Nearly half of the remaining TV channels to disappear

[kenglish]

The FCC has leaked parts of it's plan to give everybody internet:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ar...an_Commission_Sets_2015_Spectrum_Deadline.php

Looks like broadcasters will lose 20 channels of the remaining spectrum. So, here we go again, re-tooling and changing transmitters and antennas.

I suspect this is also the end of Translator service in the rural areas like Utah, where it's already impossible to find interference-free spectrum for the existing stations.

As for Wireless Microphones, I wouldn't want to be a stockholder in one of those companies right now. I hope there is a wireless mike "app" for the iPhone ;D .

 

[imhomerjay]

We'll all be long gone before this has any real chance of happening.

 

[KyDXIn]

CRISIS ALERT!

But the FCC's advice to Congress is that there is a growing spectrum crisis that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. "If the U.S. does not address this situation promptly," says the plan, "scarcity of mobile broadband could mean higher prices, poor service quality, an inability for the U.S. to compete internationally, depressed demand and, ultimately, a drag on innovation."

Is everything a CRISIS in government these days? This is the same arguement that was given for the Wall Street bailout, and we all know how well that went! It seems if its called a CRISIS, its just one side lying to reduce the time and place for debating a situation. This replaced the evergreen arguement of "doing it for the CHILDREN."

Digital TV is a very poor and unstable product. I can literally turn off a light switch and momentarily lose my broadcast signal. Seems like this government wants to sell off all the spectrum so there will be more money to squander!

Countdown to the end Obama's term: 3 years too many.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Is everything a CRISIS in government these days? This is the same arguement that was given for the Wall Street bailout, and we all know how well that went!

Interesting political rant. We don't know yet "how well that went". I heard a chilling interview the other day involving someone I believe is qualified to write a credible history once the dust settles and the facts can be double checked. It may be that the crisis on Wall Street in late 2008 was closer to chaos, meltdown and financial amagedon than we know about. And then again maybe not. Eventually someone.... hopefully several "someones" will document those events for us in a form that we can all trust.

Countdown to the end Obama's term: 3 years too many.

During the Bush administration half the voters in America were counting down the days until he could be dispatched back to the ranch. Today half the voters in America are, like you, counting down the days until the Obama administration comes to an end.

I'm sure the keyboards are clicking away as people who were on the inside are composing their "kiss 'n tell" books that will give us a better vision of what Mr. Bush did right and what he did wrong.

Don't be so impatient. Mr. Obama hasn't had time to get it right yet, and he hasn't had time to totally screw it up yet. Once again the keyboards will be clicking 4 years or 8 years from now and then we can begin to have intelligent discussions about is legacy.

In the meantime, let me offer a view of where we are: The various industries and corporations who have an interest in using the various chucks of spectrum may be the people you should be bad mouthing. Through their lobbyists they will do more to craft and shape how we make use of the "up for grab" spectrum than will our current president, which was also true of our most recent past president.

I don't get the idea that presidents lay around at night, tossing and turning, worrying about who should be using what spectrum and who should pay who for it. It may be that CONGRESSMEN do toss and turn over this issue, but probably not the president.

 

[KeithE4]

We'll all be long gone before this has any real chance of happening.

Maybe it won't be the full 120 MHz (out of the 300-500 MHz requested) that the Friendly Candy Company is asking for, but it WILL happen in one way or another. Possibly (my guess) with an intermixture of TV and broadband in the UHF spectrum, assigned on a market-by-market basis - as opposed to just lopping off Channels 46-51 and forcing those stations to move down the dial.

With only about 15 million out of 110 million American households using over-the-air TV exclusively (including me), and the real possibility of some, if not all, of the commercial networks going dark (as far as OTA is concerned) in the next 10 years, we'll be going back to the "good old days" of 2-5 channels per market.

The rest of our video & audio entertainment will be via the Internets if one doesn't want to pay the big bucks for cable. It's already happening with Hulu and others. Those services will only get bigger, even if they eventually charge. There will be little need for more than a couple of local stations in all but the largest markets, and I don't think Public Television will be going away anytime soon.

Besides, the FCC is very limited as to what they can allocate above 225 MHz. Most of that spectrum is allocated to the military, satellite, space-research, and fixed/mobile services (many ham bands above 225 MHz are shared with the military, who has priority). Some of that is controlled by the NTIA, and the FCC can't touch it without their OK or an act of Congress.

 

[Markxxx]

Well as it stands right now TV is a big mish mash and could be much better used.

It makes no sense in DTV to allow a station to sit on a potential six channels and only broadcast one sdtv signal on it.

TV allocations are also a mess. The FCC needs to start over and plan efficent use of the spectrum. This will allow the maximum number of channels per city (or market).

I would be really against this, but let's face it any new TV stations will just be more infomercials and such. It's unlikely any new TV stations will broadcast something even close to "entertainment"

I agree this won't happen anytime soon, broadcasters will fight tooth and nail against it.

 

[tripinva]

It makes no sense in DTV to allow a station to sit on a potential six channels and only broadcast one sdtv signal on it.

How many stations actually do that?

- Trip

 

[w9wi]

We'll all be long gone before this has any real chance of happening.

Maybe it won't be the full 120 MHz (out of the 300-500 MHz requested) that the Friendly Candy Company is asking for, but it WILL happen in one way or another. Possibly (my guess) with an intermixture of TV and broadband in the UHF spectrum, assigned on a market-by-market basis - as opposed to just lopping off Channels 46-51 and forcing those stations to move down the dial.

With only about 15 million out of 110 million American households using over-the-air TV exclusively (including me), and the real possibility of some, if not all, of the commercial networks going dark (as far as OTA is concerned) in the next 10 years, we'll be going back to the "good old days" of 2-5 channels per market.

The rest of our video & audio entertainment will be via the Internets if one doesn't want to pay the big bucks for cable. It's already happening with Hulu and others. Those services will only get bigger, even if they eventually charge. There will be little need for more than a couple of local stations in all but the largest markets, and I don't think Public Television will be going away anytime soon.

Besides, the FCC is very limited as to what they can allocate above 225 MHz. Most of that spectrum is allocated to the military, satellite, space-research, and fixed/mobile services (many ham bands above 225 MHz are shared with the military, who has priority). Some of that is controlled by the NTIA, and the FCC can't touch it without their OK or an act of Congress.

I'd like to know what provisions will be made to ensure service is provided in less densely populated areas.

I'm going to be particularly unhappy if my access to over-the-air TV out here 30 miles from town is lost in order to provide urban residents another broadband option -- while out here, it continues to be a Charter monopoly.

 

[kenglish]

I just read the part about "channels 46-51" this morning, and I'm wondering how that can possibly add up to the "120 MHz" or the "half the existing channels" that are being quoted in the media.
According to my math teacher, 120 MHz equals 20 TV channels, at 6 MHz each. That would, if they came off the top, mean that 31-51 would have to go away, since 37 is already taboo.

And, I really wonder what happens to rural translators, since the FCC said they would like to keep everything "simple" for the manufacturers, by doing the new channelization "across the board", rather than having exceptions in rural areas.
Of course, the biggest cities already have LMR (Land Mobile Radio) allocations on 14-20, so they are already short on space. What happens there?

And, wireless mikes are going to be hard pressed to find ANY open channels in such a small available spectrum. Will they have to go infrared or something? Or, will the W/M people have to bid for some pieces of the spectrum?

Lots more questions, now, than answers!

 

[justpassingthough]

Maybe someone can answer this question for me....if a digital "TV" signal is compressed and transmitted via broadband on the spectrum, would any space be saved? I know very little about technology, but I can somewhat wrap my head around the concept of removing all TV channel allocations and re-using this part of the spectrum for transmitting broadband that can, in effect, deliver television along with mobile phone service, etc.

It seems somewhat plausible that many of today's "networks" will simply be cable channels within the next decade, so this may even be a moot argument.

 

[FreddyE1977]

Countdown to the end Obama's term: 3 years too many.

Altough I am second to none in my dislike of the current President's policies, this situation was set in
place by the Clinton Administration in the mid-90's. Obama had nothing to do with it.

 

[KTN Corp]

I waiting for the broadcasters to move from the VHF spectrum (and make DTV all UHF) so my analog cable reception of co-channel KUHT, KHOU, and KTRK will be as clear as KPRC--cable 12 (and KNWS--cable 2).

 

[Carmine5]

Is everything a CRISIS in government these days? This is the same arguement that was given for the Wall Street bailout, and we all know how well that went! It seems if its called a CRISIS, its just one side lying to reduce the time and place for debating a situation. This replaced the evergreen arguement of "doing it for the CHILDREN."

I agree the word "crisis" has been overused, particularly with this issue of spectrum reclamation for broadband. There is even skepticism among broadband proponents as to whether it is a question of more spectrum or more efficient use of existing spectrum that is needed.

But it's hard to know what the motivations are for the government trying to take back the TV airwaves. Are they punishing all TV broadcasters for the sins of Fox? Is this just the ego of an FCC Chairman trying to make his stamp in government as the "father of affordable wireless broadband?" Is it a matter of more control on the media? Even Commissioner Copps recent criticism on the lack of local government news on L.A. TV stations sounds more like a pre-text for dismantling broadcast television.

All I know is that we broadcasters are going to need most if not all of our spectrum if we're to offer HD and Mobile DTV services. We cannot survive with just a single SD or HD signal. This isn't the 60's. Viewers demand more and we have the capabilities to offer more--but not if we are going to be cut off at the knees with a loss of spectrum.

And contrary to some opinions here, there are many diginets that are offering very good programming for sub-channels. It isn't just a case of more infomercials. RTV, ThisTV, TruTV, American Life TV are just some of the diginets that do a good job with programming (and are improving) and more such networks are on the way.

c5

 

[landtuna]

All I know is that we broadcasters are going to need most if not all of our spectrum if we're to offer HD and Mobile DTV services. We cannot survive with just a single SD or HD signal. This isn't the 60's. Viewers demand more and we have the capabilities to offer more--but not if we are going to be cut off at the knees with a loss of spectrum.

Wait! Mobile DTV? Great! There are already a host of distractions being placed in dashboards and you are advocating more? Or maybe this is just for the minivan and limo crowd? Sorry but I don't see the ethics or requirement.

And contrary to some opinions here, there are many diginets that are offering very good programming for sub-channels. It isn't just a case of more infomercials. RTV, ThisTV, TruTV, American Life TV are just some of the diginets that do a good job with programming (and are improving) and more such networks are on the way.

We're going to disagree here too. RTV's programming can only be described as "lousy". Mostly public domain fare badly delivered. Constant audio/video sync issues. I've been watching, off and on, for a year now and there has been no improvement.

ThisTV is only slightly better but nowhere near "desirable". Lots of made-for-TV potboilers and other lower-tier movies.

It's been a year since I last watched TruTV but it wasn't anything of beauty then. At least there were no sync problems.

 

[Carmine5]

We're going to disagree here too. RTV's programming can only be described as "lousy". Mostly public domain fare badly delivered. Constant audio/video sync issues. I've been watching, off and on, for a year now and there has been no improvement.

ThisTV is only slightly better but nowhere near "desirable". Lots of made-for-TV potboilers and other lower-tier movies.

It's been a year since I last watched TruTV but it wasn't anything of beauty then. At least there were no sync problems.

The only thing you're telling me is that you don't like these networks. That is a purely subjective observation and means nothing outside your own world. I don't like "House M.D." but that doesn't make it a bad show or unworthy of being aired. Besides, I happen to enjoy the programming on RTV and there are many viewers who do.

Mobile DTV is simply a standard for bringing media content to handheld devices. It's first appearance has been in cell phones and soon to be in laptops. Where else we'll see the technology is hard to say. With it someone can tune in to live, local news, traffic information, weather, sporting events or entertainment programs from anywhere they happen to be. Because Mobile DTV is point-to-multipoint and uses a small amount of spectrum it is far more efficient than wireless broadband. However, I find your reference as to the "ethics" of it puzzling. It is no more or less ethical than, radio, HD Radio or, for that matter, wireless broadband. If anything Mobile DTV can be complimentary to wireless broadband by freeing up broadband spectrum that would otherwise be used to watch a television broadcast on a hand held device.

c5

 

[dave73]

While I've had no problems getting VHF stations, it seems TV stations overall prefer the UHF band. However, the FCC seems to want to keep the VHF band in place (which most TV stations don't want anymore), but want to keep chopping off the UHF band. If TV stations overall prefer the UHF band; why not reallocate the VHF band for mobile broadband? I remember seeing a thread that channels 5 & 6 were being considered for expanding the FM band.

Cutting out more UHF channels are already gonna put a squeeze for Chicago, as the FCC doesn't allow channels 14 & 15 to be used for TV. I don't know about other markets.

 

[landtuna]

The only thing you're telling me is that you don't like these networks. That is a purely subjective observation and means nothing outside your own world.

Obviously if I've been watching RTV on-and-off for over a year there are some programming choices I also like. They make those unwatchable by their very poor performance. Interestingly, most of their commercials do not have a sync problem, just the programs.

ThisTV is technically much better but isn't all that much better programming-wise. B-movies are B-movies whether aired at midnight on a major broadcast station or 24X7 on a digital sub.

Mobile DTV is simply a standard for bringing media content to handheld devices.It's first appearance has been in cell phones and soon to be in laptops. Where else we'll see the technology is hard to say. With it someone can tune in to live, local news, traffic information, weather, sporting events or entertainment programs from anywhere they happen to be. Because Mobile DTV is point-to-multipoint and uses a small amount of spectrum it is far more efficient than wireless broadband. However, I find your reference as to the "ethics" of it puzzling. It is no more or less ethical than, radio, HD Radio or, for that matter, wireless broadband. If anything Mobile DTV can be complimentary to wireless broadband by freeing up broadband spectrum that would otherwise be used to watch a television broadcast on a hand held device.

I used the car dashboard analogy as an example of where mobile TV should not go. Putting it on cell phones means it will still get there (and in much greater numbers) and greatly increase the chances of my early demise because some idiot is watching his phone instead of the road ahead. And the dangers don't end with drivers. Pedestrians paying attention to their phones have gotten themselves hurt and killed. The lack of ethics I mentioned is that it doesn't appear to be even a modest consideration to the companies who push this technology. Obviously, it isn't by their customers.

News, weather, traffic can already be obtained via radio without the added distraction of visual content. Mobile TV will just make civilization a more dangerous place.

 

[markwooldridge]

If the FCC are looking to find frequencies for more data carriage, why are they looking down the spectrum? Why not up? Canada has tried out DAB, and it was in the L-Band, and regrettably L-Band DAB wasn't the roaring success it had hoped to be. The USA have used the excuse that the military use the L-Band, but they can be shunted around too, perhaps some other band somewhere else might serve their needs better?

 

[recto101]

Is everything a CRISIS in government these days? This is the same arguement that was given for the Wall Street bailout, and we all know how well that went! It seems if its called a CRISIS, its just one side lying to reduce the time and place for debating a situation. This replaced the evergreen arguement of "doing it for the CHILDREN."

I agree the word "crisis" has been overused, particularly with this issue of spectrum reclamation for broadband. There is even skepticism among broadband proponents as to whether it is a question of more spectrum or more efficient use of existing spectrum that is needed.

But it's hard to know what the motivations are for the government trying to take back the TV airwaves. Are they punishing all TV broadcasters for the sins of Fox? Is this just the ego of an FCC Chairman trying to make his stamp in government as the "father of affordable wireless broadband?" Is it a matter of more control on the media? Even Commissioner Copps recent criticism on the lack of local government news on L.A. TV stations sounds more like a pre-text for dismantling broadcast television.

All I know is that we broadcasters are going to need most if not all of our spectrum if we're to offer HD and Mobile DTV services. We cannot survive with just a single SD or HD signal. This isn't the 60's. Viewers demand more and we have the capabilities to offer more--but not if we are going to be cut off at the knees with a loss of spectrum.

And contrary to some opinions here, there are many diginets that are offering very good programming for sub-channels. It isn't just a case of more infomercials. RTV, ThisTV, TruTV, American Life TV are just some of the diginets that do a good job with programming (and are improving) and more such networks are on the way.

c5

Look at San Francisco TV news they tent to limit local government news to Oakland, San Francisco and Richmond. sometimes San jose is included and Vallejo due to Bankruptcy crisis. only due to budget problems.

 

[kms575]

Well, the CW and MNTV could disappear for a start!