dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2014-08-19 08:15:30: The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) has filed suit against the FCC's for it's upcoming "incentive auction" of 600 MHz spectrum, claiming the auction as currently designed would harm broadcast television and cost the broadcast industry mill.. ..



Annon

@68.62.236.x

Bite us

How about the fact that the signals are owned by the people and the Broadcasters have made billions free? I'm sure they can spend a few million to make things more efficient.

Plus what do they care? They keep claiming they will stop broadcasting every-time a new IPTV company tries to do something innovated.

If you don't like what you are told to do with the free spectrum you got FREE that you get to SELL back part of for MILLIONS don't use any of it. Problem solved.

78036364

join:2014-05-06
USA

1 recommendation

said by Annon :

How about the fact that the signals are owned by the people and the Broadcasters have made billions free? I'm sure they can spend a few million to make things more efficient.

Plus what do they care? They keep claiming they will stop broadcasting every-time a new IPTV company tries to do something innovated.

If you don't like what you are told to do with the free spectrum you got FREE that you get to SELL back part of for MILLIONS don't use any of it. Problem solved.

Maybe they are mad because they were already forced to pay for moving channels just 5 years ago. You seriously need to understand a topic before posting on it.

I'm also amused how angry you are at TV stations and so willing to give that spectrum to wireless carriers who will happily charge you tons of money for a few GB of data. Data going over the PEOPLE'S airwaves as you say. But we still have to pay for it.

jvanbrecht

join:2007-01-08
Bowie, MD

1 recommendation

I think the bigger issue here, is allowing wireless carriers to buy more spectrum when it has been proven that they are all (well mostly ATT and VZ) squatting on tons of spectrum they are not even using yet.

I would like to see an accounting of existing use before they would be able to bid on new spectrum

elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY
reply to 78036364
Ha. They already repacked in my area and as you probably know you can put 2-3 channels on each super wide channel that they use today. If they upgraded to something like H.264 or H.265 it would be even more.

If the FCC were smart they would have repacked all channels up front. Imagine if say CBS/NBC/ABC transmitted off the same phys. They could share tower and transmit equipment, lowering cost dramatically. We are still in the stone ages when it comes to sharing/allocating spectrum.

The $500m is some ass puppet #.

I would rather see that spectrum go to the people for free metro wifi, not wireless operators. They already have enough spectrum.

In any case, use the USF to pay for it or something else. Maybe tell them the towers need to be over 1000W In my area they have been dialing down power for years.

big_e

join:2011-03-05
reply to Annon
After those frequencies are auctioned off, they won't be owned by the people. They will be owned by Verizon and AT&T for perpetuity. And no, your rates won't decrease, nor your caps increase because of this. But as long as those greedy broadcaster don't get to use them, you will be happy right?


who watches

@99.198.76.x
reply to elefante72
Spectrum would be better used to provide wireless to rural areas and allow deeper building penetrarion in urban areas. Now the question is will the telecoms actually use it for that.


n2jtx

join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
reply to 78036364
said by 78036364:

Maybe they are mad because they were already forced to pay for moving channels just 5 years ago

There were two factors at play five years ago; a change in frequency AND a change from analog to digital which required new transmitter hardware. Now that the change to digital is complete, a change in transmitter frequency is not as traumatic. One of our local stations documented their changeover from their temporary digital channel back to their home channel at the switchover in 2009. The chief engineer loaded the new frequency settings into their transmitters computer. It changed the transmitter frequency and adjusted the antenna system resonance for the new channel. Now if a station is moving from 600MHz down to 500MHz, they will probably need some physical antenna work to lengthen the radiating elements a bit but the cost will not be on the scale of scrapping the analog transmitters and replacing them with digital transmitters.

Plus as others have noted, radio spectrum is a public resource. The broadcasters do not "own" it. The broadcasters profiting from the "sale" of spectrum does not make sense. Then again, I think the government has screwed up the whole spectrum licensing system.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears.


Anno

@68.62.236.x
reply to big_e
The point is TV doesn't need them.

It does not require any new equipment in most cases for them to change the frequencies they broadcast on. The fact is broadcast TV can exist as it does and be more efficient.

Will the wireless companies lower cost or increase caps? Probably not. But will it increase BW and penetration overall? Yes. Can that benefit you? Yes. Does broadcast TV being moved to a new frequency hurt you? No, because it's all within the same limits. All the equipment that I have seen is able to adjust to any point in the same spectrum range reserved for broadcast TV.

You also don't see any broadcast companies directly trying to sue do you? Nope, Why? well because they get to make money on all this.

The USA is a joke on all this. Other major countries beat us on internet prices, tv prices, and even OTA because they use MPEG4 and we are still using MPEG2 wasting lots of BW for shitty quality. It won't change anytime soon either because all our TV's etc. are MPEG2 only. But it would be easy to do and most manufactures would have little cost increase because they already make the right stuff for every other country.

If the USA would switch to MPEG4 or even the better stuff we would gain soo much more in terms of quality in addition to the ability to refarm a lot of the wireless.

78036364

join:2014-05-06
USA
reply to jvanbrecht
said by jvanbrecht:

I think the bigger issue here, is allowing wireless carriers to buy more spectrum when it has been proven that they are all (well mostly ATT and VZ) squatting on tons of spectrum they are not even using yet.

I would like to see an accounting of existing use before they would be able to bid on new spectrum

Please show this proof. Verizon is using all it's current spectrum it can use for LTE. I love it when people spout shit they read somewhere without fact checking.

78036364

join:2014-05-06
USA
reply to n2jtx
said by n2jtx:

Plus as others have noted, radio spectrum is a public resource. The broadcasters do not "own" it. The broadcasters profiting from the "sale" of spectrum does not make sense. Then again, I think the government has screwed up the whole spectrum licensing system.

Ok then why am I having to pay wireless carriers to use spectrum I own?


firephoto
We the people
Premium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
reply to 78036364
said by 78036364:

Please show this proof. Verizon is using all it's current spectrum it can use for LTE. I love it when people spout shit they read somewhere without fact checking.

In all it's served areas of the country, or areas where it possesses licences?
--
Say no to those that ‘inadvertently make false representations’.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to 78036364
Same reason why I have to pay UPS to deliver a package over roads I own.

biochemistry
Premium
join:2003-05-09
92361
reply to Anno
A switch to a more effiecient compression algorithm will simply allow for 4k to use the same amount of space.
--
The harvest is nigh past, the summer is nigh ended. Are you saved? bibleprophecytruth.com

desarollo

join:2011-10-01
Monroe, MI
reply to 78036364
said by 78036364:

Maybe they are mad because they were already forced to pay for moving channels just 5 years ago. You seriously need to understand a topic before posting on it.

Sage advice, perhaps you might look at the members of the ATSC standards group before assuming the TV stations were "forced" to do anything.

desarollo

join:2011-10-01
Monroe, MI
reply to n2jtx
said by n2jtx:

There were two factors at play five years ago; a change in frequency AND a change from analog to digital which required new transmitter hardware. Now that the change to digital is complete, a change in transmitter frequency is not as traumatic. One of our local stations documented their changeover from their temporary digital channel back to their home channel at the switchover in 2009. The chief engineer loaded the new frequency settings into their transmitters computer. It changed the transmitter frequency and adjusted the antenna system resonance for the new channel. Now if a station is moving from 600MHz down to 500MHz, they will probably need some physical antenna work to lengthen the radiating elements a bit but the cost will not be on the scale of scrapping the analog transmitters and replacing them with digital transmitters.

It isn't that simple. Very likely there are mask filters on the output of the transmitter that can't be retuned when dropping 100Mhz. That also may preclude using waveguide for filtering on channels above 600MHz and going to 6" coax line. All of that is traumatic and expensive as it is pretty much re-plumbing the entire plant.

Furthermore, you can't just lengthen the antenna elements on a TV transmitter antenna as you can with a ham antenna. The bandwidth is 6.5Mhz and carefully crafted for that channel. Not having such a highly optimized antenna creates group delay problems. With NTSC, that produced chroma phase problems. With ATSC, it just won't work as you get sub-bands of symbols that are outta whack with the ATSC pilot.



Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

2 edits
reply to Anno
It could be the fact that we are the only ones using ATSC while the rest are using DVB-T. If we switched over to DVB, there would be tons of options that wouldn't cost a ton. Not to mention we'd be using an open standard.

Unfortunately, we're stuck with a closed, patent-ridden mess known as ATSC.

elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY
reply to 78036364
On that note, prove: Verizon is using all it's current spectrum it can use for LTE.

Now I know that is not accurate, simply because XLTE is not even up in most locations. Reality lies somewhere in between.

"I love it when people spout shit they read somewhere without fact checking."

»www.fiercewireless.com/special-r···nd-where

Now looking at those maps, Sprint by far has the most squatted spectrum. But as DSL readers know, most of that sits in Clear space, so physics won't play ball.


ev

@74.140.91.x
reply to Simba7
NTSC wasn't a patent-ridden mess, was it? Plus something something General Sarnoff something Ed Armstrong Frequency Modulation, too.


ev

@74.140.91.x
reply to Annon
They call it an Incentive Auction for a reason -- the loot generated is the incentive for a broadcaster to give up their 6mhz license and to essentially fight the MSOs with no ammunition.

The cute thing is that in major markets, the local TV news audience metrics are typically 80,000 viewers -- COMBINED.

At one point does one cross the line from broadcasting to niche narrowcasting? We really need multiple 1,000,000 watt flamethrowers spitting antiquated MPEG2 all over the place?


IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast

Shut down outdated services

Shut down CB radio, nobody uses them anymore. They could also limit the ham radio frequencies, I do support the use of ham radio, they could just cut their frequency allocation by a third.

It seems everything is being squeezed in spectrum, the PVTA had to buy a new radio system because of the narrowbanding mandate. CB radio has outlived it's usefulness.
--
Stop the Comcast-Time Warner merger, I'd rather Time Warner buy out Comcast.

scooper

join:2000-07-11
Youngsville, NC
kudos:2

Boy are some of you uneducated about broadcast TV....

Broadcast TV antennas are designed for a SPECIFIC channel (or set of channels) - and for the station to move channels would require them to replace the antenna as well as possibly their transmitter ( assuming that the transmitter's aren't also frequency designed).

As far as letting the wireless companies have the spectrum - show me that you (big wireless company) are currently using ALL your currently licensed / leased spectrum before I let you bid for more. (In all markets of course).

nonymous
Premium
join:2003-09-08
Glendale, AZ
reply to IowaCowboy

Re: Shut down outdated services

CB is still somewhat used by say truckers etc.
Ham radio since dropping the morse.code.requirement is still around and active. There are kids that still like it and.the electronics etc.
There are places where I do not have cell even your beloved Verizon but can hit a repeater especially for an emergency.