[time-nuts] LightSquared gets at least some political attention

[Charles P. Steinmetz]

>The CEA is petitioning to have terrestrial TV refarmed to free up 
>some spectrum. The wireless companies will both pay the government 
>and the broadcasters to get the spectrum.

Yes, but only if Congress authorizes such "incentive auctions" (the 
FCC doesn't have the authority to pay portions of auction proceeds to 
the incumbents, without action by Congress).  That was looking all 
but certain, but it appears to be getting less so every day.

>the HDTV plan was boned headed beyond belief. They should have never 
>allowed HDTV in VHF, but stationed wanted parity with their analog status.

Actually, most TV stations requested UHF channels during the DTV 
transition.  Some just couldn't be accommodated on UHF, and others 
stayed on VHF to reduce operating costs (much lower transmitter 
power, therefore much less electricity used).  It doesn't matter in 
flat, rural areas, but in hilly country and dense metro areas it 
does.  What the FCC SHOULD have done is chosen any of the available, 
tested DTV modulation schemes that do not fail horribly when the 
multipath index rises to 0.0001.  But no, following closely on the 
brain-dead choices of NTSC ("never the same color"), the CQAM AM 
stereo system, and others, they chose 8VSB.

If you hate DTV on VHF, you're gonna love what the FCC has 
planned.  Its apparent intent is to "repack" all TV stations into the 
existing VHF TV spectrum, thereby freeing up the UHF TV spectrum for 
broadband.  (UHF TV is by far the largest chunk of spectrum suitable 
for mobile wireless that the FCC can put its hands on -- around 230 
MHz -- so it is an irresistable target in the FCC's current 
panic.)  If the FCC gets everything it wants, ALL over-the-air 
television will be VHF when they're done.  This will be a bloody 
battle, and the outcome is uncertain.  One bright side is that they 
could use the opportunity to ditch 8VSB in favor of something more 
efficient and less prone to multipath -- but then everyone would need 
yet another new TV or converter box....

Magnus wrote:

>But have you gone SFN? That would compact the frequency needs such 
>that LTE style broadband could be done in UHF instead of breaking up 
>the GPS signal.

See above -- the FCC already intends to repurpose the UHF TV spectrum 
for wireless.  I predict that the US will not go for distributed SFN 
-- it will instead put several broadcasters' digital streams onto one 
existing transmitter/channel.  So (for example), instead of there 
being 10 channels (10 transmitters) used to distribute 10 digital 
payloads in a given market as at present, the same 10 digital 
payloads (just a wee bit more heavily compressed  ;-) will be 
distributed on only 3 channels using 3 of the existing 
transmitters.  What now uses 60 MHz of spectrum would then use 18 MHz.

Best regards,

Charles