I don't want to wear glasses to see 3D tv. I think until they can project it in the air, so the effect is really that way, then I will stick with 2D.

With conventional camera to do what I want would take a panoramic camera. This would not be easy from what I know, but I might not. However if one could do a low intensity laser scan over a wide angle then close up scenes might look 3D even at 45 degrees. Obviously you could not get 2 sides with the Rocky Mountains in the back ground.

I think it's all hype until we have holograph displays.

By JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer Joelle Tessler, Ap Technology Writer – Sun Dec 27, 1:27 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Wireless devices such as Apple's iPhone are transforming the way we go online, making it possible to look up driving directions, find the nearest coffee shop and update Facebook on the go. All this has a price — in airwaves.

As mobile phones become more sophisticated, they transmit and receive more data over the airwaves. But the spectrum of wireless frequencies is finite — and devices like the iPhone are allowed to use only so much of it. TV and radio broadcasts, Wi-Fi networks and other communications services also use the airwaves. Each transmits on certain frequencies to avoid interference with others.

Now wireless phone companies fear they're in danger of running out of room, leaving congested networks that frustrate users and slow innovation. So the wireless companies want the government to give them bigger slices of airwaves — even if other users have to give up rights to theirs.

"Spectrum is the equivalent of our highways," says Christopher Guttman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs for CTIA-The Wireless Association, an industry trade group. "That's how we move our traffic. And the volume of that traffic is increasing so dramatically that we need more lanes. We need more highways."

That won't happen without a fight. Wireless companies are eyeing some frequencies used by TV broadcasters, satellite-communications companies and federal agencies such as the Pentagon. Already, some of those groups are pushing back.

That means tough choices are ahead. But one way or another, Washington will keep up with the exploding growth of the wireless market, insists Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va. He is sponsoring a bill that would mandate a government inventory of the airwaves to identify unused or underused bands that could be reallocated.

"It's not a question of whether we can find more spectrum," says Boucher, chairman of the House Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet. "We have to find more spectrum."

CTIA, the industry group, is asking the government to make an additional 800 megahertz of the airwaves available for wireless companies to license over the next six years. That would be a huge expansion from the industry's current slice of roughly 500 megahertz. The Federal Communications Commission is preparing to make more frequencies available for commercial use, but has just 50 megahertz in the pipeline.

Two trends are driving the demand.

First, advanced new wireless applications — such as mobile video and online games — devour far more bandwidth than voice calls or basic text messages, says Neville Ray, senior vice president for engineering operations for T-Mobile USA Inc.

Second, consumers are flocking to wireless Internet connections, in some cases dropping landline accounts altogether. ABI Research projects U.S. mobile broadband subscriptions will climb to 150 million by 2014, up from 48 million this year and 5 million in 2007.

The predicament, says Jamie Hedlund, vice president of regulatory affairs for the Consumer Electronics Association, is that many users "assume the wireless experience should be the same as the wired experience, but the capacity is just not there for that."

The industry's concerns are finding a sympathetic ear in Washington.

Julius Genachowski, chairman of the FCC, says finding more room for the wireless industry will be an important part of his agency's broadband plan. That plan, mandated by the 2009 stimulus bill, is due in February and will propose using wireless systems to bring high-speed Internet connections to corners of the country that are too remote for landline networks.

"If we are going to have a world-leading broadband infrastructure for the nation, wireless is an indispensable ingredient," says Genachowski aide Colin Crowell.

Lawrence Strickling, head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the arm of the Commerce Department that manages the federal government's use of the airwaves, says the agency is also hunting for more frequencies the wireless industry can use.

Some of the crunch can be addressed with technologies that make more efficient use of airwaves and new equipment that lets users share bands. The FCC also wants to promote greater use of frequencies that aren't licensed to anyone, such as the "white spaces" between the bands used by TV channels.

But such solutions alone won't solve the crisis, the wireless industry warns.

The FCC's attention for now is on TV broadcasters, which hold nearly 300 megahertz of airwaves that are mainly used to serve just 10 percent of American homes — those that still rely solely on over-the-air TV signals.

The FCC is exploring multiple options, most of which would leave broadcasters with enough capacity to deliver a high-definition signal over the air. One possibility, which might require congressional approval, is a voluntary program that would let broadcasters sell excess bandwidth through an auction, to either the government or directly to wireless companies. Although the FCC awarded spectrum licenses to broadcasters for free many years ago, those licenses are worth millions today.

"Fewer people are getting over-the-air TV and at the same time, more and more people are using mobile broadband," says Blair Levin, the official overseeing the FCC broadband plan. "So it only makes sense ... to get that asset into the hands of whomever can realize its greatest value."

The idea faces opposition from the powerful broadcast lobby. Dennis Wharton, executive vice president of the National Association of Broadcasters, says the proposal would stunt the industry's plans to make innovative use of the airwaves that became free when it turned off analog broadcasts and went entirely digital in June. Broadcasters have already returned more than 100 megahertz of those airwaves to the government and plan to use the rest to transmit high-definition signals, "multicast" multiple channels and deliver mobile TV to phones, laptops and cars.

"The FCC proposal would kill many of our future business plans in the cradle," Wharton says.

Wireless carriers are also setting their sights on frequencies held by companies that deliver voice and data services through satellites.

Hedlund, of the Consumer Electronics Association, notes that some of these companies have a lot of bandwidth but not a lot of customers. TerreStar Corp., for one, launched its satellite in July and is just building a subscriber base. And ICO Global Communications, which is running tests on a satellite launched last year, has not announced when it will begin commercial service.

But TerreStar General Counsel Doug Brandon believes the company has a strong argument for keeping its airwaves: Satellites can provide a critical lifeline in emergencies when other communications links go down and in rural areas where other carriers don't offer service.

If anything, added ICO Vice President Christopher Doherty, satellite phone companies are ideal partners for cell phone companies that want to expand coverage. TerreStar, for one, has a deal for AT&T Inc. to resell the satellite service.

More potential sources of frequencies are federal agencies that handle everything from emergency communications to surveillance operations. The Defense Department, for instance, needs the airwaves for such critical equipment as radars, precision-guided weapons and drone planes.

The Pentagon has vacated some frequencies and is developing technology that can make more efficient use of airwaves. It also says it is committed to finding compromises that work for the government and commercial sector, so long as those don't jeopardize military capabilities.

Karl Nebbia, head of the NTIA's Office of Spectrum Management, points out that federal agencies may be open to moving to different bands because the government is "a huge user of commercial broadband services." But one challenge will be to ensure federal users get the resources to relocate — including new equipment, potentially paid for with spectrum auction proceeds.

For now, one thing everyone agrees is that there are no easy pickings in the airwaves.

"There is no open space anywhere," says Kathleen Ham, vice president of regulatory affairs for T-Mobile.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Comments and disclaimer follow in bold type.

The following comment section contains my own personal opinions about certain topics mentioned in the article above. They are not directed at any political party or any person or belief except for my own. These are my own personal views as an industry insider, and long time Amateur Radio Operator who has followed the giving away of our limited radio spectrum to large companies, or tolerated interference to existing services from the Broadband over Power Line mess, along with nighttime broadcasting of interference causing Digital AM signals for many years. I have contributed many a dollar to the ARRL (American Radio Relay League) spectrum defense fund, so I have been fighting this battle for a long time myself, and way before the threats to the DTV spectrum came along. If you are sensitive to certain NON POLITICAL personal opinions, please do not read any further !!

Quotes from article above in italic type.

Now wireless phone companies fear they're in danger of running out of room, leaving congested networks that frustrate users and slow innovation. So the wireless companies want the government to give them bigger slices of airwaves — even if other users have to give up rights to theirs.

Just what do you think drives an attitude like this in the business world?
I have my opinions, and you can form your own. Just what gives them the right to demand that someone else give up something they already have that provides benefits to the public for the sake of another solely for increased profit?

This is not a case of imminent domain, it is a case of imminent greed, and that statement is a personal opinion aimed at no one but the topic at hand. Seems to me that wireless phone companies are just going to have to realize that their fads and gimmicks and gadgets and all of the other bandwidth hogging schemes are just going to have to share the airwaves just like every other user of the airwaves has done since broadcasting began.

They don't have imminent powers to just come along and decide that their profit motive is more important than others, and they are the relatively "New Kids on the block" as spectrum users, and they still have a lot to learn about the fact that it is a limited "PUBLIC RESOURCE" as defined by the laws of this land, and nature alike, and they do not have exclusive rights to that "PUBLIC RESOURCE", just to feed the hunger for profits.

We just went through the digital transition to try and satisfy the wireless industry, and even before the ink is dry on the digital transition, and the spectrum they freed up is still not being utilized in most areas, they are now crying for even more room already.

"Fewer people are getting over-the-air TV and at the same time, more and more people are using mobile broadband," says Blair Levin, the official overseeing the FCC broadband plan. "So it only makes sense ... to get that asset into the hands of whomever can realize its greatest value." You can also replace the word value with the word.....profits, and it will fit in there very nicely

There are many other opinions on if fewer people are getting over-the-air TV or not, and a lot of the ones I have read about have stated otherwise, as well as some research numbers too. When the economy goes south, entertainment is the first thing to be cut from the budget. So..good bye cable and satellite TV, and hello antenna and FREE DTV. It is happening, but the wireless industry wants the public and lawmakers to think otherwise.


"First, advanced new wireless applications — such as mobile video and online games — devour far more bandwidth than voice calls or basic text messages, says Neville Ray, senior vice president for engineering operations for T-Mobile USA Inc."

Now we are expected to get out of the way for the benefit of Facebook, Twitter, and games of all things, and all of the other bandwidth hungry devices and applications just because they use spectrum inefficiently? It seems to me that they need to improve the use of the bandwidth they already have instead of wanting to annex everyone elses. They currently hold 500 MHz., and Broadcast has 300 MHz. and they still want more?

That won't happen without a fight. Wireless companies are eyeing some frequencies used by TV broadcasters, satellite-communications companies and federal agencies such as the Pentagon. Already, some of those groups are pushing back.

Is Twitter, Facebook, Internet Access or Games so important that they would even think of eying frequencies used by the Pentagon for national security purposes, even if they are not currently used? Does that mean that they will never be needed again, and should be surrendered to private industry at the possible expense of National Security? When is enough actually enough, or will it ever be?

That means tough choices are ahead. But one way or another, Washington will keep up with the exploding growth of the wireless market, insists Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va. He is sponsoring a bill that would mandate a government inventory of the airwaves to identify unused or underused bands that could be reallocated.

If Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va. is involved, we will definitely lose out to the big dollar guys, as he is a Legislator from my area, and I have watched his decisions regarding telecommunications, and HE ALWAYS FOLLOWS THE MONEY !!

He was adamantly in favor of bowing to pressure and voting to extend analog broadcasting until June 12th, even though the majority of Broadcasters in his home district area objected greatly to wasting more money by keeping analog on for 4 more useless months at extreme and unnecessary cost to broadcasters.

And lets not even mention the extra electromagnetic pollution all of this new technology will be adding to our environment, or how unreliable the Cell Phone technology is during an extended power outage, but those other topics for discussion at another time.

Originally Posted by FOX TV

My Comments and disclaimer follow in bold type.

The following comment section contains my own personal opinions about certain topics mentioned in the article above. They are not directed at any political party or any person or belief except for my own. These are my own personal views as an industry insider, and long time Amateur Radio Operator who has followed the giving away of our limited radio spectrum to large companies or tolerated interference to existing services for the Broadband over Power Line fiasco for many years. I have contributed many a dollar to the ARRL (American Radio Relay League) spectrum defense fund, so I have been fighting this battle for a long time myself, and way before the threats to the DTV spectrum came along. If you are sensitive to certain NON POLITICAL personal opinions, please do not read any further !!

[B]Now we are expected to get out of the way for the benefit of Facebook, Twitter, and games of all things, and all of the other bandwidth hungry devices and applications just because they use spectrum inefficiently? They currently hold 500 MHz., and Broadcast has 300 MHz. and still want more?

That won't happen without a fight. Wireless companies are eyeing some frequencies used by TV broadcasters, satellite-communications companies and federal agencies such as the Pentagon. Already, some of those groups are pushing back.

Does that mean that they will never be needed again, and should be surrendered to private industry at the possible expense of National Security? When is enough actually enough, or will it ever be?

I grabbed the parts I feel strongest about as you already covered most of how I feel. In other words I agree 100%.

As a disclaimer I too have over the last 30 years given a good deal of money to the ARRL to fend off grabs of ham radio frequencies. I too have been fighting this fight long before DTV was a twinkle in anyone's eye.

Time and again it has been seen that when the normal system breaks down in an emergency, many of the old tried and true systems are the ones that keep working. Will we need them again, yes, history repeats the more things change the more they stay the same.

The potential for DTV has not even been close to realized. It's not tied to a single standard as NTSC was and would always be. It's digital, hence it can change as software and hardware improves. To throw it under the bus when like Fox says the wireless people have not even built out much less overloaded in the last 100 MHz the broadcasters gave them.

One thing I will repeat because to me this might be the most significant part of the cell companies endless frequency grab. People such as Fox and I have been the frequency grabbing and trading game for decades. There is only so much room, every, period. The cell people already have a lion's share if not the lions share of low UHF were antenna are small yet propagation is still reasonable from a 120 ft cell tower. If they want a whole lot of bandwidth they will be forced into the high end of UHF (called microwaves sometimes). They will have to figure out how to lower their MER and sensitivity of their receivers. They will have to use shorter towers closer together because of the propagation of those frequencies.

My final point being if they were to get the 300 MHz know as TV it would only delay them running out of low UHF frequencies in 5 to 10 years. I think OTA broadcasting is more important than a short term gain.

Originally Posted by Piggie

. If they want a whole lot of bandwidth they will be forced into the high end of UHF (called microwaves sometimes). They will have to figure out how to lower their MER and sensitivity of their receivers. They will have to use shorter towers closer together because of the propagation of those frequencies.

My final point being if they were to get the 300 MHz know as TV it would only delay them running out of low UHF frequencies in 5 to 10 years. I think OTA broadcasting is more important than a short term gain. [/B]

I really do like your stance on this topic. The only thing that can save it is an organized effort from some type of entity such as what the ARRL does for Amateur Radio. Maximum Service TV MSTV:About Us may be a good candidate to undertake this large and difficult task.

" If they want a whole lot of bandwidth they will be forced into the high end of UHF (called microwaves sometimes)"


Is the concept of broadcasting to the general public at microwave frequencies really a good idea? It used to be that microwave frequencies were mainly used for Point to Point communications links, such as Satellite up-links and terrestrial microwave links, and were not actually "Broadcast" into the atmosphere for general reception like we do now with Cell Phones, Wireless Internet, DECT phones, baby monitors, and all other sorts of wireless devices that all "Broadcast Microwaves" into the atmosphere, and directly into your own personal space.

Microwave frequencies use was normally confined to narrow beam widths and Point to Point propagation methods that did not expose the public to RF energy at microwave frequencies. The concept of "Broadcasting" at microwave frequencies is relatively new, and the Russians, as well as our Government know all to well the long and short term effects of constant exposure to high power RF energy at microwave frequencies.

We are now living in a ever increasing soup of microwave energy, when the long term effects are unknown. Could this be the cause of some of the new types of illnesses such as Autism, and ADHD that no one ever heard of only 15 to 20 years ago?

There was a story told to me at an Amateur Radio Club meeting years ago about a TV broadcast engineer who lived at a transmitter site full time. This site had a 200 KW Fm at the time, and a full power VHF analog transmitter at unknown power levels, along with neighboring VHF and FM stations very near by.

They were all on very short towers due to the elevation of the site. The story goes that this engineer lived there for about 5 years or so in the late 1950's and early 1960's before developing leukemia and dying from all of the RF exposure he endured living among it all.

At one of our transmitter sites, the RF levels were at unsafe levels due to the presence of both analog, digital, and numerous FM transmitters. You could take the test leads of a volt meter and string a low signal or "PIN" diode between the leads and measure 8 to 10 volts in the atmosphere.

I also built a crude Rf sniffer that consisted of a V/U meter out of and old SONY tape deck. It was hooked to a UHF loop antenna with a "PIN" diode in series with one leg of the antenna. You could walk around the transmitter site and find all of the hot spots, as it would peg the meter when one was found. I also wear an RF safety meter when at this site, and it registers very high RF levels on a regular basis, even now with analog turned off.

To much Rf exposure is known to be harmful, and microwave broadcasting is relatively new, and when will we know if it is harmful to the general public or not? Will they even tell us if they do find out that it really is harmful? Do they care enough to even do the research? If I had to look out my window and see a Cell phone tower, I would move !!

Follow The Money !!

Originally Posted by Don_M

As BCF68 pointed out in "another" forum:

• The FCC says it's closer to 15 percent. But even at 10 percent, these "penetration numbers" ignore the millions of pay-TV households that have antenna TVs in the garage... or small, lightweight LCD TVs in the 22-inch-and-under range these subscribers carry around from room to room, with rabbit ears attached, as convenience dictates. I know several families like this already.

• Fifteen percent may not sound very high, but put it into perspective: It's a bigger "market share" than every pay-TV provider except for Comcast and DirecTV..

Most of the industry numbers for OTA users vary from around 14 million to as many as 20 million from some sources. My thoughts on this are that the current numbers are inaccurate due to the current state of the economy.The numbers are never accurate anyway, because there is no way to meter it like they do in wired systems so it is an estimate only with no basis on facts.

It is proven by history that when the economy is bad, entertainment is one of the first luxuries to go away. Goodbye cable and satellite, and hello FREE OTA HDTV. I have even advised a small number of viewers on how exactly to go about this in the last year. If I lived in a larger OTA market with at least 10 RF channels, I would do exactly that myself.

There have been several instances like this in the past year, " Hello Sir, I want to drop sat or cable, simply because I cannot afford it right now. What would you recommend I do? Am I going to lose my TV altogether if I do this? What do I need to pick up your broadcast signal?....Can you please help me?"......

This is a scenario that I personally experienced several times over the last year or so. This proves to me that it is happening for real, but the ones eying the DTV spectrum do not want to face this, or advertise that fact, for it would not look good for their campaign to take DTV off the air.

Isn’t it strange that we are rebuilding our entire health care system at a cost of trillions for about that same 14 million to 20 million people, but then that same amount of people are not considered important enough to be included or have a voice in the bandwidth battle? Is there not a lot of irony in that comparison? Where is the logic? Maybe the answer could be found if we would just “Follow the Money”.

I reported about seeing this ad yesterday and here is a link to the ad, the text and the video.
Jim

National Association of Broadcasters | New TV Spot Reminds Viewers of Value of Free TV

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Jim In Seattle

About 5:45 PM PST I was astonished to actually see a "Save Free TV" Commercial sponsored by the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) on my local FOX affiliate, KCPQ VHF-13 in Seattle/Puget Sound.

It caught me by surprise because I was responding to another thread here, so I really can't report the details until I see it again, but it suggested for people to contact their members of Congress. Watch for it! This is a very good first response.
Jim

John,
Not sure what happened but here it is. You're right, I checked the link below and now it works for me!
Jim

National Association of Broadcasters | New TV Spot Reminds Viewers of Value of Free TV

That's fantastic!

May be you don't want 3D but most of the people would like to see it.