dslreports logo
 story category
U.S. Plans to Double Wireless Spectrum Availability
Hopes to 'catalyze private sector investment....'
On Sunday the government announced that Uncle Sam plans to nearly double the available wireless spectrum in the United States over the next ten years. The government is promising to free up nearly 500 megahertz of government and commercial spectrum during that time. In line with the national broadband plan, said spectrum will be used for next-generation networks and a national wireless emergency network -- with auction proceeds going toward "public safety, infrastructure investments and deficit reduction." The FCC is also being pressured by several Senators to finalize White Space broadband rules by the end of the third quarter. Testing for that unlicensed technology is ongoing.
view:
topics flat nest 

Ben
Premium Member
join:2007-06-17
Fort Worth, TX

Ben

Premium Member

My Thoughts on this in another Thread

     Since this was one of the links in "Monday Morning" links, I posted some of my thoughts there.

»Gov't plans to double available wireless spectrum

Supervisor
Premium Member
join:2006-03-26
Marysville, PA

1 recommendation

Supervisor

Premium Member

Unlicensed Spectrum?

It would be nice if some of this spectrum was made available as unlicensed, instead of all being auctioned off for $$ to Verizon, ATT, Comcast and Clear. Give the small ISP wireless operators a chance to compete.

Frank
Premium Member
join:2000-11-03
somewhere

1 edit

Frank

Premium Member

Re: Unlicensed Spectrum?

said by Supervisor:

It would be nice if some of this spectrum was made available as unlicensed, instead of all being auctioned off for $$ to Verizon, ATT, Comcast and Clear. Give the small ISP wireless operators a chance to compete.
If you use unlicensed spectrum to start a small isp then you have no legal recourse when something interferes with your signal and makes it unusable.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Unlicensed Spectrum?

Yep, use of unlicensed spectrum is too messy, especially for something that needs to be reliable, such as voice communications.

rchandra
Stargate Universe fan
Premium Member
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105
ARRIS ONT1000GJ4
EnGenius EAP1250

rchandra to Supervisor

Premium Member

to Supervisor
Yep, I would like more low power spectrum to be opened up. The WiFi standards are nice, but they are starting to get crowded. From what I have seen about its description (with channel bandwidth overlapping so that only channels 1, 6, and 11 do not overlap), we need something a whole lot better. To me that was a really stupid thing to do...the overlapping thing. Allocate some more spectrum for non-overlapping, short-range wireless.

kickass69
join:2002-06-03
Lake Hopatcong, NJ

kickass69

Member

As long as it doesn't remove free OTA TV

Then it's all good. I know they were talking about potentially forcing broadcasters to give it up but have since backed away. In the end, it would be sad if the FCC got away with pushing broadcasters out of OTA broadcasting and having to pay in some way directly to see any shows period.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: As long as it doesn't remove free OTA TV

The push wasn't to axe all of the broadcast TV spectrum...at least not yet. I do believe that TV broadcasters could consolidate their use of spectrum so that a continuous chunk of unused spectrum could be repurposed nationwide. The problem is that this requires a decent investment from some broadcasters, which might be a difficult sell after the recent investment that broadcasters made.

kickass69
join:2002-06-03
Lake Hopatcong, NJ

kickass69

Member

Re: As long as it doesn't remove free OTA TV

Considering n2jtx's comment about how much we've lost OTA spectrum since the 80s and n2ubp's comment about NOAA weather satellite spectrum possibly being considered to give away...do you feel the FCC's priorities in terms of what it's looking at to use is a bit off the deep end considering what'd be left high and dry in a true emergency?

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

fifty nine to openbox9

Member

to openbox9
said by openbox9:

The push wasn't to axe all of the broadcast TV spectrum...at least not yet. I do believe that TV broadcasters could consolidate their use of spectrum so that a continuous chunk of unused spectrum could be repurposed nationwide. The problem is that this requires a decent investment from some broadcasters, which might be a difficult sell after the recent investment that broadcasters made.
How much is available from OTA TV broadcasters anyway?

They already took 52-83. Now let's say they take 20 more channels which is 120MHz. No wait, that's 114MHz unless you dump radio astronomy (channel 37 is not allocated anywhere in the US and Canada). So a whopping 114MHz from TV broadcasters.

Then, how much will TV broadcast be left with? 2-6 is pretty much unusable for full power DTV. 7-13 is iffy but mostly full in many markets. 14-16 is taken by public safety land mobile in some markets. So that leaves 17-30? 13 channels for TV?

Folks, don't be fooled. This is not about broadband. This is about control of information. Obama is making sure that there is only one source for information, and that the kill switch can be deployed just in case people are getting a bit too wise. Piping all info through the internet is the ultimate in information control.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: As long as it doesn't remove free OTA TV

said by fifty nine:

So a whopping 114MHz from TV broadcasters.
That's about 25% of the Broadband Plan's goal.
said by fifty nine:

2-6 is pretty much unusable for full power DTV. 7-13 is iffy but mostly full in many markets.
88615298 See Profile, is that you? Channels 2-6 are usable in the proper environment and there's absolutely nothing wrong with 7-13.
said by fifty nine:

So that leaves 17-30? 13 channels for TV?
How many OTA channels do you have now that really matter? I can relatively easily pick up over 20 channels, not including the subs. Of those ~20 channels, I receive 4 PBS, 2 CBS, 2 NBC, 2 ABC, 2 Fox, 2 CW, and the rest are scattered amongst independents, religious, and foreign language channels that I don't even have mapped on my TVs. So, realistically six channels should do it for me. I realize that everyone isn't the same, but do we really have a need for more than 13 OTA channels?
said by fifty nine:

Folks, don't be fooled. This is not about broadband. This is about control of information. Obama is making sure that there is only one source for information, and that the kill switch can be deployed just in case people are getting a bit too wise. Piping all info through the internet is the ultimate in information control.
Tinfoil hats for everyone.
n2ubp
join:2007-07-13
Middletown, NY

n2ubp to kickass69

Member

to kickass69
Right now the FCC is floating the idea of using a piece of spectrum that is currently used for NOAA weather satellites.
They would effectively be giving away a band used to send severe weather warnings to Emergency Managers and commericial broadcasters across the country. I don't get it.
"Don't pay no mind to that tornado out back Honey, come over here and see this funny you tube video I found!"

kickass69
join:2002-06-03
Lake Hopatcong, NJ

kickass69

Member

Re: As long as it doesn't remove free OTA TV

Goes to show that they're willing to give up anything vital just for something that won't most likely work in a real emergency and isn't truly vital. Wifi over 3G/4G/LTE with the way the big boys are going the low cap route.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

Re: As long as it doesn't remove free OTA TV

As a condition of buying the spectrum, perhaps the new owners have to agree to carry the warning traffic?

I thought the warnings were sent out in the current 162.5xx mhz slot used by NOAA weather stations. At least I think that's where the Midland (brand) weather radio I have gets it. Given the fact that this isn't even 1mhz of spectrum, I cannot imagine it being of any use to anyone -- unless having it there creates harmonic interference for carriers. With MIMO technology, it's doubtful that's much of an issue.
kruser
Premium Member
join:2002-06-01
Eastern MO

kruser

Premium Member

Re: As long as it doesn't remove free OTA TV

said by rradina:

As a condition of buying the spectrum, perhaps the new owners have to agree to carry the warning traffic?

I thought the warnings were sent out in the current 162.5xx mhz slot used by NOAA weather stations. At least I think that's where the Midland (brand) weather radio I have gets it. Given the fact that this isn't even 1mhz of spectrum, I cannot imagine it being of any use to anyone -- unless having it there creates harmonic interference for carriers. With MIMO technology, it's doubtful that's much of an issue.
NOAA Sats use some stuff around 137 MHz. Those are Leo (Low Earth Orbit) Sats that must be tracked from horizon to horizon with auto antennas and then they have the stationary sats that broadcast continuous satellite imagery around I think 1.9 GHz. I think they also use higher frequencies as well. I don't know how much bandwidth the 1.9 GHz birds are allocated but I'd think it is a fair amount. The band the 137 MHz birds use runs roughly from 136 MHz up to 144 MHz. Now if they are talking about the NOAA Wx stations then you are correct in that it runs from 162.4 to 162.55 MHz so not even 2 tenths of a megahertz. I guess they could do a regional thing and allow wifi on the frequencies not assigned for the local NOAA WX broadcast for that area. Then again, the 162 MHz frequencies do not use satellites at that frequency.
It will be interesting to see were they do plan on getting the 500 MHz of spectrum from. I predicted many years ago when cable tv first started that it would be the death of free OTA tv or any free tv for that matter. I think that prediction may come true sooner then ever now. I wish I would have put a date on that prediction

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

n2jtx to kickass69

Member

to kickass69
That is still a potential issue. We went from having TV channels 2 through 83 in the 1980's to 2 through 69 when 70 through 83 were taken over for cellular service. Then we also lost channels 14 through 17 in many areas for the "UHF T" public service band. With the conversion to DTV, we lost channels 52 through 69 with 2 through 6 all but vacant. If they keep taking any more, we will wind up with five channels in any given area.

kickass69
join:2002-06-03
Lake Hopatcong, NJ

1 edit

kickass69

Member

Re: As long as it doesn't remove free OTA TV

Sad thing is I can see the FCC hiking renewal fees when their licenses are up or having them go through other hoops to the point where giving up their licenses to auction will be better than bleeding money. Our government in full mafia tactics.

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

1 recommendation

fifty nine to n2jtx

Member

to n2jtx
That's just it. Wireless broadband is a bottomless pit. There will be no end to the demand for spectrum, even after all of it has been taken away from TV.

accounting8
join:2008-02-29
Columbus, OH

accounting8

Member

Re: As long as it doesn't remove free OTA TV

said by fifty nine:

That's just it. Wireless broadband is a bottomless pit. There will be no end to the demand for spectrum, even after all of it has been taken away from TV.
Exactly!
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned) to n2jtx

Member

to n2jtx
said by n2jtx:

That is still a potential issue. We went from having TV channels 2 through 83 in the 1980's to 2 through 69 when 70 through 83 were taken over for cellular service. Then we also lost channels 14 through 17 in many areas for the "UHF T" public service band. With the conversion to DTV, we lost channels 52 through 69 with 2 through 6 all but vacant. If they keep taking any more, we will wind up with five channels in any given area.
Well we really don't need all the way up to 83 or even 69 for OTA but it does show that the mobile companies already have gotten 40% of the old TV band. Honestly channels 20-45 could work for OTA in most areas( and make antenna design much more efficient ). But the FCC and mobile companies won't be happy with just 36 MHz( Ch 46-51 ). Why not give mobile companies VHF, it sucks of DTV anyways. Let them figure out a way to make it work. That's 72 MHz right there.
88615298

88615298 (banned) to kickass69

Member

to kickass69
said by kickass69:

Then it's all good. I know they were talking about potentially forcing broadcasters to give it up but have since backed away. In the end, it would be sad if the FCC got away with pushing broadcasters out of OTA broadcasting and having to pay in some way directly to see any shows period.
They're talking about taking channels 31-51 away. There is NO WAY you can have as many OTA stations as you do now by doing that. The only way you make that work is by having network share the same channel which means you can kiss HD via OTA good bye. Or the FCC lowers the power levels for OTA which means people like me that already live in fringe reception areas will be completely stuck out in the cold. Basically anyone more than 30-40 miles away from a TV station will be shit out of luck. And those more than 15-20 miles will have to use rooftop antennas.

DaveDude
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey

DaveDude to kickass69

Member

to kickass69
Why doesnt Noaa go digital like normal FM. Heck why not require all FM stations to pass emergency notifications, on a digital sub channel. The government could get rid of the antique noaa system Fm radio is available just about everywhere. Then just make new radioes have this capability. Less government waste, smarter system. They could even transmit extended info such as current temps. This is exactly what microsoft does with its data network.
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22

amigo_boy to kickass69

Member

to kickass69
said by kickass69:

Then it's all good.
The best thing OTA broadcasters can do is begin broadcasting on the newly-freed spectrum. Add some .2, .3, .4 channels.

Most broadcasters in my area are just sitting on their .1 channel. That begs for the unused spectrum to be repurposed.

A few have added a .2 channel. Only an obscure Mexican and Christian station have added .4 to .5 channels.

I think it's going to be funny if its the mainstream broadcasters who complain about losing their assigned spectrum. They will have done it to themselves.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

Re: As long as it doesn't remove free OTA TV

said by amigo_boy:

said by kickass69:

Then it's all good.
The best thing OTA broadcasters can do is begin broadcasting on the newly-freed spectrum. Add some .2, .3, .4 channels.

Most broadcasters in my area are just sitting on their .1 channel. That begs for the unused spectrum to be repurposed.

A few have added a .2 channel. Only an obscure Mexican and Christian station have added .4 to .5 channels.
Yes and of course when you do that HD quality suffers. We had station that went form have just a main HD channel to also having 2 SD subchannels and trust me you can tell the qualityof the HD is diminished. They broadcast in 1080i also. No way you can had decent HD at 1080i and have subchannels.

Also broadcaster are just now starting to broadcast mobile TV. Well that's 2 Mbps right there. So you expect a main channel 4 subchannels and 5 mobile TV channels and the HD is supposed to look good?

Even at 720p you get below 12 Mbps and the HD is shitty. And at 12 Mbps is just ok. And broadcaster only have about 19.4 Mbps to play with to begin with and some has to be available for audio. Preferably at last 384 kbps for HD and 192 kbps for SD. Do the math it can't work with so many subchannel. Then the FCC wants networks to SHARE channels? Basically then all you could do via OTA is SD which would basically kill off OTA for good and then of course there won't be anyone to fight over the remaining spectrum which Then FCC can sell to at&t and verzion. But hey they'll sell you TV via OTA for $30 a month. You know the same OTA TV you used to get for FREE.
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22

amigo_boy

Member

Re: As long as it doesn't remove free OTA TV

said by 88615298:

Yes and of course when you do that HD quality suffers. We had station that went form have just a main HD channel to also having 2 SD subchannels and trust me you can tell the qualityof the HD is diminished.
I think, from a matter of pragmatics, more channels is better than higher quality for the purpose of stations keeping the frequency allocation they have.

IMO, loss of channels would be more visible. It would create more political backlash than loss of quality.
ElJay
join:2004-03-17
Portland, ME

ElJay

Member

Re: As long as it doesn't remove free OTA TV

I've yet to see a digital subchannel with any value. My PBS station has three of them and it makes their 1080i feed unwatchable. So instead of having four channels, they effectively have zero channels from my point of view.
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22

1 edit

amigo_boy

Member

Re: As long as it doesn't remove free OTA TV

said by ElJay:

I've yet to see a digital subchannel with any value.
I've experienced the exact opposite in my area.

One station added a subchannel with the Retro Television Network. Another added "This" network. And, one of the Hispanic stations added a subchannel playing old movies in English. PBS added "Create" and "World" channels which have a lot of good stuff like This Old House and Frontline.

I think more variety would be the way to preserve OTA spectrum. If they go for less variety at a technophile resolution, I think only a handful of cork sniffers would complain when spectrum is taken and those broadcasters revert to lower resolution.

If we ever treat the last mile as a public utility (operated by the city or a coop regulated by the corporation commission, and providing interconnection to unlimited service providers) maybe it would be feasible to receive local programing through the community-owned infrastructure and there would be no need for OTA broadcasting.

An entirely different model. But, as long as one cable company has monopoly access (through public easements and rights of way), elimination of OTA would only benefit the monopoly. We would have perfectly completed the shift from public resources for the public good, to public resources for the monopoly's good.

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

fifty nine to amigo_boy

Member

to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:

said by kickass69:

Then it's all good.
The best thing OTA broadcasters can do is begin broadcasting on the newly-freed spectrum. Add some .2, .3, .4 channels.

Most broadcasters in my area are just sitting on their .1 channel. That begs for the unused spectrum to be repurposed.

A few have added a .2 channel. Only an obscure Mexican and Christian station have added .4 to .5 channels.

I think it's going to be funny if its the mainstream broadcasters who complain about losing their assigned spectrum. They will have done it to themselves.
19Mbps isn't even enough for good quality HD. CBS O&Os allocate the full channel but it isn't good as a higher bandwidth medium such as blu-ray disc.

The FCC is using Live Well HD as a proof of concept that you can broadcast two HD channels in one 6MHz slot. Problem is, have you seen Live Well HD? It sucks. I wouldn't even call it HD as there are so many compression artifacts, plus it absolutely destroys the main ABC channel.

I am convinced that either Obama doesn't live in reality or wants to turn America into a third world country.
HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet
join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON

HeadSpinning

Member

Re: As long as it doesn't remove free OTA TV

said by fifty nine:

I am convinced that either Obama doesn't live in reality or wants to turn America into a third world country.
Do you really think that the President of the United States is making direct decisions on things such as how many HD channels can fit into a single 6Mhz channel?

I'd think he's got better things to do.
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

1 edit

Sammer

Member

Re: As long as it doesn't remove free OTA TV

It will mean the demise of free OTA TV as we know it. If TV broadcasters give up 120 MHz of spectrum they really should get all of the auction proceeds. Actually BF69 is right when he says channels 20-45 would probably work for DTV. That could actually be refined to 21-45 minus 37 reserved for radio astronomy. It would also make more sense to share channels 14-20 with cell phones than DTV. However the cell phone companies have made it clear they want 31-36, 38-51 ASAP and 21-30 eventually.
Sammer

Sammer to amigo_boy

Member

to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:

The best thing OTA broadcasters can do is begin broadcasting on the newly-freed spectrum. Add some .2, .3, .4 channels.
Actually the best thing they can is to start broadcasting ATSC mobile/handheld but the cell phone companies would like to prevent that from ever happening.
cptmiles2
Premium Member
join:2004-04-22
Swayzee, IN

cptmiles2

Premium Member

Small ISPs

Wireless Companies should be required to Interconnect with small ISPs like in the landline world for voice and data, most specifically for nationwide roaming. I know the big guys will still dominate a small carrier with all kinds of crap on a resell or UNE concept so that is not what I am talking about.

I am talking about if a small carrier buys four local counties to provide service to a specific area that they should not have to fear building it out and be the only four counties their customers can use that service (and have an equal and fair shot at the handsets).

This one (two) thing(s) will allow the small guys to provide the coverage in the rural areas the big guys snub their noses and allow for small company innovation.

io chico
Premium Member
join:2003-12-30
Marble Falls, TX

io chico

Premium Member

10 years?

The rest of the world will be using the next technology and we will be trying to catch up. Ten years? Really?

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

AnonDOG
@kaballero.com

AnonDOG

Anon

Yawn...

If it is licensed for OTA broadcast in an area, let it stay licensed for that purpose; however, don't give the OTA users outrageous coverage areas. Give them a 50 mile radius. License light. License to a specific area and where that spectrum is not in use by OTA allow it to be licensed light for any purpose.

"License Light" means a registry of cooperating users as 3.65 is licensed.

DavePR
join:2008-06-04
Canyon Country, CA

DavePR

Member

Re: Yawn...

A third of the population lives outside your 50 mile radius. No TV for them?

NameAnon
@atkcorp.com

NameAnon

Anon

You cannot compete with cable and satellite

with wireless spectrum. It is totally unsuited for real time HDTV. There is not enough spectrum now. There will never be enough spectrum.

And why should any money go to the broadcasters? they don't own the spectrum. Give it all to the people or no deal.