???? that statement makes no sense at all...Congress was not involved in the decision to move to DTV & they have not vowed anything....$$$ talks...
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
The End of the Ch. 5 & 6 Debate to Expand FM?
- Thread starter Carmine5
- Start date
???? that statement makes no sense at all...Congress was not involved in the decision to move to DTV & they have not vowed anything....$$$ talks...
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/091597hdtv.html
Also, they had to deal with the fallout that happened when channels moved and their constituents couldn't find their favorite shows. They had to appropriate millions of dollars for the converters that wasn't planned. As a result of that experience, Congress told the FCC that they will not allow this to happen to radio.
K
kenglish
Guest
The only problem Congress had with DTV was, they (and the White House) got involved in it.
Had they stayed out of the way, and let the industry do it, it would have been much easier.
Wonder where the broadband industry would be, if they had to go thru Congress every time they made a software or hardware upgrade?
Had they stayed out of the way, and let the industry do it, it would have been much easier.
Wonder where the broadband industry would be, if they had to go thru Congress every time they made a software or hardware upgrade?
Having been through the entire conversion, I'm not sure the transition would have happened had the government not pushed and set a deadline(s). The transition was presented to Congress as a way to make pretty pictures plus combine the majority of TV stations into one band, leaving many 6Mhz channels available for government auction to cell and PCS companies for potentially big money. The problem was, the vast majority of the migration to DTV went to UHF channels that were the only ones actually usable by the cell carriers, leaving the less desirable VHF channels open.
We the people are very funny about involving Congress. We prefer they not get involved in things except when we don't like the results of big business running things. Then Congress gets involved, and we don't like the results there either. So now the FCC is selling spectrum space to telecom. Wonder how we'll feel when all spectrum (except military) is controlled by a handful of phone companies.
that article is from 1997!!!! It involves questions about the stations getting a Digital companion channel and supposively broadcasting in HD (which a LOT were not equipped for at that time)...HD was not settled until after 2000. That article is total BS and has nothing to do with the current situation. The "channels moving" happened much later than this article...by then the general public was well aware of it coming...(in fact, it was put off from Feb 2009 to June 2009 because the FCC decided that they didnt want Joe Grandpa falling from a snow covered roof in Feb!!)
As to the convertors, they were paid from the spectrum auction money that the broadband carriers used in buying Channels 52-60...61-69 went to PS/DoHS exclusively. That was part of the push of the spectrum grab..so that all PS would be on one band....BUT they neglected to remember, 7/800MHz does not work everywhere...especially for poor rural VFDs that still account for a majority of FDs in the US....put them in pine tree areas and they stayed on their VHF channels which serves them well....So much for the plan to put all public safety on one common band...then came along different digital LMR formats...which bit into Motorola's monopoly.....now the other companies were offering cheaper and just as good digital systems..and they too started to offer P25 as well....DoHS in conjunction with the Coast Guard are trying to strongarm states along the Gulf Coast to force everyone to 800MHz and P25...whose pocket does that come out of?? TAXPAYERS. The TV broadcasters in some cases went bankrupt because of the DTV conversion....another move in channels may just push some over the edge again (Cost of new transmitter, antenna, etc)....
Radio and TV are apples and oranges...a digital conversion on TV was easy because of the use of a common channel (3 or 4) for convertor boxes to output on, which VCRs and games had already started in the 80s (or use of AV Inputs on a lot of newer TVs)...Radios do not have that feature...especially car radios...you cannot simply plug inline a convertor.....
That's when the discussion was taking place! And as a result of that discussion, Congress and the FCC decided they wouldn't go through it again with radio. DAB was already being tried in Europe, and so the question came up to try it in the US. The conclusion was no.
Wireless providers are not as excited as they appear to be with acquiring 600 MHz spectrum. One reason is the size of the antenna needed to reliably receive frequencies in this band. Imagine going back to cellphones with long antennas. At the last FCC LEARN Workshop, wireless engineers admitted that they had no idea what they would do with the 600 MHz spectrum once they got it. They still don't. And as we know, Verizon couldn't wait to unload its 700 MHz spectrum for spectrum higher up the band.
No, DTV is probably the best use of the 600 MHz band. As it is, there is a delicate ecosystem in place with this spectrum as TV broadcasters share it with unlicensed devices and microphones. But last month, the FCC admitted that once the repacking is done there will be almost no room left for unlicensed devices or microphones. The government needs to leave users of the 600 MHz band alone.
You can read more about this here:
http://www.tvtechnology.com/distrib...of-lack-of-interest-in--mhz-spectrum--/272348
I don't know if I would say that. Verizon's primary LTE network is on 700 Mhz upper C (band 13). They sold their 700 Mhz lower A, B, and C blocks (band 12 and 17) because they were of no use to them. Their upper C is a 10x10 block that covers the entire continental US, where as their lower A, B, and C blocks were 5x5 and scattered about. They were much better off selling their miscellaneous 700 spectrum to acquire additional AWS, giving them as much as 20x20 AWS (band 4) in many markets. The end result is a 700 Mhz LTE network for strong coverage and an AWS LTE network for significant capacity.
600 Mhz is a different beast. The only one I have seen that actually might need 600 Mhz spectrum is T-Mobile because they missed out on the 700 Mhz auction (intentionally though) and now have a lack of low band spectrum. The low band they have is 700 lower A and only in some markets. They could buy more lower A as none of the other major carriers are using it although that would still leave them with only a 5x5 block. The other three don't need it. Verizon has ample low band spectrum with both 700 and 850 that can be refarmed. At&t has large holding of 700 lower B & C blocks (and they can always buy more as they are the only major carrier using lower B & C) as well 850 that can be refarmed. Sprint has only 800 Mhz for low band spectrum so they may have an argument for buying some, but they should have enough spectrum to deploy more than the 5x5 currently in use.
As I mentioned in a previous post, there is a fairly large supply of higher band PCS/AWS/WCS/BRS/EBS spectrum. The FCC should work on getting that spectrum redistributed and used. There is more than enough for all 4 major carriers. It is just poorly distributed and largely unused. Last I heard Sprint had over 150 Mhz of BRS/EBS in some markets. Why is any company allowed to own that much? Why is At&t allowed to sit on AWS with no apparent plans of deploying it on a wide scale? Then there are companies like Dish that just keep buying spectrum and do little more than experiment with it. The FCC has failed to properly manage and distribute spectrum.
Lower band 850, 800, 700 and 600 should only be needed for the building penetration and filling coverage gaps.
Last edited:
Let's say this correctly: The FCC has FAILED. Period.
The industry lobbied the government and won, the industry makes more money, the government makes more money and we pay more money.
You are talking a fixed source (the CD changer) which is not trying to demod anything over the air....if you try a digital tuner covering 88-108 and then try to allow it to modulate a analog signal, then several channels will be of no use over the air to receive (depending on reception and how clean the FM modulator is)..besides, how does the average consumer disconnect the radio antenna for use with an all digital box? TV is one thing, radio is a different animal...
The "industry lobbied" who and won? Other than PBS as a network, I can't recall a single station group that was eager to make the digital transition, not one. Also, no call letter TV station made more money prior-to or after the transition. In fact, most stations lost money on the transition. Especially for small and mid-market stations, changing your entire transmitter and antenna system was a very costly requirement, let alone the program chain. Advertisers weren't interested in paying extra for HD, nor have they since. Stations did it because they didn't have a choice.
As for "we" paying more, paying more for what? How is watching your local station costing YOU more?
BUT they are DIRECTLY connected to the TV.....I challenge you to find 10 people out of the blue that would take the time to tear their dash apart to get to the radio antenna jack so they could plug in an inline converter...The CD feeding a FM modulator does not interfer with over the air signals because you arent listening to them...same thing with a SXM box...but an ON AIR rcvr trying to receive and then RETRANMSIT OVER THE AIR (not directly via coax cable) is NOT going to work....Try that with a TV convertor box and its output hooked to a antenna and then the TV trying to receive that with a local RF3 TV station in the area...will NOT work..
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
The ONLY reason NPR lobbied so hard for HD radio is so they could unload formats like classical and jazz onto HD-2 and program talk (that they perceived as more popular) on analog. Now, they are starting to realize that model doesn't work, and are looking for second signals for classical in some cities.
Several groups went bankrupt because of DTV conversion. Freedom Broadcasting and Young Broadcasting were too examples...KFDM-6, owned by Freedom, had their UHF 21 DTV moved to the top of the tower in Sept 2009 and new 4inch rigid feedline installed to the top of the tower...but the 3 inch Heliax used in temporary 21 side mount was removed and chopped up..what a waste of money..they did not recover any money in scrap value what they paid for that line...immediately after that move was done, Freedom filed for Chapter 11 (KFDM was the last in their chain to finish the site)...when they came out of Chapter 11 and KFDM was moved to RF 25 because of issues on 21, everyone demanded cash up front.
I realize that we're very much off-topic but I'll add my two-cents worth.
Back in 1999, my former employer, WTVT Television, added HD to their facility.
They built a new tower because the old tower (which held the analog antenna) wasn't rated to handle the additional loading of another antenna system.
The new tower cost the company about $2.5 million. Additionally, they purchased new transmission line, transmitters (parallel configuration), air conditioning, emergency power generator, electrical distribution and switching gear.
It was a huge expense which added absolutely nothing to the station's billing. Zero ... Zilch!
I can understand how the forced conversion to digital could easily push smaller groups into bankruptcy.
We should probably bring this thread back on-topic.
Back in 1999, my former employer, WTVT Television, added HD to their facility.
They built a new tower because the old tower (which held the analog antenna) wasn't rated to handle the additional loading of another antenna system.
The new tower cost the company about $2.5 million. Additionally, they purchased new transmission line, transmitters (parallel configuration), air conditioning, emergency power generator, electrical distribution and switching gear.
It was a huge expense which added absolutely nothing to the station's billing. Zero ... Zilch!
I can understand how the forced conversion to digital could easily push smaller groups into bankruptcy.
We should probably bring this thread back on-topic.
Young didn't go bankrupt because of the digital transition, Young went bankrupt because of the KRON purchase. It was a massive exchange of money, and when NBC pulled the affiliation plug, the station instantly lost value to a degree that Young was never able to recover from despite their best efforts. Freedom went bankrupt for several reasons, of which the transition may have been one.
- Status