# How Long Before the FCC Kills OTA TV Completely?



## SayWhat?

> Step 3: profit!
> 
> The plan has three phases. In the first phase, the FCC will conduct a reverse auction in which it asks broadcasters to tell the FCC how much it would take for the agency to buy them out. Presumably, the least popular (and, therefore, least profitable) channels will submit the lowest bids. By accepting these low bids, the FCC can free up the maximum possible spectrum at the minimum cost.
> 
> Second, the FCC will re-arrange the remaining broadcasters so they're clustered together in the electromagnetic spectrum. That will free up contiguous blocks of spectrum that can be put to alternative uses.


http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...t-tv-broadcasters-to-free-up-mobile-spectrum/



> The Federal Communications Commission has begun the long process of reclaiming broadcast TV spectrum.
> 
> On Friday the five FCC commissioners unanimously supported a proposal that will free up spectrum held by TV broadcasters and auction it to wireless broadband providers. The complicated process, which is the first of its kind, has three components.
> 
> First there is the reverse auction, where TV broadcasters will voluntarily sell their spectrum back to the government. Then there is a "repacking" or re-allocation of broadcasters, who didn't participate in the auction to make sure the spectrum is being used efficiently and there are big enough blocks to sell to wireless operators. And finally, the plan calls for a forward auction, in which the wireless broadband providers would bid on available.
> 
> The commission has set a goal of having all of this completed by 2014.


http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-5...f-effort-to-reclaim-tv-spectrum-for-wireless/


----------



## Davenlr

Since antennas are cut to frequency, will phase 2 require them all to replace their transmitter antennas, and retune their transmitters for the new "cram em all together" channel allotments? After being assigned new channels during the digital transmission, I suspect the stations are not going to be happy about moving channels again.

Problem with this is, the places with the most channels, are also the places that the wireless companies need the most bandwidth in.


----------



## SamC

To answer the question, never. The NAB is a powerful lobby (and one which, to most people, has set its members up as an unwanted middle man between the networks and the cable/DBS customers). 

The fact is that, in non-Spanish areas, threre really is little need for some of these rinkydink independent stations, many of which broadcast home shopping, paid religion, and other crap. Five or six stations in a non-Spanish area is enough. Fact also is there are these micro markets without "all" four networks where, thus, everybody has cable/dbs and happily gets the one or two ocal stations and the others from elsewhere, and would happily be absorbed into a nearby market without any loss.


----------



## Nick

The NAB, unfortunately, has done such a good job for its constituents that it has become the 'boogeyman' in the battle for money and spectrum. All the while, the value of a broadcast license goes higher than (not then*) their antennae. Greed may not be good, but it pays well.

_*remembering RK_


----------



## tkrandall

To me, there has to remain a place for "broadcast" (OTA, Satellite/Cable/Fiber) television. That, in conjunction with time shifting devices (DVRs) do and can continue to fulfill a great portion of needs. There are inherent spectrum efficiency advantages for doing this with Live/popular/recorded content. Every individual getting his/her own personal stream via IP seems like a tremendous internet traffic jam waiting to happen, and terribly inefficient from both a infrastructure (backhaul, etc) and spectrum allocation perspective, due merely to the high bitrate/spectrum hogging nature of video. 100 million people all streaming an individual device delivered version of the Superbowl live just does not add up to me. Niche programming, VOD, etc is another matter, and I do se a hybrid solution space, but I would think broadcast + remote recording in some traditional sense makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Paul Secic

SamC said:


> To answer the question, never. The NAB is a powerful lobby (and one which, to most people, has set its members up as an unwanted middle man between the networks and the cable/DBS customers).
> 
> The fact is that, in non-Spanish areas, threre really is little need for some of these rinkydink independent stations, many of which broadcast home shopping, paid religion, and other crap. Five or six stations in a non-Spanish area is enough. Fact also is there are these micro markets without "all" four networks where, thus, everybody has cable/dbs and happily gets the one or two ocal stations and the others from elsewhere, and would happily be absorbed into a nearby market without any loss.


They should only have 3 Spanish stations in each DMA. We have 6. OTA is here to stay.


----------



## MCHuf

While there are far too many LP crap stations out there. I really resent the FCC stealing spectrum that supplies free services and convert it to paid services. The cell providers still haven't used all the spectrum they bought at the last sale. Why let them sit on anymore? Now if it was converted to free wi-fi, then that would be another story.


----------



## Rickt1962

What surprises me was when the big 3 networks disapeared off the Big Dish. What happens in a National Crisis and thats the only way to see whats going on ?


----------



## PrinceLH

I look at it as the media being controlled, by reducing competition and stations being picked as winners and losers, in this deal. There should be a policy of hands off of this spectrum. It belongs to the people and shouldn't be sold to the highest bidder, or should I say highest bidding lobbiests. No more of robbing the people for more social justice money.


----------



## Dude111

SamC said:


> To answer the question, never.


I hope they dont buddy!

I think over the air ANALOGUE channels LOOK AND SOUND much better! (Not compressed,look more natural and sound excellent) -- I remmeber when we only had analogue cable TV,everything sounded much better! (In the 80s)

Its very hard though......... I dont think there is an UPPER LIMIT on what freq can be used,i dont understand why they dont populating 1,000,000 MHZ (1 million mhz) or higher for this wireless stuff!


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Dude111 said:


> I hope they dont buddy!
> 
> I think over the air ANALOGUE channels LOOK AND SOUND much better! (Not compressed,look more natural and sound excellent) -- I remmeber when we only had analogue cable TV,everything sounded much better! (In the 80s)
> 
> Its very hard though......... I dont think there is an UPPER LIMIT on what freq can be used,i dont understand why they dont populating 1,000,000 MHZ (1 million mhz) or higher for this wireless stuff!


There is no over the air ANALOGUE channels in the USA now except for LPTV and that is about to go away - and the LPTV ANALOGUE NTSC channels do not look as good as digital ATSC HDTV.



SamC said:


> To answer the question, never. The NAB is a powerful lobby (and one which, to most people, has set its members up as an unwanted middle man between the networks and the cable/DBS customers).


If the NAB was a powerful as people suggest, then the new WIFI channels on supposedly "unused" TV Channels (which has the potential to be a nightmare for interference) would have never passed and started rolling out.



Davenlr said:


> Since antennas are cut to frequency, will phase 2 require them all to replace their transmitter antennas, and retune their transmitters for the new "cram em all together" channel allotments? After being assigned new channels during the digital transmission, I suspect the stations are not going to be happy about moving channels again.


Yes, they will repack the channels forcing ATSC stations to change their physical channels - repacking them together on the lower end of the spectrum so they can sell off the upper end to Wireless.

Recapping - an ATSC channel takes up 6MHz. Currently, Verizon has 83 MHz of Spectrum, AT&T has 77 MHz of Spectrum, T-Mobile has 48 MHz, and the combined Sprint/Clear merger will have 184 MHz (giving Sprint/Clear more Spectrum than Verizon and AT&T combined). This does not include the large amount Echostar owns and has recently gotten an ok to use for wireless broadband.

These figures do NOT include the additional Spectrum that went back to these Companies this year from TWC, Cox etc.



Davenlr said:


> Problem with this is, the places with the most channels, are also the places that the wireless companies need the most bandwidth in.


Correct, there is not enough ATSC channel bandwidth from roughly Philadelphia > NY > Boston anyway. Of course, if the FCC cuts an ATSC channel from 6 MHz to 3MHz, they figure that will solve the issue of taking Spectrum for Broadband.


----------



## James Long

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> There is no over the air ANALOGUE channels in the USA now except for LPTV and that is about to go away -


September 1st, 2015 ... but many stations have made the choice to "flash cut" and give up their analog before the cut off date.

As far as the overall issue of selling channels and repacking the spectrum the FCC has created a mess that will not easily sort itself out. It should be "fun" watching them sort it all out over the next few years. :nono2:


----------



## kenglish

I'm still wondering where the "transition" channels will come from, if we have to re-pack.
You're not going to change out entire transmission facilities (antennas, transmission lines, filters, combiners, and transmitters) in an overnight shift. The costs for many stations would be more than they could afford.


----------



## SayWhat?

kenglish said:


> The costs for many stations would be more than they could afford.


Which would allow them to be bought up by conglomerates under another proposed FCC policy to loosen anti-monopoly rules.


----------

