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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by systems2000 /forum/post/18044238
I believe the FCC considers "White Space" as part of their "National Broadband Policy."
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffAHayes /forum/post/18057644
The need for more Mhz for wireless broadbrand is quite likely only "peripheral" to their actual agenda.
Jeff
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammer /forum/post/18057947
They are at least five years from building out the wireless spectrum they already have so locking up spectrum is their agenda.
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by tkrhdtv /forum/post/18069203
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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...
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.
STATION | NETWORK | KEEP | LOOSE | GAIN |
WMAR | ABC | X | ||
WRC | NBC | X | ||
WTTG | FOX | X | X | |
WJLA | ABC | X | ||
W08EE-D | WV PBS | X | ||
WGAL | NBC | X | X | |
WUSA | CBS | X | ||
WTAJ | CBS | X | ||
WBAL | NBC | X | ||
WJZ | CBS | X | ||
WLYH | CW | X | ||
WDCA | MyNetwork | X | ||
WHP | CBS | X | ||
WUTB | MyNetwork | X | ||
WHAG | NBC | X | ||
WHTM | ABC | X | X | |
WWPB | MD PBS | X | ||
WITF | PA PBS | X | X | |
WVPY | VA PBS | X | ||
WPMT | FOX | X | ||
WGCB | Ind | X | ||
WNUV | CW | X | ||
WWPX | iON | X | ||
WJAL | Ind | X | ||
WQPX | iON | X | ||
Create | X | |||
CSPAN* | INTERNET | X | ||
iONLife | X | |||
MPT2 | X | |||
PCN | INTERNET | X | ||
QUBO | X | |||
RTN* | X | |||
ThisTV* | X | X | ||
USports | X | |||
VMe | 3 | |||
Weather | 4 |