AVS Official Topic - The FCC & Broadcast Spectrum - Page 11

Anyway, this is a non-partisan issue, which is why I've written my representatives of both parties multiple times.

Off topic political comments deleted. Further like comments will result in more severe moderator action.

I think that you're right that there's something going on here beyond the official line.

Part of it, I think, is that this is being justified under the broadband plan, but what it really seems to be about is getting faster, less congested service for Blackberries and iPhones. So this proposal takes away a lifeline news and entertainment service to provide more bandwidth to feed the wireless devices of yuppies.

Another part of it, of course, is that Genachowski comes from telecom, and big telecom has been eyeing that UHF TV spectrum with impure thoughts for years.

In a word: yuck! Problem definitely not solved.

Amputating a hand one finger at a time does not make the process less painful -- and your proposal makes the pain even greater.

How so?

First of all, some broadcasters could potentially find themselves forced to relocate three times in a ten year period. And at the end of that time, they'd have no assurance that it couldn't happen again, since the precedent would be well established that the FCC can just pull more spectrum from the broadcast bands at will.

Secondly, your proposal would result in years of regulatory uncertainty for the broadcast industry. I can only imagine what that will do to the ability of broadcasters to obtain funding for any sorts of business expansions or upgrades.

Thirdly, it makes the current freezes on new station rulemakings and major market LPTV applications more or less permanent, since there will always be the risk that the FCC will want to come back and grab more spectrum later. That means that new entrants are pretty much permanently frozen out of TV broadcasting.

Finally, your proposal is based on the assumption that there really is a pressing need for telecom services to grab this spectrum, and so far as I can see, no one has managed to actually make that case. As others here have already noted, higher frequencies can be used to provide wireless broadband to people's homes -- and greater cell density can allow more efficient use of existing mobile broadband spectrum. And based on the outcome of the 700 MHz spectrum auctions, it seems unlikely that this spectrum will be used to increase competition in the broadband, since the incumbent carriers will just pick it up at auction and lock out the competition...again!

From the NAB Pulse:

I enjoyed watching the fireworks shows in HD OTA on July 4th. With football season fixing to start up with all the games in HD this fall I'm going to be enjoying OTA HD. Knowing that these greedy jerks want to take it away after so many people spent money upgrading to DTV is just disgusting. Also it provides emergency information and severe weather alerts.

Okay, they want to limit OTA to 29 channels. That means that if you have three overlapping markets the average number of stations per market will be 10. ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CW, PBS plus 4 channels for independents, minority broadcasting, religious broadcasters, and LPs. Seems like a civil rights case in the making. Plus no room for new players.

I don't believe that the FCC cares. All they can see is the dollar signs for the projected auction. The broadcasters and people who watch OTA TV be @%@$. All those minority and religious broadcasters be @%&$. Like I said, you can make a very good civil rights case against this plan.

The hope is in the NAB being able to raise opposition to reallocation in congress and the public at large. I don't know how they plan to do that, or when they plan on doing it. It would seem to me that they would need to get going on it before October 1st when Obama wants the plan in place.

Awesome! I can't wait to see those campaign TV commercials this fall saying "And I'll make sure to keep OTA HDTV free. I'm *insert politician* and I approve of this message."

Trouble is...the spin doctors of the broadband industry would claim they were saying "I hate the Internet and cell phone industry, and I want to keep America in the dark ages".
Somebody has to stand up and say, "America can't afford to put all its telecommunications eggs in to one basket, because one basket can fail and leave us totally "In-COMMUNI- cado"...i.e.: no communications".

The way the politician said it would make all the difference. "I'm standing up for the little guy (minority and religious broadcasters, and consumers), against the robber barons of the 21st century." What will the wireless, Iphone/Droid set say? "We don't want your money." And, then there is the "introductory offer" cable industry that can only benefit from this. They certainly can't say they have the public interest in mind. This is a civil rights issue, a freedom issue, and a multiplicity of information source, communications issue.

I wonder if this date has anything to do with achieving their desired broadband goal before the mid-term election?

I'd respond we can have BOTH free television and high-speed internet. All we need is to require the Telephone and Cable TV monopolies to upgrade the existing wires for DSL and Cable Internet. 99.9% of america could have broadband within a year, and we'd still keep our free television.
We're talking about the government here. All it has to do is say, "You WILL upgrade phone customers with DSL, or your government-granted license (monopoly) will be revoked and given to a different phone company." That's how phone service was extended to rural residents in the 1930s and 40s - by government command. As for money: Every phone company collects a Universal Service Fee on bills. They can use that to offset the cost of installing a $100 DSLAM in every town block or rural neighborhood.
I doubt it. McCain doesn't care if people have internet or not - he'd just repeat the Glenn Beck line about letting the free market take care of it.

Aren't both Telephone and Cable franchises granted at the state and local levels, though?
That makes any mandates a thousand times harder to push through.

That's how phone service was extended to rural residents in the 1930s and 40s - by government command. Basically the law was: Hook up phone service or else. We could enact a similar law today: Upgrade to DSL or FiOS or other high-speed equivalent - or else.

Funds would be provided by the USF phone companies charge each month.

The Internet is content agnostic. If it can be digitized the Internet can be used to transport it.

Assuming there is some sort of national broadband policy to get everyone wired with fiber, similar to what we did with telephone and Electricity a hundred years ago, delivering 100 Mbps residential service is cost effective. That is a sweet spot from both a cost and performance perspective.

Wireless is less in need of government policy. Barriers to entry are lower and services are more profitable than wiring residences.

As far at TV is concerned 100 Mbps is fast enough to deliver four HDTV channels with 35 Mbps left for Internet. 100 Mbps allows each person in typical family of 4 to watch a different program. It will upend the traditional content aggregation model. Content aggregator (i.e. your friendly Cable MSO) no longer needs a physical presence to deliver programming services.

It is disheartening listening to the naysayers. If we could bring electricity and telephone to most of the US population a hundred years ago seems like there is no excuse not to deploy fiber to all but the most rural areas.

There are about 110 million US households. It is costing Verizon about $2,000 per household to deploy FIOS (outside plant and equipment). Given those numbers it will cost about $250Bn to wire up the country, I lot of money to be sure but also a fantastic investment in the future.

If we are going to switch to MPEG4, where will we get the extra channels to give every tv station a second channel to broadcast in both MPEG2 and MPEG4 during the transition period? Are we going to wait until just 2 years before the (scheduled and likely delayed) MPEG2 shutoff date before an MPEG4 tuner mandate for smaller screen tvs kicks in? How about another round of coupon subsidized converter boxes (QAM capability banned, of course)? I SAY HELL NO TO A SECOND TRANSITION!!!

Okay FiOS is the trade name for Verizon's fiber optic systems (fiber to the home), which I guess we're using generically like Kleenex. What I've found is that rural areas are more likely to have fiber to the home than urban areas, at least in the Qwest area. My parents in rural, rural, rural, Nebraska (Consolidated Telephone Company) have had fiber to their home for several years. Ditto for rural El Paso County (Colorado) that has a small local carrier, meanwhile in Colorado Springs (El Paso County but "served" by Qwest) your lucky if you have fiber to your node.

Okay, in theory my DTVpal DVR will already handle MPEG4.

My college roommate's father, who has been in computers since 1968, (he was born within 10 days of Elvis Presley) has a saying that you should never buy anything computer related until the last minute, since it will be obsolete shortly thereafter. In many ways the digital transition came too late, but in other ways it came too early. If you could guaranty that every market could have 20-25 HD channels of free OTA television using 144 MHz of spectrum I'd be all for the NBP. I'd willingly pay for the required converter box, and buy one for the widow down the street.

You're probably right that he doesn't care about Internet access. However, he does have a long record of hostility towards broadcasters when it comes to the digital transition, having repeatedly referred to the "loaner" channel that full power stations got during the transition as a giveaway to the broadcast industry.

Note that I'm not making any broader statements about either political party, but it's clear that Obama is not a friend of the TV broadcast business, and the evidence was that McCain wouldn't have been, either. So far all the differences between the two, on this particular issue there probably wasn't much of a real choice.

I've been ABSENT from this thread for quite some time, but my email box has kept me aware that it's been BY FAR the busiest of my subscribed threads, so I spent the last SEVERAL hours catching up, and it was worthwhile reading...

Tschmidt, you just basically restated my primary thoughts on this issue, as well. I'm disappointed in Obama's stance on this, and think perhaps he's just been "into" the wireless thing for quite some time (probably had wifi at home, and been using a laptop and his wireless smartphone, etc.), and just hasn't put a lot of thought into how much of the content he's been used to receiving "wirelessly," often at something approaching broadband speeds, was first delivered via some WIRED TRUE BROADBAND CONNECTION.

Of course, any time he's used his (is it a Blackberry? I don't remember what it was he "couldn't give up" when he took office that the Secret Service had to get a special version of "just for the President," but I THINK it was a Blackberry)... At any rate, whenever he's using whatever smartphone he has, that is a true wireless device and he's at the mercy of whatever "broadband" speed delivery his carrier provides (assuming the government isn't giving him some special, dedicated service). Being a subscriber to PC World, which runs a comparison article on wireless broadband speeds once or twice a year in a half dozen or so major markets, I know that the fastest peak speeds in any of the markets they tested most recently were still slightly shy of 2 Mbps, and most were closer to 1 Mbps, with some down in the 800 Kbps range, and an average of about 1,200 Kbps. To ME, that just BARELY qualifies as "broadband" until you consider how much faster that is than 56K.

All the same, IF there were a NATIONAL mandatory fiber-optic wiring plan for all but the most remote areas (and I mean areas so remote they also aren't served by either the electric grid and/or telephone companies), the wireless part of things would EASILY take care of itself!

First, the wireless telecoms could still continue to sell wireless broadband to whomever they wish, and whoever is willing to pay their ridiculous prices (or maybe they'd actually be forced to become more competitive/reasonably priced).

Second, with wired fiber-optic TRUE broadband available virtually everywhere, most folks would be able to use wireless routers hooked up to that broadband to give themselves wireless internet for areas in proximity to their homes or businesses. Those who MUST HAVE mobile, wireless broadband, WELL, they can pay for it by whatever mechanism is available (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc.). But I see NO NEED NOR EXCUSE to sell off the Nation's birthright of telecommunications spectrum in the process.

Those airwaves ARE public property. That electromagnetic spectrum has ALWAYS existed, and WILL always exist. It's not something that was invented by any human; it came into existence with the birth of the universe, and it essentially BELONGS to the universe, which means ALL OF US. For the FCC to have the attitude that a few telephone companies have the need or right to buy up exclusive ownership to use the majority of it virtually "forever" just because there's some temporary trend in a certain direction seems extremely short-sighted.

I don't recall exactly who it was who posted a couple months back (that's how far back I was reading earlier this morning) about the floods in Nashville, but I can assure you that NO cell towers in Nashville were working after those floods. Local TV and radio stations BASED in Nashville were likely off the air, as well. BUT, since signals carry quite a ways, I'm willing to bet that stations from surrounding cities were still on the air, and ANYONE who was lucky enough to still have electricity -- or who had a generator or a battery-powered TV (or a car with a good DC-AC converter and a portable TV) could pick at least one of them up and get IMPORTANT emergency information.

THAT, ALONE, if nothing else, is the VITAL PUBLIC INTEREST broadcast TV serves that NO WIRELESS ALTERNATIVE WILL EVER BE ABLE TO REPLACE, PERIOD.

As for politics on this issue, I'm in agreement that this is very much a non-partisan or bi-partisan issue, as it's primarily an issue of COLOR, and that COLOR, I'm pretty sure, is GREEN. I'm not saying President Obama, or all the House and Senate members (or even FCC board members, for that matter) who might support re-allocation of 120 Mhz of broadcast spectrum to wireless carriers are being paid off either under-the-table by those carriers or one of their lobbies -- or even via campaign contributions (although I'm sure many of them ARE getting campaign contributions -- but probably from all sides). What I AM saying is that it's quite likely that quite a few of the people who support the spectrum-grab plan are convinced this is GOOD for the economy... That it will spur economic growth and be a positive thing for the future, etc.

What I think REALLY needs to be done is that someone needs to put together a very cogent plan showing how an alternative national fiber-optic plan would be both better for the longterm economy and the nation, overall (and I'm certain that it would be). I have don't have the technical knowledge or the connections to do that, but I'm certain there are people who do (perhaps there is already one or more such alternative proposal out there, and we just haven't seen it/them?). When and IF such a proposal is put forward, as many of us as possible need to get together and make a concerted effort -- a FULL PUSH to educated Congress and the President about this and try to get them to PUSH the FCC in THAT direction, instead.

This national broadband plan via wireless is a sort of "on the cheap" plan that is not good for the country, ONLY for the Wireless companies. It's short-term thinking at the expense of longterm growth, the same sort of thinking that has, time and again, gotten this country into one mess after another (including our current recession, via the short-term financial gains of selling homes to folks who couldn't afford them, then "packaging" those loans and re-selling them as investment securities). This "wireless broadband plan" is selling our broadband future "down the river" at the expense of both the broadcasting industry, free TV viewers, and the future of TRUE high-speed internet.

IT NEEDS TO BE NIPPED IN THE BUD, NOW!
Jeff

On 9/11, cell phones in the New York area were useless because the volume of calls was so great. Doubling the amount of spectrum wouldn't have helped, because there were (and will always be) more phones than any wireless infrastructure could support.

I was ten blocks away from the WTC when it was hit and when I saw them fall. How did I let my family know I was OK? With a WIRED Internet connection! Is it cool? No. But as part of a complete, managed system, it worked well when it was needed most.

As I walked uptown (no subways were operating, and no traffic was allowed south of 42nd Street) people gathered around car radios to get news and safety information. TV was knocked out (except for one station that still maintained a backup transmitter site) cell phones "worked" but were useless where it was needed most.

Outside of NY, DC, and PA, people used their TV and cell phone to gawk at what was happening. Entertaining, but non-essential. Adding bandwidth in those areas didn't make a difference there, either.

The point of this story is you need a mix of different systems if you want to reliably communicate with people when you need to. People will do what it takes to use the systems that are functioning, but if you put all your eggs in one basket, you will always have the potential for a broken basket. The bigger the basket, the more devasting the failure. Then what?

Too big to fail? Where have we heard that before?

Where are the suits that said that high oil prices and shortages were a good thing? Why? Because the "educated" the poor slobs that they had to conserve. The huge profits to the energy suppliers was just a collateral windfall. If there isn't enough spectrum to support all of the phones, the same logic could be used to raise prices to thin the phone herd.

How's this logic? We don't need all these roads and rails. People fly everywhere, and "we" think that's a better way to get around. Reclaim those roads and build lots of small airports.

Sorry for the double rant...

Thanks for the double rant.