AVS Official Topic - The FCC & Broadcast Spectrum - Page 52

Very well said. OTA has been serving the public like this for 70 years. Now OTA is better than ever with more channels OTA and the best HD quality available. The pay TV companies know OTA is a threat and want it eliminated before more people find out how good OTA is these days. When it comes to local news and emergency information the pay TV and cell phone companies are taking a knife to a gunfight.

This is interesting and most of you have probably seen it...

Pay TV channel costs 2009

He He. I just re-read this post. I had no idea what this post was about at that time, but obviously, I found it on the net!

It was attached to an older article in "Broadcasting and Cable", from when Fox News tripled it's retrans rates, before. They announced they were raising them again, this week.

I wonder where Mr. Levin proposes that broadcasters get the money to replace all of their current (and, often new) MPEG-2 Encoders with expensive MPEG-4 ones?

And, we can only "share spectrum" if we completely revamp our Studio-Transmitter Link (STL) topology, by having "master stations" and "feeder stations", so some stations transmit programming via a path to others, where the channels can be combined and PSIP added before going to the transmitters.
Or, put it all on an unattended mountain-top, underneath a giant lightning rod, and hope the software doesn't crash .

And, if we have to "re-pack our channels, who will pay for new transmitters, antennas, transmission lines, and combiners?

And, the millions of dollars in translator equipment, as well as receiving gear at Cable and Satellite head-ends? (afterthough)

I can think of one instance where all the (eight) DTV Utah stations went down at once, but it left us with two or three full-power DTV's on an adjacent site, many LPTV and LD, all the FM's and all the AM's.
It was a major, one-time failure, and lasted a couple of hours, max.

Genachowski moving on?

http://gigaom.com/broadband/time-to-...o-genachowski/

Ron

While not perfect there is one form of artillery known as fiber optics that at least seems to help in some emergencies. On Sept. 11, 2001 terrorists deliberately flew planes into the World Trade Center. AFAIK only two NYC television stations had backup facilities at the Empire State Building. The reason why most people were able to continue to watch local television throughout the NYC television market that day is because robust fiber optic cables continued to deliver television to cable headends and satellite uplinks.

Tell me how a national broadband plan based on a reasonable amount of fiber to the premises is not a thousand times better than a plan that is almost entirely based on the extremely less robust mobile cellular broadband? Why do we the people have to pay for nonsensical federal government boondoggles that are destined to fail?

Right. Mr. Levin doesn't seem to understand that MPEG-4/h.264 would only make better use of the ~19Mbps we have already.

However, to get to the 30Mbps level, we would need a new modulation scheme, not new encoders and decoders. 40Mbps is the DVB-T2 spec for 8MHz channels, so, the best we could hope for if we adopted it is 30Mbps with our 6MHz channels.

Of course, it's not nearly so simple to put DVB-T2 w/h.264 into use here. We would be better off looking ahead to perhaps something like DVB-T2, with HEVC at this point.

Nationwide FTTP sounds great to me!

But if we do that, why not move all the 6-MHz HDTV allocations to the FTTP net, reduce OTA TV to 6-in-1 SDTV multiplexes for the unfibered, and then we can have more cellular service, too.

Wouldn't that be the best of both worlds?

As long as anyone can tap into those HDTV services for free, absolutely. I have my doubts that such a thing would happen, however.

But I absolutely agree that anything short of nationwide fiber-to-the-home is a waste of time and resources.

- Trip

Well, we could require a connection for everybody for a nominal fee, and lifeline service without subscription, which would include basic internet connectivity to the .gov domain, 911 telephone connectivity, and clearQAM TV within the service areas of all current PEG channels, and for full power or class A licensess that want it.

Then, of course, the ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC O&Os and affiliates would have to really make a choice between PAY and FREE.

Anyone want to place bets which choice they'd make?

I have ALWAYS been against a national wireless broadband plan, but I have always been FOR a national fiber broadband solution. I wrote "solution" because I don't feel that our government should build it.

The government should mandate the building of a national fiber grid that rivals, and even surpasses the U.S. telephone grid. This grid should be underground and should be built by the telecom corporations. The system should be completely regulated as a utility with local monopolistic rights, just as original cable TV had. The system should contain redundancy like the power grid and should be designed to carry all types of telecommunications.

All telecoms should be compelled to participate. Rural areas should have lines running down every road, just as telephones now do. If a property has power, it should have full wired telecommunications also.

In return for participation, each telecom should be given exclusive rights to geographic areas that are fairly divided and assigned, and they should be regulated with regulated rates that guarantee a profit, exactly the way other public utilities operate.

While the backbone of the grid should be fiber, final distribution could be coax or any other method that allows full duplex voice, video and data. Existing cable and fiber grids could be integrated into the grid, which would lower overall costs.

Wireless should not be included in the plan. A wired grid would offer much greater bandwidth and would be faster and more reliable. Wireless telecomunications should be licensed in the same way that TV and radio stations are and with similar regulations. A difference would be that wireless telecoms should license a slice of spectrum on a nationwide scale instead of a local transmission scale. In this way, their wireless services will be continuously integrated no matter where people travel across the country.

Wireless telecomminications would tap local towers into the national wired grid.

If we started now, the telecoms could (here's where I get crucified) be subsidized by the government in the form of labor. Our state and federal governments should offer to pay the telecoms $4 per hour for each and every currently unemployed person that they hire, and this payment should continue until the grid is finished and operational in each local area. The regulation on this should be that certain production standards must be met so that this generosity is not abused.

This sounds expensive, but it would actually lower the unemployment rate and in turn the cost of unemployment compensation payments. Overall, it would be a savings to "we the people" and because people are working, income tax revenue would increase.

In the state of Wisconsin, I believe that about 230,000 people are out of work. If telecoms began this construction, and they hired 50,000 of the unemployed workers, our unemployment rate would drop nearly 2%. How quickly could 50,000 people get this done? Would the logistics of getting 50,000 people to work together be too much? I don't know. I suppose if you broke it down into 10 man crews...5,000 crews state wide would need to cover about 13 square miles each. I would think that a year would be quite easy. Other, larger and less densely populated states would take longer. Of course, workers might be willing to travel to work also...

When completed, end user pricing should be based on service levels. Basic voice with long distance, 25/5MB internet and local HDTV service should be quite reasonable, perhaps $40-50/ month combined. Faster internet connections and added "a la carte" TV selections should be added cost. Cable content such as ESPN could then negotiate their fees with a national fee commission, again with a la carte pricing. ESPN and the others would then be charged a bandwidth fee based on ratings share, forcing them (and standard broadcasters) to go back to ad revenues as a way of competition. They could make these bandwidth fees up via the a la carte pricing that the end user pays.

Current satellite service could continue under their current model, allowing ESPN and others to COLLECT usage fees and allowing the public a second option. this second option would offer the public content much like current Pay TV.

More crazy talk

It's not crazy talk because how a national fiber to the premises solution will be accomplished is the biggest question about our nation's broadband future. Insanity is the wireless broadband plan.

I agree with a lot of what you wrote here, but where is the money to pay these people going to come from?

Taxes? Not a chance in the current environment.

Unfortunately, fees from spectrum auctions are the most obvious revenue source, even though I agree with you in principle that spectrum should be licensed rather sold.

I think, however, that the choice between rate-regulated monopoly franchises and competitive overbuilding needs to be made at a local or regional level. I agree that getting the rural areas built out would probably require monopolies and legislation akin to the Rural Electrification Act.

But in my area we already have TWO fiber grids. One of them puts the fiber right into my utility room, and the other uses fiber to local pods, and coax the rest of the way. But the capabilities of both are similar, they compete effectively against each other, and the last thing in the world I want to do is give either of them a monopoly they certainly don't need.

In areas like mine the only change necessary is to require these companies to provide the lifeline service I mentioned earlier.

Of course, the problem with all of this is that it's totally beyond the scope of the current NPRM and largely outside FCC authority, so while it's a nice fantasy discussion, it doesn't advance the ball much as far as how to respond to the NPRM.

But I do appreciate your thoughts.

(And if you want to reply to this, please do me (and everybody else) a favor and don't write your replies in the quote box. Bleary-eyed readers everywhere will thank you. )

The thing that makes free OTA TV almost universally accessable is that you don't need a wire or fiber optic line to get it. You just hook your battery operated ATSC set to your clothes hanger antenna and you can know what's going on in the world, or watch Jeopardy. And, it's free, no contract or additional cost involved. You can't do that with any kind of cable system. But, because before the digital transition OTA TV was obsolete we should all "Sieg Heil" Comcast on their march to world domination! We certainly need to kill free OTA TV off before it starts providing free services to compete against Verizon and AT&T wireless's paid services. Gary Shapiro might not be able to buy another mansion.

If only it were that simple, easy and truly "free" for everybody.

How does the "All the Eggs in One Basket" fiber solution work when there is a disaster, and the power poles are down, or the fiber has been damaged due to earthquake, or the cell towers are off line due to lack of power or damage?

It doesn't, which is why I suggested that OTA should retain sufficient spectrum so that each full power and class A broadcaster could have an SD stream on 6-in-1 multiplex channels. That would work in a disaster, wouldn't it?

Or am I overlooking some reason why disaster service needs to be in HD?

Won't all the Facebook stuff be in HD?

Problem is, why would a broadcaster even bother with offering a full-time SDTV stream the rest of the time, outside of a disaster?
Maybe each DMA could just have a taxpayer-supported Emergency Transmitter, that only operates on Thursday's for a weekly test, and during an actual emergency, when it transmits an OTA copy of one station's news program stream.

Broadcasters have an obligation to the public during emergencies, but they have to make a buck and justify their expenses the rest of the time.

Any currently completed grids should be given as a monopoly to whomever built it.

The monies would be put up by the telcos as an investment, just like they are doing now. As I wrote in my post, the state and federal governments would subsidize labor at a rate of $4 per hour worked for every person hired off of the unemployment list, with restrictions and regulations to protect the investment. The rate of return would be similar to what power companies get and would be regulated similarly.

There would be no "lifeline" per se, but rates would be reasonable and would include long distance phone and a decent high speed internet connection. think along the lines of $40/month for both...perhaps $50. Local HD television would be thrown in at no additional charge. TV stations could then remove their towers and stop purchaseing large amounts of electricity for broadcast purposes. This would save a huge amount of monthly expense, and in return, the local broadcasters would pool SOME of these savings into a fund (or a tax, if you will) that will be used to build and upkeep an emergency temporary power system for the grid in the DMA they occupy. The telco serving the area will also fund this emergency system.


The best part of OTA is exactly what you mentioned. It is the ONLY way to currently receive TV and radio if you are camping in the woods, on a boat, etc. This would be lost. I don't have an answer on that. I would like to see it stay, but with a national telecom grid with decent pricing, I then begin to think about the amount of electricity that could be saved and how spectrum could be freed up also. I have the feeling that wireless would change quite a bit if a plan like this was enacted. More municipalities might decide to create a city wide wireless data network. Perhaps local TV would be included in this type of wireless or could be carried for free in wireless spectrum. I don't know.

EDIT!!! PBS could continue to broadcast in the current way, as well as being carried on the grid. It could be accessed during emergency situations the normal way. Each tower would be fully powered to maximize coverage. By the way, radio (AM and FM) would continue to function as it does now.

Looking at my crystal ball it appears there will be more than just public television broadcasting in twenty five years. There will no longer be four major commercial broadcast networks and the very tall towers and very high power transmitters will be considered an expensive thing of the past. The crystal ball is fuzzy as to exact number of TV markets but there is no longer as many as 210 because some didn't survive the slow painful death of ATSC. Television stations are more specialized in their programming. Co-located distributed transmission systems with transmission facilities and costs shared by multiple broadcasters including public television along with a much more advanced broadcast standard (no need for a separate mobile standard) will have made the survival of broadcast television possible and the view is beautiful.

Because we need to see the weather map in HD. HD is the standard today. The only TVs being sold now are widescreen HDTVs. Also broadcasters were recently forced to spend a lot of money so they can broadcast in HD. Telling them they can't broadcast in HD is like telling you that you can only watch SD on your HDTV.

A lot of money was spent on the DTV tansition two years ago. With decisions like yours is one of the reasons this country is billions of dollars in debt.

You are right on. The next gen standards should be at the center of the discussions in this forum.
The stakeholders should focus on how do we provide free terrestrial DTV to consumers without requiring them to construct antenna arrays at heights that provide LOS, multipath-free, links. IT CAN BE DONE.

Can't find where else to discuss this on AVS.... so, here goes.

What good has happened since the Studio/Manufacturer/Bribed FCC consortium has taken over our love a few years ago?

Do we have better PQ?
Do we have better AQ?
DO we have cheaper HDTV access for the poor?
Do we have more or less hardware choices for early adopters?

Other than increasing profit for the Hollywood Studios, Software Companies and Hardware Manufacturers, what good has happened?

I really don't understand this. I easily pull in 2nd edge signals from 49 miles away. The biggest reception problem that people have are the junk amplified antennas produced by CEA members. Another problem are TVs that don't have signal strength meters on them.

A good comment filed with the FCC.

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/commen...?id=6016172038

What is YOUR Bias? Who do you work for?

Just wondering since there are bunches of us who are at less than 50 miles, using huge antennnas with pre-amps who see the crapped PQ that added .2 and especially .3 multibroadcast BS produces for the rest of us .1 primary channel, tax paying, viewers.

What is the problem... pay me for the BS extra splits of my tax paid channel or give me the PQ that I paid for.....
At least we need to get a tax rebate for the extra advertising bucks raised by selling part of our publicly paid broadcast spectrum.....

You are talking about two different things. He is referring to reception, you are referring to bandwidth.

I like how it mentions that only about 50% of cable headends and 27% of DirecTV local collection facilities receive local broadcast channels through fiber optic cable or microwave. IOW there is currently a huge proportion (not just 10%) of television viewers who would not see their local stations without the OTA broadcasts.