FCC Begins Plan To Take Back TV

[wxndave]

You wonder why stations aren't spending money on HD?  


http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/2010/11/24/47269/fcc-begins-plan-to-take-back-tv-spectrum/page/1

[Xizer]

This is terrific. You all think American HDTV channels look horrible now with a couple standard definition subchannels crammed on the signal... wait until those douchebags at the FCC start forcing networks to cram multiple HD channels onto one signal. It's going to be amazingly bad. Look at Chicago's Live Well Network (channel 7.2) for a glimpse into the future of HDTV in the United States. :bang:

[LoadStar]

No big deal, seriously. This has nothing to do with "forcing networks to cram multiple ... channels onto one signal," whether they be HD or SD. You're spouting complete and utter nonsense, Xizer. All this is is moving the existing channels to frequencies that are closer together... something that has absolutely zero to do with image quality, and nothing that anyone will even notice, because the channel numbers people use will remain the same.

This simply is recognizing the fact that now that we're in the digital era, you don't need the "buffer" around frequencies like you once needed with analog... meaning you can have more channels in a tighter frequency band.

Frankly, they should have gotten rid of the entire VHF band when they had the chance. There are so few digital channels in that band, and those channels generally are at a significant disadvantage compared to those on the UHF band.

[LoadStar]

Just as a follow-up, there is some impact to the stations and their engineers... but as far as consumers are concerned, the only impact to them is having to re-scan as stations change channels (frequencies). That's it.

I didn't intend to downplay the impact to the stations in my last post; my point was to clarify what the impact would be to viewers, which is next to none.

[Jimboy]

No big deal, seriously. This has nothing to do with "forcing networks to cram multiple ... channels onto one signal," whether they be HD or SD. You're spouting complete and utter nonsense, Xizer. All this is is moving the existing channels to frequencies that are closer together... something that has absolutely zero to do with image quality, and nothing that anyone will even notice, because the channel numbers people use will remain the same.

This simply is recognizing the fact that now that we're in the digital era, you don't need the "buffer" around frequencies like you once needed with analog... meaning you can have more channels in a tighter frequency band.

Frankly, they should have gotten rid of the entire VHF band when they had the chance. There are so few digital channels in that band, and those channels generally are at a significant disadvantage compared to those on the UHF band.

Uh, Xizer is right. Several stations in major markets will need to combine or share a single 6mhz channel.

From TVNewsCheck........
"The FCC expects to recover the most broadcast spectrum by encouraging channel sharing, in which stations would voluntarily double up (or even triple up) on a single 6 MHz TV channel. The rulemaking proposes extending must-carry and retransmission consent rights to channel sharers."

[Xizer]

Somebody didn't read the article.

The FCC is trying to push more channels onto the inferior VHF band that nobody can receive.

The FCC expects to recover the most broadcast spectrum by encouraging channel sharing, in which stations would voluntarily double up (or even triple up) on a single 6 MHz TV channel. The rulemaking proposes extending must-carry and retransmission consent rights to channel sharers.

This is the most disturbing portion of the statement. Up to three 1080i channels fighting for bitrate on a 19 Mbps signal? YouTube will have better picture quality.

[Jimboy]

Somebody didn't read the article.

The FCC is trying to push more channels onto the inferior VHF band that nobody can receive.



This is the most disturbing portion of the statement. Up to three 1080i channels fighting for bitrate on a 19 Mbps signal? YouTube will have better picture quality.

I knew this for quite some time now (and I didn't read the article). Yes, cramming stations together onto one 6mhz channel "AND" utilizing the VHF band more. The top most OTA tv channel would be channel 31. :bang: :huh?:

Ultimately the FCC wants 500mhz so everybody can stare at their little handheld devices and walk into walls (I've seen it happen and they weren't drunk).  :bang:    And get this.....the companies who want to buy the spectrum also want to do Broadcasting, saying it's the most efficient way to get the same media to many people.....go figure. Only difference is, it won't be "free".

[Tivoman44]

The FCC is bad at 99% of things that they do.  I like the idea of them forcing cable to support cable cards so as to give us a choice but most of what they do are stupid things, but that is typical of any government entity.  Just wait until they have 100% control of our health care.

[ArgMeMatey]

"Voluntarily double up".  Obviously somebody has never ridden a bus or airplane.  

"Voluntarily" more likely means "Find a cash source to pay them to ... "  

Technically, I am wondering if a broadcaster moves from RF channel 40 to say, RF channel 20, what changes they will have to make to their antenna.  Does it need to be bigger or smaller?  And what about power levels?  

And are we to presume from this that there will be some subsidy for getting HD signals from the must-carry channels to Time Warner, AT&T, DirecTV, Dish ... and everyone else?  

There seem to be a lot of unanswered questions here.

[wysiwyg]

OTA viewers have very little political clout compared to Blackberry/Iphone/etc users, that's what this all comes down to.

[wxndave]

This will open a huge can of worms.  Can you imagine the finger pointing that would happen if two stations had to share a transmitter.  Just to answer the question about antenna size.  The lower the frequency the larger the antenna.  If they would stay on UHF the power wouldn't change much.  They would have to  change the antenna.  If stations are forced to move to VHF they will need to change transmitters and antennas.  Not to mention that many people would need to purchase VHF antennas for their homes.

[WPXE ION]

Thank google and Microsoft. They want to rule the airwaves.

Yes if a station moves from say ch40 to 20 then a new antenna must be installed along with additional equipment on the transmitter. Not cheap.

Meeting on this tomorrow: From the FCC website.

The Federal Communications Commission will hold an Open Meeting on the subjects listed below on Tuesday, November 30, 2010, which is scheduled to commence at 10:30 a.m. in Room TW-C305, at 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.


OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY   

TITLE:  Innovation in the Broadcast Television Bands:  Allocations, Channel Sharing and Improvements to VHF

SUMMARY:  The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on rules to facilitate the most efficient use of the UHF and VHF TV bands.  These proposals, an important step toward the agency's spectrum goals as outlined in the National Broadband Plan, would take steps to enable mobile broadband use within spectrum currently reserved for use by TV broadcasters, including through innovations such as channel sharing and generating increased value within the VHF band.

OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY AND WIRELESS TELE-COMMUNICATIONS   

TITLE:  Promoting More Efficient Use of Spectrum Through Dynamic Spectrum Use Technologies.

SUMMARY:  The Commission will consider a Notice of Inquiry seeking comment on promoting more intensive and efficient use of the radio spectrum, thereby potentially enabling more effective spectrum management, through dynamic spectrum use technologies.

[WPXE ION]

For the latest see the FCC web site http://www.fcc.gov/

Look at the main page for the headline from 11/30/2010 FCC Proposes Initial Steps to Open TV Spectrum to New Wireless Broadband Services.

To much to simply copy and paste here.

[WITI6fan]

I really wish the "Broadband Plan" was more "Let's upgrade our infrastructure so we can be like Asia, where their cheapest bandwith plan is 36x the speed of our most expensive" more than "Let's make sure people can watch Hulu on their phone".

[AA9VI]

No big deal, seriously. This has nothing to do with "forcing networks to cram multiple ... channels onto one signal," whether they be HD or SD. You're spouting complete and utter nonsense, Xizer. All this is is moving the existing channels to frequencies that are closer together... something that has absolutely zero to do with image quality, and nothing that anyone will even notice, because the channel numbers people use will remain the same.

.

I disagree to an extent.  The band is already crammed due to inadequate planning about post transition channels.  It's so crammed that there are countless examples of co-channel interference between Chicago, Milwaukee, Rockford, Grand Rapids, South Bend... All you need now is the smallest hint of tropo enhancement and this co-channel crap with the inadequate spacing makes for a mess of macroblocking hell.

I propose that Julius G. get the LDs, the CDs to move to VHF and then look at ways to move existing DTs so the co-channel spacing with stations operating in adjacent markets on the same channel isn't so acute.  Who'd care if the home shopping channel or some community access channel was on VHF 6.  Heck, go there, have fun.

and yes... WLS-DT 7-2 Livewell is a perfect example of why 2 HD programs will not work in 6 MHz given the current ATSC technology.  But stuff like METV and other 480i programs could easily fit 4 programs into a 6 MHz slot.  They should stop issuing a license for every new LD out there and tell them to double up together.  I can only blame the FCC for making the problem as bad as it is.  For example, we have multiple channels here in Chicago blocking out Milwaukee channels since they're on the same frequency.  They don't offer HD.  They have 1-3 channels of infomercials on their subchannels.  Namely Azteca America, Daystar, Airang, MCTV, Home shopping, etc... Why aren't these on 1 or 2 digital transmitters instead of 6?  Because the FCC let them.

One more thing... The ATSC standard was chiefly flawed due to this point here about having to share the bandwidth. (That and it's multipath deficiencies).  The European standard allows for a smaller spectrum per channel, thus overall better efficiency (and it has less multipath issues).  Sinclair warned the FCC and the FCC blew them off. Who looks stupid now?