Will 600MHz affect the future of 4K over-the-air broadcast?

[red_dog007]

Wasn't BRS/EBS basically given away as well back in the day?

[bigsnake49]

Paying what?  Once a license is awarded, other than regulatory and renewal fees, that's it.  Sprint doesn't spend billions of dollars every year on spectrum licenses they hold.  What they paid for it, versus current valuation, is irrelevant.

 

If I gave you a baseball card 10 years ago for free, then today it turned out to be worth millions, would you owe me money?

 

Not to mention that TV broadcasters have piles of regulations on them that do not apply to wireless companies, such as E/I programming, public files, public access to the studio, local programming, indecency rules, etc.  Those things aren't free.

 

- Trip

 

It's been like 40-50 years of free access to spectrum. Sprint and everybody who participated in spectrum auctions had to lay real money for those licenses.

The wireless business is also subject to a lot of regulation plus USF fees plus coverage targets, plus...

[dnwk]

public access to the studio

 

Really? I might want to try

[Trip]

Really? I might want to try

 

The rule is that if you are coming to the studio to view the public file during normal business hours, you must be allowed entry to be able to do so.  You cannot be required to make an appointment.  A non-commercial station who was concerned about their security received a fine over the issue.

 

http://current.org/2011/02/fcc-fines-kcet-10000-alleging-public-file-access-violations/

 

- Trip

[dnwk]

The rule is that if you are coming to the studio to view the public file during normal business hours, you must be allowed entry to be able to do so.  You cannot be required to make an appointment.  A non-commercial station who was concerned about their security received a fine over the issue.

 

http://current.org/2011/02/fcc-fines-kcet-10000-alleging-public-file-access-violations/

 

- Trip

 

Ok. That sounds about right. I thought it was about use their studio equipment.

[Flompholph]

It's been like 40-50 years of free access to spectrum. Sprint and everybody who participated in spectrum auctions had to lay real money for those licenses.

The wireless business is also subject to a lot of regulation plus USF fees plus coverage targets, plus...

Are you willing to pay for OTA TV? How many people would be pissed that they have to pay for TV that they have been getting for free?

[bigsnake49]

Are you willing to pay for OTA TV? How many people would be pissed that they have to pay for TV that they have been getting for free?

 

Yeah, tough! I have to play for my water, my electricity, my cellphone and yes even cable. 

[Trip]

Yeah, tough! I have to play for my water, my electricity, my cellphone and yes even cable. 

 

You mean "I choose to pay for cable."  Just to be 100% accurate.

 

- Trip

[Dkoellerwx]

Yeah, tough! I have to play for my water, my electricity, my cellphone and yes even cable. 

 

OTA TV is provided free to everyone in range of the signal. You choose to pay for cable. There is a difference.

[red_dog007]

Yeah, tough! I have to play for my water, my electricity, my cellphone and yes even cable. 

I bet you use and broadcast unlicensed spectrum every day without paying for it.  Would you like too?  Im sure the FCC takes donations.  I doubt you'd like to have to purchase a license just to operate a wireless router.  

 

You do realize how much unlicensed and free to use spectrum there is out there? 

[bigsnake49]

You mean "I choose to pay for cable."  Just to be 100% accurate.

 

- Trip

 

Nope, no OTA inside my high-rise condo.

[bigsnake49]

OTA TV is provided free to everyone in range of the signal. You choose to pay for cable. There is a difference.

The spectrum was provided free because they wanted the nascent industry to take off. It has taken off, it's time to end the free ride. there are unlicensed areas of the spectrum (WiFi, ISM bands, etc.).

[red_dog007]

The spectrum was provided free because they wanted the nascent industry to take off. It has taken off, it's time to end the free ride. there are unlicensed areas of the spectrum (WiFi, ISM bands, etc.).

And that spectrum (say WiFi frequencies) was provided to the people for free to "take off" which it has. You want to start paying for it now that the free spectrum has fulfilled its purpose?

[bigsnake49]

And that spectrum (say WiFi frequencies) was provided to the people for free to "take off" which it has. You want to start paying for it now that the free spectrum has fulfilled its purpose?

 

That spectrum is shared. It's yours and mine and our neighbors and your work place's and Comcast's and, and, and...It's not given to one company to mooch off of. Big difference!

[Trip]

They don't mooch.  They have specific licensing requirements including the various things I mentioned above, requirements wireless does not have and which do not even come close to that which the TV broadcasters are under.

 

- Trip

[WiWavelength]

The spectrum was provided free because they wanted the nascent industry to take off. It has taken off, it's time to end the free ride.

 

And that would kill off free OTA TV as we know it.  If broadcasters had to pay for their 6 MHz slices of VHF/UHF spectrum, many would seek to encrypt their digital transmissions and require compensation in order to watch.  FCC rules and regulations regarding E/I programming, indecency, equal time, etc., would have to be thrown out the window.

 

No, your idea stinks.  It would not be in the public interest.

 

AJ

[bigsnake49]

And that would kill off free OTA TV as we know it.  If broadcasters had to pay for their 6 MHz slices of VHF/UHF spectrum, many would seek to encrypt their digital transmissions and require compensation in order to watch.  FCC rules and regulations regarding E/I programming, indecency, equal time, etc., would have to be thrown out the window.

 

No, your idea stinks.  It would not be in the public interest.

 

AJ

 

It depends on whose public interest we're talking about. Only 19.3% of American households get their TV OTA. If these TV stations cannot make money without subsidy, they should relinquish their spectrum. Maybe keep CSPAN and couple of other public interest channels and that's about it. 

Edited February 4, 2016 by bigsnake49

[greenbastard]

It depends on whose public interest we're talking about. Only 19.3% of American households get their TV OTA. If these TV stations cannot make money without subsidy, they should relinquish their spectrum. Maybe keep CSPAN and couple of other public interest channels and that's about it.

CSPAN doesn't use OTA.

[Trip]

CSPAN doesn't use OTA.

 

Correct.  Their slogan is "cable's gift to America."

 

- Trip

[bigsnake49]

Actually, a study by the CEA, pegged the percentage at 9%. So Let's say 13-14% as the average.

[bigsnake49]

Correct.  Their slogan is "cable's gift to America."

 

- Trip

So, create a CSPAN like channel.

[greenbastard]

So, create a CSPAN like channel.

Whose gonna pay for the licenses? Covering every city and community from coast to coast would require millions of dollars of licenses.

[jroepcke51]

And that would kill off free OTA TV as we know it. If broadcasters had to pay for their 6 MHz slices of VHF/UHF spectrum, many would seek to encrypt their digital transmissions and require compensation in order to watch. FCC rules and regulations regarding E/I programming, indecency, equal time, etc., would have to be thrown out the window.

 

No, your idea stinks. It would not be in the public interest.

 

AJ

I am one of those cord cutters and use Slingtv with a rabbit ears. If I had to pay for local channels, that would be a deal breaker and would cut that as well. Yes the idea stinks.

 

I didn't cut the cord for any purpose other than I didn't want to spend so much on tv.

[greenbastard]

I am one of those cord cutters and use Slingtv with a rabbit ears. If I had to pay for local channels, that would be a deal breaker and would cut that as well. Yes the idea stinks.

 

I didn't cut the cord for any purpose other than I didn't want to spend so much on tv.

I haven't cut the cord, but I'm about to now that football season is over, I don't think I've watched Commercial TV in a while. All my viewing is done online instead of my cable box.

 

Come to think of it, I don't think I've used the FM/AM radio on my vehicle in years. It's all Bluetooth and iPod! Am I the only one or do people still listen to terrestrial/satellite radio?

[Dkoellerwx]

I haven't cut the cord, but I'm about to now that football season is over, I don't think I've watched Commercial TV in a while. All my viewing is done online instead of my cable box.

 

Come to think of it, I don't think I've used the FM/AM radio on my vehicle in years. It's all Bluetooth and iPod! Am I the only one or do people still listen to terrestrial/satellite radio?

 

I rarely connect the bluetooth in my car. Leaving it on on my phone all day kills the battery, and I just don't feel like switching it on and off every time I get in the car. Inevitably I'll forget to turn it off and have a dead battery when I really need it. So, it's FM radio for me unless I'm on a longer trip. I watch a lot of TV shows, not just on my station. Mostly via DVR since I work in the evenings. I suppose I could see many of them on Hulu or other sources, but again, it's not worth the hassle for me. Some of the shows on MTV, FX, USA or The CW are only viewable in a timely fashion if you have a current cable subscription.