Information from Broadcast Industry Insiders

[Don_M]

We can have two of everything, be it chickens in the pot or whatever. The question was once put to me: what would you rather have, the best broadcasting system in the world or the best broadband system. My answer: both.

Men like Hundt and Genachowski are absolute believers in freedom of choice -- as long as they're the only ones free to do the choosing, of course.

This is yet another aspect of an astonishing spectacle: Democrats acting anti-democratically across the board. I won't bore everybody with further examples of this tendency. They should be self-evident by now.

 

[Fringe Reception]

A link, to make is easy to contact your Representatives

Plug in your zip code and it will instantly give you the Email addresses and phone numbers of your State Senators and Congressmen.

OTA viewers, let's get on this now!
Jim

Keep Free TV Free

 

[cclc]

First of all, although i'm a cable subscriber, i'm a big fan of the Digital OTA and just thought i'd throw my opionion out here. I tried the OTA route after the transition and had very little success with it, my area is just not a good location for recieving consistant quality OTA signals, but i envy all of you who do.

The internet vs. broadband debate seems to be a hot topic right now, i work for a large health care facility (hospital) and the patient electronic records switch is huge! They just spent 10 million dollars on upgrading the IS Department, servers, wifi, equipment, etc. and plan on spending a bunch more. We have over 1500 employees hooked up with thier own wireless laptops and wireless voiceras (communacation) systems. Anything and everything that can be done wireless will be.

I see it this way all the new technology is focused on improving and inventing things for the internet, cell phone, computer and wifi industry. The internet has made more progress in 5 years than broadcasting has in 25 years. We may as well face it, the internet is were it's at and all future technology is geared toward it.

I personally would hate to see OTA just get pushed to the side, but i'm afraid that is what is happening and it will be a thing of the past. The younger people just dont care about OTA, they never had it nor want it, thier cell phones on the other hand is almost part of thier body, they do everything on them!

Big business will dictate what happens, not the government, and believe me big business is all about the wifi industry not the broadcasting industry. I hope OTA survives, but would rather see more effort in suppling everyone with broadband than an OTA that is doomed.

 

[Don_M]

Big business will dictate what happens, not the government, and believe me big business is all about the wifi industry not the broadcasting industry. I hope OTA survives, but would rather see more effort in suppling everyone with broadband than an OTA that is doomed.

"Let the marketplace decide" is absolutely the right way to go here -- even if I may disagree with it, or my choices get displaced by it. Progress always implies a certain amount of creative destruction. After all, who makes buggy whips anymore? Still, every one of the clips Fox has posted betray a readily apparent eagerness by Washington elites to reserve unto themselves the choice between winners and losers in this fight.

If the marketplace ultimately brands broadcasters as losers, that's fine by me. I've got a seriously large problem, though, with government types who believe their thoughts and decisions are more enlightened than those of market participants, and who proceed on the basis of that hubris to establish themselves as the arbiters of which private concerns should profit, and which ones should die. There are a couple of names for this: "fascism" and "national socialism," intertwined concepts which fell pretty badly out of favor after Germany tried them during the 1930s.

 

[FOX TV]

FCC Wants 120 MHz Back From TV

FCC Wants 120 MHz Back From TV
By Harry A. Jessell
TVNewsCheck, Mar 15 2010, 1:04 PM ET

Toward its ambitious goal to make affordable broadband access to all Americans by 2020, the FCC's National Broadband Plan calls for the agency to reallocate more than a third of the broadcast TV spectrum — 120 MHz of 300 MHz — for wireless broadband access within the next five years.

The plan calls for the FCC to free up 36 MHz from the broadcast spectrum band by "repacking" the band and obtain the balance of the 120 MHz by encouraging "voluntary" channel sharing among stations.

The recovered spectrum would be auctioned to wireless broadband access operators and, with the blessing of Congress, the proceeds would be shared with the broadcasters, the plan says. The plan makes no mention of how the proceeds might be split.

It is, in essence, the same plan that Blair Levin, the head of the task force that wrote the plan, floated last October in informal discussions with broadcasters.

"The preference is to establish a voluntary, market-based mechanism to effect a reallocation," the plan says.

However, the plan also says that if authorized by Congress the FCC should consider imposing spectrum fees on commercial, full-power TV stations.

And, it adds, Congress should consider using those fees as well as some of the spectrum auction proceeds to fund an "endowment" for noncommercial media.

The FCC released the 356-page plan to reporters this morning in Washington. Task force officials briefed reporters on condition that they not be quoted. The FCC is to formally unveil the plan tomorrow at an FCC meeting with all the commissioners in Washington.

Under the plan, the recovered TV spectrum would be pooled with spectrum from mobile satellite and other non-broadcast users. The goal is to come up with 500 MHz within 10 years, including 300 MHz within the next five.

The plan sees channel-sharing as the most productive way of recapturing broadcast spectrum. Two stations could share a channel and still each broadcast an HD programming service, it says.

"Alternatively, more than two stations broadcasting in SD (not HD) could share a 6-megahertz channel. Numerous permutations are possible, including dynamic arrangements whereby broadcasters sharing a channel reach agreements to exchange capacity to enable higher or lower transmission bit rates depending on market-driven choices."

The plan says that the FCC should ensure that each station in a channel-sharing arrangement continues to enjoy must-carry rights.

Reaction

NAB EVP Dennis Wharton: "We were pleased by initial indications from FCC members that any spectrum reallocation would be voluntary, and were therefore prepared to move forward in a constructive fashion on that basis. However, we are concerned by reports today that suggest many aspects of the plan may in fact not be as voluntary as originally promised. Moreover, as the nation's only communications service that is free, local and ubiquitous, we would oppose any attempt to impose onerous new spectrum fees on broadcasters."


NCTA President-CEO Kyle McSlarrow: "Chairman Genachowski and his staff working on the Omnibus Broadband Initiative should be commended for their efforts to draft a broadband ‘blueprint' that surveys the technology landscape, that identifies industry progress to date and remaining policy challenges, and that suggests new ideas and reforms to advance our common goal of promoting investment, innovation, and broadband networks that are second to none. As with any report of this size, variety and complexity, we expect that we will have points of agreement and disagreement on specific issues. But the report makes a significant contribution to the dialogue, and we remain committed to working with all members of the commission in discussing new ideas and initiatives that will facilitate the ubiquitous availability and use of robust broadband networks."

Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.): "The National Broadband Plan will unleash a tidal wave of new investment and innovation. Broadband is essential infrastructure for the 21st century, enabling us to compete in the global economy, save money on electricity bills and create good-paying jobs.

"The National Broadband Plan positions our country to lead in this vital area, and I am pleased that the Commission has produced such as visionary, far-reaching plan with specific strategies and goals to help our country compete and win in the fiercely competitive global economy."

Gigi B. Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge: "The Federal Communications Commission has produced a balanced, comprehensive and forward-looking plan that should serve the country well. The U.S. has long needed such a plan to keep pace other countries, and this plan, if implemented, will accomplish that objective."

Dr. Mark Cooper, director of research, Consumer Federation of America: "We see today's National Broadband Plan report to congress as a significant first step in the right direction. It strikes a good balance between what needs to be done in the long-term and what can be done in the immediate future. Given the complete absence of policies to address the digital divide and promote competition in broadband in the past decade, this is an ambitious agenda and a good starting point for responding to the challenge confronting the U.S. communications network."

Read This Article here....http://www.tvnewscheck.com/articles/2010/03/15/daily.7/

The key word here is "Affordable" which just goes to show that it is about the money.....Follow the MONEY !! No more free ride, and if you cannot afford "Affordable" then it seems that you are just plain out of luck.

But, maybe there is a bright spot for those who cannot afford "Affordable", Just make the tired old taxpayers pay for it, just like the converter boxes.

FOLLOW THE MONEY..ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY, and it will explain everything. Capitalism sucks when greed has taken over !!!!!!!

 

[BCF68]

FCC Wants 120 MHz Back From TV
By Harry A. Jessell
TVNewsCheck, Mar 15 2010, 1:04 PM ET

Toward its ambitious goal to make affordable broadband access to all Americans by 2020, the FCC's National Broadband Plan calls for the agency to reallocate more than a third of the broadcast TV spectrum — 120 MHz of 300 MHz — for wireless broadband access within the next five years.

The plan calls for the FCC to free up 36 MHz from the broadcast spectrum band by "repacking" the band and obtain the balance of the 120 MHz by encouraging "voluntary" channel sharing among stations.

So 36 MHZ is 6 channels. So I'm assuming they want to take away 46-51. Ok so what about the stations on those fequncies ais the FCC going to give them funds to get new transmitters for the new channel assignments they'll have to have?

I think if the FCC was going to get some of that spectrum from Ch 2-6 no one would care but of course those won't be the ones they take. In fact this may make stations go back to using low-VHF which absolutley sucks for digital TV.

Honestly the mobile companies just got 108 MHz a year ago and are already in trouble and another 120 MHz is suppossed to solve this impending problem?

I do think that stations should put all thier towers in the same location that would make it easier for stations to survive with less spectrum.

 

[Aaron62]

I do think that stations should put all thier towers in the same location that would make it easier for stations to survive with less spectrum.

Aren't there a lot of markets that do that anyway too? It makes sense from an efficiency standpoint, but I'd imagine that would be pretty costly for stations that need to relocate. Think I saw where the average TV tower costs anywhere between $500K-$1M to build.

 

[BCF68]

Aren't there a lot of markets that do that anyway too? It makes sense from an efficiency standpoint, but I'd imagine that would be pretty costly for stations that need to relocate. Think I saw where the average TV tower costs anywhere between $500K-$1M to build.

Not Nashville for the most part. For exmaple WTVF (CBS ) is 10 miles away from WSMV( NBC ) and 15.5 miles away form WRKN( ABC ) and WNPT ( PBS ). WSMV is 6.75 miles from WRKN and WNPT. That's stupid. WSMV and WTVF are the ONLY stations on their towers. Ok that's a waste. So one of those stations could move to the other's tower and there wouldn't be any tower building costs. Since the FCC agreed to give broadcasters a cut of the money that money can go for relocation of transmitters.

 

[FOX TV]

First of all, although i'm a cable subscriber, i'm a big fan of the Digital OTA and just thought i'd throw my opionion out here. I tried the OTA route after the transition and had very little success with it, my area is just not a good location for recieving consistant quality OTA signals, but i envy all of you who do.

The internet vs. broadband debate seems to be a hot topic right now, i work for a large health care facility (hospital) and the patient electronic records switch is huge! They just spent 10 million dollars on upgrading the IS Department, servers, wifi, equipment, etc. and plan on spending a bunch more. We have over 1500 employees hooked up with thier own wireless laptops and wireless voiceras (communacation) systems. Anything and everything that can be done wireless will be.

I see it this way all the new technology is focused on improving and inventing things for the internet, cell phone, computer and wifi industry. The internet has made more progress in 5 years than broadcasting has in 25 years. We may as well face it, the internet is were it's at and all future technology is geared toward it.

I personally would hate to see OTA just get pushed to the side, but i'm afraid that is what is happening and it will be a thing of the past. The younger people just dont care about OTA, they never had it nor want it, thier cell phones on the other hand is almost part of thier body, they do everything on them!

Big business will dictate what happens, not the government, and believe me big business is all about the wifi industry not the broadcasting industry. I hope OTA survives, but would rather see more effort in suppling everyone with broadband than an OTA that is doomed.

Ok.. there is one other aspect of the broadband fiasco that is purposely being ignored by the broadband industry, as well as the Federal Government, and they are both complacent, and it is about the money as it always is. FOLLOW THE MONEY, AND YOU WILL FIND THE ANSWER !!

Say we do transition to an all broadband infrastructure, and in another 10 years we all start developing these strange health issues that we have not seen in the past such as ADHD and autism. Suddenly it is uncovered, and discovered that we are killing ourselves with all of this new found MICROWAVE RADIATION that we are constantly exposed to.

The European countries already know the dangers of low level MICROWAVE RADIATION, and have issued warnings for years against the use of MICROWAVE RADIATION emitting devices for younger people for years now.

The domestic broadband industry has been hiding the results of exposure for many years now too, but most of the European countries have actually released the results of MICROWAVE RADIATION testing, and they don't even recommend the use of Cell phones for children and young teens under the age of 18.

Today's younger generation has been technologically brainwashed ( Maybe by the MICROWAVE RADIATION itself ) into thinking that wireless is magic, and that using it has no repercussions...WRONG !! Look at the research and figure it out for yourself. Microwaves are harmful, and have not been in use long enough to see the long term effects from constant exposure, even at low levels.

Our Government knows full well the effects of long term MICROWAVE RADIATION exposure, as or embassy in Russia was bombarded by MICROWAVE RADIATION for years, and the effects are well known. Wouldn't it be the ultimate irony if the very system they choose to go with ends up killing everyone?

Ever heard of D.E.C.T. phones or ghz band baby monitors? Research has shown that these devices when placed near an infant, disturbs their brainwave patterns and disrupts normal and natural thought processes in small, undeveloped brains.

No wonder the younger generations have no common sense these days !! Wireless this and 3G that, and now 4G everywhere? No one knows if all of this stuff is safe, and research tends to suggest that it is not, and if it is found to be true, do you think they will tell us about it?

The domestic cell phone industry did their own safety research, as opposed to the European countries where the Governments did the research and actually reported their non biased results, and some of the facts presented in the European results are just plain scary. Talk about the wolf guarding the Hen House.

This is not just a Cell Phone issue at all. It is much bigger than that, and it involves D.E.C.T. phones, wireless computer connections in your home, wireless routers and even in wireless "HOT SPOTS" that expose the public to this potential hazard in public places.

When the guy beside you whips out his IPHONE to answer a call, or turns on his laptop in a public place, he is exposing you to microwave radiation, and it does not discriminate. It will not just radiate the user, it also radiates YOU !! If a cell phone is on, it is transmitting microwave energy at all times when simply powered up.

You don't even have to be making a call to be constantly exposed to this electromagnetic pollution, you simply need to turn on your phone for the privilege of being radiated by microwaves.

I cannot figure out where the common sense went to, but I can assure you that if you just FOLLOW THE MONEY, YOU WILL FIND THE ANSWER !!!!

Look at this web link for more information on Cell Phone radiation exposure, and we are adding to this electromagnetic pollution on a daily basis with promises of it doubling or tripling in the years to come. This is scary stuff, but to figure out why we are not being told about it, one would have to FOLLOW THE MONEY, AND YOU WILL FIND THE ANSWER !!!!


http://www.venusproject.com/ecs/Cell_Phones_Health_Hazards2.html

you can use this link to find out how many and how close Cell Phone towers are to your location.

http://www.antennasearch.com/

 

[FOX TV]

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is the enemy !!

Barring some big surprise, the chatter in the media and tech communities this week will focus on Washington, where the Federal Communications Commission tomorrow will finally release its National Broadband Plan.

We already know a lot about where the agency's headed with the congressionally mandated proposed roadmap to extend and improve Internet services.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and Blair Levin, executive director of the FCC Broadband Initiative, have performed a Dance of the Seven Veils over the last several months, disclosing tantalizing tidbits about the problems they perceive and potential ways to address them. Don't be surprised to hear about efforts to empower consumers –- for example, making it easy to access and control medical records, to connect to broadband at schools and libraries, and use the Web to learn about government information and services.

But the media and tech worlds want to know: Will the FCC propose other bold changes that might antagonize large companies, including broadband giants Comcast and Verizon, or will it try to accommodate them with relatively moderate reforms?

Some public interest groups have urged the FCC to get tough, for example, by including provisions that would promote net neutrality, fight Internet hate speech and encourage competition.

Commissioner Mignon Clyburn issued a statement last week that seemed to fire a shot across the bow of broadband providers. "When prices rise across the industry, and where there are only a limited number of players in the game, we have to ask ourselves whether there is any meaningful competition in the marketplace," she said.

Here are a few specific potential flash points to watch:

-- Cable companies want to see how the agency follows through on its announced intention to use the phone industry's $8 billion a year Universal Service Fund to promote broadband -- not just traditional phone service for people who are poor or live in rural areas. An aggressive plan could increase competition in areas where cable companies say they already offer Internet services.

-- Industry groups are concerned about a possible mandate that would give consumers the freedom to ditch their cable company-provided set top boxes. People still need those boxes if they want to make full use of services such as video on demand, which require users to send a signal to the company. But the FCC said last year that a "healthy broadband ecosystem" is only possible if other devices can do the same thing. Regulators want consumers to be able to choose among an array of computers, DVRs, video game players and other gizmos that can harness the power of cable's TV and broadband services.

National Cable & Telecommunications Association CEO Kyle McSlarrow tried to get ahead of events on Friday. He sent a letter to Genachowski listing seven principles cable companies would voluntarily endorse to help make programming available to consumers and consumer electronics companies. The group says that the principles should be embraced "by all video providers" so they can "to the maximum extent possible, serve as the basis for private sector solutions, not government technology mandates."

Hollywood studios also have a stake in this. They have told the FCC that if it requires a change in TV technology, then it should require devices that access the programming to include a kind of software switch designed to minimize piracy. It would give movie makers opportunities to prevent people from sending a digital copy of certain movies to a different device. Public interest activists including the Consumer Federation of America and the Media Access Project say that could be misused to block people from watching shows the way they want, such as on a TV set in a different room or a at a later time from a DVR.

The FCC may antagonize another powerful lobby, broadcasters, if it offers an ambitious plan to get some of the airwave spectrum they control and turn it over to providers of wireless broadband services.

Genachowski said last year that use of wireless broadband on devices such as the iPhone is growing so fast that "we have no choice" but to "identify spectrum that can best be reinvested in mobile broadband." Broadcasters appear vulnerable since the vast majority of TV users get their signals from cable or satellite, not local transmissions.

Genachowski said last month that he intends to ask stations to voluntarily give up some of their spectrum in exchange for some of the revenues collected when the airwaves are auctioned.

But the devil's in the details -- and broadcasters are wary. They also seemed to get some help last week from the House Energy and Commerce Committee. It supported a proposal to give the FCC and Commerce Department four years, instead of two, to fulfill an earlier mandate to tell Congress where they can find more spectrum.

By David Lieberman

Read the original article here

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is the enemy, as he wants to claim this as "His Legacy", which is why the power hungry get into Politics in the first place, and that is for the power itself, and to leave some type of "Legacy" to himself so he can feel important !!

Media Morning: Will the FCC get tough or play nice with broadband providers? - USATODAY.com

 

[FOX TV]

By Maggie Shiels
Technology reporter, BBC News, Silicon Valley

Fibre-optic cables, Eyewire
Pressure groups see broadband investment as vital to the US economy

US regulators have unveiled the nation's first plan to give every American super-fast broadband by 2020.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which will now submit the plan to Congress, said broadband was the "greatest infrastructure challenge".

It estimates that one-third of Americans, about 100 million people, are without broadband at home.

The FCC's goal is to provide speeds of 100 megabits per second (Mbps), compared to an average 4Mbps now.

"Broadband for every American is not too ambitious a plan and it is absolutely necessary," former FCC chairman Reed Hundt told BBC News.

"The consequences of not succeeding are heartbreaking. Every nation needs a common medium to gather around and to have the internet as a common medium where a third are left out is unacceptable."

'Silver bullet'

In an executive summary released ahead of the presentation to Congress on 16 March, the FCC said: "Broadband is a foundation for economic growth, job creation, global competitiveness and a better way of life.


WHAT GOVERNMENT WILL DO
Connect 100 million homes to super-fast broadband with speeds up to 100 megabits per second
Allocate spectrum to allow network updates for wireless broadband
Increase adoption rates to 90% and make sure every child is digitally literate before they leave school
Encourage greater competition among providers to make prices cheaper and deals easier to understand
Use digital switch-over fund to bring cheap broadband to rural areas
Provide one gigabit broadband to schools, hospitals and military installations

"It is changing how we educate children, deliver healthcare, manage energy, ensure public safety, engage government, and access, organise and disseminate knowledge".

For industry analyst Erik Sherman of business and news site BNet.com, all the talk "sounds like an overstatement".

"The plan cannot be a silver bullet for all these issues and problems which exist for a number of different reasons and not just because of a lack of broadband.

"The plan is very big in scope and if you look at the rationale, the FCC is basically saying we need more money for more internet. I am not saying we don't need a broadband plan but we have to be realistic about what it can and cannot do," Mr Sherman told BBC News.

'Fairy wings and wishes'

Months of hype and speculation has preceded the presentation of the country's first comprehensive broadband roadmap. The FCC has also held a series of briefings previewing its goals.

"It's an action plan, and action is necessary to meet the challenges of global competitiveness, and harness the power of broadband to help address so many vital national issues," said FCC chairman Julius Genachowski.
Broadband subscribers, BBC
Wide differences in broadband access are revealed by statistics

The executive summary revealed that access to high-speed internet services had grown dramatically from eight million Americans 20 years ago to nearly 200 million today.

Estimates to implement the plan have been put at $350bn (£233bn). How that bill will be split between private investment and tax dollars is not known.

"Who pays and how much is the big fight ahead," said technology industry analyst Rob Enderle of the Enderle Group.

"The devil is in the detail and right now it's all fairy wings and wishes. The Republicans are going to fight anything that is excessively expensive while the Democrats have to be wary of looking like they are cutting cheques at a time when the government is for the most part broke."

The FCC will auction off some 500 megahertz of spectrum to pay for some of the expense. More than $7bn will come from President Obama's 2009 stimulus package, which targeted broadband-related initiatives.

'Digital exclusion'

For years the technology industry has pushed for the US government to create a national broadband plan.

Ahead of today's meeting with Congress, a number of hi-tech companies wrote to Mr Genachowski to praise the plan.

"Broadband is critical to America's long-term economic and social well-being. As society increasingly moves online, the costs of digital exclusion grow as well," said the signatories of the letter, which included Cisco, Sony, Salesforce, Microsoft, Facebook and Intel.

One possible battleground is expected to be over the sale of spectrum that is mostly in the hands of television broadcasters.

Mobile carriers like AT&T and Verizon have said they will need more spectrum in future to provide superfast reliable internet connections to every customer.

"The problem is most of the spectrum is occupied by somebody else. They are going to want a lot of money for this," said Adam Thierer, president of the free-market leaning Progress & Freedom Foundation.


Read the full article here.

BBC News - US plans to give high-speed broadband to every American

 

[FOX TV]

We all will pay for those who can't. Same old..Same old..

By Cecilia Kang
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 16, 2010; 1:14 AM

The Federal Communications Commission announced on Monday its long-awaited plan to bring broadband Internet connections to every home and business in the United States, part of an ambitious, multibillion-dollar attempt to create a new digital infrastructure for the nation's economy.

The national broadband plan outlines dozens of policy recommendations aimed at raising the portion of people with high-speed Internet connections to 90 percent, from the current 65 percent, over the next decade and significantly increasing the connection speeds of homes with such service.

Mandated by last year's stimulus legislation, the plan will be presented to Congress on Tuesday and is widely expected to set the FCC's agenda for years to come. It would move the commission squarely into the age of the Internet, creating a federal mandate for installing thousands of miles of new fiber-optic cable and erecting many cellphone towers.

Many of the FCC's proposals are short on details, and lawmakers and the agency can accept or reject any number of the ideas.

"The real test begins now, and the final grade will depend on the commission's execution of future proceedings that will be required to transform the national broadband plan into reality," said Andrew Schwartzman, president of Media Access Project, a public interest group.

The proposal drew praise from some industry leaders and public interest groups, who said the plan could introduce more competition into the market for broadband services and help bridge a digital divide that has excluded low-income and rural residents from the Web. But analysts and telecommunications scholars said carrying out the dozens of recommendations will be difficult, particularly if companies argue that new regulations will hurt investments and jobs.

Mid-size broadband providers, such as TW Telecom and Cbeyond, are shaping up to be the plan's biggest beneficiaries, gaining access to more subscribers and the rights to federal funds to expand their networks. Makers of network equipment, such as Cisco, and creators of Web-based content, such as Google, could also experience significant boosts in their business. And cellphone carriers could reap big gains from a proposal to allocate a large chunk of airwaves for the next generation of smartphones and portable devices.
ad_icon

Major providers, such as AT&T, Comcast and Verizon Communications, would gain broader subscriber bases, but they could be forced to share their wireless and fixed-wire networks with smaller rivals, exposing them potentially to stiffer competition.

The plan could hurt broadcasters, who are being asked to give up the airwaves destined for wireless broadband use.

Comcast's senior vice president of external affairs, Joe Waz, wrote in a blog post that the company agrees with most of the ideas in the plan. But the nation's largest cable and Internet service provider said the plan needs to "maintain the light-touch regulatory environment essential to promoting investment."

Rep. Cliff Stearns (Fla.), the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce communications, technology and the Internet subcommittee, told the agency to stay focused on bringing access to people who don't have it.

"I am concerned, however, that the plan may contain stalking horses for investment-killing ideas, such as so-called net neutrality mandates or a return to outdated, monopoly-era regulation," he said.

The FCC said it would fund its proposals by tapping an existing $8 billion annual fund for providing phone service to rural areas. In the past, rural carriers that rely on the fund successfully opposed attempts by lawmakers and the agency to redirect its resources.
This Story

The agency would also seek up to $16 billion from lawmakers to build and operate a dedicated network for public safety responders. The agency said it could raise more money from auctioning the spectrum intended for wireless use.

The United States has fallen behind other developed nations in the deployment of high-speed Internet. Some global rankings put the United States at 16th in terms of access, speed and affordability behind nations such as Japan and Australia. South Korea offers 100-megabit-per-second connections to nearly all of its population; most U.S. broadband subscribers have connections that average 3 to 4 megabits per second. The FCC's plan envisions bringing 100-megabit-per-second access to 100 million homes by 2020, as well as 1 gigabit-per-second connections to libraries and schools.

Looming over the agency's months-long effort to come up with the plan has been a threat to its authority over broadband services stemming from a court challenge by Comcast. The case is before a panel of federal appeals court judges, who recently questioned the FCC's jurisdiction during arguments in the case. The agency has said it will continue to defend its authority and would consider formally reclassifying broadband as a common carriage service, like phones.

"There are big elephant-in-the-room issues like reclassification," said Rebecca Arbogast, head of research at Stifel Nicolaus. "Reclassification won't affect every component of this plan, but it's a broadband plan, and reclassification goes to the heart of the commission's ability to regulate broadband."

Arbogast noted that the proposals to increase competition and adoption rates among low-income and minority communities will be well received by Congress.
ad_icon

The FCC has proposed creating a free wireless network for lower-income users to access the Internet. It would also collect market data on prices and connection speeds to verify whether broadband providers are living up to their advertised promises. AND WE ALREADY KNOW WHO WILL PAY FOR THIS !!!


Read the full story here.

washingtonpost.com

 

[FOX TV]

You tube Video From PBS !!

Interesting thoughts both Pro and Con on the stealing of the American airwaves!

An interview with the enemy Julius Genachowski, The FCC Czar !!

YouTube - FCC Plan Urges Faster, Wider Broadband Internet Access

Check out this site too...

http://www.broadband.gov/

 

[FOX TV]

CEO of Capitol Broadcasting, questions why broadcasters are being targeted

Jim Goodmon, president and CEO of Capitol Broadcasting, questions why broadcasters are being targeted as a source of spectrum by the FCC as it looks for additional bandwidth to meet future wireless broadband Internet demand.

The FCC’s National Broadband Plan raises a serious, unanswered question in the mind of Jim Goodmon, president and CEO of Capitol Broadcasting, and the person responsible for putting WRAL-TV in Raleigh-Durham, NC, on the cutting edge of DTV broadcasting with the launch of over-the-air HDTV service in July 1996: Why target the broadcast industry for spectrum?

The plan, presented to Congress March 16, calls for recouping 120MHz of spectrum currently used for DTV transmission, which can be auctioned and repurposed to support projected future demand for wireless broadband Internet service.

Doing so will prevent broadcasters, who have toiled through a lengthy DTV transition, from fulfilling their highest potential, he said. “I think we are right now at our best,” Goodmon said. “We’ve never before been able to do so much, and I have no idea why they [the FCC] have abandoned us. Of all the spectrum out there, you want to pick the spectrum that provides free local news to people?”

Goodmon, when he spoke to Broadcast Engineering, expressed serious concern over a March 11 speech by former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt at Columbia Business School in New York City. Click here http://broadcastengineering.com/podcast/jim-goodmon1for Part 1 of Goodmon’s interview, and here http://broadcastengineering.com/podcast/jim-goodmon for Part 2.

Hundt explained that the government long ago decided to make broadcasting the common medium of the nation. However, during his chairmanship (during the Clinton administration), he and his advisors quietly decided the Internet should replace broadcasters in that role, which among other things led him to delay the DTV transition, he said.

“I would say that the FCC — the chairman [Julius Genachowski] and his advisors — no longer support the idea of free over-the-air television,” Goodmon said. “They can obviously expand broadband and take care of their whole broadband plan and never touch broadcast spectrum.”

Goodmon questioned why the commission is proposing to take back 120MHz of broadcast spectrum just as the broadcast industry is reaching its digital zenith. “I call this the golden age of broadcasting. We’ve got it all together now … this is a wonderful time for broadcasting. This whole idea [of reclaiming broadcast spectrum] comes as a real shock,” Goodmon said.

Everyone is interested in ensuring that the public has affordable access to broadband Internet service, but there is no reason to target the broadcast spectrum to meet that goal, he said.

While the commission may press ahead with the plan, Goodmon refuses to be pessimistic about the future prospects of broadcasting. Nothing will happen until Congress approves the plan, and Goodmon said he expects the industry to make a strong case to lawmakers to protect broadcast spectrum.

Still, he is not happy about how things have transpired so far. “I believe we can talk this through; I believe that there’s something that will happen here; but I certainly do feel neglected and attacked here right out of the gate,” he said.

Editor’s note: The two podcast interviews with Jim Goodmon shed more light on how this DTV pioneer is reacting to the National Broadband Plan and how it is impacting WRAL-TV. Click here Jim Goodmon part 1 for Part 1 and here Jim Goodmon part 2 for Part 2.

Read the full article here... FCC broadband plan threatens ‘golden age of broadcasting,’ Goodmon says

 

[FOX TV]

FCC Sets Out Broadband Action Agenda

April 12, 2010
FCC Sets Out Broadband Action Agenda

The Federal Communications Commission has announced its 2010 agenda for implementing key recommendations of the National Broadband Plan that involve rulemakings and other notice-and-comment proceedings.

“We are putting the National Broadband Plan into action,” said FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, in a statement.

He added, “The court decision earlier this week does not change our broadband policy goals, or the ultimate authority of the FCC to act to achieve those goals. The court did not question the FCC’s goals; it merely invalidated one technical, legal mechanism for broadband policy chosen by prior Commissions." (For more, click here).

The 2010 Broadband Action Agenda focuses on four key goals:

Promote World-Leading Mobile Broadband Infrastructure and Innovation

* Seek to make an additional 500 megahertz (MHz) of spectrum available for mobile broadband within the next ten years.
* Increase opportunities for unlicensed devices and innovative spectrum access models.
* Expand incentives and mechanisms to reallocate or repurpose spectrum to higher-valued uses.
* Improve the transparency of spectrum allocation and utilization.

Accelerate Universal Broadband Access and Adoption, and Advance National Purposes Such as Education and Health Care

* Carry out a once-in-a-generation transformation of the Universal Service Fund over the next ten years to support broadband service. This will be achieved by converting existing subsidy mechanisms over time from “POTS” (plain old telephone service) to broadband, without increasing the size of the fund over the current baseline projection.
* Upgrade the E-rate program, which has successfully connected public libraries and K-12 classrooms, to benefit students and others across the country by making broadband more accessible.
* Reform and upgrade the Rural Health Care Program to connect more public health facilities to high-speed Internet facilities and to foster telemedicine applications and services.Create a Health Care Infrastructure Fund to support deployment of dedicated health care networks to underserved areas.
* Create a Connect America Fund to extend broadband service to unserved areas of the nation and to ensure affordable broadband service in high-cost areas where support is necessary.
* Create a Mobility Fund to bring all states to a baseline level of “3G” (or better) wireless coverage.

Foster Competition and Maximize Consumer Benefits Across the Broadband Ecosystem

* Enhance broadband and marketplace choices for small businesses and mobile providers by establishing consistent policy frameworks for special access and wholesale wireline competition.
* Improve consumer disclosures and FCC data collection to better monitor and promote broadband competition.
* Fulfill mandate from Congress to ensure that video navigation devices, such as smart video devices, are available to consumers in the marketplace, spurring innovation in home video devices and driving increased broadband adoption and utilization.

Advance Robust and Secure Public Safety Communications Networks

* Facilitate the creation of a nationwide interoperable public safety wireless broadband network.
* Promote cybersecurity and protect critical communications infrastructure.
* Aid the transition to next-generation 911 and alerting systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the key phrase in this article....* Expand incentives and mechanisms to reallocate or repurpose spectrum to higher-valued uses.

FOLLOW THE MONEY, ALWAYS,as its always about the money !!

And they always eye the money. Who cares if they are draining the pockets of the gullible facebook, tweeter, and online video gamers, which are an absolute waste of precious bandwidth in the first place.

Why? Because its always about the money !! Look for a mention of the money in all articles you read on this topic, as it is always there !! Let the rest of the idiots eat cake, as we are going to steal the bandwidth for the money, and not for common sence uses such as emergency communications !!

Link to the article below.

FCC Sets Out Broadband Action Agenda :: Communications Technology

 

[BCF68]

Say we do transition to an all broadband infrastructure, and in another 10 years we all start developing these strange health issues that we have not seen in the past such as ADHD and autism. Suddenly it is uncovered, and discovered that we are killing ourselves with all of this new found MICROWAVE RADIATION that we are constantly exposed to.

The European countries already know the dangers of low level MICROWAVE RADIATION, and have issued warnings for years against the use of MICROWAVE RADIATION emitting devices for younger people for years now.

The domestic broadband industry has been hiding the results of exposure for many years now too, but most of the European countries have actually released the results of MICROWAVE RADIATION testing, and they don't even recommend the use of Cell phones for children and young teens under the age of 18.

Today's younger generation has been technologically brainwashed ( Maybe by the MICROWAVE RADIATION itself ) into thinking that wireless is magic, and that using it has no repercussions...WRONG !! Look at the research and figure it out for yourself. Microwaves are harmful, and have not been in use long enough to see the long term effects from constant exposure, even at low levels.

Our Government knows full well the effects of long term MICROWAVE RADIATION exposure, as or embassy in Russia was bombarded by MICROWAVE RADIATION for years, and the effects are well known. Wouldn't it be the ultimate irony if the very system they choose to go with ends up killing everyone?

Ever heard of D.E.C.T. phones or ghz band baby monitors? Research has shown that these devices when placed near an infant, disturbs their brainwave patterns and disrupts normal and natural thought processes in small, undeveloped brains.

No wonder the younger generations have no common sense these days !! Wireless this and 3G that, and now 4G everywhere? No one knows if all of this stuff is safe, and research tends to suggest that it is not, and if it is found to be true, do you think they will tell us about it?

The domestic cell phone industry did their own safety research, as opposed to the European countries where the Governments did the research and actually reported their non biased results, and some of the facts presented in the European results are just plain scary. Talk about the wolf guarding the Hen House.

I find it ironic how you don't trust the US governemnt yet trust the EU governments. Quite hypocrtical since Europe is far more socialists than us and you're obviously a republican that think that Obama and the democrats are all socialists.

This is not just a Cell Phone issue at all. It is much bigger than that, and it involves D.E.C.T. phones, wireless computer connections in your home, wireless routers and even in wireless "HOT SPOTS" that expose the public to this potential hazard in public places.

When the guy beside you whips out his IPHONE to answer a call, or turns on his laptop in a public place, he is exposing you to microwave radiation, and it does not discriminate. It will not just radiate the user, it also radiates YOU !! If a cell phone is on, it is transmitting microwave energy at all times when simply powered up.

You don't even have to be making a call to be constantly exposed to this electromagnetic pollution, you simply need to turn on your phone for the privilege of being radiated by microwaves.

I cannot figure out where the common sense went to, but I can assure you that if you just FOLLOW THE MONEY, YOU WILL FIND THE ANSWER !!!!

Look at this web link for more information on Cell Phone radiation exposure, and we are adding to this electromagnetic pollution on a daily basis with promises of it doubling or tripling in the years to come. This is scary stuff, but to figure out why we are not being told about it, one would have to FOLLOW THE MONEY, AND YOU WILL FIND THE ANSWER !!!!


Cell Phone Radiation Is Our Biggest Health Threat.

you can use this link to find out how many and how close Cell Phone towers are to your location.

AntennaSearch - Search for Cell Towers, Cell Reception, Hidden Antennas and more.

here's a solution to this "problem"

Edited by Admin

 

[FOX TV]

Leave politics out !!

I find it ironic how you don't trust the US governemnt yet trust the EU governments. Quite hypocrtical since Europe is far more socialists than us and you're obviously a republican that think that Obama and the democrats are all socialists.

I have something I would like to wrap around your head, and it is not aluminum foil. Why do you always have to bring up politics when you try and counter all of my posts? This is not the place for political viewpoints, and there are many other forums on the net that would welcome your radical, liberal, clouded socialist view of the current state of our nation, but this forum is not one of them !!

I work in the Broadcast industry, and have researched RF exposure for a long time for various reasons. You have obviously been effected by the radiation over time, and it has dulled your senses to the point that you now have none !! We have only been "Broadcasting" microwaves to the general public for a short time now, and our government knows full well the long term effects of low level microwave exposure, they just don't know if there is a level that is safe, but the greed for the almighty dollar has squelched any aspect of common sense that once existed in this country. Did you even look at the web link, Cell Phone Radiation Is Our Biggest Health Threat. That was not written by me, it was written by a certified health professional who has done some of the research himself.

It is obvious that you must live near a strong cell tower, for your thought process has been permanently damaged, as is obvious from your liberal left wing slant that you impose on every one of my posts. Why don't you show a little respect and leave me the hell alone. I did not address any of my comments to you at all, or start out with politics as my main topic like you did.

I have been reprimanded by moderators on here for posting political comments, and I think it is time that they did the same for you, as that is one of the main taboo subjects that will get you reprimanded, and hopefuly banned at some point in the NEAR FUTURE !! :ban:

Plus your grammar -- edited by Admin

 

[BCF68]

I have something I would like to wrap around your head, and it is not aluminum foil.

sounds like a threat

Why do you always have to bring up politics when you try and counter all of my posts? This is not the place for political viewpoints, and there are many other forums on the net that would welcome your radical, liberal, clouded socialist view of the current state of our nation, but this forum is not one of them !!

says the guy with

ALL WE HAVE TO FEAR....IS THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION ITSELF !!

as his sig. There's a word for you it's called HYPOCRITE. Not to mention the post I repsonded to was all political. Are you that stupid not to see it? You're always bashing the dems/Obama. How is that not political? You want to not have political talk then remove your sig.

It is obvious that you must live near a strong cell tower, for your thought process has been permanently damaged, as is obvious from your liberal left wing slant that you impose on every one of my posts. Why don't you show a little respect and leave me the hell alone. I did not address any of my comments to you at all, or start out with politics as my main topic like you did.

Insults and bringing up politics. How hypocritical of you. You basically call me retarded then ask for respect? Are you serious?

I have been reprimanded by moderators on here for posting political comments, and I think it is time that they did the same for you, as that is one of the main taboo subjects that will get you reprimanded, and hopefuly banned at some point in the NEAR FUTURE !! :ban:

You insult me and threaten me with violence and say I violate rules you yourself violate and I should be banned? Also I don't find it wise how to tell the mods how to do their job. I suspect if I get banned you'll be joining me so careful what you wish for.

Plus your grammar is terrible, you're obviously a republican that think "s" that Obama A letter "S" ending the word think would be appropriate here. And yes, I do think that Osama Obama is a threat to our American way of life, and I also think that he is a racist, as is his Wife "Michell, my Belle"

for the record I've never been a democrat but I have been a republican. Not liking the Packers doesn't make me a Bears fan by default. People like you that think there are only 2 teams in the league is why every 2 years we elect crap.

Should I tell everyone how in your PM to me you said that people that don't agree with the conservative agenda should be imprisoned? Basically you said at least half this board belongs in prison because they disagree with you.

there's an ignore feature I suggest you use it if I bother you so.

Your post and my response has nothing to do with the topic and I'm sure the mods will remove it as htey should. I'm just not going to let you insult me publically without a response and I'm letting everyone else know how you really are. I'm done with you. Consider yourself added to my ignore list. From now on you can rant to yourself.

 

[Jason Fritz]

knock it off guys,

BCF, I have removed your reference to tinfoil. If you guys want to debate, do it with out the personal attacks and insults. Otherwise, this is Fox's thread.

 

[Don_M]

FCC Sets Out Broadband Action Agenda :: Communications Technology

I'm not too worried about this getting implemented any time soon:

• It was only a week ago that the DC Court of Appeals ruled decisively in Comcast's favor. If there's anything in this latest iteration of the Plan that the cable giant doesn't like, all it needs to do is go back to the judges and say, "they're doing it again!" I'm not seeing anything that seems to step on Comcasts's toes here. Then again, I've read neither the depositions nor the judges' ruling, so what do I know?

• One thing that did stick out at me was the initiative for a "once-in-a-generation transformation of the Universal Service Fund over the next ten years to support broadband service." The USF was created by the FCC at the direction of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. While the Act may have given the FCC the authority to do this, I can almost smell the impending lawsuits that are about to be filed by the RBOCs -- aka "legacy" telephone companies -- over the very next sentence in that bullet point, which reads:

This will be achieved by converting existing subsidy mechanisms over time from “POTS” (plain old telephone service) to broadband...

In other words, the USF -- originally established in the law to make the fees necessary to provide universal land-line telephone service transparent -- will be taken away from the telcos and given to amorphous "broadband" concerns. This is tens of millions of dollars per company per year, folks. I can't foresee the RBOCs lying still for that, not when they have enough trouble holding on to hard-wire subscribers as it is, and not with the gargantuan debt loads most of them carry.

• It bears repeating this week: The Plan got a rather frosty reception when the FCC dropped it off last month on the front steps of the Capitol. It certainly does appear that Genachowski and Co. are taking a Congress-be-damned attitude with this "action plan." However, please remember that the place is swarming with lobbyists. Given that the Plan isn't exactly filling members' hearts with joy, it probably won't take too much pestering by the telcos and cablecos before key members start quietly reminding the chairman that if he doesn't cool it, he just might find a few lumps of coal in his budgetary "stocking" come the start of fiscal year 2011. "Dear Julius: Oct. 1 is closer than you think, and golly, we've got such a big deficit to worry about these days..." You get the idea.

None of this mitigates the long-term concerns brought up by others earlier in this thread. Despite judicial and legislative obstacles, Genachowski and Co. appear determined to do this, one way or another. But thanks to those roadblocks, very little of this is at all likely to be implemented tomorrow, next month, or even next year. After that, who knows?