Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

U.S. DTV News & Discussion

155K views 600 replies 141 participants last post by  Robbers Bhell 
#1 ·
FCC Cites Dell For Failure To Label TV Sets
(Broadcasting & Cable)

Dell.com has joined the list of online TV sales Web sites cited by the FCC for failure to label analog-only TV sets.

As of May 25, sets without digital tuners must be clearly marked, either on the set or in close proximity, with the warning that the set will not receive over-the-air broadcasts after February 2009 unless equipped with a converter box.
http://www.broadcastnewsroom.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=152842
 
#336 ·
FCC Makes NAB an Offer It Can’t Refuse

Tempers are flaring regarding the FCC's plans for the future of the broadcast spectrum. NAB President Gordon Smith has compared the FCC chief to Don Corleone of The Godfather:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/451640-FCC_Makes_NAB_an_Offer_It_Can_t_Refuse.php


The U.S. House of Congress is a potential battleground for the spectrum grab, and politicians are already staking their high ground:
The FCC should not force broadcasters off their spectrum now, or ever, according to House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher (D-Va.).
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ar...adcasters_to_Give_Up_Spectrum.php?rssid=20065
 
#341 ·
Bingo! Someone in Obama's administration needs to grow some kajones and tell the FCC where to go. What a monumental waste of time and effort this is. Oh wait....... its based on greed and lobbying by the huge wireless companies. Greed always trumps common sense in the US.
 
#338 ·
Computer and wireless companies both want more spectrum to increase data services. The US administration wants more high speed access in rural areas. The broadcast band is the biggest chunk of suitable spectrum for this purpose. There is going to be a multi-year battle over this one.
 
#344 ·
The US administration wants more high speed access in rural areas.
The TV band isn't as densely populated in rural areas. Why not let wireless ISPs apply for licenses (and not just look for white space) in the television band in areas where there is room to spare. As long as they aren't interfering with other broadcasters, who cares what type of data they are putting into their 6MHz band?
 
#339 ·
This multi-year battle has begun, for sure, but the broadcasters make the point that the computer and wireless companies make poor use of their allotted spectrum and should be forced to go back to their drawing boards.

I sympathize with the broadcasters, who have a well documented, vetted, "bought into" standard (ATSC) by which they are trying to get on with their businesses, but the implications of "used white space" effects upon TV signal propagation are giving broadcast engineers nightmares.

On the computer and wireless side we have had interminable industry bickering, squabbling, fruitless competition, and consumer confusion over standards like 3G, 802.11n, DECT, and such. They need to sharpen their pencils and prove that space cannot be found in their own bands.
 
#340 ·
I know a few years back the guys at the CRC were working on IEEE 802.22 and there was a big fight over how to go about the licensing - some of them were pushing for automatic smart sensing technology (unlicensed) in the customer devices themselves while others were talking about light licensing using base stations (coordinates stored in a database) that would send out information about the true state of the airwaves to all the listening devices around it.

I never thought customer device smart sensing would ever take off because the theory is just flawed. If I have a 600 MHz wifi device on a side of the building, 1st or basement floor in total shadow of a near-local broadcaster, my device wont see it and just start transmitting on the channel. The guy who lives in the building opposite from me, 2 floors up, would have had good reception of the broadcast but would now get interference from my device, which was oblivious to the broadcast.
 
#342 ·
Here's a wireless spectrum idea I haven't seen the U.S. wireless carriers volunteering: for live local TV watching, force mobile handsets to automatically switch to Mobile DTV for those channels rather than using their wireless networks to pass along that data load.

That was just an example of the sort of ideas required from the U.S. wireless industry that actually do not call for the damaging of another system than their own.
 
#343 ·
That would never fly, cause they couldn't charge (err, gouge) the end user for it. If one did it like that, everyone would would expect it for free. Like I said in the past, the FCC needs to force any licensee to PROVE, with scientific data and existing performance statistics that they cant squeek any more efficiency out of their existing networks/spectrum before they go whining that need more spectrum.

For god's sake, we haven't even seen them produce a consumer device / handset, much less a network, capable of operating on the
700-800 Mhz they just carved from UHF TV last year. And they are complaining already? I think they all need to get their
$^%%$% in gear and put something to market a little quicker than that, before they have any business whatsoever
saying they need more spectrum.

If any one of them had their act together at all, they would have had a product ready for market prior to the Broadcast networks clearing the 700 Mhz Band. 700 Mhz Efficiency to date, 0% across the board. Gee, let's clear some more so it sits around doing nothing for the next ten to twenty years. Clueless!
 
#345 ·
roger1818: I definitely support rural re-purposing of broadcast spectrum to other uses, including broadband. As long as it does not interfere with urban broadcast operations.
 
#348 ·
I believe this is old news. Channels 54 to 69 have already been taken away in the US and channels 2 to 6 are under consideration. It was always expected that these frequencies would be made available for consumer communications devices, such as cell phones. Not sure if this announcement includes 2 to 6 but it appears it might. The same will happen in Canada in 2011. 120MHz is enough for about 20 TV stations. However, the stations are not lost, just squeezed closer together. This is possible due to the use of digital transmission and improved tuner technology. The "other sources" may include some 2-way communications bands that are no longer in demand.
 
#352 · (Edited by Moderator)
Bad News for Over-the-Air TV? Obama backs FCC plan to auction off MORE spectrum

Uh-oh...

I just switched to OTA and am loving it!

This was in the news today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062805421.html

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15399118?nclick_check=1

Obama calls for dramatic expansion of wireless spectrum
Putting presidential muscle behind an effort to avert a logjam in wireless communications, President Barack Obama on Monday directed the federal government to nearly double the nation's broadband spectrum capacity over the next decade.

That can't be good.
 
#354 ·
Maybe the wireless communications industry needs to look into bandwidth efficiency rather than keep asking for more and more.
Couldn't agree with you more. In fact, see post # 343

Let's see, it's been over what a year now, 69-51 = 18 Channels,
18 x 6 = 108 Mhz sittin around doing nothing for over a year, without a single consumer wireless network infrastructure using it, much less a consumer device hitting the streets capable of supporting it.
12 months and counting, still 0% efficiency in the cleared 700 Mhz Band.

Not to mention the AWS Bands...Nothing there yet either to my knowledge.
 
#356 ·
Yep, the AWS bands are filling up already in North America. (T-Mobile, Wind, etc.)

The U.S. broadcasters are loudly pointing to the wireless communication bands as wasteful, and they've got to keep the pressure on towards some rationalization of the mobile operations.
 
#357 ·
Yep, the AWS bands are filling up already in North America. (T-Mobile, Wind, etc.)
They may very well have some users on it, but would hardly say "filling up".
Be interesting to see, of the existing AWS and /or 700 Mhz License holders,
how many and which of them are actually using it today, and in which markets. Then, compare that to whoever's doing the most whining?
Bet it wouldn't line up, or make any sense whatsoever.
 
#358 ·
I see where you're going with that, but pointing to AWS as an example of bad spectrum usage isn't really clear cut since it takes time to roll out a national network on a new band, and they are in fact jumping directly to 3.5G services. I'm not defending T-Mobile, btw, just commenting on an industry with which I'm somewhat acquainted. ;)

Keeping the discussion on OTA, I am adamant that inefficiencies across the already existing mobile bands caused by lagging modernization must be addressed before more of the TV band is sacrificed to them.
 
#359 ·
Interesting article in Broadcast Engineering: "Media Bureau postpones some new digital-only LPTV, TV translator licensing"
http://broadcastengineering.com/RF/archive/media-bureau-postpones-digital-only-licensing-0701/

Notably:
The bureau postponed the application process for digital-only LPTV and translator stations to give the commission the chance to evaluate repacking the TV broadcast band and reallocating spectrum as part of its National Broadband Plan and to launch its rulemaking proceeding, the announcement said.
 
#360 ·
NYT: FCC white space decision imminent

See this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/13/technology/13wifi.html

This month, the F.C.C. is likely to approve what could be an even bigger expansion of the unlicensed airwaves, opening the door to supercharged Wi-Fi networks that will do away with the need to find a wireless hot spot and will provide the scaffolding for new applications that are not yet imagined.
… The unused bands of spectrum were generated by the conversion of television signals from analog to digital. Because digital transmission uses a smaller slice of spectrum, more “white space” was freed up around each broadcast signal. It is those white spaces that the F.C.C. is now seeking to put to use.
I wonder what will happen if we find out down the line that these new wireless services are interfering with existing DTV services.
 
#362 ·
FCC Proposes 2012 Low Power DTV Transition Deadline

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/457331-FCC_Proposes_2012_Low_Power_DTV_Transition_Deadline.php

FCC Proposes 2012 Low Power DTV Transition Deadline
Date coincides with timeline given to stations in 2009 to construct digital facilities

By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 9/19/2010 10:40:17 PM

The FCC has put low power TV stations on notice that they need to come up with a digital conversion plan, and has proposed a 2012 hard deadline to cut the analog cord. "With the full power transition now complete and providing the incentive for viewers, we believe it is appropriate to now require low power television stations to complete their transition to digital," the commission said Friday.

While full-power broadcasters had to pull the plug June 12, 2009, low-power stations had no such deadline.

The commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Friday teeing up a variety of issues that need to be resolved, including whether to adopt a hard deadline for the low-power analog shut-off. "We propose that this time frame provides the best balance of allowing low power stations the flexibility needed for a successful transition to digital while ensuring that the transition occurs as quickly as possible," the commission said.

A 2012 deadline would also coincide with the three years the FCC gave low-power stations back in 2009 to construct digital facilities.

The FCC says that it will entertain suggestions for an earlier deadline, but says it is concerned that stations could transition to digital channels that might no longer be available when the FCC reallocates spectrum as part of the national broadband plan.

Low-power stations operating in channels 52-69, where full-power broadcasters have already been moved out to make way for wireless carriers, would be asked to vacate earlier, by Dec. 31, 2011.

The final comment date on the order is 90 days after publication in the federal register.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top