view:

topics flat nest

FCCgutless

@50.182.138.x FCCgutless Anon FCC has no guts Just shows once again that the FCC hasn't the guts to stand by their actions. Fear of losing in the courts, where they often do lose, hamstrings them every time. Basically their powers are very weak, at congressional intent, and when faced with determined industry opposition they back down.

chamberc

Premium Member

join:2008-08-05

Irving, TX chamberc Premium Member Re: FCC has no guts said by FCCgutless : Just shows once again that the FCC hasn't the guts to stand by their actions. Fear of losing in the courts, where they often do lose, hamstrings them every time. Basically their powers are very weak, at congressional intent, and when faced with determined industry opposition they back down. Why the FCC exists in a free market is absurd. Spectrum should be available to everyone and let interference and other matters be worked out as such. We've had little innovation in multiple uses of frequencies because it's all "regulated". Kearnstd

Space Elf

Premium Member

join:2002-01-22

Mullica Hill, NJ Kearnstd Premium Member Re: FCC has no guts The free market has proven time and again that without regulation it becomes worse for consumers and only benefits the greed of large corporations.

atcotr

@65.60.163.x atcotr to chamberc

Anon to chamberc

RF spectrum has virtually no value without some sort of regulatory process. No one would pay for unreliable cellphones (just think of how badly 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi and 900 MHz cordless phones work in big apartment complexes). TV broadcasters and walkie talkie users would engage in transmit power wars. It wouldn't even be possible to exclude others' signals from your property since radio knows no survey lines. How would you replace the FCC? How would "interference and others matters be worked out"? Nanaki (banned)

aka novaflare. pull punches? Na

join:2002-01-24

Akron, OH 1 recommendation Nanaki (banned) to FCCgutless

Member to FCCgutless

The 600mhz spectrum is where most current ota broadcasts are done. Taking that away from the broadcasters would do exactly what they claim. It would hamper their ability to broadcast. Meaning most every one would be forced to pay for tv. Bad idea imo.

AnonDude

@97.95.152.x AnonDude Anon Re: FCC has no guts said by Nanaki: The 600mhz spectrum is where most current ota broadcasts are done. Taking that away from the broadcasters would do exactly what they claim. It would hamper their ability to broadcast. Meaning most every one would be forced to pay for tv. Bad idea imo. UHF for TV goes from 470 MHZ to 698 MHz except for 608-614 MHz. That's 222 MHz. These auction at best will get 80 MHz. And frankly the lower UHF spectrum is better for broadcasting TV anyway as the signals will travel further and penetrate buildings better. All other things being equal a TV signal on CH 14( 470-476 MHz ) will be stronger than on CH 51( 692-698 MHz ) silbaco

Premium Member

join:2009-08-03

USA silbaco to Nanaki

Premium Member to Nanaki

UHF for TV goes from 470 MHZ to 698 MHz except for 608-614 MHz. That's 222 MHz. These auction at best will get 80 MHz. And frankly the lower UHF spectrum is better for broadcasting TV anyway as the signals will travel further and penetrate buildings better. All other things being equal a TV signal on CH 14( 470-476 MHz ) will be stronger than on CH 51( 692-698 MHz )



Not to mention the costs associated with these transitions. Most in the broadcast industry feel that number is going to be closer to 120 Mhz. And even if it was 80 Mhz, there are more stations on the air than there will be available channels in most major markets. And that's assuming all VHF spectrum will be used, even lower VHF which is pretty much garbage for digital TV. LPTV stations will be more or less massacred.Not to mention the costs associated with these transitions. Nanaki (banned)

aka novaflare. pull punches? Na

join:2002-01-24

Akron, OH Nanaki (banned) Member Re: FCC has no guts I personally hate the over all quality of digital. Unless you have a really good antenna your get lots of pixlation and drop outs. If they loose this spectrum were going to see allot more of the same. Im putting to gather a antenna for my self that is basically a 8 sided panel array 18 inches on a side with biquads on each section. I tested it on a smaller scale and the set up works pretty well. So the full sized one should work nicely. mostly doing it so i can pull signal from all the towers available. We got a few around here in all different directions.



It is sim to the good old coat hanger ones that you see plans for online. But im using new materials etc. So should be interesting to see the results.



My fear with this auction is this. That even this beefy antenna set up just wont cut it. Not to mention all the Chanel shifting that will happen. Possible cross talk interference from who ever the hell buys the spectrum. Back in the early days of cable tv we were all but forced in to buying cable do to the interference from the cable liens fouling up our ota chans. Those were not even close to being the same frequency. If that can jack up ota tv what the hell is going to happen with channels close to the sold spectrum with cell and who knows what else on freqs close to it?



Even a basic antenna could end up costing hundreds for all the freq traps etc that will be needed to filter out the garbage. It is hard enough to get good strong reception where i live and i know how to make a killer set up. The one mentioned above should end my channel drop out problems and likely give me way more channels. A similar set up my old boss has pulls in channels from out side ohio his is a freaking monstrosity though each panel is 2.5 by 2.5 feet and he has amps etc on the thing lol

AnonDude

@97.95.152.x AnonDude to silbaco

Anon to silbaco

said by silbaco: Most in the broadcast industry feel that number is going to be closer to 120 Mhz. And even if it was 80 Mhz, there are more stations on the air than there will be available channels in most major markets. And that's assuming all VHF spectrum will be used, even lower VHF which is pretty much garbage for digital TV. LPTV stations will be more or less massacred.



Many LPTV stations will be going dark next Sept 1st anyway as that is the analog cut off date for LPTV stations and many have chosen not to go to digital. Also LPTV stations choose that status and they understand being LPTV offers no protections. Not to mention the costs associated with these transitions.



Also the stations will have 39 months after the auction to vacate their frequencies. So that's April 2019 at the earliest now. That's 4 1/2 years from now. That's the FCC's wet dream that won't happen unless the broadcasters give up a lot of spectrum and this lawsuit kind of dismisses that notion so no it's not happening. So broadcasters are un-necessarily worrying or they are throwing hyperbolic crap out there to see what sticks. Anymore than 84 MHz( 14 channels ) an I'd be shocked.If broadcast would get off it's butt and move to at least mpeg-4 you could fit twice as many channels in the same amount of space. If they went straight for h.265 they could easily fit 4 HD stations on 1 channel. Or 2 HD stations and 5 SD channels or 8 HQ SD channels or 16 average quality SD channels or 25 LQ SD channels if you really want to go nuts.Many LPTV stations will be going dark next Sept 1st anyway as that is the analog cut off date for LPTV stations and many have chosen not to go to digital. Also LPTV stations choose that status and they understand being LPTV offers no protections.The funds raised for the auctions are going to those channels affected by it. Also 2 stations sharing a channel will have reduced operating costs.Also the stations will have 39 months after the auction to vacate their frequencies. So that's April 2019 at the earliest now. That's 4 1/2 years from now.

Jim Kirk

Premium Member

join:2005-12-09

49985 Jim Kirk Premium Member Free spectrum The broadcasters seem to forget that, unlike wireless carriers, they didn't pay for the spectrum they're using. mogamer

join:2011-04-20

Royal Oak, MI 3 recommendations mogamer Member Re: Free spectrum said by Jim Kirk: The broadcasters seem to forget that, unlike wireless carriers, they didn't pay for the spectrum they're using. But consumers don't pay to access that content either (unless you count putting up with commercials paying). IMO, access to free broadcasts is more valuable to the interests of our populace than selling spectrum to wireless companies that still haven't used everything they bought during the first sale.

telcodad

MVM

join:2011-09-16

Lincroft, NJ telcodad MVM Re: Free spectrum Yes, with the cost of Pay TV services only continuing to rise at a rapid rate, resulting in all the cord-cutting/shaving going on, we need to make sure there is enough OTA TV spectrum left, especially for any future enhancements (e.g., 4K UHDTV, ATSC 3.0, etc.), to continue to serve the public. sandman_1

join:2011-04-23

11111 sandman_1 to mogamer

Member to mogamer

Ever hear of CableTV? A lot of people do pay for it. mogamer

join:2011-04-20

Royal Oak, MI mogamer Member Re: Free spectrum said by sandman_1: Ever hear of CableTV? A lot of people do pay for it. Ever hear of options? Why do you want one less?

Simba7

I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24

Fromberg, MT Simba7 to sandman_1

Member to sandman_1

Cable TV? I haven't had that garbage for over 3 years. We've been OTA and Internet only. your moderator at work hidden :

microphone

Premium Member

join:2009-04-29

Parkville, MD 1 recommendation microphone Premium Member Spectrum should remain with the broadcasters Slippery slope; slippery slope. It starts with an incentive auction and then before long it eventually leads to taking away all broadcaster spectrum and requiring everyone to pay in order to watch tv.

atcotr

@65.60.163.x atcotr Anon Re: Spectrum should remain with the broadcasters I disagree. Sure, channels 70-83 became cellphones, and 52-69 became LTE leaving "only" 14-51, but the government for all its lust for auction money and CTIA campaign contributions still wants to keep around OTA for emergency alerts and election season commercials. The FCC's analysis of the economic value of spectrum as antenna TV versus for example LTE is correct. Infomercials and reruns encoded with MPEG-2 are an inefficient use of our natural resources (I was surprised the digital transition even happened to be honest). Mindshare is shifting to Internet distributed media that allows for people to upload their creations and ideas in addition to passively consuming.

robbyglack

@50.243.146.x robbyglack Anon why i would like to see more OTA broadcast TV one thing i really really likle about th eidea of perhaps more broadcast TV as peole cut cords is that unlike anything over the internet and/or on a wire install in a home there is no monitoring and keeping track of what i watch or when.



there is a really huge privacy advantage to OTA TV.

Barron

Laissez les bons temps rouler!

Premium Member

join:2001-11-25

Litchfield Park, AZ 246.4 30.0

·Cox HSI

Motorola MB8600

Synology RT2600ac

Barron Premium Member Luv Those NAB LIES I don't got no ova de air teevee at my house in Newport, OR, so the as**oles lie like they always do in pursuit of dollars over service. There has never been over the air tv broadcasting on the Oregon coast and in many areas through out the USA. If it were not for over priced cable, we would have no TV---wait, maybe that would be better. silbaco

Premium Member

join:2009-08-03

USA silbaco Premium Member Re: Luv Those NAB LIES No OTA or you just can't receive it properly? I have a hard time believing you can get cable but no OTA tv because they don't cover your area.

Yucca Servic

join:2012-11-27

Rio Rancho, NM Yucca Servic Member One more thing You have to remember that the FCC just manages the RF spectrum for the people.

What is the best use of the limited spectrum we have, TV is entertainment is entertainment and the public does not directly pay for the subject. Cell phone companies directly charge the consumer and use up a lot of spectrum that has kicked others away from legitimate uses. Cell providers don't need more spectrum they just need more access to the areas they need to deploy in. Micro cells and more. It sounds like a cash grab....

IowaCowboy

Supermarket Hero

Premium Member

join:2010-10-16

Springfield, MA IowaCowboy Premium Member Take frequencies away from HAM and CB radio They should take away frequencies away from HAM radio and CB radio (especially CB radio due to declining use) for the wireless carriers. More people benefit from TV than both services I mentioned. jdofaz

join:2013-04-15

Phoenix, AZ 1 recommendation jdofaz Member Re: Take frequencies away from HAM and CB radio You don't know what you are talking about if you think cell phone companies want CB spectrum. SunnyD

join:2009-03-20

Madison, AL SunnyD to IowaCowboy

Member to IowaCowboy

Because TV is oh-so-useful when there's a disaster that wipes out power to large areas and the grassroots/feet-on-the-ground HAM's can act as first responders and communication liaisons especially when cell services aren't functional, as has been proven time and again.



Amateur radio bands have been carved up and taken away enough already, thank you very much. Let's keep what we have intact.

AnonDude

@97.95.152.x AnonDude to IowaCowboy

Anon to IowaCowboy

Do you realize how large the wavelengths of HAM and CB signals are? There is no way that could be useful for mobile Kearnstd

Space Elf

Premium Member

join:2002-01-22

Mullica Hill, NJ Kearnstd to IowaCowboy

Premium Member to IowaCowboy

HAM radio is very useful for times when everything else is down which in storm seasons can happen frequently.



Also CB is still used by most truckers and good luck one day telling them they cannot use it because they will keep using them. CB being an unlicensed band means its impossible to take it back its now public.



It would be like the FCC trying to take back 2.4ghz, They could not make people all go out and buy 5ghz routers or stop using wifi because most of the country would simply refuse.

Flyonthewall

@206.248.154.x Flyonthewall Anon Where is this 'free and local tv' he mentions. Never heard of it. Unless you happen to be in an area that broadcasts OTA, you have no options for free tv. And I'm sure the whole point is to remove that option everywhere, forcing people to sign up for broadcast medium.

atcotr

@65.60.163.x atcotr Anon Re: Where is this 'free and local tv' he mentions. Generally if you live within 50 miles of a city you can watch antenna TV. silbaco

Premium Member

join:2009-08-03

USA silbaco to Flyonthewall

Premium Member to Flyonthewall

The major OTA networks are estimated to reach ~97% of the US population.

AnonDude

@97.95.152.x AnonDude Anon What makes this worse People don't realize that broadcasters get 39 months to vacate the spectrum. So an auction held in Jan 2016 means mobile carriers can't use it until April 2019 at the earliest. And shouldn't broadcasters have moved on to mpeg-4 or even better h.265 by then and thus they could easily share channels? BiggA

Premium Member

join:2005-11-23

Central CT BiggA Premium Member Ridiculous The cell companies don't need yet MORE spectrum. Maybe they should better manage the existing spectrum, of which they already have a metric assload.

AnonDude

@97.95.152.x AnonDude Anon Auction WILL happen Congress has MANDTAED this auction happen by Oct. 2022 so the NAB is just buying time and trying to get more money out of the deal. They can not stop the auction What the NAB doesn't realize the longer they wait the less value their spectrum has. If the auction has happened this fall like originally intended they would have gotten a ton of cash. If the successfully delay the auction to Oct 2022 not so much. By then all the carriers would have converted all their spectrum to LTE also LTE-A will have been deployed. As well as things like microtowers. As well as obtaining spectrum bought from other government auctions, like next months AWS-3 auction or buying it form other spectrum holders. Not to mention technological advances not yet known. By then the 600 MHz spectrum might be worthless even to broadcasters your comment..

