Spectrum plan could shut down TV stations, says trade group

[Rollo-Smokes]

Why don't we just purge ourselves of the stations that serve little or no useful purpose - i.e. the infomercial havens and most pay-for-pray outlets, and the LPTVs that carry junk? That would free up a lot of spectrum right there.

Maybe what we need is a sink-or-swim atmosphere. The FCC would then need to step it up in terms of monitoring how a station serves its audience. If they did that, there would be a lot of stations in danger of losing their licenses.

Does this make any sense or is it too logical?

 

[WPPCProductions]

I can see how the corrupt telecommunication companies grease hands of the fedsThey will do anything to get the ota off the airwaves and make americans to buy cable.It's going to happen.

 

[w9wi]

Nor do they have any jurisdiction over manufacturers based outside the US. Japan- and Korea-based manufacturers might cooperate, but the China-based ones probably wouldn't, even with the threat of import restrictions.

They do have jurisdiction over imported electronic equipment. They can't prevent Asian manufacturers from making PCs that radiate hash in channel 10, but they can enact rules making it illegal to import such PCs to the United States.

Indeed, arguably such rules already exist, in Part 15. It's just that they're almost completely unenforced.

 

[dhett]

Why don't we just purge ourselves of the stations that serve little or no useful purpose - i.e. the infomercial havens and most pay-for-pray outlets, and the LPTVs that carry junk? That would free up a lot of spectrum right there.

Maybe what we need is a sink-or-swim atmosphere. The FCC would then need to step it up in terms of monitoring how a station serves its audience. If they did that, there would be a lot of stations in danger of losing their licenses.

Does this make any sense or is it too logical?

And who decides which stations serve little or no purpose or what constitutes junk? You? I happen to know a lot of people who value what you and others inaccurately call "pay-for-pray". Does their opinion carry less weight than yours? And think about the infomercial channels a second...if they weren't engaging in robust commerce, would they survive? Sounds to me like they're serving the community a lot better than you think they are.

If I had a dollar for everyone who posted an "I don't like it, so nobody should have it" opinion, I'd be a wealthy man.

 

[flashback]

^makes me think of the statement"one mans trash is another mans treasure".

 

[badjef]

Why don't we just purge ourselves of the stations that serve little or no useful purpose - i.e. the infomercial havens and most pay-for-pray outlets, and the LPTVs that carry junk? That would free up a lot of spectrum right there.

Maybe what we need is a sink-or-swim atmosphere. The FCC would then need to step it up in terms of monitoring how a station serves its audience. If they did that, there would be a lot of stations in danger of losing their licenses.

Does this make any sense or is it too logical?

And who decides which stations serve little or no purpose or what constitutes junk? You? I happen to know a lot of people who value what you and others inaccurately call "pay-for-pray". Does their opinion carry less weight than yours? And think about the infomercial channels a second...if they weren't engaging in robust commerce, would they survive? Sounds to me like they're serving the community a lot better than you think they are.

If I had a dollar for everyone who posted an "I don't like it, so nobody should have it" opinion, I'd be a wealthy man.

We have that attitude - we've ELECTED IT!
...not just the U.S.!

No? Where is OTA analogue?

Oh, yeah, Mexico!

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

 

[Rollo-Smokes]

Why don't we just purge ourselves of the stations that serve little or no useful purpose - i.e. the infomercial havens and most pay-for-pray outlets, and the LPTVs that carry junk? That would free up a lot of spectrum right there.

Maybe what we need is a sink-or-swim atmosphere. The FCC would then need to step it up in terms of monitoring how a station serves its audience. If they did that, there would be a lot of stations in danger of losing their licenses.

Does this make any sense or is it too logical?

And who decides which stations serve little or no purpose or what constitutes junk? You? I happen to know a lot of people who value what you and others inaccurately call "pay-for-pray". Does their opinion carry less weight than yours? And think about the infomercial channels a second...if they weren't engaging in robust commerce, would they survive? Sounds to me like they're serving the community a lot better than you think they are.

If I had a dollar for everyone who posted an "I don't like it, so nobody should have it" opinion, I'd be a wealthy man.

Funny - I used to think that use of the airwaves were a public trust, and should be treated as such.

Yeah, that's right. Stations aren't LOCALLY-OWNED anymore. The Central Office makes the decisions for a whole bunch of markets. I guess I was wrong.

However, I take no shame in being a bit "outdated" in my line of thinking. I understand that the corporate culture is all about making cash as efficiently as possible, but I don't see how devoting 162 out of 168 hours a week to infomercials or pay-for-pray serves the community properly. And IIRC, I don't think the original intent for LPTV was to repeat 24-hour-a-day shopping or religious channels. (http://www.fcc.gov/guides/low-power-television-lptv-service) It's not that I don't like it, I think it's irresponsible.

If it hadn't been for the deregulation of the 1980s, this kind of behavior probably wouldn't be tolerated by a tougher FCC. A change in standards coupled with a threat of license revocation would put the fear of (fill in the deity of your choice) into the corporate owners.

 

[badjef]

It is natural to have the "knee jerk" reaction to something we like or dislike. But be careful what you ask for, you may get it and not necessarily how you envisioned it.

To say that religious or shopping channels don't serve the public is that knee jerk reaction. To say you don't think "those channels" serve a purpose is arrogant and uninformed, at best.

The government is not the answer, never was, and never will be.

Deregulation did not hurt things, the blatant disregard for a free marketplace with short-sighted government regulation of goods and services did. A free marketplace will always win out. If it isn't what people want, they won't support it. All the time? Nope. But more than government regulation will. Eventually the free market will come in and straighten out the mess left by those "regulators".

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

 

[MarioMania]

So nothing could be done about VHF Channels 2-6 on Digital

How would that work if they only use 7-36..

There's 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 20, 26, 32, 36, 38, 44, 48, 60 & 66 in the SF-SJ area

 

[Rollo-Smokes]

So nothing could be done about VHF Channels 2-6 on Digital

How would that work if they only use 7-36..

There's 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 20, 26, 32, 36, 38, 44, 48, 60 & 66 in the SF-SJ area

My point exactly. Which of these stations are of the most use? Which would you get rid of?

I stand by my position. Too many stations + fewer frequencies + sink or swim.

 

[kenglish]

.........The FCC already asked about this -- power increases -- and the engineers are telling them it won't make much difference. The noise needs to be cleaned up. The Commission said they have no intention of doing that, it would be too expensive for the consumer-electronics industry.

Maybe the solution would be to fine the owners of the interfering equipment, much like we fine the owners of cars that have safety or emissions problems. "Fix 'em, or turn 'em off!"
If people have no incentive to buy anything but junk, that's what they will buy.

As broadcasters (as well as hams, radio listeners, DX'ers, etc), maybe we should be encouraging the FCC and the manufacturers to save the spectrum, rather than trash it. Anyone ever seen an anti-RFI PSA?

 

[w9wi]

Maybe the solution would be to fine the owners of the interfering equipment, much like we fine the owners of cars that have safety or emissions problems. "Fix 'em, or turn 'em off!"
If people have no incentive to buy anything but junk, that's what they will buy.

IMHO that ship has already sailed. Any action to stop this crap would be politically impossible.

The majority of those buying the noise generators have cable/satellite and are unaffected by the interference they're generating. (it may be a shrinking majority, but it's still a majority) The firms importing the noise generators have little incentive to fix them -- it would reduce their cut & would benefit only a minority of their customers. Those who *are* affected usually blame the TV stations, not those interfering with them -- and the stores selling the noise generators are all too willing to encourage that belief.

Any move to block the import of these devices would be met by screams of "unnecessary government regulation". If done by the FCC it would probably result in an Act of Congress blocking enforcement. If done by Act of Congress it would cost members votes.

And that's assuming it's done by physically blocking import at the ports of entry, or by fining the importers/distributors/retailers.

The consumer has a reasonable expectation that electronics they buy at a reputable store are legal. Start fining them for using something they bought at Wal-Mart in good faith, and you're going to have a political firestorm.

 

[Bob1370]

?The FCC already asked about this -- power increases -- and the engineers are telling them it won't make much difference."

Huh?
The problem isn't noise per se, it's the ratio of signal to noise. Raise the signal further above the noise with higher ERP, and you overcome more of the noise over a wider area. It worked in the early days of TV when stations were bumped from typical ERPs of 20-25 kW or so in 1948, to 100 to 316 kW after 1952. Same strategy ought to work again and put the Vs and Us on an equal footing.

 

[DTV-Chief]

?The FCC already asked about this -- power increases -- and the engineers are telling them it won't make much difference."

Huh?
The problem isn't noise per se, it's the ratio of signal to noise. Raise the signal further above the noise with higher ERP, and you overcome more of the noise over a wider area. It worked in the early days of TV when stations were bumped from typical ERPs of 20-25 kW or so in 1948, to 100 to 316 kW after 1952. Same strategy ought to work again and put the Vs and Us on an equal footing.

Do you think that raising the signal level for a local station will increase the noise level for certain distant viewers of a different cochannel station? Raising power could cause such collateral damage.

 

[w9wi]

The problem isn't noise per se, it's the ratio of signal to noise. Raise the signal further above the noise with higher ERP, and you overcome more of the noise over a wider area. It worked in the early days of TV when stations were bumped from typical ERPs of 20-25 kW or so in 1948, to 100 to 316 kW after 1952. Same strategy ought to work again and put the Vs and Us on an equal footing.

I would presume their point is that the amount of SNR improvement possible with power increases is not enough to fix the problem.