Slashdot Mirror
Putting the TV Broadcast Spectrum to Better Use?
KoshClassic asks: "Recently, on the NPR show All Things Considered, an interview was broadcast with Thomas Hazlett, formerly the chief economist of the FCC. Although short on details, Mr. Hazlett raises the point that, with the high penetration rate of cable / satellite TV into American homes, broadcasting television over the air has (or soon will) become superfulous and that this portion of the radio spectrum could be better utilized for other purposes. What do Slashdot readers think of this idea and, for those who agree, what alternative uses of the broadcast spectrum would you like to see?"
But I still use rabbit ears, you insensitive clod!
Sell it all to ClearChannel.
You never know who will get one.
Give it back to the public for them to use as they see fit. I think The Goatse.cx Channel would get quite a following, at least it's not Trading Spaces.
Trolling is a art,
What's the point? If anything useful attempts to use this spectrum, the FCC will simply sign it over to the corporations.
- Twilight1
I think the airwaves are still good for HD content (cable company here doesn't throw any our way). Over the air hdtv is still a reason to use the airwaves.
what do the people who can't afford cable do then? For quite a lot of people who work on minumum wage/on welfare, etc., the minimum package cost of satellite or cable is still too expensive.
keeping VHF for the time being and killing off UHF? I can still see VHF TV being handy for EBS (or whatever they are calling it now) -- not to mention in many urban areas, broadcast TV works fine and is a good backup when cable TV is out and/or for portable TVs (Sony Watchman).
Could be fun to open UHF to the public for amature low power broadcasts for a while, too.
This would be fine for a good percentage of Americans, but it would cut off access to many who can't afford the monthly cost of cable or sattelite.
What they might want to do is to reduce the bandwidth dedicate to TV by reducing the number of UHF channels. Outside the larger markets, they could probably eliminate UHF altogether.
Of course, that would limit the potential growth of broadcast TV, further supporting the existing large players by making new competition more difficult.
If they want to eliminate broadcast TV altogether, then they need to work out a deal where cable and sattelite companies give free access to a dozen or so local channels.
I think I'd agree to this if it were federally mandated that "Basic Cable" be 100% free. Including all the wiring to your house. Wires, wireless, what's the difference?
Good luck watching TV portably too... No more sports+BBQ in the back yard.
Something else to consider, since so many /.'ers are into the whole privacy thing: Brodcast signals are the only way you can watch TV without someone somewhere keeping track of what you watch.
Just some food for thought.
DISCLAIMER: This post was not checked for speling and grammar- if you complain- you're a whiner
wireless internet would be nice
Yeah, I mean what use is there for free television? Poor people are so last year.
I all seriousness, are you guys that excited to buy more gadgets that you would deny the public access to free public television?? This idea is disgusting.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
I get the feeling that they should leave the spectrum in place for many years to come so that these people will always have access to the major stations. In Australia (I'm not sure if it's the same in the US), they forced the telephone company to service rural areas, because otherwise they simply aren't profitable.
As always, don't forget to remember the little guy.
I'm sure that "homeland america" will be reeeal okay with that. You know, those places where radio signals travel a decent distance, but no one wants to dig 4000 feet of cable to get to your house. Yeah, almost everyone out there has satellite. However, not everyone wants to pay a monthly fee to watch TV, and more importantly, the middle of nowhere are the areas most likely to want some kind of highly localized tv channel. You think that a satellite provider is going to carry WLCD, Frederick, Oklahoma? No. And *no one* in that part of Oklahoma, practically, has cable. This means if you cut out the broadcast spectrum, this area can no longer have local channels of their own.
I'm also sure that there will be bad consequences from the fact that using exclusively satellite/cable means that in many area, cable would be *it*. There would be a couple people willing to go with satellite, but satellite has some inherent problems in it and these would likely continue, as they have been, to be a minority.
These are privately held and privately controlled networks. I don't exactly trust or like the FCC, but at least they have SOME accountability to the public. AOLTW has none.
Realize that *MANY* areas have a literal monopoly, locally, on cable. Realize that this means we'd be removing the monopoly on who determines who gets a television license out of the hands of the FCC and putting it in the hands of an unaccountable, private, local monopoly. Don't like the fact that AOLTW Cable doesn't carry X Channel You Like? Want to start a public access public service station that at one time the FCC would have greenlighted, but AOLTW cable isn't interested in handing bandwidth to because it's not a money maker and they'd rather go with Animal Planet 2? Get reeeal used to it. And once everyone else gets "used to" this, get very used to any and all complaints being met with "hey, you have choice. if you don't like it you can always move".
Welcome to the new global Feudalism.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
You WANT a goatse.cx channel? I've only seen the picture briefly, like 2 years ago, and I've been scarred for life...sniff sniff...every time someone makes faces in a window, I start to gag. Any time someone mentions goats, I get a cold shiver down my spine. I've had to stop eating middle eastern food.
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
The thing that this gentleman forgot to account for was the loss of sales to electronics manufacturers. He's focused on the media companies, which are only a part of the equation. How many portable TVs end up at sporting events, fishing trips, etc.? Though I haven't been able to find hard statistics, Circuit City carries five models and Casio even has a section for portable TVs on the front page of their website. I don't think he understands what a lobbying power the electronics industry is. Without broadcasts, every one of the portables out there would be useless and a revenue stream for manufacturers would dry up. How about anteanna sales and such for companies like Recoton? I'm sure they would join the fight ageanst any legislation destroying the boradcasts.
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
24/7 broadcasts of geeks/antiM$people/Slashdotters ranting and raving about the new Great Satan. We could have weekly code compares with ANY *nix, hosted by Leonard Nimoy.
Hourly updates about the zillion lawsuits spreading throughout the world claiming ownership of linux. The Iraq InfoMinister could interview SCO Veeps and they could all deny or assert whatever seems appropriate. Sundays would have Linus leading us all in prayer that SCO dries up and disappers. Oh, and NO M$ or MSN commercials! I hate rainbow-colored moths!!
What I wonder is this: Why can't I watch my local high school or local college's sports teams on TV? Why can't I watch the town meeting/local gov't on TV? (Yes, I know about public access cable, but that isn't available where I live.)
We have all sorts of TV, but all of it is controlled by large corporations, and all of it is funded by large corporations. It stands to reason that we're going to get biases from those controlling powers in our media.
The FCC is looking at the picture all wrong. They assume that there's something to watch on TV and that people are satisfied with it.
I, and most of my friends, are in now way satisfied with TV. I'm in the process of moving and my semi-new (only several-months old) 27" TV won't make the move -- I'm dumping it.
If the FCC wants to do something, why not open things up for hobbyists, citizen groups, NGOs, and non-multi-national corporations?
When my local high school and college both have AV departments, it amazes me that I cannot watch their sports games or cultural events on my TV. Instead, I get homogenized crap fed to me by large, out-of-touch media monopolies.
Am I the only one that feels this way?
This is a terrible idea. Broadcast reaches places where cable doesn't. Sattelite requires too much hardware and is hard to use in obstructed areas. For example, at my cabin (where broadcast works - usually).
For a very long time the FCC was criticized that it was unresponsive, too deliberative, and an example of a staid, entrenched beauacracy that did very little good for the people. Somewhere that was turned around and now they are overboard in almost exactly the opposite direction! Frankly, I'd prefeer an FCC that took lonmger to deliberate.
The airwaves require regulation, they are an extremely valuable, very public resource. They are crowded and need to be managed in the public's best interest. The FCC does not exist to make mega-media companies rich, it exists to protect a resource - in much the same way that the National Park Service exists to protect our national parks!
Unfortunately, somewhere along the line, the mega-media has gained an inordinate amount of influence over their regulators. Somewhere along the line, the FCC started to manage markets more than resources. We the little people are shut out of the process and even when we complain loud and long, we are ignored.
The FCC has finally become what everyone said it was - an example of a staid, entrenched beauacracy that does very little good for the people.
For my money, we're already heading in the right direction with the switch to digital broadcasting, since that change involves moving all of the TV broadcasters up to UHF. The big VHF give-back is, IMHO, the important part. There are 12 channels of VHF TV. At 6 MHz each, that's 72 MHz of space, or more than a quarter of the available VHF spectrum. VHF is prime real estate that could be much better used than for a fixed-point broadcasting service (most TV receivers don't move).
The larger point, however, is that networks of terrestrial broadcast stations are already obsolete. Back before widespread adoption of cable, it was the only option. But now, having NBC programming come out of a few hundred transmitters scattered across the US is wasteful, given that just about everyone gets TV programming from a satellite (directly or indirectly from their cable company). NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox and PBS should each have a single channel on that satellite, just like Comedy Central, and the local broadcasters should use their bandwidth to serve local needs. It's just common sense.
is television a right?
what do the people who can't afford cable do then?
The logical answer would be that we pass a point in society where it's so valuable to those among us (who, incidentally might not be me) who want to "move ahead" that they will pay to bring the others up to speed. People are so stingy, though, I don't see this ever happening.
For example, when I was a student in Boston years ago, I was told that the Boston subway system operated at a greater loss by paying state employees to collect tokens (at $0.25 back then) than it would if it were free (with no tolltakers to pay), but that taxpayers liked to see money coming out of the riders' pockets and that's why they continued to charge money. I never did find out if this assertion was so, but it had a ring of truth to it.
Perhaps it's just as well, though.
Personally, I have a little black & white TV that is battery powered and that I can turn on during power outages (e.g., due to hurricanes) to find out the weather. Is someone going to offer me a replacement--and better yet, buy it for me? Not only would a change be inconvenient for me, but I worry that it will make our society fragile against catastrophe.
Although we can make one big all-in-one digital information device, I'm not sure that it's wise to. I like the idea of separated systems so that if one breaks down, another might continue to work so I can find out what's going on...
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
Erm. No. You've got that completely wrong.
It was decided years ago that digital TV broadcasts (whether HD or not; that hadn't been decided at that point) would occupy the same slices of spectrum we used for analog broadcasts: 6 MHz channels. So a single HD channel occupies the same amount of spectrum as a single analog channel. Which is why HD has to be so highly compressed for broadcast. (HD starts out at over 1.3 Gbps, and gets MPEGged down to 19 Mbps.)
The 6X figure comes in when you start talking about subchannels. Inside a 6 MHz channel, you can broadcast as many subchannels as you want, dividing up the channel's bandwidth among them. A SD broadcast can be squeezed down to about 3 Mbps (1 MHz) and still look acceptable, so you can put 6 SD subchannels inside a single digital broadcast channel.
This is not HDTV, however. In order for a broadcast to be called HDTV, it has to have a vertical resolution of at least 1,000 lines. (That's the ATSC's definition.) Broadcasting SD digitially is not the same as HD.
I use an antenna (rooftop in my attic, not rabbit ears), and it's not because I can't afford cable. I get a noticeably better picture than cable that way.
I also have DirecTV, but I refuse to pay $5 a month for local channels. This is actually because taping programs is really kludgy using their system. Yes, I could get TiVo, but it seems like paying yet another subscription fee just so that I can pay the "local channel" subscription fee is a bit backwards.
This might be slightly off-topic, but I think we (the American people) are being robbed when FCC sells frequencies to corporations. The airwaves belong to all of us, and they don't have that right. They should licence them for an annual fee.
Yes, I'm talking to you...
Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
Let's be honest, neither you nor I can figure out the all of the wonderful ways that this spectrum might be used and then decide among them what is the best way it should be used.
Rather than setup a command economy for spectrum, let's put it out there as a common that people can use for various ideas with relatively low barriers to entry. For example, we have for the last several years been discussing how intelligent tuning, spreadspectrum, etc., make a myth of spectrum shortages. If this is the case, then let's put it to the test.
I propose that we let any "service provider" use this spectrum for a small registration fee and a small monthly rental payment (say on the order of 5% of revenues, which could be used for a number of purposes, including giving poor people cable if we decided that is the best way to spend it) for use of the spectrum, as long as they use a technology that 1) doesn't interfer with any other use of the spectrum using "intelligent tuning" technologies and 2) that doesn't demand exclusive use of the specturm in question.
What would this achieve? Well, it would give us a commons (where multiple service providers might exist) for creative us of this spectrum at the same that the people get to share in the benefits. By running multiple different applications of the spectrum, we would be able to determine what is the best use - in terms of demand - without looking out other miniority uses of the spectrum. Another cool thing about this plan, is that it could be rolled out over time. We could start by taking channels 3 and 4 off the air across the country (moving existing broadcasters to open holes that are no longer needed due to the improvments in transmission equipment since the advent of TV), see how it works. If over-the-air TV continues to be less and less important, then we could roll up more and more of the spectrum available for the "spectrum commons".
Since technology (spread-spectrum, digital) now makes broadcasts of many more channels on these frequencies possible, and since broadcast TV is still the best way to get a consistent message out to a mass audience, and since we'd all like to keep elections from being decided by amount of airtime bought, I think it's time to reslice the pie.
Either chop up and sell the licences in smaller pieces for shorter terms, or sell them to broadcast "utilities" that themselves sell the ability to broadcast, but can not create or edit programming. (I'm sure such utilities would quickly discover how many channels they can slice their limited frequencies into!)
Toss in some regulations about not owning too many channels in one spot, and some about providing free air to public-interest programming, political candidates, private citizens, etc. and you've created a more diverse, more accessible, free version of cable.
Why would this matter to politics? Well, this could be a great chance to reform the rules as a whole new game is created. Maybe you could ban selling political ads, and give politicians free air time instead. Maybe you could even give parties their own little channels. Maybe, if you dealt with the ownership/licensing rules correctly, there would be a natural diversity and competition of ideas and viewpoints, and less political influence wielded by any particular media company.
"You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
There's a company based in Saskatoon, where I am, which manufactures wireless internet connectivity products that emulate cable. So, basically, you plug a cable modem into it, and as far as the modem is concerned it's connected to Coax all the way to the central office. Currently the units they sell cost about $400 CAD each... but they can sell a unit that does the same thing to people in India that costs only $50 CAD, because they can use the TV spectrum there.
An ISP can provide wireless internet in a radius of 20 miles with the technology... they can set up a whole ISP in a day in India for under $2000... can't do that in North America, of course.
I heard the interview on NPR the other day-- the guy wasn't talking about getting rid of all TV spectrum. The simple fact is that there are 60-odd TV channels reserved, but only a handful are being used even in the largest markets.
We can keep all the channels we've got, reserve some for future growth, and STILL reclaim 30 TV channels worth of bandwidth to use for anything from wireless internet to community radio, or whatever else you can think of.
Wouldn't it be better to do SOMETHING with all that bandwidth (and it *is* a ton) than just let dozens of TV channel-sized chunks of our airwaves sit unused? The guy's point is that we're just not using much of it, and that people who want more channels aren't clamoring for more OTA channels, they're getting cable. So why not use the unused chunk for something else?