Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Wireless Network or Weird Al? 234

Posted by CmdrTaco from the not-a-difficult-decision dept.
coronaride writes "This article over on Wired discusses the current topic of the FCC's regulation of UHF's (ultra-high frequencies). Apparently, UHF channels 52 through 69 are in danger of being taken over by wireless networking!" Insert your Conan the Librarian or Wheel of Fish joke here.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wireless Network or Weird Al? More

Wireless Network or Weird Al?

Comments Filter:
  • What does this have to do with the Pentiums?
  • I'll choose Weird Al any day!

    His Pentium song rules.
  • or Weird Al

    Weird Al? I must be reading that wrong. Weird AI? That's sounds more likely. Okay...read the blurb...Conan the librarian joke? Hey wait, it was Weird AL! Dang it...

  • Mrs. Weaver and the Wheel of Fish (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AtariDatacenter ( 31657 ) on Monday June 24, 2002 @06:53PM (#3759767)
    A friend's mom, Mrs. Weaver, was a contestant on the "Wheel of Fish". What you probably didn't know, but could figure out, is that when you spun the wheel, fish scales and stuff starting flying EVERYWHERE. It was a riot.

    PS: I think it was appropriate that the film was shot in Tulsa.
  • I get my Enterprise fix over broadcast, channel 59. Goodbye, Archer!

    But at least I'll still have Buffy.

  • Oh sure (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PhysicsGenius ( 565228 ) <<moc.oohay> <ta> <rekees_scisyhp>> on Monday June 24, 2002 @06:54PM (#3759770)
    When it begins to interfere with TV we start complaining. But where was the uproar when wireless networking started interfering with radio astronomy [nasa.gov]?
    • Hmm, yeah. I'm still not seeing the uproar over the interference of tv.

      Let me know when it happens.

    • Re:Oh sure (Score:2, Funny)

      by zer0vector ( 94679 )
      As a possible combat to this a few people have been wondering if large radio telescopes (GBT, VLA, etc..) could put out enough power transmitting to disable communications satellites and clean up radio frequency interference. Of course this is entirely unrealistic since the electronics of the telescopes are designed for receiving not transmitting, but I think it would be funny if some radio astronomers blew out the front ends of all the Iridium satellites so they could study OH again.
    • How many people watch TV? How many people do radio astronomy?
  • If we utitlized the bandwidth more efficiently, (multiplexing) we wouldn't have to shut out anyone. This is just a stalling tactic... probably supported by the phone companies to try to get back some of the money they invested in DSL before wireless takes off and they're out of the picture.

  • If you insist (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kphrak ( 230261 ) on Monday June 24, 2002 @06:55PM (#3759775) Homepage
    Karate Master: "And TODAY on Wheel of Fish, what do we have!? Ah! A wireless network! Now....will you keep the wireless network, or will you take what's on...broadcast TV?"

    Woman: "I'll take...uh...um..."

    [everybody shouting different answers at her]

    Woman: "I'll take...broadcast TV!!"

    Karate Master: "And now we see...what's on...broadcast TV! What's good that's on...broadcast TV?!"

    [hushed pause; they turn on a TV, "Friends" is on]

    Karate Master: "NOTHING!! THERE'S NOTHING GOOD ON BROADCAST TV!! STUPID! YOU'RE SO STOOPID!!!"

  • Comply with the law or else (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Winged Cat ( 101773 ) <atymes AT gmail DOT com> on Monday June 24, 2002 @06:55PM (#3759777)
    Like it or not, the FCC does have legal jurisdiction over the airwaves, on the theory that they are a limited resource. Said theory is increasingly becoming untrue as better and better use is made of the airwaves, but it is true that there can only be one station broadcasting on the frequency that matches channel 40 (for example) in a given area. Which means the FCC has every right to demand that these broadcasters make better use of said airwaves - say, by switching to digital broadcasting. One can debate the money (whether the FCC should pay for new broadcast equipment, say), but the broadcasters were told quite some time ago that this was going to happen. Mass disobedience of the law is no reason not to enforce it. (It may indicate something is wrong with the law - see the civil rights protests - but that does not appear to be the case here.)

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday June 24, 2002 @07:22PM (#3759889)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Which is why I mentioned the money issue. One could very easily argue that, if the FCC is to impose this mandate, it should defray the upgrade costs for the poorer (or maybe just non-profit) licensed broadcasters so as to avoid this effect. It's not an argument that derails the switch to analog (unless, of course, there's simply no money to pay for the upgrade - which is only true from a certain political point of view).

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
          Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • These tiny channels, with signals reaching only maybe 20 square miles, could NEVER afford the upgrade to digital - they get by on a shoestring budget. Some are run out of people's homes.

        The delay is a good thing. Instead of autioning off the airwaves to a bunch of cell phone pigs, it would be better to work out a scheme where this spectrum could be usef for free wireless networks. The techonlogy is here. All that needs to be done is for the FCC to agree on a set of decent standards (IEEE, WWWC what not) and enforce decent behavior on it (oh my God a new mandate for the FCC, anti-spam enforcer!) This way any houshold could become a broadcaster and have an infinite range.

        Erris sees what good can be done by people who don't give in to the urge to make a quick buck like Billy C did with those stupid acutions. He is obviously deluded and insane. Insanity is statistical.

      • The problem with this is that there are hundreds (if not thousands) of very low power UHF stations that are run by non-profit organizations and service a small demographic... Such as non-english channels, alternative media, community info, etc.

        And what exactly prevents them from presenting that content over a wireless net, especially a wireless local net?
    • They *are* a limited resource. It is not increasingly becoming 'untrue'. It will NEVER be untrue.
      They will ALWAYS be a limited resource.

      The only thing changing is that we can make more efficient use of them, and have to take a fresh look at how we use them.
      • yes, and there also aren't any problems that can't be solved in a limited amount of time... even if that amount of time is 13 quintrillion years.

        as more and more bands are open to public use and better use is made of them, there is EFFECTIVELY infinate amount of use for them. 3000 bands per human is more than enough. you do of course still need the FCC to say who can broadcase 'friends' on channel 4.

  • That's ok (Score:3, Funny)

    by Rufy ( 53968 ) <rufy@@@comcast...net> on Monday June 24, 2002 @06:55PM (#3759780) Homepage
    With all the people willing to shell out money to fight lawsuits over copyright violations, I'm sure we can raise $75,000 by 10pm Friday night.

  • Weird AI (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by frovingslosh ( 582462 )
    I definitely want the Weird Artificial Intelligence. Sounds like fun ;-)

  • So, we have telecommunications companies crying because the spectrum isn't being auctioned off to them. If I remember correctly, this is the same telecommunications industry that is declaring bankrupcy, asking for loans, not implementing new types/expansions of broadband, etc. Exactly why do they need it and where will they get the money to pay for it? Something doesn't smell right.

  • UHF (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Nyarly ( 104096 )
    I'm not sure I see any rational argument to stay in that band of UHF. I mean, UHF starts at Channel 13! Is there any local where everything from 13 to 52 is full? And the move would make UHF that much cooler a cult film, since the battleground wouldn't exist any more.

    IMO, though, the FCC shouldn't be requiring that the current spectrum holders go digital. They should change their licenses to empty channels below 52 at no cost, but make the switch manditory. It's malarky like this that makes the FCC a pox on the States.

    • Is there any local where everything from 13 to 52 is full?

      In metro LA there's: 13, 17, 18, 22, 24, 28, 30, 34, 38, 40, 50, 52, 56, 57, 58, and 62. And yes, I can pick up all of them. (Most of them aren't in English though).

      So I guess 56, 57, 58, and 62 could find open slots between 13 and 52, but then there might be a conflict with some UHF stations in San Diego, San Bernadino, Orange County, Ventura, Lancaster, Santa Barbara, or Bakersfield where reception areas overlap on the edge of the city, or when weird weather makes a station broadcast further than normal. Plus, when stations are close together on the dial they can interfere (as I've noticed with 17 and 18).
      • 13 is not UHF. Anyway you can add 31,36,42,43,53,59,60,61,65, and 66 in there as well. They are the digital channels.

    • Re:UHF (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Ok,

      -Each television channel currently gets 6Mhz of bandwidth

      -The UHF band (Channels 14-69) approximately covers the range 300Mhz to 3000Mhz

      -TV stations on adjacent channels need to be at least 75 miles apart to avoid interference with each other

      -Stations on the same frequency channel need to be at least 150 miles apart to avoid interference with each other

      In a large state with low population centers, there is maybe a group of tv stations in the big city that uses UHF translators all over the state to rebroadcast the transmissions.

      But a place like LA not only has tons of stations, but they are close enough to other large cities like San Diego, that have their own stations, and could interfere if the same frequencies were used.
  • I don't think this comes as a Supplies to anyone, expanding one and taking over the space of another is normal. The UHF stations have been slowly dieing anyhow

    Viva la Cable monopolies!

  • oh, that's ok then (Score:5, Funny)

    by natefaerber ( 143261 ) on Monday June 24, 2002 @06:58PM (#3759792)
    "It's not like the broadcasters are getting totally screwed," said Carri Bennet, an attorney representing the Rural Telecommunications Group, a lobbyist for wireless carriers in rural areas.

    Partial screwing is fine.
    • How much sex is going to be involved? Because if its some! -Homer
    • Well let's see. If the big broadcasting companies aren't getting screwed at all, but are continuing to be granted a government license to print money, and the little guys running the chewing gum and baling wire operations are totally screwed, then, yeah, that averages out to broadcasters in general not getting totally screwed.

  • Is Broadcast TV Outdated? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mr. Fusion ( 235351 ) on Monday June 24, 2002 @07:00PM (#3759801)
    This perhaps is a better question to ask. On one hand, cable tv is ubiquitous, yet there are plenty of television owners who depend on broadcast VHF and UHF stations. Yes, this is only a limited amount of the UHF band, this might be a precursor to more UHF bands, let alone any current wireless/broadcast channels, being overtaken. Later on, we might find ourselves completely dissolving of old but useful technologies just because some techie bureaucrats want a monopoly of their product.

    Why can't we create a technology that uses the UHF bands without television interference? History has shown that modifying technology to accommodate backwards compatibility gives way to a successful alternative to both sides. DSL still lets you talk on the phone while you surf, CD's still work in DVD players, and people with black and white tv's can watch a color broadcast (in B&W mind you) without modifying their sets.

    All or nothing technologies have prevailed before, but in some regards, it's a lot easier on the consumer if accommodations to current technologies are made.

    -Mr. Fusion

    • Re:Is Broadcast TV Outdated? (Score:5, Informative)

      by GigsVT ( 208848 ) on Monday June 24, 2002 @07:14PM (#3759858) Journal
      It's not a precursor, it's the second step, UHF AIR 69-88 or so were already taken for use with cell phones.
      • 70-83 were removed in the early 80's. And then there was channel 1, which disappeared (to become the 6 meter ham band) in 1948.
      • Speaking of which, when I was young, I *didn't* get on my roof with a neighbor kid and a small television, and listen to cellular calls in the high UHF channels. ;)

        Had I have done so, I would have thought that someone's phone was being tapped or something, called a few numbers that I heard spoken, and generally panicked a few people. Especially ones who call 'the other woman' and express their love over the open airwaves.

    • History has shown that modifying technology to accommodate backwards compatibility gives way to a successful alternative to both sides.

      Hmm. Windows 95 + Dos 7.

      I don't think so.
    • people with black and white tv's can watch a color broadcast

      And NTSC and PAL are an evil ugly hack because of the backward compatibility. The signal has to be split up into intensity and colour information. B&W tv uses the intensity values, while a colour tv would use both.

      If the engineers didn't have to worry about backward compatibility, we could allocate more bandwidth to represent more colours. And we wouldn't be stuck with crap ass effective resolution of 350x350.

    • Why can't we create a technology that uses the UHF bands without television interference?

      Communication theory shows us that there are limits to what we can send in a given amount of bandwidth. If you want to send information in a different way, it is much less hassle allocate a discrete part of the original band for a different purpose. You are going to detract from the available bandwidth anyway, so why not segment the space to avoid the cost of making two systems work together?
    • I don't see why we don't just avoid all this hassle and jump to Ludicrous High Frequency
  • Red Snapper, very tasty. Also good for wireless lan, a little stinky though. Mmmm wireless smellovision!

    -Runz
  • Heh. It always seemed to me that the Spanish-language networks (both TV and radio) had the most powerful broadcasting equipment on the face of this earth. I can pick up a Spanish radio station pretty much anywhere, and the Spanish TV channels are much clearer than any other channels picked up by my antenna. Converting those airwaves to wireless services means I can truly be connected anywhere!
    • If you live near the Mexican border, more than likely those powerful stations are in Mexico. Here in LA, there are a few AM radio stations broadcasting from Tijuana that come in better than locals. Why? Because in mexico the FCC can't tell you that 100,000 watts is too much...
  • Insert your Conan the Librarian or Wheel of Fish joke here.

    Of course, all the real UHF fans make their jokes about "Spatula City" or the cut scene of "Oh Those Homos!". ;)

    If you haven't seen that last one, I suggest you rent/buy the DVD immediately! It's worth it just for Al's commentary alone!
  • If these spectrums are freed up, maybe the less successful wireless carriers will get wacky and convert to broadcasting television again. They'll have their own specific frequencies and, if sufficiently national, towers in every major city. Then they can make their own national Wheel-of-Fish-quality shows that can only be picked up by old televisions. I wonder if there are any regulations against this behavior.

    Expect a sudden burst in popularity of those old grainy Zenith knob TVs we all have sitting in our attics.

  • Why can't anyone release a quality movie anymore?

    Blade II, Spider Man, Episode II, Minority Report ... They're all junk compared to UHF.

    BTW, is Al still around? What about his Polka-produicng father, Frankie?

    If you mised this masterpiece the first time around, here's a review...

    Review of UHF [ign.com]

    • Re:UHF Channel 62... (Score:2, Informative)

      by Eggman27 ( 587963 )
      Al is definitely still around - he got married in February 2001 and on June 4th of this year, he and the band headed back into the studio to start working on his 11th studio album.

      Sadly, Frankie Yankovic is no longer with us as he passed away not too long ago - but contrary to popular belief, he and Al are in no way related. The polka/accordion thing is a mix of coincidence and Al's parents belief that there should be another accordion-playing Yankovic in the world when they signed him up for accordion lessons when he was 6 years old.

  • Sen. Hollings you just won!! (Score:4, Funny)

    by MongooseCN ( 139203 ) on Monday June 24, 2002 @07:10PM (#3759840) Homepage
    Sen. Hollings wins the "Inane Bill Of The Year" award!!!!!

    Applause from audience...

    Sen. Hollings gets to drink from the Firehose!!!

    Insane cheering from audience...

  • 14-51? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hoowee ( 581244 ) on Monday June 24, 2002 @07:13PM (#3759848)
    I'm sorry, but.... 52-69? Anybody have more than four local UHF stations? Think maybe they could fit all four between 14 and 51?

    • Re:14-51? (Score:5, Funny)

      by EccentricAnomaly ( 451326 ) on Monday June 24, 2002 @07:19PM (#3759877) Homepage
      In LA we have 16... I'm teaching myself Spanish, Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Armenian, and what I think might be Thai.
      • You think that's funny? I discovered an all-Russian TV station(which doesn't get Interceptor, a crazy GTA like game show, DARN!) which makes sense since most of my apartment complex's tenants are Russian senior citizens.
      • I'm teaching myself ... what I think might be Thai.

        I've been watching the same show. I couldn't figure out what language it was. Thai you say? Cool!

        I love learning the ways of foreign cultures. Did you know that in Thailand they like to eat their food live and drink Blood Wine? They also all have really bad haircuts.

        -

    • Anybody have more than four local UHF stations?

      In many rural areas of the USA a lot of stations, even network affiliates, are UHF.

      • Not just rural areas - Austin, TX is typically ranked as one of the most wired cities in the country, and the local ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, and WB affiliates are all UHF. The Fox affiliate, and two unaffiliated stations, are VHF.
        • Bzzt. You're one of the folks who moved in to Austin the past few years, right?

          For years Austin's sole VHF station was Channel 7 KTBC, a CBS affiliate. Of course, everyone knows VHF beats UHF hands down in quality...that's why all of Houston's network affiliates are VHF, and the crappy stations (I'm sorry, but Fox and WB and other "networks" that broadcast a grand total of 2 hours of programming a day do NOT qualify) are UHF. KTBC was owned by the Johnson family for many years, and they used their leverage with the Feds to keep any and all competing stations off VHF. If you wanted to broadcast in LBJ's territory, you got shunted off to the UHF ghetto.

    • Anybody have more than four local UHF stations?

      Actually, yes.

      14 (Spanish), 20 (WB), 26 (Chinese/Japanese), 28 (Korean), 32 (?), 36 (Fox), 38 (QVC), 44 (UPN), 48 (Spanish), 54? (PBS), 58? (Christian), 60? (PAX) 64 (Spanish)

      However, I do have to agree, they will fit within 14-51.

    • You have to take frequency reuse into account. If there are stations broadcasting in your area, there is a much bigger area where the signal is not strong enough to be effectively received, but still enough of a problem to cause significant interference to other stations. For every square mile served, there may be 5-6 square miles where that station cannot be used effectively. This ratio is called the frequency reuse factor. The total number of channels you need is this factor times the number of channels you want to operate in any given area. So operating 5 channels with a frequency reuse factor of 6 requires 30 channels to be reserved for national use. 14-51 looks more reasonable in this light.
    • Anybody have more than four local UHF stations?

      Last time I checked, Las Vegas had more than a dozen. Only three or four of them are carried by the local cable system; you get to break out the rabbit ears if you want to tune in the rest. (When UPN [upn.com] moved to a different station [ktudtv.com] a few years ago, Cox [lvcm.com] didn't bother carrying the new channel for a year or two after the move. If you wanted to watch Voyager [startrek.com], you had an antenna.)

    • I live in Detroit. Channel 62 is our CBS affiliate. Not that I'd miss it much. :)

    • More than four? Well, sure, but I won't bother listing them and will only say that I think WLVI might be a little pissed if they had to change their channel number from 56.

      (Think Roman numerals if you don't get it. Oh, and it's the WB station in the Boston area.)

  • Al? (Score:1)

    by RatBastard ( 949 )
    How does this effect... Al Frankin?
    • How does this effect... Al Frankin?

      Al Franken is a big fat idiot. Weird Al Yankovic, OTOH, is a comedic genius. :-)

  • and neither should you!!!

    ah... who cares

  • That auction better give the government a whole lot of money (which they'll probably waste on crap like DMCA enforcement). These are my airwaves, and while I have access to television programming free of charge, I'm sure this high-speed wireless internet access isn't going to be free.

  • Why should TV be able to use airwaves for free while most other commercial endevours have to pay.

    Let Disney pay for ABC etc. They are so afraid of loosing out due to new technology but never seem to understand that they indeed has gotten something for free for many years. Seem silly to use airwaves for something that is inherent stationary.

    Reference MIT's media lab Negroponte's law (1990 or so) states that everything that is now via fixed media need to be wireless and conversely.

  • I bet they do (Score:5, Insightful)

    by g4dget ( 579145 ) on Monday June 24, 2002 @07:36PM (#3759941)
    the telecommunications industry says, could easily provide your favorite programming by way of cable

    Sure, at only $20-$60/month, and without those pesky regulations that go along with broadcast TV.

  • UHF (Score:2, Funny)

    by jayhawk88 ( 160512 )
    Insert your Conan the Librarian or Wheel of Fish joke here.

    I would never resort to such a blatant, cheap attempt at humor. Now if you'll excuse me I must go drink from the fire hose.

  • New digital format. (Score:3, Informative)

    by DeadBugs ( 546475 ) on Monday June 24, 2002 @07:45PM (#3759971) Homepage
    UHF is now on DVD. [weirdal.com]

  • Thank the mess that is HDTV for this one. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by El Camino SS ( 264212 ) on Monday June 24, 2002 @07:54PM (#3760000)
    This whole "take the UHF and VHF stations and cut them up" is the entire purpose for HDTV.

    You see, the FCC under the Clinton administration (although, admittedly it sounds like a Republican plan, but yes, it was the Clinton administration) wanted to take all of the non-military band and sell it off to cell phone companies and the like to make money for the government. This new taking of outside bandwidth is just Plan B after the fact that the FCC is a bunch of morons and couldn't anticipate that the cell phone industry would find a good compression scheme for the next gen of phones in under six years.

    "But I thought the whole RF spectrum was the property of the people?" Someone muses in the back.
    "Not when there is someone getting paid," moaned all of the broadcast engineers that had to invest MILLIONS into a non-standard "standard" that has yet to be decided... and costs the end user way too much for the promise of better TV (but not really for most people, because HD signals are so big they have multipath reception problems. Meaning this: you might have a tough time getting a HD signal anyway, at the least it is much more difficult than getting a standard analog signal, and especially in a city).

    By the way, some television stations have to broadcast right now in HDTV. Unfortunately, the FCC has yet to decide what the hell that standard should be in the USA. But then again, why should the FCC decide? They (the FCC) have been getting lobster dinners, hot lobbyists, and secret funds jerking around corporate Japan (because NONE of the HD patents are owned by US companies) for years being "indecisive" about the standard. Of course, all of this added expense and lack of vender competition has made all of the local television stations that are privately owned go "belly up." TV stations are FORCED TO PAY outrageous sums of money for an outside patented system that they are unsure whether even 1,000 people have bought in the entire area.

    I know a lot about this, because I am one door down from a TV engineer at a broadcast station. As they tell me, it doesn't take long to follow the money to find out where this mess all got started from.
    • They (the FCC) have been getting lobster dinners, hot lobbyists, and secret funds jerking around corporate Japan (because NONE of the HD patents are owned by US companies) for years being "indecisive" about the standard.

      obConspiracyTheory: the US corporations are taking their time deciding on the standard in order to run out the time of the other countries' patents.

    • HDTV = High Definition TV
      DTV = Digital TV

      It seems that the broadcasters are much more interested in using the digital technology to transmits six channels in the same bandwidth formerly used for one than to transmit one high definition channel.
      • It seems that the broadcasters are much more interested in using the digital technology to transmits six channels in the same bandwidth formerly used for one than to transmit one high definition channel.

        You're exactly right... if the FCC actually lets them. That is one of the big problems we are dealing with... are they really going to decide what to do with all of this or are they using it as a crutch/money stall to let the cable/sattelite companies crush all of the local channels?

        Probably the latter. They are all in bed with the cable systems, after all, they have no regulations, no requirement for the public good, and sll the money.

        If the government came in and told you how to run your business like the FCC does, there would be class actions up the ying-yang. But unfortunately, these administration appointed noobs actually hold their own court with this too.
    • And what exactly does HDTV provide that is any better than what we're currently watching? Is the programming going to get any better?

  • Yankovic's First Law of Robotics (Score:3, Funny)

    by Dirtside ( 91468 ) on Monday June 24, 2002 @08:08PM (#3760054) Journal
    Jeez, at first I thought it said "Weird AI". I'm like, "There's such a thing as non-weird AI?"
  • The FCC was obliged in the late 1990s to reallocate the spectrum currently allotted to UHF 50 to 59 and 60 to 72 in multiple auctions after Digital TV (DTV) was in full swing. There's nothing new about this. The story at the top of this page makes it sound as though this is a sudden effort to steal UHF for wireless. It ain't.

    The broader public interest issue was debated and buried and lost years ago, and the juggernaut of DTV has moved a few inches, not toppling the analog signals as were expected.

    The UHF broadcasters, just like everyone else, have been assigned new DTV frequencies, but it's ridiculous to ask small broadcasters to foot the bill to turn over to DTV, especially with few views and little interest.

    But it will happen. The former FCC head, Kennard, said he thought it was more like 2020 instead of 2007 when he spoke on the issue last year.
  • I worked on the abortive 700 MHz (Ch. 60-69) auction a couple of years ago, on behalf of a potential bidder, before it was "postponed". Wired has a lot of details wrong, though the FCC has screwed up too.

    Today's stations above channel 51 are not necessarily going off the air. Almost every station has two channels now, one analog and one digital. If the analog channel is >51, the digital one probably isn't. The plan is to eventually shut down analog and move to all digital, all below channel 52. So most stations will just move.

    Analog stations don't have to go dark until 85% of their market can receive digital, so the 2007 deadline is unlikely to be real. I suspect the 2010 deadline (to go all digital ANYWAY) will end up being postponed. TV stations have priority over wireless ops. The wireless licensees can buy off the TV stations, but most stations won't just shut down.

    It is possible that the wireless (2-way; TV, after all, is wireless too) ops will pay for a station below 52 to shut down, in order to accommodate a move to their channel from someone now above 52, so that they can use the channel for wireless. Home Shopping channels and the like are candidates for such shutdown. The FCC however did not adopt a proposal to formalize this via an auction process, which had been proposed.
  • She loves the local Spanish channel 66.

  • UHF is FINALLY on DVD! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Aqua OS X ( 458522 ) on Tuesday June 25, 2002 @05:36AM (#3761427)
    On a side note, UHF finally came out on DVD two weeks ago. It is only 10 bucks at best buy, and it comes with tons of deleted content and other goodies.

    "You get to drink from the FIRE HOSE!!!"

  • Legal broadcast tv? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by randomErr ( 172078 ) <.ervin.kosch. .at. .gmail.com.> on Tuesday June 25, 2002 @10:13AM (#3762262) Journal
    Could this mean you could legally start up your own tv station as long as its under 5 watts and has a digital data stream?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close