That's funny, they obviously just mention schools, every time they wanna get some bleeding heart's attention.

Like access to the internet is gonna make my kid smarter? lol lol lol
If people were really worried about their kids education.... They'd
Make 'em read and play street hockey once in while...instead of sittin around
playin video games online all day.

I don't get how schools would be a beneficiary of ultrahigh-speed wireless Internet access. Last I heard most schools were in stationary buildings and would be much better served with fiber optics than wireless Internet. If they want to give students laptops with wireless Internet, a short range solution such as WiFi would be a much more affordable option, but that uses unlicensed bands, which don't generate any money for the government.
Agreed +++.

And who/how are they going to pay for laptops for every student? Private schools already do this, but American public schools can barely put 20 year old dictionaries on the shelves. Forget about new books. Computer labs with locked down desktop computers is the way it is done for a reason. The people that write this junk should do some forethought before embarrassing themselves.

If the remaining OTA spectrum goes to BDU's, then prepare to pay for it as a taxpayer and a subscriber.
Yup, if you can eliminate/reduce the competition, you can set your price higher. Elementary economics.

Now the FCC is talking about taking channels 46 through 51:The FCC's broadband plan lays out a clear timetable for broadcasters to clear off 120 mhz of spectrum, or about a third of their over 290 Mhz allocation, which has already been reduced by 108 MHz in the DTV transition, when channels 52-69 were reclaimed.

The FCC wants to issue the band-reclamation order by next year, then hold an auction in the 2012-2013 time frame, and clear them off the band in 2015.http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/450261-FCC_Broadband_Plan_Commission_Sets_2015_Spectrum_Deadline.ph p

The U.S. broadcasters are saying that any spectrum shift to broadband use must be done on a 100% voluntary basis, while the FCC claims that the broadcasters are misunderstanding the proposals:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/450315-Wharton_Broadcasters_Could_Work_With_FCC_on_Voluntary_Spectr um_Reclamation.php

I find the use of the term "reclamation" ridiculous. "Expropriation" or "grab" might be more suitable.

From the first article:

"If the U.S. does not address this situation promptly," says the plan, "scarcity of mobile broadband could mean higher prices, poor service quality, an inability for the U.S. to compete internationally, depressed demand and, ultimately, a drag on innovation."

This sounds like scare tactics to me. What country uses less of the UHF band for broadcast television that the US would be unable to compete with?

It would be nice if some of the spectrum that is needed could come from VHF-LO, since it is under utilized.

I find the use of the term "reclamation" ridiculous. "Expropriation" or "grab" might be more suitable.

Agree with that one.
What the FCC should be doing is force every wireless operator out there to squeeze every ounce of performance out of their existing mega spectrum portfolios...Like set some targets, and force them to PROVE their performance.

If they refuse to up their performance, then they should reclaim it from the sloppiest wireless operators.

Akin to politicians asking for more taxes from the public, without any proof whatsoever of a deficit.

It irritates me that the Broadcasters are being hounded for their spectrum when there is a huge gold mine of spectrum waiting to be "reclaimed" from...

...the Pentagon. The U.S. military is a prime waster of spectrum if ever there was one. They grab a chunk and never let it go, regardless of whether their equipment stopped using it three decades ago.

I doubt anyone wants to go up against them, though.

Hi Folks,

I just got back from visiting Mom in Georgia. While down there, I noticed the DTV broadcasters in the Atlanta area are doing the very same thing as broadcasters here in the North Carolina Triad area. That is... commercials seem to be set up to run about 10 to 20 times LOUDER than the shows. I guess that is so one will still be able to hear the commercial all the way in the bath room or kitchen... LOL.

I thought this practice was supposed to come to an end in 2010???

Your comments are appreciated,
DTV Student

They grab a chunk and never let it go

Not so. There's plenty of spectrum where the military is the primary user, but another service, such as amateur radio is secondary. With this arrangement, the military has spectrum in reserve, but it gets used by others in the mean time. Take a look at a spectrum chart sometime and you'll see how it's set up with primary, secondary and tertiary users.

The FCC's National Broadband Plan comes down to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski saying this to broadcasters: We can do this the easy way or we can do it the hard way, but, make no mistake, we are going to take back 120 MHz of your spectrum and sell it to wireless providers so that more Americans can have faster mobile access to the Internet.

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/articles/2010/03/17/daily.2/

Lessee now. 120 MHz = 20 channels. There are only 49 channels in use (no ch 1 and ch 33 IIRC is not used to prevent interference to radio astronomy). So that leaves 29 channels. Now some of those are VHF, with VHF low being not that suitable for digital TV and VHF high not a heck of a lot better. Pretty soon, there won't be anything left for broadcast TV.

Sorry, the link no longer works unless you create an account. It was working this morning.

I wonder how many Americans that rely soley on OTA for their TV know the Obama administration is working to take it all away from them.

I rely on OTA for my cottage, and all I really get are American channels (Eastern Townships), not that I really mind. If they were to do this, I would have nothing. In all honesty, all I get is Global (ch. 11) and I'm not very fond of them. I would get 6 (CBC-E), but I'm using a 4228.... Also, satellite is not even an option in a forest (not that I would want to pay either).

I truly hope the NAB really gets together and pushes (they're not exactly weak) and wins. So much spectrum has already been cut - leave the broadcasters alone!

I also find the FCC to be untrustworthy - they essentially give spectrum, and then take it back. If I were a wireless provider (or whoever would be using the "reclaimed" spectrum) I would be thinking: what's stopping them from taking the spectrum they're giving me now 10-20 years down the road when something new comes up?

^^^^
Regulators often adjust spectrum use. It may be due to domestic needs or to comply with the World Radiocommunication Conferences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Radiocommunication_Conference), which determine how the radio spectrum is to be used around the world.

Like I said, force all the Wireless Operators to PROVE they need spectrum.
i.e. - force them to make their performance stats known to the public.
Just like publicly owned companies are required to post their quarterly
financials now. Of course ya will never see that, 'cause then the public
would know who really doesn't need anything...

This link should work.

Are we at the beginning of the end of over-the-air broadcast television? Some might argue that free-over-the-air broadcast TV has been on its way out as a result of the DTV conversion. But late last year, the FCC took a new turn toward accelerating television's demise by proposing to repurpose at least part of the spectrum currently used by television stations.http://broadcastengineering.com/news/end-over-the-air-tv-0210/index.html

I guess serving Blackberries and I-phones is more important than TV. Why was all that money spent on coupons and the digital conversion? Are they going to give those people free satellite? Somehow I doubt it.

just tried sending my thoughts to our local congressman, their website
timed out.

How ironic, they can't even provide a decent website. Ya think an ip backbone can support TV as a sole delivery method across the country?
Ya right....

Hi!

With all these bad news about the FCC wanting to reclaims frequencies is it still a good idea to invest in OTA?

My current setup (antennas & tower) now barely work and assuming a worst case scenario I would have to get the antennas and tower removed and replaced with a new tower and antenna(s) which I expect will cost me quite a few $$$$.

I don't see how the broadcasters can expect to win against the FCC...

Thank you!

Nick

To you, being in Canada, the situation is simply that the Vermont/New York stations that you wish to get may be reassigned new channel numbers if the spectrum changes were to go through. The whole point of this FCC dream/nightmare is to squeeze out the empty channel space in the U.S. for broadband use, not force incumbent stations off the air.

Go ahead and invest in OTA gear. It's not expensive anyways if your old tower is still okay.

Won't the stations be forced to share a common frequency and will probably be, as a result, only SD?

My old tower appears very rusty in some places especially the bracket that attaches it to the eaves which you said was a "very bad thing" TM (or something like that ;) ).

Thank you!

Nick

No, only if they decide on their own what they want to broadcast, not due to the spectrum changes being discussed. I'm not sure where you're hearing that from, but not here. :)