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

[lists at lazygranch.com]

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. 

Though I liked Clinton/Gore, the HDTV plan was boned headed beyond belief. They should have never allowed HDTV in VHF, but stationed wanted parity with their analog status. 

We have one HDTV station with a dozen channels. It is so multiplexed it doesn't even look like SDTV. 

Trust me, I could rant on for pages on this. 

-----Original Message-----
From: "Charles P. Steinmetz" <charles_steinmetz at lavabit.com>
Sender: time-nuts-bounces at febo.com
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 19:23:22 
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement<time-nuts at febo.com>
Reply-To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
	<time-nuts at febo.com>
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] LightSquared gets at least some political attention

Mark wrote:

>if the FCC is going to allow high power terrestrial transmitters
>in frequency bands adjacent to those used for receiving weak 
>satellite signals
>it would be helpful if they would provide some specific guidance in 
>terms of the
>field strength levels that receivers and their antennas will be expected to
>tolerate.

They will, when they publish final technical rules for the new 
terrestrial services.  In keeping with the modern FCC trend, it will 
presumably be in the form of an "emissions mask" that the terrestrial 
transmitters must meet.  I assume that any transmitters installed 
pursuant to the ATC rules are govered by an emissions mask that was 
already adopted by the FCC in one of the ATC orders, which may simply 
be re-adopted in the terrestrial proceeding.

>It would be even better if the FCC would deem field strength levels
>in excess of this amount to be harmful interference

That will be the case when the technical rules for the terrestrial 
services are adopted, and I presume it is the case with respect to 
any transmitters installed pursuant to the ATC rules.

>Setting the field strengths levels in accordance with sound engineering
>practices, getting input from stake holders and providing a multi 
>year phase in
>period would be nice as well (:

Well, whenever satellite services operate adjacent to terrestrial 
services, one person's sound engineering is another's unmitigated 
disaster.  I refer you to the voluminous record in the WCS/SDARS 
proceeding for confirmation of this.  (Go to 
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment_search/ and search for 
Proceeding Numbers 07-293 and 95-91.  Look at filings by the WCS 
Coalition, the several largest telecommunications companies, and the 
SDARS licensees Sirius and XM (now merged))  The FCC is getting input 
from stakeholders, but understand that a bunch of folks in and out of 
government think mobile broadband is the primary key to national 
innovation and competiveness going forward, and they are all scared 
spitless.  The FCC sees the US becoming a third-world country with 
respect to broadband (particularly, mobile broadband) and is in a 
full-on panic about it.

Now, I'm not sure I agree with them -- but then I have a hate-hate 
relationship with my cell phone and probably don't use 100 minutes of 
air time annually, (though I do use a PDA for work e-mail quite a 
lot, but I've never once used it to view a web site, IM, Twit, or 
whatever).  They may be right, or they may be wrong, but (like 
Pascal's Wager) many people will be so scared of the possibility that 
they will feel the need to go that way even if they don't really 
believe in it.  So, the reality is that we *will* be getting as much 
additional wireless spectrum as the FCC can, in its panic, find and 
reallocate.  (All of that would be true just on policy grounds 
alone.  In reality, all of the policy considerations have a fierce 
tailwind in the form of an extremely well-funded and 
politically-savvy telecommunications industry, which stands to make $ 
trillions over the next 20 or 30 years.)  The FCC is rushing to 
implement a 5-year plan (with a 3-year sub-plan), so that is about 
the most phase-in we are going to get.


Best regards,

Charles






_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.