AVS Official Topic - The FCC & Broadcast Spectrum - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 2861 Old 03-16-2010, 12:52 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
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]

Are the high over at the FCC? Evenly split that's less than 9 Mbps. I noticed a difference when the lcoal station added subchannels and went from over 17 Mbps to 13 Mbps. If stations switch to mpeg-4, sure then you could have 2 HD channels at the same time. Is the FCC going to help pay for stations to make that conversion? Of course since no TVs have mpeg-4 decoders is the FCC going to give out coupons for mpeg-4 converter boxes once someone decides to actually make them?
BCF68 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 2861 Old 03-16-2010, 12:59 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:


➤➤ Low power DTV transition. The FCC should establish a deadline to achieve the DTV transition of low-power TV (LPTV) stations by the end of 2015 or after the reallocation of spectrum from the broadcast TV bands is complete. In addition, the FCC should grant similar license flexibility to LPTV stations post-DTV transition as full-power stations have, allow LPTV stations to use certain technologies (such as mask filters) to enable more efficient channel allotments, and authorize LPTV stations to participate in incentive auctions.

So, we are already calling this a "reallocation of spectrum"? Not to be confused with the last two, of course.

2015? That seems quite distant for the LPTV digital transition. We still have a few analog LP's in the LA area, but two of those are in already auctioned spectrum. I can see LP/LD stations in the future being relegated to shared "muxes," but I bet the ones already running 8+ channels won't like that idea too much.

Quote:


➤➤ Very high frequency (VHF) reception issues. The FCC should pursue additional options to address VHF reception issues, such as increased power limits or adoption of enhanced antenna and receiver standards. Without these measures, VHF stations may continue to request channel reassignments to the UHF band, complicating efforts to reallocate spectrum from that band to mobile broadband use.

What measures? The elimination of most sources of VHF interference, including lightning? Dropping 2-6 would help to close off interference to 7-13, if receivers could be made to filter out signals below 174MHz.

Keeping 2-6 has proven to allow an expanded window of interference into receivers, even in areas not utilizing 2-6 for TV.

Heaven forbid that any more stations move to UHF to disrupt the plans of wireless broadband!

Or, how about this wording:

Quote:


If the FCC does not receive authorization to conduct incentive auctions, or if the incentive auctions do not yield a significant amount of spectrum, the FCC should pursue other mechanisms.
...
Transition to a cellular architecture on a voluntary or involuntary basis.



Ultimately, this is sounding as "voluntary" as paying taxes.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Falcon_77 is offline  
post #93 of 2861 Old 03-16-2010, 01:06 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 BCF68 View Post

Some stations are already broadcasting multiple HD streams simultaneously today and claim to deliver “spectacular” signal quality that “consistently satisfies [their] discerning viewers.”

If anyone can claims LivWell's "HD" quality to be "spectacular," they need to re-read the definition.

I'm thinking that another "tacular" that starts with a "c" is more appropriate.

MPEG-4 would help, but we would need another transition.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Falcon_77 is offline  
post #94 of 2861 Old 03-16-2010, 01:50 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
HELL NO TO MPEG4!

We absolutely do not need another switch to a non backward compatible tv system for the next 40 years at minumum! A change of that magnitude should be a once in a lifetime thing. The switch from analog to the current digital system has yielded great benefits and was sure interesting to see played out, but it also cost a lot of money, time, and effort for viewers and broadcasters. I am not ready to repeat it. NO MORE CHANGES TO OUR TV BROADCASTING SYSTEM! NOT FOR MORE MOBILE BROADBAND, NOT FOR ULTRA HD 4000p, NOT FOR 3D, NOT FOR ALL OF THE ABOVE PLUS SMELLIVISION!

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 #95 of 2861 Old 03-16-2010, 03:25 PM
Member
 
Jeff747's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Wichita, Kansas
Posts: 30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
[NOT FOR ALL OF THE ABOVE PLUS SMELLIVISION!]

That's funny, it helps a person laugh instead of cry!
Jeff747 is offline  
post #96 of 2861 Old 03-16-2010, 03:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Scooper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Youngsville, NC USA
Posts: 5,062
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff747 View Post

[NOT FOR ALL OF THE ABOVE PLUS SMELLIVISION!]

That's funny, it helps a person laugh instead of cry!

Actually - that should be "tele-smell", not SMELLIVISION

You CAN put antennas on your owned and/or controlled property...

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Being A Beacon of Knowledge in the darkness of FUD
Scooper is offline  
post #97 of 2861 Old 03-17-2010, 10:02 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
PCWorld online just posted the following article about the FCC's proposal: http://www.pcworld.com/article/19169...nl_dnx_h_crawl

I've yet to read the actual proposal, which some of you have linked in this thread, as I'm just now catching up on the thread, but I get the impression from the article that at least the FCC is including hardwire builds as at least a big part of its plan.

However, as has been pointed out, if they think they're going to be able to access 300-500 Mhz more from the TV spectrum, when there's only 222 Mhz in all of 14-51 (according to one poster above), they're smoking some serious sh*t and really ARE talking about the death of broadcast TV and radio.

While I agree that in an "ideal world," wireless broadband would be available everywhere and in great quantities, if that means the elimination of broadcast TV and radio as a consequence, I just don't see it -- at least not unless the government does something like what's quoted above that exists in most of Europe, i.e. wire all homes for "plug-in" access to all the stations.

Until and unless everyone who's hooked up to the electrical grid has access to what is currently broadcast TV (maybe transmitted through the electrical grid), eliminating broadcast TV is a NON-STARTER.
Jeff

Life is the only constant...

JeffAHayes is offline  
post #98 of 2861 Old 03-17-2010, 10:39 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US | Age: 25
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA Send a message via Yahoo to Trip in VA
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffAHayes View Post

Until and unless everyone who's hooked up to the electrical grid has access to what is currently broadcast TV (maybe transmitted through the electrical grid), eliminating broadcast TV is a NON-STARTER.
Jeff

BPL doesn't work. The electrical grid is unshielded, thus blasting interference all over everything when trying to send data through it.

- Trip

N4MJC

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


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


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

Trip in VA is online now  
post #99 of 2861 Old 03-17-2010, 11:13 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
Well I'll let the technicians figure out the technical stuff, Trip. All I know is that when they first started talking about all this telecom deregulation in the mid-90s, the PR person with our local Duke Power office (they were a major advertiser with the weekly paper at which I was a co-owner) talked excitedly about the possibilities for power companies to provide things like telephone and cable TV somehow via their existing infrastructure, OR add-ons TO their existing infrastructure.

There HAS TO BE a way to do it, although I agree with you it seems simply logical that all that 60hz oscillating current would wreak havoc with any communications signals running concurrent with it.

Maybe there's some way to put a shield around the electrical wires and then run a second cable around that shield, or beside it? I really don't know all these technical things. I just know that figures of $15 Billion to roll out 100 Mbps broadband to 100 Million people (and the way that read, I got the impression that was all going to be HARD-WIRED broadband), and another $15 billion, or so, to do similar things with wireless, seem VERY conservative to me UNLESS that's just the government's part of a HUGE public-private partnership with the industry in which the government is providing only 25%, or so, of the total build-out cost.

I do also agree, however, with one of the assertions I read in the article that failure to do this and claims it's not needed is tantamount to claiming we didn't need to build the Interstate highway system during the Eisenhower administration. Broadband is going to be SO IMPORTANT to everyday life in the not-too-distant future many people won't be able to imagine a time they ever lived without it.
Jeff

Life is the only constant...

JeffAHayes is offline  
post #100 of 2861 Old 03-18-2010, 07:06 AM
Senior Member
 
spokybob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Nearly every home in America has a phone line. If the wire was replaced with a fiber-optic we could have TV, internet & telephone all in one. No more TV cable on the power poles and no more antennas or dishes on the roof.

Bob 61231
spokybob is offline  
post #101 of 2861 Old 03-18-2010, 09:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jtbell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clinton, SC
Posts: 3,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffAHayes View Post

if they think they're going to be able to access 300-500 Mhz more from the TV spectrum

They don't. They think they can reclaim 120 MHz of spectrum from the broadcast TV bands, i.e. 20 channels out of either 50 or 45 channels, depending on whether one considers low-VHF to be viable for broadcast TV (which of course most of us here don't).
jtbell is offline  
post #102 of 2861 Old 03-18-2010, 09:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
dr1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Mizar 5
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 21
BPL is only mentioned once in the plan. Here's the Amateur Radio comment on the plan.

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/03/16/11393/?nc=1

Ron

HD MPEG-2 Test Patterns
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dr1394 is online now  
post #103 of 2861 Old 03-18-2010, 10:40 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
Actually, the way the way the link you posted above reads, dr1394, things don't sound all that bad... IF the FCC can TRULY make a SOUND transition of digital TV back to VHF by addressing the problems currently inherent with DTV in the VHF spectrum, and there's enough bandwidth to accomodate all the stations in the VHF spectrum, I don't see too much of an issue.

The primary issue to me is ensuring that no stations currently broadcasting are forced off the air and also that whatever they are asked, or mandated to do doesn't make their signals all but inaccessable to those who receive TV via antenna.

I also noticed that MOST of the bandwidth the FCC is talking about is way beyond and above what's being used for TV, ALTHOUGH a lot of it is in the general area used for routers... Then again, it looked like they're talking about skipping a few Mhz here and there, likely to avoid interference with things like wireless routers.

I have no problem with a two-pronged approach (wired and wireless), so long as it's win-win-win. But it really DID look -- at least in the beginning -- like the FCC was on track to sacrifice a lot of DTV in order to give folks wireless broadband. I'm getting the impression that position has been modified to a great extent (or else they're just hiding their true intent until they can get it codified and thus much more difficult for the broadcast industry to fight).

If the FCC truly is trying to work in the public interest here, then it could do a tremendous amount of good with this broadband plan. But if the interests of certain corporations with powerful lobbyists are being addressed at the costs of the rest of us, well... Can anyone say "business as usual???"
Jeff

Life is the only constant...

JeffAHayes is offline  
post #104 of 2861 Old 03-18-2010, 10:42 AM
Member
 
Rando01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Panama City, Florida
Posts: 22
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Gee...I kinda like my free OTA TV reception, since its all I get right now, just another way to get more money out of everyone.
Rando01 is offline  
post #105 of 2861 Old 03-18-2010, 12:21 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 JeffAHayes View Post

IF the FCC can TRULY make a SOUND transition of digital TV back to VHF by addressing the problems currently inherent with DTV in the VHF spectrum, and there's enough bandwidth to accomodate all the stations in the VHF spectrum, I don't see too much of an issue.

That's a very big IF, under ATSC.

Well, they can start by banning lightning... and by banning any electrical devices within 500' feet of any receivers.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Falcon_77 is offline  
post #106 of 2861 Old 03-18-2010, 07:30 PM
Advanced Member
 
goaliebob99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Manteno, IL (from there) Live in BearBonnais!
Posts: 500
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Are you kidding me! First we have to give up for the dtv transition. Ok I got it, they need frequency's for public emergency access for first responders! But to force broadcasters to give up their public spectrum so you can sell it for internet access for cellular providers. Uhhh Hell no! What happened to the auctions that they just had? What about those frequency's and why cant they use the existing frequency's they have already! Why not just give everyone a fiber line to the home (are you hearing me ATT?) Don't mess with my Pristine CBS feed (WBBM) I'm calling for a firing of the dude who 1. thought this up, and 2. who's in charge of the FCC. Are you kidding me!

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/articles/2010/03/17/daily.2/
goaliebob99 is offline  
post #107 of 2861 Old 03-18-2010, 08:15 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
Goalie, the simple fact is that they're probably going to shrink the UHF spectrum some more -- and there probably is room to shrink it a little bit, if TV stations do the things they need to do to economize bandwidth.

But I'm in TOTAL AGREEMENT that they have NO BUSINESS in eliminating any broadcast availability for antenna-only TV viewers -- particularly after all the hassle and hullabaloo many folks who watch TV solely via antenna went through for the digital transition... If they do, they deserve something along the lines of a REAL "digital revolution," along the lines of millions of people writing and calling their House Members and Senators and raising almighty hell!
Jeff

Life is the only constant...

JeffAHayes is offline  
post #108 of 2861 Old 03-18-2010, 08:26 PM
Advanced Member
 
goaliebob99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Manteno, IL (from there) Live in BearBonnais!
Posts: 500
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffAHayes View Post

Goalie, the simple fact is that they're probably going to shrink the UHF spectrum some more -- and there probably is room to shrink it a little bit, if TV stations do the things they need to do to economize bandwidth.

But I'm in TOTAL AGREEMENT that they have NO BUSINESS in eliminating any broadcast availability for antenna-only TV viewers -- particularly after all the hassle and hullabaloo many folks who watch TV solely via antenna went through for the digital transition... If they do, they deserve something along the lines of a REAL "digital revolution," along the lines of millions of people writing and calling their House Members and Senators and raising almighty hell!
Jeff

I tend to think that they forget that there are allot of satellite customers out there who do use OTA in conjunction with there satellite services today. Heck all of my dish receivers have an active ATSC inputs that do get used. Its a very nice backup for the occasions where there are weather outages and they add to the services as they give me two additional tuners I can record local/network programming from.
goaliebob99 is offline  
post #109 of 2861 Old 03-18-2010, 08:48 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
My DISH receivers are the same, goalie, and were I not near the bottom of a rather long hill, with a lot of tall trees around me, to boot, I'd also have an antenna hooked up to mine... But even back before cable was available, at the highest point on our property, with a 20 + foot mast we barely got reception on the "Big 3" networks (Fox didn't exist then), and it was fuzzy most of the time on all but one of them.

My guess is that if I put up a 40 or 50-foot mast and a state-of-the-art antenna I might do OK with ATSC broadcast channels, but it's just not worth spending that much money to "test the theory," since I'd be OUT that money if it didn't work and I already get all that with DISH (except when weather causes it problems) EXCEPT that DISH doesn't offer the PBS and WC channels in HD. I can deal with that. I don't like it, but I can deal with it, considering what it would cost me to experiment with the antenna option (I tried hooking up the OLD antenna -- still there from the "bad old days") when we got our first HDTV with an ATSC input, but there wasn't enough signal strength for ANYTHING to tune in. Then I unhooked it, because it's essentially a lightning rod and little else if it's not functioning as an antenna.
Jeff

Life is the only constant...

JeffAHayes is offline  
post #110 of 2861 Old 03-19-2010, 01:20 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US | Age: 25
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA Send a message via Yahoo to Trip in VA
For those interested in my opinion of the National Broadband Plan, I restarted the blog on RabbitEars and wrote an opinion piece about it: http://www.rabbitears.info/blog/inde...Broadband-Plan

- Trip

N4MJC

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


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


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

Trip in VA is online now  
post #111 of 2861 Old 03-19-2010, 12:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dr1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Mizar 5
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 21
http://www.lightreading.com/blog.asp...doc_id=189392&

I post this here because in any conflict, know thy enemy.

Ron

HD MPEG-2 Test Patterns
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dr1394 is online now  
post #112 of 2861 Old 03-21-2010, 12:15 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
I just finished watching that video link you posted, dr1394... It didn't sound TOO awful bad for broadcast TV, but it didn't sound particularly stellar, either, since the guys seemed rather excited about the prospect of wireless carriers picking up more spectrum from existing broadcast TV bandwidth (although the one guy did say that Sprint and one other carrier already have way more than they need -- even with new products they're about to roll out that will include more intensive video-on-demand).

One possibility I haven't seen even hinted at in ANY of these discussions, however, that seems very simple and logical to me, is rather than (or in addition to) including much more online video capability for smart phones ALSO including on-board ATSC TV and possibly radio tuners for them as one of their apps in their console, such that owners could simple switch to "TV Mode" and watch OTA TV right on their smart phones.

I know that the technology of cell phone antennas vastly improved when they started using different internal antennas based on fractal patterns, but I don't know how well those antennas will pick up TV signals (I have to assume if they'll pick up telephone signals at the same bandwidth, they WILL pick up TV signals to at least SOME extent). Of course this might seriously impact the bottom line of carriers who can charge a hefty fee for internet usage and particularly GBs downloaded per month, but one would think they could still charge users by the minute for actual MINUTES used on the phone watching TV, even if it's just OTA (and one would also think that if this is a viable alternative, many users might spend a lot more time watching programs this way than simply watching a single movie here and there).

Were they to implement some technology like this, it would doubtless reinforce the need for those broadcast channels and at the same time bring TV to cell phones in a much more real and true way than what's currently being considered.

Does this make sense, or am I missing something?
Jeff

Life is the only constant...

JeffAHayes is offline  
post #113 of 2861 Old 03-21-2010, 03:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
dr1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Mizar 5
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffAHayes View Post

although the one guy did say that Sprint and one other carrier already have way more than they need.....

Jeff

Unfortunately, Sprint's spectrum (in the 2.5 GHz BRS band) isn't available to other companies. They and Clearwire have a lock on it. It puts them at a competitive advantage (you've probably already seen the Sprint 4G ads) and the only way that other carriers can compete is to look for other spectrum. Even the new 700 MHz allocation doesn't make up the difference, since there's 120 MHz at 2.5 GHz versus 46 MHz at 700 MHz.

http://www4.sprint.com/servlet/white...=%274v994ya%27

The 2.5 GHz band has an interesting history. It was originally called the ITFS (Instructional Television Fixed Service) band. In the late 80's, the FCC allowed ITFS licensees to lease their spectrum and it became the MDS (Multipoint Distribution System) band. This is where HBO first became available long before satellite and before cable TV had much penetration. For those old enough to remember, it was one of the most ripped-off services ever after it was realized that the signal was being sent without any scrambling (it was a regular NTSC signal although sent "upside down" with the video carrier at the top of the channel, lower vestigial sideband and audio carrier at the bottom of the channel) with the receiver using high-side LO injection in invert the signal back to regular NTSC. At one point in Silicon Valley, almost every house had a microwave antenna (either a "coffee can" or disc Yagi) on the roof with a receiver bought from an ad in one of the electronics magazines. It was so out of hand, that eventually Melvin Belli was called in to represent the company that was getting ripped-off.

http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-...0/1096/241719/

Today, the 2.5 GHz band is called the BRS/EBS (Broadband Radio Service/Educational Broadcast Service). But most of the EBS licensees (most notably the Catholic Church) lease to Sprint/Clearwire.

http://www.wimax.com/education/faq/faq50

Unfortunately, this leasing arrangement at 2.5 GHz is where the FCC came up with the idea of DTV stations selling back their spectrum (the so-called "win-win" scenario). Except DTV stations don't get to lease, it's a one-time deal and "exit strategy" for DTV stations.

Ron

HD MPEG-2 Test Patterns
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dr1394 is online now  
post #114 of 2861 Old 03-21-2010, 03:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
dr1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Mizar 5
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Forget to post my favorite Clearwire links.

http://clearwiresucks.com/blog/

http://www.clearwireblows.com/

Ron

HD MPEG-2 Test Patterns
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dr1394 is online now  
post #115 of 2861 Old 03-21-2010, 08:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kenglish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Posts: 5,408
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by spokybob View Post

Nearly every home in America has a phone line. If the wire was replaced with a fiber-optic we could have TV, internet & telephone all in one. No more TV cable on the power poles and no more antennas or dishes on the roof.

And, no more competition.
And, very limited programming choices.

(May as well let the Government run it all .)

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 #116 of 2861 Old 03-21-2010, 09:07 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US | Age: 25
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA Send a message via Yahoo to Trip in VA
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenglish View Post

And, no more competition.
And, very limited programming choices.

(May as well let the Government run it all .)

Unless the government owns the last mile/maintains the infrastructure while private companies provide programming and services over that connection. I've read about several setups just like this popping up.

- Trip

N4MJC

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


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


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

Trip in VA is online now  
post #117 of 2861 Old 03-21-2010, 12:34 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 agree, for the most part, that the idea of "the government owning the last mile" of broadband infrastructure and ALL companies that do business having a sort of equal playing field in which to compete for business on that last mile as maybe a best-case scenario option.

My SOLE concern with this is the "what if" scenario when and if the government gets in some position where it wants to CONTROL the media -- to completely ELIMINATE the First Amendment freedoms everyone is so used to. Most of us can't even imagine such a scenario, but I think it's possible, and if the government truly did "own" that last mile, it's possible they'd have a quick and easy way of just shutting it down, as well.
Jeff

Life is the only constant...

JeffAHayes is offline  
post #118 of 2861 Old 03-21-2010, 08:52 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

...and watch OTA TV right on their smart phones.

And why would I want to do that?

I have a perfectly good collection of television sets that include a 40" DTV.

USEFUL LINKS:

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
systems2000 is offline  
post #119 of 2861 Old 03-22-2010, 06:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kenglish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Posts: 5,408
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffAHayes View Post

.......
My SOLE concern with this is the "what if" scenario when and if the government gets in some position where it wants to CONTROL the media -- to completely ELIMINATE the First Amendment freedoms everyone is so used to. Most of us can't even imagine such a scenario, but I think it's possible, and if the government truly did "own" that last mile, it's possible they'd have a quick and easy way of just shutting it down, as well.
Jeff

You mean "control" like they have always done with broadcasters? Regulatory fees, EEO requirements, investigations and fines for every complaint filed electronically by people who never even saw the program, constant requirements to buy new equipment to implement new EAS systems, etc?

The internet, if it becomes the de-facto way of receiving information, will be stifled by ever-increasing government regulation. After all, what ELSE would there be to regulate?

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 #120 of 2861 Old 03-22-2010, 07:24 AM
Senior Member
 
Tschmidt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Milford, NH
Posts: 303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenglish View Post

The internet, if it becomes the de-facto way of receiving information, will be stifled by ever-increasing government regulation.

That is a valid concern. The debate really comes down to whom would you rather control the Internet: private enterprise or government?

Seems to me as the Internet becomes ever more entwined with everyday life it becomes important to treat it like common carrier. The owner of first-mike access network should not be in a position to dictate how the connection is used or who is allowed to connect. Their role is to carry bits from point A to B.

The Phone Company of old constantly complained when the FCC would not let it charge higher rates for data and forced them to allow unmetered connection to dial-up ISPs. They rightly complained the voice network was not designed for lengthily calls and using it for data caused congestion problems. The FCC did not relent. Over time the ability to access the Internet in a non-discriminatory manner at fixed cost encouraged experimentation on helped drive rapid interest in Internet that in turn drove demand for higher speed connectivity.

Well-crafted legislation can ultimately work in the best interest of society while balancing the needs of private enterprise. In some cases it forces companies to do things in their long term interest they would otherwise be unable to do due to short term pressure on profitability.

/tom
Tschmidt 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