| 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 kickass69
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 BF69
said by BF69: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.
A) Uh... maybe the users that pay them for their services?
B) What? What the devil does that even mean? Are you implying frequency will "get tired", start to complain about being overworked? |
|
clone
join:2000-12-11
Portage, IN | reply to BF69
A) The telco is going to pay for it. Trust me, short of Sprint, the Big 4 aren't hurting. And to address your second point, the only place more spectrum is *really* needed is in the major metro areas. You get NIMBYs in the suburban/rural areas. They can always find someone willing to let them stick an antenna on their building/property in the metropolises.
B) Huh? That's why the power gets turned down. In fact in CDMA and UMTS systems, every cell site in a system is already using the exact same frequency. It requires some finess in the fine tuning, but I'm sure the engineers for VZW and ATT are top-notch and can handle the challenge.
C) Just channels 38-51? Oh is that all? Well nevermind then. It's just 84 more megahertz of "Boardwalk/Park Place" spectrum that is currently used for free OTA broadcasts that serve the public interest handed over to the incumbents. I would say "corporate welfare", but it's worse than that. The government gets the money and the people get nothing but higher prices and more duopolistic behaviors.
Let them finish building out 700 first. By the time "5G" or whatever comes along, they can re-farm cellular spectrum, PCS spectrum, or AWS spectrum. They really don't need enough spectrum to be running 4 redundant networks. Verizon plans to turn off EVDO once LTE is ubiquitous. What about all that PCS spectrum? What about the AWS spectrum that ATT and Verizon have been squatting on for years (and buying more of) without actually lighting up a single cell site on it. What is going to happen to Verizon's 800MHz once CDMA is deprecated (about 8 years out according to internal sources)? There is plenty to go around.
If broadcasters want to voluntarily give up spectrum for something, fine. But please, let it be something new and/or innovative, not just handed over to the telco oligarchy to entrench their positions. |
|
clone
join:2000-12-11
Portage, IN | reply to BF69
said by BF69: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? I don't know, but the point is moot since they DO have it. But I do know that there are a myriad of interference issues in the DTV arena now, and large swaths of suburban and exurban areas are now without usable OTA TV. I know, screw'em right? It's not hyperbole, obviously you aren't exposed to either of these industries (wireless or broadcast), or you would know this.
said by BF69: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? based on what? I'd like a link to your data. Link? Sorry, no can do. You can research, however, things like cellular market saturation, spectral efficiency of given wireless protocols (such as GSM/GPRS vs. CDMA/EVDO vs. UMTS/HSPA+ vs. LTE) then compare all that to the MHz of spectrum available since cellular's inception vs. number of subscribers vs. usage and now introduce usage caps into the mix. If you really get down to details, you can see for yourself exactly what's going on in the industry. I shouldn't have to hold everyone's hand just because they are a telco apologist. |
|
clone
join:2000-12-11
Portage, IN | reply to BF69
Nashville and Memphis aren't the problem. The problems (so they claim) are in NY and Chicago and LA and SF. Because they don't want to spend the money to build the network required to support tomorrow's usage with so many concurrent users.
If the wireless oligarchy can provide usable service today in Manhattan (which they can and do), there will never be a problem in Memphis or Nashville. |
|
