[opendtv] FCC on translators

From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 17:13:14 -0400
Speaking of coverage comparisons ...

http://www.fcc.gov/

See the top item in the list, today's date.

One sidebar: they call "translator" any transmitter used to assist on
coverage, whether its' a (true) translator, or whether it's an
on-channel repeater. Somewhat contradictory terminology there.

This report and order only addresses what they call "in contour"
translators, i.e. not the more distant translators already in use, e.g.
in rural or underserved areas, and not LPTV stations. With respect to
these other applications of lower power towers,

"We do not believe that this approach will unduly diminish new low power
digital service opportunities because we will shortly announce a
near-term date upon which we will begin accepting applications pursuant
to the first-come, first-serve licensing scheme for new digital
translators and low power television stations originally envisioned in
our 2004 LPTV digital order."

Dell, Google, and Microsft complain, saying that these "in contour"
translators should instead be OCRs (or what they call DTS, which I take
to mean SFNs). The complaint is based on their desire to use white space
frequencies, of course, which these translators would get priority bids
on. They say:

"[ ... ] replacement translators not be authorized 'absent a showing
that [other technical solutions are] technically infeasible.'"

Which should be easy enough to do, IMO, specifically because these
translators are to be used to increase the coverage area of the new
digital tower, not to make reception within the digital contour easier.
That is, they would be expected to be more than just, say, 7-10 miles
away from the main tower, to provide some meaningful increase in
coverage area. And everyone would expect continuous coverage, so banking
on large areas of interference won't fly.

Strangely, the FCC doesn't agree that these translators would impinge on
availability of white spaces. Probably because the FCC lumps OCRs in
among "translators," which Dell et al. do not do.

They contradict their previous suggested rule, which would have allowed
also use of Ch 52-59 for this purpose.

Among complaints they received, the cable industry worries that even a
"de minimis" expansion in covergae area allowed by these in-contour
translators might affect them! Obviously, must-carry again rearing its
ugly head.

Interesting read.

Bert
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at 
FreeLists.org 

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
unsubscribe in the subject line.
[opendtv] FCC on translators

Other related posts:
