dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
8
share rss forum feed


Racket

@usda.gov
reply to bartolo5

Re: end terrestrial TV broadcasts

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

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


patcat88

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

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.



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 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.

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1

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

Have you guys ever heard of IP Multicasting ...

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicast#IP_multicast



fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2

said by bartolo5:

Have you guys ever heard of IP Multicasting ...

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicast#IP_multicast

Sure I have. I use it for clustering in fact. But which ISP today supports it?


Davesworld

join:2007-10-30
Everett, WA
Reviews:
·Future Nine Corp..
·Callcentric
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

Archaic how? Whether or not cellular data or terrestrial DTV, digital info is carried on an analog rf signal and there is no such thing as a digital antenna. The only thing modern is WHAT is carried on the analog carrier not HOW.

As far as really being against OTA TV, you came across as hostile toward it and at the same time prioritized mobile broadband as to what is most important. Have you developed a symbiotic relationship to mobile devices to where you cannot function if it is surgically removed from you?


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
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

Actually using that spectrum for mobile data is inefficient. Think about it this way. Even in say a mid sized market like Nashville. If you wanted to broadcast info to 2 million people. How much bandwidth would it take to broadcast the same info using cell towers to cover the same area? Imagine if broadcast went away and people accessed something like the Super Bowl over the internet? The ISPs are already compaining about their "pipes" choking. Isn't the measly 6 MHz broadcast uses more efficient than using mobile?

bartolo5

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

Archaic how?

Archaic because it seems funky that multiple hundreds of megahertz are only available to some corporations that were able to pay their respective licenses to broadcast their chosen content unidirectionally. In the age of freedom of information is anti-climatic to have such a setup.

As far as really being against OTA TV, you came across as hostile toward it and at the same time prioritized mobile broadband as to what is most important. Have you developed a symbiotic relationship to mobile devices to where you cannot function if it is surgically removed from you?

Your abrasive tone is not welcome.

I did use the term 'mobile broadband' but 'wireless packet switched' network would have been more appropriate, either mobile or stationary. And yes, I totally feel like over the air broadcast TV is a thing of the past, and we should be putting more effort in getting decent, fast, pervasive, cheap wireless data networks that can in turn run a classic broadcasting model on top of them and that can allow people to create their own broadcasting media outlets easier than what it is today.

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

... never mind.


Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
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

Sinclair Broadcasting sent a document to the FCC implying that devoting TV channels 38-51 just for 4G mobile cellular will also prove to be an archaic use of valuable spectrum. At an advanced ATSC symposium later this month a method of encapsulation that could allow the same 80 MHz of spectrum to be used twice for both broadcast TV and 4G mobile cellular and improving the performance of both will be presented.