Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Broadcasters Accuse Telecom Companies of Hoarding Spectrum

Posted by timothy on from the most-efficient-use-of-resources dept.

angry tapir writes "The National Association of Broadcasters, asked by the US Federal Communications Commission and some lawmakers to give up television spectrum for mobile data uses, has fired back by accusing several other companies of hoarding the spectrum they hold. In recent weeks, the NAB has gone on the offensive by suggesting that several spectrum holders, including Verizon Communications, AT&T and Time Warner Cable, have not developed the spectrum they already have."

31 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. Sounds a lot like the IPv4 crisis by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There seem to be a lot of parallels to IPv4... our general supply of unallocated spectrum/addresses is running out while everybody is accusing everybody else of hording unused spectrum/addresses and to turn them over for others to use.

    1. Re:Sounds a lot like the IPv4 crisis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No.

      IP addresses can be increased by just adding numbers to the end. It's only a problem because some vendors aren't willing to adopt a new standard because they're too cheap to invest the money.

      Electromagnetic spectrum is limited by nature. It's a physical constraint.

    2. Re:Sounds a lot like the IPv4 crisis by foniksonik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is infinite supply of spectrum if you are willing to invest in equipment to use it that way. All frequencies can be split many many times. Data companies are actually more capable of this than broadcasters as the receivers are updated more frequently and consumers more willing to buy in if there is a reasonable improvement.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    3. Re:Sounds a lot like the IPv4 crisis by morgauxo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, spectrum could be used much more efficiently. It is not however unlimited. Frequencies can't be split into smaller slices indefinitely. Lookup "nyquist rate".

    4. Re:Sounds a lot like the IPv4 crisis by rufty_tufty · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Nyquist rate applies to the symbol frequency. This is related to, but not actually the bit rate.

      (Struggling to remember decade old university lectures)

      A symbol can carry many bits of data e.g. 16 QAM can carry 4 bits per symbol. The amount of data you can carry on your symbol being limited by your channel and your TX-RX hardware. Our lecturer in this subject was very keen to drive home the fact that "The only thing that stops you sending one Gigabit in one kilohertz is your budget to pay for your phase discriminators."
      So the GP is right in that data spectrum is infinite if you have the right hardware, you are right that at the moment we can only parcel the spectrum up so finely.

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
    5. Re:Sounds a lot like the IPv4 crisis by BuckaBooBob · · Score: 2

      Sorry but you are Extremely wrong... there is a finite quantity of spectrum thats usable.. as the frequency gets higher its properties change.. for an example once your reach the terahertz range your starting to emit light and not sound anymore.. and we all know that light doesn't pass through solid object very well.. Which makes those ranges unusable for Mobile use where you definitely will experience impairment in your line of sight.

      Another thing as you increase frequency the amount of power required to go the same distance increases aswell... At one point you will either be microwaving everything until it starts on fire or you have a transceiver every few feet to keep the power low enough to make it safe.

      So there is a very finite amount of spectrum.

      --
      Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
    6. Re:Sounds a lot like the IPv4 crisis by wings · · Score: 2

      There's a second and very important limitation: Signal to Noise Ratio. Noise has a physical minimum, so to increase SNR more power is needed.

      This.

      See Shannon's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Hartley_theorem

      Shannon's Law contains nothing about current limits in technology.

      Basically, for a given Signal to Noise ratio at the receiver (specifically at the detector), when the noise power approaches the power of the smallest bit division, you cannot reliably recover those bits and further subdivision is pointless.

      Even in a lab, Signal to Noise is never infinite, and put a finite limit on the number of bits you can send in a channel. In the real world, the Signal to Noise at the receiver only gets worse the greater the distance between the transmitter and the receiver (inverse square), and this excludes other sources of 'noise' such as interference from other signals, multipath, propagation or other degradation effects such as holding your iPhone incorrectly.

      IAARE (I Am A Radio Engineer)

    7. Re:Sounds a lot like the IPv4 crisis by rufty_tufty · · Score: 2

      I was trying to paper over that complication in my post with the concept of the channel, seems like someone's called me on it ;-)
      In short I agree, but using this as a platform to discuss an interesting bit of technology I'd like to see if I've got some fundamental concept wrong here.

      As I understand the term SNR is often used to encompass a number of complex issues. Noise can be injected from many sources, the transmitter, the receiver, the channel, interference, noise floor of the background etc
      In my argument for infinite bitrate we'll assume transmitter and receiver are perfect therefore no noise.*
      The channel will introduce irregularities in the signal that will show up as noise, it will distort and corrupt the signal. However there are a number of techniques that allow you to measure the channel's behaviour, and effectively invert this distortion, I believe technologies like VDSL use this technique extensively to mitigate the channel effects. Therefore we'll assume in the perfect system the distortion effects of the channel cam be compensated forby inverting the transform that the channel performs.
      Interference: Noise from other people using the same spectrum or harmonics from others, again we'll ignore this.
      Which leaves flicker and thermal noise. This has a constant power density over a certain frequency range; that is, the wider band you receive on the more noise power you pick up. Conversely if you have a number of lower bandwidth channels you get less noise per channel. This is why systems such as VDSL use many many carriers working in parallel to achieve the high bandwidths they do and it's why you get megabits of data over a few kilohertz bandwidth of twisted pair. So the important thing for this one is the SNR per channel not the total SNR, therefore again this noise source can be mitigated.** [Checking some maths and references on this I can't get a good handle on which is dominant: one being a 1/f and one being an RMS based source so actually I'm not sure how FDM would help if an RMS noise source is dominant which would happen in the limit.]

      So yes I know there are limitations our current ability to extract bitrate from a certain bandwidth, but I know of no reason why physics limits the bitrate per bandwidth. Now I'm sure quantum physics is going to rear its nasty head at somepoint soon, 'cause it always does that as soon as I start to have fun ;-)

      * Yes I know this will never happen in practice, but if my lecturer can do it so can I ;-)
      ** Okay not information got from a lecturer but from a friend who I got nattering to down the pub, i must buy him a drink and ask him about this conversation since he designs VDSL software....

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
  2. Set them all on fire... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And hand the spectrum over to the next generation of 802.11b/g/n-esque applications.

    Even confined to a couple of really sucky blocks of spectrum, the success of no-license-to-deploy, inexpensive wireless data standards has been extraordinary. Why not murder a few bloated, feckless, incumbents and hand over some proper spectrum for this proven and extremely useful application?

    1. Re:Set them all on fire... by grumling · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or, better yet, how about licensed radios that actually have some range to them? To get a license, you have to take an operator's test, not as technically-oriented as a HAM license, but more difficult than swiping a credit card at Best Buy. Then the last mile problem becomes YOUR problem, not the ISP/wireless phone company.

      The wireless industry keeps telling congress that if they just get a little mo' (little mo' spectrum, little mo' tax money, little mo' market share) they'll be able to cover everyone, even the most rural areas, with super-fast Internet service. The problem is, they have no financial interest in rural areas. A tower is a fixed cost. If a tower is in a metropolitan area, that fixed cost is likely to be lower, mostly because towers can share back-haul resources. In rural areas, there may not be access to back-haul fiber. So it either needs to be built at great expense (X2 if you want 5 9's uptime), leased (at great expense), or just skip the whole thing and lie on the coverage map.

      And since every carrier, now save 1, is capping data at 5GB/month, there's really no way rural broadband will truly be available from the wireless carriers.

      FCC let us build our own networks!

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    2. Re:Set them all on fire... by KingMotley · · Score: 2

      every carrier, now save 1, is capping data at 5GB/month

      No, there are plenty of carriers that will let you use more than 5GB/month, however, it isn't FREE. Big difference. It's amazing how much people whine when they actually have to pay for stuff they want to use.

  3. Kiss HTDV goodbye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My friend who works at the FCC tells me that no broadcasters currently use 1080p transmissions even though everyone is investing in TVs that support it. The current maximum in 720p. And that it is likely that we will never see that since the telecom companies are going to grab the spectrum needed to do so away from the broadcasters. Apparently the a lot of channels this has already been done.

    This concerns me because I am one of the few people who depends on over the air broadcasting rather than a wired network. So who should the government please? The minority who like me use broadcast TV? Or the majority who want to browse the internet on their smart phones? And how does funding NPR fit into public broadcasting fit into this?

    1. Re:Kiss HTDV goodbye by Cimexus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't live in America but a similar thing is happening here in Australia. There is very little broadcast in 1080p here. Most is broadcast either in 1080i, 720p or increasingly, standard def (576i on most channels, 576p on a couple).

      I say 'increasingly' standard def because what's happening over here is that most TV networks have looked at the spectrum granted to them and made the decision they'll make more money from broadcasting, say, four or five SD channels in that multiplex, than they would from broadcasting one or two HD channels. So you see networks with half a dozen SD channels playing endless reruns of old stuff, rather than concentrating on one good HD channel with new content.

      Which isn't all bad: it does give you a lot more choice when you're flipping channels. But all those people that bought 1080p sets really aren't getting use out of them unless they have it hooked up to a bluray player or HTPC. A few years ago when I was shopping for a TV I was on a limited budget, and consciously bought a high end 720p set rather than a low end 1080p set. Haven't regretted the choice once to be honest.

    2. Re:Kiss HTDV goodbye by GrumpyOldMan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      First, the best quality is arguably 1080i (1920x1080 at 30fps), which is same resolution as 1080p once it is de-interlaced. 720p (1280x720 at 60fps) is better for motion, since it is not interlaced.

      Second, the reason that nobody broadcasts 1080p is because there is not enough bandwidth in a single channel. To clarifly the current ATSC standards provide for 19Mb/s and require MPEG2 and limit the codecs they can use, which terrible compression. If broadcasters could use a modern codec (H.264, VP8, etc), then they could probably squeeze 1080p out of a single channel. But then you'd need to buy new digital tuners to get the h.264 encoded TV.

      Third, broadcasters's greed is their own worst enemy when it comes to signal quality. In my area, many stations have as many as 2 SD sub channels (and our ABC has 2 HD channels, and one SD channel). Some are also carrying mobile DTV. These subchannels are usually re-runs of crappy old TV/Movies, music videos, shopping channels, and other junk like you'd see on basic cable. They limit the bandwidth for the main HD channel to 12Mb/s or less. I've recently put up a bigger antenna so I can pull in channels from a market 50 miles away, simply because the broadcasters there use less subchannels, and have far better quality.

    3. Re:Kiss HTDV goodbye by vlm · · Score: 2

      Third, broadcasters's greed is their own worst enemy when it comes to signal quality.

      Greed is also causing programming problems...

      These subchannels are usually re-runs of crappy old TV/Movies, music videos, shopping channels, and other junk like you'd see on basic cable.

      One station in a market puts up a "weather (sub)channel" that stations rolls in the dough. Obviously, all the stations must copy them and put up their own weather (sub)channel so as not to fall behind. None of them can pull their own weight against all that competition, so they all implode. Locally we are post bubble; my favorite weather subchannel is now continuous infomercials and laywer commercials with an intermittent weather border. Soon we'll have no weather (sub)channels in our local market, because like yogi says, no one goes there anymore because its too crowded. Kind of like the "news helicopter" cycle which has a wavelength of about a decade from the peak where all the stations have one to the trough where none have one.

      I don't think "better for motion" matters. All that matters is conspicuous consumption (look at me, I can afford 1080i and you can't, ha ha!) and marketing numbers (1080i must be better than 720p because it has a higher number, right?). You must realize the average american TV in the CRT era was dusted less than once per year and never had its color / hue / saturation / brightness / contrast controls adjusted. The video equivalent of the audiophile is too small of a market to pay attention to. The only important part about HDTV is showing off to others that money was spent, and having larger numbers to brag about, picture quality is simply irrelevant.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:Kiss HTDV goodbye by AlecC · · Score: 3, Informative

      When I left the industry three years ago, broadcasters were using either 720p for fast moving stuff (sports) or 1080i for hi res stuff (drama, documentary), both using data compressed to 100Mbit/sec. Generally, studio infrastructure is standardizing on 100Mbit/sec for post-production, so you aren't going to get more underlying data even if they do upgrade to 1080p. It would be cheaper to fit an upscaler in your TV.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    5. Re:Kiss HTDV goodbye by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is fairly hard to make a public-interest argument in favor of using scarce(note to spread spectrum and other tech-trick enthusiasts: yes, how limited it is strongly depends on how smart you are about it; but it is finite) spectrum for high-bandwidth broadcasts.

      There are the "public information dissemination"/"cultural goods" arguments, which are reasonably strong; but also amply satisfied by even AM quality voice and smeary NTSC quality video. More video bandwidth is certainly better; but that "better" is simply an aesthetic improvement, not a matter of any significant interest(especially in a world where the bandwidth of blu-ray+USPS is so damn high. There is a value in people being able to get current news/political events/hazard warnings in real time; which is a broadcast specialty; but there is no need to allocate enough spectrum so that they can count the pores on senator scumweasel's nose. For ~$12, you can get 50GB video entertainment chunks mailed to your door, not to mention consoles and HTPCs and all the other non-broadcast uses of HDTVs)

      That said, I'm really not an enthusiast of the "sell it all to Verizon, Ma Bell knows best." theory of spectrum allocation. I'd prefer to see a much stronger support of un or minimally licenced data-transmission spectrum, along the lines of wifi; but with spectrum that doesn't totally blow. Even laboring under those restrictions, wifi has been an amazing success, and the possibilities of future minimal-licensing wireless are really much more compelling than "another bunch of TV channels" or "200mb/s TO YOUR CELLPHONE* *Capped at 5GB/month, overage $10/GB, you're damn right other terms and restrictions apply, see 2,000 pages of fine print for details.*"

    6. Re:Kiss HTDV goodbye by MBGMorden · · Score: 2

      I can agree, but I honestly think most people also don't really care about this issue much.

      Most of the people I know that even watched broadcast television were happy with their SD televisions before the switch. The whole switch-over in the US for many was just a headache. Those that do have new TV's, the main thing that they seem to like is the "clear" picture, which is provided by the change to digital transmissions - not HD.

      Even myself, if I'm watching an SD signal that was meant for a 4:3 set then it's annoying. I get either a stretched picture or worse - letterboxing meant for 4:3 which REALLY compresses things. However, a 480p picture that is formatted for a 16:9 display honestly doesn't look bad to me at all. I've got a 46" 1080p set in the living room (and a 32" 720p in the bedroom). A lot of my television I'm getting off iTunes now, and the vast majority of what I buy I'm buying the SD version of. Between the two, the jump from 480p just isn't worth an extra $1 per episode.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    7. Re:Kiss HTDV goodbye by 517714 · · Score: 2

      Sorry, S/B

      1080p transmission is possible under the 2008 revision to ATSC standards, the majority of receivers could not decode the signal so why would a broadcaster wish to spend money on something new that few could watch?

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
  4. 700 MHz band by necro81 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    TV Broadcasters in the U.S. freed up huge swaths of bandwidth in the 700 MHz range during the switchover to digital TV. This frequency range has a lot of very useful attributes, like being able to penetrate buildings and travel large distances - attributes that are ideal for wireless data transmission. Portions of that bandwidth was subsequently auctioned off for about $20 billion, austensibly to permit the development of new wireless services. The auction concluded a few years ago, and yet I haven't heard anything about anyone developing new wireless infrastructure around it. As far as I know, there isn't even a baseband chipset for it yet. What gives?

    1. Re:700 MHz band by PhrstBrn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because the companies who bought it have no intention of using it, they just want to prevent somebody else from using it and developing a product that would hurt their bottom line.

    2. Re:700 MHz band by Svartalf · · Score: 2

      Verizon's using it for their LTE offering... The other tech that others was pushing kind of dropped off the face of the earth as best as I can tell.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    3. Re:700 MHz band by GeckoAddict · · Score: 3, Informative

      AT&T also plans on using it's 700MHz range for LTE, at least according to a reference on Engadget.

    4. Re:700 MHz band by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It should have been use it or lose it.

      You have 5 years to have something on the market with this spectrum that reaches at least 50% of Americans or it goes back on the auction block.

  5. Re:Who is actively developing? by RattFink · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The answer is neither. The real true innovation is far more likely from ISM bands then any of the licensed ones.

    --
    "I don't necessarily agree with everything I say." - Marshall McLuhan
  6. Re:babys condemn grownups hoarding food, killing e by WiglyWorm · · Score: 3, Funny

    I told my three year old to get a job, she said she wanted to be a My Little Pony. Utterly worthless, I tell you.

  7. Seperate spectrum from carriers by ArhcAngel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I believe we need a system where the towers (AKA spectrum) are owned & operated by a regulated entity and that a standard (GSM/LTE) is agreed upon. Then the carriers can sell service and value-add to differentiate themselves.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  8. Is this a record? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is this a record of misinformation in a slashdot post?
    Broadcast HDTV over the ATSC standard supports 720P or 1080I, with a maximum on one channel of 1 1080i stream + 2 480i streams. There's two important reasons why broadcasters can't provide 1080p;
    1: It's not part of the ATSC spec. When ATSC was agreed as a standard the only HDTVs being sold were CRTs with horrible AV boards and Plasmas that were XGA (with "rectangular pixels"). Neither of these TVs supported 1080p, and a lot of them didn't even properly implement 720P.
    2: Since the spec must change to support 1080p as a resolution it would be worth upgrading to a better codec like x264. The broadcasters could easily double their resolution using x264 in place of the existing MPEG2.

    Why do the broadcasters care about more spectrum space? Likely because with the quality of OTA digital signals there's a real opportunity to compete with cable channels, and to be prepared for 3d tv.

    1. Re:Is this a record? by 517714 · · Score: 2

      Out of date information - 1080p and H.264/MPEG-4 AVC compression is now part of the ATSC standard.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
  9. Re:Who is actively developing? by contrapunctus · · Score: 3, Informative

    who not whom

  10. In a related story by kimvette · · Score: 2

    In a related story, AT&T is claiming their acquisition of T-Mobile is good for America and helps to consolidate spectrum usage (as if AT&T doesn't have enough of the spectrum already). Check it out!

    http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/at-t-makes-its-t-mobile-case-patriotism-spectrum-crunch-mobile-broadband/46288?tag=nl.e539

    I would rather see Google acquire both T-Mobile and Sprint and offer services more like an ISP - a flat rate for X bandwidth (tiered based on allocated speed like any other ISP), regardless of whether you use it only for voice, or watch netflix 24/7, or decide to do something really boneheaded and use it as the Internet connection for your entire corporate LAN. That would result in a shakeout of the cellphone industry and cause AT&T and Verizon to improve their networks (and make good on the subsidies they've already been paid to make things happen) and correct their inflated pricing structures.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50