Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Doesn't this amount to "stealing" bandwidth from OTA and selling it off to the highest bidder??
I don't like the idea of removing spectrum from broadcaster use, but I do understand and support the need for efficient spectrum management. This is why we have DTV: it allows for greater spectral efficiency through multiplexing channels, reduced adjacent channel interference, etc.Because it moves available frequencies away from free OTA services into billable services like cell phones.
Disagree, this is a question of proportion. The "better technologies" argument applies to all users of the spectrum & is therefore not valid when reassigning portions of it.In the future, better compression and other technologies will compensate for lost spectrum.
Yes, not YET. The future lies before us and I'm assuming that spectrum will be virtually impossible to get BACK once sold.The biggest benefactor of spectrum auctions is the government; to the tune of billions of dollars per auction. The reduction in broadcast spectrum hasn't impacted channel startups yet to my knowledge.
Well, different applications have different requirements. With broadband wireless data, the goal is to get as many users as possible in a quantity of spectrum, while providing as much throughput as possible--in a two-way transmission stream.Disagree, this is a question of proportion. The "better technologies" argument applies to all users of the spectrum & is therefore not valid when reassigning portions of it.
Under the current regulatory system, there's no incentive to launch a conventional station. The revenue stream for conventional stations is limited to advertising. Whereas with class 2 specialty stations, revenue is FFC and advertising. Further, with the lack of transmitters, the operating costs for specialty stations are lower. And the programming limitations placed on conventional broadcasters are far more strict.Yes, not YET. The future lies before us and I'm assuming that spectrum will be virtually impossible to get BACK once sold.
Not surprising at all. It seems that antenna makers are abandoning VHF-lo as well, so how are those low power VHF-lo channels going to be received? I certainly don't want to put up a VHF-lo monster on my chimney either. I was looking at Britain's system the other day. It's all UHF with channels clustered on nearby channels in a single, regional location to simplify both broadcasting and receiving equipment. Maybe the situation is a little more complicated here but it sure would be nice to have all the local channels on UHF and in one direction, instead of scattered across 3 frequency bands and half a dozen directions.And in the US, the low power TV stations did NOT rush to take over the vacated Lo-VHF allocations, even though it would greatly lower their monthly power bill.....
I don't see this as a problem for one important reason: Consumers won't get the same life expectancy out of flat-screen TV's as they've experienced with CRT's. It will be far easier to incorporate MPEG4/conventional ATSC hybrid tuners into near-future devices, much like we have NTSC/ATSC hybrids now. Then the transition in the future with have minimal impact on consumers.The problem with better compression techniques, such as MPEG-4 Pt 10/AVC/h.264 is that another transition will be needed.