 | | 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... | |
|
 | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | 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. | |
|
| | | What spectrum this is anyway? what bands are we talking about? | |
|
| |  n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY | 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. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Agree said by n2jtx:said by bartolo5:What spectrum this is anyway? what bands are we talking about? 1700MHz and 2100MHz - AWS No great loss. Useless for cellular applications that need to be at least SOMEWHAT reliable. What they SHOULD make more of available is the 850MHz spectrum, where iDen phones work. That's the most reliable cell band, even works indoors to an extent, and when the trees are in bloom. The 1900 and up stuff is a joke. If there's a tree between the phone and the tower, you get no service.  | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | "Specifically cited by NAB president Gordon Smith was Time Warner Cable, who NAB notes has no plans to sell or use its AWS (advanced wireless services) spectrum licenses."
... and THIS is where Eminent Domain is SUPPOSED to be used. | |
|
| | 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
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: end terrestrial TV broadcasts 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. | |
|
| | Reviews:
 ·monkeybrains
| Re: end terrestrial TV broadcasts 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 | |
|
| | |  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: end terrestrial TV broadcasts 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 | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·monkeybrains
| 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. | |
|
| | | | | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: end terrestrial TV broadcasts 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? | |
|
| | | | | | Reviews:
·monkeybrains
| Re: end terrestrial TV broadcasts said by Linklist: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. | |
|
| | | | | |  elwoodbluesElwood BluesPremium
join:2006-08-30
HarperLand
 ·Cybersurf Intern..
| said by Linklist: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? That's easy, to keep the competition from getting it.
Here in Canada we have networks buying US programming and putting on the shelf (they have no space left in the schedule), to keep the other broadcasters from getting that show.
--
Jake: "Four fried chickens, and a coke" Elwood: "And some dry white toast, please" | |
|
| | | 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
| |
|
| | | | 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. | |
|
| | | | | Re: end terrestrial TV broadcasts 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. | |
|
| jfinch
join:2002-01-04
Knoxville, TN | 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. | |
|
| LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | 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. | |
|
| | | | Re: end terrestrial TV broadcasts The NAB has been making these points for quite some time now. Where have you been? | |
|
| | | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: end terrestrial TV broadcasts 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? | |
|
| | | | | | Re: end terrestrial TV broadcasts said by Linklist: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. | |
|
| | | 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. | |
|
| | | | Re: end terrestrial TV broadcasts 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 | |
|
| | | n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY | Re: end terrestrial TV broadcasts 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. | |
|
| | | | | 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. | |
|
| | | | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: end terrestrial TV broadcasts 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 | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: end terrestrial TV broadcasts Sure I have. I use it for clustering in fact. But which ISP today supports it? | |
|
| | | | | 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? | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·monkeybrains
| Re: end terrestrial TV broadcasts 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?
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. | |
|
| | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: end terrestrial TV broadcasts ... never mind. | |
|
| | |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | 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? | |
|
| | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | 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. | |
|
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | 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. | |
|
| | | because then I can keep on not paying for crap cable tv. broadcast tv is great! | |
|
|  DavePR
join:2008-06-04
Canyon Country, CA | People are cutting the cable and buying antennas for free Digital TV. The picture quality is better than cable.  | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | 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.
Just end terrestrial broadcasts and use the spectrum for what we really need, mobile broadband
Are you kidding?
My comment is not directed JUST at you but all those with this opinion.
You don't see ANY issue with "ending" terrestrial broadcast? This feeling come from a clear lack of understanding and ability to see beyond a personal need.
MOST people may CHOSE to get their TV service via a pay service, but that isn't an election or vote of the public. There are still plenty of household outside of the scope of pay TV service and there are some that cant afford it or want to afford it. But, because someone else chooses to use a pay service, those that don't should lose it?
We have certain rights in this country - and OTA is current a right. Are you suggesting that everyone should have to buy TV service then? And, for those that aren't able to afford it, should we have a system in place for low income people? How much money would that bureaucracy cost? Are you suggesting we have yet another socialist program in place to handle that? And should we force people that enjoy the free market TV at work to pay for TV now? Are you really suggesting that we push more money into the hands of business at the hand of the government? and that we further take away competition from the pay TV industry?
Um, yea.. not smart at all.
Most people in the US have cars.. why not get rid of public transportation as well? Most people live in city centers, maybe we should get rid of rural living.
And.. you posted this thought in the very topic where the people that are causing the problem of the "lack of bandwidth" would be the ones to benefit from your plan??
I'm sorry.. but I don't walk around with my head in the clouds and my eyes glued to facebook. We don't "NEED" more mobile broadband. Maybe 'we' could reclaim some of that mobile broadband and force people into not using things like YouTube and Hulu while they're on the go, ie: mobile. We don't "need" mobile broadband.. we chose to use it..
..my main point is that there is more than one set of ideals and I think that you're treading on dangerous grounds to call for the end of OTA TV. | |
|
| Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | 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 over 25 Million U.S. residents who don't subscribe to any pay TV service watch television and tens of millions more have a secondary set that is watched regularly attached to an antenna. A significant number of the over 1700 full service TV stations in the USA are also received over the air by cable headends or for satellite uplink. Finally realize that cable and satellite rates would rise dramatically if broadcast TV ever disappeared. | |
|
 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). | |
|
|  TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·CenturyLink
| 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/allochrt.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 | |
|
| |  GbcueP.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 | 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 | |
|
| | | | | Re: A real old story You can use your ham license to transmit. Noncommercial of course. | |
|
| Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Re: NAB Not Entirely Guilt-Free Either said by kpfx: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).
You are right about the NAB, it was a huge mistake by them to insist on keeping channels 2-6 (worst channels for digital TV) rather than accepting 7-51 as the digital core.
The LP-TV licenses as secondary services unlike full service and class A licenses normally have almost no protection from the FCC. The FCC freeze on new applications for primary licenses is what is really protecting what you call junk channels and channel squatters. The result of such an application can be the loss of an LP license without or with (if more than one application) an auction the proceeds of which go to the government. BTW primary licenses come with public service obligations the LPs do not have. | |
|
| |  This...
A homestead/private property based radio-wave methodology is precisely what was emerging in the early 20th century, via court cases, but was cut off, thanks to the Hoover administration pushing for the FCC. | |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | "Use it or Lose it" Seems applicable here. | |
|
bn1221
join:2009-04-29
Cortland, NY | bands If they paid for the bands from the FCC why should they give them back? Just so the FCC can sell them off again? That didn't work so well with the DTV now did it? | |
|
Reviews:
 ·ooma
 ·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FiOS
| close the loophole. the fcc should write terms of the sale in the spectrum sold (a common sense use it, within 18 months or the sale is void and pay a penalty). that's the other way instead of accusing the companies of anti-trust violations to keep prices high. with all that spectrum... many more customers **could** be served at much, much lower prices.. but the companies would rather not..
Hmm.. know any other industries that pull the same stunt? Oil/Energy, Healthcare, Banks...
Obama is tone-deaf about the issues of fairness in customer's rights.. what happened to that federal commission that looks into this kind of thing.. somone paid alot of money to advocate for consumer protections... sitting on their ass doing nothing, eh?
Voters aren't stupid.. they could have a Republican in office screwing them as consumers.. they dont' need a Democrat there going along thinking all those Bush 2 era policies (2000-2008) are just hunky-dory.. | |
|
| Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Re: close the loophole. said by tmc8080:the fcc should write terms of the sale in the spectrum sold (a common sense use it, within 18 months or the sale is void and pay a penalty). that's the other way instead of accusing the companies of anti-trust violations to keep prices high. with all that spectrum... many more customers **could** be served at much, much lower prices.. but the companies would rather not..
Technically because "We the people" own the spectrum these are really sales of licenses for somewhat exclusive use of spectrum. When the FCC issues a license for a new TV station it has 3 years (plus potentially at least two six month extensions) to start operating. If it doesn't the license is reclaimed by the FCC. While your suggestion of 18 months seems too short, four years ought to be more than enough and if it isn't used by then the spectrum should be condemned and reclaimed. | |
|
|
|
