Article: FCC Proposes Relaxing Ownership Rules for Broadcasters to Deliver Internet Services

harshness

SatelliteGuys Master
May 5, 2007
16,349
2,575
Salem, OR
Unless they're planning on implementing multicast, it would take a bit more than a whole frequency to provide "broadband" inbound speeds to a single customer.

Where do they expect the customer to get their outbound bandwidth?

As the article points out, this is all a ploy to allow the broadcasters to get around anti-monopoly rules.
 

Juan

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 14, 2003
24,459
5,160
Moscow Russia
Unless they're planning on implementing multicast, it would take a bit more than a whole frequency to provide "broadband" inbound speeds to a single customer.

Where do they expect the customer to get their outbound bandwidth?

As the article points out, this is all a ploy to allow the broadcasters to get around anti-monopoly rules.
Streaming services are not new...they have been well proven...networks are just late to the party
 

harshness

SatelliteGuys Master
May 5, 2007
16,349
2,575
Salem, OR
Streaming services are not new...they have been well proven...networks are just late to the party
You're missing the point.

Here we're talking about live streaming channels instead of "broadcasting" them because there aren't station ownership restrictions on streaming. The end result for those who possess NextGen capable TVs is the same but the anti-trust rules are out the window because they don't (yet) apply to "streaming" services. How can they broadcast a signal that carries multicast TV channels and not be broadcasters?

There is a different form of shenanigans (in favor of the broadcasters) going on in the audio broadcast business: the broadcasters can push out radio streams on the Internet and not have to pay the same royalties that the streaming services have to pay.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: TheKrell

Juan

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 14, 2003
24,459
5,160
Moscow Russia
You're missing the point.

Here we're talking about live streaming channels instead of "broadcasting" them because there aren't station ownership restrictions on streaming. The end result for those who possess NextGen capable TVs is the same but the anti-trust rules are out the window because they don't (yet) apply to "streaming" services. How can they broadcast a signal that carries multicast TV channels and not be broadcasters?

There is a different form of shenanigans (in favor of the broadcasters) going on in the audio broadcast business: the broadcasters can push out radio streams on the Internet and not have to pay the same royalties that the streaming services have to pay.
The real loser will be the local station owners...mostly conglomerate's now...in 20 years or so OTA tv broadcasting will cease and networks will be like any other cable or streaming channel...might have local personslized streams by then or maybe some whole new technolgy that hasn't emerged yet...smartphones were unknown in 2000...eventually something will replace them..

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

harshness

SatelliteGuys Master
May 5, 2007
16,349
2,575
Salem, OR
The real loser will be the local station owners...mostly conglomerate's now.
I don't think you could be more wrong. It seems likely that the mom and pops would be able ask whatever price they wanted -- something they can't do as long as the anti-monopoly rules are making such acquisitions difficult.
 

harshness

SatelliteGuys Master
May 5, 2007
16,349
2,575
Salem, OR
Could be good or bad depending on how it all plays out.
Another party that seems to have been bamboozled into believing that one TV station could provide two-way broadband service (25Mbps down, 3Mbps up by FCC definition) to more than one customer at a time using some fraction of their 6MHz channel.

ATSC 3.0 offers about 28-36Mbps bandwidth all in per channel depending on parameters chosen. 25Mbps inbound and 3Mbps outbound leaves little or no room for an HD TV channel. I'm making an assumption that higher bandwidth will likely result in error rates that may be acceptable for TV but aren't for data.

The numbers don't add up even if they deploy ATSC 3.0 as a massive Single Frequency Network configuration with very tiny cells.

I think this is more about making universal broadband noises that Congress wants to hear without troubling themselves with the fundamental Physics behind it all. How do they plan to facilitate outbound data as part of this? TV channels reach so many people because they are "multicasting" but "broadband Internet" is about a dedicated personal service that you can do what you want when you want and that's not something you can do with only 28Mbps (times how ever many SFN cells you have) to spread amongst all your customers.

I submit that the broadcasters are saying one thing but have something entirely different in mind. I wonder if they've finally come to the realization that voluntary adoption was a pipe dream.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheKrell

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Top