Another Spectrum Auction?

[ZetaMale]

Wasnt it Bill Gates who said something like "64k will be more than any computer will ever need" ??

How fast is too fast.

I have 500 Mb internet here at home and it seems fast enough with the enormous amount of devices that I have. I could get 1 Gb WAN but why?

 

[Juan]

You'll never see any auction for AM because the band sucks and doesn't have much bandwidth at all. If you took out the entire AM radio band, you'd have 1.16MHz. TV requires about 6MHz of bandwidth. If anything, they should make that band all digital to allow multiple channels on one frequency with FM quality audio.

I have a Low VHF station that's on channel 2 (54MHz) within a 30 mile range. That thing is about impossible to pick up from my location. Maybe yours was easier due to the fact that it was on the higher end of low VHF (less interference maybe at 76MHz?).

Exactly my point

 

[navychop]

I thank LG for leading the way on ATSC 3!

 

[N6BY]

I thank LG for leading the way on ATSC 3!

And that would be straight to the dust bin of history, never to be seen again. Kinda like ATSC 2, but far worse.

I sure wish that the FCC would stop selling out to the cellular industry! They nibble away at OTA TV and C-Band spectrum.

Let's get rid of the FCC and freeze the radio spectrum band plan. No more changes.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

You'll never see any auction for AM because the band sucks and doesn't have much bandwidth at all. If you took out the entire AM radio band, you'd have 1.16MHz. TV requires about 6MHz of bandwidth. If anything, they should make that band all digital to allow multiple channels on one frequency with FM quality audio.

But we have that now. Guess you haven't listened to WION.

WION AM STEREO 1430 take a listen that is real AM radio.

Great sound is possible on AM but most owners dont want to take the time or invest to make it sound this good.

 

[k4otl]

And that would be straight to the dust bin of history, never to be seen again. Kinda like ATSC 2, but far worse.

I sure wish that the FCC would stop selling out to the cellular industry! They nibble away at OTA TV and C-Band spectrum.

Let's get rid of the FCC and freeze the radio spectrum band plan. No more changes.

Freeze except for a supermajority in Congress? Constitutional amendment? Some change is inevitable, but it's getting ridiculous for sure.

 

[Corrado]

Should the VHF low band ever be utilized again in my area, I'm ready. My huge antenna is still in use from 20+ years ago up on the roof. Overkill for modern needs.

I miss the ducting events that were more common on analog low band TV with the DX by simply changing channels. It still happens but modern televisions often require scanning to notice. Last year around the time of the auroras last Fall there was a hurricane or tropical storm to the south and I briefly found a half dozen channels from Georgia or somewhere from the south east US one evening for about an hour in upstate NY.

Back before the digital transition I used to enjoy listening to the WRGB TV from Albany, NY evening news and weather on 87.7 FM on the commute home in the car.

 

[k4otl]

I wrote my congresswoman on the issue of spectrum auctions and OTA TV and ATSC 3.0 (not necessarily C band since I don't have C band currently and can't speak intelligently on it, I've got Ku but I don't think that spectrum is going anywhere). She actually wrote back a considered response, not necessarily endorsing my views (actually fairly neutral), but at least she acknowledged what I had to say. She also pointed me to the Spectrum Auction Reauthorization Act of 2023, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3565/text
which hasn't passed, and it contained no language for the 4-4.2 Ghz band or the UHF 500/600 Mhz bands. So while the FCC chair may want to sell it off, he can't w/o authority. Of course we'll see what happens.

If you live in the US and want to keep your OTA and C band, write to Congress! It may seem futile, but you have two options: Don't write and take whatever happens to you, or, Write and at least make your opinion heard. Remember, this is how C band TVRO was legitimized in the 80s. Complaining on SatGuys will not help the cause (although it does vent frustration ) I'd like to think that members of Congress would enjoy listening to intelligent emails/letters rather than the typical "Where's my check?" or partisan slander. They (are supposed to) work for us, not us for them.

 

[Juan]

Here is a good video explaining why cband spectrum became so valuable

Towards the end


View: https://youtu.be/3BY1LUMxAWc?si=oGnZ_yrh06OIFp6I

 

[EarDemon]

In short, C-band is valuable because it is mid-band spectrum that provides a happy medium between range and speed for mobile communications.

Verizon was 100% in on mmWave resulting in multi gigabit speeds that were only achievable within a city block from the macro. T-Mobile was 100% in on low band 600 MHz from the OTA TV auction that provided excellent range, but not life altering speeds. Then they acquired the 2.5 GHz spectrum from Sprint and turned band 41 LTE into n41 NR to achieve gigabit+ speeds. Verizon's lowband aka Nationwide 5G could not provide home internet service alone, and their mmWave home internet service was extremely limited and involved a wonky setup with an antenna that would attach to the outside of a window. So mid-band is the logical answer.

Having all three carriers, mid-band spectrum is able to provide adequate indoor coverage, with speeds in the hundreds of megabits down, better upload and lower latency. Whether it's using n41 with T-Mobile for personal use, or Verizon's n77 C-band for work, there has been a huge increase in usability when indoors and not near a window. Midband is awesome!

Just last night I was at an event where people took a bunch of photos and videos and wanted to upload them to Google Drive. My T-Mobile line barley had LTE, those with Verizon had LTE only, I had a moderate 5G+ signal on FirstNet testing at roughly 250 Mbps down/50 Mbps up. A half a dozen people connected via the mobile hotspot on my phone to upload and share said photos and videos. Score one for c-band!

I have friends and family who live near Highmark Stadium and our local Six Flags. During Bills home games, concerts and other large scale events, cell phones have been barely usable to completely useless in the past. And not just for those attending the event, but for those in the surrounding area. The purpose of mmWave and mid-band, including C-band, is to offload traffic and have an enormous amount of capacity to provide a better, usable and more consistent experience for all. Since 5G became a thing and more people have got 5G phones, service has become more usable those that I know who live in these areas. Verizon is the #1 provider in the area, by far more people use Verizon than the other two.

Then there's the thing I alluded to above. Without mid-band, including c-band, cellular home internet offerings would not be where they are today, not by a longshot.

At work, I am responsible for two offsite locations that are relatively rural. These sites do not have wifi and Ethernet jacks are limited. The only way I am able to work is via mobile hotspot and then VPN in to work. Both of these areas have gained c-band coverage from Verizon in the past year. It is a night and day difference when at these sites from February 2024 versus February 2025. It would literally take me 10-15 minutes to access our switch port security system, to enter a MAC address and then launch Azure Remote Desktop using an admin account to access the DHCP server to set an IP reservations while on 1900 MHz LTE on Verizon. With n77 it was a two or three minute process last week.

5G, be it low, mid or high band all have their purpose and while I can't speak for mmWave, the first two have provided a huge impact for me. Here's hoping T-Mobile and AT&T can score some more c-band this time around.

 

[k4otl]

'If I cannot have reform without injustice, I will not have reform.' - Edmund Burke

 

[Bassplayer 1964]

I agree, but I do love the uncompressed picture when watching Football.

But streaming is the future, advertisers love the forced commercials, plus the better metrics, of who is actually watching what, so they know where to advertise.

If streaming is the future I hope everybody else's experience with it is better than mine. I have only two streaming subs and both of em together couldn't make a decent picture. Watching anything on Frndly is a guaranteed red face event. I have to alter the color setting so much to get it close to normal when I get a decent sat channel it's almost in black and white. No too impressed although it's looking more like that will be my only option here.The government would auction off air if they thought they could make any money on it

 

[comfortably_numb]

If streaming is the future I hope everybody else's experience with it is better than mine. I have only two streaming subs and both of em together couldn't make a decent picture. Watching anything on Frndly is a guaranteed red face event. I have to alter the color setting so much to get it close to normal when I get a decent sat channel it's almost in black and white. No too impressed although it's looking more like that will be my only option here.The government would auction off air if they thought they could make any money on it

Do you have a slow internet connection?

I have no issues streaming and getting a nice picture on my 250/50 ATT internet plan. That being said, it's still not as good as a raw, high bitrate Ku or C-band satellite feed.

 

[TNGuy84]

Do you have a slow internet connection?

I have no issues streaming and getting a nice picture on my 250/50 ATT internet plan. That being said, it's still not as good as a raw, high bitrate Ku or C-band satellite feed.

How many channels are up there now like that with all of the compression going on?

 

[comfortably_numb]

How many channels are up there now like that with all of the compression going on?

On satellite? Plenty of backhaul and wild feeds. Mostly sports. Weekends are always busy. There's no compression on these feeds that I'm aware of. They have newer modulation schemes but that isn't really compression.

 

[k4otl]

On satellite? Plenty of backhaul and wild feeds. Mostly sports. Weekends are always busy. There's no compression on these feeds that I'm aware of. They have newer modulation schemes but that isn't really compression.

There's no such thing as uncompressed digital video being transmitted over RF. The raw bitrate would be in the Gbps range, when one says "no compression on video", we're meaning that there's very few compression artifacts due to the high bitrates involved for the video codecs being used. Even ATSC 1.0 OTA using MPEG2 can look "uncompressed" if the whole signal is devoted to 1 video channel. What we see on the sat feeds is very good HD video due to the high bitrates using MPEG4 or HVEC. Once the networks' get a hold of the signal, its compressed down to fit in the OTA payload. You can use HEVC on DVB-S and get really good HD video. Just like the experiments doing 4K on ATSC 1.0 with HEVC (UltraHD over ATSC 1.0) Sorry if I'm being pedantic, it's the engineer in me lol (I'm not a broadcast engineer but still a nerd).

 

[comfortably_numb]

we're meaning that there's very few compression artifacts due to the high bitrates involved for the video codecs being used

Thank you! Yes, this is what I was trying to convey, which I did most poorly