| Only 120 Mhz TV broadcasters can only give back a max of 120 Mhz. The rest has to come from somewhere else. A small step for mankind! |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Not getting 120 MHz from TV Since channel 37 can't be used for anything just make that the cut off. That's 84 MHz from channels 38-51. 42 MHz split between at&t and Verizon. Which we know will be the only 2 buyers out there. |
|
|
|
 skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | Use it or lose it Simple. No sitting on spectrum or it is forfeited. And there should be limits as to how much a single company can own to ensure there is competition. The bidding should be the first and last place where we see competition. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| don't get your hopes up I wouldn't get my hopes up that this will actually turn out good for the consumer. There won't be any small, innovative companies enabled to compete because they will get outbid by the large incumbents, who will then just sit on the spectrum (or use it to extend their monopoly footprint). The FCC won't do shit if this is what happens and nothing will change. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Callcentric
| reply to rdmiller
Re: Only 120 Mhz I think all of the spectrum needs to be reevaluated and reused sensibly. Wireless data is going to be huge from now on, basically, until the end of time. Anything or anyone using frequencies inefficiently should be forced to change, update, and move.
Congress needs to wake up and realize that you cannot give companies like Sprint and Tmobile high frequencies and expect them to compete with 700MHZ that the two monopolies have hoarded. For example, a provider with 2.5Ghz needs about 4 to 6 times the infrastructure (base stations) to match the coverage of a single 700Mhz base station. |
|
| just take the spectrum from the tv stations. i'd like to remind people that the TV stations don't own that spectrum and never paid a dime for it. the fcc should just reband all the tv spectrum to free up as much as possible and then auction the licenses to the highest bidder. |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by marcoboto :i'd like to remind people that the TV stations don't own that spectrum and never paid a dime for it.
They were in fact FORCED by the US government to spend MILLIONS each on converting their stations from analog to digital just 3 years ago. Are you going to compensate over 1700 stations for that cost? Also no more OTA TV? Do you work for the pay TV industry? Because that would be their wet dream. |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to skeechan
Re: Use it or lose it said by skeechan:Simple. No sitting on spectrum or it is forfeited. And there should be limits as to how much a single company can own to ensure there is competition. The bidding should be the first and last place where we see competition.
What would competition do? If you have 6 companies but because of that none has adequate bandwidth you are going to have the choice of choosing six shitty services. That's better? People seem to think that bandwidth is this magical unlimited thing. |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to marcoboto
Re: just take the spectrum from the tv stations. Also I may add mobile has no use for frequencies in low UHF. You want to go back to phones with the antennas that stuck out for the phone? The lower the frequency the larger the radio wave which means the larger antenna you need. |
|
skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Clear Wireless
| reply to BF69
Re: Use it or lose it No, what would happen is instead of 2 companies hoarding the spectrum and while having ample bandwidth STILL cap the snot out of service and gouge with massive overage fees, you take that same number of users and spread them across multiple companies for better distribution of users across the spectrum. And because you have more companies competing, they can't treat their customers like ass quite as easily.
Having 1 or 2 companies with the vast majority of spectrum doesn't result in higher speeds or better service, it results in the current oligopoly of higher prices, degraded service and the worse customer service in the history of customer service. |
|
| reply to marcoboto
Re: just take the spectrum from the tv stations. It's bad enough that channels 51 to 69 are gone with how squeezed TV stations are...atleast in major markets and close to other major cities....some even on the same channel number not even 100 miles away. Should've never got rid of 51 to 69 ultimately.
OTA TV has become that much more valuable and being used more for those who are cord cutting due to excessive cable/satellite rate hikes combined with Netflix, Hulu or Amazon much less those who torrent.
Giving the Death Star and Big Red more spectrum that we have to get ripped off with via those shared data plans and ridiclous caps and overages is something we DON'T need. People need to detach themselves from their smartphones and not use them endlessly. |
|
clone
join:2000-12-11
Portage, IN | said by kickass69:It's bad enough that channels 51 to 69 are gone with how squeezed TV stations are...atleast in major markets and close to other major cities....some even on the same channel number not even 100 miles away. Should've never got rid of 51 to 69 ultimately.
OTA TV has become that much more valuable and being used more for those who are cord cutting due to excessive cable/satellite rate hikes combined with Netflix, Hulu or Amazon much less those who torrent.
Giving the Death Star and Big Red more spectrum that we have to get ripped off with via those shared data plans and ridiclous caps and overages is something we DON'T need.
Exactly. The 700MHz debacle squeezed broadcasters tight enough. The government would *really* like to shut down all terrestrial broadcasts so there are choke points to cut off information to the masses (cable, satellite systems are very easily compromised), but that's another issue altogether.
Back on topic, not 1 additional kHz of spectrum should go to these duopolists (ATT & VZW), ever. Make THEM innovate for a change. The Big 2 are already squatting on enough spectrum to last them another 15 years, at least, not to mention, you know, actually building their networks out?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: THERE IS NO SPECTRUM CRISIS! These are two telcos acting exactly as such. This is what telcos do. How can people be so blind?
said by kickass69:People need to detach themselves from their smartphones and not use them endlessly. I disagree. If people are demanding a service, someone should provide it. If that means actually building more robust networks, then that's exactly what should happen. Meaning if you are in an area where there is an overcrowded cell, turn the power down and add a second one. Just like splitting the node in cable, but since it's shiny magical wireless, the telcos have snowed everyone into believing there is some mysterious reason they can't compete and just HAVE to take more spectrum, when all they really want to do is sit on their laurels and collect the revenue without spending a dime.
I have no sympathy for these giants. I have no problem with Capitalism, making as much money as you can. But constantly begging for corporate welfare in the form of monetary and spectrum handouts is where I draw the line. Compete with what you have or let someone else do it for you. |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to skeechan
Re: Use it or lose it Who is saying they are hording spectrum? Holding on to something until you are ready to use it is not hoarding. |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to kickass69
Re: just take the spectrum from the tv stations. said by kickass69:It's bad enough that channels 51 to 69 are gone with how squeezed TV stations are...atleast in major markets and close to other major cities....some even on the same channel number not even 100 miles away. Should've never got rid of 51 to 69 ultimately. Maybe in LA or NY. In Nashville there are 2 stations above channel 36 in Memphis there's 1 channel above 31.
Also with digital if all the stations would broadcast from the same tower area and same power you can have adjacent channels without interference |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to clone
said by clone: Meaning if you are in an area where there is an overcrowded cell, turn the power down and add a second one. Just like splitting the node in cable, but since it's shiny magical wireless, the telcos have snowed everyone into believing there is some mysterious reason they can't compete and just HAVE to take more spectrum, when all they really want to do is sit on their laurels and collect the revenue without spending a dime. A) That cost money who is paying for that? Also you always get a bunch of local idiots protesting about a new tower going up. So then there is lawsuits and how does that take to settle?
B) Won't necessarily solve the problem. Even with a 2nd tower you can only use a frequency so much.
C) Anyway they will get at most channels 38-51. Probably not even that. Auction won't take place before 2014. And relocating won't take place until 2015. Makes sense to wait until after Sept 1st 2015 when LP analog is shut down. Many LPs will decide not to upgrade to digital so their channel allotments will open up. |
|
Reviews:
·VOIPo
·Callcentric
| reply to BF69
Many areas, especially rural areas, will all combine onto a single transmitter and sell off the rest, split the profits, and call it good. Why put 1 station in 6Mhz when you can put 5 or 6? Compress the hell out of it and have absolutely horrible picture quality.
No one watches OTA anyway, right? Screw 'em /sarcasm/
We have 1 independent station on UHF 27 struggling to stay alive. I'm sure they would love to shut down their transmitter and hook up with someone else.
The future of true HD quality OTA is at risk. It will not be a necessity as a way to keep the general public informed about emergencies or whatever. HD will become a luxury for those who choose to pay for it. |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to clone
said by clone:Exactly. The 700MHz debacle squeezed broadcasters tight enough. Please. A bit less hyperbole. Also you do realize that all this brand new LTE getting lit up uses the 700 MHz "debacle" spectrum. what exactly would they be using if they didn't have it?
Back on topic, not 1 additional kHz of spectrum should go to these duopolists (ATT & VZW), ever. Make THEM innovate for a change. The Big 2 are already squatting on enough spectrum to last them another 15 years, at least? |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to scott2020
said by scott2020:Many areas, especially rural areas, will all combine onto a single transmitter and sell off the rest, split the profits, and call it good. Why put 1 station in 6Mhz when you can put 5 or 6? Compress the hell out of it and have absolutely horrible picture quality.
No one watches OTA anyway, right? Screw 'em /sarcasm/
We have 1 independent station on UHF 27 struggling to stay alive. I'm sure they would love to shut down their transmitter and hook up with someone else.
The future of true HD quality OTA is at risk. It will not be a necessity as a way to keep the general public informed about emergencies or whatever. HD will become a luxury for those who choose to pay for it.
None of what you wrote has to do with the topic. Mobile doesn't need spectrum in rural areas. It needs it for the big cities. So no one is going to be interested in the spectrum from some station in Bumfuck Egypt. |
|
Reviews:
·VOIPo
·Callcentric
| This topic is about incentive auctions, and TV stations will be incentivised for combining and selling back their spectrum regardless of where they are. Smaller market struggling TV stations will have more of an incentive to cut costs and bring in more money in some way. As a result, the future is suckier HD OTA. I'd say that has a lot to do with this topic. |
|
| reply to Telco
Re: Only 120 Mhz said by Telco:I think all of the spectrum needs to be reevaluated and reused sensibly. Wireless data is going to be huge from now on, basically, until the end of time. Anything or anyone using frequencies inefficiently should be forced to change, update, and move.
Congress needs to wake up and realize that you cannot give companies like Sprint and Tmobile high frequencies and expect them to compete with 700MHZ that the two monopolies have hoarded. For example, a provider with 2.5Ghz needs about 4 to 6 times the infrastructure (base stations) to match the coverage of a single 700Mhz base station.
The government builds roads, telephone lines, sewers, electric lines, and essentially all major infrastructure- so why doesn't it build the broadband lines and wireless towers? Then rent those out to private companies. |
|
