Why no lobby for cord cutters?

[SixtiesGuy]

In addition to cost, the more I think about this I have to ask....

What the !@#$ for?

A lobbyist has to push for something, some change to laws or regulations. What changes do "cord cutters" want or need? Nobody is stopping anybody from cord cutting.

Besides, if you want streaming video (Roku or whaterever), then they've got you any way.

How about pushing to protect OTA broadcasting? Hungry wireless service provider wolves are circling the spectrum currently used for OTA TV. It is an endangered species and there is absolutely no reason for optimism that the FCC, charged with protecting the public interest (please keep you laughing to a dull roar) will suddenly develop a spine and live up to that mission. Having said that I agree that such a lobby would be seriously outmatched on the cash front.

 

[KeithE4]

How about pushing to protect OTA broadcasting? Hungry wireless service provider wolves are circling the spectrum currently used for OTA TV.

More people use wireless spectrum than use broadcast television - by a huge margin. Per the CTIA, there are 321.7 million wireless subscriber connections in the United States (of course, many people have more than one) as of June 2012. There are about 60 million people (20% of the country, and I'm being generous) who use OTA television without cable or satellite, and many of those (like me) supplement it with TV from the internet, although most of that is via a wired connection...for now.

It is an endangered species and there is absolutely no reason for optimism that the FCC, charged with protecting the public interest (please keep you laughing to a dull roar) will suddenly develop a spine and live up to that mission. Having said that I agree that such a lobby would be seriously outmatched on the cash front.

The public interest dictates that there is a need for more wireless spectrum and less OTA television spectrum. Probably at least 50% of the broadcast TV stations on the air today could go off the air and not be missed - mostly LPTV/Class A stations that are running paid religion or infomercials.

Why does a market even as large as New York need more than 10 or 12 channels? Most markets, outside of the largest, could survive with 6 or less. And that's with the current broadcast networks, a few independents, and public television staying on the air. If one or more of the networks shuts down, that will mean more full-powered stations going off the air since not everyone could survive as an independent.

End duopolies unless an absolute need can be demonstrated. Why does a little-watched CW affiliate need its own separate transmitter (my example here is KASW Phoenix), when it could be piggybacked on a co-owned channel (KTVK in this case)? In fact, how much TV needs to be in hi-def? If all broadcast TV went to wide-screen 480p, would most people notice? That would allow 4-6 program feeds per channel, reducing spectrum usage. Even using 720p (I think) allows two - enough to replace a duopoly if the wasted weather channels were dumped.

This is 2013, not 1993. Wireless spectrum is as important today as electricity, running water, and good roads. Broadcast television is rapidly becoming a dinosaur, and is going the way of the dial telephone and AM radio.

 

[Morgan Wick]

Ah, the "current usage" fallacy. More people use the wireless spectrum now, so let's give wireless more spectrum, which lowers the quality of the broadcast spectrum and increases the quality of wireless, so fewer people use broadcast and more people use wireless, so we need to give wireless more spectrum... I see the same thing in the transit blogosphere, where people argue that more people drive so we need to neglect transit and build more roads. (Yeah, I'm one of those liberals who thinks they know better than you; how dare I suggest broadcast or transit are viable options too. But the free market knows best, right?)

What would be a more efficient way to use the spectrum? I wonder if a big reason the wireless companies need so much of it is to deliver video that might be more efficiently delivered via broadcast. I don't know the technical details, but I also wonder if having four providers with four different groups of spectrum delivering all the same content is all that efficient either.

 

[KeithE4]

Ah, the "current usage" fallacy. More people use the wireless spectrum now, so let's give wireless more spectrum, which lowers the quality of the broadcast spectrum and increases the quality of wireless, so fewer people use broadcast and more people use wireless, so we need to give wireless more spectrum... I see the same thing in the transit blogosphere, where people argue that more people drive so we need to neglect transit and build more roads. (Yeah, I'm one of those liberals who thinks they know better than you; how dare I suggest broadcast or transit are viable options too. But the free market knows best, right?)

Public transit is important, but it will never be everywhere. Just like broadcast TV cannot carry everything the public wants to watch. I never said it was going to disappear completely, but it will be (and, in fact is) a small subset of what is available to the public. That's what makes it a dinosaur.

And, yes, the free market does know best because we are the free market. But there does have to be some control (and that's a whole another TIO-inducing subject. ).

What would be a more efficient way to use the spectrum? I wonder if a big reason the wireless companies need so much of it is to deliver video that might be more efficiently delivered via broadcast. I don't know the technical details, but I also wonder if having four providers with four different groups of spectrum delivering all the same content is all that efficient either.

Digital broadcasting is more efficient than analog, but brings other well-documented problems. But it is less efficient than cable, satellite, or the internet, if only because less programming is possible. As it stands today, about 50-60 program services (main channels + subchannels) are the max for broadcast TV in a given market, using Channels 2-51. At least half of those are wasted with either dead carriers, color bars, infomercials, weather-barkers, and other little-watched stuff. Cable and satellite can provide 300-400 channels with today's technology. The interwebs can provide thousands, only a very small subset of which will be watched by a single person.

But those small subsets add up to a lot of traffic, and spectrum is required to handle that traffic. There is a limited amount of VHF-and-up spectrum available to non-government use, and a good amount of that is allocated to television, which requires 6 MHz of space per channel to send 1 to 6 program services. It's more efficient than the one-program-per-channel analog system, but it's still somewhat of a waste of spectrum.

And four providers are not delivering the same content to each individual subscriber. You watch and listen to what you like, and make phone calls & send emails/text messages to whoever you like. I do the same and so does everybody else, but they are not the same as yours. The only way to do this efficiently is over the internet via some kind of connection, and increasingly that connection will be wireless.

 

[Casey]

6Mhz of TV spectrum can deliver HD content to millions of people. 6Mhz of spectrum for mobile broadband can deliver hardly anything using unicast, which is the way our wireless internet networks operate. OTA broadcast TV is FAR more efficient. We also have copious amounts of wireless spectrum which is used poorly or not used at all by mobile operators. They simply sit on it to prevent other companies from using it. Until they start using the resources they have, they have no room to complain. Especially with upcoming LTE Advanced and WiMax2.

Let's not forget that streaming video on cell phones is nearly impossible anyway, with overages reaching $15 per GB. Once Softbank completes its purchase of Sprint, their unlimited will go away driving competition down and prices even higher. Despite bandwidth being cheaper than ever before.

 

[KeithE4]

6Mhz of TV spectrum can deliver HD content to millions of people. 6Mhz of spectrum for mobile broadband can deliver hardly anything using unicast, which is the way our wireless internet networks operate. OTA broadcast TV is FAR more efficient.

6 MHz of spectrum can deliver two HD feeds, or one HD and a few SD feeds, or many SD feeds. And the user has no choice in programming other than selecting a different channel. It's more efficient than analog, but not as efficient as internet, where the user can watch his/her choice of thousands of channels, although with varying quality depending on the connection.

We also have copious amounts of wireless spectrum which is used poorly or not used at all by mobile operators. They simply sit on it to prevent other companies from using it. Until they start using the resources they have, they have no room to complain. Especially with upcoming LTE Advanced and WiMax2.

You have a point there. But the fact remains that non-government spectrum above 300 MHz is still limited, and that broadcast television is the biggest user of the spectrum which is available for services to the general public.

BTW, WiMax is pretty much dead in the United States. Everybody is moving, or has moved to LTE.

Let's not forget that streaming video on cell phones is nearly impossible anyway, with overages reaching $15 per GB. Once Softbank completes its purchase of Sprint, their unlimited will go away driving competition down and prices even higher. Despite bandwidth being cheaper than ever before.

Universal use of video on cellphone networks is still years away because of costs and bandwidth issues. But radio, phone calls, and text messaging over these networks use much less bandwidth. Some of that spectrum will be used for good old fashioned phone calls & texting as well, as more and more people say goodbye to landline phone service. About 35% of phone customers are wireless-only. That is guaranteed to increase.

 

[Morgan Wick]

And four providers are not delivering the same content to each individual subscriber. You watch and listen to what you like, and make phone calls & send emails/text messages to whoever you like. I do the same and so does everybody else, but they are not the same as yours. The only way to do this efficiently is over the internet via some kind of connection, and increasingly that connection will be wireless.

But if you are watching or listening to the same content as someone else, the wireless company has to send that content to each of you individually, even if you're both on the same wireless provider. But a broadcast station can send out one signal and that signal can be seen by thousands if not millions of people. The Internet is good at delivering a large amount of content to a few people each; broadcasting is good at delivering a small amount of content to many people each. For this reason, I also support wireless datacasting services over the public airwaves.

 

[KeithE4]

And four providers are not delivering the same content to each individual subscriber. You watch and listen to what you like, and make phone calls & send emails/text messages to whoever you like. I do the same and so does everybody else, but they are not the same as yours. The only way to do this efficiently is over the internet via some kind of connection, and increasingly that connection will be wireless.

But if you are watching or listening to the same content as someone else, the wireless company has to send that content to each of you individually, even if you're both on the same wireless provider. But a broadcast station can send out one signal and that signal can be seen by thousands if not millions of people. The Internet is good at delivering a large amount of content to a few people each; broadcasting is good at delivering a small amount of content to many people each. For this reason, I also support wireless datacasting services over the public airwaves.

Multicast is taking care of some of these issues, but it won't work (by definition) with video-on-demand.

 

[Morgan Wick]

You'd be surprised.