FCC proposed rulemaking for OTA TV

[Fieldtech1]

A few of the highlights:

* 2 Liscensees having to share 1, 6mhz broadcast channel. You can you say goodbye to subchannels like RTV, This TV, Ect if this happens. You can also say goodbye to quality High Def on OTA TV.

*Increased power to VHF channels 7-13. No specigic ammount was given, but this is perhaps in hopes that some UHF broadcasters will move down to VHF channels freeing up more spectrum for valuable mobile broadband spectrum.

 

[FreddyE1977]

Money talks, and the NAB has plenty of it.

I suspect Julius Genachowski will end up managing a Pizza Hut if he pushes this too hard.

 

[trapper12]

A few of the highlights:

* 2 Liscensees having to share 1, 6mhz broadcast channel. You can you say goodbye to subchannels like RTV, This TV, Ect if this happens. You can also say goodbye to quality High Def on OTA TV.

*Increased power to VHF channels 7-13. No specigic ammount was given, but this is perhaps in hopes that some UHF broadcasters will move down to VHF channels freeing up more spectrum for valuable mobile broadband spectrum.

The FCC promised these subchannels in order to get broadcasters to agree to the digital switch. Now they want to take it away. Sounds like a government agency. I do hope this idea gets shot down fast. As for the increased power to VHF channels 7-13. I suspect that this is in response to complaints from broadcasters in major cities complaining about reduced coverage area after the switch.

 

[kenglish]

The NAB (and it's members) has no where near the funds that the "New and Innovative" broadband industry has. The Pay-TV and internet people have hundreds of millions of customers to milk every month.

I'm just wondering what to do with two expensive UHF transmitting antennas, two UHF combiners, eight UHF transmitters, and hundreds of feet of UHF transmission line. Anybody want to buy them, for about ten million bucks?

 

[kenglish]

........Sounds like a government agency. I do hope this idea gets shot down fast.....

It's not just an "idea". It's a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking", which is the first step in making it a law. There will be a comment period of several weeks, some tweaking, a final draft, a vote, then it becomes law after it has been released in the Federal Register.

The "idea" stage was the last few months, when nobody was paying attention.

 

[azumanga]

If the NAB orchestrated thsi, I wonder how many stations would give up their membership? A radio station in Traverse City, Michigan, tore up its NAB membership card because of shenannigans like this.

 

[KeithE4]

A few of the highlights:

* 2 Liscensees having to share 1, 6mhz broadcast channel. You can you say goodbye to subchannels like RTV, This TV, Ect if this happens. You can also say goodbye to quality High Def on OTA TV.

Nobody will be forced to share a channel if they don't want to. It may be beneficial for smaller stations, especially those who don't use Hi-Def, to do so , though. This proposal allows it.

But two Hi-Def channels would eliminate the possibility of other subchannels. But by the time this proposal becomes law (if it does) and is implemented (several years from now), how many of these Rerun Channels for Us Old FogeysTM will still be around? One or two, probably. In fact, how many of today's stations will still be around once the networks begin to move to non-VHF/UHF distribution methods only, possibly at about the same time?

*Increased power to VHF channels 7-13. No specigic ammount was given, but this is perhaps in hopes that some UHF broadcasters will move down to VHF channels freeing up more spectrum for valuable mobile broadband spectrum.

There are enough existing stations on VHF-high channels (3 in Phoenix alone), to make this worth while. Even with higher power levels, it might be tough to have good reception on 2 thru 6. The ionosphere and static are death to digital signals.

But overall, speaking as an OTA television viewer and wireless user, this proposal (and it is a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and it won't be enacted without at least some modifications) is absolutely necessary. The needs of hundreds of millions of wireless users (read: just about everybody, in one form or another) outweigh the needs of a couple thousand dinosaur TV transmitters that are watched by less than 20% of the country (including me). And those dinosaurs will still be accommodated - nobody is proposing that over-the-air TV be ended, despite rumors to the contrary.

 

[landtuna]

Why can't the existing VHF TV stations be moved to UHF?

I realize in some markets the UHF spectrum might be too crowded but it doesn't seem to be in most.

 

[Markxxx]

VHF isn't good for mobile devices.

 

[KeithE4]

Why can't the existing VHF TV stations be moved to UHF?

I realize in some markets the UHF spectrum might be too crowded but it doesn't seem to be in most.

Cheaper to buy a higher-powered VHF transmitter than a new UHF transmitter & antenna, perhaps? I don't know what the cost difference is.

 

[R.D.P.]

Does all this mean that we will no longer have to use those decoder boxes the Federal Government made us get, if it happens?

Does this also mean that we'll lose channels like a 8.2, 8.3, 12.2, 20.2, 20.3, 26.2, 26.3, 32.2 and so forth from Montgomery Alabama, if it goes through?

Inquiring minds like me want to know, since my family uses a decoder box to drag in the local channels.

If this happens, all I can say is a lot of money was wasted indeed.

R.D.P. <><

 

[landtuna]

Does all this mean that we will no longer have to use those decoder boxes the Federal Government made us get, if it happens?

Nope. OTA will remain digital so if you have an analog TV set you will continue to require a converter box.

 

[Markxxx]

Well if they're gonna take away OTA, than at least leave standard def and move high def TV to cable, dish and other similar services. I know that isn't popular but it's better to have something free and OTA.

On one hand I can see the point. Spectrum is too valuable to just be wasted. If a station isn't going to use all of it, they need to return it so others can use it.

In small markets it makes sense to save on electricity costs and such. In some markets they skirt around the duopoly laws with shell corpororations and such so it would make sense to combine operations.

I think another thing that needs to be addressed is the allocations are just wrong. They have computers and such now they could easily figure out how to maximize the number of channels in one location. Actually Trip probably already has done this

Or if the FCC wants a major change just do away with localism all together and have one station in NYC for each network and have translators (or repeaters or whatever you call them) throughout the USA.

I wouldn't be in favor of these kind of changes but I could accept them if it means keeping some sort of OTA free TV

 

[dhett]

Trick or treat! And the FCC is providing the trick: proposed VHF power increases are for Zone I only (northeastern US). See Para. 48 in http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-196A1.pdf for details:

We are not proposing to raise the maximum power limits for VHF stations in Zones II and III, as the existing limits still afford those stations the ability to provide stronger signals indoors to consumers who view their signals at locations close to their transmitters.

Mark my words: this is going to get shoved down our throats as well, without any significant amendments. The fix is in: it was a done deal from the get-go.

 

[R.D.P.]

It looks like we're getting screwed again.

So much for the federal Government and the FCC being for the people.

R.D.P. <><

P.S. Hope we don't lose our subchannels here in the Montgomery/Selma TV market. My family depends on them for all kinds of reasons. Main ones for the local weather conditions and the RTV Network.