It depends on what the "public interest" means. The public right now is angry about the cost of government, and the use of taxpayer money. Spectrum is a public resource, like mining rights, timber rights, grazing rights, oil drilling rights and all the other resources the government sells to private industry. The FCC sells spectrum space to telecom companies to cover its budget. That's how the Bureau of Land Management works too. This has nothing to do with "the regime in power." This has been governmental policy for over 100 years. Sure, they could just give spectrum space to broadcasters for free, or they could sell the rights to that spectrum to willing payers. It's your money. What would you prefer your government to do?
-
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
The End of the Ch. 5 & 6 Debate to Expand FM?
- Thread starter Carmine5
- Start date
It depends on what the "public interest" means. The public right now is angry about the cost of government, and the use of taxpayer money. Spectrum is a public resource, like mining rights, timber rights, grazing rights, oil drilling rights and all the other resources the government sells to private industry. The FCC sells spectrum space to telecom companies to cover its budget. That's how the Bureau of Land Management works too. This has nothing to do with "the regime in power." This has been governmental policy for over 100 years. Sure, they could just give spectrum space to broadcasters for free, or they could sell the rights to that spectrum to willing payers. It's your money. What would you prefer your government to do?
Bruce, you are the second person I have seen state wireless providers were after lowband channels (the other was on FB).....WHERE do you get this idea/info from?? TV RF channels 5 and 6 are allocated to TV, not any wireless use...TV is primary...and will remain so...white-space devices may try to use it BUT the impulse noise issue that kills DTV on lowband right now will also be an issue for any white-space devices and they are not "wireless providers" like VZ, ATT, etc....Wireless providers want the UHF spectrum at 600-700..no noise, small antennas, predictable propagation, building penetration, etc.
95% of Americans need wireless services (sorry, but there are very few luddites left). Only about 15-20% of Americans need broadcast television. The market made its decision, and OTA television lost 30 years ago. But I agree that the FCC needs more engineers and fewer political hacks.
VHF is definitely going to be heavily used for TV stations after the 600 Mhz auction takes place for wireless providers. Last estimates I saw expected the FCC to clear channels 31-36 and 38-51 to make 120mhz of spectrum for wireless providers, with the future of channel 37 being unknown and channel 30 possibly being emptied to prevent inference. That leaves broadcasters with 12 VHF channels and 16-18 UHF channels. Broadcasters are going to need all the VHF channels they can get.
Whitespace broadband is more or less DoA. The tech blogs went crazy over it but the industry not so much. I have never heard of anyone deploying whitespaces in VHF. VHF could truly be considered trash spectrum for broadband. One could make a pretty good argument for it being trash spectrum for digital TV as well.
Whitespace broadband is more or less DoA. The tech blogs went crazy over it but the industry not so much. I have never heard of anyone deploying whitespaces in VHF. VHF could truly be considered trash spectrum for broadband. One could make a pretty good argument for it being trash spectrum for digital TV as well.
Last edited:
The problem is there is so much spectrum is being wasted. Of the 700 mhz auctions most of the low 700 A, D, and E blocks remain unused nationwide with upper 700 D remaining unsold. There are also many lower 700 B and C blocks scattered about that are unused.
That's not including all the cell carriers sitting on unused AWS. Sprint is sitting on tons of 2.5 Ghz BRS/EBS spectrum, which is barely utilized in some areas and completely unused in most areas. At&t is sitting on unused 2.3 Ghz WCS. Sprint and TMobile own spectrum in many markets they don't serve whatsoever due to their poor coverage.
K
kenglish
Guest
Hoarding, pure and simple. Forget BitCoin.....Spectrum is the new currency.
Exactly. A lot of spectrum has either been squandered or is being warehoused. Dish owns a ton of unused spectrum that it is holding so that it can "appreciate" in value. The FCC called out Verizon for warehousing its 700 MHz spectrum. When Qualcomm purchased its 700 MHz spectrum the first thing they did was launch FloTV, a pay TV service that resembled broadcast television. The service fell flat on its butt and Qualcomm ended up selling its 700 MHz spectrum to ATT.
As proof, check out these articles:
http://www.extremetech.com/electron...trum-for-150mbps-lte-to-rural-homes-in-the-us
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaFLO
http://nypost.com/2014/06/19/verizon-wireless-eyeing-dish-network-spectrum/
https://gigaom.com/2012/05/15/fcc-wants-to-know-if-verizon-is-warehousing-spectrum/
During the DTV transition of '09, the government confiscated 108 MHz of spectrum from broadcast television and promptly squandered it. Now they're back for more. As NAB Pres. Gordon Smith said, the government treats broadcast TV as its own private spectrum "ATM machine." It has to stop. Keep in mind, that due to the way broadcast channels are currently allocated and spaced, a lot of private companies have benefitted from the unlicensed use of guard band or "white space" spectrum in the form of WiFi and other communications. There's a good chance that there may not be much white space left after the auction and repack, despite the FCC's grand promises of unlicensed spectrum for all.
FCC run by wealthy mouse...
Two thoughts to pass along; 1st: I am sick and tired of the hoarding of the old TV broadcast spectrum by these wireless carriers - who said they need another 150MHz to go with it - I call BS.
2nd: Check-out what the current FCC chairman used to do before he was appointed chairman of the FCC. I'll give you a hint: he was a lobbyist. Another hint, he made his living by LOBBYING for the CELLPHONE WIRELESS companies and cable companies!
The mouse is in charge of security of the cheese factory. He should disquality himself from ALL talk about forcing OTA TV off their recent HDTV allocations and selling their spectrum to the fat hoarding cellco's. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.
Two thoughts to pass along; 1st: I am sick and tired of the hoarding of the old TV broadcast spectrum by these wireless carriers - who said they need another 150MHz to go with it - I call BS.
2nd: Check-out what the current FCC chairman used to do before he was appointed chairman of the FCC. I'll give you a hint: he was a lobbyist. Another hint, he made his living by LOBBYING for the CELLPHONE WIRELESS companies and cable companies!
The mouse is in charge of security of the cheese factory. He should disquality himself from ALL talk about forcing OTA TV off their recent HDTV allocations and selling their spectrum to the fat hoarding cellco's. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.
That's exactly the problem.
As for the cellular spectrum, it's time to face it: that's where the consumer is. Everyone who keeps claiming that the Internet won't overtake AM, FM or TV in transmission method because the bandwidth isn't there? Guess what? This is where it's coming from. Partially, at least. Partially, at least. It's either give up the white space in the TV band or consolidate it and give up the remainder. Hoarding? Hardly. This is what the market has demanded. The commission, at least on this issue, just happens to be moving in somewhat more timely (but still behind the times) manner than they usually do. I agree, it's a big cluster-F that should have been taken care of in the initial digital transition, but better to take care of it now rather than wait until the demand for cellular bandwidth even further outpaces the supply. They're playing catch-up with it already. And since digital TV uses less bandwidth than analog, it only makes sense to take the available spectrum and use it for a purpose that requires more than it already has.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no FCC fanboy, but in this situation, they're actually trying to fix something that needs to be fixed rather than meddling with something that wasn't broken.
Last edited:
I worked in Boston a few years ago and used to take the train for part of my journey, 95% of the passengers have some kind of stupid gadget they were poking their fingers at, conversation was nil, if you spoke to anyone they looked at you like you were about to rob them or something, every once in a while some kids would get on and sing (?) some rap or something, now I don't really like rap but in that circumstance it was welcome by me, anything to break the monotony. I finally bought a Kindle so I could read or do something in the oppressive silence. I agree cell phones are a necessity today but they don't have to take over our lives and customs.
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
Nope - the same 6 MHz channel allotment. Except that digital Tv uses virtually all of it, while analog television was virtually gone once you got past the audio at 4.5 MHz. I'm not an expert, though, maybe there was something else up there like deaf teletext or something. The only thing about digital television that might require less channels - now the range is extremely limited. You don't have any more of those low VHF channels that literally go for hundreds of miles. Channel 2 especially - and channel 1 when they started out was so bad about going hundreds of miles they abandoned it. Rural viewers are forgotten - they put up satellite dishes or do without. The days of driving through a small town a hundred miles from the nearest TV stations and seeing big antennas everywhere have passed. Antennas are in disarray or gone, replaced by dishes - because digital just doesn't go that far and you can't twiddle with the antenna for the least snowy picture. It is either there or not. I move my last analog TV with its rabbit ears on a converter box 2 feet and channel "3" Bryan comes in clear, or not at all. So if TV doesn't go but 40 or 50 miles, you can re-use a smaller number of channels and re-purpose the rest.
K
kenglish
Guest
I've already suggested that the FCC take some of that "incentive" money and use it to purchase the satellite spectrum that's currently being used for Local-in-to-Local broadcasts back from the satellite companies, and award it to the broadcasters. Then, the entire terrestrial TV spectrum can be sold off.
The satellite folks are already putting up two channels, one each of standard-definition and one of HD, on each carrier...total of 4 channels.
Make all the satellite boxes capable of receiving HD, and down-convert where necessary. Then, have the DISH and DirecTV boxes all capable of receiving the locals from one spot beam in a market, free of charge.
Have the sat providers continue to up-link the locals until the end-of-life of the current satellite, then let the broadcast industry elect to either launch their own birds and operate their own up-links in each market, or contract with one of the existing companies to continue doing it.
Make the reception of the local stations free-to-air (within their individual spot beams). If you want to get your locals, simply purchase a box and dish from K-mart or the local hardware store, and fire it up. The rest of the satellite capacity could be used for national programming and internet. Cable TV could stop carrying locals, and simply install a dish on your roof, freeing up their bandwidth, too. Win-win situation for all parties....except the ones who just want to end local broadcasting service.
The satellite folks are already putting up two channels, one each of standard-definition and one of HD, on each carrier...total of 4 channels.
Make all the satellite boxes capable of receiving HD, and down-convert where necessary. Then, have the DISH and DirecTV boxes all capable of receiving the locals from one spot beam in a market, free of charge.
Have the sat providers continue to up-link the locals until the end-of-life of the current satellite, then let the broadcast industry elect to either launch their own birds and operate their own up-links in each market, or contract with one of the existing companies to continue doing it.
Make the reception of the local stations free-to-air (within their individual spot beams). If you want to get your locals, simply purchase a box and dish from K-mart or the local hardware store, and fire it up. The rest of the satellite capacity could be used for national programming and internet. Cable TV could stop carrying locals, and simply install a dish on your roof, freeing up their bandwidth, too. Win-win situation for all parties....except the ones who just want to end local broadcasting service.
Who did you suggest this to? What was their response?
I have no reason to believe that the FCC would want to do this.
I thought the FCC had let the Public Comment on Expending the FM down to 76 MHz after 2009
What happened to that?
What happened to that?
Last edited:
K
kenglish
Guest
I suggested it on several forums.
I don't see why the FCC would not want to do it...unless they are just trying to kill off local stations.
It would likely be cheaper than buying out tons of local stations, and they are already planning to give money away on that.
It would free up ALL of the existing TV spectrum, which is what they say they want.
Honestly, posting an idea on discussion forums doesn't wiggle the needle. If you don't send comments to the Commission during the window of opportunity, then you're wasting the energy typing it. That and I agree with Big A, your idea of moving all TV broadcasters to satellite isn't going to happen in our lifetime. Getting back to the original topic.. few consumers are buying new radios these days anyway. Whereas technically possible, even if allowed, AM broadcasters would be moving to a VHF TV ghost town with nobody there to hear them for a longer period of time than they could probably withstand.
Agreed. I think moving to a new band would make them worse off than they already are. AM radios are still fairly readily available. Most people have several even if they don't use them. I think it is unlikely that many people would be willing to buy new radios for a new FM band. They haven't been for HD. Most likely they will just use the web stream or move on to something else.
That's correct. They don't buy HD radios, they don't buy satellite radios, and they don't buy internet radios. All three are available, and sell next to no units. People get radios with other things. But very, very few people buy stand-alone radios these days, and any proposal that is built around that concept won't go anywhere. The Congress had a bad experience with HDTV, and they vowed not to allow it to happen again.
Text for deaf folks was a service in the video field, not the audio side.
DTV will cover as far (or farther in some cases) as analog TV...BUT any cochannel will hurt it (anything -15dbC or higher in the channel will cause the ATSC decoder to mute)...KPLC in lake Charles, LA is on 7 where their analog was....their 65KW digital covers better than the analog did...in cities, multipath also kills DTV which is why the UHF were coveted....analog would show both signal up to a point but digital wont...it just goes blank..Multiple transmitter distribution has not helped.....in areas of tropo, that will be a hindrance and not a help....One station in the NYC area has 3-4 sites under this idea but not sure how it is working.....one lowband 2 in the midwest has pretty good coverage....but lowband really needs an increase of ERP....the LDs may get a 10db boost if a proposal goes through...I hope the Full Service LB DTVs get the same thing...they need it down there...Channel 3.1 Bryan is RF50...and will have to move with the expected repacking...where is the big question...
- Status