 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | FCC sets auction of new cellphone spectrum for June, 2014 Today the FCC set up a schedule for making more wireless spectrum available for cellphone systems that will result in an auction in June, 2014. » news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57522···ireless/A new rulemaking process aims to free up more wireless spectrum from broadcast TV providers. The target date for the complicated auction, which has three distinct parts, is June 2014.
The complicated process, which is the first of its kind, will have three components. First there is the reverse auction, in which TV broadcasters will voluntarily sell their spectrum back to the government. Then there's a "repacking" or re-allocation of remaining television spectrum designed to free up large enough blocks for use by wireless operators. Finally, the plan calls for a forward auction in which the wireless broadband providers would bid on available bandwidth.
Verizon Wireless, the nation's largest wireless carrier, applauded the FCC's action.
But some in the industry wonder how the FCC can pull off this daunting task. Earlier in the week, Steve Berry -- head of the Competitive Carrier Association, which represents the non-Verizon, non-AT&T carriers -- said he doubted the FCC could meet its 2014 target date.
"If they hold both the reverse auction and the forward auction at the same time, I'm just not sure how it can be done," he said. "I'm not sure who will be able to bid on spectrum without knowing how much they will get and whether or not the spectrum is contiguous."
The next step in the process is that both of these items will be opened to the public for comment. And at the end of the comment period, the FCC will evaluate the information and draft a formal proposal that will be voted on by the commission. One question some are worried about is what this means for the continued existence of Over The Air(OTA) broadcast TV. If the broadcasters sell their spectrum, could that end OTA TV as we know it. --
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat···onalism/ |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by Linklist:One question some are worried about is what this means for the continued existence of Over The Air(OTA) broadcast TV. If the broadcasters sell their spectrum, could that end OTA TV as we know it. Trust me very few stations are going to sell their spectrum. The networks are not stupid enough to reduce their already shrinking audience by another 10% |
|
| reply to Linklist
said by Linklist:One question some are worried about is what this means for the continued existence of Over The Air(OTA) broadcast TV. If the broadcasters sell their spectrum, could that end OTA TV as we know it.
Our government in action. The same one the misfeasance of which allowed the gulf oil spill, misbehaviour on the part of Wall St., countless drug hazards, and no end of other Corporate Shenanigans to occur, is now going to facilitate obsoleting the brand-new, state-of-the-art TV we bought just a year ago, unless we're willing to pay for over-priced subscription TV services, so the likes of Verizon and "AT&T" can deploy broadband without having to run wire or fibre.
What's wrong with this picture?
Jim |
|
 Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | said by jseymour:What's wrong with this picture? Looks like they want control over everything and have nothing free.
Next step.. We need to get rid of AM/FM/SW/All HAM Bands/etc. |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by Simba7:said by jseymour:What's wrong with this picture? Looks like they want control over everything and have nothing free. Next step.. We need to get rid of AM/FM/SW/All HAM Bands/etc. More hyperbole please. Besides the obvious fact that those frequencies would suck for mobile they aren't even going to get the majority of TV spectrum that's left. Maybe down to channel 38 at most and possibly only down to channel 44. Though I agree that they should find a way to make better use of the 192 MHz they have gotten from TV over the last 30 years first.
If the cell companies wanted the low-VHF TV spectrum they could have it with no issues. Very few TV stations use it anymore and many that are, are leaving it because it such for OTA DTV. |
|
Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | said by BF69:More hyperbole please. Besides the obvious fact that those frequencies would suck for mobile they aren't even going to get the majority of TV spectrum that's left. But.. But.. They could switch all radio stations to HD Radio or convert it to a format where they would have to subscribe.
Because, as y'all know, radio stations are supporting piracy.
said by BF69:Though I agree that they should find a way to make better use of the 192 MHz they have gotten from TV over the last 30 years first. I do agree. So far, they keep wanting more and more and not offering much in return. So far, I've seen zilch.
said by BF69:Very few TV stations use it anymore and many that are, are leaving it because it such for OTA DTV. So.. Why did we switch to Digital from Analog instead of keeping them both? Oh ya, because large companies wanted it for themselves instead of others that could actually use it.
--
Bresnan 30M/5M | CenturyLink 5M/896K
MyWS[PnmIIX3@3.3G,8G RAM,500G+1.5T+2T HDDs,Win7]
WifeWS[A64@2G,2G RAM,120G HDD,Win7]
Router[2xP3@1G,2G RAM,18G HDD,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,2xDigital DE504,Sun X1034A,2xSun X4444A,SMC 8432BTA,Gentoo] |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by Simba7:So.. Why did we switch to Digital from Analog instead of keeping them both? Oh ya, because large companies wanted it for themselves instead of others that could actually use it. keeping both would be useless and wasteful and confusing. Why would a broadcaster want to broadcast in both analog and digital? OTA usage is maybe 10% of the population and you want to split that further by having both and doubling your cost. Not to mention the lack of spectrum for that. |
|
| I don't think we should use both, but how would you be doubling your cost? I'm not arguing that there may be some trivial extra costs to do both, but it would absolutely NOT be a doubling of costs. I guess it depends on what you're looking at versus what I'm looking at... |
|
