AVS Official Topic - The FCC & Broadcast Spectrum - Page 88 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #2611 of 2861 Old 01-22-2012, 10:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kenglish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Posts: 5,390
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 31
More and more, I am reading about (and hearing of) channels that are being "removed", either by government and political forces, or by business forces, from Cable TV and satellite lineups and internet.

Without some forms of over-the-air radio and television, is there really hope for a free flow of information, or is that just "hype" from the forces that would deny us our news and information, while dangling the attractive candy of the "internet-only" world in our faces?

Here are a couple of places to monitor what is happening worldwide:

http://www.kimandrewelliott.com/

http://blogs.rnw.nl/medianetwork/

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  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2612 of 2861 Old 01-24-2012, 08:04 AM
Advanced Member
 
dkreichen1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Monument, CO
Posts: 755
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Even in small markets, broadcasters are generating up to $1 million in annual revenue with a single subchannel, according to panelists at a NATPE session on multicasting.

Quote:


Too many TV stations are leaving millions in annual revenue on the table by not multicasting, according to three broadcasters who are not only airing digital subchannels but distributing them as well.

We have a station in a market ranked between 75 and 80 that's generating nearly $1 million in local revenue annually, said Sean Compton, president of programming at the Tribune Co., which distributes classic-TV network Antenna TV. There is money to be made.

Agreeing with his take was Emily Barr, president-GM of ABC-owned WLS Chicago, who said her station and others, including WFAA Dallas, have been boosting revenue and ratings on ABC's Live Well network by airing some of the channel's programs on their main channels on the weekend. We realized we were picking up a lot of syndicated programming to use as filler on the weekend, she said, but if you can do a couple of rating points on a Saturday or Sunday with a show from Live Well, you can promote the network and at the same time, bring in an advertiser on both sides with a package of spots running on both the main channel and the subchannel...

Neal Sabin, president of content and networks at ME-TV and Weigel Broadcasting, suggested that subchannels are duopolies, only you don't have to get permission from the FCC to have one.

Multicasting is also local broadcasting's best answer to local cable, Barr said. There's a lot of money tied up in local cable that none of us used to see. We can sell [subchannels] to advertisers who aren't interested in the main channel because of the cost.

Read More: http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/2...illions-behind

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

dkreichen1968 is offline  
post #2613 of 2861 Old 01-27-2012, 02:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JimboG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,594
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkreichen1968 View Post

Even in small markets, broadcasters are generating up to $1 million in annual revenue with a single subchannel, according to panelists at a NATPE session on multicasting.

Not sure how relevant this is to an HD forum.

Free over the air HDTV + Tivo HD + Netflix for Blu-ray and streaming = Bliss
JimboG is offline  
post #2614 of 2861 Old 01-28-2012, 05:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
OTAhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: In the Groves
Posts: 1,434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimboG View Post

Not sure how relevant this is to an HD forum.

This is a thread covering the FCC and BROADCAST SPECTRUM. Fully relevant.

You never know where the LIMIT is until you EXCEED it... Dianne B. "Let's try that again... without the oops." (Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum in "Independence Day")
OTAhead is offline  
post #2615 of 2861 Old 02-08-2012, 02:47 PM
Advanced Member
 
dkreichen1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Monument, CO
Posts: 755
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:


CEO David Smith says: There's a fundamental disagreement between the Democrats and Republicans over spectrum auction legislation and he sees no action likely in three-to-five years. He and other execs at the company say this year is shaping up to be a record on-year for political revenues at Sinclair and they have great expectations for the role super PACs will play.

The smoke signals wafting from Washington, D.C., suggest it's unlikely Democrats and Republicans will agree on legislation enabling a broadcast television spectrum auction this year, David Smith, president/CEO of Sinclair Broadcast Group, said during the company's financial results call this morning.

We've been getting out there and looking at whole spectrum issue, not just the auction itself and I think based on what I've seen on the Hill, there may not be an auction, Smith told analysts. There's a fundamental disagreement between the Democrats and Republicans on what the bill would say.

But the $64 question is will anyone want to come and sell their business. We've seen a tremendous number of broadcasters come out and say we have nothing for sale. We certainly have nothing for sale.

The FCC, under Chairman Julius Genachowski, has proposed a voluntary incentive auction of spectrum in the nation's larger markets. The initial plan called for broadcasters in those markets to voluntarily turn over unused or underused spectrum that would then be auctioned off to wireless broadband providers such as AT&T and Verizon.

Contending there's a shortage of wireless spectrum, brought on primarily by the growth of new wireless services including video, the FCC has proposed recapturing 120 mhz of broadcast spectrum.

Broadcasters have been wary of the plan since it was announced. Their concern centers on whether it would truly be a voluntary auction and, more broadly, their contention that there is no shortage and the auction is, in effect, a bandwidth power play by wireless broadband providers.

Read More: http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/2...about-auctions

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

dkreichen1968 is offline  
post #2616 of 2861 Old 02-09-2012, 08:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Calaveras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mountain Ranch
Posts: 2,815
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 76
I live in a rural area with no access to DSL or cable internet. I'm in the process of switching from satellite internet to a local provider who's operating a network of 2.4 GHz and 5.6 GHz repeaters that provide 2Mbps internet.

I asked him if he knew anything about any UHF channels that were reallocated after the DTV transition that were available for use by small rural providers like himself. He said "No. The spectrum was auctioned off to the big players and that they're just sitting on the allocations in rural areas."

Most of the reason for the existence of the National Broadband Plan was to get broadband internet to rural America. I don't see the slightest hint that anything is happening to achieve this. As long as this is the case, I remain 100% opposed to any further concessions by broadcasters to give up spectrum.

My impression is that if some of the reallocated TV spectrum was available to local providers that they could fill in the rural gaps with no other help. I'm not so naive to think though that any spectrum would be made available at little or no cost to the local providers so that they actually could implement the goals of the NBP.

Chuck
Calaveras is offline  
post #2617 of 2861 Old 02-09-2012, 01:05 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
Wireless TV Households on the Rise

http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/...he-rise/211740

Quote:


Wireless TV: It’s the latest thing. Nielsen’s latest Cross-Platform Report says U.S. households opting for the combination of broadband and wireless TV--otherwise known as “broadcasting”--rose nearly 23 percent between the third quarters of 2010 and last year...

Falcon_77 is offline  
post #2618 of 2861 Old 02-10-2012, 06:58 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
An interesting perspective on a band already lost to broadcasting here.

Europe angered by mobile spectrum proposal

http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2012/...trum-proposal/

Quote:
European delegates at the WRC-12 conference in Geneva have expressed their dismay at proposals by Arab and African regional administrations to take broadcast spectrum in the 700 MHz band and allocate it to mobile services.An agreement reached the WRC-07 conference reallocated the 800 MHz band from broadcasting and make it available to mobile services. At the time it was not anticipated that a second request might be made for further spectrum.

“Such a decision would cause considerable problems in Europe, where the 700 MHz band is heavily used for terrestrial broadcasting with, in many cases, long-term licensing arrangements in place. Broadcasters also consider this band as being crucial to the future development of innovative new terrestrial services,” said the EBU.

The proposal to reallocate the 700MHz band to mobile services is opposed by the European administrations, represented by CEPT, and also by the RCC group of countries that between them make up ITU Region 1.

In Africa and the Arab States spectrum is not at such a premium. Few countries have moved to digital broadcasting and those that have are opting for DVB-T2, the European next generation terrestrial broadcast standard, known for its spectrum efficiency.

Falcon_77 is offline  
post #2619 of 2861 Old 02-13-2012, 01:12 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
What to make of AT&T’s vanishing spectrum crisis

http://gigaom.com/broadband/atts-van...ectrum-crisis/

Quote:


Is AT&T failing to keep its story straight about the need for more spectrum, or is it just that the popping of the spectrum bubble has taken them by surprise as well? Recently the nation’s second largest operator has seemed to back off from some of its more aggressive claims about how fast data traffic was growing.

As Dave Burstein of Fast Net News first highlighted in late January, AT&T’s senior management told investors on two separate occasions last month that “The base increase of data consumption right now is growing 40 percent a year,” and “LTE does give us a 30 percent to 40 percent lift in network efficiency, but at current growth rates, that equates to only about a year’s increase in traffic”. Remarkably that 40 percent figure is not only far less than the growth rates projected by Cisco and assumed in the FCC’s October 2010 working paper (which argued that 300MHz of additional spectrum was needed by 2014), but it also contrasts dramatically with the figures AT&T itself presented when it announced the planned takeover of T-Mobile in March last year.

In that March 2011 presentation AT&T projected that data volumes would grow by 8 to 10 times between the end of 2010 and the end of 2015, based on an expectation that volumes would roughly double in 2011 and then increase by a further 65 percent in 2012. However, if we instead project out the current 40 percent increase in data consumption that AT&T is seeing then volumes would only increase by 5-6 times by 2015. Ironically, if that rate of growth was applied to the FCC’s October 2010 model, all of this data traffic would easily be accommodated for the rest of this decade by existing spectrum allocations under the FCC’s own assumptions of new cell site deployments and spectrum efficiency gains from new technologies...

Falcon_77 is offline  
post #2620 of 2861 Old 02-16-2012, 09:55 AM
Advanced Member
 
dkreichen1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Monument, CO
Posts: 755
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:


The compromise legislation would generate savings from government sales of parts of the broadcast spectrum to wireless companies. The spectrum auction is supposed to raise about $15 billion even after $7 billion would be spent for a new communications network for emergency workers. A vote is expected Friday.

Read More: http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/2...n-payroll-bill


NAB Statement
Quote:


WASHINGTON, D.C. -- In response to the announced compromise on extending the payroll tax cut that includes voluntary incentive auctions as a pay-for, the following statement can be attributed to NAB President and CEO Gordon Smith:

"NAB salutes the tireless efforts of Congress to ensure that local broadcasters have a vibrant and robust future. Special thanks go to Chairmen Upton and Walden for steering this bill to conclusion, and to Reps. Dingell and Bilbray for a critically important amendment guaranteeing continued viewer access to TV station signals along the Canadian and Mexican borders.

"Tens of millions of Americans rely every day on local TV broadcasters for news, entertainment, sports and life-saving weather warnings. We look forward to working with Congress and the FCC to implement an incentive auction program that does not jeopardize that service."

Read Here: NAB News Release: NAB Statement on Spectrum Provisions in Payroll Tax Cut Extension Compromise

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

dkreichen1968 is offline  
post #2621 of 2861 Old 02-16-2012, 10:17 AM - Thread Starter
 
BCF68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,463
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19

Beginning of then end for broadcast TV. When the 120 MHz at&t and Verizon gets from OTA runs out they'll ask for more and they'll get it.
BCF68 is offline  
post #2622 of 2861 Old 02-16-2012, 10:38 AM
Advanced Member
 
dkreichen1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Monument, CO
Posts: 755
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

Beginning of then end for broadcast TV. When the 120 MHz at&t and Verizon gets from OTA runs out they'll ask for more and they'll get it.

It's obvious from the NAB statement that the house version is the version included in the Pay Roll tax bill, and as such, there is no 120 MHz number in the bill. There is nothing in the bill that says that broadcasters have to sell ANY spectrum. Don't make the mistake of repeating old information that has no current relevance. At this point I doubt there even is an auction, even if the bill passes (which I don't doubt it will). There will be very few volunteers, and most won't be in areas where there is any need for spectrum, which means the government is going to spend a lot of time and money doing absolutely nothing.

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

dkreichen1968 is offline  
post #2623 of 2861 Old 02-16-2012, 11:00 AM - Thread Starter
 
BCF68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,463
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkreichen1968 View Post

It's obvious from the NAB statement that the house version is the version included in the Pay Roll tax bill, and as such, there is no 120 MHz number in the bill. There is nothing in the bill that says that broadcasters have to sell ANY spectrum.

Considering the government is EXPECTS revenue from the auctions to pay for this stuff what if no one sells? They WILL want that money. Don't be so naive to think that voluntary actually means voluntary. There's not a single broadcaster that has a license past 2015. It's not taking away spectrum if the station in question no longer has a license to use that spectrum.

And even if no one sells that doesn't stop the FCC from re-packing channels to clear up spectrum. Once again if you think that in 5 years OTA will go all the way up to channel 51 you're being naive.

Also some will sell voluntarily meaning LESS choices for those getting TV via OTA.
BCF68 is offline  
post #2624 of 2861 Old 02-16-2012, 11:51 AM
Advanced Member
 
dkreichen1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Monument, CO
Posts: 755
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

Considering the government EXPECTS revenue from the auctions to pay for this stuff what if no one sells? They WILL want that money.

They will get the money the same way they do now. The Treasury will issue Treasury bills and sell them to the Federal Reserve who will "issue" the money to buy them. There hasn't been an auction yet that generated the money the government "expected."

I have to point out that even Blair Leven has said that if the house bill passes it would result in a "failed" auction, and other "insiders" are estimating that it will be at least 5 years before the FCC could organize an auction, and since the auction is suppose to fund the repack...

Yeah, yeah, the FCC could revoke all the broadcast licenses and sell the whole band. Then why don't they? Why ask Congress to do anything? Because it just isn't that simple!!!

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

dkreichen1968 is offline  
post #2625 of 2861 Old 02-16-2012, 12:26 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 dkreichen1968 View Post

They will get the money the same way they do now. The Treasury will issue Treasury bills and sell them to the Federal Reserve who will "issue" the money to buy them. There hasn't been an auction yet that generated the money the government "expected."

I have to point out that even Blair Leven has said that if the house bill passes it would result in a "failed" auction, and other "insiders" are estimating that it will be at least 5 years before the FCC could organize an auction, and since the auction is suppose to fund the repack...

Yeah, yeah, the FCC could revoke all the broadcast licenses and sell the whole band. Then why don't they? Why ask Congress to do anything? Because it just isn't that simple!!!

They don't have to revoke anything. If a station has a license that expires in 2015 then after 2015 what is there to rovoke? The FCC just doesn't have to renew it.

5 years before an auction? yeah right. All you hear is how there is this spetrum crunch and at&t and Verizon need it NOW. 2 years ago when this first got talked about they wanted the spectrum by 2015 with auction taking place in 2012. I suspect a hurried up verison of this. Auctions by late 2013/early 2014 and stations moved in 2016.
BCF68 is offline  
post #2626 of 2861 Old 02-16-2012, 04:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Nitewatchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Middletown, Ohio
Posts: 6,265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I found A few more details on the incentive auction portions of payroll tax cut deal in these articles :

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-57...-tax-cut-bill/

http://www.rbr.com/tv-cable/incentiv...he-runway.html

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

If few, or no broadcasters "voluntarily" participate, I must wonder, in addition to repacking if it may be possible there may be not-so-voluntary requirements for channel sharing whenever it may be we see a report and order on this ....

Jeff
Nitewatchman is offline  
post #2627 of 2861 Old 02-17-2012, 02:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Macon, GA
Posts: 1,627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitewatchman View Post

I found A few more details on the incentive auction portions of payroll tax cut deal in these articles :

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

Thanks to that website we have this information.

Quote:


At a press conference on the spectrum legislation, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) pointed out that the bill was not a done deal just yet. He said that only 53 senators were committed to the compromise package at press time, and it would take 60 for passage..

Nothing will happen immediately, with the FCC still needing to come up with auction rules. It will likely take anywhere from five to 10 years to complete the process. Congress has given the FCC a decade -- until 2022 -- to complete the reverse auction, in which broadcasters will submit their asking price for spectrum, and the second auction of that spectrum, likely to wireless carriers.


Broadcast TV - a vital national public resource
Jedi Master is offline  
post #2628 of 2861 Old 02-17-2012, 01:18 PM
Advanced Member
 
dkreichen1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Monument, CO
Posts: 755
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:


So, why isn't the passage a triumph for Levin? Because Levin says it isn't at least not an unqualified one.

According to Levin, his pristine idea was corrupted during the lawmaking process by provisions tacked on to protect or advance the interests of this or that group.

Taken together, he says, the provisions seriously diminish the chances of a successful auction that will reallocate great swatches of spectrum from TV to broadband he had originally hoped for 120 MHz and generate great gobs of cash for the federal treasury.

"The legislation ties the FCC's hands in a variety of ways," Levin said in a Jan. 5 TVNewsCheck story. "It opens it up to litigation risk, which then, in conjunction with the other handcuffs, makes it difficult to pull off a successful auction."

One of the troublesome provisions was won by the NAB, whose controlling members decided early on they were not interested in giving up any spectrum even for a payoff.

Let's assume that a bunch of broadcasters decides to give up their spectrum and participate in the auction. Before the FCC could put it on the auction block, it would have to repack the TV band that is, shuffle channel assignments so that entire channels or blocks of adjacent channels can be cleared for auction.

The NAB provision would require the FCC to "make all reasonable efforts" to preserve a station's coverage area during the repacking process. Such language doesn't sound onerous, but Levin feels it will inevitably lead to suits from broadcasters who believe that their new channel assignment is not quite as good as the old one.

So, if the passage of the authorizing legislation isn't a triumph for Levin, who is it a triumph for?

NAB President Gordon Smith.

Even Levin thinks so. In that same Jan. 5 story, he congratulates Smith for doing the job he was hired to do. "I respect him for that."

In addition to the key "reasonable efforts" provision, Smith and the NAB were able to attach two other safeguards to the legislation with the help of their Republican allies on the Hill.

One guarantees that broadcasters who have to change channels will either get reimbursed for the cost or a waiver that allows them to use some of their spectrum for non-broadcast purposes. The other bars the FCC from shifting any station into the digital abyss of the VHF band.

So, I would add my congratulations to those of Levin. Smith did a great job. He showed that he has a place at the table when issues of consequence to broadcasting are discussed on Capitol Hill

But there was a missed opportunity here. There is much to like in the incentive auction, including the fact that it tacitly confers spectrum property rights on broadcasters.

If the FCC, broadcasters and broadband proponents could have found a way to work together, they could all have been winners. They could have encouraged a lot of marginal stations to give up their spectrum and participate in the auction.

The missing piece was something for the many broadcasters who had no interest in giving up spectrum themselves. What was in it for them? Nothing. What could have been in it for them was a share of the spectrum.

Not all of the recovered spectrum has to go to auction and the broadband carriers. Some of it could remain in the broadcast band so that the remaining stations could increase power. Nobody would complain about repacking if the result were improved service.

Quote:


I can't predict what's going to happen next. Nobody can. Once the incentive auction authority is signed into law, the FCC will crank up the bureaucracy and start the rulemakings to implement the law. The debates over repacking will start up all over again. The process will take years and probably, as Levin fears, wind up in the courts.

As I understand it, the legislation enables the FCC to conduct a spectrum auction, but it doesn't mandate it. That means the next FCC chairman, especially if he or she is a Republican, may just shelve the whole thing.

But I still believe there is a win-win here. The incentive auction is a powerful tool. It can be used to improve broadcasting and broadband at the same time if all the industries can sit down with the regulators and figure it out, if they could all learn to trust each other.

That would be a triumph for all.

Read More: http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/2...victory/page/1

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

dkreichen1968 is offline  
post #2629 of 2861 Old 02-18-2012, 02:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Macon, GA
Posts: 1,627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
With all the red tape to go through this stuff can go on indefinitely. Shelving the whole thing is a win win for the Amercan Public. We can keep the full potential of broadcasting that we have now and the idiots in the FCC can stop wasting our tax dollars pushing this crap.

Broadcast TV - a vital national public resource
Jedi Master is offline  
post #2630 of 2861 Old 02-18-2012, 11:09 AM - Thread Starter
 
BCF68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,463
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi Master View Post

With all the red tape to go through this stuff can go on indefinitely. Shelving the whole thing is a win win for the Amercan Public. We can keep the full potential of broadcasting that we have now and the idiots in the FCC can stop wasting our tax dollars pushing this crap.

Nothing will be shelved. And why the guy writing the article above your post assumes a republican FCC chariman would shelve the incentive acution is beyond me. If anything he's more likely to want to speed them up. This isn't a partisan issue, BOTH sides are in the beds of at&t and Verizon.
BCF68 is offline  
post #2631 of 2861 Old 02-18-2012, 05:14 PM
Senior Member
 
SoonerTheBetter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 223
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 22
The first twenty minutes or so of this podcast will tickle your innards. Former federal CTO Aneesh Chopra is interviewed.

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/cnet/...bol_021612.mp3
SoonerTheBetter is offline  
post #2632 of 2861 Old 02-18-2012, 05:27 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Excerpted From TV NewsCheck

Quote:


Broadcasters, Wireless Missed Joint Victory

By Harry A. Jessell

So, if the passage of the authorizing legislation isn't a triumph for Levin, who is it a triumph for?

NAB President Gordon Smith.

Even Levin thinks so. In that same Jan. 5 story, he congratulates Smith for doing the job he was hired to do. "I respect him for that."

In addition to the key "reasonable efforts" provision, Smith and the NAB were able to attach two other safeguards to the legislation with the help of their Republican allies on the Hill.

One guarantees that broadcasters who have to change channels will either get reimbursed for the cost or a waiver that allows them to use some of their spectrum for non-broadcast purposes. The other bars the FCC from shifting any station into the digital abyss of the VHF band.


So, I would add my congratulations to those of Levin. Smith did a great job. He showed that he has a place at the table when issues of consequence to broadcasting are discussed on Capitol Hill

So this must be what Mr. Smith wanted all along. Instead of fighting the spectrum grab bill, he went along with it to insured it would be so impotent it may not ever matter.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #2633 of 2861 Old 02-18-2012, 06:32 PM - Thread Starter
 
BCF68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,463
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken H View Post

One guarantees that broadcasters who have to change channels will either get reimbursed for the cost

Well that is reasonable since these stations already had to shell out tons of money to transition to digital just a mere 3 year ago.

Quote:


or a waiver that allows them to use some of their spectrum for non-broadcast purposes.

Well I prefer those station that are HD use as much as they have for HD. But many are only SD and if they can use some their spectrum to provide broadband wll what's the problem? I mean besides at&t and Verizon having competition.

Quote:


The other bars the FCC from shifting any station into the digital abyss of the VHF band..

I don't see how the FCC can go all the way down to channel 30 without making some station go to VHF. Take the Jackson TN market. 3 FP stations all above channel 30. Jackson is within 125 miles of 4 that's FOUR other TV markets. All of which have at least 1 or more channels above 30 that would also have to be moved. Jackson is the smallest of the 5 markets and thus would probbaly get last choice and there won't be ANY channels left between 14-30 for them to go to. So I'd like to see how the FCC is going to figure that one out. If the FCC only takes 38-51 then it won't be as much of an issue.
BCF68 is offline  
post #2634 of 2861 Old 02-21-2012, 08:38 AM
Member
 
See The Light's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
CNN Money article 2/21:

The Spectrum Crunch

Sorry, America: Your wireless airwaves are full


http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/21/tech....htm?hpt=hp_t3

Quote:


The iPhone, for instance, uses 24 times as much spectrum as an old-fashioned cell phone, and the iPad uses 122 times as much, according to the Federal FCC. AT&T says wireless data traffic on its network has grown 20,000% since the iPhone debuted in 2007.

There are also businesses such as Dish Network (DISH, Fortune 500) that have large spectrum allotments but aren't currently using them. (Dish is exploring its options for either using or selling its spectrum. A group of cable companies with unused spectrum recently struck a $3.6 billion pact to sell their holdings to Verizon in a deal that's facing heavy regulatory scrutiny.)

The FCC has also been working to free up more spectrum for wireless operators. Congress reached a tentative deal last week, approving voluntary auctions that would let TV broadcasters' spectrum licenses be repurposed for wireless broadband use.

But freeing up more spectrum won't be enough to solve the problem.


Cable Choice is the only choice I want to make !!
See The Light is offline  
post #2635 of 2861 Old 02-21-2012, 09:28 AM
Senior Member
 
L David Matheny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SE Ohio
Posts: 426
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by See The Light View Post

CNN Money article 2/21:

The Spectrum Crunch

Sorry, America: Your wireless airwaves are full


http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/21/tech....htm?hpt=hp_t3

"But freeing up more spectrum won't be enough to solve the problem."

What's needed are more, smaller cells, but nobody wants to spend any money on infrastructure. More efficient use of existing bandwidth could help, too.
L David Matheny is offline  
post #2636 of 2861 Old 02-21-2012, 10:50 AM
Senior Member
 
Dave Loudin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: King George, VA
Posts: 409
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I start to tune out when I see phrases such as "Federal FCC" in such articles. Just becasue a particular phone/device uses a lot more data doesn't really mean anything by itself. What throughput are users getting? How many dropped calls lately? What about all those Andriod phones?

How about some broadband to the boonies, first?
Dave Loudin is offline  
post #2637 of 2861 Old 02-21-2012, 11:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kenglish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Posts: 5,390
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 31
So, "the more inefficient the product is, the more priority it should have for taking away from others"?

By that reasoning, we should all drive huge gas-hog cars, and the government should provide us with stolen gas.

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 #2638 of 2861 Old 02-23-2012, 12:51 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
Obama Signs Spectrum Auction Authority Bill

http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/...ty-bill/212000

Quote:


TV spectrum can officially go on the auction block. President Obama has signed the bill authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to hold incentive auctions to coax broadcasters to give up their piece of the airwaves. The ‘‘Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012” empowers the FCC to “encourage a licensee to relinquish voluntarily some or all of its licensed spectrum usage rights” to make way for wireless broadband. Broadcasters who do so will get a to-be-determined portion of the auction proceeds.

The bill directs the FCC to hold a reverse auction “to determine the amount of compensation that each broadcast television licensee would accept in return for voluntarily relinquishing some or all of its broadcast television spectrum usage rights.”

“Relinquishment” in this case has three potential meanings--giving up broadcasting; giving up a UHF channel in return for a VHF reassignment; or vacating a UHF channel to share a 6 MHz assignment with another station. For those stations that elect channel-sharing, the bill provides the same carriage rights that now apply to TV signals. Licensees that participate in reverse auctions will be kept confidential.

Repacking is also covered in the bill, which directs the FCC to evaluate the spectrum made available through auctions, to coordinate with Mexico and Canada, and to then repack TV channels into the remaining spectrum. The language in the bill gives the commission some leeway on repacking with regard to signal replication...

Falcon_77 is offline  
post #2639 of 2861 Old 02-23-2012, 01:08 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
Relinquishment in this case has three potential meanings--giving up broadcasting; giving up a UHF channel in return for a VHF reassignment; or vacating a UHF channel to share a 6 MHz assignment with another station

I can just imagine the PQ of 2 stations broadcasting HD with several SD subchannels trying to share 6 MHz of spectrum.
BCF68 is offline  
post #2640 of 2861 Old 02-24-2012, 07:41 AM
Advanced Member
 
dkreichen1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Monument, CO
Posts: 755
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Message from the NAB
Quote:


Americans like you depend on their local TV stations. That's why last year you took swift action to tell Congress to protect free, local broadcast TV as the government considered ways to reclaim broadcast spectrum and auction it off for other services.

Due in large part to your advocacy, Congress heard the voices of TV viewers across America and just last week passed spectrum auction legislation that contains viewer protections, ensuring local over-the-air TV stations have the ability to innovate and provide viewers like you with the news, emergency information, sports and entertainment you expect and deserve.

Viewers and broadcasters alike should be pleased with the outcome of this legislation. It would not have been possible without your help and engagement. But our work is not finished. We must continue working to ensure that free and local TV is able to operate and innovate in a marketplace free of unnecessary regulation, preserving local television's ability to provide viewers with the great services you currently receive and those on the horizon.

Continue visiting www.TheFutureofTV.org for more information on how you can help to ensure an even brighter future for free, local television. And don't forget to read our blog, connect with us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter to stay updated on the future of TV.

We thank you for taking action! Together, we are securing a vibrant and robust future for free, local over-the-air TV.


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

dkreichen1968 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