dslreports logo
 story category
Wireless Industry Proposes Low Power TV Spectrum Grab
$1.3-$1.8 billion in taxpayer funded spectrum shift...
The wireless industry's primary trade and lobbying group, the CTIA, this week proposed a way for the FCC to grab some additional spectrum -- for the wireless industry. According to the CTIA, they'd like Uncle Sam to spend between $1.37 billion and $1.83 billion to migrate to a low-power network of multiple transmitters for television service -- freeing up 100MHz-180MHz (about $60 billion in spectrum) for mobile broadband service. Given the proposal was filed during the busy holiday season, there's been no response to the plan yet by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) -- though NAB wasn't too thrilled with the CTIA and FCC's recent proposal to take unused spectrum from broadcasters and auction it off to wireless companies.
view:
topics flat nest 
russotto
join:2000-10-05
West Orange, NJ

russotto

Member

Uh, yeah....

We just finished the digital transition, and that was rocky enough, engendering a 6-month delay and lots of moaning. Now they expect to rearchitect the entire television broadcasting infrastructure (again) for their purposes? They'd better have a lobby that makes the AARP, NRA, and the tobacco industry at its height all put together look like pikers.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine

Member

Re: Uh, yeah....

No kidding. This time it probably won't be pretty.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5 to russotto

Premium Member

to russotto

Networks going to abandon OTA brodcasting & switch to cable

said by russotto:

We just finished the digital transition, and that was rocky enough, engendering a 6-month delay and lots of moaning. Now they expect to rearchitect the entire television broadcasting infrastructure (again) for their purposes? They'd better have a lobby that makes the AARP, NRA, and the tobacco industry at its height all put together look like pikers.

It won't matter. It seems like the 4 major OTA TV networks are planning on abandoning OTA TV in the next few years anyway. If they aren't going to broadcast anymore, the spectrum is up for grabs.
»news.yahoo.com/s/ap/2009 ··· in_peril

jester121
Premium Member
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL

jester121

Premium Member

Re: Networks going to abandon OTA brodcasting & switch to cable

It's going to be very interesting to watch this pan out over the next couple of years -- it's a tug-of-war with 4 or 5 ends on the rope.

tschmidt
MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Consolidated Com..
·Republic Wireless
·Hollis Hosting

tschmidt to FFH5

MVM

to FFH5
I agree this will be interesting to watch. As I've posted elsewhere it amazes me such a high percentage of the population is willing to pay $50-100 a month for Cable or Sat rather then use OTA.

Our family watches little commercial TV. The ratio of program to commercial is a poor value proposition. Even a good program is not worth sitting through commercials that consume a third of the total time.

/tom

88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned) to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

said by russotto:

We just finished the digital transition, and that was rocky enough, engendering a 6-month delay and lots of moaning. Now they expect to rearchitect the entire television broadcasting infrastructure (again) for their purposes? They'd better have a lobby that makes the AARP, NRA, and the tobacco industry at its height all put together look like pikers.

It won't matter. It seems like the 4 major OTA TV networks are planning on abandoning OTA TV in the next few years anyway. If they aren't going to broadcast anymore, the spectrum is up for grabs.
»news.yahoo.com/s/ap/2009 ··· in_peril
That really won't work. I'd liek to know how exactly Fox is gong to keep the NFC NFL package being a cable network. Sure ESPN does it because it shows ONE game a week to the whole nation. The whole point on being on networks is that games are shown LOCALLY. If there aren't anymore local affiliates how does one do that? And last time I checked Fox has a singed contract with the NFL through 2014.

I'm not sure the NFL is going to survive if all the games are on cable and people have just 4 games a week that everyone has to watch. I'm not sure for example if people in Nashvhille are egoing to be please if the Titans are only on a few times a year instead of the 16 times they are now. And since no team is going to be on 16 times a year on a national scale I pretty sure EVERYONE will be pissed off.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
This idea of a low power TV OTA transmission network has some merit.

It would take a few years and an investment of several billion dollars to build a nationwide network of low power transmitters and repeaters etc to cover the USA for OTA broadcasts.

... but here's the kicker. The resulting spectrum freed is estimated at a market value of between 40 and 60 billion dollars..

End result would be:

OTA still available
LOT more usable spectrum.
Bonuses for forward thinking: At the same time you build out a nationwide low-power OTA TV transmission system for very little extra money you could also build out a wireless broadband network or similar.

This idea has some clear tangible economic benefits while providing no hit to consumer socio-economic issues (Like forcing OTA users to Pay TV.)

I don't see a downside, honestly. Also, this is reproducible WORLD WIDE.
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Sammer

Member

Re: Networks going to abandon OTA brodcasting & switch to cable

said by KrK:

This idea of a low power TV OTA transmission network has some merit.

It would take a few years and an investment of several billion dollars to build a nationwide network of low power transmitters and repeaters etc to cover the USA for OTA broadcasts.

... but here's the kicker. The resulting spectrum freed is estimated at a market value of between 40 and 60 billion dollars..

No, such a low power TV OTA transmission network that actually works involving technologies such as MPEG4 and something similar to ATSC M/H with higher resolutions would take a number of years and cost many billions! Let's have the corporations who want to free up the spectrum pay for that first.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK

Premium Member

Re: Networks going to abandon OTA brodcasting & switch to cable

It's already been calculated. The estimated costs of building out lower power TV OTA and the network to carry the signal everywhere is estimated at 2 billion dollars. Even if these estimates were excessively low, and it costs double, it still makes very good economic sense from the resulting spectrum gain.
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Sammer

Member

Re: Networks going to abandon OTA brodcasting & switch to cable

said by KrK:

It's already been calculated. The estimated costs of building out lower power TV OTA and the network to carry the signal everywhere is estimated at 2 billion dollars.
You missed my point entirely. Such a low power distributed OTA television transmission system based on the 1996 ATSC television standard is already obsolete and can't possibly work well no matter what it costs. Technology that is at least a decade newer and incompatible can work in such a manner but would cost much more.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK

Premium Member

Re: Networks going to abandon OTA brodcasting & switch to cable

"Under the proposal, the government would change the current high-power/high-tower system into a low-power network of multiple transmitters that would allow stations to operate close to each other. This would free up 100MHz-180MHz for mobile broadband, while leaving consumer equipment intact and allowing broadcasters to continue to use all of their 19.4Mb/s data stream and 6MHz channels. ~~~ the proposal was an effort to make “spectrum available for important wireless broadband needs while ensuring no disruption for consumers and no injuries to over-the-air, full-power broadcast TV capabilities while, at the same time, potentially enabling next-generation TV services along with next-generation wireless spectrum.” "

n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY

n2jtx

Member

Not Again...

If you look at the history of spectrum grabs, the TV broadcasting industry has given up quite a lot over the years. The TV spectrum used to be channels 2 through 83. When cellular service became a reality, channels 70 through 83 were reclaimed for that service. Now after the recent DTV transition, channels 52 through 69 have been turned over to the wireless industry and public service groups though that part of the auction did not go too well.

What are they going to go after next? Channels 32 through 51? Channels 2 through 13? How about the spectrum between 88 and 108 MHz? There is only so much available and the wireless industry is going to have to figure out how to use it efficiently. The newer 3G and 4G technologies are a good start.
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin

Member

Re: Not Again...

said by n2jtx:

If you look at the history of spectrum grabs, the TV broadcasting industry has given up quite a lot over the years. The TV spectrum used to be channels 2 through 83. When cellular service became a reality, channels 70 through 83 were reclaimed for that service. Now after the recent DTV transition, channels 52 through 69 have been turned over to the wireless industry and public service groups though that part of the auction did not go too well.

What are they going to go after next? Channels 32 through 51? Channels 2 through 13? How about the spectrum between 88 and 108 MHz? There is only so much available and the wireless industry is going to have to figure out how to use it efficiently. The newer 3G and 4G technologies are a good start.
The government could always start its own national wireless broadband agency, seize and nationalize all wireless equipment (including all the wireless spectrum currently divided up among the 4 carriers), and set about laying out one, giant nation-wide
(4G) network where all towers have access to the full range of available wireless spectrum. The agency could be run as a slight for-profit agency, with a 5% profit motive and a mandate stating that all profit must be reinvested back into the network.

Voila, problem solved for much, much less than the cost of the Iraq war.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

Re: Not Again...

Throw in a national fiber network to every home and business and I am all for it.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray to sonicmerlin

Member

to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin:

The government could always start its own national wireless broadband agency, seize and nationalize all wireless equipment (including all the wireless spectrum currently divided up among the 4 carriers), and set about laying out one, giant nation-wide
(4G) network where all towers have access to the full range of available wireless spectrum. The agency could be run as a slight for-profit agency, with a 5% profit motive and a mandate stating that all profit must be reinvested back into the network.

Voila, problem solved for much, much less than the cost of the Iraq war.
Oh, sure, a "for profit" (5%? Are you kidding?) entity run by the government. Wireless service from the same folks who brought you Amtrak, Fannie Mae, Sallie Mae, FEMA, the USPS, and dozens of other failed enterprises.

Problem solved? No, just a new corrupt bureaucracy created to favor well-connected elites and send the bill to productive citizenry.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88

Member

Re: Not Again...

said by elray:

Wireless service from the same folks who brought you Amtrak, Fannie Mae, Sallie Mae, FEMA, the USPS, and dozens of other failed enterprises.
nice one, »www.nalc.org/postal/perf ··· ubsidize

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine

Member

Re: Not Again...

said by patcat88:

said by elray:

Wireless service from the same folks who brought you Amtrak, Fannie Mae, Sallie Mae, FEMA, the USPS, and dozens of other failed enterprises.
nice one, »www.nalc.org/postal/perf ··· ubsidize
Not so fast:

»freemarketmojo.wordpress ··· on-loss/
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88

Member

Re: Not Again...

Nothing to do with subsidizing. Corporations can go for years with quarterly "loss".

Truth teller
@verizon.net

Truth teller

Anon

Re: Not Again...

Are you kidding me? Ever do business and not show a profit over time? The USPS wants to stop delivery service on weekends and lay a ton of people off to balance it's budget. And this is a government entity saying this, which loves to swallow more of what you earn every day!

Sorry, use the spectrum you have NOW wisely, and then we'll see...MAYBE...if this would be a good idea at some point.
EPS4
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA

EPS4 to sonicmerlin

Member

to sonicmerlin
Long live the glorious worker's revolutionary telephone company!

Your service will be fixed... eh, whenever.

Toymaster
Premium Member
join:2001-12-27
Flint, MI

Toymaster

Premium Member

OTA a dying horse?

So, does this mean that in the future there will be no free broadcasts? I hear from a birdy that they are trying to get rid of free OTA broadcasts all together? So, what we will have to pay for content? From whom? What about the ppl who will not be able to afford to pay for content?

tschmidt
MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Consolidated Com..
·Republic Wireless
·Hollis Hosting

tschmidt

MVM

Re: OTA a dying horse?

I'm having a difficult time wrapping my head around the CEA proposal and why FCC seems intent on making additional cuts in over the air (OTA) broadcast TV.

Here in NH low power translators are a common way to fill coverage gaps. Even at low power still need to make sure transmitters do not interfere with one another. Precise synchronization is a nice feature so all transmitters are able to use the same channel but is that capability all that important? There is nothing preventing stations from doing it now if it benefits viewers or station. Translators tend to be common in rural areas where there are a lot of unused channels. That is what the Whitespace initiative was supposed to tap into.

Is bandwidth efficiency really crippled by co-channel interference concerns? In the Boston/NH market we have numerous instances of stations on adjacent channels. They transmit from the same location so signal level at receiver is relatively equal. Within 60 miles of me there are 23 full power and another half dozen low power stations. Seems pretty effective utilization of the 49 broadcast channels (Channel 2-51 with channel 37 reserved).

Are wireless carriers really facing a bandwidth crunch? Given the low power involved extensive spatial reuse is the norm. Do they really need additional channel capacity?

The Cable industry is crying wolf over problem of signal ingress from Whitespace transmitters. Wouldn't this be even worse?

If you are a Cable or Sat subscriber you pay a monthly fee and are still bombarded with commercials. I'm at a loss to understand why such a large portion of the population finds this an attractive way to watch TV. I’d much rather pay a few hundred dollars to replace our OTA system every couple of decades then spend $50-100 a month for Cable or Sat. Transition to DTV has created a small up tick in percent of households using OTA. Be interesting to see if that trend continues.

The wild card going forward is Internet bandwidth. Once customers have enough bandwidth to stream programs they don't need over the air broadcasters, Cable or Sat. We will see the development of a new content aggregator business model that needs neither transmitters nor local physical plant.

/tom
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

1 recommendation

patcat88

Member

Re: OTA a dying horse?

said by tschmidt:

If you are a Cable or Sat subscriber you pay a monthly fee and are still bombarded with commercials. I'm at a loss to understand why such a large portion of the population finds this an attractive way to watch TV.
Why do people buy $80 designer shirts that make them a walking billboard? The designer should be paying rent to everyone who wears their clothes.

NOVA_Guy
ObamaCare Kills Americans
Premium Member
join:2002-03-05

NOVA_Guy

Premium Member

The NAB will like this...

With the major networks pushing to end free OTA broadcasting because commercials on TV every 5 minutes aren't placating their extreme greed enough, I would expect the NAB to support this.

It's not enough that 1/3 of every program is commercial, and product placement in shows is going rampant. It's not enough that broadcasters feel that people with DVRs who record programs and then skip over the commercials are stealing TV. Now they want to force everybody to pay them for their ad-laiden entertainment.

When will it ever end? What will it take for the masses to say "enough is enough"?
nevtxjustin
join:2006-04-18
Dallas, TX

nevtxjustin

Member

Re: The NAB will like this...

said by NOVA_Guy:

It's not enough that 1/3 of every program is commercial, and product placement in shows is going rampant.
Considering that I haven't owned a TV since...umm, early '80s, and haven't even seen a TV screen in over ten years...I might be a poor contributor to this thread.

In the late '60s up through early '80s, my parents always turned on the TV at 5:30 and it was on till Johnny Carson was over. I called it "Video Wallpaper"

I've always maintain the sole purpose of TV shows was to keep your attention until the next commercial. What is the ratio now? Eight minutes of commercials in a thirty minute time slot...??
mr weather
Premium Member
join:2002-02-27
Mississauga, ON

mr weather

Premium Member

If OTA goes away...

I will simply stop watching tv. I got getting tired of paying my local BDU an ever-increasing monthly fee to watch the same stuff I get for free from an antenna. So I switched.

If OTA is forced to die then the networks will have lost another viewer.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

Re: If OTA goes away...

said by mr weather:

I will simply stop watching tv. I got getting tired of paying my local BDU an ever-increasing monthly fee to watch the same stuff I get for free from an antenna. So I switched.

If OTA is forced to die then the networks will have lost another viewer.
Yep and if they think people torrenting is bad now just wait.
old_wiz_60
join:2005-06-03
Bedford, MA

old_wiz_60

Member

how to pay or it?

Why should the government pay anything? The TV stations aren't going to be happy; where are they supposed to get the money for a complete new infrastructure? 1.83 billion would barely get things started. If the wireless industry needs it that bad, let them pay for the full cost.
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

1 edit

Sammer

Member

Re: how to pay or it?

said by old_wiz_60:

Why should the government pay anything? The TV stations aren't going to be happy; where are they supposed to get the money for a complete new infrastructure? 1.83 billion would barely get things started. If the wireless industry needs it that bad, let them pay for the full cost.
You nailed it. Something that would actually work (such as MPEG4 and something similar to ATSC M/H but with higher resolutions) would take a number of years and billions of dollars to free up no more than 120 MHz of UHF and the 30 MHz of low VHF TV frequencies. Why should broadcasters, consumers, and/or taxpayers pay those billions rather than those corporations who want the spectrum auctions?