[wirelesstoronto-discuss] WHITE SPACE = PUBLIC DOMAIN IN CANADA

[Dean]

>Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 10:35:43 -0800 (PST)
>From: Andrew Cagney <andrew.cagney at yahoo.ca>
>
>http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/NEWS/RELEASES/2008/r081030.htm

No where in this document does it mention "white spaces", unused TV 
channels, or the frequencies allocated to them.

>One personal nit is that they appear to be allowing cable companies 
>to re-define "basic cable" to require the customer to either buy or 
>rent a digital set-top-box when one isn't needed

Curious. I'm not sure where you got this from. A majority of the 
document discusses changes to how cable and satellite providers offer 
the premium "pay and specialty" channels. That entire document only 
mentions basic cable twice
"require broadcasting distribution companies to continue offering a 
basic service package after the transition to digital"
"The Commission has determined that broadcasting distribution 
companies must continue to offer community channels with their basic 
service packages."

>(c.f. rogers switching off its clear QAM signals).

This likely has more to do with Rogers current push to get more 
people to subscribe to premium services then anything the CRTC has 
done. For the last couple of months Rogers has been offering bulk 
subscribers (i.e. condos who pay a slightly discounted per-unit rate 
by buying service for all the units in one package) free digital 
boxes to all the units. There has been no mention of including any 
services however, it appears to just be the box.



>Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 15:32:15 -0800
>From: Hanna
>
>=> BDUs (broadcasters) now required to contribute 1% towards local
>programming, above and beyond existing 5% levy for CANCON.  =)

It's broadcast distribution companies, cable and and satellite 
providers, that will pay this, not the broadcasters as one might 
understand you to mean.

"The CRTC will also support local programming by increasing to 6 per 
cent, up from 5 per cent, the contribution broadcasting distribution 
companies must make to Canadian programming. This increase will 
amount to approximately $60 million and will be allocated to a new 
Local Programming Improvement Fund."

>a similar thing is going on in the US.  Read MediaCitizen:
>"The fight over white spaces pits those who *have* access to spectrum, and
>want to keep it for themselves, against those who don't, and want spectrum
>to be used to serve other purposes as well."

Unfortunately the blog post you refer to is, to say the least, 
extremely biased and shows little understanding of radio (which 
includes TV) transmissions. I found the authors relentless attacks 
against "powerful lobbyist the National Association of Broadcasters 
(NAB)" extremely disturbing and disrespectful given that he himself 
represents a lobbyist group. There were a number of points in that 
authors blog post, I found ... well... let's just say interesting.

"New technology can open white spaces to powerful high-speed Internet 
services -- sending open and ubiquitous broadband signals over 
mountains and through buildings, potentially connecting tens of 
millions of Americans to the Web."

This shows a complete lack of understanding in basic radio 
transmissions. You can't send a signal "over mountains", at least not 
easily. Airlines, the military, and other organizations have spent 
billions of dollars building and maintaining repeaters for the 
singular purpose of getting their radio transmissions over mountains 
so that they can be picked up on the other side.

While the transmitted signals do go through buildings, every building 
effects it and reduces it's strength. This is especially true in 
urban cores where a majority of the buildings are built using steel 
and concrete. Even something as simple as a clump of trees can 
prevent transmissions from being received. Television broadcasters 
have spent decades and millions of dollars dealing with these issues. 
Take Toronto for example. What do you think our famous landmark the 
CN Tower really is? It is a transmitting tower. You know that bubble 
or dome like area at the bottom of the main pod (below the restaurant 
and observation deck), that is actually a teflon-coated fiberglass 
fabric to protect all of the transmitters and microwave transmission 
equipment hidden inside and used by every major broadcaster in 
Toronto (television and radio).

There are a few other comments in his blog post and speech that 
deserve commenting on, but more importunately I want to comment on 
the statement you quoted.

"The fight over white spaces pits those who *have* access to spectrum, and
want to keep it for themselves, against those who don't, and want spectrum
to be used to serve other purposes as well."

The spectrum as a whole is quite large. As I pointed out in my 
previous reply, in Canada the band plan covers 9 kHz to 275 GHz. The 
US's band plan will be similar. Ok, so just how big is that. Well 
Kilo-, Mega-, and Giga- all mean the same as in computers. 1 KHz = 
1000 Hz, 1 MHz = 1000 KHz, 1 GHz = 1000 MHz If you calculate it out, 
that means that the Canadian band plan covers a frequency range of 
274,999,991,000 Hz.  Just how much of that is assigned to TV broadcasts?
Channels 2 to 6 = 54 to 88 MHz = a span of 34 MHz
channels 7 to 13 = 174 to 220 MHz = a span of 46 MHz
channels 14 to 69 = 470 to 806 MHz  = a span of 336 MHz
34 + 46 + 336 = 416 MHz in total allocated to TV broadcasts.
416 Mhz = 416,000,000 Hz.
416,000,000 Hz / 274,999,991,000 Hz * 100 = 0.15%

That's right, TV broadcasts are only assigned 0.15% of the allocated 
spectrum. That leaves 99.85% available to "other purposes". Granted, 
much of it is being used by other people, including Police, Fire, 
Ambulance, Municipal Departments, commercial users, etc, but that 
doesn't mean there aren't areas which could be used, so why pick on 
TV. Given how little of the spectrum TV broadcasters actually "have", 
his "haves vs have nots" statement just doesn't hold water.


If someone is thinking, like the author of that blog, that the TV 
frequencies could be used to develop a new wireless broadband system, 
consider how much money Toronto Hydro spent on building their WiFi 
system, and how much it cost to access it, and that was using 
existing and proven technologies. Also consider the new services 
offered by Rogers which claims to provide broadband service 
everywhere (the "play-off ticket auction aboard a ferry" commercial, 
and the newer husband and wife commercial) and how expensive that service is.

Dean