Broadcasters Oppose Wireless Net Service

kaufmanmoore writes "The AP reports that the National Association of Broadcasters is launching ads to target lawmakers over a push by a consortium of technology companies including Google, Intel, HP, and MSFT who want to use unused and unlicensed TV spectrum (the so-called 'white space') for wireless broadband. Broadcasters are airing concerns about the devices creating interference with broadcast television. In a statement, NAB chairman Alan Frank takes a swipe at technology companies: 'While our friends at Intel, Google and Microsoft may find system errors, computer glitches and dropped calls tolerable, broadcasters do not.'"

Comments

If broadcasts are so critical, how come....

[BadAnalogyGuy]

During the football (that's football, not soccer) season games are played every week with running commentary and everything runs just fine.

Then the SuperBowl comes along and everything turns glitchy.

How come broadcasters who think they are the end-all and be-all of reliability can't get this most important of games broadcast without problems?

Re:If broadcasts are so critical, how come....

[purpledinoz]

Judging by the recent actions by the NAB, they are against anything that is competition to terrestrial radio. They are fiercely against the merger of XM and Sirius and have spent $4 million to lobby against the XM/Sirius merger. The NAB is hoping to block the Sirius/XM merger, in hopes that they will both go under (both are taking heavy losses). This new "whitespace" is a potential problem to terrestrial radio because people would be able to Internet radio over the airwaves: additional competition. Lets face it, regular radio is very repetitive, full of ads, and not very entertaining. We need MORE competition.

Hrumph

[ChoralScholar]

Cry me a river, broadcasters. Communications legislation in America crazy-favors the local broadcaster and cable companies (See SHVA/SHVERA). This is just more "I don't wanna do anything new" rhetoric from these whiny network affiliates.

Re:Sounds like Bull to me

[ichigo 2.0]

Probably want the unlicensed spectrum for themselves.

Re:Alan Frank, You Have Nothing.

[hernick]

Broadcast isn't a waste a spectrum. Consider a broadcast TV station that can reach a half a million homes, with a few thousand TVs tuned in at any given time. How could "pull" save any spectrum?

Also, "pull" would be completely impractical for TV and radio broadcasts over-the-air - how would the TV request a particular channel? It would need a way to contact the broadcaster and request a channel - meaning it would need a powerful, expensive transmitter.

I'll tell you what's a waste of spectrum though: analog TV and radio. Digital transmissions use up a lot less spectrum. At least, in the USA, analog broadcast TV is going away - but I figure AM and FM are here to stay; the installed device base is enormous.

Re:TV quality

[Tim C]

Be careful what you wish for, as the same applies many, many times over to the web. The proportion of generally interesting, worthwhile websites is much smaller than that of generally interesting, worthwhile TV programs.

This is not about signals, it's about viewers

[tiqui]

Broadcasters can whine about this and try to convince lawmakers (most of whom are tech-dumb lawyers) that this is all about protecting the radio frequency spectrum, but this is BUNK, Just as the FCC claims its regulation of computers is about protecting the spectrum is also BUNK.

If the FCC was REALLY about protecting the spectrum, then they would require some of the worst RF noise emitters (electric razors, light dimmers, lawnmowers, etc.) to be certified. There is a lot of money and prestige in regulating computer technology and none in regulating cheap low-tech devices. As long as they regulate important whizz-bang things like TV, radio, and computers, congress sees reasons to fund them at current levels. If they were the regulators of razors and light dimmers they might have less respect and lower budgets.

Similarly, the broadcasters are not worried about the spectrum (which sounds important and high-tech); This is about trying to keep from losing even more viewers (and the associated ad and/or subscriber revenue). Everybody knows that younger people are getting more of their entertainment from interactive web-based sources (news from the web, online games, etc) and this trend will likely SKYROCKET if low-cost high-speed net access becomes too available. Any roadblock they can throw-up will help hold back the tidal wave of losses.

Watch-out whenever somebody tells you that he, like some knight in shiny armor, is a defender-of-the-spectrum, (defender of the faith... protector of the realm... ) and all that stands between you and electromagnetic chaos. If he has a financial interest in the outcome then he probably is in it for the cash.

This is so old ...

[ScrewMaster]

1. NAB opposes [anything new].

2. TV studios oppose {anything new].

3. RIAA opposes [anything new].

4. Music studios oppose [anything new].

5. MPAA opposes [anything new].

6. Movie studios oppose [anything new].

7. FCC [still hasn't got a clue]

Nothing new under the Sun, I guess.

Dissenting view - I agree with him

[mwillems]

I am afraid I actually agree with him.

Background: As an ex telecommunications engineer I know about reliability; as a radio ham I know about interference.

With that background, I am afraid it seems to me that he may have a good point that some industries tolerate failure (Vista bluescreens on me several times a month), while others do not - your (wired) phone, for instance, always works. A public telehpone switch or a TV transmitted do not need "reboots" - a reboot of a phone switch can take hours, so it is engineered to not need them.

So while there is a legitimate question about the validity of broadcasting TV, the fundamental point, that while it exists interference should not be tolerated, is valid. It took decades to get to reliable TV transmission, and that can all bre broken very quickly.