save local tv

[oldtvman2]

what is this? I just heard about it. I haven't heard anything on this board. Is this someones great idea from drinking to much or what ? I haven't read anything till a friend ask me about it. he sent me to www.savelocaltv.com but I still haven't heard anything in the news.

[Dave Loudin]

The issue here is attempts by the wireless industry to grab some more spectrum. The FCC (remember, the current chairman's previous job was in that industry) continues to seek authority to hold "voluntary" auctions as part of the Commision's National Broadband Plan. If you believe Chairman Genachowski's ramblings, the only way to get broadband to the sticks is via wireless and there is not enough spectrum to do that.

[Tom Taggart]

This is the scary side of TV. Most viewers do not watch over-the-air--they watch cable. Cable, in many cases, gets the over the air stations by fiber or CARS (microwave) relay. The folks without cable often can't get the digital signal over-the-air because the new HDTV sets have "blind" tuners (they can't see anything unless the set is next to the tower). Satellite will get you the local stations--but often there is a premium. Otherwise you get the network feed from NY (WNBC/WABC/WCBS...).

So.....if you step back and look at things from the Washington point of view here you have all this spectrum allocated for over-the air TV serving maybe 5% of the total television audience. Which can be sold at a hefty premium to A.T.& T and Verizon, so they can freeze out the other guy, & keep some spectrum in reserve for the newest and latest band-width happy toy from the Apple orchard.

Hence such crazy ideas as jamming all the stations back down on the VHF channel, or having competitors share one channel (WAAA 17.1; WBBB 17.2). Through into this mix the arcane maneuvering needed by the stations to retain their "must-carry" status on the cable systems. The spectrum auctions have been promoted as "voluntary," but the clear implication is that any deal the Congress creates will be based on a "Boss Hogg" sharing of the profits from the sale. (One for you, two for me; two for you; three for me;)

As a practical matter, any spectrum auction proposal will likely be tied up in lawsuits before it gets off the ground.

[genlock]

The real reason


Authorizes compensation to broadcasters for giving up spectrum allocated to interoperable broadband network.

By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 6/8/2011 11:46:59 AM

With promises to continue to work on the bill before it gets to a floor vote, the Senate Commerce Committee voted 21 to 4 Wednesday to authorize incentive auctions that would compensate broadcasters for giving up spectrum for wireless broadband.

It would also compensate broadcasters who retain spectrum but are "repacked" to make larger, contiguous swaths of spectrum available for wireless, and would compensate cable operators for any adjustments they had to make to their retransmissions of the reconfigured broadcasters.

The bill, appropriately numbered S. 911, is primarily about creating an interoperable broadband network for first responders, which would be paid for out of the proceeds of the reaction of that reclaimed broadcast spectrum for wireless.

[genlock]

More real reason


The FCC today announced a freeze on the acceptance of any petitions for rulemaking seeking to change a station's assigned channel in the Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments. While application freezes were once relatively rare at the FCC, they became quite common as a planning mechanism during the years when the FCC was creating a new Table of Allotments to initiate and complete the transition to digital television.

Given the FCC's announced intent to begin reclaiming broadcast television spectrum for wireless broadband as part of the National Broadband Plan, and to then repack the remaining television stations into a smaller chunk of spectrum, today's announcement was not a surprise. The Commission's brief announcement stated that the freeze is necessary to "permit the Commission to evaluate its reallocation and repacking proposals and their impact on the Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments...."

[Tom Taggart]

The $64 question is how much compensation--and how certain is the amount of compensation. In other words, if you had a multi-million dollar TV station, would you trust Congress?

[Dave Loudin]

How many transmitter plants must a station be forced to build these days?

[genlock]

We are going to have to get a VFO and an antenna tuner.

[Greg Goodfellow]

The $64 question is how much compensation--and how certain is the amount of compensation. In other words, if you had a multi-million dollar TV station, would you trust Congress?

This got me to thinking about car dealerships and "Cash For Clunkers," and how long dealerships had to wait for compensation. One wonders if many weren't, or the amount reduced, with dealerships forced to take what they get.

[Big Media]

How many transmitter plants must a station be forced to build these days?

My thoughts, exactly. WE just DID this! The transmitters are barely 10 years old and now we need new output stacks, combiners, filters, transmission line, antennas, exciters (well, we actually need new exciters already if we are to take advantage of mobile video, data casting, and the like). But seriously, we are probably talking 3 million, easily.

Plus, we'd have to start another 6-month-long education campaign just to get the dolts to re scan their boxes.