Craig wrote:
"Clearly, the use of the spectrum for TV broadcasting is unnecessary; but
one can question whether it is in the best interest of the people who own
the spectrum to license it to the highest bidder rather than significantly
increasing the amount of unlicensed spectrum for the 'last mile'"
Clearly, significantly increasing the amount of unlicensed spectrum for us
to use would be a real benefit to us, the public, along with use for mobile
data. Unfortunately, the former spectrum use wouldn't bring in the money
to the federal government or provide any kick back that our representation
is paid by corporations to offer such an opportunity, the opportunity to
use this spectrum for profitability. The truth is, "the people" are not
making these decisions, but only a few are--those, who for some reason, are
a group that seem to quickly divorce themselves as being one of "the
people" as soon as they take office as a "representative." I guess the
money is just too enticing to do it right.
In my mind, it is not so clear that "the use of the spectrum for TV
broadcasting is unnecessary;", unless of course, you are meaning the
current spectrum *allocation*. If a video service is necessary at all, it
is necessary to be on the airwaves, and even the shorter wavelengths. I
think there is a real benefit to condensing and moving some FOTA to VHF,
freeing up spectrum, but I also believe that removal, even from UHF, is
short sighted. Fortunately, we aren't there yet.
I would have to take some time to compose a well thought-out list of
reasons for not moving all terrestrial video service to VHF. Perhaps I'll
do that another time.
Dan
