Channel 37, really? You just discounted a study because channels 14 - 19 are public safety, yet you're receiving stations on those channels? Oh yeah, they're not solely for public safety use.
So I count 34 channels listed out of 50. What do you call those channels you haven't listed? Oh yeah, whitespace.
> They counted channels 14-19 and channels 37 as "open" channels. > Wrong. 14-19 are assigned to police/firefighters' emergency radio.
Did you even click the link? Two channels are listed as occupied for public safety in the Trenton, NJ area.
Those channels aren't solely for public safety use, either, and aren't national. If public safety licenses existed in an area, those channels were marked as occupied. Richmond, VA area, for example, as TV stations on channels 14 - 19 and the methodology states "FCC databases were also searched to determine if any public safety organizations operated in the TV band. Though there are some public safety mobile radios licensed in channel 17 for Stafford, VA, they are far enough away from the Channel 17 transmitter so as to cause no interference."
> Channel 37 is assigned to radioastronomy.
Yeah, that's why it's red on every chart and counted as occupied.
> It only looked at the Trenton NJ market, and never bothered to > look at neighboring cities like New York or Scranton, all of which > *also* occupy space on the dial and "stretch" into the Trenton area
Really? Is that why all of those New York, Philadelphia, etc. stations (up to 57 miles away) are listed as occupied?
> When I look at that city using TVfool.com and a typical > rooftop antenna, I see about 5 open channels
When I look at Trenton, NJ with a 25ft antenna, there are 12 open channels (2 - 51). An attic antenna yields 26 open channels and a set-top antenna would have 35.
Are rooftop antennas typically directional or are they omni? With worst case signals coming in at -80dBm or -90dBm, it seems like a directional antenna would be required.
Where I live, because all the cities are packed closely together, they use every 4th channel. I made a list further below where you can see every channel from 2 to 51 is occupied by a TV station.
Wait, so is it every four channels occupied in a market or every channel 2 - 51?
So if two DC stations are using 22 and 26 (four apart, like you said) and adjacent markets are using 24 (so close together, you can't use adjacent channels, right), who's using 23 and 25 in your market?
25 channels, assuming every other one can be used in an area, is still 12 channels. That's 24 720p HD channels for your area. More than 24 channels if some choose to multicast 480i along with the HD channel or by themselves.
How much free TV are you entitled to? Are you entitled to more free TV than someone living in Wyoming?
The FCC needs to make sure it's looking in all areas for spectrum, including broadcast spectrum.
Are you arguing that there's only whitespace because of the artificial limitations the FCC puts on channel assignment? If they didn't have co-channel interference rules or geographic assignments, all of the channels be used by television broadcasters?
So if the data doesn't fit your assumptions, you just cut it in half? Nice.
Methodology for the Trenton, NJ area:
"TV channel assignments were compiled using a variety of data sources to ensure accuracy. The preliminary channel line-up was taken from the Consumer Electronic Association's "Antenna Web" online resource (www.antennaweb.org), which lists all available signals from a given zip code. In this case, the base zip code used was downtown Trenton. CEA's listing was then cross-referenced with data from the Center for Public Integrity's Media Tracker Database (www.publicintegrity.org/telecom/) and the television license query engine at REC Networks (www.recnet.com/cdbs/fmq.php). All of these databases consist of information taken from the FCC. A final check was performed using the FCC's TV TVQ Database Query (http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/tvq.html). FCC databases were also searched to determine if any public safety organizations operated in the TV band. Channels with public safety devices were deemed occupied.
This combined station listing was cross-referenced with multiple local television guides to determine which channels are available over the air. All stations broadcasting in or near Trenton that can be viewed over-the-air in Mercer County were included."
What are all of those channels with no call numbers next to them? Or am I reading your chart incorrectly?
Either way, there is still a lot of the U.S. outside of where you live.
Market | Percent of TV Band Spectrum Vacant After DTV Transition Juneau, Alaska 74% Honolulu, Hawaii 62% Phoenix, Arizona 44% Charleston, West Virginia 72% Helena, Montana 62% Boston, Massachusetts 38% Jackson, Mississippi 60% Fargo, North Dakota 82% Dallas-Ft. Worth, Texas 40% San Francisco, California 37% Portland, Maine 66% Tallahassee, Florida 62% Portland, Oregon 58% Seattle, Washington 52% Las Vegas, Nevada 52% Trenton, New Jersey 30% Richmond, Virginia 64% Omaha, Nebraska 52% Manchester, New Hampshire 46% Little Rock, Arkansas 60% Columbia, South Carolina 70% Baton Rouge, Louisiana 44%
This is the same issue on it's second or third go-around. I'm sure the rules for using the spectrum have been updated to take in the latest complaints, but that's probably about it.
It's time for the FCC to open this up and see what happens. Rules are in place. I'm sure they'll be adjusted as this goes. Let's use the spectrum and start dealing with some real issues instead of "possible interference" and horror stories.
IMO, WikiLeaks is doing something more on the lines of "releasing evidence that your father died of side effects caused by some medicine than by the heart attack you were told".
No, it's more along the lines of releasing thousands of people's medical histories and letting everyone sort through the data to try and find something wrong.
On a spectrum analyzer it looks like a "noisy logic 1" with exactly 6 megahertz width. (The actual height varies with the power output.)
I found this explanation of 8VSB modulation that explains your comment fairly well, I think. I was under the assumption that a single HD stream of ~9Mbps on a ~19Mbps 6MHz channel may not use the entire 6MHz and leave some spectrum open. It doesn't appear that this is the case, though.
Like the cable system, you reduce the number of house-holds "passed" by the spectrum. More, lower power transmitters, smarter receivers, etc. as addressed in the National Broadband Plan as a ten-year objective (or idea, at least).
You've already made it clear that the only thing you care about is receiving the same amount of free TV. That can be provided via cable, satellite or the phone lines to fixed locations. I don't think you have any concerns with spectrum, just maintaining your level of free product.
>> Broadcast TV is a great example of a effective use of >> wireless technology. As a one-to-many, one-way method >> of communication with an indeterminate number of >> receiving stations, the use of radio waves makes perfect sense.
It made sense when everyone was receiving OTA television. Now only 15% of the population and 50% of the cable head-ends receive OTA. It's no longer a one-to-as-many, more of a one-to-15% while the other 85% of the population don't get any use out of the spectrum.
Fiber, cable and satellite make the most sense for fixed services, such as home television and home Internet. Free up the spectrum for mobile uses where copper/fiber obviously don't make sense.
Stop making this stupid comparison. Yes, technically there are bits flowing with OTA television, but you're comparing apples and oranges. One is a constantly on, one-way broadcast transmission and the other is a two-way demand-based system.
Turn the entire broadcast spectrum into a cable-like system with return paths and on-demand channel assignments and you'll be able to provide far, far more channels and usefulness out of the spectrum versus conventional OTA broadcasting.
>> They have a natural right to at least SOME of it being usable without cost
lol... no. The FCC is mandated to regulate the limited resource in the public interest. If the public interest is better served by having channels above 50 designated for free wifi or whatever versus over the air television, then that decision is valid.
You can question the process or whether the FCC really cares about the public interest versus corporate interest, but you have no "right" to free spectrum, TV, radio, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Channel 37, really? You just discounted a study because channels 14 - 19 are public safety, yet you're receiving stations on those channels? Oh yeah, they're not solely for public safety use.
So I count 34 channels listed out of 50. What do you call those channels you haven't listed? Oh yeah, whitespace.
-John
Oh...
> They counted channels 14-19 and channels 37 as "open" channels.
> Wrong. 14-19 are assigned to police/firefighters' emergency radio.
Did you even click the link? Two channels are listed as occupied for public safety in the Trenton, NJ area.
Those channels aren't solely for public safety use, either, and aren't national. If public safety licenses existed in an area, those channels were marked as occupied. Richmond, VA area, for example, as TV stations on channels 14 - 19 and the methodology states "FCC databases were also searched to determine if any public safety organizations operated in the TV band. Though there are some public safety mobile radios licensed in channel 17 for Stafford, VA, they are far enough away from the Channel 17 transmitter so as to cause no interference."
> Channel 37 is assigned to radioastronomy.
Yeah, that's why it's red on every chart and counted as occupied.
-John
> The study admits its methodology is Flawed
What page is that on?
> It only looked at the Trenton NJ market, and never bothered to
> look at neighboring cities like New York or Scranton, all of which
> *also* occupy space on the dial and "stretch" into the Trenton area
Really? Is that why all of those New York, Philadelphia, etc. stations (up to 57 miles away) are listed as occupied?
> When I look at that city using TVfool.com and a typical
> rooftop antenna, I see about 5 open channels
When I look at Trenton, NJ with a 25ft antenna, there are 12 open channels (2 - 51). An attic antenna yields 26 open channels and a set-top antenna would have 35.
Are rooftop antennas typically directional or are they omni? With worst case signals coming in at -80dBm or -90dBm, it seems like a directional antenna would be required.
Wait, so is it every four channels occupied in a market or every channel 2 - 51?
So if two DC stations are using 22 and 26 (four apart, like you said) and adjacent markets are using 24 (so close together, you can't use adjacent channels, right), who's using 23 and 25 in your market?
-John
How many of those do you actually receive in your home?
25 channels, assuming every other one can be used in an area, is still 12 channels. That's 24 720p HD channels for your area. More than 24 channels if some choose to multicast 480i along with the HD channel or by themselves.
How much free TV are you entitled to? Are you entitled to more free TV than someone living in Wyoming?
The FCC needs to make sure it's looking in all areas for spectrum, including broadcast spectrum.
Are you arguing that there's only whitespace because of the artificial limitations the FCC puts on channel assignment? If they didn't have co-channel interference rules or geographic assignments, all of the channels be used by television broadcasters?
So if the data doesn't fit your assumptions, you just cut it in half? Nice.
Methodology for the Trenton, NJ area:
What are all of those channels with no call numbers next to them? Or am I reading your chart incorrectly?
Either way, there is still a lot of the U.S. outside of where you live.
Market | Percent of TV Band Spectrum Vacant After DTV Transition
Juneau, Alaska 74%
Honolulu, Hawaii 62%
Phoenix, Arizona 44%
Charleston, West Virginia 72%
Helena, Montana 62%
Boston, Massachusetts 38%
Jackson, Mississippi 60%
Fargo, North Dakota 82%
Dallas-Ft. Worth, Texas 40%
San Francisco, California 37%
Portland, Maine 66%
Tallahassee, Florida 62%
Portland, Oregon 58%
Seattle, Washington 52%
Las Vegas, Nevada 52%
Trenton, New Jersey 30%
Richmond, Virginia 64%
Omaha, Nebraska 52%
Manchester, New Hampshire 46%
Little Rock, Arkansas 60%
Columbia, South Carolina 70%
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 44%
(Source: http://www.newamerica.net/files/nafmigration/archive/Doc_File_2713_1.pdf)
User's don't choose the frequency. If manufacturers put out a device that doesn't follow the rules, they'll be ruined.
If someone just wants to be an ass and fuck up your television reception, they can do it now, without these rules or the devices.
-John
Go fuck yourself. Why do we have to go through this every time? Not everyone lives on the east coast. Your free TV will not go anywhere.
This is the same issue on it's second or third go-around. I'm sure the rules for using the spectrum have been updated to take in the latest complaints, but that's probably about it.
It's time for the FCC to open this up and see what happens. Rules are in place. I'm sure they'll be adjusted as this goes. Let's use the spectrum and start dealing with some real issues instead of "possible interference" and horror stories.
-John
This article explains it well, I think: http://tipmra.com/new_tipmra/presumption_of_innocence.htm
There's a presumption of innocence in the court room. Cops don't pull you over for speeding and presume you're innocent.
No, it's more along the lines of releasing thousands of people's medical histories and letting everyone sort through the data to try and find something wrong.
-John
Once again, I'm not against "Free TV" going away. I just want it pushed over another medium.
This wiki page has a nice chart showing how the subchannels can be organized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subchannel
I found this explanation of 8VSB modulation that explains your comment fairly well, I think. I was under the assumption that a single HD stream of ~9Mbps on a ~19Mbps 6MHz channel may not use the entire 6MHz and leave some spectrum open. It doesn't appear that this is the case, though.
Bit early to be drinking, isn't it?
I don't think free TV will ever go away, but the method you're using to receive it will change.
-John
Like the cable system, you reduce the number of house-holds "passed" by the spectrum. More, lower power transmitters, smarter receivers, etc. as addressed in the National Broadband Plan as a ten-year objective (or idea, at least).
You've already made it clear that the only thing you care about is receiving the same amount of free TV. That can be provided via cable, satellite or the phone lines to fixed locations. I don't think you have any concerns with spectrum, just maintaining your level of free product.
-John
Air is the medium for the electromagnetic spectrum. They're not the same thing.
I agree with you that some spectrum needs to remain unregulated.
John
>> Broadcast TV is a great example of a effective use of
>> wireless technology. As a one-to-many, one-way method
>> of communication with an indeterminate number of
>> receiving stations, the use of radio waves makes perfect sense.
It made sense when everyone was receiving OTA television. Now only 15% of the population and 50% of the cable head-ends receive OTA. It's no longer a one-to-as-many, more of a one-to-15% while the other 85% of the population don't get any use out of the spectrum.
Fiber, cable and satellite make the most sense for fixed services, such as home television and home Internet. Free up the spectrum for mobile uses where copper/fiber obviously don't make sense.
-John
Stop making this stupid comparison. Yes, technically there are bits flowing with OTA television, but you're comparing apples and oranges. One is a constantly on, one-way broadcast transmission and the other is a two-way demand-based system.
Turn the entire broadcast spectrum into a cable-like system with return paths and on-demand channel assignments and you'll be able to provide far, far more channels and usefulness out of the spectrum versus conventional OTA broadcasting.
-John
Because you're free service is restricting what other services (free or pay) are available for the rest of us.
Over-the-air broadcasts is not the only technical solution to free television.
-John
>> They have a natural right to at least SOME of it being usable without cost
lol... no. The FCC is mandated to regulate the limited resource in the public interest. If the public interest is better served by having channels above 50 designated for free wifi or whatever versus over the air television, then that decision is valid.
You can question the process or whether the FCC really cares about the public interest versus corporate interest, but you have no "right" to free spectrum, TV, radio, etc.
-John