or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Technical › AVS Official Topic - The FCC & Broadcast Spectrum
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AVS Official Topic - The FCC & Broadcast Spectrum - Page 9

post #241 of 2861
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkreichen1968 View Post

Mobile DTV gets good initial grades

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/articles/2010/06/22/daily.4/

While I understand it's intended for small tv's it's shame it's resolution is such that makes it useless for larger TVs since these signals would be a big help to people that live in fringe areas that have problems with finicky DTV signals.

Quote:


Interview with Republican FCC Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/articles/2010/06/22/daily.2/

She's full of crap.

A) No way it's voluntary is no one volunteers an the FCC still wants the spectrum. Do they think if you take spectrum away as long as you compensate the broadcaster it's voluntary?

B) Forcing stations on the same channels means the death of HD via OTA and thus the death of OTA eventually which is perhaps is what they want.

I'm not even sure why they think that by selling this spectrum to at&t and Verizon that means mobile broadband for all? Have they even bother to look at how these same companies currently screw customers over with their so called broadband packages? 5 GB monthly caps, $50 per GB overage fees. This is what we are sacrificing OTA for?
post #242 of 2861
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkreichen1968 View Post

Close to 1% had already dropped their subscriptions by the end of 2009, and since a large portion of my friends and family are OTA only I have the tendency to believe that the FCC's 10% is a purposely understated number in the first place.

Cable, satellite and teleco industry statistics for 2009 show a net gain, albeit a tiny net gain, for subscription TV services. Based on these statistics, there doesn't appear any evidence of a growing exodus from pay TV to OTA-only households.

From BRIDGE, an industry publication covering the cable/satellite/teleco pay TV industry:
____________________________________________________

Overall, the top 10 cable operators in the U.S. lost a total of 333,800 basic video subscribers.

DBS gained a total of 337,000.

The telco TV giants (AT&T U-verse and Verizon FiOS) added 399,000.

For those of you without calculators in your brains, that's around 402,200 net new customers. Out of a pool of 93.7 million (counting only the top 10 MSOs), it's barely a droplet. For a full year, as shown in the chart, net new customers in this pool came in slightly over 1.5 million ... for a barely perceptible 1.6% gain.
____________________________________________________
post #243 of 2861
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

While I understand it's intended for small tv's it's shame it's resolution is such that makes it useless for larger TVs since these signals would be a big help to people that live in fringe areas that have problems with finicky DTV signals.

It's hard for me to get enthusiastic about them bumping up the resolution of the mobile broadcasts -- that would either result in more bits being taken away from the main channel, with the risk of degrading the HD broadcasts we watch at home, or it would result in higher resolution bit starved mobile broadcasts that might look worse even though the resolution is higher.
post #244 of 2861
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroptheRemote View Post

Cable, satellite and teleco industry statistics for 2009 show a net gain, albeit a tiny net gain, for subscription TV services. Based on these statistics, there doesn't appear any evidence of a growing exodus from pay TV to OTA-only households.

From BRIDGE, an industry publication covering the cable/satellite/teleco pay TV industry:
____________________________________________________

Overall, the top 10 cable operators in the U.S. lost a total of 333,800 basic video subscribers.

DBS gained a total of 337,000.

The telco TV giants (AT&T U-verse and Verizon FiOS) added 399,000.

For those of you without calculators in your brains, that's around 402,200 net new customers. Out of a pool of 93.7 million (counting only the top 10 MSOs), it's barely a droplet. For a full year, as shown in the chart, net new customers in this pool came in slightly over 1.5 million ... for a barely perceptible 1.6% gain.
____________________________________________________

Doug,

Thanks for the real numbers.

So, in other words, based on last years numbers, there was no significant movement either way. Subscription gained about as many people as they lost. I believe a major factor in that is the really bad information that went around during the transition and the fact that many people who subscribed during the 80s and 90s are largely unaware of the free alternative. Due to broadcast's real sell out to subscription for advertising and retrans money the only people who have a major vested interest in free OTA broadcast television are broadcast receiving equipment manufactures (who have contributed to the transition confusion) and the growing percentage of Americans who make less than $30,000 a year. That is who I consider myself standing up for, the 60+% of Americans who make less than $30,000 per year. They don't need more subscriptions, they need more free services, and more real productive jobs. Hispanic broadcasting shows that advertiser supported broadcasting directed toward a low income demographic can be self-supporting. MTV wouldn't produce MTV-Tr3s and make it available free OTA if the Proactiv and T-mobile ads didn't make them money.
post #245 of 2861
Call for real engineering at the FCC

http://www.sbe.org/pub_sc.php#Helpisneeded

Open Letter to the FCC.

http://www.sbe.org/pub_sc.php#lettertofcc
post #246 of 2861
Thread Starter 
the FCC's first step to kill off OTA TV

The Media Bureau announces that the initiation of nationwide first-come, first-served, digitalonly licensing for low power television and TV translator stations scheduled to begin July 26, 2010, is hereby postponed until further notice. On June 29, 2009, the Media Bureau announced that it would begin accepting applications on a first-come, first-served basis for new digital-only low power television and TV translator stations and for major changes to existing analog and digital facilities in these services in so-called “rural areas” on August 25, 2009, and without geographic restriction on January 25, 2010.

The January 25, 2010 date for initiation of nationwide first-come, first-served digital licensing was subsequently postponed to July 26, 2010. For the reasons set forth below, the Media Bureau believes that a postponement of the July 26, 2010 date for nationwide licensing is necessary in light of the release of the National Broadband Plan.

The Broadband Plan announced an effort to identify 500 megahertz of spectrum that can be reallocated from existing uses to enable the expansion of new mobile broadband service. To aid in this endeavor, the Broadband Plan recommended, among other things, that the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to reallocate 120 megahertz from the broadcast television bands,
post #247 of 2861
120 megaHertz is 20 channels, isn't it? That would mean we'd only have channels 32 and below... I'm probably understanding something wrong though.

So, they've used up all the basically 100 MHz they got from channels 52 to 69? Wow.
post #248 of 2861
They have barely started to use 52-69. Where I live, only 55 has been put to use for other than analog TV or DTV so far, and that is FloTV.

I saw one comment that suggested that AT&T and Verizon, etc. were more interested in preventing other companies from getting the spectrum that they won, vs. using it themselves. I expect they will use it eventually, but don't seem to be in any great hurry. Same with public safety and others.

We are looking at, potentially, channels 2-30 being left over, if they take channels off the top. We already can't use parts of 14-21 in some major urban areas, due to Land Mobile.

This would effectively leave us (in LA) with 2-6, 7-13, 18 & 22-30 for TV.

RF 2-6 are junk DTV channels as far as I'm concerned.
post #249 of 2861
In areas that are prone to thunderstorms, 7 to 13 are also junk.

In my area (Missouri), this means that some channels are going to have to pair up or move back to VHF.

If we do indeed lose another 20 channels, I suspect that almost all sister channels will pair up and multiplex onto one frequency. Here in Kansas City, I'd bet that CBS will run on 24 still, and display CBS as 5-1 with a little less bandwidth, but they would put MNTV on 24 also, give it a decent, yet SD picture, and use PSIP to display it as its old channel 62.
post #250 of 2861
In brief: Obama announced they would back-up the FCC's plan to free 500 megahertz for cellular and broadband internet, 120 MHz of which would come from broadcasters (most likely TV channels 31 to 51).

LINK - http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/10/...eless-Spectrum
post #251 of 2861
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaveng View Post

In brief: Obama announced they would back-up the FCC's plan to free 500 megahertz for cellular and broadband internet, 120 MHz of which would come from broadcasters.

LINK - http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/10/...eless-Spectrum

The story linked is useless as it does not tell what spectrum is being used.
post #252 of 2861
Thread Starter 
Let's not turn this politcal. If McCain was in office he'd be all for it too. Let's not fool ourselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAP View Post

The story linked is useless as it does not tell what spectrum is being used.

In the broadband plan prety much consider everything from ch 31-51 gone. And the FCC will force stations to share the same frequency so kiss HD via OTA goodbye
post #253 of 2861
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ionosphere View Post

120 megaHertz is 20 channels, isn't it? That would mean we'd only have channels 32 and below... I'm probably understanding something wrong though.

Actually it's channel 30 and below because 37 is resevered for radio astronomy

Quote:


So, they've used up all the basically 100 MHz they got from channels 52 to 69? Wow.

Nope they've barely touch it.
post #254 of 2861
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ionosphere View Post

In areas that are prone to thunderstorms, 7 to 13 are also junk.

In my area (Missouri), this means that some channels are going to have to pair up or move back to VHF.

If we do indeed lose another 20 channels, I suspect that almost all sister channels will pair up and multiplex onto one frequency. Here in Kansas City, I'd bet that CBS will run on 24 still, and display CBS as 5-1 with a little less bandwidth, but they would put MNTV on 24 also, give it a decent, yet SD picture, and use PSIP to display it as its old channel 62.

What's the point of OTA if is SD? No one here has a HDTV to watch SD. Also local brocasters want to start broaadcasting mobile TV. That's going to require 2 Mbps for each mobile channel. How are stations going to share one channel with all their subchannels and mobile channels?
post #255 of 2861
Reading thru the comments on that link, it's pretty apparent that nobody even knows HOW this is all supposed to work. Sounds like lots of people have fallen for the promise of "unlimited, free, absolutely invulnerable internet bandwidth for all". They certainly don't understand how broadcast works.

I have yet to see any evidence of a "plan" for this....just a lot of big players looking to grab up all the spectrum.
post #256 of 2861
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenglish View Post

Reading thru the comments on that link, it's pretty apparent that nobody even knows HOW this is all supposed to work. Sounds like lots of people have fallen for the promise of "unlimited, free, absolutely invulnerable internet bandwidth for all". They certainly don't understand how broadcast works.

I have yet to see any evidence of a "plan" for this....just a lot of big players looking to grab up all the spectrum.

Well the plan was never to give FREE internet to everyone. The plan is to get internet to the millions of people that currently don't have access to broadband. Now I don't have a problem with that goal. The problem is that the FCC is going to take away much of OTA TV and give that spectrum to Verizon and At&t and hope they actually provide reasonably priced broadband to those that can't get it now. Well unless they change from their current data plans which are limited to 5 GB a month and overages of $51.20 per GB which they charge $60 a month for. Well I don't consider that reasonable at all. Now could they change that pricing scheme in 10 years sure? But if you look at recent actions they have been going in the OPPOSITE direction. When CEOs of At&t and Verizon call people that watch low rez youtube videos once in a blue moon "bandwidth hogs" that doesn't bode well for them to provide what one would consider reasonable internet.
post #257 of 2861
How can we not make this political?!?! Free OTA TV is going to be broken down and sold off to the highest bidder. Obama is pledging support of the FCC's plan and I'm not sure why the Whitehouse needs to be directly involved....let the FCC handle it.

Here's a quote from Obama link,

Quote:


Mr. Obama stated, "The Internet, as vital infrastructure, has become central to the daily economic life of almost every American by creating unprecedented opportunities for small businesses and individual entrepreneurs. We are now beginning the next transformation in information technology: the wireless broadband revolution."

There's no question that there is a growing problem that cell cos are going to run out of bandwidth. All I'm saying is that this FCC plan better remain voluntary and not give in to special interest groups.
post #258 of 2861
The FCC today froze all applications for Television broadcasting licenses, including translator stations.

Also, companies are starting to pop up on Google Ads, offering to buy and sell spectrum...much like the ticket scalpers you see out in front of the stadiums on game nights. I personally don't think much of this spectrum is going to be used. I think it's going to be bought and sold over and over, like the proverbial "pork bellies" of old.

Remember when land was "homesteaded" by our grandparents? Now, we work four jobs to buy a tiny condo. Who really makes the money?
post #259 of 2861
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

What's the point of OTA if is SD? No one here has a HDTV to watch SD. Also local brocasters want to start broaadcasting mobile TV. That's going to require 2 Mbps for each mobile channel. How are stations going to share one channel with all their subchannels and mobile channels?

They're NOT.

Also, the FCC today froze all applications for future TV broadcast and translator licenses. Indefinitely.
post #260 of 2861
If the government really wants to upgrade Narrowband dialup residents (like my friend in rural PA) to Broadband internet, this wireless plan is the WRONG approach. The cheapest, fastest, and easiest solution is to use the existing Phone -or- Cable lines that already runs into everybody's homes. Upgrade them to DSL and cable internet. My friend would have high-speed internet practically overnight and with minimal expense (about $20 a month).
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

While I understand Mobile ATSC is intended for small tv's it's shame it's resolution is such that makes it useless for larger TVs since these signals would be a big help to people that live in fringe areas that have problems with finicky DTV signals.

On the other hand, people in distant areas would rather see SOME kind of picture than no picture. It doesn't matter that it's lo-res and "only" VHS quality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

In the broadband plan [the FCC] pretty much consider everything from ch 31-51 gone.

Yep. 120 megahertz from broadcasters == 20 lost slots in the TV band. Goodbye 31 through 51. (Channel [37] is radioastronomy.)

And because lo-VHF is almost worthless, we'd basically be left with 7 to 30 for all our television stations! Ick. Such a plan would make me lose two-thirds of the forty channels I currently receive. All I'd have left is NBC, this, PBS, CW, MyNetTV, CBS, and..... well that's it. Sucks
post #261 of 2861
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaveng View Post

(Channel 35 is protected for radioastronomy.)

It is channel 38, not 35.
post #262 of 2861
Topics merged.
post #263 of 2861
The 20th Century's boondoggle: Knocking the legs out from under the railroad industry while over-subsidizing roads and highways.

The 21st Century's (possible?) boondoggle: Knocking the legs out from under the broadcast industry while over-subsidizing mobile broadband.

Railroads and broadcasting similarities: consumers at mercy of the schedule, but very efficient in serving mass consumer groups

Rubber-tire transportation and mobile broadband: total freedom from fixed schedule, but prone to system overload when heavy demands present themselves

Since our President is promoting this push to reallocate spectrum, maybe broadcasters should push back by refusing to run live presidential addresses
post #264 of 2861
Nope. Control.

Crappy initial dtv transition - more cable subscribers - squeeze spectrum - more cable subscribers. The lobby spectrum is greener than ever and your representatives are smiling.

Paying more for broadband? Why?
post #265 of 2861
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng View Post

It is channel 38, not 35.

Channel 37.

- Trip
post #266 of 2861
The FCC is declaring broadcasting the losers and then stacking the deck so they will lose. Based on the report from the FCC engineering conference, to repack full power and class A stations into channels 7-30 (not counting LPs)366 stations would have to share channels, and it would effect 20% of markets. The freeze on licences is bad news to, again stacking the deck. New stations would do a great deal to popularize OTA.

But, does anyone other than me really care? Is anyone even going to fight for OTA, or is it going to go silently into the night?
post #267 of 2861
This is so screwed up its unbeleivable. Those greedy jerks don't deserve a thing. To screw up OTA after its been going on for the last 60 years right after the DTV transition is insane. They should work on getting everybody broadband internet with cable or DSL to begin with and leave OTA alone. Its nothing but corporate greed!

If OTA goes I'm not going to subscribe to pay TV or mobile broadband. I'm just going to buy more DVDs. Bite the hand that tries to force feed you this crap.
post #268 of 2861
We will rue the day that so much emphasis was placed on a solitary, laughably vulnerable network. Diversity in communication technology should be the goal, not this convergence BS that the populace has been sold on.
post #269 of 2861
Gosh,I can't think of a better way to control the free flow of information other than put it in one big pipe with a valve and a filter on it.Can you?
post #270 of 2861
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaveng View Post

If the government really wants to upgrade Narrowband dialup residents (like my friend in rural PA) to Broadband internet, this wireless plan is the WRONG approach. The cheapest, fastest, and easiest solution is to use the existing Phone -or- Cable lines that already runs into everybody's homes. Upgrade them to DSL and cable internet.

I have friends in the same situation. But cable doesn't come out to them and so if the phone company had any interest in providing my friends DSL they'd have it already. Short of the government giving them the cash to do it without restrictions they won't do it. I have one friend that has DSL and cable is literally less than 1.5 miles away form his house, but they won't go another foot further.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Technical
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Technical › AVS Official Topic - The FCC & Broadcast Spectrum