Goodbye to OTA

[navychop]

Our Congress Critters have quietly done away with channels 31-51. It's all over but the signing. Take a few years. Here's the white paper.

This will be digested quickly, and I can see the beast back at the door shortly for more. I consider this to be the unquestionable beginning of the end for OTA. Not a good time to invest in an OTA antenna.

 

[Teehar]

They will try to auction every last bit they can.Going to be a lot of channel over loading to.And those lo vhf frequencies aren't much good for digital ota channels.With all the money they spent for the converter boxes though I don't think ota will be eliminated.

 

[navychop]

There turned out to be much less public objection to the digital conversion than expected. When there is little objection or even notice of this little land grab, they'll grab more and more. And I can't help but think local stations will actually be happier about it. They'll be allowed to accept payment for "their" spectrum, shut down those transmitters and concurrent electric bills and staff, sell off their antennas, save big maintenance and repair bucks, and go to all cable/satellite/IPTV. They really seem to view the OTA broadcasting as a nuisance, anyway.

 

[Bob2011]

This whole thing makes me sick! If I read this right they will compress certain markets where possible. That means if you watch weak out of market signals you may now be swamped out by local broadband because your area was sold off. Also the LPTV stations without $$$$$ to grease palms will be going away in congested markets.

 

[mikew]

wow. So, the spectrum will be sold to AT&T and Verizon. Majority of the country uses these two providers. We are basically funneling our tax savings back through our wireless providers to the government. Once it's all paid for, AT&T and Verizon will reap the profits/benefits from selling off the spectrum. Genious politicians we have. Up next, National Parks. Who needs 'em. We can sell them to Kaufman/Broad and they can build affordable housing in Yosemite.

 

[radio]

I'm just now reading the NY times link, and assembling this in my mind. It's multi-sided. As a broadcaster (radio, not TV) I would very much resent my bandwidth being sold, and/or being forced to move. Even though digital TV sets can re-map, chances are that NOT all solid state equipment used to bring that signal to our homes (broadcasters equipment) is frequency agile. Unless the government pays broadcasters for reasonable expenses in moving frequencies and adjusting or replacing equipment to remain "on air", a big problem has been created. (Referencing the article saying it could move broadcasters for bigger "chunks" of available bandwidth )

Quote: "roughly $1.75 billion will be available for the F.C.C. to compensate television stations that volunteer to give up their spot on the spectrum. The F.C.C., with some restrictions, can also move some stations around on the broadcast spectrum, allowing it to put together packages of contiguous bands of spectrum" (Unquote)

This kind of action sets horrible precedents, or supports the continuation of them. We're talking about a government and FCC that together have partnered to order all broadcasters an ultimatum: that ALL OF US spend our own money to update the Emergency Alert System at THOUSANDS of dollars per broadcaster by June, yet they can't decide on standardizing the new CAP protocols to make it all happen. (yet, they bought converter boxes for people on welfare because apparently is a "right" to watch TV in the United States....grrrrr)

If they're not paying us and all broadcasters for our out of pocket expenses to comply with the new EAS systems, chances are they'll leave many of the smaller market TV broadcasters in any "digital bandwidth move and auction" hurting financially or dying after yet another unfunded government mandate.

As a viewer, however, I can see an advantage in making some channels of local markets more receivable by being moved into blocks of frequencies that carry distance better than they do now. Granted, neighboring markets can't share the exact same frequencies, but..there are some wonderful channels mapped to "show" a lower former channel location which are now difficult to receive given their higher actual frequencies! Wouldn't it be nice if this MUST happen to see (more) careful thought go in to the best available coverage by frequency per area per TV broadcaster?

HOWEVER....I don't want this done on the financial backs of the broadcasters who either bear the brunt of yet another unfunded mandate, or just can't afford to operate anyore, and turn in their licenses. Seems the public loses no matter what....less broadcasters in the long run and less available bandwidth "(public airwaves)" while lawmakers take REAL money from "virtual" space.

Looks like something to follow VERY closely and to understand fully, which at this point, I may not....but...I'll be watching!!!!

Since I'm new to this topic, my facts may not be straight, but...if what "appears" to be true is, my opinion stands.

 

[ghz24]

lies and more lies

I've seen all these lies before .....||"Public safety departments pressed to include in this bill a dedicated nationwide network, since fire and police departments in New York found that their radio systems couldn’t talk to each other during the attacks on the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. The 9/11 Commission endorsed such a project in 2004, and emergency units continued to have the same problems after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the BP oil spill in 2010." ||...... I call BS !! .................................... With the state of radio tech (unjam-able frequency hopping spread spectrum , self healing mesh networks ect.) If public safety workers have troubles talking to each other it's not for lack of frequencies but due to bureaucracy and pssst poor planing. Even supposing they need more bandwidth they should have allocated VHF low channels like 2, and/or 5 to local gov/pub. safety during the initial frequency grabs. Those frequencies are not as valuable to cellphone carriers (to large of an antenna) but CB is twice as large as VHF low and there are 40 channels in less than 2 MHz, one tv channel is 6 MHz. It's about the money not your safety.

 

[ghz24]

I think the only careful thought that they will put into this is how much more $ can they get for selling off frequencies that were used by the public for free services, to subscription services. regarding ||(yet, they bought converter boxes for people on welfare because apparently is a "right" to watch TV in the United States....grrrrr) Just FYI the government voucher for digital TV converter boxes. A. Up to $40 didn't get anyone a free box they all cost more than $40 or were never available. B. Welfare had nothing what so ever to do with the program Bill Gates and Steve Jobs both qualified for the program. C. The government profited from the sale of a public resource as in we the people, we own the RF spectrum and allow the government to regulate it for the greatest good of the people. They passed legislation that cut a large portion of that pubic from viewing local TV even on reasonably new equipment Offering to help the poor was the only way the politicians ect. could force this digital transition on us without a public outrage and uprising. They made our equipment obsolete so they could sell off something that belongs to us. I think the boxes should have been provided free and post paid to our door three to a household ! And talk about hardship on the broadcasters what about loosing half or more of your audience over night!

 

[ghz24]

And while I'm at it can anyone explain to me how your home computer is OK with cable/DSL running at ~ 5-10 Mbps but your phone needs 4G which is 100 Mbps. So it can get texts 17 seconds faster? I thought the whole idea of text msg. was to leave a message for someone who can't presently answer their phone, but it's become a way to talk to nobody and everybody by typing with your thumbs. Seems people don't even want to talk to each other let alone "video chat". So am I missing something? If this is about broadband to the country (people using their smart phone to supply home rural internet) then they should split off part of the frequencies we've already given them into a wisp for stationary home service and use directional outdoor and sector antennas with polarization diversity to make the most of those frequencies before we give up any more. In Italy scientists have found a technique to transmit and demux (?) two separate "channels " occupying the same frequency and say they can use a large number of these separate "channels " all on the same frequency . The "channels" would all have different "orbital angular momentum" ............ iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/14/3/033001/article