AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

AVS Official Topic - The FCC & Broadcast Spectrum

304K views 3K replies 160 participants last post by  DrDon 
#1 · (Edited by Moderator)
#52 ·
From Broadcast Engineering

Quote:
FCC says it was just kidding!


By Brad Dick, Editorial Director


The Federal Communications Commission’s director of scenario planning, Phil Bellaria, claims we all misunderstood the agency’s intentions to take away TV broadcast spectrum. He’s now gone on the record saying the commission never “seriously” considered implementing such a plan. Rather, the commission was looking at “a scenario that establishes a voluntary marketplace mechanism so that broadcast TV stations have a choice in how they want to use their spectrum.”


I guess that means you can keep your spectrum. For now.


Here’s the bottom line.


According to Bellaria, stations can give up some portion of their spectrum, say 3MHz for which they could receive some compensation. However, they will then have to become part of another station’s multicast. Current rules would not permit such a station to receive “must-carry” status. However, the rules could be changed, says Bellaria.


A station could also give up all its spectrum, perhaps get more money and continue operation as a direct feed to the local cable system. However, no must-carry provisions would apply. One could assume the station might have to pay for carriage on the cable system. If not now, certainly later.


In an interview with B&C, Bellaria claims the idea is to “keep the pipeline of spectrum coming into the market to meet the needs of broadband usage over time…Certainly, the first step that we would prefer would be voluntary.” He admitted that should insufficient broadcasters participate in the voluntary stage, a mandatory element could be imposed.


In the interview, Bellaria sidestepped questions about just how long any voluntary participation might be available. “Voluntary” could be a temporary condition.


Of course, once Congress gets involved, any possibility of selling spectrum and returning a portion of those funds to broadcasters becomes extremely tenuous. Politicians are loathe to give up money without first attaching lots of strings.
 
#53 ·
As I posted before, The FCC isn't about to admit defeat. Ultimately, these people will take the spectrum by force, if no one is willing to go along with their game.


How is this misunderstanding their intentions?


These authoritarians need to be removed from their positions of unelected power.
 
#54 ·
"Second transition in a decade or so"? HELL NO! It better be at least another 30 years before they even consider another non-backward-compatible complete overhaul of our broadcast tv system. The end of analog was interesting and fun to see played out and the new digital system is much better than the old analog system, but it was also took a lot of money, time, and effort from both the public and broadcasters. There would be a huge public outcry if they even hint at the possibility of another round of mandatory new tv or converter box purchases anytime remotely soon!
 
#55 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffAHayes /forum/post/18011324


Hey, I was just throwing a thought out there... All I'm saying is if the DTV transition made VHF essentially USELESS for TV transmission/reception, and the wireless carriers are all hellbent on getting more spectrum, then let them have THAT. And let THEM work out the antenna issues.


I think they're all the greediest bunch of crooks in the telecommunications industry, so they'd figure something out.

Jeff

I think they should let Ch 5 and Ch 6 be used for FM radio. That would expand FM radio from 76-108 from it's current 88-108 and since there's a nice 4 MHz gap between Ch 4 and Ch 5 there shouldn't be much interference for whatever Ch 2, 3, 4 eventually get used for.
 
#56 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr1394 /forum/post/18013602


From the FCC "broadband blog" site, posted 1/19/2010.

http://blog.broadband.gov/?entryId=101173


"The most attractive spectrum for wireless broadband is below 3.7 GHz; since broadcast TV bands occupy 294 MHz within that sweet-spot, they have naturally been one of the areas we are examining. For example, on average there are 20 full-power TV stations in the top 10 markets; they directly use only 120 MHz of the 294 MHz allocated to broadcast TV. Across all markets, they only directly use on average 54 MHz (9 channels) of the 294 MHz total."


Ron

First of all the statement is B.S. because it doesn't recognize all the uses of the TV broadcast spectrum including Class A, low power and translator television, land mobile services and wireless microphones as well as future uses such as mobile / handheld TV and rural white band (broadband) use. All of the current uses have at least a partial public service aspect. Also if half the channels are taken (auctioned or not) from broadcast TV then channels 21-45 (exclusive of the reserved 37) should definitely be the spectrum kept for digital TV and yes it really will require the inconvenience and expense of a second transition.
 
#57 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammer /forum/post/18019086


First of all the statement is B.S. because it doesn't recognize all the uses of the TV broadcast spectrum including Class A, low power and translator television, land mobile services and wireless microphones as well as future uses such as mobile / handheld TV and rural white band (broadband) use. All of the current uses have at least a partial public service aspect. Also if half the channels are taken (auctioned or not) from broadcast TV then channels 21-45 (exclusive of the reserved 37) should definitely be the spectrum kept for digital TV and yes it really will require the inconvenience and expense of a second transition.

It would only in roughly the top 50 markets. Most of the rural and smaller markets could easily re-pack their channels into a 20 channel allocation. But like I said, ANYTHING they do would HAVE to be contingent upon the EXISTING non-TV bands (UHF 51-80) be built out to 75 percent capacity FIRST. And then the telecoms would need to do a buyout of things like ALL home shopping channels to relieve clutter. home shopping channels serve no public service.
 
#58 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by alphanguy /forum/post/18031519


Most of the rural and smaller markets could easily re-pack their channels into a 20 channel allocation.

Like I said any repacking that's ever done should definitely be in channels 21-45 keeping the most suitable channels for digital TV. That's only 4 more channels than a 20 channel allocation and I have no problem with those 4 channels being used for TV white space (broadband) devices in those rural and smaller markets. Why should the greedy giant wireless corporations get them (besides political bribery) rather than the public? Besides it's really consumers who are going to pay for the spectrum auctions in the form of higher broadband and cell phone bills.
 
#59 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by bidger /forum/post/17919904


Anyone else getting a funky page display with the hyperlink provided? I get a Wireless Week header, but the article is completely compacted, no more than three consecutive letters viewable on each line in Mozilla FF 3.5.7. I found I have to alt-click the hyperlink and select "Open in IE tab" for it to be viewable.

Looks fine in Google Chrome browser.
 
#60 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammer /forum/post/18019086


First of all the statement is B.S. because it doesn't recognize all the uses of the TV broadcast spectrumrural white band (broadband) use.

I believe the FCC considers "White Space" as part of their "National Broadband Policy."
 
#61 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by systems2000 /forum/post/18044238


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.
 
#62 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammer /forum/post/18051690


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
 
#64 ·
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
 
#66 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr1394 /forum/post/17930105


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.
 
#67 ·
#68 ·
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 **** through a wavelength than is currently possible, since there ARE only so many wavelengths.

Jeff
 
#69 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffahayes /forum/post/18246651


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

Jeff

+1
 
#70 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffAHayes /forum/post/18246651


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
 
#71 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 /forum/post/18253091


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
 
#72 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffAHayes /forum/post/18063606


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.
 
#73 ·
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.
 
#75 ·

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?
 
#76 ·
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.

STATIONNETWORKKEEPLOOSEGAIN
WMARABC X 
WRCNBC  X
WTTGFOXX X
WJLAABCX  
W08EE-DWV PBS X 
WGALNBCX X
WUSACBSX  
WTAJCBS X 
WBALNBC X 
WJZCBS X 
WLYHCWX  
WDCAMyNetwork X 
WHPCBS  X
WUTBMyNetwork X 
WHAGNBCX  
WHTMABCX X
WWPBMD PBS X 
WITFPA PBSX X
WVPYVA PBS X 
WPMTFOXX  
WGCBIndX  
WNUVCW X 
WWPXiON X 
WJALIndX  
WQPXiON  X
 Create X 
 CSPAN*INTERNET X
 iONLife X 
 MPT2 X 
 PCNINTERNET 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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top