Article: Microsoft Calls Second Channels For ATSC 3.0 Simulcasts ‘Unnecessary’

[comfortably_numb]

https://www.tvtechnology.com/atsc3/...2sKm2HE2HTs5Ox2l11P4yjtawwW&M_BT=553581886132

 

[comfortably_numb]

I'm not clear what Microsoft is advocating for. Are they saying they don't think 3.0 stations should have to simulcast 1.0 for the 5-year period?

 

[Tower Guy]

Microsoft would like to use white space devices in unused TV channels. If broadcasters used a second channel for ATSC 3.0 that did not interfere with other broadcasters, they would reduce the use of Microsoft's white space devices.

This amounts to Microsoft wanting spectrum for free instead of buying it at auction.

 

[comfortably_numb]

This amounts to Microsoft wanting spectrum for free instead of buying it at auction.

It seems that everyone wants a piece of our (the public's) OTA spectrum. I say, leave it alone. It's been reduced enough.

 

[Ilya]

Here is some more on this:

Microsoft to FCC: Don't Let Broadcasters Retain Adjacent Channel
Tells FCC it should free that up for more wireless broadband

https://www.multichannel.com/news/microsoft-to-fcc-dont-let-broadcasters-retain-adjacent-channel

 

[Tower Guy]

Microsoft argument against a ATSC 3.0 simulcast station is unworkable in some situations.

Let's take Syracuse, NY. The major stations are:

14 FOX
17 ABC
18 CBS
19 NBC
20 PBS

If anyone on channels 17-20 wanted to switch to ATSC S 3.0, they could do so.

BUT as soon as they constructed a SFN on their own channel from another location that transmitter would interfere with the stations on channel one above and one below.

In this case the Microsoft argument fails.