[opendtv] Re: TV Technology: FCC Extends Channel-Sharing

From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 00:21:44 +0000

Craig Birkmaier wrote:

I never said anything about using SFNs to serve sub-markets.

Well, then, you should have absolutely nothing left to argue about. Instead, I
think I might have found what your misconception is, and it is one that I
thought we had resolved a very long time ago. So, let's proceed.

I said that ATSC 3.0 makes it possible to serve sub-markets by
controlling power levels and emissions to serve these sub-markets.

ATSC 1.0 can do the same thing! I hate to try to figure out what you might be
saying, because it just gives the opportunity to weasel out with some new
twist. I thought maybe you were saying that unlike ATSC 1.0, ATSC 3.0 allows
you to take small slices of the 6 MHz spectrum, like a set of subcarriers, and
use them to feed sub-markets. And I addressed that very point already. This
idea wastes a whole lot of bandwidth, in the market. You might as well use the
more traditional LPTV approach, which ATSC 1.0 can do **just as well** as any.
Each sub-market gets a 6 MHz LPTV.

As with cellular services, you can checkerboard these small "TV
cells" around a market- in fact you could lease space on the cellular
towers to do this.

No problem doing this with ATSC 1.0! Small checkerboard of low-powered 6 MHz
channels, sharing the same towers as, say, cellular telephones. Explain in as
much detail as you can muster, why you think ATSC 3.0 is required. (LPTV works
fine with ATSC 1.0. And the small transmitters can get by with less peak power
output than you need for OFDM.)

Or maybe you're still laboring under the misimpression that ATSC 1.0 requires
high power? Don't forget that the original ATSC tests, in Hong Kong in 2000,
used 100 W transmitters. That covered all of Hong Kong. Could use way less than
that, for smaller coverage area.

As I stated from the beginning of this thread, the use of high
power big sticks makes it impossible to serve sub-markets.

So you really do think that ATSC 1.0 must only use high powered big sticks?
You're confusing two different topics, Craig.

As I said from the beginning of this thread, *nothing* you mentioned requires
ATSC 3.0 (since you didn't mention SFNs), and *nothing* you mentioned requires
a "spectrum utility." Your idea of sub-market small sticks is mostly threatened
by the FCC "repacking" plan, which makes fewer frequency channels available to
play such games. But in a pinch, it's doable still. Don't forget, I showed you
how the same frequencies are already being used in *adjacent* markets, full
power in one, LPTV in the adjacent. Nothing earthshattering about any of this,
Craig.

Bert

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

[opendtv] Re: TV Technology: FCC Extends Channel-Sharing

Other related posts: