FCC: Repurposing of the Television Broadcast Spectrum

[Strifer]

For my administrative practice class, I'm writing a comment to the FCC concerning a proposed rule that will change the way the frequencies in the VHF/UHF parts of the spectrum are allocated.

The notice of proposed rulemaking is here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FCC-2011-0042-0001.

In short, the goal is to repurpose parts of the television spectrum for the use of wireless data providers. Two principal ways the FCC proposes doing this are as follows:

1) Incentive auctions for unused parts of the television spectrum already licensed to television stations - These stations could "donate" bands they are not using to an auction. The proceeds from the auction would primarily go to the US treasury, but donor licensees would be entitled to keep some of the money.

2) Permitting two or more broadcasters to operate on a single 6 MHz channel. Under this system, stations could cut their operating costs significantly by sharing the costs of the transmission hardware. This might make less commercially successful stations (such as minority, foreign language, and other niche networks) more viable.

I know there are some broadcast and ham radio experts on these boards. I wanted to get a sense of what you think of the technical feasibility of the second part of the proposed rule, as outlined above.

The FCC says that the current 6 MHz channels (which I assume were allocated in such increments to facilitate analog signals) can transmit up to two HD signals without appreciable quality degradation; a channel could facilitate more than two non-HD signals. What do you think of this?

In my research, I have not been able to locate a specific figure for how much of the channel is necessary for an efficient transmission of an HD picture. Can anyone point me in the direction of any such information?

 

[fredd3]

Here's a good reference page for the ATSC/8VSB digital TV standard: http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ISSUES/what_is_ATSC.html

Generally a 1920 x 1080i full HD transmission (~19.4 Megabits per sec. of a mpeg2 compressed transport stream) requires the full 6 MHz bandwidth, while a typical 1280 x 720p transmission (mpeg2 TS) has about the same bandwidth requirements. IMHO, while various methods can be used to down-res the HD-video and audio content and squeeze two programs into one 6 MHz channel, the picture and sound will be significantly degraded, and fast moving sporting events would be seriously compromised and probably not be watch-able.
Dropping down to the minimum ATSC SD-704 x 480 signal transmission (or re-defining the ATSC standard to allow H.264 compression) would probably be needed for most sporting events and shared channel use. In my opinion only mobile broadband providers win and the OTA DTV broadcast viewing public loses if this FCC proposal gets congressional approval.

 

[Lemon law]

I agree with Fredd3 that this proposed robbery from the television spectrum is highway robbery that benefits telco's and is in no benefit to the general public.

As it is, more people are discovering the benefits of over the air television, that offers higher quality than cable or satellite, yet involves no monthly charges.

As it is, the wireless spectrum is decidedly finite, and wireless telco's will oversell their ownership of of any wireless spectrum. And then when they don't have enough to service what they sold, the law of supply and demand says they can charge ever higher prices for less and less.

We need to have a FCC that looks out over the public interests, so wireless can be used only by those users who can't get bandwidth by wired means. Things like rural broadband, mobile users, and not office workers who could be feeding their iphones toys off the wired and not wireless spectrum.

 

[stevech]

The media has never revealed to the public the fact that for decades now, the FCC has been auctioning the God-given RF spectrum, yielding many 100's of billions of dollars in that time. To the FCC and then what they elect to pass on to the general fund. The 700MHz auctions for LTE were really criminal, but small compared to the history of $$$ for the 1900MHz PCS spectrum.

Yes, the FCC used to license without auctioning, with a use-it or lose-it policy for licensees to stop speculators. That gave way to auctions. This has corrupted the FCC to the point where they pay attention to nothing else.

Next, will we see the EPA auctioning rights to the air God gave us to breathe? Step one in this is the absurd Carbon-Credit system.

 

[PsiStar]

Actually in the trade pubs the frequency auctions have been talked about for years ... ~15 years or so. Other countries also have auctions. Else it is done via hearings & litigated or with lotteries.

 

[fredd3]

Just to follow up on real bandwidth usage, I monitored bit-rates on a couple of dtv channels yesterday. The NYC CBS-2 O&O station was broadcasting NCAA basketball games with a 1920 x 1080i resolution and no sub-channels. The PQ here (some 45 miles from the ESB transmitter) was superb. The bit-rate averaged about 18 Mbits/sec. The NBC-4 O&O was covering the PGA match-play with two SD sub-channels. The main channel golf coverage was 1920x1080i w/ 5.1 sound and a bit-rate averaging ~13-14 Mbits/sec. with audio of 384 bps. Being golf coverage the dynamic video content was somewhat slower paced than bb but with a lot of pan and zoom. The PQ was also excellent. The two NBC subs were at 704 x 480i resolution and averaged ~2-3 Mbits/sec. each with visible artifacts and dropped frames. On a large 37" screen the PQ was very fuzzy. Not terrible but not something I would choose to watch unless the content was very compelling. The ABC O&O stations from Philadelphia & NYC often broadcast two 1280x720p channels with the main one at ~12-13 Mbits per sec. and the second at 4-6 Mbits but with a 4x3 aspect ratio and mostly studio originated programming with a fairly low dynamic video content. All in all, while it may be possible to transmit two HD programs sharing a 6 MHz channel BW, I very much doubt the FCC claim that it could be done without seriously compromising the PQ of one or both.