AVS Official Topic - The FCC & Broadcast Spectrum - Page 110 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 64Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #3271 of 3288 Old Yesterday, 11:25 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US
Posts: 15,387
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 611 Post(s)
Liked: 170
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA
Quote:
Originally Posted by LenL View Post
What you really need is the number of new mobile device users.
Why? There are already more active cell phone lines than there are people in the United States. The big problem is that instead of just talking on the phone, which doesn't take much bandwidth, people are watching video or streaming music or downloading files over their phones. That's what the spectrum demand problem is about. It's not the raw number of people, but how much data those people are collectively using.

- Trip
PA_MainyYak likes this.

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 offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #3272 of 3288 Old Yesterday, 11:59 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
LenL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Randolph, NJ, 725' above sea level, 30 miles west of ESB
Posts: 1,803
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 261 Post(s)
Liked: 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post
Why? There are already more active cell phone lines than there are people in the United States. The big problem is that instead of just talking on the phone, which doesn't take much bandwidth, people are watching video or streaming music or downloading files over their phones. That's what the spectrum demand problem is about. It's not the raw number of people, but how much data those people are collectively using.

- Trip
True to some extent. But then there are people like me who do all that stuff not using cell phone minutes but using my home WIFI or WIFI hot spots. My local cable provide has thousands of hotspots and every house I go to I can use their WIFI. I suspect most people would use WIFI if they could and not cell. I also suspect most people when at work use work WIFI when available and not cell. Not everyone is causing spectrum demand increases as you indicate. So your general statement has some flaws in it.

Knowing who you work for I think you might have some bias on this subject? Or strong opinions? Or both?
LenL is offline  
post #3273 of 3288 Old Yesterday, 01:17 PM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 15,182
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 947 Post(s)
Liked: 1897
Let's change directions:

FCC
FCC Doesn't Expand Must-Carry In Channel-Sharing Order
O'Rielly says that was can of worms that wasn't getting opened
By John Eggerton Multichannel News - March 23, 2017

The FCC voted unanimously Friday to allow TV stations more flexibility to share channels after the broadcast incentive auction, but, in a victory for cable operators, with a change to the original draft to insure no new carriage obligations are put on MVPDS and no opportunity is given for LPTV's without must-carry rights to gain them.
The FCC made clear in the item that a low-power TV station that strikes a sharing agreement with a station with must-carry rights, that it will only share in those must-carry rights if it had must carry in its previous, non-sharing life.

FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly signaled that change was important and Commissioner Mignon Clyburn signaled she wished it had stayed in.
The new order allows TV stations with an auction-related sharing agreement to continue to share--by striking a new agreement--after that agreement ends, or what the FCC calls "second generation" sharing. They had originally been term-limited agreements, a sort of glide path for those who took payouts for their spectrum but still wanted to remain in the business by sharing with another station.

The order also allows Class A low-power TV's to share outside of auction agreements and allows LPTVs and translators to share with other LPTVS or with full-powers or Class A's so they can stay on the air if displaced in the repack.
The FCC also said sharing can reduce construction and operating costs for the LPTVS, many of which have limited resources, are minority owned, or serve underserved audiences.

Clyburn said she was disappointed that the FCC had "closed the door" on the "very rare" instances where a low-power could gain must-carry by sharing with a must-carry station. "In doing so, we have stricken from the Order, a simple acknowledgement that the 'benefits of channel sharing for secondary stations, outweigh any theoretical increase in the number of secondary stations cable operators may be required to carry.'" But she acknowledged that LPTVs could still negotiate carriage, adding "I am hopeful that many stations will find this to be a viable option."

O'Rielly said it was important that must-carry rights were not being expanded. "Simply put," he said, "the item maintains the status quo," he said. "Whatever rights the station had to trigger must-carry previously are retained and no new rights are created," he said, adding: "We are deciding not to reopen that can of worms here."
“NAB commends the Commission for providing additional flexibility to channel-sharing broadcasters following the auction," said NAB EVP communications Dennis Wharton. "By giving stations options to replace sharing agreements that expire or terminate after the auction, the Commission provides greater certainty for stations that choose to enter into such agreements.”

http://www.multichannel.com/news/fcc...g-order/411697

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is online now  
 
post #3274 of 3288 Old Yesterday, 01:50 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Calaveras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mountain Ranch
Posts: 5,051
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1141 Post(s)
Liked: 260
This is the first I've heard of LPTV being able to channel share with full power or other LPTV stations. It's possible that many LPTV stations could remain on the air with channel sharing. Good news for them!
Calaveras is online now  
post #3275 of 3288 Old Yesterday, 02:07 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
JHBrandt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: S. Garland, TX
Posts: 4,508
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1555 Post(s)
Liked: 768
I think channel-sharing is a bit of a red herring. It may help a little, but no new bandwidth is being created, so even with channel-sharing we still face the same problem: how to fit all the great OTA diginets that sprang up as a result of the digital transition into what's left of the TV spectrum?

ATSC 3 may be part of the solution, since it does create new bandwidth; but there's no mandated transition to ATSC 3 and no "elbow room" for stations to migrate without making the crunch even worse in the meantime.
JHBrandt is offline  
post #3276 of 3288 Old Yesterday, 02:10 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
JHBrandt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: S. Garland, TX
Posts: 4,508
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1555 Post(s)
Liked: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calaveras View Post
This is the first I've heard of LPTV being able to channel share with full power or other LPTV stations. It's possible that many LPTV stations could remain on the air with channel sharing. Good news for them!
That will be important for LPTVs that produce their own content. They can remain on the air, just using another station's transmitter. (I guess they won't really be "low-power" any more if they're sharing a full-power station's transmitter, but that's a good thing - it'll increase their potential audience.) But keep my last comment in mind.
JHBrandt is offline  
post #3277 of 3288 Old Yesterday, 02:15 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
holl_ands's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 4,953
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 456 Post(s)
Liked: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
Second, I want a mobile hotspot I can use for my at-home internet and dump the cable company. I'd do that NOW if the signal was better....
Sounds like you should investigate readily available...and affordable CELL PHONE REPEATERS for the Home [specific for each Carrier and set of desired operating Frequencies]. You can locate the Antenna on a Pole above the Roof-line and the Electronics at a location within your home for best internal coverage:
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_s...d=AX3X6PGTZZKN
JHBrandt likes this.
holl_ands is online now  
post #3278 of 3288 Old Yesterday, 02:36 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Calaveras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mountain Ranch
Posts: 5,051
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1141 Post(s)
Liked: 260
I highly recommend the home cell repeater. I installed one because my cell phone performance was spotty with lots of dropped calls and poor audio. Now it's perfect, not even a dropped syllable let alone dropped calls. I installed a pair of 850 MHz yagis pointed at my cell site 11 miles away.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Cell Phone Yagis.jpg
Views:	40
Size:	873.0 KB
ID:	2045073  
Calaveras is online now  
post #3279 of 3288 Old Yesterday, 07:45 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
joblo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHBrandt View Post
ATSC 3 may be part of the solution, since it does create new bandwidth; but there's no mandated transition to ATSC 3 and no "elbow room" for stations to migrate without making the crunch even worse in the meantime.

Assuming it can actually get off the ground, ATSC3 will not fix what ails OTA. Not only will it further squeeze ATSC1, but also it will add to the overall confusion about OTA among people who do not read threads like this one or forums like AVS.

I've read the whole ATSC3 thread. It's a great read, with a lot of great posts, and some rally cool technical information. But I couldn't help wondering as I read it what ATSC3 proponents were smoking that caused them to hallucinate non-existent markets. Or to imagine that viewers would actually appreciate broadcasters putting a dozen or more services in their own pipes, all within the same channel, with each pipe having its own level of robustness and service contour.

That’s like the bad old analog days of grade A and grade B contours on steroids. Now you can have grade A, B, C, D, E, F, ad infinitum. This is madness, and it will drive away more OTA viewers than it will attract.

But these points are probably moot, because the only way ATSC3 will get off the ground is if the government mandates it, and/or the major content providers – i.e. ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, and the NFL – all get behind it in a big way. But they’re primarily concerned with monetizing their content, and it’s not clear to me that ATSC3 will be necessary or even helpful to that end.
bdfox18doe and DrDon like this.
joblo is online now  
post #3280 of 3288 Old Today, 04:33 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sneals2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 7,515
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 261 Post(s)
Liked: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calaveras View Post
I highly recommend the home cell repeater. I installed one because my cell phone performance was spotty with lots of dropped calls and poor audio. Now it's perfect, not even a dropped syllable let alone dropped calls. I installed a pair of 850 MHz yagis pointed at my cell site 11 miles away.
Ah - there is an alternative solution being used in the UK, whereby mobile operators will give you a Cellular->IP gateway, that creates a new (3G I think) femtocell connected over your domestic broadband connection to the cellular phone operator. This is obviously not a solution if you don't have broadband in the first place, but is a solution for improving coverage if you do.

I think in some cases, providers were providing them at zero cost.

Review of Three UK's solution here - https://www.choose.co.uk/guide/three...er-review.html (This is 2G I think - which is still supported in the UK - ironically Three don't have their own 2G network...)

The popularity of these devices may wane somewhat - as many operators are now offering WiFi calling integrate with your cellular plan (which is incredibly useful if you are abroad. I was in India for 10 days two years ago, and usually within range of WiFi. All calls to my UK O2 number just rang in India, all SMS messages arrived and were sent. Call quality was great too)

Last edited by sneals2000; Today at 04:38 AM.
sneals2000 is offline  
post #3281 of 3288 Old Today, 06:34 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
JHBrandt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: S. Garland, TX
Posts: 4,508
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1555 Post(s)
Liked: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by joblo View Post
Or to imagine that viewers would actually appreciate broadcasters putting a dozen or more services in their own pipes, all within the same channel, with each pipe having its own level of robustness and service contour.
That's related to a point I don't think is appreciated enough. No matter how many subchannels may eventually arise on whatever technology (ATSC 1.0, ATSC 3.0, ATSC XP, ATSC Vista, whatever), we've still limited the universe of free broadcast TV to at most 35 transmitters in any given market. And given the number of sister stations, there may be only a dozen or two (if you're lucky; less, if you live in a smaller market) gatekeepers who own those transmitters.

That's still way better than cable, where most of us have a monopoly (and in many cases that monopoly is Comcast, which also owns several of those OTA transmitters), wireless (the Big Four plus some resellers), or subscription satellite (essentially a duopoly, with one of the two also being one of the Big Four wireless carriers), but from this standpoint, the auction was a big move in the wrong direction. It's hardly ideal to have an oligopoly of large corporations hogging all the video bandwidth into our homes, and we just bought a big chunk of the most diversified section of that bandwidth and sold it off to the Big Four.
JHBrandt is offline  
post #3282 of 3288 Old Today, 06:59 AM
Advanced Member
 
PA_MainyYak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Johnstown, PA
Posts: 576
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 16
As I understand the ATSC 3.0 discussion, that protocol works well in a single channel repeater environment (it works with ATSC 1.0, but has not been widely implemented.) Thus some markets could very well support multiple transmitters on the same channel. In my market, WJAC operates four repeaters plus the main on five different channels. After repack, it's possible they might all be assigned the same RF 35.

"One of the few good things about modern times: If you die horribly on television, you will not have died in vain. You will have entertained us."
- Kurt Vonnegut
-0-
PA_MainyYak is online now  
post #3283 of 3288 Old Today, 07:00 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 15,182
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 947 Post(s)
Liked: 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calaveras View Post
This is the first I've heard of LPTV being able to channel share with full power or other LPTV stations. It's possible that many LPTV stations could remain on the air with channel sharing. Good news for them!
A lot is going to depend on the programming and sympathetic full-power station owners. And money. It's called channel-sharing, but channel-leasing is probably how it's going to play out. For that to work, a full-power broadcaster is going to want a fee and a reasonable guarantee that adding the LP's programming as a subchannel doesn't affect his own PQ nor ratings. I'm guessing it's going to be a hefty fee, especially if it means removing a diginet. And if it's a corporate-owned diginet (WWJ and Decades, for example), that's not happening. The LP station would have to generate enough revenue to maintain operations and make the lease payments. Pretty sure those are going to be higher than the electric bill on the LP transmitter. And with no guarantee of cable carriage, that's not going to be an easy nut to cover. If it were, someone would have done it, already. AFAIK, there aren't any independently-owned, local "stations" leasing subchannels on a broadcast facility.

Now, if you have an LP that's one of those city-owned channels, a broadcaster could get a tax break from hosting the thing for free.

In either case, I'd imagine - depending on the programming - that moving to an internet platform would be the better option.
JHBrandt likes this.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is online now  
post #3284 of 3288 Old Today, 07:31 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
JHBrandt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: S. Garland, TX
Posts: 4,508
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1555 Post(s)
Liked: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
AFAIK, there aren't any independently-owned, local "stations" leasing subchannels on a broadcast facility.
The DFW area has a few: KTXD/47, KFWD/52, and KAZD/55 (currently on RF 46, 9, and 39, respectively). I suspect KFWD/52 sold their license in the auction, so they'll probably go away. The transmitter will probably get sold to someone moving from UHF to VHF, which, for all I know, could be KAZD/55. It's the local Azteca affiliate, so they have their "own" HD channel on 55.1, but currently they're cramming six SD subchannels onto the same carrier, including QVC and "Biz TV."

KTXD/47 is a local independent, also with their "own" HD programming on 47.1 along with four SD subchannels, including LATV, SBN, and a local religious subchannel that used to broadcast on a local LPTV station (not unlike channel sharing, except they didn't get to keep their former LPTV channel number).

So there are a few stations willing to lease their bandwidth even up to the point of sacrificing PQ on their "own" subchannel. But your point is well-taken; those are probably exceptions, and they're probably more expensive than running a LPTV transmitter. You have to pay for that extra coverage area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
In either case, I'd imagine - depending on the programming - that moving to an internet platform would be the better option.
The only problem with moving to the Internet is having your OTA viewers find you, and learn to watch your content on a new platform. Channel sharing is at least somewhat transparent; all you have to do is tell your viewers to rescan.

Last edited by JHBrandt; Today at 07:36 AM.
JHBrandt is offline  
post #3285 of 3288 Old Today, 08:06 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 15,182
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 947 Post(s)
Liked: 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHBrandt View Post
The only problem with moving to the Internet is having your OTA viewers find you, and learn to watch your content on a new platform. Channel sharing is at least somewhat transparent; all you have to do is tell your viewers to rescan.
But if you can't generate the extra revenue for the lease, that might be the only viable option. Again, depends on the programming.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is online now  
post #3286 of 3288 Old Today, 08:34 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
JHBrandt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: S. Garland, TX
Posts: 4,508
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1555 Post(s)
Liked: 768
I agree - just wanted to point out that moving to the Internet is problematic too. You're bound to lose some viewers, although if folks really like your content, they'll follow you online. But it may be the best of several bad options.
JHBrandt is offline  
post #3287 of 3288 Old Today, 11:18 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Calaveras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mountain Ranch
Posts: 5,051
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1141 Post(s)
Liked: 260
I suspect there won't be much in the way of LP's sharing/leasing on a full power station. LP's could get together and share a transmitter. We have a couple of LP's here with just one stream and one is only a single 480i stream. They could make some money leasing bandwidth.
Calaveras is online now  
post #3288 of 3288 Old Today, 01:24 PM
Senior Member
 
eherberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 221
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 20
I wonder if some may opt to do what Grey did in eastern North Dakota. For CBS, instead of one full-power transmitter, they put up 3 LPTV transmitters to cover the same coverage area. They have the looser rules of an LPTV with nearly the same coverage.
eherberg is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply HDTV Technical



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