[opendtv] Re: Questions about DTT Transition and Channels 60-69

I stand corrected on the time of the submission, by you and Craig.

I think we're talking past each other here, and I think I can change that.

Yes, band sharing, in the largest 20 metro areas was implemented on a very
limited basis in 1969-1970 or so.  No more than three channels, all low band
UHF, were included, with most metro areas getting just one UHF channel to
slice up for public service communications.

About a dozen years later, that wasn't enough for the Sheriff and LAPD/EMS.
They did multitudes of filings in the early to late 1980's, pimped for
action at the congressional level (which got more than a little bit of
traction) and was ONE of the stimuli for the NABER/APCO filing.  Also, one
of the stimuli for the auction plans, which drew heavily on the model for
spectrum management envisioned in Felkers "Proposal for a Decentralized
Radio Service."

If you have Broadcasting magazine copies from the mid-1980s' there were
articles and editorials aplenty on the newest LAPD/Sheriff filings.  One was
something like "The Posse is Coming. The Posse Is Coming."   Broadcasters
were able to put off the initial charge for a while, because at the time of
filing, LA City and County were only using a fraction of their allocations
and assignments.  Then, in the mid-1980's, voters in LA city and county
passed a ballot measure to expand their system to almost full utilization of
their allocations.  In a later filing, the Sheriff and LA came back
complaining about the many canyons and remote areas that were still homes to
spotty or non-existant radio coverage.  (I thought at the time they should
have had broadcast engineers, and not Motorola, design their systems, since
band and frequency sharing was the case for broadcast stations in LA.)

The 6.5 mhz by 1996 was news to me, but I can see how they did it, since 14
was allocated to LA (with an exception due to short-spacing to San Diego's
KPBS-TV on channel 15), there must have been a reallocation of 469.5 - 470
to LA.  Somewhere, in the dim mists of my memory, typing this is triggering
a half-meme about this, but I don't think I read the FCC text on it, or I
would have a clearer memory of it.

John Willkie
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Schubin" <tvmark@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 5:16 AM
Subject: [opendtv] Re: Questions about DTT Transition and Channels 60-69


>
>
> John Willkie wrote:
>
> >No Mark, I cannot, nor would I try, even if you made the year mark 1991.
> >1992, of course, is another matter.  IIRC, while GI made the filing in
1990,
> >it was during the Christmas season, and was not publicized until
> >mid-January.
> >
> >
> Mid-year (there is some dispute as to whether it was May 31 or June 1),
> and it was publicized almost mmediately, which led the other proponents
> to go digital (except NHK):
> http://www.cedmagazine.com/retro/nineties.html
> http://www.atsc.org/history.html
> http://www.ee.washington.edu/conselec/CE/kuhn/hdtv/95x5.htm
> http://www.ce.org/Press/CEA_Pubs/928.asp
>
> >You said that the transition to digital had nothing to do with public
safety
> >communications.  I see the transition to digital as the end result of a
> >process that began with Alex Felker's "Proposal for a Decentralized Radio
> >Service."
> >
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> >The joint petitions by the Los Angeles County Sheriff, the Los Angeles
> >Police Department and others in that metroplex had been pending for some
> >years, with little or no action.
> >
> >
> You keep making reference to this.  Perhaps I am misinterpreting your
> reference here, but my understand is that the Los Angeles petitions were
> for sharing the UHF TV band with public-safety communications.  But that
> TV-band sharing WAS implemented and before the FCC issues its DTT rules.
>
> Here is the 805-page "Final Report of the Public Safety Wireless
> Advisory Committee," issued to the FCC and the NTIA on September 11, 1996:
> http://ntiacsd.ntia.doc.gov/pubsafe/publications/PSWAC_AL.PDF
>
> I call your attention to the following:
>
> - On PDF page 630 (report of the Spectrum Requirements Subcommittee),
> item 1 of recommendations, "Immediate further sharing of TV channels in
> the 470-512 MHz band in all areas."  "Further" means it was already
> going on.
>
> - On PDF page 640, at the bottom, the asterisked footnote: "Various
> amounts of spectrum have also been allocated [to public-safety
> communications] in the 470-512 MHz band [UHF TV channels 14 through 20]
> in 11 markets: Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New
> York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C.;
> ranging from 6 to 18 MHz. (In Los Angeles, 6.5 MHz is allocated.)"
>
> Was there a different Los Angeles petition to which you refer?
>
> TTFN,
> Mark
>
> >
> >
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>
> - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
>
> - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
>

 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at 
FreeLists.org 

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
unsubscribe in the subject line.

Other related posts: