AVS Official Topic - The FCC & Broadcast Spectrum

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.

From Engadget

From Wireless Week

Nope.

Broadcasters and viewers of OTA TV have won nothing! It's simply a temporary retreat by the proponents of taking TV spectrum. Broadcasters don't own any spectrum so how can they sell any. All that is being proposed is to perhaps pay broadcasters to permanently go out of business. Besides the spectrum most valuable to wireless companies is in the major markets most valuable to broadcasters so a "voluntary" plan might reduce their opposition but it definitely isn't the wireless companies' end plan.

The FCC hasn't "AXED" anything here, they've just repositioned and re-worded it. Typical politics, so keep an eye on those "MIDNIGHT" votes or rule passages.

This idea was insane to start with. I guess the FCC wasn't ready for a revolt.

I HOPE the brodcasters have woken up and smelled the bacon. They need to embellish their OTA capabilities, and PROMOTE PROMOTE PROMOTE. That doesn't mean airing commercials for cable and sat. Companies EVERY 5 MINUTES! People WILL use an antenna to watch Local News, American Idol, and Dancing with the stars if they find out it's better quality, and totally FREE. Meanwhile, this gives us time for the wireless brodaband industry to tank. Ma and Pa kettle on the farm in rural areas are NOT going to buy wireless broadband... these telecoms are livin in a dream world if they think that is gonna work. And why is WIRELESS broadband so important? Is it THAT important for people to surf the net while theyr'e sittin on the can taking a dump? The local broadcasters are on their way to losing this game. IMO, it's time for them to throw a bomb in the direction of the end zone.

It's so that everyone can get LOTTO results and Twitter messages, whenever they want.

Great. This will give time for ABC to move it's flagships and affiliates - proverbially and literally - into the 21st century. Digital and Hi-VHF do NOT mix!

I believe those in charge (can you say FCC?) take advantage of the masses, whenever they can, and speak out of both sides of their mouthes. I believe I found a good example (I found it on Channel Master's website):


Of course he feels that all Broadband should be free and wireless broadband is the ticket for sparsely populated areas. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/sto...5614675&page=1

I hope he doesn't have too much sway at the Aspen Institute (as a senior fellow with its Communications and Society Program). http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/sto...6665355&page=1

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

700 MHz allocations.

http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/dat...HzBandPlan.pdf

http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/a...hp?a=187&p=232

Ron

Very nice links, thanks!

- Trip

I don't believe the issue is involving just cell phones. This appears to involve all wireless broadband across the board (ie., whitespace, blue tooth, etc.).

I agree, Systems2000.

We're just at the "departure point" for cellular technology where there will still be Billions of cell phones, but also an entire new class of hybrid devices that are not that much larger or heavier, but do an awful lot more -- sort of crosses between cell phones and laptops -- more than netbooks, yet smaller, probably some of them folding up into a small footprint and out into as many as four pieces, etc.

THAT's a small part of the sort of thing the wireless broadband industry is just FOAMING AT THE MOUTH to simply have ALL of the OTA spectrum for, but I still contend that it will be a long time, if EVER before ANY kind of telecommunications (or energy, for that matter) can be transmitted faster and more efficiently by ANY means faster than wire, period). And it's still the case that if you want "wireless in your bathroom," the best, easiest, and definitely LEAST EXPENSIVE way to do it is to have a wired broadband connection to your home and a good wireless router.

To me, the biggest part of this issue is still the original concept behind the airwaves... the part that they BELONG TO THE PUBLIC, and the FCC exists simply to administer them for our benefit. With licenses to TV and radio stations, those frequencies were still PUBLIC airwaves. Sure, TV stations licensed them, and they were available ONLY as commercial (or non-profit) TV frequencies. But they were still AVAILABLE, and anyone who had the money could BUY a license when the frequency became available, assuming they met the criteria set up by the FCC (purportedly also "in the public interest"). And furthermore, the broadcasts from all those frequencies are FREE to pick up by anyone who has a TV or radio within range.

Once SOLD to various wireless concerns, NONE of that will be true. Those frequencies will NOT be "public airwaves" any more, and anyone who wants to benefit from whatever is transmitted through them will not only be paying for it, they'll likely be paying BIG BUCKS and having to sign 2-year contracts, to boot.

Just HOW does the FCC NOT see this as a violation of its very establishment (and Sen. Snowe, as well, based on her quote in the thread that led to this one). To me, it's like saying The First Amendment still applies, but we're going to go into each city and make all the newspapers stop publishing because we think they'd make better Kinkos locations, or something. They seem to be working at cross purposes -- definitely against their mandate!
Jeff

I was just talking to my mom about this last night. We cut the cord a year ago and are enjoying digital OTA for free. But there is a low powered analog channel in our town that has RTN on it. But the picture has so much static in it its unwatchable. We might of watched it 25 years ago but not in todays world of HDTV. Were hoping that channel will go digital soon.

All this makes me wonder how the Cable TV system is doing in Haiti right now.

With the cellular system only half-working (how many Haitians can afford it anyway), a never-did-work phone system, and most power lines lying on the streets, I wonder how their OTA TV and Radio is holding up.

Hmmmmmmm, I doubt they have ANYTHING working right now, but THIS is an excellent example of a time when NOT having OTA would likely make a disaster even worse... Of course it's difficult to say whether cell towers would topple more or less than television towers, or which would be more likely to have backup generators in the case of a total loss of power.

With their portability added to the fact that they're in every car, radios would be even more important, I think.
Jeff

Cell towers usually either do not have backup power, or have about a day's worth. Meanwhile, many TV stations can last several days without grid power.

- Trip

The same thing that happened back on October 2001.
Hell with wireless everything. Go back to copper!

These wireless groups want people to be able to watch TV on their phones, yet I won 't be able to watch TV on my TV. What's with that?

You noticed that too.

The CEA just wants something new to sell you since all the other crap doesn't work correctly.

There's another reason why CTIA wants the UHF TV airwaves. ATSC Mobile / Handheld is a potential competitor to the pay TV on cellphones the CTIA wants to control. They don't want to see those potential profits go to local broadcasters or benefit the public.

Their a greedy bunch of theives. I have a 50 inch plasma HDTV and there is no way I'm going to watch something on a 3 inch screen on a cell phone. The darn cell phone commercials every 5 minutes are insane. The stupidest one is where the flat panel TV falls off the wall and somebody sticks their small cell phone screen in the way. Oh yeah, that really helps a lot.

I'm going to say it again, but in a different way -- if the CTIA is successful in acquiring most of what is currently OTA broadcasting spectrum so they can SELL that air space to people and (I assume) force everyone who has a standard ATSC TV to buy some sort of NEW converter (and a contract) to watch the equivalent of what is currently OTA, well, I don't think it matters HOW MUCH CLOUT they have in Congress or with the FCC... Can anyone say "Boston Tea Party," or "Whisky Rebellion?"

There are easily enough OTA-only viewers in America to cause so much outrage over such a move it could be more than just political unrest, and if the majority in Congress isn't smart enough to see that, they're a a lot less intelligent than I thought even the stupid ones had to be to get elected. (That quote from Olympia Snowe simply blew me away with how how little she seems to realize the implications!)
Jeff