Wish tv would go to a network like cell phone are used

#1
Hey everyone, wouldnt it be cool if tv could be used on a Frequency like cell phones are used. The stations could use the towels other than there own, to get good recption out in the country, maybe with a lower cost in the long run to preduce more stations to a bigger audence.If this were to happen maybe it would give the cable and satellite industy a run for its money. Take it that at first there would be a cost but after that it would be ceaper. I would like that because as cosumer I really have no opioion in the country but get satellite and prices have gone sky high the last few years.

Maybe its just a dream but I would like to so something like this happen
 

Don_M

DTVUSA Member
#2
Well, your opinion puts you in good company:

Martin: Broadcasters Should Spread DTV with More Transmitters

Unfortunately, Kevin Martin was FCC chairman during the previous administration. His successor, Julius Genachowski, has so far been much more interested in broadband access than in the ongoing implementation of DTV. (Perhaps more importantly, Genachowski has only been on the job for about 3 1/2 months, so it's fair to say he's barely had a chance to get his feet wet at this point.)

However, the FCC already established the precedent four years ago:

FCC Moves on Distributed Transmission Guidelines, Rulemaking

Transmission Boost: The FCC Permits a Distributed Transmission System

Here are a couple more articles that might be of interest:

Fixing DTV Coverage Problems

Study: 8.5 Million Households Face Poor DTV Reception

If you'd like to push this issue, write your representative and senators in Congress and urge them to pressure the agency into completing what it clearly started with distributed broadcasting.
 
Last edited:
#3
Broad band

Yes broad band is a good idea, it still doesnt slove the promble people is having around the country with tv. The biggest thing is coverage area, because they are so few frequences to use, if too much power were added to the uhf stations it would start the same problems as low vhf stations which would be two stations on the same frequenice blooding out each other. The best I can tell in my area is the uhf stations still cover the same area as they did under anlnog, but the vhf stations cover much less because they have become uhf. I think us as americans has come to the point that we are willing to pay for tv and the cable and satiellte industry knows it. If we were all to quit cable and satiellte something would get done and in a hurry to. I guess in reality we have no choose but to pay. I think in the back of the minds of the congress that made this dtv law know that going foward more and more people are going to have to get cable or sateillte. Its american where corpeit greed has become the nom.
 

Orrymain

, Blogger: Orry's Orations
#4
I don't know all the ins and outs of this, but I do agree that once something gets 'corporate', it's darn hard to get it changed. It's actually the problem with the country. Too much red tape now to change a thing.
 

FOX TV

Contributor
#5
Distributed Transmission Networks

Hey everyone, wouldnt it be cool if tv could be used on a Frequency like cell phones are used. The stations could use the towels other than there own, to get good recption out in the country, maybe with a lower cost in the long run to preduce more stations to a bigger audence.If this were to happen maybe it would give the cable and satellite industy a run for its money. Take it that at first there would be a cost but after that it would be ceaper. I would like that because as cosumer I really have no opioion in the country but get satellite and prices have gone sky high the last few years.

Maybe its just a dream but I would like to so something like this happen
The opportunity to do this was held back by the FCC until it was to late to implement the strategy. There has been a concept on paper to do just this very thing with DTV transmitters, but the FCC did not approve its use until after the proposed February 17th 2009 cutoff date.

The concept has two different names with one being known as Distributed Transmission Network, and is sometimes called single frequency networks also. This concept uses multiple low power transmitters placed at different locations that utilize the same channel. It was Developed by Mr. Merl Weiss who is a consultant for our station. He is known as the "Father of Distributed Transmission", as the concept of using multiple transmitters is credited to him.

The problem now is that most all broadcasters have spent literally millions of dollars each on single location full power transmitters, antennas, and in some cases new towers also. It would be many years before the Distributed Transmission networks could be built now. Thanks again to the FCC and their lack of infinite wisdom, as the Distributed Transmission concept would have worked well in my local area with very mountainous terrain, and the concept has been around for numerous years. The Federal Government strikes again!!
 
Last edited:

FOX TV

Contributor
#6
Conspiracy ?

Yes broad band is a good idea, it still doesnt slove the promble people is having around the country with tv. The biggest thing is coverage area, because they are so few frequences to use, if too much power were added to the uhf stations it would start the same problems as low vhf stations which would be two stations on the same frequenice blooding out each other. The best I can tell in my area is the uhf stations still cover the same area as they did under anlnog, but the vhf stations cover much less because they have become uhf. I think us as americans has come to the point that we are willing to pay for tv and the cable and satiellte industry knows it. If we were all to quit cable and satiellte something would get done and in a hurry to. I guess in reality we have no choose but to pay. I think in the back of the minds of the congress that made this dtv law know that going foward more and more people are going to have to get cable or sateillte. Its american where corpeit greed has become the nom.
Everyone needs to give DTV a chance, as it is a new technology that still has some growing pains to deal with. There are still some stations that have not fully maximized their stations due to technical or financial reasons.

The main reason we have DTV now is because of GREED for the almighty dollar. It was not originally the Government who started us down the DTV conversion path. The Broadband and Cell Phone industry is mostly responsible for the DTV conversion, and that comes back to GREED. Follow the money !!

They see a public resource (The radio spectrum itself) as a huge cash cow..No make that a huge cash Whale, because that is the size of their profit return once the abandoned spectrum is fully developed and "reclaimed" for their use. The Government sold off a public resource for private profits, and the American taxpayer and broadcasters are the ones who will pay.

The broadcasters have already contributed their share by being forced to buy new equipment throughout their infrastructure, beginning with transmitters, antennas, towers, and ending up in master control with an HDTV capable infrastructure that basically has to be completely replaced in order to be able to broadcast digital HDTV signals for free.

This was not a conspiracy by the cable and satellite programmers, but a big frequency grab by the Broadband and Cell phone industries to ultimately steal a finite public resource for private profits, and of course, the Government went right along with the plan.

Forget the fact that some of the spectrum was supposed to be reserved for "Emergency Responders" to get more radio spectrum, for the slice of the spectrum they will get is very small compared to the others who's obscene profit margins will make Microsoft look like a broken down street vendor with only pennies in their pockets. Now that's change you can believe in !!
 

spokybob

DTVUSA Member
#7
I think us as americans has come to the point that we are willing to pay for tv and the cable and satiellte industry knows it.
There are very many people in my area that disagree with that. WHBF returned to RF4 last summer. Rabbit ears & other indoor antennas will not pick up their signal. The only solution was to install a roof antenna or spend $25 a month for cable. They have elected to not watch this CBS station. Why pay to get something that was free in the analog days?
We live 28 miles from the tower. Aledo has a cable company, but most people live in the country or small villages that do not have cable. I am disappointed that WHBF has decided to ignore our problems. People in the urban area of the Quad Cities also had problems with the VHF-LO signal. WHBF has now decided to simulcast on a low power UHF frequency.
I am not sure that Distributed Transmission would work. Have you ever traveled through rural Montana & Wyoming? No cell phone services there. The residents either have Directv or DISH with locals, or no TV at all.
Bob 61231
 

FOX TV

Contributor
#8
There are very many people in my area that disagree with that. WHBF returned to RF4 last summer. Rabbit ears & other indoor antennas will not pick up their signal. The only solution was to install a roof antenna or spend $25 a month for cable. They have elected to not watch this CBS station. Why pay to get something that was free in the analog days?
We live 28 miles from the tower. Aledo has a cable company, but most people live in the country or small villages that do not have cable. I am disappointed that WHBF has decided to ignore our problems. People in the urban area of the Quad Cities also had problems with the VHF-LO signal. WHBF has now decided to simulcast on a low power UHF frequency.
I am not sure that Distributed Transmission would work. Have you ever traveled through rural Montana & Wyoming? No cell phone services there. The residents either have Directv or DISH with locals, or no TV at all.
Bob 61231


Distributed Transmission would also have its limitations too. Its main intention was for it to be used in place of a single location megawatt transmitter in difficult reception areas such as any type of mountainous or irregular terrain.

The only reason that any broadcaster would choose to go back to VHF is to save money. Given all of the problems with some of the VHF channel assignments, I can't see anyone doing this logically, but the decisions were made quite a while back as to buying new transmitters, antennas, and considering interference to other stations etc. The decisions were made long before all of the VHF reception issue were well known.

There was not enough research done on digital VHF, as the original plan was for it to be all UHF as was done in the European countries that have already gone digital, but the FCC bowed down to pressure from the VHF broadcasters and the NAB. (National Association of Broadcasters)

If you give the VHF guys enough power to equal the reception characteristics of the UHF guys, they would far exceed their assigned coverage areas, and that would not be fair to the UHF broadcasters, as that would increase their coverage area far beyond its intended reach.

The bottom line is that VHF does not work well for DTV, but how do you go back and spend several million dollars again when most broadcasters are already strapped for cash and are still making payments on loans for the currently used brand new VHF transmitters and antennas etc.

I think an outdoor antenna should work at 28 miles, and if so, you could drop your monthly fees for the local channels package on satellite. The broadcasters cannot be fully blamed, as the testing was almost finished when the FCC bowed down and allowed the VHF channels to be used again, and they should share most of the blame for all of the VHF reception woes.

Operating a VHF versus UHF transmitter is like buying a vehicle that requires High Grade gasoline, when one was available that got the job done on regular gas. The UHF transmitter uses the high grade gas (Amount of Electrical Power required), while the VHF gets the same job done on regular gas. (This is only comparing the energy usage of the two, disregarding the coverage issues) This is the reason some chose to go back to VHF before all of the reception issues were known, and it is much less expensive to convert a VHF analog transmitter to digital than to buy a new one at well over $500,000 or more.

Analog UHF transmitters were only about 30% efficient compared to some digital models that are as much as 40 to 60% efficient, with the ratio being how much power they consume versus power output. A lot of the power was used up in waste heat in analog, and analog required the use of two separate tube type (Klystron tubes) or lots of Solid State combined amplifiers, where digital only uses a single more efficient IOT tube, or again, lots of Solid State combined amplifiers. Even the UHF broadcasters will use much less power in digital broadcasting than did the old inefficient analog transmitters.
 

FOX TV

Contributor
#9
Well, your opinion puts you in good company:

Martin: Broadcasters Should Spread DTV with More Transmitters

Unfortunately, Kevin Martin was FCC chairman during the previous administration. His successor, Julius Genachowski, has so far been much more interested in broadband access than in the ongoing implementation of DTV. (Perhaps more importantly, Genachowski has only been on the job for about 3 1/2 months, so it's fair to say he's barely had a chance to get his feet wet at this point.)

However, the FCC already established the precedent four years ago:

FCC Moves on Distributed Transmission Guidelines, Rulemaking

Transmission Boost: The FCC Permits a Distributed Transmission System

Here are a couple more articles that might be of interest:

Fixing DTV Coverage Problems

Study: 8.5 Million Households Face Poor DTV Reception

If you'd like to push this issue, write your representative and senators in Congress and urge them to pressure the agency into completing what it clearly started with distributed broadcasting.
According to our stations consultant, Distributed transmission was not given the green light to actually be implemented until the middle of 2009. This gentleman is in the know, as he has contact with FCC officials on almost a daily basis. It was approved much to late to be of any use to most broadcasters, as the planning for the purchase of transmitters and antennas is a long drawn out process, and most broadcasters had their plans for new equipment in place long before Distributed transmission was actually approved for use.

I receive TV Technology magazine on a regular basis, and it would be good for users of this forum to read all they can about DTV. All of their articles are available online at TVTechnology.com. You can search back issues too. My favorite contributor is "The Masked Engineer", for his viewpoints are timely and he holds back no punches in regards to the "COMISH" which is how he refers to the FCC.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
B Comcast 0
G Questions and Answers 0
D Comcast 0

Similar threads

Top