The Broadband and Cell Phone industry wants the TV Broadcast spectrum for themselves

FOX TV

Contributor
#1
November 2, 2012

A news story in today's local paper stated that over 25% of the cellular telephone sites from Virginia to Maine went down, or were rendered inoperable during the Hurricane Sandy event, and as of today, 15% of them are still inoperable. Many of these sites were running on generator power for the last few days, and simply have run out of fuel, and the rest suffered severe damage from flooding or wind damage. This has had a huge impact on revenue for businesses that have dropped conventional telephone service (POTS) in favor of wireless, which is much less dependable than POTS.

To me, this would indicate that the Cell Phone industry is not prepared to respond to emergency events that can potentially harm or even destroy their infrastructure that so many gullible people now depend on for vital communications. They seem to put very few resources into maintaining reliability into their systems for the good of the public who depend on them.

The TV broadcast industry has always taken this aspect of their operations very seriously due to their mandatory participation in the Emergency Alert System, which the Cell Phone industry is not burdened with other than access to the 911 emergency communications network. That commitment itself is nothing more than a few rack-mounted computers that interface Cellular sites with the land-line 911 system.

One would think that with the huge profit margins they enjoy, they could make the systems a little more resilient to issues like storms, flooding. and other natural disasters. There is a push going on in Washington D.C. to shrink the TV broadcast spectrum once again. They are essentially asking TV Broadcasters to surrender their spectrum, and in essence their business to the Cell Phone and Broadband industry for a one time payment, and threatening those who don't with channel sharing and other intimidating methods to cripple their business model to the point of relegating it into the history books in favor of the Broadband Robber Barons.

With so much political and financial influence that is enjoyed by the Broadband industry, it would seem that free broadcast TV has a bleak future ahead indeed. With only about 3,000 TV stations in this country, their political influence is very small at best, and the chances of limiting the damage done to this industry is not very good at this time. The only thing that could have much of an impact on slowing or stopping this trend is the American Public, and this would have to be accomplished by the political influence of the voters, and users of free broadcast TV.

Unfortunately, the majority of these users are not even aware that this is happening, and have no idea that their free TV they depend for news, emergency notifications and general entertainment is under attack by the broadband industry. The users of this forum should band together and start a letter writing campaign, and use their voting influence to vote out any politician who supports the destruction of broadcast TV in favor of a for profit industry who gives back very little for their use of the American public's radio spectrum.

We should demand that adequate broadcast spectrum be set aside for use by the TV broadcast industry to ensure its survival for those who cannot afford broadband access. Taking this resource away from this group of the American public for the profits of an industry who uses a publicly owned resource for profit should be prevented in any way possible. They use the publicly owned radio spectrum for huge profits, and then give back very little to the American Public in return, whereas TV broadcasters have always given back to the public for their use of the public's radio spectrum.

I propose that the forum support some type of form letter that could be downloaded, printed and filled out by each member, and then sent to his or her Congressional representatives in protest to the wholesale giving away of a publicly owned resource for profit.

Technology advances always have unexpected consequences that are unforeseen, but this is fairly obvious, and instances of the inadequacies and lack of reliability have been seen in previous natural disasters of the recent past. Hurricane Katrina is the most recent catastrophe that showed just how vulnerable the Cellular Phone system is to failure during natural disasters, and just how little the industry re-invests in reliability.
 
Last edited:

FOX TV

Contributor
#2
NYC TV Broadcasters Stay On-Air During Sandy

"Isn't is funny how this old antiquated technology know as TV BROADCASTING turned out to be more reliable than the HIGH TECH Cell Phone infrastructure?"

TVTechnology: NYC TV Broadcasters Stay On-Air During Sandy

This week’s Hurricane Sandy impacted broadcast and telecommunications infrastructure in the northeast United States. Although power stayed on at the Empire State Building in New York City, a facility engineer I spoke with reported observing many AC power fluctuations. He added that the flywheel UPS system in use at the facility, however, was able to handle it without impacting transmitters. The Empire State Building is home to most of New York City's TV and FM radio stations.

I didn't hear of power problems at other major transmission sites, although most broadcast facilities have generators, so even if commercial power was interrupted, television viewers would not be aware of the loss.

TV broadcasters throughout the region provided audio to radio stations to relay emergency information to people without battery-operated TV receivers. MetroPCS customers who were lucky enough to have one of their new Samsung Lightray phones with the ATSC Mobile DTV tuner and built-in Dyle TV service were able to get simulcasts of the live continuous news coverage from NBC, as well as programming from Fox and ION on their cellphones with no impact on the wireless carrier's capacity.

NAB President and CEO Gordon Smith issued a statement on broadcast coverage of Hurricane Sandy saluting “the remarkable work of our radio and TV station colleagues putting themselves in harm's way to keep millions of people safe and informed on the devastation of this deadly storm.”

Smith also noted these comments from FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate: “Probably one of the things you don't really think about anymore is having a battery powered radio or a hand-cranked radio to get news from your local broadcasters… Cellphones may be congested. Radio is oftentimes the way to get those important messages about what's going on in the local community."

National Journal writer Josh Smith examined how National Disasters Become Battlegrounds in Spectrum Fight.

Referring to Smith's comment that “In times of emergency there is no more reliable source of information than that coming from local broadcasters,” Josh Smith wrote: “That’s a message that broadcasters have taken to Capitol Hill in an effort to fight back against what they see as encroachment by wireless telecommunication providers. Warning of a 'spectrum crunch' caused by growing demand for bandwidth, wireless companies have pushed for more spectrum to be reallocated from legacy industries, including broadcast radio and TV.

In the article, Jot Carpenter, vice president of government affairs for the CTIA, responded to NAB spokesman's Dennis Wharton's assertion that “cellphone-style 'one-to-one' communication is less efficient and uses more spectrum, especially during emergencies.”

“That would be fine, if people only wanted to consume news, and not communicate with family and friends as well,” said Carpenter.

John Eggerton, writing in Multichannel News, said cable outages averaged 25 percent Tuesday morning, but had dropped to substantially less than 20 percent by Wednesday morning. Wireless outages followed a similar trend, although Eggerton pointed out that these numbers are an average and in seriously affected areas like New Jersey and the New York City metropolitan area the numbers were higher.

Some AM radio stations didn't fare as well as their FM and TV counterparts. The strength of an AM signal is greatly influenced by ground conductivity, which leads broadcasters to put towers on marsh land that is prone to flooding. For example, WINS radio has towers in Lyndhurst, N.J. and when the water rose, they were unable to transmit. The problem was likely due to the rising water getting into the tuning elements at the base of the towers, or even shorting out tower base insulators. Details were not available.

Carl Marcucci on RBR.com wrote WINS, WMCA New York forced off air from storm. He said WNYM (AM 970) was able to stay on the air. The Voice of America stayed on the air. “We had people sleep on couches around the building, and one used a cot, but the cots are not very comfortable,” said Terry Wing, English language branch chief. “Some folks came in early on Monday, some stayed late; a couple are still here—I think some are going on 30 hours or more.”

Stations are likely to face additional problems with generators and dwindling fuel supplies until utility power can be restored.
 

tomcat

DTVUSA Jr. Member
#3
People are transitioning from over-the-air tv to more interactive services on smart phones and web based TV. I know that this isn't a popular opinion on this forum but there is a REAL crunch for bandwidth and spectrum space. Plus local TV is a joke. Why not let wireless carriers bid, get, and use the spectrum more efficiently and effectively.
 

dkreichen1968

Moderator
Staff member
#4
People are transitioning from over-the-air tv to more interactive services on smart phones and web based TV. I know that this isn't a popular opinion on this forum but there is a REAL crunch for bandwidth and spectrum space. Plus local TV is a joke. Why not let wireless carriers bid, get, and use the spectrum more efficiently and effectively.
We could start out with the fact that even the 700 MHz UHF frequencies border on being too low of frequency (too long of wave length) to be used efficiently for mobile devices. That doesn't work well both for antenna size and cell size (frequency reuse).

Then we could talk about the fact that broadcasting is a much more efficient way to distribute video than broadband since it's point to multi-point versus point to point.

And, we can talk about the very REAL spectrum hoarding that has been taking place by the likes of SpectrumCo (Comcast, TWC, and Brighthouse).

"Local TV is a joke." Really, is that a joke? Have you seen what the cable industry has been producing the last few years? Okay, there may be a few good shows, but most of it is bandwidth wasting trash. "Moonshiners", "Honey Boo Boo", "The Jersey Shore"... And, you think the Big 6 networks, ION, PBS, and the multicast networks are a joke? Ha!, that's just funny. The fact of the matter is the main reason that people haven't dropped cable in droves (though it has started) is that they simply don't know any better!!! If they knew that they were simply paying their cable company to degrade their picture quality (and in many cases their signal) they would be gone in a instant.

The only reason that the spectrum grabbers want broadcast spectrum is so broadcasters CAN'T use it. It isn't because their is a real spectrum crunch (that's just a convenient fiction) and it isn't because TV spectrum is useful for mobile broadband (it isn't) it because broadcasters, who compete against the spectrum grabbers in video and information distribution do have it. It's called monopolistic crony capitalism.
 

FOX TV

Contributor
#5
People are transitioning from over-the-air tv to more interactive services on smart phones and web based TV. I know that this isn't a popular opinion on this forum but there is a REAL crunch for bandwidth and spectrum space. Plus local TV is a joke. Why not let wireless carriers bid, get, and use the spectrum more efficiently and effectively.

The first argument is that broadband simply CANNOT use the spectrum more efficiently than broadcast TV. It is just not as efficient as you assume it to be due to the point to point aspect versus point to millions of simultaneous points that dkreichen pointed out so wisely.

You only gave a few non informed opinions to a complete article, and dkreichen1968's reply is right on the money. It seems you care nothing about the people who cannot afford broadband access. Should they be excluded from entertainment an emergency notifications simply because they cannot afford broadband access?

You also ignored the issue of the use of the peoples radio spectrum by the broadband industry virtually for free. Shouldn't they be asked to contribute something back to the public for their use of the peoples radio spectrum?

I would also assume that you don't watch your local news, or care about local events. Broadcast TV signals in some markets such as the Grief Stricken New York area have the potential to reach multiple millions of people simultaneously using only a few MHz of bandwidth.

Broadband is not the efficient means of transmission you seem to think it is. If those same millions of people clicked on the same program link at the same time, there would be no way to accommodate them simultaneously. The servers could not possibly grant all of those requests at once, and the bandwidth for that much streaming video simply is not available for that many simultaneous connections.

People who know few facts about how Digital broadcasting really works just assume it is still an old fashioned and inefficient way to broadcast TV programming, but they are misinformed, and really have no idea of the true potential of Digital broadcast TV..

Are smart phone really that smart? Not in my opinion. No one can even predict the long term health effects of constant exposure to all of this new RF radiation. You may end up as a guinea Pig for the Broadband industry, and not even be aware of it.

And lets not forget that 25% of the cell sites from Virginia to Maine were offline after the storm that hit New York. Broadband has no right to the entire broadcast spectrum, no matter what the SMART PHONE USERS THINK !!!
 
Last edited:
#6
The U.S. is a capitalistic society, but we have a long tradition of making information freely available to every man woman and child, on the belief that an informed citizenry is required to make a democratic republic work. For example, every child gets a free education, and libraries are available in every village, town and hamlet. This is part of the American way, and a big part of what made our country great.

Today, we have an aberration to that principle in that cable TV provides some information faster and better than is available to people without means. The last thing that should happen is FREE OTA TV being forced to compete with the money grubbing broadband interests.

The FCC wants to "auction off" the frequencies. Translation: THEY WANT MONEY FOR MORE POOL PARTIES. Can you possibly believe that when they get that money they're going to ship it straight off to the po folk?? The only reason cable companies have unwieldy monopolies now is they figured out legal ways to bribe politicians.

If you sit back and let it happen, you're part of the problem.
 

Jim5506

DTVUSA Member
#7
The rate at which cell phone and broad band are gobbleing up spectrum, it soon will be exausted and the prices will begin to soar.

Usable frequencies are not an unlimited quantity, when the price squeeze comes we will wish we still that OTA broadcasting.
 

tomcat

DTVUSA Jr. Member
#8
The rate at which cell phone and broad band are gobbleing up spectrum, it soon will be exausted and the prices will begin to soar.

Usable frequencies are not an unlimited quantity, when the price squeeze comes we will wish we still that OTA broadcasting.
but there is a very good reason for it. More people using cell phones = more bandwidth usage. Your statement makes it sound as if cell companies are wasting spectrum. No, people are buying these services and in turn, cell companies are using more spectrum and have money to spend. An auction is fair, I mean how much did broadcasters pay anyway for spectrum? Wasn't it given to them?

I can watch TV through internet or broadband on my phone these days. I realize not everyone can afford cable, but who said TV was a right anyway.
 

dkreichen1968

Moderator
Staff member
#9
Your statement makes it sound as if cell companies are wasting spectrum.
Yes, that is exactly true. The currect exclusive use licenses results in large bands of spectrum being wasted. And, cell phone companies, and others (SpectrumCo) have significant amounts warehoused. Again wasted. And, the spectrum currently held could be much more efficiently used through smaller cell sizes and femocells, etc. Again, spectrum being wasted.

Plus the fact that you think the broadcasters were "given" spectrum shows how little you actually know. The regulatory fees on broadcasters in top 10 markets are close to 6 figures per year, and then when you figure in the cost of the public service requirements and it quickly adds up to a lot more. Ultimately the cell industry is getting a great deal on spectrum they make one time payments on for exclusive use licenses.

I can watch TV through internet or broadband on my phone these days. I realize not everyone can afford cable, but who said TV was a right anyway.
I love the narcissistic attitude that spectrum grabbers have. "I can afford to pay for these luxury services, and if you can't, too bad." I notice you didn't actually deal with any of the technical or public safety arguments. You just expressed your narcissim.
 

tomcat

DTVUSA Jr. Member
#10
I love the narcissistic attitude that spectrum grabbers have. "I can afford to pay for these luxury services, and if you can't, too bad." I notice you didn't actually deal with any of the technical or public safety arguments. You just expressed your narcissim.
Let us not jump to drastic conclusions. I'm saying that you're defending a dinosaur. Only a select few want broadcasted, here this second, gone the next television signals. Not trying to knock you guys but why do you think satelliteguys and avsforum cable and satellite forums has so many forum members compared to this forum.

With broadband and cellular networks for TV, everything is going to be streamed, and you'll get to watch it whenever you want to, where ever you want to. Interactive TV. A le Carte TV.

The average joe can now make his own channel on Roku's private channels. I mean think about all of the new and creative channels that are going to be created with the internet. You think cable and satellite companies are greedy, pfft, so are broadcast networks.
 
#11
who said tv was a right anyway.
I'LL SAY IT!!

Geesus bleeping christmas, do we even have the right to SNEEZE in our own homes anymore? All the time I was growing up, I constantly heard "the airwaves belong to the public." That was supposedly the reason the FCC could license a range of frequencies, because, naturally, the government can't own anything. (That was the claim, anyway.)

When the day comes we can't use our privately owned equipment, in our own homes, to watch/listen to broadcasts coming into our airspace, usually without permission, for the explicit purpose that we watch it, then we are truly a communist nation.
 

dkreichen1968

Moderator
Staff member
#12
I'm saying that you're defending a dinosaur.
No I'm not! I'm defending a new disruptive technology that very few people know about due to the money politics surrounding it. And, I'm not saying we shouldn't have wireless broadband. What I am saying is that it doesn't make sense to steal bandwidth from one technology for which it works well (digital television) to use it for another competing technology for which it doesn't work well (wireless broadband). There is plenty of government held and privately warehoused spectrum in the higher frequency bands that work well for wireless broadband to make your smart phone work well into future without stealing poorly performing spectrum from the poor.

Please go back under whatever myopic, self centered, uninformed rock you crawled out from under.
 

tomcat

DTVUSA Jr. Member
#13
No I'm not! I'm defending a new disruptive technology that very few people know about due to the money politics surrounding it. And, I'm not saying we shouldn't have wireless broadband. What I am saying is that it doesn't make sense to steal bandwidth from one technology for which it works well (digital television) to use it for another competing technology for which it doesn't work well (wireless broadband). There is plenty of government held and privately warehoused spectrum in the higher frequency bands that work well for wireless broadband to make your smart phone work well into future without stealing poorly performing spectrum from the poor.

Please go back under whatever myopic, self centered, uninformed rock you crawled out from under.
The spectrum is NOT owned by the poor. It may be the poor who benefits from it right now, but broadcast companies are the ones who are profiting from it. I know it seems hard to believe, but prices would lower and services would increase if wireless carriers had access to more spectrum.

So someone doesn't agree with one's opinion here, and we're asked to leave by a moderator? I haven't once directed an attack on you nor anyone here. You're the one with the self centered attitude, that of which you cannot stand to hear anyone else's opinion who differs from your own.
 

dkreichen1968

Moderator
Staff member
#14
The spectrum is NOT owned by the poor. It may be the poor who benefits from it right now, but broadcast companies are the ones who are profiting from it. I know it seems hard to believe, but prices would lower and services would increase if wireless carriers had access to more spectrum.

So someone doesn't agree with one's opinion here, and we're asked to leave by a moderator? I haven't once directed an attack on you nor anyone here. You're the one with the self centered attitude, that of which you cannot stand to hear anyone else's opinion who differs from your own.
I have to ask you, what did you expect when you posted your opinion on this forum? Did you expect an enthusiastic welcome, or did you post simply to start a fight? I think the answer to that is quite clear, and I find that motivation to be quite narcissistic to say the least. We've had others like you here and they always make the forum a less than enjoyable place. You have expressed your opinion, please cease to be a disruptive force here!

This is FOX's thread. I want him to be able to express what he wants to express without folks, with nothing meaningful to contribute, who simply want to fight for the sake of fighting, ruining the discussion.

Being allowed to post here is a privilege not a right. I'd recommend not abusing that privilege.
 
Last edited:

Fringe Reception

Super Moderator, Chief Content Editor
Staff member
#15
:welcome: Tomcat!

The NAB and forum members here are concerned about spectrum controlled by wireless companies that they have not begun to build equipment for, to occupy (at all) or to fill to capacity. Warehoused public spectum does no one any good and that includes the Military, which holds many 'zones' for future use.

I suspect you have never actually seen OTA HDTV. The difference in the quality or clarity or definition between a cable or satellite broadcast and free OTA would make you say WOW. It is not "a dinosaur". I have lost count of how many people who have seen my TV that have gone home impressed and several have had me set them up for free OTA.

Jim
 

FOX TV

Contributor
#16
but there is a very good reason for it. More people using cell phones = more bandwidth usage. Your statement makes it sound as if cell companies are wasting spectrum. No, people are buying these services and in turn, cell companies are using more spectrum and have money to spend. An auction is fair, I mean how much did broadcasters pay anyway for spectrum? Wasn't it given to them?

I can watch TV through internet or broadband on my phone these days. I realize not everyone can afford cable, but who said TV was a right anyway.

The radio spectrum was not "GIVEN TO THEM" as you erroneously believe. The TV broadcast industry has always paid extreme costs for their use of the spectrum from day one. The emergency alert system is just one example of the price they pay for their spectrum. PSA or public service announcements are another example of real and true costs fore their use of the spectrum. Free air time given away represents real dollars. All air time is money surrendered at the demand of the FCC rules. Community service requirements, Community project involvement and so many other government mandated responsibilities whose costs are born directly by the stations themselves, and are all mandated by the FCC.

The TV broadcast industry is one of the most government controlled PRIVATE ENTERPRISE in existence today. Everything they do is based on FCC regulations, and somewhere in between they are allowed to make a little profit to continue operations for the public's interest ,and to provide jobs, and if they are real lucky, they may even be allowed to make a small profit. All of this is a direct result of their use of the PUBLIC'S RADIO SPECTRUM. The cell industry only has a small commitment in the form of 911 access, and that really only consists of a few rack mounted computers that give access to the land line based 911 system. They pay very little back to the public for their use of the PUBLIC'S RADIO SPECTRUM.


And not only are they wasting spectrum, they are hoarding it in tremendous amounts. They think they should be the only users, and they have a right to however much of it they want just for profits. If X construction company wanted to hoard all of the diesel fuel for their own use, and excluded you from using it for your own needs, especially emergency needs, I am sure you would have a different opinion of it then. People don't see the reality of a lot of issues until it effects them directly.

Where is it stated that their business model is more important that the TV Broadcast industry? What gives them exclusive rights to all of the spectrum they WANT (Not Need) anyway, when it is the property of ALL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

I have been involved in this argument for much longer than you, and I have seen their intent to devour the radio spectrum at the expense of anyone else who uses some of the spectrum that they think they need. They are nothing but Robber Barons who desire to dominate a public resource at the expense of ANYONE who gets in their way.

I bet you did not know that they even asked the Military a few years after 9/11/2001 to surrender radio frequencies the PENTAGON keeps in reserve for emergency purposes .This is the level of their intent to control all of the spectrum possible, and it is in direct conflict to the principal that the American public owns that spectrum, and they give almost nothing back in return for their use of it except outrageous charges for their services, an inefficient use of the spectrum itself.

It would seem that you also think all of the ridiculous text messages that are sent every minute are efficient uses of a precious resource? And that is just the tip of the iceberg in the spectrum wastefulness issue. Do we really need mobile internet access at every single point on the planet? NOOOOOO I don't think so, and especially at the expense of other radio spectrum users simply for the profits of the Broadband industry.

Your arguments don't hold water in relation to the other users of the spectrum, and the Broadband robber barons should never be given exclusive use of any major part of the others users portion of the spectrum. They need to be working on ways to use what they have more efficiently, instead of trying to steal from others who had already been in existence way before broadband was ever conceived, and are using it for the direct benefit of the American public, who by the way, own that very spectrum themselves !!!!
 
Last edited:

FOX TV

Contributor
#17
The appetite for spectrum never ends with the Cell Industry.

The appetite for spectrum never ends with the Cell Industry. They are now trying to STEAL 15 MHz from the BAS (Broadcast Auxiliary Service) which is assigned to broadcasters for use in remote broadcasts such as live news feeds. The FCC forced Sprint to pay for equipment upgrades in the previous spectrum theft round, and now they want to do it again, which will mean that another round of equipment upgrades will be needed.

The cell industry needs to find better and more efficient ways to use the spectrum they already have, instead of just trying to force other users to disappear from existence due to their increasing appetite for revenue (GREED). The whole purpose of the digital transition was to ensure more efficient use of the spectrum, but the cell industry wants to take the easy way out and steal the spectrum from others instead of finding better ways to use what they already have.

This IS NOT free enterprise when an industry with fists full of lobbying dollars uses them to ram rod their way through the political system to satisfy their "need to feed the greed'. And to steal a public resource that benefits all of "THE PEOPLE" for private profits.These types of business people were referred to as Robber Barons back in the late 1800's, and the term is still relevant to them today, and is similar to the methods applied by STARBUCKS COFFEE to take over and eliminate their competition, thus leading to higher prices for their products and to a monopoly type of business model.

Robber barons is a derogatory term applied to wealthy and powerful 19th century American businessmen. By the late 1800s, the term was typically applied to businessmen who used what were considered to be exploitative practices to amass their wealth. These practices included exerting control over national resources, accruing high levels of government influence, paying extremely low wages, squashing competition by acquiring competitors in order to create monopolies and eventually raise prices, and schemes to sell stock at inflated prices to unsuspecting investors in a manner which would eventually destroy the company for which the stock was issued and impoverish investors. The term combines the sense of criminal ("robber") and illegitimate aristocracy
 

qubeular

DTVUSA Jr. Member
#19
an apparent reason to go to avc on atsc. lets see, quality for apparently acceptable d1 is about 1.5mb, acceptable hd is 2.5, fhd is 3.5.

with avc it could be possible to get my entire local channel set over one channel at reduced resolution.

5 x 960x720 at 2mb for about 10mb
7 x 352x480 at 1mb for about 7mb
totals around 17mbit which would allow for some error correction, although not much.

otherwise the metric is around 30mbit using the figures i stated in the first paragraph. which could fit neatly on two channels at around 15mbit with more error correction, and picture quality.

if the content were low passed already, as i have mentioned in an other post some capacity gains could be produced from standard coding.

for 16x9
1080 lowpassed to 960x1080
720 lowpassed to 960x720
480 lowpassed to 354x480
4x3
480 lowpassed to 354x240

these figures dont really work for major broadcasters who seem to want to keep a front of having technical high quality.

as a side note: yes 960x1080 is a little low for supposed fhd, which is traditionally supposed to only go as low as 1440x1080, often time one of the source formats for 1080. honestly i dont feel like catering to having "super" hd over having more raw bandwidth for things like cheap wimax.


there really is no guarantee such a thing would ever become a reality.
 
Last edited:

FOX TV

Contributor
#20
an apparent reason to go to avc on atsc. lets see, quality for apparently acceptable d1 is about 1.5mb, acceptable hd is 2.5, fhd is 3.5.

with avc it could be possible to get my entire local channel set over one channel at reduced resolution.

5 x 960x720 at 2mb for about 10mb
7 x 352x480 at 1mb for about 7mb
totals around 17mbit which would allow for some error correction, although not much.

otherwise the metric is around 30mbit using the figures i stated in the first paragraph. which could fit neatly on two channels at around 15mbit with more error correction, and picture quality.

if the content were low passed already, as i have mentioned in an other post some capacity gains could be produced from standard coding.

for 16x9
1080 lowpassed to 960x1080
720 lowpassed to 960x720
480 lowpassed to 354x480
4x3
480 lowpassed to 354x240

these figures dont really work for major broadcasters who seem to want to keep a front of having technical high quality.

as a side note: yes 960x1080 is a little low for supposed fhd, which is traditionally supposed to only go as low as 1440x1080. which is traditionally often time one of the source formats for 1080. honestly i dont feel like catering to having "super" hd over having more raw bandwidth for things like cheap wimax.


there really is no guarantee such a thing would ever become a reality.
Simply to much technology !!!!!!! Where is Mr Roboto when we need him???
 
Top