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 91

post #2701 of 2851
3/5/12 at 10:05am
FCC-10-174A1 stipulated that TVBD (TV Band Devices aka WSD) can operate on Ch2, 5-6 and 7-13 in the VHF Band.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2702 of 2851
3/5/12 at 2:06pm
No way in Hell will the American public tolerate another nonbackwardcompatable transition anytime this decade or the next!!! If the government starts any serious discussion of it I say we "Occupy the FCC" (a la Occupy Wall Street) and start up pirate stations!
Reply
Reply
post #2703 of 2851
3/5/12 at 6:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Hawk View Post

No way in Hell will the American public tolerate another nonbackwardcompatable transition anytime this decade or the next!!! If the government starts any serious discussion of it I say we "Occupy the FCC" (a la Occupy Wall Street) and start up pirate stations!

I second that emotion!
Reply
Reply
post #2704 of 2851
3/5/12 at 7:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by joblo View Post

Tribune, owner of the CW affiliates in NY, LA, DC, and other major markets, was in bankruptcy not too long ago. I haven't been following the case. Are they out now?

Tribune is in bankruptcy mostly due to their newspaper holdings. If their stations were to go on the market there would be plenty of broadcasting buyers such as Scripts, who just bought the McGraw-Hill stations, and Sinclair, who is actively looking for more stations. People who think that broadcasters are hurting are behind the curve by about 3 years.
Reply
Reply
post #2705 of 2851
3/5/12 at 7:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenglish View Post

A free-to-air satellite distribution system for locals is sounding better every day . And, it could free up ALL the OTA bandwidth.

Actually, going the other way would be a better Idea. Dish is already attempting to get a waver to use satellite spectrum for LTE...

http://gigaom.com/broadband/fcc-avoi...kes-with-dish/

And, I recently read an article about how the FCC would be better off delaying the incentive auction due to the relative low value of 600 MHz band spectrum. Seems that carriers are delaying the buildout of 700 MHz band spectrum in favor of AWS and higher frequency spectrum due to smaller cell sizes, higher reuse, and therefore higher efficiency...

LIKE the technically knowledgeable among us DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING!!!
Reply
Reply
post #2706 of 2851
3/6/12 at 3:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTVintermods View Post

The repack, if and when it happens, will most likely happen together with the introduction of a new DTV standard (and set-top boxes).

The more I think about it, the more I also think this will be the case, eventually. It may take 10 years or more.
Reply
Reply
post #2707 of 2851
3/6/12 at 6:14pm
As Yogi Berra would say... Deja vu all ovet again.
Reply
Reply
post #2708 of 2851
3/6/12 at 11:16pm
Scripps also owns many newspapers. If newspapers are a major money losing proposition then Scripps may go bankrupt also. Hopefully they didn't buy the McGraw-Hill stations with borrowed money. Financing expansion with debt is very risky.
Reply
Reply
post #2709 of 2851
3/8/12 at 11:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Hawk View Post

Scripps also owns many newspapers. If newspapers are a major money losing proposition then Scripps may go bankrupt also. Hopefully they didn't buy the McGraw-Hill stations with borrowed money. Financing expansion with debt is very risky.

Actually I need to change that a bit. Tribune went bankrupt after Sam Zell did a leverage buy out. The leverage buy out is what ultimately resulted in the bankruptcy.

The smart media companies are shifting from print to digital, but either way television stations are making money and are looking to have a very good year this year.
Reply
Reply
post #2710 of 2851
3/8/12 at 5:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkreichen1968 View Post

And, I recently read an article about how the FCC would be better off delaying the incentive auction due to the relative low value of 600 MHz band spectrum. Seems that carriers are delaying the buildout of 700 MHz band spectrum in favor of AWS and higher frequency spectrum due to smaller cell sizes, higher reuse, and therefore higher efficiency...

LIKE the technically knowledgeable among us DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING!!!

Here is another article about this idea. i.e., that by the time wireless companies can develop whatever they will gain in this auction, they will realize higher frequencies are where they really want to be.

200 GHz Suggested for Last Mile Connections

http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/...ections/212086

Quote:


It should be obvious to most readers that higher frequencies are needed for higher speed data. You don't hear much talk about using HF or even VHF frequencies for wireless broadband. I suspect that by the time the FCC is ready to auction of UHF TV broadcast spectrumperhaps 10 years from now--wireless carriers will have realized that this relatively "low" frequency TV broadcast spectrum will be useful only for low bit-rate (by future standards) communications in rural areas where its range overcomes the disadvantage of limited data bandwidth. The intelligent wireless infrastructure for the next decade will be a robust fiber network feeding "last mile" wireless connections operating in the GHz region or perhaps for fixed links, even the millimeter region.

Obviously, due to path-losses, etc., more towers are needed as the frequencies get higher. However, since this auction is really about highly concentrated urban areas and not getting broadband to rural areas, this would be a logical direction to take vs. spectrum currently occupied by TV broadcasters.

Still, perhaps the real issue is how much bandwidth is really needed. While very far from "broadband," PSK31 on HF (~32bps) is plenty fast enough for me to chat with someone half-way around the world. Granted, there aren't millions of others sharing the same band.
Reply
Reply
post #2711 of 2851
3/9/12 at 12:20am
I think the major broadcast networks would like for broadcast tv spectrum to be gutted so that they are forced to share channels. This will give them an excuse for eliminating free OTA high definition. Then they will be SD only OTA, with the only way to get them in HD being to pay for cable or satellite. Then they will have plenty of negotiating leverage to demand $4 per subscriber. Then the only free OTA HD will be from PBS (surely educational noncommercial licensees won't be allowed to sell their spectrum to wireless companies).
Reply
Reply
post #2712 of 2851
3/9/12 at 3:15am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Hawk View Post

I think the major broadcast networks would like for broadcast tv spectrum to be gutted so that they are forced to share channels. This will give them an excuse for eliminating free OTA high definition. Then they will be SD only OTA, with the only way to get them in HD being to pay for cable or satellite. Then they will have plenty of negotiating leverage to demand $4 per subscriber. Then the only free OTA HD will be from PBS (surely educational noncommercial licensees won't be allowed to sell their spectrum to wireless companies).

You can not possibly believe this. Also I don't know how denying OTA HD means they can ask for more money from cable/satellite?
Reply
Reply
post #2713 of 2851
3/9/12 at 3:42am
Check out the Comcast Technology Topic thread for more information.

Eliminating OTA HD would mean that they could demand more money from cable and satellite companies because the only way to get the networks in HD would be via pay tv. Exclusive content would be worth more to the pay tv companies, so if HD is their exclusive then they can charge the public more for the service.

Affiliate station owners woulde be the losers, but Disney, News Corp, Comcast, and CBS don't give a crap about them anyway. Heck, one or more of the major networks could possibly switch to becoming a cable network. We could be headed to the day, maybe soon, when the only free OTA tv will be PBS, religious stations, and a few independent stations. A few low power stations might survive also. Then all stations could easily fit on 2-30 or even entirely on VHF.
Reply
Reply
post #2714 of 2851
3/9/12 at 9:33am
Then why are they broadcasting HD OTA signals now?  If that's their goal, surely they would be sending only SD over OTA, even if they had been providing HD OTA in the past before reaching such a conclusion.
Reply
Reply
post #2715 of 2851
3/9/12 at 1:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dattier View Post

Then why are they broadcasting HD OTA signals now?* If that's their goal, surely they would be sending only SD over OTA, even if they had been providing HD OTA in the past before reaching such a conclusion.

This business, if it ever comes about, will have to be a community effort by the broadcasters. I'm not sure how well the issue is defined at the moment, but it is quite possible that if a local station dropped OTA HD, the HD program could be imported by cable from elsewhere. The local station will probably not go for that. If broadcasters agreed to stop OTA HD at some point to limit bandwidth useage, then the cable operators would not have that option.
Reply
Reply
post #2716 of 2851
3/10/12 at 3:20am
If the broadcast networks goal was not to broadcast OTA in HD they wouldn't have spent millions of dollars upgrading their equipment during the DTV Transition so they can broadcast OTA in HD. Also the major networks have said they have nothing to sell in the spectrum auction. Some people here post junk that doesn't have anything to back it up.
Reply
Reply
post #2717 of 2851
3/10/12 at 5:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi Master View Post

If the broadcast networks goal was not to broadcast OTA in HD they wouldn't have spent millions of dollars upgrading their equipment during the DTV Transition so they can broadcast OTA in HD. Also the major networks have said they have nothing to sell in the spectrum auction. Some people here post junk that doesn't have anything to back it up.

The networks' goal has always been the bottom line, financially. The network O&O's acquired digital broadcast equipment because it was required to continue broadcasting after transition. Over 10 years ago when this began, broadcasting did not seem so imperiled. In fact, HD might have seemed a way to revitalize OTA Today, It will be hard to get any support for broadcasting from viewers, government, or even program providers. The advance of cable and dish providers and the near elimination of smaller antenna recievers had made OTA very questionable as a viable program deliverer. Nobody can say what will come, but there is a lot of writing on the wall that says beating the OTA horse is politically good, That wasn't so a decade ago.
Reply
Reply
post #2718 of 2851
3/10/12 at 8:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by difuse View Post

The networks' goal has always been the bottom line, financially. The network O&O's acquired digital broadcast equipment because it was required to continue broadcasting after transition. Over 10 years ago when this began, broadcasting did not seem so imperiled. In fact, HD might have seemed a way to revitalize OTA Today, It will be hard to get any support for broadcasting from viewers, government, or even program providers. The advance of cable and dish providers and the near elimination of smaller antenna recievers had made OTA very questionable as a viable program deliverer. Nobody can say what will come, but there is a lot of writing on the wall that says beating the OTA horse is politically good, That wasn't so a decade ago.

Millions of us have been OTA-only for 50 years or more. More and more people are "cutting the cord" every day because of ridiculously high cable bills. Every other technology is going wireless, so how does it make sense for television to be distributed by a maintenance-prone cable infrastructure?

The only thing that's obsolete about broadcast TV is the commercials. If commercials are to continue, they need to be targeted so that people see only those that might interest them. Better yet would be an a la carte payment scheme where people subscribe to only shows that interest them, with no commercials. It's insane for viewers to be bombarded with commercials for products which they will never buy, and the industry that supports this is a scam perpetrated on the advertising clients whose dollars are being wasted.
Reply
Reply
post #2719 of 2851
3/10/12 at 10:03am
"
Quote:
Originally Posted by L David Matheny View Post

Millions of us have been OTA-only for 50 years or more. More and more people are "cutting the cord" every day because of ridiculously high cable bills. Every other technology is going wireless, so how does it make sense for television to be distributed by a maintenance-prone cable infrastructure?"



Sense, or reason, or even logic is not involved. I won't pony up for cable, but, most do, or use dish. Near universal subscription TV service is a fact, regardless of why.






"The only thing that's obsolete about broadcast TV is the commercials. If commercials are to continue, they need to be targeted so that people see only those that might interest them. Better yet would be an a la carte payment scheme where people subscribe to only shows that interest them, with no commercials. It's insane for viewers to be bombarded with commercials for products which they will never buy, and the industry that supports this is a scam perpetrated on the advertising clients whose dollars are being wasted.

"


It won't matter what I think, or most viewers. Anything might happen, but, its extremely unlikely any new techniology will be developed to assist those not contributing to continue not contributing. I cannot imagine a technology developed that would target OTA viewers with ads. And, I cannot imagine OTA viewers in any number will pay for any service. What's left is British Style public supported broadcasting. So far, that has not proved interesting to the American public; the political will does not exist. But, things change.
Reply
Reply
post #2720 of 2851
3/10/12 at 4:39pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by L David Matheny View Post

The only thing that's obsolete about broadcast TV is the commercials. If commercials are to continue, they need to be targeted so that people see only those that might interest them.

How would that work?

Quote:


Better yet would be an a la carte payment scheme where people subscribe to only shows that interest them, with no commercials. It's insane for viewers to be bombarded with commercials for products which they will never buy,

This already exists. You can buy individual shows via Itunes, Amazon and other places.

You might hate commercials they they pay for the shows existance. Why you expect something for nothing is beyond me.
Reply
Reply
post #2721 of 2851
3/10/12 at 6:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by L David Matheny View Post

The only thing that's obsolete about broadcast TV is the commercials. If commercials are to continue, they need to be targeted so that people see only those that might interest them. Better yet would be an a la carte payment scheme where people subscribe to only shows that interest them, with no commercials. It's insane for viewers to be bombarded with commercials for products which they will never buy, and the industry that supports this is a scam perpetrated on the advertising clients whose dollars are being wasted.

A la carte makes no sense in the context of over the air broadcasts, since they're free, anyway. How do you charge individually for something that's already free?

As for commercials...if you want to skip them, get a DVR or other video recording device. That way you can skip the commercials that aren't of interest to you and just see the programs and the handful of commercials that you're interested in.
Reply
Reply
post #2722 of 2851
3/10/12 at 10:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

How would that work?

As OTA presently operates, it wouldn't work. By that point in my rant, I was thinking of 21st Century alternatives like Internet TV. But anywhere that commercials are used to pay for content, they should be tailored to the recipient, since otherwise they're mostly wasted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

This already exists. You can buy individual shows via Itunes, Amazon and other places.

You might hate commercials they they pay for the shows existance. Why you expect something for nothing is beyond me.

I said, "Better yet would be an a la carte payment scheme ..." since I would not expect to receive commercial-free content without paying somehow. But $60 or $80 or $100 per month is a lot to pay a cable company as a delivery fee for content that is paid for by commercials.
Reply
Reply
post #2723 of 2851
3/10/12 at 10:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Desmond View Post

A la carte makes no sense in the context of over the air broadcasts, since they're free, anyway. How do you charge individually for something that's already free?

As I said in my reply to BCF68, by that point my thinking had moved beyond broadcast TV to possible alternatives. I would be willing to pay somehow for commercial-free content that I specifically choose to watch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Desmond View Post

As for commercials...if you want to skip them, get a DVR or other video recording device. That way you can skip the commercials that aren't of interest to you and just see the programs and the handful of commercials that you're interested in.

I have a TiVo, and I rarely watch commercials. But my point was that commercials that are shown to every viewer are mostly a waste, of both the time spent by viewers with absolutely no interest in the products and the money spent by sponsors who paid to show them to those people.
Reply
Reply
post #2724 of 2851
3/11/12 at 6:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by L David Matheny View Post

But my point was that commercials that are shown to every viewer are mostly a waste, of both the time spent by viewers with absolutely no interest in the products and the money spent by sponsors who paid to show them to those people.

Unfortunately, that's the nature of advertising. Few people pay attention to a billboard, but somebody is going to see it and buy a product. Those silly ads that come in my mailbox every Thursday, and get trashed every Thursday night, don't interest me, but they get read by somebody, someplace (I guess).
Sad to say...we are tied to a very inefficient system

Some forms of TV advertising could be targeted, though. And, I don't think the advertisers are totally stupid...they put ads for things that men are interested in on NASCAR, and things women are interested in on soaps and dramas (to put it very broadly). But, there could be ways to target more specifically, if you can get the stations and networks to work together.

I'd make some suggestions, but what do I know!
Reply
Reply
post #2725 of 2851
3/12/12 at 12:36am
My appreciation for people who work on transmission towers has just increased after watching this video. I wouldn't do this for all the money in the world.

http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/...0365%26embed=1
Reply
Reply
post #2726 of 2851
3/12/12 at 4:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by L David Matheny View Post

As I said in my reply to BCF68, by that point my thinking had moved beyond broadcast TV to possible alternatives. I would be willing to pay somehow for commercial-free content that I specifically choose to watch.



I have a TiVo, and I rarely watch commercials. But my point was that commercials that are shown to every viewer are mostly a waste, of both the time spent by viewers with absolutely no interest in the products and the money spent by sponsors who paid to show them to those people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kenglish View Post

Unfortunately, that's the nature of advertising. Few people pay attention to a billboard, but somebody is going to see it and buy a product. Those silly ads that come in my mailbox every Thursday, and get trashed every Thursday night, don't interest me, but they get read by somebody, someplace (I guess).
Sad to say...we are tied to a very inefficient system

Some forms of TV advertising could be targeted, though. And, I don't think the advertisers are totally stupid...they put ads for things that men are interested in on NASCAR, and things women are interested in on soaps and dramas (to put it very broadly). But, there could be ways to target more specifically, if you can get the stations and networks to work together.

I'd make some suggestions, but what do I know!

There's been a bit of discussion on this thread lately dealing with commercial spots on broadcast television. For a good chuckle, read todays "Blondie" cartoon strip in the papers...
Reply
Reply
post #2727 of 2851
3/12/12 at 5:02am
Good one!
Reply
Reply
post #2728 of 2851
3/12/12 at 10:01am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by L David Matheny View Post

But $60 or $80 or $100 per month is a lot to pay a cable company as a delivery fee for content that is paid for by commercials.

As long as 90% of the population continues to cough up $60, $80, $100 a month for all this commercial laden programming nothing will change. Cable/satellite charge what they do because they can.
Reply
Reply
post #2729 of 2851
3/12/12 at 10:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

As long as 90% of the population continues to cough up $60, $80, $100 a month for all this commercial laden programming nothing will change. Cable/satellite charge what they do because they can.

I agree 100%, and while DVDs and internet access of shows are alternatives to ads, most folks (myself included) are too lazy to go through all that it takes to get the change-over done.
Reply
Reply
post #2730 of 2851
3/12/12 at 11:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathill View Post

I agree 100%, and while DVDs and internet access of shows are alternatives to ads, most folks (myself included) are too lazy to go through all that it takes to get the change-over done.

Um... sounds like a business model for somebody...
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Technical

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Technical › AVS Official Topic - The FCC & Broadcast Spectrum