Comments on: Everything You Need to Know About the Fight for TV Spectrum

By: Chris Regan

Chris Regan — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 21:16:56 +0000

Some good data regarding real spectrum availability, telecom use:

http://www.dailywireless.org/2011/04/03/att-merger-wheres-the-spectrum/

Chris Regan
RFvenue

By: chris_at_shure

chris_at_shure — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 21:13:24 +0000

Also, when people refer to a “shortage of spectrum”, what they may mean is a “shortage of capacity”. That could be addressed by increasing the efficiency of the network. One writer opined that 70-90% of AT&T’s network capacity is not being used.
http://www.fastnetnews.com/a-wireless-cloud/61-w/4193-70-90-of-atat-spectrum-capacity-unused

By: chris_at_shure

chris_at_shure — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 21:03:38 +0000

I think this comment might be referring to the spectrum that the major telecom companies already own but are not using. A recent article on DailyWireless stated that the carriers have 345 MHz in the Top 100 markets that is not being used. Perhaps the President could ask the carriers — in the spirit of commitment to restoring America’s leadership in broadband availability — to utilize that spectrum to help solve the “spectrum crisis”?

http://www.dailywireless.org/2011/04/03/att-merger-wheres-the-spectrum/

By: Rich

Rich — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 20:49:31 +0000

Since people in urban and suburban areas mostly receive TV via cable, their programs don’t need to be sent through the air at all; therefore the airwave spectrum currently used for that purpose could be reassigned to mobile. In rural areas, the TV spectrum could be allowed to remain as it is, since there aren’t large numbers of mobile devices in rural areas.

By: Robert Rini

Robert Rini — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 20:16:29 +0000

I don’t buy the line that broadcasters dont use their spectrum. Many have launched HD and multicast channels. Most have plans to deploy mobile video. So we Americans should take spectrum from the broadcasters who offer free over the air video and sell it to the BIG Wireless Companies so those BIG companies can offer wireless video for a fee? And don’t tell me broadcasters got their spectrum for free when TV stations are auctioned today and many were acquired in the same secondary markets that BIG wireless used to acquire their spectrum. I am all in for repacking spectrum to free up more for wireless services but maybe we should make that spectrum available on a license exempt basis so small wireless businesses have a shot and don’t have to compete at auction with BIG wireless companies.

By: Stacey Higginbotham

Stacey Higginbotham — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 19:23:36 +0000

Fair enough, number of folks who watch broadcast would be good to know, although it’s hard to tally that fairly. Do we do only those relying on OTA broadcast or include those who get it via a pay TV provider? Thoughts?

As for unused spectrum are you talking about the 6MHz per channel allotted to broadcasters or the whole gamut of usable spectrum? But then we’d also have to consider if the spectrum is not just usable but economically and technologically viable for mobile broadband. It’s complex but if you want to help decide what counts, I’m happy to try to find the facts.

By: chris_at_shure

chris_at_shure — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 17:17:35 +0000

The carriers want access to the TV band spectrum primarily to satisfy growing demand for online video content, which is often produced using wireless microphones that operate in that same spectrum. It’s ironic that giving some of the TV band to carriers would effectively reduce the available spectrum for wireless microphone use, which will inhibit the production of the very video content that the carriers hope customers will pay to stream/download.

News, sports, entertainment, and business all use wireless microphones in activities that employ people: concerts, sports events, theater productions, sales meetings, etc. I have yet to hear a cellular carrier say that having more spectrum will allow them to hire more people, although it will allow them to BILL more people.

@KIneticartist: The American people own the spectrum in the same way that we own the waterways and airspace. The government is responsible for administering those resources for the common good. To facilitate the use of the 700 MHz band, licenses were auctioned openly; AT&T and Verizon were just two of the many winners.

By: Kinetic Artist

Kinetic Artist — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 03:05:33 +0000

I was under the impression that the airwaves belonged to us the American people at least here in the US how is the Blue ATT Crips and the RED Verizon Bloods get to divy it up? and what did congress spend their 19.59 Billion on when they sold off the 700mhz spectrum?

By: Kinetic Artist

Kinetic Artist — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 03:05:33 +0000

By: Scott Jensen

Scott Jensen — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 23:30:09 +0000

If what cellphones and digital TV are transmitting is machine code (1s and 0s) what about both industries coming up with a more compact code by using one that has more than two letters. Think how long all words would be if only two letters could be used to spell anything. And if more than two can be used, it shouldn’t be limited by our alphabet but by the technology to differentiate what is being sent. In other words, if the differences could be 5,000,000, then that is what should be used. If this were done, then the constant challenge would be coming up with larger and larger “alphabets.”

And then cellphone and digital TV could still use machine code by simply converting the more bigger alphabet code into machine code.