AVS Official Topic - The FCC & Broadcast Spectrum - Page 3 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 2861 Old 02-01-2010, 11:08 PM
Advanced Member
 
Sammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 748
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by systems2000 View Post

I believe the FCC considers "White Space" as part of their "National Broadband Policy."

There will not be any UHF "White Space" if CTIA -The Wireless Association ever gets to take away 150-180 MHz or at least channels 26-51. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that part of the reason they want all that TV spectrum (including all or most of the most desirable channels, 21 to 36 and 38 to 45, for digital TV) is to prevent both ATSC Mobile / Handheld and TV Band Devices (both are potential competitors in areas CTIA members are interested in) from ever getting a successful start.
Sammer is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 2861 Old 02-02-2010, 06:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JeffAHayes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Spartanburg, SC
Posts: 2,610
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammer View Post

There will not be any UHF "White Space" if CTIA -The Wireless Association ever gets to take away 150-180 MHz or at least channels 26-51. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that part of the reason they want all that TV spectrum (including all or most of the most desirable channels, 21 to 36 and 38 to 45, for digital TV) is to prevent both ATSC Mobile / Handheld and TV Band Devices (both are potential competitors in areas CTIA members are interested in) from ever getting a successful start.

Precisely! The need for more Mhz for wireless broadbrand is quite likely only "peripheral" to their actual agenda. Their true purpose quite likely is to fend off impending competition from technology such as what you mentioned above, and they really DON'T CARE what they do to the overall broadcast business or the people who depend on broadcast TV at home in the process!
Jeff

Life is the only constant...

JeffAHayes is offline  
post #63 of 2861 Old 02-02-2010, 07:40 PM
Advanced Member
 
Sammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 748
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffAHayes View Post

The need for more Mhz for wireless broadbrand is quite likely only "peripheral" to their actual agenda.
Jeff

They are at least five years from building out the wireless spectrum they already have so locking up spectrum is their agenda.
Sammer is offline  
post #64 of 2861 Old 02-03-2010, 03:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JeffAHayes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Spartanburg, SC
Posts: 2,610
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I wonder if someone should print out this thread and send it to the Congressional committee responsible for administration of the FCC? I know it's all speculation, but I still think it's "informed opinion" from constituents that needs to be heard/read -- and perhaps some POV that hasn't been properly presented in committee (I'm sure most of the arguments that have been presented have been "wrapped" in all sorts of other issues).

I think the fact that many of us, myself, included, are NOT receiving our TV via broadcast antenna feeds for various reasons, but still see the need for it and want to defend the right of OTHERS to continue to receive it that way holds some weight because we have no personal agenda.
Jeff

Life is the only constant...

JeffAHayes is offline  
post #65 of 2861 Old 02-03-2010, 11:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dr1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Mizar 5
Posts: 3,149
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammer View Post

They are at least five years from building out the wireless spectrum they already have so locking up spectrum is their agenda.

Can you give us a reference for that comment? Seems like AWS was built out in about 2 years and the 700 MHz LTE timeline seems even shorter.

Ron

HD MPEG-2 Test Patterns http://www.w6rz.net
dr1394 is offline  
post #66 of 2861 Old 02-04-2010, 11:00 AM
Member
 
tkrhdtv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Marietta/Kennesaw
Posts: 133
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr1394 View Post

There are only three currently used cell phone bands in the United States.

Mobile 824-849 MHz, Base 869-894 MHz (Cellular) 50 MHz total
Mobile 1850-1910 MHz, Base 1930-1990 MHz (PCS) 120 MHz total
Mobile 1710-1755 MHz, Base 2110-2155 MHz (AWS) 90 MHz total

The overall total is 260 MHz. The new 700 MHz allocation is another 62 MHz when it gets built out, bringing the grand total to 322 MHz.

You can see which bands are licensed in your area here:

http://www.wirelessadvisor.com/

Just enter a zip code.

Ron


Sprint Nextel also has/will have ~14 MHZ ESMR spectrum adjacent to the cellular bands, plus 10MHz adjacent to the top of the PCS band.
tkrhdtv is offline  
post #67 of 2861 Old 02-04-2010, 01:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dr1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Mizar 5
Posts: 3,149
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by tkrhdtv View Post

Sprint Nextel also has/will have ~14 MHZ ESMR spectrum adjacent to the cellular bands, plus 10MHz adjacent to the top of the PCS band.

Yes, they were given the 10 MHz at 1910-1915 and 1990-1995 MHz as reimbursement for the re-shuffling at 806-824/851-869 MHz

http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/aws...wsbandplan.pdf

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-04-168A1.pdf

Ron

HD MPEG-2 Test Patterns http://www.w6rz.net
dr1394 is offline  
post #68 of 2861 Old 03-03-2010, 09:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JeffAHayes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Spartanburg, SC
Posts: 2,610
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
The latest issue of PCWorld magazine has an interesting, fairly in-depth article about all the major smart phones and the plans available with them, their costs, how well they work, how much you get as far as both download and upload speed and downloads per month and where and how well they work in some various areas.

As I'm still A LONG WAY from going that route (I don't think I'll EVER get into "Smart Phone" territory as long as we're all still stuck with this business of having to choose one carrier for whatever phone we like -- and I don't see how that can possibly continue ad infinitum), what I read in the article simply reinforced my views ($60/month for a maximum of 5 GB of downloads at speeds no faster than 1.5 Mbps for the FASTEST service they tested ANYWHERE with ANY phone, and down to less than 1/4 that as a maximum download speed in many areas).

HOWEVER, and the article didn't even HINT at this, if memory serves me correctly (you can probably find the entire article at the PCWorld website, if you look), it appeared pretty obvious to me that with so many folks wanting to use their phones as mobile computers for streaming and so forth, as has been said before, there's an obvious need by the carriers for MUCH more bandwidth to achieve what their customers really want -- not that I support that, because I think it's ridiculous if it comes at the expense of real broadcast TV and radio, but there really IS only so much spectrum available, and based on what I read in that article, many Smart Phone users really ARE clogging it up.

I think what really needs to be worked on is new compression algorithms to shove A LOT more sh*t through a wavelength than is currently possible, since there ARE only so many wavelengths.
Jeff

Life is the only constant...

JeffAHayes is offline  
post #69 of 2861 Old 03-04-2010, 01:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
systems2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Central Franklin County, PA.
Posts: 2,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffahayes View Post

i think what really needs to be worked on is new compression algorithms to shove a lot more sh*t through a wavelength than is currently possible, since there are only so many wavelengths.
Jeff

+1
systems2000 is offline  
post #70 of 2861 Old 03-04-2010, 09:14 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 JeffAHayes View Post

The latest issue of PCWorld magazine has an interesting, fairly in-depth article about all the major smart phones and the plans available with them, their costs, how well they work, how much you get as far as both download and upload speed and downloads per month and where and how well they work in some various areas.

As I'm still A LONG WAY from going that route (I don't think I'll EVER get into "Smart Phone" territory as long as we're all still stuck with this business of having to choose one carrier for whatever phone we like -- and I don't see how that can possibly continue ad infinitum), what I read in the article simply reinforced my views ($60/month for a maximum of 5 GB of downloads at speeds no faster than 1.5 Mbps for the FASTEST service they tested ANYWHERE with ANY phone, and down to less than 1/4 that as a maximum download speed in many areas).

HOWEVER, and the article didn't even HINT at this, if memory serves me correctly (you can probably find the entire article at the PCWorld website, if you look), it appeared pretty obvious to me that with so many folks wanting to use their phones as mobile computers for streaming and so forth, as has been said before, there's an obvious need by the carriers for MUCH more bandwidth to achieve what their customers really want --
Jeff

Well as long at you only get 5 GB per month and each GB over that is $51.20( and no that's not a typo ) exactly how much "streaming" and "mobile computing" are people really going to do?

If my ISP charged those rates I'd be paying $3600 a month for internet
BCF68 is offline  
post #71 of 2861 Old 03-06-2010, 01:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JeffAHayes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Spartanburg, SC
Posts: 2,610
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

Well as long at you only get 5 GB per month and each GB over that is $51.20( and no that's not a typo ) exactly how much "streaming" and "mobile computing" are people really going to do?

If my ISP charged those rates I'd be paying $3600 a month for internet

Well, that's exactly the point, here, BCF. The really heavy users -- those who want to constantly surf the web, check email, and stream movies -- are either maxing their 5 GB per month easily, or have (or are scrounging) the disposable income to pay for the overages beyond 5 GB, but all the others who might really LIKE to continue past 5 GB but essentially STOP the internet experience part of their phone as soon as they hit 5 GB each month likely WOULD BE going WAY beyond that were the cost to go beyond that not so steep (or if the cap were not set so low). And it's also quite likely that in some areas of high use, even those who never come close to using even 5 GB per month often have trouble accessing the web and/or slow access speeds to do heavy broadband airway congestion.

THAT'S the rub. If the wireless carriers could double, or triple their amount of bandwidth they would likely be able to attract more customers and offer more to their current customers by, say, offering a larger cap -- say 10, or 20 GB per month, for less of an increase (say $75/month, vs. $60). Assuming they had the spare bandwidth available, this would mean much more money for them at very little extra cost.

So it's very easy to see where the wireless communication industry's profit incentive is in this whole spectrum-grab plan, and it has little or nothing to do with providing "universal broadband" to the country, as the chances this would encourage them to add wireless broadband coverage in sparsely populated areas or slim to none unless there were a federal mandate to do so.
Jeff

Life is the only constant...

JeffAHayes is offline  
post #72 of 2861 Old 03-06-2010, 08:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kenglish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Posts: 5,393
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffAHayes View Post

I wonder if someone should print out this thread and send it to the Congressional committee responsible for administration of the FCC?
Jeff

The FCC is not directly under any committee or department, but works directly under Congress itself....unlike any other federal agency.

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 #73 of 2861 Old 03-13-2010, 10:38 AM
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
From The New York Times

Quote:


Effort to Widen U.S. Internet Access Sets Up Battle

By BRIAN STELTER and JENNA WORTHAM

The Federal Communications Commission is proposing an ambitious 10-year plan that will reimagine the nation’s media and technology priorities by establishing high-speed Internet as the country’s dominant communication network.

The plan, which will be submitted to Congress on Tuesday, is likely to generate debate in Washington and a lobbying battle among the telecommunication giants, which over time may face new competition for customers. Already, the broadcast television industry is resisting a proposal to give back spectrum the government wants to use for future mobile service.

The blueprint reflects the government’s view that broadband Internet is becoming the common medium of the United States, gradually displacing the telephone and broadcast television industries. It also signals a shift at the F.C.C., which under the administration of President George W. Bush gained more attention for policing indecency on the television airwaves than for promoting Internet access.

According to F.C.C. officials briefed on the plan, the commission’s recommendations will include a subsidy for Internet providers to wire rural parts of the country now without access, a controversial auction of some broadcast spectrum to free up space for wireless devices, and the development of a new universal set-top box that connects to the Internet and cable service.

The effort will influence billions of dollars in federal spending, although the F.C.C. will argue that the plan should pay for itself through the spectrum auctions. Some recommendations will require Congressional action and industry support, and will affect users only years from now.

Still, “each bullet point will trigger its own tortuous battle,” said Craig Moffett, a senior analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Company.

For much of the last year, Julius Genachowski, the F.C.C. chairman and the plan’s chief salesman, has laid the groundwork for the Congressionally mandated plan by asserting that the United States is lagging far behind other countries in broadband adoption and speed. About a third of Americans have no access to high-speed Internet service, cannot afford it or choose not to have it.

In a speech last month, Mr. Genachowski observed that the country could build state-of-the-art computers and applications, but without equivalent broadband wiring, “it would be like having the technology for great electric cars, but terrible roads.”

The plan envisions a fully Web-connected world with split-second access to health care information and online classrooms, delivered through wireless devices yet to be dreamed up in Silicon Valley. But to get there, analysts say the F.C.C. must tread carefully with companies like Comcast and AT&T that largely control Internet pricing and speeds. Already, there are questions about the extent to which the F.C.C. has jurisdiction over Internet providers.

The F.C.C. says it can make some important changes on its own. They include reforms to the Universal Service Fund, which spends $8 billion a year from telephone surcharges to ensure that rural and poor people have phone lines at home. It also supplies Internet access to schools, libraries and rural clinics.

By reducing the phone subsidies over time, the fund could instead “support broadband access and affordability,” especially in remote locations where private companies have little incentive to build networks, said Colin Crowell, a senior counselor to Mr. Genachowski.

In recent weeks, the most-talked-about idea in the television industry has been a voluntary auction of over-the-air spectrum for future mobile broadband uses. In total, the F.C.C. is hoping to free up roughly 500 megahertz of spectrum, much of which would come from television broadcasters, which would be compensated if Congress acts.

The proposal already faces resistance from the TV industry. Stations say they still serve a valuable public service, especially during emergencies, and say the F.C.C. proposals could cause gaps in signal coverage.

But F.C.C. officials assert that the spectrum changes are necessary given a looming spectrum shortage. “It isn’t a crisis tomorrow, it’s a crisis in five or six years,” Mr. Crowell said, but allocation “literally takes years.”

The plan will advise that some of the spectrum become unlicensed, so it can serve as a test bed for new technologies.

Also notably, the plan will include an initiative the chairman calls 100 Squared — equipping 100 million households with high-speed Internet gushing through their pipes at 100 megabits a second by the end of this decade. According to comScore, the average subscriber now receives speeds of three to four megabits a second.

The government is “setting a stake in the ground by setting a standard for broadband speeds in order to be a competitive nation,” said Dan Hays, director of PRTM, a global management consulting firm in the telecommunications industry.

He said the plan could place “significant pressure” on incumbent providers to improve their networks.

Mr. Genachowski also argues that broadband expansion can be an economic stimulant, a crucial selling point in a time of high unemployment. “Broadband will be the indispensable platform to assure American competitiveness, ongoing job creation and innovation, and will affect nearly every aspect of Americans’ lives at home, at work, and in their communities,” he said Friday.

According to officials briefed on the proposals, the plan will also call for a “digital literacy corps” to help unwired Americans learn online skills, and recommendations for $12 billion to $16 billion for a nationwide public safety network that would connect police, fire departments and other first responders.

In a move that could affect policy decisions years from now, the F.C.C. will begin assessing the speeds and costs of consumer broadband service. Until then, consumers can take matters into their own hands with a new suite of online and mobile phone applications released by the F.C.C. that will allow them to test the speed of their home Internet and see if they’re paying for data speeds as advertised.

“Once again, the F.C.C. is putting service providers on the spot,” said Julien Blin, a telecommunications consultant at JBB Research.


'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #74 of 2861 Old 03-13-2010, 10:40 AM
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
Topic title changed.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #75 of 2861 Old 03-13-2010, 01:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
systems2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Central Franklin County, PA.
Posts: 2,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


The plan, which will be submitted to Congress on Tuesday, is likely to generate debate in Washington and a lobbying battle among the telecommunication giants, which over time may face new competition for customers. Already, the broadcast television industry is resisting a proposal to give back spectrum the government wants to use for future mobile service.

I've already contacted my Representative about this.

Quote:


For much of the last year, Julius Genachowski, the F.C.C. chairman and the plan’s chief salesman, has laid the groundwork for the Congressionally mandated plan by asserting that the United States is lagging far behind other countries in broadband adoption and speed. About a third of Americans have no access to high-speed Internet service, cannot afford it or choose not to have it.

Do we not see who's driving this?

Quote:


By reducing the phone subsidies over time, the fund could instead “support broadband access and affordability,” especially in remote locations where private companies have little incentive to build networks, said Colin Crowell, a senior counselor to Mr. Genachowski.

Shouldn't this require Congressional action?

Quote:


According to F.C.C. officials briefed on the plan, the commission’s recommendations will include a subsidy for Internet providers to wire rural parts of the country now without access...

Do we really need to give Comcast or Verizon subsidies?

Quote:


The plan envisions a fully Web-connected world with split-second access to health care information and online classrooms, delivered through wireless devices yet to be dreamed up in Silicon Valley.

Why does it have to be wireless?

Quote:


In recent weeks, the most-talked-about idea in the television industry has been a voluntary auction of over-the-air spectrum for future mobile broadband uses. In total, the F.C.C. is hoping to free up roughly 500 megahertz of spectrum, much of which would come from television broadcasters, which would be compensated if Congress acts.

We already know that this isn't possible.

Quote:


But F.C.C. officials assert that the spectrum changes are necessary given a looming spectrum shortage. “It isn’t a crisis tomorrow, it’s a crisis in five or six years,” Mr. Crowell said, but allocation “literally takes years.”

It's only a crisis, because they think it is and want to play it that way. It appears that the only good service is "PAY" service.

Quote:


Also notably, the plan will include an initiative the chairman calls 100 Squared — equipping 100 million households with high-speed Internet gushing through their pipes at 100 megabits a second by the end of this decade. According to comScore, the average subscriber now receives speeds of three to four megabits a second.

Does anyone else see this not happening on it's own? Those of use with average or lower are not going to see any improvement "by the end of the decade."

Quote:


According to officials briefed on the proposals, the plan will also call for a “digital literacy corps” to help unwired Americans learn online skills...

Don't the local Community Colleges already do this?

Quote:


...and recommendations for $12 billion to $16 billion for a nationwide public safety network that would connect police, fire departments and other first responders.

Didn't they already get a ton of money for this after Sept. 11, 2001?
systems2000 is offline  
post #76 of 2861 Old 03-14-2010, 07:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
systems2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Central Franklin County, PA.
Posts: 2,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I just thought of something today. How is this "Broadband Plan" transition supposed to help those of us in the outer edges of DMA's, where the local cable system (Comcast) only gives subscribers a select few of the possible stations receivable.

I would loose 21 channels (four weather & three VMe) and gain three. Not a better deal in my book.

STATION NETWORK KEEP LOOSE GAIN
WMAR ABC   X  
WRC NBC     X
WTTG FOX X   X
WJLA ABC X    
W08EE-D WV PBS   X  
WGAL NBC X   X
WUSA CBS X    
WTAJ CBS   X  
WBAL NBC   X  
WJZ CBS   X  
WLYH CW X    
WDCA MyNetwork   X  
WHP CBS     X
WUTB MyNetwork   X  
WHAG NBC X    
WHTM ABC X   X
WWPB MD PBS   X  
WITF PA PBS X   X
WVPY VA PBS   X  
WPMT FOX X    
WGCB Ind X    
WNUV CW   X  
WWPX iON   X  
WJAL Ind X    
WQPX iON     X
  Create   X  
  CSPAN* INTERNET   X
  iONLife   X  
  MPT2   X  
  PCN INTERNET   X
  QUBO   X  
  RTN* X    
  ThisTV* X   X
  USports   X  
  VMe   3  
  Weather   4  

* Requires STB
RED = Possible stations at new residence
BLUE = Reception comes and goes
systems2000 is offline  
post #77 of 2861 Old 03-15-2010, 07:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kenglish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Posts: 5,393
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 31
What seems strange to me is, many people (including the FCC folks) keep alluding to "the rest of the world" when talking about our "lack of broadband access".

Yet, we are NOT the same as "the rest of the world". Much of that "rest" they speak of does not rely on any form of commercial broadcasting (or, very little of it, against the big government and regional broadcasters). They don't necessarily rely on local transmitters for their programming. While we in America use paid Cable or paid satellite, the Europeans get hundreds of free (FTA) TV broadcast channels, via their group of Astra and Eurobird satellites, which are often available just by plugging a receiver in to the wall jack....many homes and MDUs are pre-wired for those birds. People who want more specialized services may pay a la' carte for them, via many competing subscription services, unlike our near-monopoly DirecTV and DISH.

Literally hundreds and hundreds of TV and Radio satellite channels are available, and there is little localism...that's where their few local stations come in.

Maybe, if the FCC wants to free up the current TV spectrum, they should consider giving access to all the spot-beam satellite channels to the local broadcasters, and make the signals free-to-air (within the appropriate beam).
Then, consumers could use any receiver they want, to get local stations. But, how do we then define "local STATION" if there are no licensees?

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 #78 of 2861 Old 03-15-2010, 07:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
HoustonPerson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 3,848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
People do have to speak up if they want things to change.

Just a couple of years ago we had RF2-82, I suppose at the time you would have called it the “law”. Now we only have RF 7-50 a 50% reduction and now the government wants that too. They want all the RF to "give" to their lobbyist supporters. There are about a million people in Houston that cannot get broadband, and if they can get it, it is only spotty and marginal service at best around $70 to $100 per month. It is the same type of situation in all Texas major cities.

How many more years do I have left to be able to watch the Super Bowl in near Blu Ray quality, or CSI, or whatever? Not long. Soon I will no longer have any use for HDTV.

The United States has begun falling behind in so many areas it would be laughable except that it is so sad.

Many have asked why is the governmnet doing this - the answer is the same it has always been greed and corruption.
HoustonPerson is offline  
post #79 of 2861 Old 03-15-2010, 09:58 AM
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
FCC TO SEND NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN TO CONGRESS

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-296859A1.pdf

To be delivered to Congress tomorrow, but they listed the general goals and recommendations.

Quote:


  • Connect 100 million households to affordable 100-megabits-per-second service, building the world's largest market of high-speed broadband users and ensuring that new jobs and businesses are created in America.
  • Affordable access in every American community to ultra-high-speed broadband of at least 1 gigabit per second at anchor institutions such as schools, hospitals, and military installations so that America is hosting the experiments that produce tomorrow's ideas and industries.
  • Ensure that the United States is leading the world in mobile innovation by making 500 megahertz of spectrum newly available for licensed and unlicensed use.
  • Move our adoption rates from roughly 65 percent to more than 90 percent and make sure that every child in America is digitally literate by the time he or she leaves high school.
  • Bring affordable broadband to rural communities, schools, libraries, and vulnerable populations by transitioning existing Universal Service Fund support from yesterday’s analog technologies to tomorrow’s digital infrastructure.
  • Promote competition across the broadband ecosystem by ensuring greater transparency, removing barriers to entry, and conducting market-based analysis with quality data on price, speed, and availability.
  • Enhance the safety of the American people by providing every first responder with access to a nationwide, wireless, interoperable public safety network.

Falcon_77 is offline  
post #80 of 2861 Old 03-15-2010, 11:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kenglish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Posts: 5,393
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 31
But, with my little old antenna and a converter box, I ALREADY have 330 MBps of digital service, in the form of 17 Digital TV stations.
Why would they want to take that away, and leave me with You Tube and Facebook?
Add my satellite (FTA) dishes and receivers, and I have thousands of MBps of other Digital, non-local radio and TV.

So, why do I need to BUY so much broadband? I could get by with ten or twenty meg, easily.

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 #81 of 2861 Old 03-15-2010, 01:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
kenglish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Posts: 5,393
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Well, they leaked much of it today:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...m_Deadline.php

We lose half the channels we have left (those 2-51 that were left after the "Digital Transition" of last year). Mobile Satellite Services, like Inmarsat and others used by customers on planes, ships, etc lose the next biggest block 9about 90 MHz).

Sounds like stations will be changing out equipment, antennas, etc again over the next 4-1/2 to 5 years (at a cost of billions). And, it is probably doomsday for rural TV translator services in places like Utah.

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 #82 of 2861 Old 03-15-2010, 01:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HoustonPerson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 3,848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
I am all for the new Plan and all the news fees listed on Page Three of this six page report. AND of course it will vastly improve both my Health Care and My E-Care. You just knew Health Care had to get in it! I have not yet experienced E-Care, so I don't know what that is?

Yep it's right there in the report! Yep read it and weep!

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-296858A1.pdf
HoustonPerson is offline  
post #83 of 2861 Old 03-15-2010, 02:43 PM
Advanced Member
 
Desert Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bakersfield California
Posts: 979
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Eliminating analog low power stations would free up a lot of spectrum. Let's see what could be done in Bakersfield. Cocola owns 3 analog channels. They could keep one of them and make it digital and get rid of the other 2. The 1 digital channel could carry all 3 existing programs and 3 new ones. They also have a CP for channel 12, which is VHF and doesn't count since wireless companies don't want VHF. TBN wants out of the low power business. We're up to 3 freed up channels. Univision could get rid of their 2 analog LPs and keep their full power station. The LPs are already simulcast on KUVI. The downside is no HD Univision or Telefutura. We're up to 5 freed up channels. Channel 19 is nothing but a static slide. Kill this one. Up to 6. 3ABN is on analog 8 and 24. They want to go digital on 7. Wireless companies don't want VHF anyway, so this one doesn't really count. Dump analog 24 and 7 channels are free. Analog 42 has Azteca, which is simulcast on KERO on RF10. Dump 42. Up to 8 cleared channels. Fox 58 is out of core. They want to relocate to RF29. -1 for a running total of 7. 46 is KCET's translator. Probably not up for grabs. 47 is all infomercials. Venture Technologies may or may not be interested in selling off this one. KNXT Visalia has a translator on 38. They could dump it and lease space on Cocola's digital LP. 8 maybe 9 cleared channels for 48 MHZ or 54MHZ of wireless spectrum without losing any full power stations or the one existing digital low power station. The casualties are HD Univision and Telefutura.

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 offline  
post #84 of 2861 Old 03-15-2010, 03:20 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 kenglish View Post

Well, they leaked much of it today:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...m_Deadline.php

We lose half the channels we have left (those 2-51 that were left after the "Digital Transition" of last year). Mobile Satellite Services, like Inmarsat and others used by customers on planes, ships, etc lose the next biggest block 9about 90 MHz).

Sounds like stations will be changing out equipment, antennas, etc again over the next 4-1/2 to 5 years (at a cost of billions). And, it is probably doomsday for rural TV translator services in places like Utah.

The commission has said it wants to auction 120 mHZ of broadcast spectrum, the most from any incumbent user, by 2013, and clear those users of the band--voluntarily--by 2015.

If a station is on one of the auction off frequencies what is going to be so "voluntary" about them having to leave? What if they say no? Is the FCC going ot say "Ok you can stay"? Of course not. There is nothing voluntary about this.

"We appreciate the FCC's and the broadband team's focus on making 500 MHz of spectrum for broadband within 10 years, of which 300 MHz should be made available for mobile use within five years."

Considering there is only 222 MHz of sprectrum from Ch 14-51 and they want 500 basically we can kiss OTA TV goodbye within 10 years.
BCF68 is offline  
post #85 of 2861 Old 03-15-2010, 06:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
systems2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Central Franklin County, PA.
Posts: 2,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


But the FCC's advice to Congress is that there is a growing spectrum crisis that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. "If the U.S. does not address this situation promptly," says the plan, "scarcity of mobile broadband could mean higher prices, poor service quality, an inability for the U.S. to compete internationally, depressed demand and, ultimately, a drag on innovation."

It appears that no crisis will go by without the citizens being taken advantage of.
systems2000 is offline  
post #86 of 2861 Old 03-16-2010, 06:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kenglish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Posts: 5,393
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 31
After my last post, I got to thinking....
This may also be the end of wireless microphones, unless the government can create a new, probably for pay, band for them.
Not much room left in the NEW UHF band, after all this.

I guess Celine will have to sing in to her iPhone in Vegas from now on. I guess "there's an app for that".

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 #87 of 2861 Old 03-16-2010, 08:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jtbell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clinton, SC
Posts: 3,822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenglish View Post

it is probably doomsday for rural TV translator services in places like Utah.

Or western North Carolina. All the major network stations serving that area have systems of translators. So far only UNC-TV (PBS) has converted theirs to digital. The CBS and FOX affiliates have applied for or gotten CPs to convert theirs.

I remember reading about a new kind of setup (DTS? not sure about the acronym) in which several transmitters for the same station share the same frequency. Could a typical system of translators be converted to do that?
jtbell is offline  
post #88 of 2861 Old 03-16-2010, 08:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
dr1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Mizar 5
Posts: 3,149
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Here it is. The full text of "the plan".

http://download.broadband.gov/plan/n...dband-plan.pdf

Ron

HD MPEG-2 Test Patterns http://www.w6rz.net
dr1394 is offline  
post #89 of 2861 Old 03-16-2010, 08:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jtbell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clinton, SC
Posts: 3,822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:

From page 88:

Quote:
RECOMMENDATION 5.8.5: the FCC should initiate a rulemaking proceeding to reallocate 120 megahertz from the broadcast television (TV) bands, including:

➤ update rules on TV service areas and distance separations and revise the table of allotments to ensure the most efficient allotment of six-megahertz channel assignments as a starting point.

➤ establish a licensing framework to permit two or more stations to share a six-megahertz channel.

➤ determine rules for auctions of broadcast spectrum reclaimed through repacking and voluntary channel sharing.

➤ explore alternatives—including changes in broadcast technical architecture, an overlay license auction, or more extensive channel sharing—in the event the preceding recommendations do not yield a significant amount of spectrum.

➤ take additional measures to increase efficiency of spectrum use in the broadcast TV bands.

Quote:
[...] Reallocation would focus primarily on major markets where the broadcast TV bands are most congested and the need for additional spectrum for broadband use will be greatest. [...]

From page 90:

Quote:
Two stations could generally broadcast one primary HD video stream each over a shared six-megahertz channel.[97] Some stations are already broadcasting multiple HD streams simultaneously today and claim to deliver “spectacular” signal quality that “consistently satisfies [their] discerning viewers.”[98]

I wonder which stations those are? And who those "discerning viewers" are?

[added] The footnote for the first sentence reads, in part:

Quote:
Each station may not have sufficient capacity to maintain current HD picture quality if both are transmitting highly complex HD programming simultaneously. Such incidences occur infrequently, however. […] Stations have several options to mitigate the potential impact to over-the-air signal quality, including statistical multiplexing, bit grooming, and rate shaping. In addition, stations may be able to achieve at least a 15% improvement in MPEG-2 efficiency through more advanced encoding techniques.

The footnote for the second sentence references a "Letter from Craig Jahelka, Vice President and General Manager, WBOC 16, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC". Anybody here have any experience with WBOC?
jtbell is offline  
post #90 of 2861 Old 03-16-2010, 10:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kenglish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Posts: 5,393
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Had the original DTV plans included co-location of all channels in a market, and some mandatory requirements for Directed Channel-Change in the receivers, we could allocate bandwidth "on the fly", moving channels of programming to different RF channels invisibly (to the viewer).

That would allow high-bandwidth shows (like sports) to move to channels that are coasting along with talking head content.

But, it may be too late for that. Or, maybe not, IF the FCC is serious about making such huge changes anyway.

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  
Reply HDTV Technical

User Tag List

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