or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Technical › Happy Anniversary! It's been a year since the analog cutoff.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Happy Anniversary! It's been a year since the analog cutoff. - Page 2

post #31 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

Well the unlike the digital TV transition which was passed by Congress, Boradband Plan is the FCC's baby. And in that plan they plan on taking away 120 MHZ from OTA TV. So I can certainly blame the FCC for that.

That's certainly true.

My point was that the fact that Verizon and AT&T won most of the 700 MHz spectrum in the auctions for that spectrum was largely outside the FCC's control.

However, the FCC should consider the likelihood of a similar outcome from the plan that they are now pushing. The end result is likely to be that the broadcast service will be gutted to make room for additional broadband service -- but that service will never materialize, since Verizon and AT&T will bid for that spectrum and then warehouse it to keep potential competitors at bay.

That's surely not in the public interest, convenience, or necessity -- to dig up an old phrase that rarely seems to get mentioned at the FCC anymore.
post #32 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Desmond View Post

My point was that the fact that Verizon and AT&T won most of the 700 MHz spectrum in the auctions for that spectrum was largely outside the FCC's control.

However, the FCC should consider the likelihood of a similar outcome from the plan that they are now pushing. The end result is likely to be that the broadcast service will be gutted to make room for additional broadband service -- but that service will never materialize, since Verizon and AT&T will bid for that spectrum and then warehouse it to keep potential competitors at bay.

That's surely not in the public interest, convenience, or necessity -- to dig up an old phrase that rarely seems to get mentioned at the FCC anymore.

That is exactly what some high ranking FCC officials hope happens. Remember, the current chairman comes from the broadband world and he is openly helping his buddies here. No secret. Even some Dems in Congress have told the FCC to slow down on this but as usual, no one in the FCC or Administration is listening and that is the facts. The power grab in DC in this administration beats all others put together in their brashness and openness and I didn't think anyone could top the last one.
post #33 of 71
Quote:


Canadians also have a tradition of watching U.S. TV. In fact, about four-fifths of Canada's population lives within 150 kilometers (93 mi) of the United States border.

Receiving American TV is their 2nd most popular activity to watching hockey.
They go to all lengths to receive stations in Western New York. We have the largest cross border reception bare none in the US.
This works both ways since they give us material that isn't available in the US.
Quote:


Canadians don't even have many high UHF stations.

Wrong. Take a look at the current Toronto station assignments.
Quote:


The Canadian DTV transition has been pretty unimpressive so far.

Not true in the Toronto-Buffalo market. Thought they are still behind us, they have done a decent job of providing HD content. One worthwhile station that has been left out is their educational network (of all programming, no less).
post #34 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng View Post

That is exactly what some high ranking FCC officials hope happens. Remember, the current chairman comes from the broadband world and he is openly helping his buddies here. No secret. Even some Dems in Congress have told the FCC to slow down on this but as usual, no one in the FCC or Administration is listening and that is the facts. The power grab in DC in this administration beats all others put together in their brashness and openness and I didn't think anyone could top the last one.

The irony is that if the Bush FCC had dared to push something like this, it would have been attacked by progressives -- and rightly so -- because there's absolutely nothing progressive about this particular proposal. It takes away a free service that is currently enjoyed in at least 15 million households, including many who aren't especially well off. And it does so for the purpose of turning that spectrum over to some very, very big telecom companies to either warehouse or use to offer expensive subscription services to a mostly well-heeled customer base of Blackberry and iPhone users.

And not only will it shaft those who depend on OTA television for free news and entertainment, but the stations most likely to lose their spectrum are also those stations that are least likely to be part of any of the big media conglomerates. Which means that ownership diversity also takes a hit if this comes to pass.

It's hard for me to find the words to express the level of disgust that I feel for this misbegotten proposal. But I'll certainly cheer when Genachowski goes away (may that happen soon!) -- he's even worse than Michael Powell was, and Powell was pretty awful. Meanwhile, I really miss Kevin Martin, who was something of a loose cannon, but at least he didn't seem to be so totally in the pocket of any particular industry.
post #35 of 71
^ Great post.
post #36 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Desmond View Post

if the Bush FCC had dared to push something like this, it would have been attacked by progressives -- and rightly so -- because there's absolutely nothing progressive about this particular proposal.

I really miss Kevin Martin, who was something of a loose cannon, but at least he didn't seem to be so totally in the pocket of any particular industry.

Agree - I think many of our leaders have forgotten the notion of "public good" and replaced it with "most profitable."

Will be interesting to see how this plays out. The low power of wireless Internet access means there is tremendous spatial reuse. I find it hard to understand why this service needs more capacity.
post #37 of 71
Quote:


Agree - I think many of our leaders have forgotten the notion of "public good" and replaced it with "most profitable."

Ever since 1981.
post #38 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tschmidt View Post

Agree - I think many of our leaders have forgotten the notion of "public good" and replaced it with "most profitable." ....

Unfortunately, the idea of "Public Good" has gone from "doing what is best for people" to "doing whatever it takes to get budget, to give money away to people".

I wonder if there will be some bailout money available to the unemployed broadcast personnel. Surely, there must be some spare change in all that auction windfall.
post #39 of 71
The last several posts of this thread, are beginning to discuss the some of the same topics found in this other current thread, which you might find to be of a more hopeful nature. See also post #295 & #306.
post #40 of 71
What happened in 1981 videobruce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Desmond View Post

The irony is that if the Bush FCC had dared to push something like this, it would have been attacked by progressives -- and rightly so --

Bookmarked
post #41 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaveng View Post

What happened in 1981 videobruce? Bookmarked

Ronald Reagan was elected and began the deregulation of broadcasting. Depending on which side of the political scale you are on, that was either a good thing or a bad thing. As one who was in the business at the time deregulation started, there are good points and bad points about it. Personally, one who IS effected by it, honestly, it is really a wash. It is more useful as a political tool than as a real issue.
post #42 of 71
Quote:
Ronald Reagan was elected and began the deregulation

............deregulation of everything.
post #43 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by videobruce View Post

............deregulation of everything.

Before you go all liberal political, just remember one thing. If it hadn't been for Reagan's deregulation, the Obama Administration would have been bared by law to do what they are doing now with broadband. Again, depending on which side of the aisle you are on, it's a good thing or it is a bad thing.

Choose carefully.
post #44 of 71
You mean the Obama plan to provide expensive wireless broadband internet to rural communities and farmers? Yeah that's a great plan (rolls eyes).
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng View Post

Ronald Reagan was elected and began the deregulation of broadcasting.

And how does that prove "many of our leaders have forgotten the notion of 'public good' and replaced it with 'most profitable.'" As I recall it was Reagan who pushed for HDTV - for free over the air - rather than for profit like the Japanese did it (you had to pay to get MUSE HDTV via satellite). When Reagan made the decision it was for the public good, and we are now reaping the benefit.

Give me some specifics please of where Reagan sold out to broadcasters or cellphone companies.
post #45 of 71
Quote:


Choose carefully.

I have.
Quote:


You mean the Obama plan to provide expensive wireless broadband internet to rural communities and farmers? Yeah that's a great plan (rolls eyes).

You have a better solution? Then what is the solution for all of those anti social types (not including actual farmers) that insist on living in the middle of nowhere because they don't want anyone with earshot distance with no internet service (other than dialup)? Tens of thousands of miles of CATV cables between homes that are miles apart? Most of the towers are already there.
Quote:


As I recall it was Reagan who pushed for HDTV - for free over the air

He must of made a mistake, (or maybe he forgot) as that appears to be the only thing he may of done that benefited someone other than the middle and upper classes.
post #46 of 71
BTW, All the necessary spectrum has been available by properly using the military aircraft band from 225-400 MHz. Even 50 MHz of bandwidth is way more than is needed for their communication instead of reducing OTA TV spectrum. AFAIC, channel 79 should of not been taken away.
post #47 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by videobruce View Post

You have a better solution?

Here's my broadband plan (note broadband means any service greater than telephone narrowband) (i.e. >>4000 hertz)

- Take a page out of the FDR years which mandated telephone companies must wire all homes with telephone lines
- Update the law so it says telephone companies must provide DSL (or FiOS or equivalent service) to all homes by 1/1/2012
- Use the already-existing Universal Service Fund (USF) to cover the costs

Done. Since 99.9% of homes have telephone wires running into them, there's no digging required. No manual labor. No disruption. Simply install a ~$100 DSLAM in each neighborhood. Within a year's time, virtually everyone would have access to 1000 kbit/s or more service. That's 20-40 times faster than what they had before (28k or 56k).

Over time those DSLs would be phased-out and upgraded to fiber, but as of 2012 the US Congress could claim, "No american citizen is still stuck on dialup." They might even be able to use it for the reelection campaign.
post #48 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaveng View Post

Simply install a ~$100 DSLAM in each neighborhood.

I keep thinking about this and something doesn't make sense to me. The gear may cost $100, but how do you go about getting connectivity to it? Doesn't that mean you have to run fiber to the DSLAM? That probably costs a pretty penny.

- Trip
post #49 of 71
Does nothing to help the people out in the boonies living on a few (or a few hundred) acres. When neighbors are 5 or 10 miles from each other, DSL simply won't cut it. Also, if the phone lines suck so much that they can't get above 14.4 on dialup, what makes you think higher frequencies will be usable?
post #50 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by coyoteaz View Post

Also, if the phone lines suck so much that they can't get above 14.4 on dialup, what makes you think higher frequencies will be usable?

I already made this argument, but theaveng told me I was "wrong."

- Trip
post #51 of 71
If you don't want to listen to me, that's cool. Listen to my friend in Unionville who had 24k dialup (sometimes 40k) and jumped to 3000k DSL.. Or listen to this dude:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi Master View Post

My phone lines only got 26.4k dialup. But I upgraded to AT&T's 1.5MBps DSL and everything works great. I love it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

The gear may cost $100, but how do you go about getting connectivity to it? Doesn't that mean you have to run fiber to the DSLAM? That probably costs a pretty penny.

In most cases "no" you don't have to run fiber because the DSLAM is within 15 miles of a town's central office or switching station. In other cases I've had Slashdotters tell me the phone company ran a fiber optic across the telephone poles, and down to a "box" in his neighbor's yard (the DSLAM probably). That new box tied into everybody's phone lines. Instant upgrade for 100 homes.

No idea how much stringing the fiber might have cost but probably still less than installing 3 million celltowers out across the continent (to provide wireless internet).
post #52 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng View Post

Before you go all liberal political, just remember one thing. If it hadn't been for Reagan's deregulation, the Obama Administration would have been bared by law to do what they are doing now with broadband. Again, depending on which side of the aisle you are on, it's a good thing or it is a bad thing.

At the risk of diving (carefully) into some fairly political territory, I will just comment that I hope that no one here is so lockstep that they agree with *everything* that has been done by politicans on whichever side of the political spectrum they happen to fall.

That said, I'll note that 30 years ago, we had 82 channels. That got whittled down to 68 channels by the Reagan FCC, and whittled down again to 50 channels as a result of policies put in place by the Clinton FCC. If the Obama FCC has its' way, we might see that reduced to 30 channels or so.

And while I know it is little more than an exercise in dreaming, can you imagine what we could achieve with a system of free over the air digital television if we still had 82 channels to play with?

Talk about a missed opportunity.
post #53 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaveng View Post

In most cases "no" you don't have to run fiber because the DSLAM is within 15 miles of a town's central office or switching station.

I don't understand how you do this without some type of fiber backbone. What does being within 15 miles of the central office have to do with anything? I thought 15 miles was for residential DSL services, which are speed limited and quickly degrade. I wouldn't expect a lot of throughput at 15 miles.

Quote:


No idea how much stringing the fiber might have cost but probably still less than installing 3 million celltowers out across the continent (to provide wireless internet).

No argument there.

- Trip
post #54 of 71
The distance limit on true DSL is something in the 12000-15000' range. 15 miles you're talking fiber, especially for aggregating multiple connections. If they've already got fiber run out there and a box with a DSLAM in it, they might as well go the rest of the way and set up a FiOS-style PON and run fiber to every home. Numerous advantages to this: far more bandwidth to each home (and therefore more crap they can sell to the customers), basically no maintenance of anything between the CO and the subscribers home except in the case of backhoe attacks, no power usage at the neighborhood level, no need to rewire for upgrades. DSL is a half-assed solution that just pushes off the need for real fixes for a couple years (in that respect it's perfect for the current administration), because we're fast approaching the point where streaming video is a basic component of everyday life, and low-end broadband won't cut it for that. A few years down the line someone else will decide that 20Mbit Internet is a fundamental right of every American consumer, and they'll have to tear up all the wiring and start over.
post #55 of 71
Quote:


Update the law so it says telephone companies must provide DSL (or FiOS or equivalent service) to all homes by 1/1/2012

Yea, that will happen. Verizon is cherry picking rich, snobby suburbs to wire for FiOS at the cost to the central cities.
Quote:


Does nothing to help the people out in the boonies living on a few (or a few hundred) acres. When neighbors are 5 or 10 miles from each other, DSL simply won't cut it. Also, if the phone lines suck so much that they can't get above 14.4 on dialup, what makes you think higher frequencies will be usable?

That's why I posted what I did. Houses miles and miles apart (those anti social types) will never get anything other than dialup. They want their isolation, let them have it. With that, they get nothing else. Why should anyone else subsidize their choice?
Quote:


No idea how much stringing the fiber might have cost but probably still less than installing 3 million celltowers out across the continent (to provide wireless internet).

Most of the towers are already there.
Quote:


That said, I'll note that 30 years ago, we had 82 channels. That got whittled down to 68 channels by the Reagan FCC,

As I said it should of stopped there. Again, reuse that vastly, underused military aircraft spectrum.
post #56 of 71
Installing fiber means tearing-up streets and sidewalks. Expensive and could take 20 years for the whole country. IMHO it makes more sense to copy Japan - the country with the world's fastest connections - with almost nothing but DSL for that last mile hookup. No rewiring needed. Upto 250 Mbit/s to the home.

DSL can do 7.5 mile distance. A DSL repeater extends that to 15. As for wireless, try driving through Wyoming or Idaho or Montana. The cellular service only exists along the interstates. Once you wander away from that narrow strip of highway, to where rural residents and farmers reside, the service is nil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

What does being within 15 miles of the central office have to do with anything? I thought 15 miles was for residential DSL services, which are speed limited and quickly degrade.

I think we're discussing different things. I was discussing the "last mile" problem of getting people off Dialup and onto a Broadband service. To me the ideal solution is to simply use the already-existing phone lines.

As for speed, a 1000 kbit/s DSL is still 20-40 times faster than what rural residents have with dialup. Still a huge improvement. It enables them to use video services like youtube or hulu.com, which they could never do before
.
post #57 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaveng View Post

Installing fiber means tearing-up streets and sidewalks. Expensive and could take 20 years for the whole country. IMHO it makes more sense to copy Japan - the country with the world's fastest connections - with almost nothing but DSL for that last mile hookup. No rewiring needed. Upto 250 Mbit/s to the home.

DSL can do 7.5 mile distance. A DSL repeater extends that to 15. As for wireless, try driving through Wyoming or Idaho or Montana. The cellular service only exists along the interstates. Once you wander away from that narrow strip of highway, to where rural residents and farmers reside, the service is nil.

Now you're just making things up. The best DSL technology currently in use is VDSL2, which allows for up to 200Mbit/s combined at up to 1000' before the speed falls way off. This is what AT&T and Qwest are already using for their "fiber" services, which are more like a combined bandwidth of 20-30Mbit/s at the distances normally involved. Japan, Korea, and Sweden primarily utilize FTTH for their 100Mbit/s and faster connections, because DSL just doesn't cut it over any sort of distance.

The best DSL for distance is currently READSL2, which will get some level of service out to about 4 miles. At 7.5 miles you're looking at IDSL, which is just ISDN moved off the voice switches and onto pure data switches. Slight speed increase, at the cost of losing voice service. It has little to do with other DSL variants except the name.
post #58 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaveng View Post

As for speed, a 1000 kbit/s DSL is still 20-40 times faster than what rural residents have with dialup. Still a huge improvement. It enables them to use video services like youtube or hulu.com, which they could never do before
.

Er, I'm on a 1 Mb/s connection at home these days, and it's definitely not adequate for Hulu. Hulu will only buffer up to a certain number of seconds, and once you get a bit beyond that, it stops and buffers again. That assumes nobody else is trying to use the connection at the same time, of course.

Even YouTube goes in fits and starts unless you allow it to preload the video out to maybe 60%.

Improvement, yes, but I would not argue that it's adequate for video outright.

- Trip
post #59 of 71
Quote:


Installing fiber means tearing-up streets and sidewalks.

Ever hear or aerial? Except in downtown cores where there is little choice and a few other exceptions, the only services that should be buried are pipes (water, sewer & gas). These 'snob' suburbs with buried everything is ridiculous. I wish I had a dollar for every 'pedestal' that was on a 45 degree angle.

DSL is fine for cities and 1st ring (and possible 2nd ring) suburbs. Out in the country, homes are just too far apart unless the technology really changes (or the lines do) to make it economical.

There is plenty of existing bandwidth (from the military, which no one has commented on yet) to take up the slack without eating away at any more TV spectrum. Slash the beyond bloated Pentagons budget by 25% and you have more than enough to pay for any of this.
post #60 of 71
Aerial? No that's a bad idea. There is only ONE wireless spectrum, and because it has to be shared, it simply can't handle the load of thousands of people in an area. In contrast with wired internet there's no limit to how many spectrums you can have. ----- Each cable is an entire spectrum available for that home's usage. Therefore use the existing phone cables that already lead into 99.9% of rural homes. That's the logical thing to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coyoteaz View Post

Now you're just making things up. The best DSL technology currently in use is VDSL2, which allows for up to 200Mbit/s

Check again. The theoretical maximum is 250 Mbit/s. I made sure to verify that before I posted - I did not "make it up". I also verified from a Washington Post report that Japan uses primarily DSL - "The copper wire used to hook up Japanese homes is newer and runs in shorter loops to telephone exchanges than in the United States..... DSL service here is much faster. Ten to 20 times as fast, according to Robert Pepper, senior managing director of global technology policy at Cisco Systems, the networking giant. "
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

Er, I'm on a 1 Mb/s connection at home these days, and it's definitely not adequate for Hulu.

Funny. I watch Hulu and other streaming video like syfy.com or abc.com a lot* and I only have 0.7 Mbit/s. Sometimes I do need to buffer youtube, but only the first few seconds, not 60% of the video like you claim.

Why do you suppose you have trouble, and I do not even though my line is slower? Must be a problem on your end, like maybe the ISP is not really giving you 1 Mbit/s. What is your download speed? Mine is 90 kilobytes per second.

*
* I watch abc.com because I don't have an over-the-air ABC station
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Technical
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Technical › Happy Anniversary! It's been a year since the analog cutoff.