AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 101 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,744 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
From B&C (2/24/10):

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...um_Auction.php

Quote:
The FCC plans to give broadcasters a chance to turn in their spectrum in exchange for an auction pay-off.


FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said Wednesday that, as part of the national broadband plan, the FCC will propose a voluntary "Mobile Future Auction" that will permit TV broadcasters and other licensees to give up spectrum in exchange for a share of the proceeds.


That came in a speech to the New America Foundation Wednesday as the FCC continues to unveil various portions of the broadband plan, due to Congress March 17.


"The Mobile Future Auction would allow broadcasters to elect to participate in a mechanism that could save costs for broadcasters while also being a major part of the solution to one of our country's most significant challenges."


The FCC has been talking about a market-based incentive to get some broadcasters--he said specifically ones in "spectrum-starved markets" to give up their spectrum for wireless reallocation.


...

So, the FCC is planning to move ahead with the voluntary approach.


Will the stations that only care about must-carry be allowed to retain this status if they drop OTA?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,443 Posts
This is dumb. We're not even a year into the DTV conversion and the FCC is already to dump it. So what was all the time and money spent telling people how much better DTV would be over analog? What happens when few vew broadcaster choose to auction off thier spectrum? How much more should they have to give up? The mobile companies already have what used to be 52-83. They have nearly 46% of what used to be the UHF TV spectrum before 1983.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,083 Posts
Just like the Healthcare issue, the Feds are going to ramrod this issue through also.


Reminds me of a frat house party, where the beer is consumed with a funnel and hose. We all know how that turns out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
748 Posts
Unfortunately I knew they wouldn't give up on this terrible idea. The only way to keep this from threatening local broadcast TV including local news broadcasts is to spend many billions for what amounts to a second (but unfortunately incompatible) digital transition. If at least channels 21-45 (the best for digital TV) are kept and technology such as MPEG4 and higher resolutions versions (including HD) of the ATSC M/H standard are used then freeing up more TV spectrum is possible but inconvenient and expensive. Sadly the real reason that the members of the CTIA The Wireless Association want so much TV spectrum is to prevent competition in areas they're interested in from new TV spectrum technologies such as ATSC Mobile/Handheld and TV Band (white space) Devices.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,630 Posts
I wish these idiots would just go away. They are just like rats and cockroaches that come in your house uninvited.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,744 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarioMania /forum/post/18201900


What Channel's are they taking away now??

I think the idea is to do a piecemeal/interleaved auction. e.g., channel 30 here, channel 45 there, etc.


So, we will probably end up with a mosaic of non-TV licenses intermixed into at least the remaining UHF TV band.


To me, it sounds a lot like WSD's, but (presumably) licensed (and paying big bucks) instead.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,019 Posts
What they are doing is slowly trying to force the rest of the OTA only people into a cable or Sat package, and then kill OTA all together in time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
748 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jspENC /forum/post/18203579


What they are doing is slowly trying to force the rest of the OTA only people into a cable or Sat package, and then kill OTA all together in time.

You got that right, it's all about making consumers pay more and more every month. The FCC (or at least its chairman Julius Genachowski) is clearly more interested in serving greedy corporate interests than the public. How much do you want to bet he ends up with a huge salary after his term as commissioner ends that is at least in part funded by the big wireless corporations? So much for change we can count on, consumers will be lucky to have any change left in their pockets after four years of Obama and his Chicago brand of politics he brought to DC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,744 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Prepared Remarks of Chairman Julius Genachowski Federal Communications Commission


"Mobile Broadband: A 21st Century Plan for U.S. Competitiveness, Innovation and Job Creation"

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-296490A1.pdf


Excerpt:

Quote:
When it comes to mobile broadband, our goal is clear: To benefit all Americans and promote our global competitiveness, the U.S. must have the fastest, most robust, and most extensive mobile broadband networks, and the most innovative mobile broadband marketplace in the world.


This will be a core goal of our National Broadband Plan.


To meet that goal, our plan is ambitious but straightforward: Accelerate the broad deployment of mobile broadband by moving to recover and reallocate spectrum; update our 20th century spectrum policies to reflect 21st century technologies and opportunities; remove barriers to broadband buildout, lower the cost of deployment, and promote competition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,943 Posts
I've heard it said that government agencies use more spectrum than anyone else. If the government wants to set aside some spectrum for broadband, let 'em use some of their own!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,199 Posts
The guys who snapped up extra frequencies and don't really need to be broadcasting on 5 different stations in the same area, it sounds like they have a windfall opportunity.


Why not lease it, rather than an outright sale?


All that mobile stuff makes me feel like I'm living next door to a cancer factory.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,412 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcon_77 /forum/post/18202982


I think the idea is to do a piecemeal/interleaved auction. e.g., channel 30 here, channel 45 there, etc.


So, we will probably end up with a mosaic of non-TV licenses intermixed into at least the remaining UHF TV band.

Is that bad, as long as TV can coexist with the new stuff? Are there interference issues? Is it technically possible to interleave TV with cell service, wireless broadband, etc?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,083 Posts
Not for multi-DMA and finge to extreme deep fringe viewers. This will become a nightmare for anyone with a high-gain antenna and those that use pre-amplifiers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,699 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by TalkingRat /forum/post/18207057


T

All that mobile stuff makes me feel like I'm living next door to a cancer factory.

Except RF is RF at those frequencies. The data carried by it is irrelevant. The frequency is broadcasting 24x7 right now - all around you. Changing it to mobile broadband usage won't change your exposure to it. The same goes for radio stations - they're out there transmitting whether you're listening to it or not. They aren't creating new ones with this deal. It's the content that is changing and your brain doesn't care.


At the phone end, it won't really change much either. Few people bother to turn off their phones when they aren't using them, so they still sit there pinging out to the network all day long. Sure, some of those phones might go into standby when they aren't surfing the net, but the same people this would appeal to are probably already texting, tweeting and surfing already. Little will change for them other than some extra bars in a few places they didn't get them before - along with the ability to download porn a million times faster.


Honestly, though, I'm more comfortable around cell phones now than I was 20 years ago, despite there being significantly more of them. The reason? Digital. With analog, phones had to use more power to get a good connection. The huge analog wave needed a lot of power. The handheld phones used around a half a watt while those big bag phones used as much as 3. Today's digital phones use way less than those early phones for transmitting, despite the internal processors and the displays using more juice than before (which doesn't hurt you - it just eats power). The reason is, the digital signal is a smaller wave that requires less power to connect. That's the reason a lot of phones don't even have an external antenna anymore - you don't need that big plastic or "rubber ducky" antenna anymore to catch the radio wave.


To be honest, you get more RF from the motor in your blender when you stand close to it.


If mobile devices concern you, just don't put them in your pocket near your "boys".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,943 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by KramerTC /forum/post/18207427


What about the spectrum that the government took back last yr? The one used for analog NTSC transmission.

That was taken under the guise of "public safety," which is essentially a free pass to take anything you want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by systems2000 /forum/post/18207809


Not for multi-DMA and finge to extreme deep fringe viewers. This will become a nightmare for anyone with a high-gain antenna and those that use pre-amplifiers.

Anyone who thinks that the spectrum between TV channels is unused hasn't bothered to look. There are a lot of ancilliary broadcast in that space, including wireless microphones for broadcast and other entertainment uses. If these "white space" devices really play by the rules, they won't be usable even in urban areas (which, by the way, have the most potential customers.) There may be more "open space" in the fringe, but there are also fewer potential users there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV /forum/post/18209243


Honestly, though, I'm more comfortable around cell phones now than I was 20 years ago, despite there being significantly more of them. The reason? Digital. With analog, phones had to use more power to get a good connection. The huge analog wave needed a lot of power. The handheld phones used around a half a watt while those big bag phones used as much as 3. Today's digital phones use way less than those early phones for transmitting, despite the internal processors and the displays using more juice than before (which doesn't hurt you - it just eats power). The reason is, the digital signal is a smaller wave that requires less power to connect. That's the reason a lot of phones don't even have an external antenna anymore - you don't need that big plastic or "rubber ducky" antenna anymore to catch the radio wave.

I am not afraid of RF from cell phones, but I'm sure you've noticed that iPhones and BlackBerrys generate a lot more interference into audio and other professional equipment than their analog ancestors ever did. I've even seen "no cell phone" icons on some equipment, warning you to keep those things away.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,443 Posts
The whole stupid thing is that the FCC guy says he wants to clear up 500 MHz for "mobile broadband" even if they used all of Ch 14-51 for that( except Ch 37 ) that's only 222 MHz. Where is the other 278 coming from? It seems the guy running the FCC is retarded.


I admit you COULD probbaly shrink the TV spectrum and still have as many channels as you do today if you do it with some logic and forthought. For example in Nashville( my area ) if you look at full power and LP stations you have CH 33, 38, 44 then 50. It seems you coud shrink that down a bit. However the FCC would have to re-allocate the channels to make sure there isn't any interference issues. However I feel the FCC wouldn't do it correctly considering the haphazzard way they did it to begin with and their overall stupidity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,744 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Another excerpt:

Quote:
About 300 megahertz of spectrum have been set aside for broadcast TV. In markets with less than 1 million people, only 36 megahertz are typically used for broadcasting. In cities with more than 1 million people, on average about 100 megahertz are used. Even in our very largest cities, at most only about 150 megahertz out of 300 megahertz are used.

I don't know where 150MHz is coming from, unless LD's, LM and wireless microphones are ignored.


These are my calculations for the LA area:


49 channels = 294MHz (channel 37 shouldn't count)

32 used by full power & LP/LD stations = 192MHz

7 used by LM or adjacent guards = 42MHz


Of the 10 channels (60MHz) that are "vacant":


4 are on 2-6 (not hard to see why)

6 are on 7-51


However, there are LD CP's or apps on ALL of these, including 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 22, 30, 40, 44, & 46


So, there will ultimately be no space available, unless LP/LD TV is banished, or relegated to combined "muxes" for the whole market.
 
1 - 20 of 101 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top