The administration should just give the current FCC chief the boot. Much more important things to deal with than this crazy nonsense about taking back broadcasters spectrum.
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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

Read and discuss here: http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=125812

Hi!

I saw this which appears to be very bad news for OTA

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/06/white_house_backs_federal_plan.html

Is this something new or worse than expected?

How many channels does 120 Mhz actually represent?

Thank you!

Nick

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.

120 MHZ is about 20 RF channels 6MHZ wide. That's a large chunk of bandwidth I must say. My guess is that unused bandwidth in any particular area could be used for low power transmissions.

Thanks guys!

I've googled a bit on the subject and it looks like it is actually old news, it is actually the additional cuts that the FCC was planning...

The only new stuff appears to be that they are backed by the white house now...

Have a nice day!

Nick

The real news is that Obama is using an old decision for his own political advantage. It's about time he got with the program. :D

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.

Maybe the wireless communications industry needs to look into bandwidth efficiency rather than keep asking for more and more.

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.

Not to mention the AWS Bands...Nothing there yet either to my knowledge.

Is there not T-Mobile in the U.S. and Wind, Mobilicity and Public Mobile in Canada (with more soon to come)?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.