dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2011-01-31 15:47:48: The FCC has repeatedly stated that a priority this year will be to find ways to make more efficient use of spectrum in order to bolster wireless broadband. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next


sfasdfsdf234

@thvilledigital.net

Agree

Agree 100%

Companies like ATT and Verizon hold on to over a 100 mhz of nation wide spectrum that they are not using and will not for many years...

bartolo5

join:2001-12-03
San Carlos, CA

end terrestrial TV broadcasts

Always wondered why does the USA bother about terrestrial TV broadcasting so much when most people get their local channels through cable.
Just end terrestrial broadcasts and use the spectrum for what we really need, mobile broadband

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
You missed the point. There's PLENTY of spectrum that AT&T, Verizon and the cableco conglomerate are just sitting on. They don't need any more spectrum. They just need to use what they have.

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
reply to sfasdfsdf234

Re: Agree

Precisely. Heck, in rural areas companies like T-Mobile will likely NEVER use the spectrum that they bought. I would be willing to bet that 80% of the AWS band will remain unused in rural areas.


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to bartolo5

Re: end terrestrial TV broadcasts

said by bartolo5:

Always wondered why does the USA bother about terrestrial TV broadcasting so much when most people get their local channels through cable.

Because a significant number do depend on over the air TV and that number is actually going up by all indications.

Just end terrestrial broadcasts and use the spectrum for what we really need, mobile broadband

How about we actually use the spectrum that has already been divvied out first and is sitting unused?

jfinch

join:2002-01-04
Knoxville, TN
reply to bartolo5
Why should I give up my free TV? I don't have the money to spare for $100 a month cable bill! A lot of people are on fixed incomes and are still watching over the air TV. When the day comes I have no option but to PAY for something that isn't worth paying extra for, I will do without.. but right now, I'm very happy watching my HD PBS with the antenna on the roof.
As the others have said, there is plenty of spectrum that is being hoarded and not being used at all, over-the-air TV still have plenty of users. Maybe that's the goal of the hoarders anyway, to make sure that free TV is no longer an option.


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to bartolo5
The NAB actually makes a good point for a change:

NAB has said it is not opposed to the government plan if broadcasters' move is truly voluntary and they are compensated. But it has also argued that broadcasters' one-to-many delivery model is more efficient than the cellular distribution the FCC is so high on, and that broadcasters have reason to hang on to their spectrum to delivery high-quality HDTV pictures and new services like mobile DTV and multicast channels. They also argue that given the economy and increased broadcast picture quality, some cable subs are cutting the cord to return to over-the-air TV, a point even some cable operators have conceded.



Racket

@usda.gov
reply to bartolo5
Believe it or not, not everyone has cable TV, and one of the tenants of broadcast television is emergency information. If we were attacked by the martians, those without cable would not know that aluminium foil on the head is the only way to survive.

Cable TV is a luxury item, broadcast (one to many) TV is considered a necessity to communicate that is one of the reasons the government ultimately controls the airwaves.

bartolo5

join:2001-12-03
San Carlos, CA
reply to sfasdfsdf234

Re: Agree

What spectrum this is anyway? what bands are we talking about?

dishrich

join:2006-05-12
Springfield, IL
reply to fifty nine

Re: end terrestrial TV broadcasts

said by fifty nine:

said by bartolo5:

Always wondered why does the USA bother about terrestrial TV broadcasting so much when most people get their local channels through cable.

Because a significant number do depend on over the air TV and that number is actually going up by all indications.

You also might add re: bartolo's incorrect statement, that MANY CATV headends, as well as BOTH DirecTV & DISH DBS, still pull all those signals OTA in many markets. This is particularly true in many rural areas, where it is simply too costly, or not even practical, to have direct feeds from all those stations to the headend.

In our market alone, both DBS providers get the majority of our locals via OTA pickup, as do many of our surrounding CATV systems.

bartolo5

join:2001-12-03
San Carlos, CA
reply to Racket
I am not really against OTA TV and broadcasting in general.
It just seems like an archaic way to broadcast information specially when it's using highly precious UHF spectrum

bartolo5

join:2001-12-03
San Carlos, CA
reply to iansltx
said by iansltx:

You missed the point. There's PLENTY of spectrum that AT&T, Verizon and the cableco conglomerate are just sitting on. They don't need any more spectrum. They just need to use what they have.

What spectrum is this exactly? I couldn't find this info anywhere


kpfx

join:2005-10-28
San Antonio, TX

NAB Not Entirely Guilt-Free Either

NAB isn't exactly guilt-free when it comes to hoarding spectrum. The biggest difference that I know of is when the FCC gives out a permit for a TV station you have a limited amount of time to do something with it or risk loosing your license....

So just looking in my area alone I see plenty of junk "home shopping" channels and channel squatters that do nothing to serve the public interest... they're only there to fulfill the requirements of these LP-TV licenses so they don't revert back to auction (and theoretically into the hands of a more competent owner).


ArrayList
DevOps
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA
reply to bartolo5

Re: end terrestrial TV broadcasts

because then I can keep on not paying for crap cable tv. broadcast tv is great!


n2jtx

join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
reply to bartolo5

Re: Agree

said by bartolo5:

What spectrum this is anyway? what bands are we talking about?

1700MHz and 2100MHz - AWS
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears.

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
reply to Racket

Re: end terrestrial TV broadcasts

Since most of the USA uses cable TV, if aliens came, nobody would find out since cable tv would be knocked out and nobody has or knows what antennas are.


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to bartolo5
said by bartolo5:

said by iansltx:

You missed the point. There's PLENTY of spectrum that AT&T, Verizon and the cableco conglomerate are just sitting on. They don't need any more spectrum. They just need to use what they have.

What spectrum is this exactly? I couldn't find this info anywhere

Here is 1 article laying that out:
»www.dailywireless.org/2010/06/18 ··· carcity/

Google is your friend. There are many other news items on spectrum hoarding:
»www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=n ··· a1673314


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to dishrich
said by dishrich:

said by fifty nine:

said by bartolo5:

Always wondered why does the USA bother about terrestrial TV broadcasting so much when most people get their local channels through cable.

Because a significant number do depend on over the air TV and that number is actually going up by all indications.

You also might add re: bartolo's incorrect statement, that MANY CATV headends, as well as BOTH DirecTV & DISH DBS, still pull all those signals OTA in many markets. This is particularly true in many rural areas, where it is simply too costly, or not even practical, to have direct feeds from all those stations to the headend.

In our market alone, both DBS providers get the majority of our locals via OTA pickup, as do many of our surrounding CATV systems.

Our cableco's headend gets the HD signal OTA but the SD signal for a few channels via fiber. The tower is line of sight from my house in fact.


n2jtx

join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
reply to bartolo5
said by bartolo5:

It just seems like an archaic way to broadcast information specially when it's using highly precious UHF spectrum

That is kind of funny considering the history of UHF television. When the government allocated the UHF TV band, it was the bad side of town for broadcasters. Receiving equipment was pathetic if it worked at all. Pity the poor station owner who was given an allocation in the UHF band instead of the more respectable VHF band. It was even the butt of jokes for decades when someone would talk about trying to receive "channel 59" or some such and they had to get out the aluminum foil and stand holding the rabbit ears in one hand while tilting their head sideways to get a signal. Now with improved technology, UHF is respectable and everyone covets those frequencies.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears.


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to FFH5
The NAB has been making these points for quite some time now. Where have you been?


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to bartolo5
said by bartolo5:

I am not really against OTA TV and broadcasting in general.
It just seems like an archaic way to broadcast information specially when it's using highly precious UHF spectrum

It is actually quite efficient. With internet streaming you are consuming X amount of bandwidth per viewer. With OTA broadcast you consume that bandwidth over the entire viewing area.


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:

The NAB has been making these points for quite some time now. Where have you been?

Just replying to someones claim the NAB is wrong. Why the problem with what I posted?


Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus

join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
reply to kpfx

A real old story

Years ago Echo Star was trying to increase channels and improve coverage to do this they needed to orbit two geo-sync satellites. They couldn't do it, why, because the two orbital positions where owned by a major cable company of the time. They purchased these positions specially but quietly to prevent Direct TV or Echo-Star placing satellites there, they had no real intention in using them. The FCC in one of it's few good decisions in resent decades took them away from the cable company and gave them to Echo-Star. Echo-Star got then over Direct-TV because they actually had the satellites in storage ready to go. Nothing has changed. We have had a politicized FCC since at least the Clinton years with revolving door commissioners. This is why I have always been opposed to out right sales of frequency segments they should be leased with the condition of the lease enforced.

Here is a RF Frequency allocation chart as you will see it is the total jigsaw puzzle.

»www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochr ··· chrt.pdf
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption

bartolo5

join:2001-12-03
San Carlos, CA
reply to FFH5

Re: end terrestrial TV broadcasts

Article 1 is sort of biased and misleading in which it doesn't seem to put much differentiation on the frequency of the spectrum holding of the carriers.

It's really not the same to be holding vast amounts of spectrum on higher bands like AWS/2.6Ghz than on 700Mhz because of the different propagation capabilities of every band.

In turn, criticizing a carrier for not using their spectrum depends on what frequencies they are holding it on. No carrier in their sane mind should be deploying nationwide networks with pervasive coverage in anything like AWS or 2.6Ghz. I wonder how many cell sites you would need to have good coverage but I doubt is economically feasible.

If a carrier was holding 700Mhz spectrum somehow it would be a different matter altogether but is that really happening? The first article mentions att holding some, but the article is dated in 2008 and ATT is about to start LTE in there very soon.


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
said by bartolo5:

In turn, criticizing a carrier for not using their spectrum depends on what frequencies they are holding it on. No carrier in their sane mind should be deploying nationwide networks with pervasive coverage in anything like AWS or 2.6Ghz. I wonder how many cell sites you would need to have good coverage but I doubt is economically feasible.

Then why did they spend billions buying it if they aren't going to use it?

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:

said by bartolo5:

I am not really against OTA TV and broadcasting in general.
It just seems like an archaic way to broadcast information specially when it's using highly precious UHF spectrum

It is actually quite efficient. With internet streaming you are consuming X amount of bandwidth per viewer. With OTA broadcast you consume that bandwidth over the entire viewing area.

Exactly and it would not crumble from stress if an extra few thousand people put up Antennas one day.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

bartolo5

join:2001-12-03
San Carlos, CA
reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:

said by bartolo5:

In turn, criticizing a carrier for not using their spectrum depends on what frequencies they are holding it on. No carrier in their sane mind should be deploying nationwide networks with pervasive coverage in anything like AWS or 2.6Ghz. I wonder how many cell sites you would need to have good coverage but I doubt is economically feasible.

Then why did they spend billions buying it if they aren't going to use it?

Please, note I said "...deploying nationwide networks with pervasive coverage in anything like AWS or 2.6Ghz"

Meaning that while they may have a lot of spectrum they will never use in many areas, in some densely populated metros the use of those bands may still be viable if enough expenditures are put into the network deployment.

But frankly, I just think is all part of spectrum speculation and holding off on assets that investors may think they are valuable when they are not.

bartolo5

join:2001-12-03
San Carlos, CA
reply to Kearnstd
Have you guys ever heard of IP Multicasting ...

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicast# ··· ulticast


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:

said by fifty nine:

The NAB has been making these points for quite some time now. Where have you been?

Just replying to someones claim the NAB is wrong. Why the problem with what I posted?

The problem is "for a change." The problem is that the NAB's stance has been consistent so this isn't exactly "for a change." The NAB has always contended that one-to-many is more efficient and that mobile DTV and multicast are good uses for TV spectrum. CES and NAB shows showcased a lot of ATSC-MH gear and a lot of stations are deploying this gear now.


Gbcue
Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8
reply to Transmaster

Re: A real old story

Great poster!

Keep in mind, anything over 300GHz un-allocated, you must have a license to broadcast, still.
--
My Blog 2.2