Michael Copps has experience in trade development in the Department of Commerce, on the staff of former Senator Fritz Hollings, and as a professor of U.S. history. Robert McDowell’s background is as a telecommunications industry lobbyist. Mignon Clyburn served on the Public Service Commission of South Carolina and as publisher of a weekly newspaper. Meredith Atwell Baker served as Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, and as Acting Administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Agency, whose mission, among others, is to advise the president on telecommunications and information policy.

I’m not sure any of these folks even know what DTV is.

06-30-10:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenglish View Post

FCC CHAIRMAN JULIUS GENACHOWSKI NAMES
DOUGLAS SICKER AS CHIEF TECHNOLOGIST


Washington, D.C. -- Today, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski announced Douglas C. Sicker as Chief Technologist of the Commission. Dr. Sicker will reside in the Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis and will advise the agency on technological issues.

“I am delighted that Dr. Sicker is returning to provide the FCC with his broad and deep knowledge about the communications networks and technologies of today and tomorrow,” said Chairman Genachowski. “His technical expertise will help the FCC pursue policies that spur investment, create jobs, promote innovation, and advance our nation’s global technology leadership.”

Currently Dr. Sicker is Associate Professor in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Colorado at Boulder with a joint appointment in the Interdisciplinary Telecommunications Program. He recently served on the Omnibus Broadband Initiative working on matters related to research and development.

--FCC--

If you do not like the direction in which the FCC is headed, exercise your right as a US citizen to vote for a change leadership on November 2, 2010.

Broadcast TV - a vital national public resource

Save Free HDTV: Facebook Page

Just say "no" to a never-ending subscription TV bill that increases faster than the rate of inflation.
ota.dt.man is offline  
post #287 of 2861 Old 07-02-2010, 12:22 PM - Thread Starter
 
BCF68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,463
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by ota.dt.man View Post


04-19-10:

06-30-10:

If you do not like the direction in which the FCC is headed, exercise your right as a US citizen to vote for a change leadership on November 2, 2010.

I hope you realize the FCC commish is appointed not elected.
BCF68 is offline  
post #288 of 2861 Old 07-02-2010, 03:18 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
justalurker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Michiana, South of the Border
Posts: 1,169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

I hope you realize the FCC commish is appointed not elected.

True ... and the person who appoints won't be re-elected (or not) until 2012.

Congress might be able to step in and pass a law or two to slow down the FCC.
justalurker is offline  
post #289 of 2861 Old 07-02-2010, 03:20 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
justalurker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Michiana, South of the Border
Posts: 1,169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

2015 reclaim 45-51
2020 reclaim 38-44( if necessary )
2025 reclaim 31-36( if necessary and as long as mpeg-4 standard )

Why fart around? The FCC should just reclaim 2-51 and be done with it.
justalurker is offline  
post #290 of 2861 Old 07-02-2010, 10:55 PM
Advanced Member
 
dkreichen1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Monument, CO
Posts: 759
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by justalurker View Post

True ... and the person who appoints won't be re-elected (or not) until 2012.

Congress might be able to step in and pass a law or two to slow down the FCC.

Congress could step in anytime. The question is will they. Seems that all the TV broadcasters are joining NAB(http://www.nab.org/documents/newsRoo...se.asp?id=2319), so it will be interesting to see what NAB is planning.

It's 2014 and you're still paying for television?
 

dkreichen1968 is offline  
post #291 of 2861 Old 07-03-2010, 12:28 AM
Advanced Member
 
ota.dt.man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic Region
Posts: 668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

I hope you realize the FCC commish is appointed not elected.

See first quote in post # 287
Quote:


The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States government, created, directed and empowered by Congressional statute (see 47 U.S.C. § 151 and 47 U.S.C. § 154), and with the majority of its commissioners appointed by the current President.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...ons_Commission


Broadcast TV - a vital national public resource

Save Free HDTV: Facebook Page

Just say "no" to a never-ending subscription TV bill that increases faster than the rate of inflation.
ota.dt.man is offline  
post #292 of 2861 Old 07-03-2010, 12:31 AM
Advanced Member
 
ota.dt.man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic Region
Posts: 668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by justalurker View Post

Congress might be able to step in and pass a law or two to slow down the FCC.

You're correct:
Quote:


The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States government, created, directed and empowered by Congressional statute (see 47 U.S.C. § 151 and 47 U.S.C. § 154), and with the majority of its commissioners appointed by the current President.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...ons_Commission


Broadcast TV - a vital national public resource

Save Free HDTV: Facebook Page

Just say "no" to a never-ending subscription TV bill that increases faster than the rate of inflation.
ota.dt.man is offline  
post #293 of 2861 Old 07-03-2010, 08:43 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
justalurker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Michiana, South of the Border
Posts: 1,169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Of course I'm correct!

Getting congress to act is the problem. One has to raise the issue to the level where one congressperson cares enough to involve other congresspeople.
justalurker is offline  
post #294 of 2861 Old 07-03-2010, 09:05 AM
Advanced Member
 
ota.dt.man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic Region
Posts: 668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkreichen1968 View Post

Congress could step in anytime. The question is will they. Seems that all the TV broadcasters are joining NAB(http://www.nab.org/documents/newsRoo...se.asp?id=2319), so it will be interesting to see what NAB is planning.

Quote:


Spectrum Management

In its recently released National Broadband Plan, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) says that current spectrum allocations are not sufficient to meet the expected increase in demand for high speed wireless Internet service. To meet that demand, the plan recommends the reallocation of up to 500 MHz of spectrum, including up to 120 MHz currently used by television broadcasters. NAB is working to ensure that any change to spectrum policy going forward does not limit consumer access to the full potential of digital broadcasting.

Issue
The FCC presented a National Broadband Plan to Congress on March 16, 2010. The 359-page document includes language calling for the reallocation of up to 120 MHz of broadcast TV spectrum. Free, local television is a lifeline service providing timely news, emergency and community information to all viewers. NAB is working to promote spectrum policies that do not restrict consumer access to the full potential of digital television (DTV), including high definition (HD) and multicast programming and mobile DTV.

History
As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Congress directed the FCC to develop a National Broadband Plan to ensure that all people of the U.S. have access to broadband. The FCC presented a comprehensive National Broadband Plan to Congress on March 16, 2010.

Some parties, including FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, have expressed concerns about a "looming" spectrum crisis - specifically claiming that the current amount of spectrum designated for wireless companies to provide service is insufficient to meet the rapidly increasing demand for wireless broadband. In September 2009, the FCC asked for comment on whether current spectrum allocations, including but not limited to the bands below 3.7 GHz, are adequate to support near- and longer-term demands of wireless broadband.

In early December 2009, the FCC asked more directly whether the government should consider designating some or all of the spectrum currently being used to deliver broadcast television service to meet claimed wireless broadband needs.

NAB and the Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc. (MSTV) responded aggressively to the FCC's inquiry, arguing that over-the-air television, including advanced services like high definition and mobile broadcasting, are a necessary complement to a quality wireless broadband system. NAB and MSTV have also encouraged the FCC to consider all frequencies that may be suitable for wireless broadband (including frequencies above 3.7 GHz).

NAB Position
NAB was pleased by initial indications from FCC members that any spectrum reallocation would be voluntary, and were therefore prepared to move forward in a constructive fashion on that basis when the National Broadband Plan was released. However, there are concerns that many aspects of the released plan may in fact not be as voluntary as originally promised. Further, NAB opposes any attempts to impose spectrum fees on broadcasters, as suggested under the plan.

NAB believes that no reallocation plan should move forward without a complete accounting of how the airwaves are allocated, licensed and used, and therefore strongly support congressional efforts to conduct an inventory of all available spectrum.

In considering the efficiency and productivity of the current use of spectrum, the FCC and Congress should consider the important public services broadcasters offer to all Americans through that spectrum, free of charge. Broadcast television provides local and national news and information, universal service, educational programming, and timely and vital emergency information. The future availability of these free services could be threatened if over-the-air broadcast distribution were eliminated or confined to inadequate levels.

In addition to the services already provided by broadcasters, advances in quality and quantity of programming and other services will lead to increased efficiency of spectrum use. Broadcasters are poised to do even more with their existing 6 MHz channels, offering new services like mobile DTV to complement current programming streams. These services will be provided over stations' existing spectrum assignments, further increasing the efficiency of the nation's over-the-air television service.

Action Needed
NAB will continue working to ensure that policymakers recognize that broadcasting and broadband are both important aspects of America's communications system that are not mutually exclusive. While NAB is still examining the details of the National Broadband Plan, we remain committed to working with the FCC and Congress to build a communications system that benefits all Americans.

http://www.nab.org/advocacy/issue.as...5&issueid=1003

Bottom Line:
If you don't like the FCC's power grab, complain to you Congressional Representative. If he or she is not concerned about this issue, vote for a change on November 2, 2010.

Broadcast TV - a vital national public resource

Save Free HDTV: Facebook Page

Just say "no" to a never-ending subscription TV bill that increases faster than the rate of inflation.
ota.dt.man is offline  
post #295 of 2861 Old 07-03-2010, 10:07 AM - Thread Starter
 
BCF68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,463
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by ota.dt.man View Post

See first quote in post # 287

And 2010 is NOT a presidential election year. And you put at the top of your posts "November 2, 2010 is Coming". Also since if republicans were in office they'd be doing the EXACT same thing( if not in an even more expedited manner ) There's no point in voting for the GOP candidates just on the basis of this. If you think this is a issue of getting the democrats out and the republicans in and this goes away, you are seriously mistaken.
BCF68 is offline  
post #296 of 2861 Old 07-03-2010, 10:44 AM
Advanced Member
 
ota.dt.man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic Region
Posts: 668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Congress has authority over the FCC and they are up for reelection every two years. Preserving broadcast TV is not a partisan issue.

Broadcast TV - a vital national public resource

Save Free HDTV: Facebook Page

Just say "no" to a never-ending subscription TV bill that increases faster than the rate of inflation.
ota.dt.man is offline  
post #297 of 2861 Old 07-03-2010, 12:04 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Rammitinski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Des Plaines, IL
Posts: 17,437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Interesting how if I'd have brought up anything that even remotely touched on politics, even in a thread such as this, I'd have been banned by now.

Not that I have anything I feel compelled to say on this particular subject, anyway - I just find it interesting, that's all.
Rammitinski is offline  
post #298 of 2861 Old 07-03-2010, 01:01 PM
Advanced Member
 
ota.dt.man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic Region
Posts: 668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Hi Rammitinski,

I'm intentionally trying not to be partisan. It is a fact the Congress has authority over the FCC. How does one discuss such a topic without touching on this reality especially when the FCC is trying to reduce the TV spectrum?

Broadcast TV - a vital national public resource

Save Free HDTV: Facebook Page

Just say "no" to a never-ending subscription TV bill that increases faster than the rate of inflation.
ota.dt.man is offline  
post #299 of 2861 Old 07-03-2010, 01:28 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammitinski View Post

Interesting how if I'd have brought up anything that even remotely touched on politics, even in a thread such as this, I'd have been banned by now.

Not if the discussion is non-partisan, and is directly related to HDTV.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #300 of 2861 Old 07-03-2010, 01:36 PM - Thread Starter
 
BCF68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,463
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by ota.dt.man View Post

Hi Rammitinski,

I'm intentionally trying not to be partisan. It is a fact the Congress has authority over the FCC. How does one discuss such a topic without touching on this reality especially when the FCC is trying to reduce the TV spectrum?

And thinking putting the other party in charge is going to change that is being obtuse. I'm not sure which part you are not getting. I don't care who you vote for but unless he/she has explicitly said he's against this and this issue is a priority for him/her then it won;t matter. Most people in Congress are not technically literate an will listen to the advice of "experts" which of course usually do not have the best interest of the average American in mind.
BCF68 is offline  
Reply HDTV Technical

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off