🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <697@anasaz.UUCP>, john@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes:
> In article <918@unccvax.UUCP> dya@unccvax.UUCP (Edison Carter) writes:
> >In article <4726@ecsvax.UUCP>, urjlew@ecsvax.UUCP (Rostyk Lewyckyj) writes:
> >> In article <5607@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, peting@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Mark Peting) writes:

> >UNUSED CAPACITY WAITING TO BE REAPED.  It is a well engineered
> 			See below!--------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >system for broadcasting.  If there is any unused capacity, it is 
> >NEEDED for high definition television, further installation of 
> >translators, and low power TV stations.  It is also needed (in some
> >cases) for public safety communications (police, fire, etc.).
> While your technical arguments are correct, they
> could be interpreted to show that UHF TV an incredible waste
> of spectrum space! With a typical stations consuming 7 channels
> (it's own plus 3 guard channels), that station uses 42 MHz of spectrum.
> That is more spectrum than the ENTIRE HF BAND - just so someone can watch
> a few reruns and a TV broadcaster can reap bucks primarily by having
> acquired a public resource (the spectrum) for his own private, government
> protected, business! So... save us your sanctimonious flames! Some day,

     These are not sanctimonious flames.  Simply because the allocation
standards "waste" spectrum space in a given area (each channel precludes
the allotement of up to 14 others at the same transmitter site) does
NOT mean the television spectrum is wasted.

     This is the typical, narrowminded view of a nonbroadcaster. 
Commercial broadcasters do in fact run "I Love Lucy" reruns. It is
not up to land mobile/packet interests to decide how many stations
can serve a market.  It is up to those who have PAID THE DUES TO
TAKE THE RISK to operate a commercial TV station.

     For one thing, MOST UHF TV allotments are in markets under 
50.  Many UHF allotments are to places where people are operating
one TV station in a city.  Do you honestly think that there is
a pile of individuals in, say, Laurel Hill, N.C. clamoring for
the use of that spectrum for land mobile?

     Secondly, land mobile have not even used the channels which
they've got (or are reserved).  I sure do hear a lot of dead air
between 30 and 50 mHz these days.

     Third, commercial broadcasting HAS ALREADY DONE ITS PART in
giving up channels 70-83 to land mobile, etc.

     Commercial broadcasting is a vitally important economic 
resource for our economy.  Whether you like what commercial broadcasters
broadcast is a matter of opinion.  The billions of dollars which
have been generated via advertising revenues, new jobs, and the
expansion of the economy mean that the UHF spectrum, exceptionally
well engineered and doing fine, thank you, justifies its occupation
of its bandwidth, and has indeed paid its way. 

     Furthermore, there are TV "white areas" (Rockingham, N.C. is
one) which are expanding to the point where they can justify the
construction of a new UHF-TV station.  This, to provide service to
half a million people without a visual outlet of local expression.
Do you think Wilmington, Raleigh, Greensboro, Florence (SC) or 
Charlotte TV stations care about this region? 

     Demanding that UHF-TV spectrum be broken down for a hypothetical
public economic interest that would be orders of magnitude less
important is like demanding that Interstates be torn up to
install goat paths.  Frankly, I'm sick and tired of commercial TV
interests being called "sanctimonious", "greedy","spectrum hogs",
and all that stuff. The taxes which are generated from the income
to commercial TV stations pays its way, at least.  It takes a 
tremendous amount of financial and entrepenurial risk to put a 
TV station on the air.  Since I doubt you have done it, find out
about us before giving the knee-jerk "sanctimonious" argument.

     Be that as it may, I'd say look lower (and higher) for home
low-power packet spectrum.....


Steaming mad at this point,
David Anthony
DataSpan, Inc
Satellite Radio Network, Inc.