FCC May Buy Back Airwaves

[Carmine5]

But it doesn't change the basic point, which is that the $200 phone is actually more expensive than the $1000 TV -- even if few of the buyers realize it.

Does radio deserve a new nanny devoted only to radio's wants and needs?

I don't know about a new nanny but the broadcast industry certainly deserves people within the FCC who appreciate the value of free OTA content which broadcasters provide as well as understand the technical challenges broadcasters face. Maybe with this proposal to add more engineers to the staff we will see, if not a renewed appreciation for the broadcast industry, at least a measure of sanity return to rein in some of the unbridled ambitions these lawyers at the Commission have.

For example, in his ""Mobile Broadband: A 21st Century Plan forU.S. Competitiveness, Innovation and Job Creation" speech, Chairman Genachowski makes this statement concerning the supposed underutilization of UHF spectrum:

"In cities with more than 1 million people, on average about 100 megahertz are used. Even in our very largest cities, at most only about 150 megahertz out of 300 megahertz are used."

However his statement fails to take into account that these vacant spaces are there for good reasons, mainly for protecting TV operations in adjacent cities. The vacant spaces are necessary and required by the FCC's own technical rules and the laws of physics.

But far be it for these "new hires" at the FCC to let something like the laws of physics get in the way of their grand schemes. The NAB supposedly exists to protect broadcasters. We'll see how well it does in fighting this issue.

c5

 

[TomT]

Internet geeks (and the guys who made a pile in the dot.com boom like Genachowski) neither have any interest in or pay any intention to anything not involving 1's and 0's.