Is the FCC going to still take away some Channels in 2015 for Broadband?
How many Channels are they thinking of taking from broadcasters?
How many Channels are they thinking of taking from broadcasters?
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
UHF Band
- Thread starter MarioMania
- Start date
Probably. They're still working on the details.
The idea is that each TV station is asked "How much do we have to pay you to agree to go out of business?".
And, each broadband operator is asked "How much are you willing to pay for one TV station's worth of spectrum?".
Then, the FCC uses the money from the broadband operators to buy out as many TV stations as possible.
That's vastly oversimplified but it's the general idea.
There's another element where they want to allow a TV station to sell *half* its channel. That station would be paired with another station that sells half *its* channel. They would end up sharing one channel and selling the other one.
The FCC seems to believe it can buy out enough stations to take over channels 38-51.
The idea is that each TV station is asked "How much do we have to pay you to agree to go out of business?".
And, each broadband operator is asked "How much are you willing to pay for one TV station's worth of spectrum?".
Then, the FCC uses the money from the broadband operators to buy out as many TV stations as possible.
That's vastly oversimplified but it's the general idea.
There's another element where they want to allow a TV station to sell *half* its channel. That station would be paired with another station that sells half *its* channel. They would end up sharing one channel and selling the other one.
The FCC seems to believe it can buy out enough stations to take over channels 38-51.
Can a TV Station insted move down the UHF Band or even going to VHF?
With in UHF Channel 14-36 or VHF Channel 7-13
With in UHF Channel 14-36 or VHF Channel 7-13
MarioMania said:Can a TV Station insted move down the UHF Band or even going to VHF?
With in UHF Channel 14-36 or VHF Channel 7-13
Good point, I forgot about that part..
The process won't pay stations to move lower on UHF. It will however pay to move from UHF to VHF, or from high VHF to low VHF.
Once the process has worked out how many stations will sell, the FCC will *force* some stations to move lower on UHF.
Here in Nashville, we have stations on channels 15, 21, 23, 25, 27, 33, 36, 38, and 44. Imagine that channels 23 and 33 charge the least to go out of business and the FCC buys them. The Commission will then (presumably) order channels 38 and 44 to move to channels 23 and 33, clearing out everything above 36.
The Commission cannot force a station to move from UHF to VHF, nor from high VHF to low VHF.
Last I heard, the FCC wanted to do away with channels 31 - 36 & 38 - 51, leaving the UHF band with channels 14 - 30. Some markets already have certain channels off- limits for TV, due to some channels being used for land-mobile. Chicago for example has channels 14 & 15 off limits. WLS-TV just shut off their VHF signal on RF 7, that they're already on RF 44 exclusively. They might be forced to go back to RF 7 if channels get taken away again. I don't know how this will be handled near Mexico & Canada, where I hear they're not taking 31 - 51 away from TV on the Mexico & Canada sides. Other than channel sharing, LPTV stations will likely go off the air, since most barely survive with the signal they have, & the advertising dollars they get from that signal.
Dave said:Last I heard, the FCC wanted to do away with channels 31 - 36 & 38 - 51, leaving the UHF band with channels 14 - 30. Some markets already have certain channels off- limits for TV, due to some channels being used for land-mobile. Chicago for example has channels 14 & 15 off limits. WLS-TV just shut off their VHF signal on RF 7, that they're already on RF 44 exclusively. They might be forced to go back to RF 7 if channels get taken away again. I don't know how this will be handled near Mexico & Canada, where I hear they're not taking 31 - 51 away from TV on the Mexico & Canada sides. Other than channel sharing, LPTV stations will likely go off the air, since most barely survive with the signal they have, & the advertising dollars they get from that signal.
I think it's unlikely they'll be able to buy enough stations to get rid of 31-36. But you never know..
WLS cannot be forced to return to RF 7. The law specifically prohibits them from forcing stations to move from UHF to VHF. I suppose if WLS didn't have the license-to-cover for RF 44 the construction permit could be cancelled -- but they *do* have the license-to-cover.
What could possibly happen is that WLS could be offered $$ to *volunteer* to move back to RF 7. I have no idea how much would have to be offered for that to happen. (I'm sure there is *some* amount of $$ that would induce them to go for it)
It is also possible, indeed probable, that WLS could be forced to move lower on the UHF dial. Maybe, from 44 to 32 or any of a variety of other possibilities.
Out of curiosity, since DTV on VHF has had problems (both due to power and the fact most antenna's are UHF), why not just use VHF for the broadband and move all the TV to UHF?
chriscollins said:Out of curiosity, since DTV on VHF has had problems (both due to power and the fact most antenna's are UHF), why not just use VHF for the broadband and move all the TV to UHF?
Same reason: antennas. An effective VHF antenna is larger than an effective UHF antenna. You really can't put an effective VHF antenna in a cellphone.
(Although... come to think of it... cellphones are, well, *cellular*... The transmitter is a lot closer to the receiver, so maybe you don't *need* an effective antenna? At least, not as effective as you need to receiver a TV station which may be 20 miles away...)
There is no one plan that the FCC is considering for the 600 MHz band. There is the Down From 51 Plan, the Down and Up from 51 Plan and the Flex Use Plan. With the first two, the Commission is proposing taking anywhere from 80 to 84 MHz with Ch. 37 (used for radioastronomy and other purposes) being the dividing point. The Flex Use Plan would be based upon need and availability. More spectrum would be taken in rural areas, less in urban areas and border states. Also, with flex use some channels in certain areas would be broadband while for other locales it would be TV. The main problem with all these plans is one of interference, the flex plan being the worst since the distances between co-channel use, with one area being broadband and another television, would need to be far greater.
Some experts such as Doug Lung believe the FCC will get, at best, 60 MHz or less. It's already been reported that none of the networks and station groups such as Sinclair are interested in participating in the reverse auction. This leaves a few independent full powers, Class As and LPTV/translators (the latter are not allowed to participate). There must be enough participants in the reverse auction for the forward auction to take place. So far their doesn't appear to be enough. The LPTV Spectrum Rights Coalition has threatened to sue the FCC and there is talk of legislation being presented and attached to another bill that will protect low power stations and translators. Channel sharing has also been deemed unworkable and has not been endorsed by anyone, certainly not the NAB.
Most people in the industry believe the broadcast spectrum reclamation plan will collapse under its own weight. The Commission will ultimately be forced to reclaim just a few MHz and will then declare the auction a success.
Some experts such as Doug Lung believe the FCC will get, at best, 60 MHz or less. It's already been reported that none of the networks and station groups such as Sinclair are interested in participating in the reverse auction. This leaves a few independent full powers, Class As and LPTV/translators (the latter are not allowed to participate). There must be enough participants in the reverse auction for the forward auction to take place. So far their doesn't appear to be enough. The LPTV Spectrum Rights Coalition has threatened to sue the FCC and there is talk of legislation being presented and attached to another bill that will protect low power stations and translators. Channel sharing has also been deemed unworkable and has not been endorsed by anyone, certainly not the NAB.
Most people in the industry believe the broadcast spectrum reclamation plan will collapse under its own weight. The Commission will ultimately be forced to reclaim just a few MHz and will then declare the auction a success.
I think many of them may return to their old analog channels if possible.
One correction: that number range should be 60 to 84 MHz (depending on market or area). Commissioner Ajit Pai has put forward his own band plan in which all channels about 37 or 78 MHz would be confiscated by the government for auction. This would, at least, leave a mostly contiguous band for TV. No one beyond the FCC favors the 51 Down and Up Plan because it would split up the TV band thereby requiring additional guard bands, a very inefficient use of spectrum. When the repacking begins, more then likely, displaced stations will not automatically be assigned new channels but will have to apply for them (not unlike the first DTV transition).
Then we have DTVCast a proposed new broadband service for rural areas that would use a portion of a broadcast station's spectrum for delivery. The service promises 10 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up. Each broadcast signal will be able to support anywhere from 400-600 subscribers. DTVCast uses current 8VSB technology (so it is fully compatible with ATSC 1.0 and 2.0). Apparently, it will only work effectively on the UHF band.
Some have complained that the FCC is making a mistake valuing stations based on market and class (instead of on the value of the spectrum itself) which is discouraging participation in the reverse auction. But broadcasters aren't dumb. They know their spectrum is valuable and that it offers tremendous future revenue potential as more services are developed. They also know what bait and switch, pennies on the dollar and pig-in-a-poke mean, which are the only compensatory strategies the government is offering.
Then we have DTVCast a proposed new broadband service for rural areas that would use a portion of a broadcast station's spectrum for delivery. The service promises 10 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up. Each broadcast signal will be able to support anywhere from 400-600 subscribers. DTVCast uses current 8VSB technology (so it is fully compatible with ATSC 1.0 and 2.0). Apparently, it will only work effectively on the UHF band.
This kind of thing has been proposed before. I'd like to see what their "up" technology is. And, I'd like to know how well it scales when 500 subscribers come home from work & try to stream movies at the same time.
This kind of thing has been proposed before. I'd like to see what their "up" technology is. And, I'd like to know how well it scales when 500 subscribers come home from work & try to stream movies at the same time.
You can read all about it here:
http://dtvcast.com/media/
Looks just like several of the proposals I've seen before. Only difference is that they've added to the list of available return path technologies DSL and cable. But if you have DSL or cable, why would you need another data service?
Unless someone is a webmaster or is frequently uploading videos to YouTube, the greatest use of the internet is downloading, whether it's movies and TV shows or Pandora and other internet radio services or apps. Quite often there are data caps associated with many of these internet services and they can get bogged down with a lot of users. With DTVCast there would be no data caps and the service would provide a consistent 10 Mbps speed even with the max number of users (about 600 per broadcast signal). Again, DTVCast is primarily for rural use and is targeted to those who would otherwise use satellite internet which is slow, expensive and has very restrictive data caps.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.