[opendtv] Re: FCC TAKES STEPS TO ALLOW NEW LOW POWER DEVICES ON VACANT TV CHANNELS

  • From: "Bob Miller" <robmxa@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:35:55 -0400

If broadcasters can ask for and get must carry and get it upheld by
the Supreme Court, which they did, anything is possible. They can come
up with any scew-ball idea they want in DC and get it rationalized in
their twisted democratic heads and get it made into law. That's what
they do.

But I do agree this is a tough one. Yet I think they can do it. There
is no infinity in DC. Germany devalued their currency to infinity
twice in the last century. Fascist can do wonders when they put their
minds to it.

Well not quite infinity, you could still burn the stuff to stay warm.-

Bob Miller

On 10/14/06, John Willkie <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It's a nonsense question, since broadcasters cannot do that; so, zero to inifinity.  
Must-carry rights are only linked to broadcast usage of a channel.  Must carry rights for 
a long period are not what broadcasters have: with the transition to digital, they get 
them for an extremely long period, since they also then will get "renewal 
expectancy" and can then amortize their broadcast licenses for the first time.  If 
they wish.

The DTV transition will only serve to radically increase the value of broadcast 
licenses. While changing just about everyting else...

You could, for comparables, just look at the results of an auction across a 6mhz band in 
a market.  But, these are artifically boosted by the LACK of a requirement to operate in 
"the public interest and necessity."

John Willkie

-----Original Message-----
>From: Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Oct 14, 2006 3:35 PM
>To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [opendtv] Re: FCC TAKES STEPS TO ALLOW NEW LOW POWER DEVICES ON 
VACANT TV CHANNELS
>
>Anybody know what a TV channel (bandwidth rights only) would be worth if
>a stations were allowed to auction it off?  And how about if they were
>allowed to do it but somehow separately maintain must-carry rights for a
>long period?
>
>- Tom
>
>
>Bob Miller wrote:
>> Somebody gets it! Be still my pacemaker (and numerous hospital type
>> devices??)
>>
>> No one going to mention broadband over power lines or gas pipes? Of
>> course neither of those will leak right?
>>
>> It looks like a full court press on OTA spectrum to me. Has since 2000.
>>
>> Like former Chairman Powell said in reference to the low numbers of
>> viewers who still depend on OTA, "What are we protecting?"
>>
>> Doesn't look like they plan on protecting anything much. And what
>> about that auction that is coming up? Many say it will dwarf the cell
>> auction we just had that brought in $14 billion. So some upstart
>> Congress-critter has to be day dreaming about just what channels 2-51
>> would bring.
>>
>> The only fly in this ointment is the success that OTA is having over
>> there, over just about any there. And this will all come to pass in
>> early 2009??? Just after China shows off its new OTA at the Olympics
>> in the summer of 2008.
>>
>> All the ammunition is dry and the pile is getting bigger. All someone
>> has to do is lob in a small mortar round and we know what that looks
>> like.
>>
>> Bob Miller
>>
>> On 10/13/06, flyback1 <flyback1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> I see this as a not so subtle jab by the FCC at the free to air
>>> broadcasters.
>>>
>>> Hunold, Ken wrote:
>>>
>>> >Broadcasters *already* use this space, if only indirectly.  Wireless
>>> >microphones, for one, already use these frequencies in the TV band.
>>> >This is a huge hornet's nest that has been kicked recently by these
>>> >attempts to allow unlicensed devices to use these frequencies.  There is
>>> >much to suggest that these new devices will not play well with others.
>>> >News, Sports, and Entertainment productions stand to be impacted greatly
>>> >by this step.  Just because there isn't a TV station operating on a
>>> >frequency does not mean that it is "unused."
>>> >
>>> >Ken Hunold
>>> >
>>> >-----Original Message-----
>>> >From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>> >On Behalf Of Manfredi, Albert E
>>> >Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 4:08 PM
>>> >To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> >Subject: [opendtv] FCC TAKES STEPS TO ALLOW NEW LOW POWER DEVICES ON
>>> >VACANT TV CHANNELS
>>> >
>>> >A lot of positive opinions about this move to use the so-called TV white
>>> >spaces, from each of the commissioners, is also available at
>>> >http://www.fcc.gov/, under 12 October.
>>> >
>>> >The going-in assumption seems to be that this "unused" space would be
>>> >used by Internet broadband access providers, and it would be unlicensed.
>>> >But heck, if it's available, then why don't broadcasters themselves go
>>> >for it? Depending what the specifics are to be, e.g. on power limits,
>>> >broadcasters might make good use of it too, no?
>>> >
>>> >Are they permitted?
>>> >
>>> >Bert
>>> >
>>> >-------------------------------------
>>> >http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267867A1.pdf
>>> >
>>> >FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: NEWS MEDIA CONTACT:
>>> >October 12, 2006       Bruce Romano
>>> >(202) 418-2470
>>> >
>>> >FCC TAKES STEPS TO ALLOW NEW LOW POWER
>>> >DEVICES ON VACANT TV CHANNELS
>>> >
>>> >Washington, D.C. -  The Commission today adopted a First Report and
>>> >Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking taking the first
>>> >important steps toward allowing new low power devices to operate in the
>>> >broadcast television spectrum at locations where channels in that
>>> >spectrum are not in use by television stations or other authorized
>>> >services.   This action will enable the development of new and
>>> >innovative types of devices and services for businesses and consumers.
>>> >
>>> >In the First Report and Order, the Commission concluded that fixed low
>>> >power devices can be allowed to operate on TV channels in areas where
>>> >those frequencies are not being used for TV or other incumbent licensed
>>> >services.  The Commission declined to permit operation on TV channel 37
>>> >that is used by radio astronomy and wireless medical telemetry services;
>>> >and on TV channels 52-69, which have been reallocated for public safety
>>> >and other mobile services.  It also declined to permit the operation of
>>> >personal/portable devices on TV channels 14-20, which are used by public
>>> >safety service in 13 cities, leaving for further consideration the issue
>>> >of whether fixed devices might be used in that band.  Marketing of such
>>> >devices may commence on February 18, 2009, after the digital television
>>> >(DTV) transition is complete and all TV stations are in operation on
>>> >their permanent DTV channels.
>>> >
>>> >In the Further Notice, the Commission invited further comment on a
>>> >number of issues that were raised in response to the Notice of Proposed
>>> >Rule Making.  It solicited additional information that is needed to
>>> >determine whether personal/portable devices can operate in any of the TV
>>> >channels without causing harmful interference.  It also invited comment
>>> >to explore whether low power devices should be permitted on TV channels
>>> >2-4, which are used by TV interface devices such as VCRs, and whether
>>> >fixed low power devices can be permitted on TV channels 14-20.
>>> >
>>> >The Commission made detailed technical proposals to facilitate use of a
>>> >dynamic frequency selection (DFS) mechanism to ensure that TV band
>>> >devices operate only on vacant TV channels.  In addition, it sought
>>> >further comment on implementation details for the geo-location and
>>> >control signal interference avoidance approaches discussed in the Notice
>>> >in this proceeding.
>>> >
>>> >The Commission reaffirmed its commitment to developing a complete record
>>> >to ensure that the final rules will protect TV broadcasting and other
>>> >service against harmful interference.  In particular, it invited parties
>>> >to submit test results showing that TV band devices will not cause
>>> >harmful interference.  In addition, the Commission noted that it plans
>>> >to conduct extensive testing itself to assess the potential interference
>>> >from low power devices operating in the TV bands before adopting final
>>> >rules.
>>> >
>>> >The Commission also invited comment on the desirability of requiring
>>> >licensing for devices operating in the TV bands. While the Commission
>>> >noted that a majority of the commenters have expressed interest in
>>> >operating low power devices in the TV bands on an unlicensed basis, it
>>> >sought comments on the relative benefits of both the licensed and
>>> >unlicensed  approaches.
>>> >
>>> >Action by the Commission October 12, 2006, by First Report and Order and
>>> >Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (FCC 06-156).  Chairman Martin,
>>> >Commissioners Copps, Adelstein, Tate, and McDowell.  Separate statements
>>> >issued by Chairman Martin, Commissioners Copps, Adelstein, Tate and
>>> >McDowell.
>>> >
>>> >Office of Engineering and Technology contact:  Mr. Hugh L. Van Tuyl,
>>> >(202) 418-7506, e-mail Hugh.VanTuyl@xxxxxxxx
>>> >
>>> >ET Docket Nos. 04-186 and 02-380.
>>> >
>>> >FCC-
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >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.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >-----------------------------------------
>>> >This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential
>>> >information intended for a specific individual and purpose.  If you
>>> >are not the intended recipient, delete this message.  If you are
>>> >not the intended recipient, disclosing, copying, distributing, or
>>> >taking any action based on this message is strictly prohibited.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
>--
>Tom Barry                       trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Find my resume and video filters at www.trbarry.com
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>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.




----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: