Incentive Auction Discussion
- Thread starter Trip
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 560
- Views 59K
- Status
I give up. I have no idea what you're asking or what you're talking about. If you weren't so well-spoken I'd swear you were just trolling.
Why don't you go to Google, search "FCC 73.525", open the first link to the rule that appears, read the title of the rule, at the very least, and then realize just how much that question doesn't make any sense?
- Trip
Why don't you go to Google, search "FCC 73.525", open the first link to the rule that appears, read the title of the rule, at the very least, and then realize just how much that question doesn't make any sense?
- Trip
You hoodwinked me by talking about an FCC rule number that looked an awful lot like a frequency in the 4MHz gap between RF 4 and RF 5.
So it's my fault? Even though on Monday I said:
In any case, I'm off this topic now. Let's get back on the discussion of the Incentive Auction.
- Trip
Round 5 of the Stage 2 reverse auction starts in minutes. The new goal is 114MHz leaving two more RF TV channels. For larger markets (and a glacially slow roll-out of ATSC 3.0 or better) this is a win.
Hopefully Stage 2 can come closer than 25% of the forward auction goal.
Hopefully Stage 2 can come closer than 25% of the forward auction goal.
Might have something to do with that being TV with Radio, just saying......FM Interference...
so its back up to 31......I read something that the cell phone companies cant afford all that space so that number will probably go higher....If it can get to 40.....then well We're good in the bunched up NBC infested part of Louisiana...
Yeah sometimes that is the best thing to do in certain situations......however thanks for updating all the markets with the new cw's, grits, escapes, laff's......A friend of mind from the Alexandria Area was so happy when I told her about the new subnetworks on WNTZ......Again Thanks for your expertise, help, and the rabbitears website.....
I don't think it needs to go to RF 40. I'm thinking that ideally it would go to RF 36 (since RF 37 is off the table).
I'm not sure what the exact frequency range is for radio astronomy, but it probably wouldn't benefit either TV or wireless to have to straddle RF 37.
http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/98154/fcc-unveils-postauction-repack-plans
http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0002/fcc-proposes-phased-repack/279539
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ne...ased-post-spectrum-auction-repack-plan/160032
And here's the actual document from the FCC:
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-16-1095A1.pdf
- Trip
http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0002/fcc-proposes-phased-repack/279539
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ne...ased-post-spectrum-auction-repack-plan/160032
And here's the actual document from the FCC:
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-16-1095A1.pdf
- Trip
With the industry throwing around numbers that are at best half as ambitious, this seems like a pipe dream that wasn't at all perturbed by the news on the street. I can't imagine that anyone who has been paying attention believes that they can get this done in just a little over three years.
It seems like they're offering up new and nebulous definitions interspersed with pages of footnotes. I can't help but think that they're ignoring their other directive to deploy a new and more efficient broadcasting scheme.
Of course there's no starting point for the process yet as the second stage of reverse auctions continues and has a good chance of being invalidated if they can't meet goals in the forward auctions as the first stage demonstrated. I wish them luck in not costing everyone millions more, but they don't seem to be living in the real world.
It seems like they're offering up new and nebulous definitions interspersed with pages of footnotes. I can't help but think that they're ignoring their other directive to deploy a new and more efficient broadcasting scheme.
Of course there's no starting point for the process yet as the second stage of reverse auctions continues and has a good chance of being invalidated if they can't meet goals in the forward auctions as the first stage demonstrated. I wish them luck in not costing everyone millions more, but they don't seem to be living in the real world.
Not a single mention of delays due to litigation.
You know that some stations that are relocated to VHF-Lo will object and file suit to delay this repack. Has the FCC figured out how these stations that are relocated to VHF-Lo will be able to cover their DMA's as well as they do now from their UHF assignment? There are 4 stations in the Baltimore DMA that are currently at 38 or higher and will probably have to be sent to VHF-Lo due to the congestion/overlap in this area. It is doubtful that I would be able to pick them up as I currently do (45 miles away) after transitioning to VHF-Lo.
You know that some stations that are relocated to VHF-Lo will object and file suit to delay this repack. Has the FCC figured out how these stations that are relocated to VHF-Lo will be able to cover their DMA's as well as they do now from their UHF assignment? There are 4 stations in the Baltimore DMA that are currently at 38 or higher and will probably have to be sent to VHF-Lo due to the congestion/overlap in this area. It is doubtful that I would be able to pick them up as I currently do (45 miles away) after transitioning to VHF-Lo.
There is no other directive. ATSC 3.0 has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the auction or the repack. There are lobbying groups who would like it to have something to do with it, but at this moment, it does not.
Not a single mention of delays due to litigation.
Only stations that voluntarily accept payment will be moved to low-VHF. That would be pretty stupid, to sign a legally binding contract agreeing to move to low-VHF, cash the check, then sue over it.
- Trip
Ok, I'll accept those that voluntarily move to VHF-Lo can't sue but what about the others that don't want to be relocated to VHF-Lo? In this area, there is literally no other place to move them. The move to VHF-Lo will substantially reduce their signal coverage area.
They won't be. That's how it works.
EDIT: Stations voluntarily participate in this auction. They bid to go off the air, move to low-VHF (if not already on low-VHF), move to high-VHF (if not already on VHF), or they sit it out. Any station which goes off the air or moves to a lower band will do so because it volunteered to receive money to do so.
- Trip
I could have sworn I read about a secondary objective. It is possible that it was, as you say, something being promoted by the broadcasters to try to shoe-horn in another modulation transition. I'm still waiting for strong evidence that they can really fit the largest markets into the post-repack spectrum using DTV.
However, if they're looking forward at all, the gubmint must recognize that if they are to advance broadcast television technology ever, they're going to need to do so before the repack is complete. It would be difficult to prove that random IP streaming at different rates, resolutions and sound formats is a more efficient use of spectrum than TV broadcast. Football stadium IP casts aren't a real-world model for home viewing.
I thought the issue with VHF low wasn't so much getting out but reigning in of signal to prevent intramarket interference. VHF uses much less power to cover the same area and it bends much tighter than UHF. A lot of the angst seems to come from those who stacked their antenna deck with UHF-favoring antennas.
Do I understand this correctly? Some UHF spectrum could be cleared in one area/market, but not in another? Channel 48 in Nowheresville, TX could move to rf channel 6 and that spectrum be occupied by cell carriers. But channel 48 in Hicksville, MS could stay on that rf?
No. The TV band will be reorganized, so a non-participating station on channel 48 might move to the spot freed by a station on channel 24 going off the air or moving to VHF. Auction revenue is paying for those moves.
- Trip
There are two different issues with low-VHF. One is the one you point out, which is antennas that don't receive it well, whether those are indoor antennas that can't get low-VHF well no matter what or outdoor antennas that are not designed for it. The other is noise from electrical devices, thunderstorms, etc. that causes interference to low-VHF.
- Trip
- Status
