FCC Floating Idea that Would Limit Broadcast TV to 1 SD Channel

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Government-IT/Lets-Make-a-Deal-Broadcaster-Spectrum-for-Sale-308405/

"Not surprisingly, broadcasters have given the
FCC a frosty reception to the proposal."

"Also to no one's surprise, the wireless
association CTIA rushed to endorse the proposal."

whosbest54
--
The flamewars are over...if you want it.

Unofficial rec.audio.opinion Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://whosbest54.netau.net/rao.htm

Unofficial rec.music.beatles Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://whosbest54.netau.net/rmb.html

whosbest54 wrote:

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Government-IT/Lets-Make-a-Deal-Broadcaster-Spectrum-for-Sale-308405/

From the article:
"The amount of people not using over-the-air television is down 56 percent
over the last few years," Levin said Dec. 1 at a PFF debate over the proposal.

Is it the writer of the article or the speaker who doesn't know what they're
saying?

In terms of the proposal itself, I would understand it if today were April 1.

--
Intelligent Life Is All Around Us
http://intelligentlife.info/

I'd be happy with OTA 720P channels and no sub channels.

Most commercial stations seem to lack any type of common sense of what
to do with the sub channel resource,
leaving it to fester with cheap constantly rerun tripe, hours long
infomercials, third world bobble headed cartoons, or Spanish talk overs
of old sitcoms.

How many stations could have used sub channels to carry President
Obama's speech at West Point a few days ago and not disturb the main
channel programming.

Heck the cable systems rarely, if ever, carry the sub channels anyhow.

"whosbest54" wrote in message
...

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Government-...caster-Spectru
m-for-Sale-308405/

"Not surprisingly, broadcasters have given the
FCC a frosty reception to the proposal."

"Also to no one's surprise, the wireless
association CTIA rushed to endorse the proposal."

whosbest54
--
The flamewars are over...if you want it.

Unofficial rec.audio.opinion Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://whosbest54.netau.net/rao.htm

Unofficial rec.music.beatles Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://whosbest54.netau.net/rmb.html


From the article ...
"The problem facing the FCC is that the high propagation spectrum needed for
mobile broadband can only be found in two places, the television bands and
from the military. The Pentagon is unwilling to give up any of their
spectrum."

This reminds me of the joke about the guy looking for his keys under a
street light even though he lost them in a dark field. He's looking where he
is because "The light is better".

The wireless providers need to use spectrum where wireless systems work
well, not where they can get the spectrum. Anyone who is trying to watch
WPVI-DT 6 Philadelphia (or any VHF-DT that isn't working quite right) knows
that.

Besides, aren't we talking about cellular systems? Ya think that's going to
work in the lower UHF band?

All IMHO, YMMV.

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Government-IT/Lets-Make-a-Deal-Broadcaster-Spectrum-for-Sale-308405/

"Not surprisingly, broadcasters have given the
FCC a frosty reception to the proposal."

"Also to no one's surprise, the wireless
association CTIA rushed to endorse the proposal."



There is one major problem with that idea.



The digital broadcast standard is not variable bandwidth.

You can not use only half or a quarter of your bandwidth.

You either use all of it, or none of it.



There is only two ways to make it work.



Force the broadcasters to share one transmitter. Basically have all them put
their feeds on one transmitter as sub channels. That will only work if you
have several stations serving the same area, so they can double up on one
transmitter. They will have to decide who is going to take over broadcasting
for the entire group.



The other way is to...

Come out with a new modulation standard that will allow variable bandwidth.
That would make all the new HDTV tuners already on the market.. Obsolete.



Either way, over the air broadcast TV is dead.

Steve Stone wrote:
I'd be happy with OTA 720P channels and no sub channels.

Most commercial stations seem to lack any type of common sense of what
to do with the sub channel resource,
leaving it to fester with cheap constantly rerun tripe, hours long
infomercials, third world bobble headed cartoons, or Spanish talk overs
of old sitcoms.

How many stations could have used sub channels to carry President
Obama's speech at West Point a few days ago and not disturb the main
channel programming.

Heck the cable systems rarely, if ever, carry the sub channels anyhow.

With up to how many "subchannels" they could put on Radio talk shows
and music - there are many possibilities for OTA. But the market does
not yet have things like ipods that tune to those subchannels - or do they?

"RickMerrill" wrote
With up to how many "subchannels" they could put on Radio talk shows and
music - there are many possibilities for OTA. But the market does not yet
have things like ipods that tune to those subchannels - or do they?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC-M/H
If it goes anywhere we can such devices.

On Dec 3, 5:27*pm, whosbest54
wrote:
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Government-IT/Lets-Make-a-Deal-Broadcaster-S...

"Not surprisingly, broadcasters have given the
FCC a frosty reception to the proposal."

"Also to no one's surprise, the wireless
association CTIA rushed to endorse the proposal."

whosbest54
--
The flamewars are over...if you want it.

Unofficial rec.audio.opinion Usenet Group Brief User Guide:http://whosbest54.netau.net/rao.htm

Unofficial rec.music.beatles Usenet Group Brief User Guide:http://whosbest54.netau.net/rmb.html

The Government should only rent spectrum..not sell it.

TMT

Toxic wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:02:34 -0800, Too_Many_Tools wrote:


The Government should only rent spectrum..not sell it.

The government should only regulate the technical parameters involved in
utilization of spectrum so as to maximize everyone's ability to benefit
from it, charging, if at all, only to offset costs of doing so, and
should never be in the business of 'selling' or 'renting' it.
When a government engages in capitalistic ventures at the public's
expense it becomes fascism.

Thank goodness that in the US, so far at least, no one person gets to
decide by himself what the government should and should not be able to
do. Heaven help us if we ever allow that to happen.

TJ

On Dec 7, 11:13*am, "Jim" wrote:
"RickMerrill" wrote With up to how many "subchannels" they could put on Radio talk shows and
music - there are many possibilities for OTA. *But the market does not yet
have things like ipods that tune to those subchannels - or do they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC-M/H
If it goes anywhere we can such devices.

The idea of putting multiple TV programs and multiple audio streams on
a digital signal is entirely practical. It's just new to our familiar
broadcast world. Before I retired, I worked for the Navy, including
some field tests in the 1990s of a successful system to deliver TV to
ships at sea around the world. It uses a 3.58 Mbps satellite feed
from three Intelsats. (ATSC terrestrial broadcast uses about 19
Mbps) The Navy's system doesn't try to be Hi-Def, Heck, it isn't
even good broadcast quality, but it's there. It works. 3 TV
Channels, two audio channels and a data channel with printable news
and program schedules.

The only downside is that the receiver has to lock onto the entire
data stream and extract just what signal or signals each user wants.
I think the ATSC M/H is essentially the same.

"Sal"