We'll come right out and say it, we like Julius Genachowski. Whether you agree with
the dude's policies or not, you can't deny he's pursuing them
with gusto. Having already noted the
insufficient carrying capacity of current mobile broadband airways to deal with incoming 4G connections, the FCC chairman is now reported to be moving ahead with plans to provide
greater spectrum allocation for those purposes. Currently in the draft stage, the latest Commission proposals include a plan to reclaim airwaves from digital broadcasters (and pay them appropriately for it), which are to then be sold off to the highest bidder from among the wireless service providers. Executing the most extreme version of this plan could generate around $62 billion in auction revenues, though it would require transitioning digital TV viewers over to cable or subscription services and is therefore unlikely. Jules and his crew are still "looking at everything" and ruling out nothing, but we can probably expect to see a moderate shift of TV spectrum rights over to wireless carriers in the final plans when they're revealed in February.
[Via
Phone Scoop]
posted Oct 28th 2009 7:12AM
I'm not the second...
Still means you failed first.
I would be for that if there is some regulation on the plans those carriers must provide with the airwaves...
Specifically I am speaking to net neutrality and maximum charges per mb.
Keep on dreaming
Verizon has net neutrality mandated on the spectrum being used for their 4G network, so it's probably safe to assume that new spectrum will have the same rules. Price caps are unlikely though. If there ends up being collusion, it will be the FTC's job to investigate, not the FCC's.
Why sell the spectrum? Trade it for agreeing to clear,concise operating and pricing rules that benefit the consumer.
I better not be forced to pay for free tv, this is madness!
I think after all that work it's a bit too soon to kill off DTV...
Forcing over-the-air customers into cable/subscription services will not happen anytime soon. After the digital transition snafu, you really think they'll try a more extreme version of that? Plus, I like my free OTA HD. :-)
I wouldn't be so sure.
Comcast alone has spent $millions on campaign contributions and lobbying activities. Who do you think Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Frank, and others will listen to. Mr. "I want free TV" or Mr. Moneybags?
The govt would like nothing more than to force people onto cable or sat because then they can tax you again in the bill.
@mschaffer
I think the name you were trying to think of there was McCain.
I like OTA HDTV as well. There is no way I would pay the cable/satellite companies a dime.
Now, if they offered free Internet vs free TV, that would be a tough choice. I can download the TV shows I currently watch... And the FCC wouldn't be able to regulate/censor TV and movies on-line. Then again, I don't have to worry about getting the OTA shows I watch tracked.
@ Mike
Don't fool yourself into thinking the she zombie (her face looks stitched on) liberal that is Pelosi flying on her multimillion dollar private jet (yay environment?) is any less likely to be in the pocket of business then a republican.
They are pretty much all the same, their party just represents some kind of cue card for the lies they will feed you to get into office so they can then sell favors to the people who got them there in the first place.
Newsflash, you don't get elected to the senate with a pocket full of hopes and dreams buddy, you do it with lots and lots of campaign money... 2 guesses where that comes from.
Remember, republicrats, different things come out of their mouths, but in the end you still get it in the ass.
Here's hoping they use some vaseline and attach some provisions about "fair and reasonable" data charges... instead of letting them charge you like 5 bucks a meg.
This is crazy to think that they are so desperate that they Are actually thinking of killing DTV. However, this really shows how much problems we're going to have in a few years when the market hits 50%-65% smartphone users and theirs no spectrum available. I guess we will have to wait and see what happens. It sucks for the smaller guys like tmobile/sprint ect because AT&T /Verizon would buy all the good spectrum and leave the scraps to the other guys.
Do you think at some point we will move on from TV?
Heh, looking at the U.S. RF Allocation chart, it seems like TV broadcasting has a lot of bandwidth under its belt, so it might _seem_ like the right idea to tap into some of it for the 4G push. I think they (FCC) should start off small with their re-allocation effort so that it doesn't strain DTV carriers, for one. I also think they should do this so that it drives up the costs on 4G carriers because I think TV at home shouldn't be hindered just because some teeny bopper with the latest mobile gadget wants to watch youtube clips of Dancing with the Stars at uber fast speeds. I can understand the need _right now_ for the business minded folks out there that need to upload/download business-related files like powerpoints and excel sheets and whatever else. But really, how much speed do they need while on the go? I just hope they don't royally rape the DTV market.
Robin Hood has always been misunderstood. He wasn't robbing from the rich and giving to the poor, he was robbing from a despotic government and returning it to the taxpayer.
Whatever. Being second to hit a bullseye shouldn't make you the winner either.
Robin Hood hit the target second because he fired second. Contrary to popular belief, arrows to night fly fast enough to break the space-time continuum. An arrow fired after the first arrow will hit the target after the first arrow.
Er.. not, rather than night. Derr.. too early.
You guys are all taking the extreme that they would kill ALL digital tv to do this.
There is plenty of grey area where they just take back some of that spectrum for use.
That grey area is much more doable in a practical sense of making it happen.
I love the whole FCC airwave auction process....FCC wants to allocate some extra space so it will buy it from the current owners. The taxpayers will flip the bill for that. Then when ATT/Verizon/Sprint/Tmob want said space, they will bid billions for it and we again (now the subscribers) get to pay for it. Why can't all the 4G providers transmit in one large block and differentiate their transmissions based on the packets themselves?
Because then all it takes is a software hack or glitch on either hand to start taking on other's transmissions; because then we'd have a bunch of data flying around in the same block, causing interference...
Bad idea.
The taxpayers only stand to profit since the FCC will end up selling the reclaimed spectrum for more than what it paid to broadcasters. It may not be the best solution for consumers (there is a case for unregulated radio spectrum), but using the spectrum for the exchange of data between many individuals rather than broadcast the broadcast of information from only a few is certainly better for society.
The point is DTV was just put in June and they are already noise about getting rid of it and going to a European style of TV, BBC.
That is just pointless and dumb if you ask me. Why not just do that to begin with and screw DTV. IT would have saved Millions of dollars.
And BigGov will regulate it all, making it work better as government regulation always does, right? Wake up, sheeple.
Paying the Digital Broadcasters for something that the government leases to them in the first place doesn't make any sense.
I love Commander Keen!
I think that after one digital TV transition, a second one is too much. I'd agree to it if we were talking about this ten years from now or twenty years from now, but all you need to do to get people to simply HATE you is put them through to much they don't want to do.
I'm all for more broadband spectrum, but why the TV spectrum? Why not some level up above 5 gigahertz?
For the same reason broadcast TV does not use that spectrum. Higher frequencies tend to be blocked more by solid objects.
We all need to remember that free broadcast spectrum was given to broadcasters in exchange for a promise of each station for FREE content to the public with requirements to provide news, children's programming, entertainment programming, educational programming & public affairs programming. The public was never to be charged for the availability of broadcast signals because the public owned the airwaves.
The nation is also on the brink of adding many new stations via mobile TV (ATSC m/h). IPTV has thousands of stations available to all broadband computers & broadband ready TV's. There are cable boxes being engineered with both capabilities built in.
With all the new broadcast stations created since CBS-NBC-ABC-NET(PBS) were the only options in most cities, the FCC has for forty years abdicated its broadcast regulatory responsibilities. In my opinion, as long as broadcast licenses are granted without a fee, broadcasters have a responsibility to serve the public.
If the nation needs to take broadcast spectrum for 4g services (which the FCC will sell for a billion dollars plus), we need to start first with denying license renewal to broadcast stations not living up to their broadcast licenses (such as home shopping stations & stations providing no news or public affairs programming or children's programming). We can then easily reallocate channels - thanks to HD's virtual channelization. Home shopping & specialty focused channels belong on cable anyway. These stations are not focused on national or local public service.
John Hite, retired, Oklahoma City