AVS Official Topic - The FCC & Broadcast Spectrum - Page 56

DNS matches Domain Names to IP addresses.

Its in my world too. I have two more classes to pass before I get my Networking Specialist Diploma.

Operator error, pure and simple.

Multi-quote is used to combine responses to two or more posts in a single reply. Click the multi-quote button on each post you want to quote then click reply and each post will be quoted for you to trim down to the text you want to quote in your reply (please, no full quotes unless the prior post was short). But that isn't what you're doing so multi-quote won't help you.

What you are doing is replying to one post and trying to reply to different segments with different comments. A good idea, if you know how to run the editor. What you need to do is divide that single post into separate quotes and insert your replies outside the quote marks.

The way you are doing it ... typing your comments inside the quotes and bolding them ... makes you come off as an arrogant person who can't take the time to do it right. The bold makes it look like you think your comments are more important than anyone else's in the thread and the failure to quote properly (your comments outside the quote marks, other's comments inside) shows a lack of respect for your potential readers. Perhaps you are an arrogant person with no respect for your readers ... perhaps not. The posting style makes you look like you are - regardless of what you say.

And now back to The FCC and Broadcast Spectrum ...

I agree!


You got that right!


Amazing how well it works when someone spends a moment to explain it in 4 lines!


Instead of bold, I had thought about perhaps a different color, but red seemed angry and green seemed hard to read!


Easy for you to say. Defending a position from incredibly poor pizza and book analogies and explaining differences in market economics when used completely incorrectly makes a person a troll here!

I don't think we've been on that subject for weeks!

The issue is supposed to be spectrum management ... the FCC allowing others to use what has traditionally been broadcast spectrum with primary protected use given to OTA broadcasters. Carving away the top end over the years to create space for cellular and other wireless services (losing over 30 channels in the process). And now a plan to allow wireless broadband services to be "co primary" on any channel and a threat that OTA broadcasting will outright lose the upper end of their spectrum once again.

That's the issue. And while the chatter about rights and retransmission can be fun (when people talk rationally) this is supposed to be a spectrum topic.

There is a question in the proposal for how retransmission consent will be handled for stations that take up the FCC's offer to share a channel - and that is addressed needs to be address so two or more stations sharing an RF channel don't lose their individual retrans rights (including the right for the stations to make choices and negotiate carriage independently).

The quality of the retransmitted signal also needs to be dealt with ... at the moment retrans in HD is not required if a station only transmits a SD signal. HD can be negotiated if a station chooses retrans consent, but what of must carry stations? Should they be able to generate a HD signal and require carriage of it even though their shared use of a channel could prevent clean OTA broadcast? Would a non-shared channel be able to assert the same rights or would this be a special right granted to shared channel stations? (The right being that as long as they deliver a HD signal to the carrier by any means that HD signal must be carried along with other HD signals in the market regardless of what the station asserting the right is doing OTA.)

That's the stuff the NRPM and future modifications to the rules are and will have to deal with. Who gets to use broadcast frequencies? How do they get to use it? How do the FCC rules need to be adjusted to manage that use?

Yes - so many subchannels in many cases that the "HD" can barely be called that anymore (and the 480i subchannels don't look that great when they overload them like that, either).

The so-called "HD" isn't any better than widescreen, SD-DVD in some cases, and even when it contains more detail than that, it often goes to pot as soon as anything moves.

In fact, I've had 480i, analog signals (and this is no exaggeration) which were much better-looking than some of their equivalent, digital, 480i counterparts.

The HD channels in my area on my 50 inch Panasonic Plasma HDTV look awesome. I have Channels 24-1 (Fox) and 24-2 (ABC) that are both 720p and they look awesome even though there are two 720p feeds on one channel. But the 480i subchannels look bad. I watch them with a composite cable and use componet for the HD channels. There may be something wrong with your setup if you think the HD channels are no better than SD-DVD. With my setup there is no comparison.

Or it may be that Rammitinski lives in Chicagoland and the stations there really are overpacking the bandwidth. Here in Colorado Springs/Denver area most stations are protecting the picture quality of their main channel, but I don't think that is going on in other areas.

I also have to agree that 480i widescreen can look better than a HD lite channel.

Yes, they are in many cases.

Jedi lives in Macon, Georgia, where even the sports are taken slowly and enjoyed with a good PBR.

I am inclined to question this. "Lifeline basic" in most areas seems to be around $15/month, which works out to $180/year. That means that a simple indoor antenna would pay back within a month or two, and an attic installation typically within less than a year. Even the majority of outdoor installations would pay back within two years -- the exception being some far fringe locations where cable is typically not available, anyway.

If you compare the cost of an antenna with satellite TV -- or with expanded basic cable -- the payback time is even shorter.

It can go both ways. With an antenna installation one could get different additional content than what cable/satellite provides (location dependent). And while the typical AVS member could handle an antenna install and maintenance (either physically or financially) antennas are far from being a turnkey and trouble free option.

Besides the fringe installations there are also apartments, condos and homes where antennas are not easily installed (even satellite antennas) and multi-path is a killer. One can shout OTARD OTARD OTARD all day and still not be able to get a good location for the right antenna to do the job. My home is in a slight valley so I have no LOS to the OTAs.



The more expanded the channel lineup the more you have to share the cost of satellite/expanded basic cable with the other channels provided. This week's example would be the NCAA's March Madness that due to the broadcast contract puts ONE game, the same game, on all CBS stations. No ability to get an alternate game by having the right OTA setup or an affiliate putting alternate games on subchannels. Valuable additional content that people are willing to pay for.

I could pay a couple of hundred dollars and get rock solid reception of my local ABC and Fox stations (along with other stations) and have 12 channels/sub-channels - 6 of them in HD. But I'd never seen NASCAR on SPEED or ESPN/ESPN2 - or a lot of other content.

I can see where one could read my simple statement as "OTA content plus more for less than an OTA antenna". That wasn't what I intended to say. The benefit of additional content should have been left out of the simple price comparison.

I was born in Tuscaloosa, Alabama and I will always be a fan of the 13 time National Champion Alabama Crimson Tide.

The current NCAA Tournament contract is a definite loss for OTA television. Too bad CBS couldn't afford more and didn't even consider putting some games on the CW because that network is aimed primarily at young women.

Does the CW have distribution in to 98 million homes? TruTV did in 2009, and TNT and TBS are higher.

The problem I would see with the CW (besides distribution) would be their network schedule. They are only a network 10 hours a week. That is a lot of local preemption.

It would be complicated ... but it would be nice to have the possibility of a local CBS taking any of the four games and giving the "CBS" feed to their local cable/satellite providers to replace whatever network they took the coverage from. But the branding would be messed up and Turner would get the raw end of the deal. And in a couple of years Turner will be carrying the final games exclusively anyways (alternating years). Might as well get used to it now ... it is a Pay TV series.

The Turner network TruTV is available in significantly less than 90% of television homes. Augmented on a temporary basis with some additional broadcast stations or local cable affiliates the CW (co-owned by Time Warner) could have been available in at least 95% of television homes.

Turner (parent company Time Warner) gets the final games for the first time in 2016 and alternate years after that through 2024. As I said it's a big loss for OTA television.

What it COULD be if augmented wasn't the question. The question was "how many homes". The benefit of a network like TruTV is that it is already a network at the time the games air (being a 24/7 network like TBS and TNT) so there are no questions of whether or not local affiliates are willing to break their independent schedule to air the content (most probably would).

A CBS station could make a deal to carry the three Turner stations on OTA subchannels. If wishes were horses we'd all have a ride. (If we're going to get in to wishes why not give every OTA broadcaster two RF channels to program however they like instead of the one per license they have now?)

Don't know how reliable a source they are but according to Wikipedia the CW is available in just a bit over 95% of television homes and that's without additional augmentation. High definition is however a complication since there are many CW Plus affiliates carried on subchannels in the smaller markets. Because TruTV HD was not carried by most cable systems prior to this year's tournament there has been somewhat of a mad dash for some but not all cable systems to add it recently.

Actually, the benefit of TruTV (and TBS and TNT) has little to do with network scheduling and plenty to do with the phrase "dual revenue streams". Being able to extract a portion of the rights payments out of cable/satellite subscribers means that the rights payments to the NCAA can be significantly higher. Putting a game on the CW or on a CBS OTA multicast doesn't have that same advantage.

But note that this is an advantage to the rights holder (the NCAA), not to the viewer...

cool

A number of comments rolled in yesterday, and if it wasn't for the fact I'm in the middle of thesis-writing, I'd be picking through all of them. I picked comments by WBOC since I knew they'd talked about testing dual HD.

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/docume...?id=7021034743

The comment notes "problems" with dual HD as recommended by the FCC. It's not very long or terribly interesting, I just thought it noteworthy.

- Trip

But I'm now reading UNC-TV's comments, which are quite good, I think. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/docume...?id=7021034751

- Trip

And Trinity's comments have this amusing (to me) line: "KTBN’s transmitter site, and that of most of the other full-power television stations in the Los Angeles DMA, is on Mount Wilson. If the Commission retakes channels 32 to 51 (120 MHZ) from the television spectrum, and no stations choose to participate in a voluntary auction or channel sharing arrangement, that would only leave just 23 channels to accommodate 26 stations. "

I really need to get to work on my thesis.

- Trip

From the NTA's filing:

"While the NPRM co-primary proposal explicitly excludes Channel 37, TIA urges the Commission to fully consider allowing for co-primary use within these frequencies. If sufficient exclusion zones are utilized, the critical uses existing in this channel would be protected. Examining co-primary use in Channel 37 would be consistent with the Commission's goals in this item, as well as overall goals noted above to meet spectrum needs as soon as possible."

From the Committee on Radio Astronomy Frequencies, European Science Foundation:
"Various RA allocations are made within this range, with various degrees of protection, to fit in with local television assignments, one television channel usually being made available for RA....... The radio astronomy attaches considerable importance to the maintenance of this allocation since without it, there would be a large gap between the 410 and the 1400 MHz allocations, in one of the most important parts of the spectrum. The band is of special importance for (worldwide) VLBI observations. It is requested that in those parts of the world in which the allocation to Radio Astronomy is on a temporary basis, greater security can be afforded and Radio Astronomy given the maximum possible protection from both in-band and adjacent band transmissions. Primary allocations with several MHz in common to all regions are needed."

So, the NTA thinks we should let broadband overtake science?
And, what is "co-primary" on channel 37? Using your cell phone at 0.00000000000000000001 watts?

Wouldn't 120 MHz mean just 22 stations since Channel 37 is reserved by international treaty except for extremely low power (mobile cellular doesn't qualify) uses such as medical telemetry. Besides the greedy cellular industry has already stated they really want an additional 180 MHz of UHF TV band spectrum. The CTIA has declared war on broadcast television and the NAB and every television broadcaster that wants to stay in business needs to understand that.

http://www.wltx.com/news/article/128...ard-for-SCETV-

"The governor believes we need to convert ETV and its functions to the private sector, and she is excited to have found a group of appointees who share her priorities and vision for ETV," Godfrey said in a written statement.

Seems to me, if the Private Sector could do a better job, then, why haven't they?
(For those who don't know, SCETV is a model of how to do Public TV correctly. They have a reputation for doing things right, and I shudder to think what South Carolina would do without public TV and radio.)

I like that story on the bottom of the page: "Man Attacked By Gator After Smoking Crack".

Gators can get out and out vicious when they hit the crack pipe.

There's a great article posted at the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association website "Congress – Stop Selling Our Airwaves!", http://www.wispa.org/?p=4211 about just how corrupt the spectrum auctions really are!