U.S. DTV News & Discussion

[PrinceLH]

Why don't they just leave it alone? They already took the bandwidth from 52 - 69. Enough of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

[Jase88]

^^^
It's an enormous revenue reward for the federal government. The more they sell, the more revenue they earn.

And the wireless providers are screaming for more spectrum. As it's cheaper for them to deploy networks when they have more spectrum available. When spectrum is constrained, they must segment their networks more...which increases cost significantly.

[Marbles_00]

^^^^^
There isn't any proof that they are even constrained. They are spectrum squatting to kill off any chance of competition. There should be proof, verified by a third party, before their claims of spectrum shortages are valid, yet no one has come forth with that proof.

[ota_canuck]

^^^^^^^^^^^ to all of the above

The wireless providers are once again screaming for more bandwidth spectrum again simply because they can,.. and it worked before,.. and the corps did not have to answer to anyone regarding the BDU's waste of the bandwidth that they already had/have. As far as gov't revenue goes,... that is a bogus excuse,.. because the gov is not going to get any richer from these reassigned bandwidths, [a short term gov't revenue gain that will only benefit the BDUs long term],.. it's just a move toward appeasing the big BDU industry once again.

More and more as time goes by and we keep seeing the BDU corps running the bandwidth usage show, I'd have to agree with the comment posted above, the big corps/gov't are willingly squeezing the 'free services' out or the public spectrum entirely until everyone has to pay for a BDU's re-broadcast service package.

Hopefully the broadcasters will be smart enough to look at the long term future gains of keeping their bandwidths,... and they'll just say no to this $hort term payout $cheme!

[tvlurker]

I'm confused when you say BDUs waste bandwidth --- BDU is a Canadian-only term for broadcast distribution undertaking, aka cable and satellite TV services. (In the States, they talk about MSOs, for Multi-System Operators. Unlike Canada, I don't believe the cable and satellitte services are related. Here, Shaw owns cable and satellite operators, as does Bell (Bell (satellite and VDSL2) TV, as well as VDN cable TV.)

[Jase88]

Originally Posted by Marbles_00

There isn't any proof that they are even constrained. They are spectrum squatting to kill off any chance of competition.

I can't disagree with you on this point.

[GeorgeMx]

It doesn't make any economic sense for Wireless companies to spend billions of dollars in a spectrum auction to reduce OTA television availability in the hope that it might produce a few more customers for cable, satellite and phone company TV services.

Consider a spectrum auction that gets $3 billion for the government. Lets assume that all the spectrum is "hoarded" as some posters in this forum argue, and not really required for wireless services. If this is the case then the spectrum bill must be paid by TV revenues.

Lets assume that new TV(ex-OTA) customers all buy a monthly television service package worth $50 per month. The $50 per month doesn't all go toward the spectrum purchase because of expenses for programming, billing, technical and customer support, etc. If 60% goes to cover expenses then 40% would be available to pay the bill for the "hoarded" spectrum. The total revenue per year is $600 and 40% is available for repayment producing $240 per year.

If the spectrum is paid for over 10 years with nothing allowed for interest on a loan, the new customers have to generate $300 million per year. If you divide $240 into $300 million, you get the number of new ex-OTA customers required, which is 1.25 million. If you believe the CRTC official report, 1.25 million is way more than the total number of OTA viewers in the country.

The numbers just don't work for a hoarding play. The spectrum must actually generate wireless revenue.

[ota_canuck]

I'm not sure about the monopoly level of the MSO's in the US, but in Canada it seems that the same big media-corps monopolizing the BDU,cable/sat services is also seated behind major ISP's, cellular & wireless service industry. So,.. yes, there would definately be a economic benefit for those media monopolys by tying up what we now enjoy as being the 'free' OTA spectrum.

There's more gains at stake than just forced selling to the current OTA TV viewers,.. very profitable new wireless service packages that will include mobile, phone, internet bundles will be offered to all current customers and special offers for new clients and clients who switch over from other service providers. These are all contract subscriptions going into their banking coffers that they don't currenetly have.

[Jase88]

GeorgeMx, you're forgetting that the current TV broadcast UHF spectrum has excellent propagation characteristics for wireless voice/data providers. They definitely want it.

And the big wireless carriers are definitely earning money on the "unused" spectrum they've acquired. They're leasing it out to smaller WISPs.

[downbeat]

I bring this to your attention because of feared encroachment of wireless carriers on spectrum currently set aside of OTA television.
From the NY Times today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/te...-solution.html

Cellphone carriers have been warning the government about a looming “spectrum crisis” — a situation in which the rising demand for wireless data will eventually exhaust their resources. This, they say, could slow mobile devices and stifle the economy. But the report suggests that spectrum constraints could be resolved if the government were to push carriers to embrace technologies that provide greater efficiency.

Someone quoted in the article says wireless carriers are creating their own spectrum crunch because they are using outdated means of utilizing their slice of the RF pie — exactly the argument many of us have been making on this forum.

[GeorgeMx]

I read the article which simply says that cell phones should be able to find and use spectrum in other bands when it is not occupied. In the newspaper article, the suggestion is that spectrum assigned to government, in the example military use, might be used for cell phones if the designated user was not using it. The concept is not a bad one and might increase spectrum utilization.

The idea of data transmission in the TV bands is based on the same concept - if it is vacant then use it. The problem always comes when the device borrowing the spectrum doesn't see low level signals from the licensed user. In the TV bands, a viewer trying to watch an out of town channel may suffer interference because the borrowing device doesn't see the weak signal from 100 km away as 'use'.

The newspaper article doesn't say that the cellular carriers don't need more spectrum. The premise is that spectrum can be borrowed from underutilized parts of the spectrum. Some parties hold the view that any TV channel not assigned to the local market can be considered as underutilized spectrum. If borrowing spectrum is a good idea, why limit borrowing to government spectrum assignments? Why not let wireless phones borrow the prime, unused spectrum, in the UHF TV bands?

[JamesK]

^^^^
One thing to bear in mind is that services like cell phones are controlled entirely by the base. So, you only allow the cell towers to use non-interfering frequencies for that area and the mobile devices will follow. The same thing is done with 3.6 GHz WiFi.

[GeorgeMx]

JamesK, that is correct. Consider a scenario where ION serving Buffalo and Rochester is not considered local to Toronto - Hamilton so the base station is permitted to use RF channel 23, perhaps only on the sector antennas facing north and west, but not south and east. The phone would sense the signal level within RF23 at its location to determine if the channel is usable on the downlink from the base to the phone. The phone doesn't need to determine if the ATSC signal is present, only the noise level in the channel. A phone 10 stories from the ground might get enough of the ATSC signal to make the channel unusable but another phone at ground level might work without difficulty. If the phone reported a usable channel, the base station would transmit within the channel 23 bandwidth and cause interference to anyone trying to receive the ATSC signal within the area served by the base. The frequencies within channel 23 would be used on dozens if not hundreds of sites within Toronto so the channel would not be receivable except when cell traffic was at the lowest levels overnight.

Going back to the concerns of OTA viewers about loss of TV channels, the sharing technology doesn't solve the problem, it just changes the way that wireless systems get access to the TV band. Canada doesn't have to protect US channel assignments domestically, it just has to ensure that Canadian sources don't cause interference into the US. The arrangement is reciprocal with the US.

[El Gran Chico]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busines...zd5IGZ93Tn3N5I

Rabbit ears are multiplying.

Hit with rising cable bills and a weak economy, more Americans, especially young adults and lower-income families, are catching their shows using classic antennas.

Nearly 18 percent of all US households with TVs are watching old-fashioned broadcasts delivered for free over the airwaves, up from 15 percent of homes last year, according to research firm GfK Media.

That means 20.7 million homes, or roughly 54 million consumers, now get channels over the air instead of paying a monthly cable or satellite bill.

Despite all the talk about “cord cutting” and people watching shows online, this marks the first year since the recession that the firm has seen a notable uptick in broadcast-only viewers, as sustained unemployment takes a toll on household budgets.

From 2008 to 2010, 14 percent of the 114.7 million TV households were cable- and satellite-free. Last year, that figure ticked up by 1 percentage point. This year saw a 3 percentage-point gain.

“That really was a change,” David Tice, GfK senior vice president, told The Post. “I haven’t bought into the cord-cutting thing, but this was the first year we really saw a significant increase in the numbers of broadcast- only households.”

According to the study, 6 percent of TV households, or 6.9 million homes, canceled their cable service at some point in the past and now rely on free broadcasts.

GfK’s report also found that 16 percent of households downgraded TV service this year through March, while only 11 percent of TV households said they had increased service.

Some cable operators, such as Cablevision, have held the line on price increases. Meanwhile, Verizon took the opposite tack yesterday, saying it would raise prices for its FiOS TV and Internet service in return for faster connection speeds.

Tice also noted that people using Web-connected TV increased to 34 million households, or 29 percent — almost double the previous year’s 16 percent.

[PrinceLH]

People like Rogers and Bell Globe Media want to put a lid on this, before their profits start to slide. I can see the same problem, stateside. Too much cross ownership of media, in North America.