AVS Official Topic - The FCC & Broadcast Spectrum - Page 14

Senator Bennet's concern appears to be how the US can expand broadband access especially for wireless computer devices and smart phones in rural communities.

1. What should AVS members tell their Senators & Representatives is the best way to expand broadband access without negatively impacting OTA DTV / HDTV?

2. Is a wireless RF solution the best way to expand broadband access to rural areas?

3. The US already has a problem with distracted drivers causing traffic accidents and worse - mass transit accidents* due to cell phone calls and texting. New laws outlawing such causes of distracted driving are unlikely to stop this issue. There simply aren't enough police to enforce these laws given the number of cell phones on the road. Given the above, do we really want to increase broadband access for smart phones? The greater the RF broadband access, the greater the temptation, and the greater the risk for the traveling public. I have had one family member who has been rear-ended a total of three times and now lives with chronic pain as a result.

And as such this represents a misconception on Senator Bennet's part.

Wireless broadband in rural areas isn't limited by spectrum, it is limited by infastructure. Cell/broadband frequencies are relatively unused in rural areas. All companies like At&t, Verizon, and Cricket need to do to extend wireless broadband to rural areas is build more towers. They don't need more spectrum. All internet providers except Hughes Net satellite internet are ultimately wired carriers. Their wireless networks only extend a few miles past the "wire." And, unlike broadcasters, all they need to do to get more reuse out of their spectrum is build more towers. Since there are fewer users in rural areas, there is already plenty of broadband spectrum in rural areas, it's just a matter of getting enough fiber lines and towers to utilize that spectrum.

Plus, in areas like Colorado's Eastern border, and Western slope, much of the TV spectrum is "white space" (unused TV spectrum) that could be licensed to local companies to compete against the "big boys" without adversely effecting broadcasting. The NAB has already endorsed such a plan, and it is already in effect in Canada.

Therefore, to meet Senator Bennet's concerns, all congress needs to do is encourage more competing fiber networks and last mile(s) wireless systems. You don't need more spectrum to do that. Plus, the FCC isn't even looking at spectrum above 3.7 GHz even though wireless ISPs have used unlicenced 5.8 GHz spectrum to provide wireless service for years. Like someone else has pointed out, it doesn't work for handheld devices, but it is affordable broadband, not handheld broadband, that is the stated goal here.

Your last post makes THE point, in my opinion, Daniel, BUT I fear it's also THE POINT most of the Senators and House members are either entirely missing OR simply choosing to ignore. Does ANYONE here know of any website where there's any sort of MAP showing what the relative DISTRIBUTION is of Wireless Towers throughout America -- especially RURAL America -- and also how what the rough concentric broadcasting radius is of most of those towers?

I'm fairly certain that in ALL of the metropolitan areas -- and pretty much most of the high-traffic areas in between them, such as interstate highway corridors -- the dots on the map might be so close together we could barely tell one from another. BUT out in rural Colorado, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and quite a few other very rural areas they could be spread pretty thinly. I'd LOVE to see a map, even if it's only state-by-state. In fact, state-by-state might be better, since that would probably show more detail.

I think we REALLY need something like THIS to get the point across about just how SPURIOUS the "bring-more-broadband-to-'Rural America'" argument IS, and I've yet to see ANYONE actually ACTIVELY attack the argument from this vantage point.
Jeff

After doing a little searching, Daniel, I was able to find THIS website: http://www.cellreception.com/towers/...s&state_abr=co

Where I did a search for towers in Colorado, since that's where you live. Unfortunately the SIZE of the GoogleMap it will display on the page is TINY (and I can find NO WAY to get it any bigger on that particular website) AND although the tower locations appear to be fairly specific when you have it zoomed IN close to a specific city, when you ZOOM OUT so you can see the ENTRE STATE, all the tower locations not only CLUMP TOGETHER, they ALSO start literally "marching to the left," towards the Pacific Ocean, lol.

At any rate, IF you zoom in close enough, even though you have to scroll around a good bit (and if, like me, whose never even driven through Colorado), you don't know the state, you're just sort of "winging it," you can still find pretty vast areas with few or NO towers, at all, thus pretty well proving our point. I'm certain better searching might turn up better tools. The claim on that site is that there's something like 142,000 towers, nationwide, between the various carriers.

Oh, by the way, I started out by doing a search for service in one of the small towns in Colorado (I did a separate GoogleMap of Colorado, FULLSCREEN, so I could see the whole state) -- what looked like a one-horse town in the Eastern part of the state called Eads. I got NO response for that town.
Jeff

Thanks Jeff for the map, but it isn't very accurate since there are three towers that I can see from my bedroom window that aren't on it. There tend to be towers along the major highways, but once you get off of them, or get behind many of the small mountains that dot the foothills of the rockies you lose coverage fast. A lot of the farmland to the East has no towers and no coverage. It doesn't matter how much spectrum the wireless industry has there won't be coverage without more towers. Yet, those same people are able to pick up Denver and Colorado Springs TV stations out to 100 miles or more.

Where my parents live in Nebraska there is literally 40 miles between towers.

Yeah, next thing yaknow, instead of wanting to buy up the spectrum, the cellular companies will be pushing for the right to "piggyback" their signal on the powerful broadcasting antennas of those stations, instead!

Ooops, I better shut up before I give them (or "GeniusChowski") an idea!

Okay, boys and girls, the spectrum wars have officially started.

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/articles/...7/19/daily.11/

It's time to get those keyboards clicking. Contact your Representatives or kiss OTA broadcasting goodbye. Talking points below:

1. Taxing broadcasters to death isn't voluntary.

2. Plan will effect minority and religious broadcasters the most.

3. Digital broadcasting was a major shift in technology, and current viewership patterns shouldn't be used as a guage of the future.

4. Wireless broadband providers haven't even utilized the spectrum they've already purchased licenses for.

5. Taking spectrum from broadcasters will do nothing to improve broadband coverage in rural areas.

6. Wireless companies can use new technology (4G) to better utilize their current frequencies.

7. Unlike broadcasters, all wireless broadband operators need to do to get more reuse out of spectrum is invest in more points of presence (POPs, i.e. cell towers).

8. Past auction results can't be used to determine "fair market value" of spectrum. This is simple supply and demand economics. More supply of spectrum means it has less value.

9. Auctioning more spectrum will take money away from carriers efforts to use spectrum more efficiently since they will have to come up with more cash to maintain their competitive advantage.

10. Point 9 will result in higher prices for consumers.

11. Plan is nothing more than the rich attempting to take advantage of the poor, elderly, and minorities.

12. Plan will ultimately mean the death of the Emergency Broadcast System as broadcasters are driven from the airwaves by the new "fair market value" fees.

13. Verizon and AT&T are major players in the pay television market, and therefore represent a major conflict of interest.

14. If the representative expects to support the plan they should expect it to negatively effect the chances of their reelection.

15. Frequencies above 3.7GHz have already been successfully used for wireless broadband with speeds in excess of the FCCs 4 Mbps minimums.

Broadcast Engineering is publishing a number of related articles.

Technical paper finds HD channel sharing to be viable in achieving FCC spectrum goals
http://broadcastengineering.com/RF/t...um-goals-0714/

FCC’s Broadband Plan would put United States in the second tier of nations
http://broadcastengineering.com/news...-nations-0716/

Spectrum inventory already underway at FCC
http://broadcastengineering.com/news...rway-fcc-0716/

FCC’s Genachowski asks Congress for help in reclaiming spectrum
http://broadcastengineering.com/news...congress-0614/

I couldn't agree more!

Remember everyone:

• Congress can easily spot a form letter. Please compose your own letter.
• Please include how the loss of TV spectrum will affect your state - local issues matter

Please see: The Right to Write

I'd also like to note that the NAB's interests aren't necessarily the consumer's interest. Current NAB members have an interest in freezing the number of stations at the current level since that will mean they won't have to compete with "new kids on the block" broadcast network for OTA viewers. A licensing freeze is good for them, and bad for us.

Did you read the comments? I found them quite interesting. Of course I usually find my comments quite interesting...

A freeze that is part of a plan to shrink the TV broadcast spectrum might be good for their members in the short run -- but in the long run, it's bad. Anything that minimizes the future potential of wireless digital television is ultimately bad for the industry (including the incumbent stations) over the long run.

But granted, they may not take such a long term approach.

"Failures in business are caused by self-centeredness, treating business as a short-sighted profit-making endeavor, and clinging to outmoded practices." -- Konosuke Matsushita, founder of Panasonic

I imagine you DID, Ken, since you made all of them. Of course they were excellent comments, entirely in line with what we've all been saying in this thread.

As for your list of points, Daniel, I think you have a great list there, however I think No. 4-7 should be moved to the TOP of the list, with maybe a bit of explanation on Points 5 and 7, since it doesn't appear ANYONE on either side of this argument (at least not outside of this thread) is discussing the fact that even if the wireless companies had the ENTIRE broadcast spectrum it would make NO difference where they have NO cellular towers (I really DON'T BELIEVE a lot of Senators and House members have actually THOUGHT ABOUT how few and far between cell towers actually ARE in much of truly RURAL America). To ME, that's the biggest point that needs to be driven home, and why wired internet is the solution.

All this extra allocation is really about is giving AT&T and Verizon (and maybe Sprint and the other players, to a lesser extent) more bandwidth to sell in most of their major metro markets, suburbs and interstates where they already HAVE plenty of cell towers so their customers can start doing things like streaming downloads on smart phones and iPads, and as has already been pointed out before on this thread, that's quite likely to simply lead to even MORE people doing things like DISTRACTED DRIVING (of course passengers could always use it, as well, but we all know how many DRIVERS do these things, even today, and only a handful of states have yet passed laws against texting and driving). In my own state of South Carolina a bill came up in the state legislature this year to outlaw texting and driving (not long after a fatal car crash caused by a teenaged girl who ADMITTED that's what she was doing before she had the wreck -- at NIGHT, no less), and the bill WENT NOWHERE -- stayed "stuck in committee." Reporters trying to get answers from legislators hit a brick wall of silence, as well, leaving everyone to guess that either most of the legislators do it, too, OR that, more likely, the BIG CELL COMPANIES threw lots of $$$ at them to stall passage!

But ohhhhh, we can't stop that! The Supreme Court had deemed $$$ = "Free Speech"!
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!
Jeff

By the way, my "Sig" below, the quote from the founder of Panasonic -- I have plans to change that periodically and just haven't gotten around to it yet -- but this is just the sort of example where I think it fits... Businesses being self-centered, treating business as a short-sighted profit-making endeavor, and clinging to outmoded practices!

LMAO, Daniel! When I made my post above -- and then almost immediately edited it, to reference my SIG, I hadn't refreshed this page in a couple of hours, as I was watching TV and ALSO waiting to read the link that had Ken's replies in it.

Then I reference my SIG and then see YOU'VE just done the same thing!

Great minds really DO think alike, huh? (Or is that GRATE minds?)

By the way, I got that quote out of one of the editions of "Uncle John's Bathroom Reader," the source of MUCH of my knowledge and wisdom So the next time one of ya thinks I'm "full of it," well, maybe you won't be TOO far off the mark!

The following article talks about NAB's capitulation.

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/articles/2010/07/20/daily.6/

I believe that NAB believes that as long as they can maintain only enough spectrum to maintain current service, they can keep new players out of the market, and maintain their ability to get retransmission fees from the pay TV providers. At the same time they can appear to be "reasonable."

That is where the interests of OTA viewers (consumers), and (short term) interests of NAB broadcasters differ. It is in the consumers interest for broadcasting to maintain as much spectrum as possible to leave ample room for new full power, class A, and low power broadcasters. And, that spectrum needs to be maintained until it can be determined what the actual long term market dynamics are going to be.

We really need to put together a grassroots consumer union of OTA viewers, and their supporters, to represent our views to Congress. Unless the rest of you are a lot more wealthy than me, we won't be able to bring a lot of money to bear, but we can make a lot of noise if we choose to.

Daniel & Ken H,



Great points!

• Is some sort of AVS awareness campaign in order?

• Would a "Do you plan to write your Congressperson" poll added to this thread be helpful?

• Other ideas?

Maybe someone can create a Facebook account on the issue for starters?

We would have to think of a creative name.... Save OTA TV? Keep HDTV Free? Don't tread on my free TV?

http://www.youtube.com/user/SaveFreeTV

http://freetvcoalition.org/

I've had experience with making FB pages before... so I made one. I kept the name simple.

http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/...9250606?v=wall

I'm open to suggestions. It still needs a lot of work...

Since I'm extremely sure someone here is better at this than I am, you all can PM me and I'll make more page administration.

That actually looks like a PRETTY GOOD START to me, Ionosphere!

Sadly, the two links Daniel has above are really screwing the pooch in their approach by BADLY FAILING to follow the KISS formula... That first link, the video (which I've suffered through before) is WAY TOO SLOW. It should be sped up to at least two or three times that speed. While I'm often disturbed by how FAST credits and other things we're expected to READ flash by on TV and video screens, that video is SO SLOW that I can't imagine ANYONE other than someone already QUITE dedicated to this cause actually enduring the agony of sitting through it.

The second link has a similar sort of problem in text format... a BUNCH of writing that really doesn't get to the point very well and really MISSES the biggest points we've finally arrived at here -- which are that MORE SPECTRUM WON'T make SQUAT difference in "Rural America," because there aren't ANY TOWERS in those areas to begin with -- and if there WERE towers there, CURRENT SPECTRUM could easily be used WITHOUT adding any more spectrum.

Your Facebook Page could possibly add some of those points, listed with numbered bullets, and spelled out with as few words as possible. but I think it starts off JUST LIKE IT SHOULD!

Great work!
Jeff

Very good speech by Jim Goodmon. Why would the FCC want to take away a free 19 megabits stream OTA for free for a stream that has less data and is point to point and you would have to pay for it. Especially right after the DTV transition where the government helped pay for 34 million converter boxes. That right there is just mind boggling.

Other, than speeding it up, which is already noted (30-45 seconds max), what else could improve the effectiveness of the first video. Stated goals, format etc.

Thanks,
Dan

P.S. Ionosphere, great start on the Facebook page!!!

Great job Ionosphere!

Since first impressions of an article, and whether to read it or not, may be based on the picture(s), it might be a good idea to also include an indoor antenna. We wouldn't want those who grew up on cable to think DTV & HDTV can only be received with a rooftop antenna.

Consider using a picture of a ch 7 - 51 antenna (hard to find - a year after the transition! - probably due to all the ambiguity caused by Congress!) or a 7 - 69 antenna instead of the much larger 2 - 69 antenna since most areas no longer have ch 2 - 6. Smaller antennas may be more appealing for aesthetic reasons - "curb appeal".

Please let me know what you think:

Have you seen free broadcast TV lately? Gone are the snowy analog signals of yesterday. Now free TV often means the highest quality High Definition picture available and a better channel selection than basic cable. Yet, only one year after becoming widely available, special interest groups are lobbying the FCC and Congress to decrease available spectrum for free TV by 41%, forcing stations to degrade their signal and share channels. Contrary to what these special interest groups would like Congress to believe, this plan will do nothing to bring broadband to rural areas that lack wired infrastructure, not broadband spectrum. And, the plan has the very real potential of resulting in higher prices for TV, cell phone service, and broadband for the rest of us. Contact Congress today, and tell them to just say no to the free broadcast TV spectrum grab.

Great job Dan!

I tweaked it a bit. See what you think.

Have you seen free broadcast TV lately? Gone are the snowy analog signals of yesterday. Now free TV often means the highest quality High Definition picture available and a better channel selection than basic cable. Yet, only one year after becoming widely available, special interest groups are lobbying the FCC and Congress to decrease available spectrum for free TV by 41%, forcing stations to degrade their signal and share channels. Contrary to what these special interest groups would like Congress to believe, this plan will do nothing to bring broadband to rural areas that lack wired infrastructure. And, the plan has the very real potential of resulting in higher prices for TV, cell phone service, and broadband for the rest of us. Contact Congress today, and tell them to just say no to the loss of more FREE-TV channels.

The airways belong to American people not the government to sell off to the highest bidder - who will then charge all of us for generations to come.


Perhaps you can link your video with very popular how to build a UHF antenna U-tube video? All these UHF antenna builders should be interested in preserving the UHF spectrum.

Thank you for the edit!!!

I like everything but the last line. Just because whether or not the auction system is the best way to manage spectrum is a related, but different issue. I think it is better to limit it to a single issue.

No problem. Thank you for all your efforts!

Dan,
Can I use parts of the list you made up on the previous page for the 'Save Free HDTV' Facebook Page?

BTW, ota.dt.man:
I like your signature! =)