Question About Broadcast Spectrum/Ideas of Usage

[Arysyn]

Thanks to those posting in the new T-Mobile thread for helping me with this idea, which carries some questions I have while I continue to learn more about wireless technology here...

 

As I'm understanding this, all television stations have channels that operate on spectrum, or is this only local channels that use airwaves which do?

 

I'm thinking if somehow all of the television stations stopped using airwaves for antennae use, rather depended on broadcasting over the internet, then they wouldn't need spectrum, is this correct? The reason I'm considering this, which I also understand that not only would this be about antennae broadcast, but also satellite broadcast which uses spectrum, and I'm trying to imagine the possibility of this changing, so that all television broadcasts would be internet based, with the result of not needing spectrum, except for the wireless internet providers using spectrum to get the data in/out.

 

However, clearing all the spectrum over airwaves from broadcasters and non-internet use of sending/receiving television signal, would free up this spectrum to give to wireless data providers, such as AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint, to use in broadcasting wirelessly. If this were so, the FCC ought to have much more spectrum to sell to these companies by requiring television broadcasts be based only by internet transmission.

 

I realize there already are providers doing this, though there still remains over the air broadcasting, which since no longer is such a necessity in the consumer marketplace, I'm left wondering why there isn't a stronger movement pushing for greater acceleration over to the internet for these broadcasts. Then again, I also want to make sure I'm understanding this spectrum issue in that broadcasters don't need spectrum anymore, if they stop sending over the air broadcasts, moving over completely to the internet.

[avb]

Over the air hd antennas are all that's required for these free channels. If you need an internet connection then it's no longer free. If you need an internet connection, you'll probably need a wired connection, and that means cable. If you expect cable companies to give you free channels instead of requiring a cable subscription that certainly won't happen.

[Vince]

Over the air hd antennas are all that's required for these free channels. If you need an internet connection then it's no longer free. If you need an internet connection, you'll probably need a wired connection, and that means cable. If you expect cable companies to give you free channels instead of requiring a cable subscription that certainly won't happen.

I get free basic cable with my Comcast Internet. Not intentionally, but rather as a side effect of having a live line into my home. Shh, don't tell anyone. [emoji6]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 6+

[Arysyn]

I get free basic cable with my Comcast Internet. Not intentionally, but rather as a side effect of having a live line into my home. Shh, don't tell anyone. [emoji6]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 6+

 

 

Oh wow does that bring up memories!

 

Several years ago, I had a few years of full cable service all for the cost of local service, after my mother called them to cancel all but local service. Apparently comcast never got around to removing the extra channels, but at least didn't charge for them after the attempted cancellation.

[thezombiehunter]

 

 

I'd highly recommend this post from dkoellerwx:

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/5628-aereo-what-do-you-think-of-it/&do=findComment&comment=293884

 

If you have time, I would recommend reading the whole thing. It may provide some perspective.

 

Secondly, how would you propose broadcast companies pay for internet broadcast?

 

And, would it be possible to consider that wireless companies should use their spectrum more efficiently rather than continually asking for more?

[Arysyn]

I'd highly recommend this post from dkoellerwx:

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/5628-aereo-what-do-you-think-of-it/&do=findComment&comment=293884

 

If you have time, I would recommend reading the whole thing. It may provide some perspective.

 

Secondly, how would you propose broadcast companies pay for internet broadcast?

 

And, would it be possible to consider that wireless companies should use their spectrum more efficiently rather than continually asking for more?

 

I've made a new thread regarding my wanting to get ideas from members here regarding congestion/wideband issues that I think will help me better understand the cost situations, so that I can give a better answer to how companies would pay for internet broadcast solutions compared with over the air spectrum broadcasting. Congestion seems to be a big issue with why companies are charging for per gb data and seemingly moving away from unlimited data, though I've also read that charging per gb for data usage isn't a real solution to the problem of congestion, but rather limiting bandwidth to users by giving them speed options.

 

I love to think about rate plan solutions to these problems, but I also really want to expand my thinking to more technical solutions as well. Efficient use of spectrum is one of them, which the data speed idea really seems like a smart solution to a major part of the problem, while being more fair to users in a queue, everyone wanting to be at least at a decent priority level. I've given consideration to something I read here a while back, regarding the idea of individual cells, rather than shared cells, from someone who is trying to get his technologies to be accepted and used. I'm going to look more into that once I have more time later in this upcoming week, and hopefully have a well written presentation in the technical thread I just made here.

[JossMan]

I get free basic cable with my Comcast Internet. Not intentionally, but rather as a side effect of having a live line into my home. Shh, don't tell anyone. [emoji6]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 6+

Eventually when Comcast does a tap audit they will install a special "trap" that will block those basic CATV signals from coming into your home.  

[Vince]

Eventually when Comcast does a tap audit they will install a special "trap" that will block those basic CATV signals from coming into your home.

Unless you grease the installation guy to not put the filter on. Chicago style.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 6+

[Trip]

Who needs a filter?  Once the cable company goes all digital and removes the analog channels, they are allowed to encrypt every channel on the system (including locals) so no filter is required.

 

- Trip

[Trip]

Arysyn, on 01 May 2015 - 6:37 PM, said:

I'm thinking if somehow all of the television stations stopped using airwaves for antennae use, rather depended on broadcasting over the internet, then they wouldn't need spectrum, is this correct? The reason I'm considering this, which I also understand that not only would this be about antennae broadcast, but also satellite broadcast which uses spectrum, and I'm trying to imagine the possibility of this changing, so that all television broadcasts would be internet based, with the result of not needing spectrum, except for the wireless internet providers using spectrum to get the data in/out.

 

To answer your first question, local TV stations broadcast on VHF or UHF channels covering a local area. This includes your local ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX/PBS/CW/Univision/Telemundo/etc. As you suggest, satellite also uses spectrum but at much higher frequencies. Dish/DirecTV use frequencies at 12 GHz or so, generally, though there are other bands as well, and that's above the desired range of wireless companies because it really doesn't penetrate buildings well. I will point out the military also uses a lot of satellite spectrum and so that spectrum will not be going away any time soon.

 

Quote

However, clearing all the spectrum over airwaves from broadcasters and non-internet use of sending/receiving television signal, would free up this spectrum to give to wireless data providers, such as AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint, to use in broadcasting wirelessly. If this were so, the FCC ought to have much more spectrum to sell to these companies by requiring television broadcasts be based only by internet transmission.

 

I realize there already are providers doing this, though there still remains over the air broadcasting, which since no longer is such a necessity in the consumer marketplace, I'm left wondering why there isn't a stronger movement pushing for greater acceleration over to the internet for these broadcasts. Then again, I also want to make sure I'm understanding this spectrum issue in that broadcasters don't need spectrum anymore, if they stop sending over the air broadcasts, moving over completely to the internet.

 

So, a few points.

 

First, this is already being done on a free market style basis; this auction is what I was hired for by the FCC. There's a thread somewhere on here about the 600 MHz auction, and you can read a short 1-paragraph summary of the FCC Incentive Auction here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Milgrom#FCC_Incentive_Auctions

 

Also more information here: https://www.fcc.gov/incentiveauctions

 

Second, in your scenario, who pays for the 30 million people who do not have cable TV to have cable TV or Internet service able to handle TV service? What about the millions more on satellite who go from 3 competitive choices in TV service to 1? What about in rural areas where fast Internet or even cell service of any kind may not be available, do those people just go back to the 1800s with no services at all? In an emergency where the local cable and local cell towers go out (think earthquakes, hurricanes, etc), where do people go without over-the-air TV to fall back on? Are you the politician who would go on TV and say, "yep, we're taking away the TV and emergency information from the poor, but not to worry, you can spend $80/mo or more you don't have on a phone instead!" And piss off the local TV stations that will make or break your campaign?

 

In my opinion, broadcast TV is the most efficient visual distribution system ever seen on Earth. It scales infinitely since it's not a one-to-one link, can be pulled out of the air for free with minimal equipment and effort, and due to there being at least some diversity of transmit locations and the relatively low expense involved in making a single facility per station redundant rather than hundreds or thousands of cell sites, it's extremely dependable in emergencies.

 

And don't forget, as people cut the cord with cable, over-the-air usage is going up. Do you think it's a good idea to kill off a growing industry, especially when it killing it mainly serves to benefit the cable monopoly that everyone hates?

 

I also didn't hear you address the million(s) of people who depend on satellite Internet.  Would you cut them off?  They deal with very, very low data caps, would they not be able to get TV over the internet after a few hours of usage each month?

 

Just things to think about. And welcome to the forum, by the way.

 

- Trip

[Arysyn]

Now that I know satellite spectrum is in a completely different range than most cell spectrums, the idea of removing them would be insane on all levels for multiple reasons, also as it wouldn't benefit cell companies at all.

 

I've been trying to think of ways in which spectrum can becoming more efficient/put to a better use, as someone asked me here earlier, one way which may include the government and all of the cell companies gathering around at a major meeting somewhere, taking a look at all the available spectrum, then coming up with an arrangement that would benefit all the companies, rather than the current use of spectrum auctions and all the talk of them being unfair.

 

FYI, I'm of a mindset that doesn't blend well with the current business climate of hardcore competition and a lot of my ideas tend to lean towards something of a utopia state, as I'm thinking for what is best for all,rather than what is more realistic in terms of how things are, though I certainly realize and understand these things, just that my ideas don't always, or possibly don't usually blend well with this.

 

I'd like to see something where spectrum is more evenly divided, then paid for by the companies to the FCC over time, so that companies can have what they need to give to their customers now, preventing congestion, and accelerating growth so everyone is working strong. With this said, I imagine deals could be reached where certain provisions be made for those who cannot afford more expensive wireless service in replacing television airwave broadcasts, though I'd want all of the crucial emergency airwaves left alone, along with having some sort of emergency stations provided for people using that method, even such channels devoted to news, just not your entertainment channels that can be provided via internet.

 

Of course, there needs to be better access to the internet for people with financial needs, as it is an issue that isn't given enough attention to, I think. I hate it when I read story headlines online while I'm searching through wireless information, hearing about how AT&T or Verizon, etc. is cutting off certain crucial inexpensive services for people, trying to force them into services several times more expensive than their current service. This is very wrong and not much is being done about it in the current business system.

 

Anyways, again thank you for the information, especially about the satellite and for the welcome! I'm definitely against getting rid of the satellite spectrum for service, and seeing that there really needs to be some thoughtful, well-intentioned planning before any such broadcast airwave spectrum idea as I suggested being done.