RE: [HDTV-in-SFbay] Re: Dark?
The problem with white spaces use is that it is very likely going to interfere with on-air broadcaster transmissions. The reason there are empty channels even in San Francisco is that history has proven that when these would be used by other broadcasters they would cause interference. The FCC has a historic knowledge of this and disallows applications that might interfere with existing services. White space use is extremely dangerous if the transmitter is in your neighborhood as for basically no reason you will be impacted and those not near you will not be. White space use is proposed to be not under the control of the FCC and therefore helter skelter. If I had a choice I'd rather lose some spectrum than allow white space use of the spectrum as it would mean less broadcasters on-air but at least they wouldn't be interfered with without recourse. Over-all the public will lose over the air broadcaster entertainment options with the reduced spectrum but the ones they have wouldn't be interfered with.
This whole problem is complicated and there are definite consequences messing with large markets where most available channels are on-air. In small markets where not all available channels are being used a non-broadcast service use of an available channel might be OK as long as they are governed by the FCC and not allowed to interfere.
--- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, Don Hackler <donh@...> wrote:
> If there was unused spectrum, we wouldn't be having this discussion...
Perhaps I misunderstood arstechnica:
"Now it appears that the government, stung by the sad state of broadband penetration in the US, might allow technologies such as WiMax unlicensed use of so-called "white spaces" in the spectrum. These white spaces are basically dead air, parts of the spectrum on which no station currently transmits, and they exist even in heavily congested urban areas (San Franciso, for instance, has six channels vacant, and it's one of the most congested places). "
Perhaps this information is outdated? I don't know.
"Another concern is that the plan does not provide any caps or controls on the cost of broadband access. Westfall stresses "For the FCC plan to be effective, broadband access costs must be attainable to the majority."
The concern seems to be about broadband, not TV.
""The writing is pretty clear on the wall," said Arbogast. "There's such a tremendous appetite for wireless broadband right now, and it's less clear that there's an appetite for traditional broadcasters."
Seizing the broadcasters' spectrum won't disrupt existing TV services, the FCC said, and only 10 percent of the U.S. population watches free TV using an antenna. The agency expects to attract "sufficient broadcaster participation," said Jen Howard, a spokeswoman at the FCC."
"Throughout the section of the report dealing with the potential recapture of TV frequencies, the Commission suggests that the television frequencies are underutilized, and that television broadcasting is not the highest and best use for the channels. In the view of the Commission, this spectrum is not being used efficiently at the moment, as many television stations have the ability to transmit their over-the-air signals in less than the full 6 MHz of spectrum allotted to each television station. While High Definition programming and opportunities for multi-channel operations are possible on the current channel allotments, in the Commission's opinion, too few broadcasters are making full use of the spectrum. Moreover, as only about 15% of US households currently rely on over-the-air television as their sole means of television reception, other alternative means of viewing television are available, thus freeing the broadcast television spectrum for broadband use."
----- - - - -
I would readily welcome cheap "Basic" cable service rather than the $55/mo. current "standard," but that ain't gonna happen.
Neither, I fear, is cheap broadband.
It is difficult to have an informed opinion given the contradictory nature of the "information" being disseminated.
I hope this forum can provide real information, and clearly identify the emotional responses to it.
Well that can be taken the wrong way.....it is just that after a week+ regarding a topic that turns out to be a political issue verses any technical issue it is time to stop discussing it on a technical based users group. By the way I meant either pro or con call your congressman. I'm too old to make my life miserable either way but I am con the issue.
--- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Swank" <rswank@...> wrote:
>Now I know what they mean about you.
> So why don't those that care call a congressman and leave it off the users