Question for Radio/Television Engineers

Scott Ryan

[publius321]

I'm far from an engineer, which is why I am posing this question. Pardon me if my line of thinking is askew.

My rudimentary understanding of what & how digital television stations broadcast is that they have 5 "channels" over which to send their signals now.

My question is: Is there currently a way or do you think there wil be a way in the near future - for television stations to offer --high speed WIRELESS Internet service-- as opposed to mere broadcasting of program, which of course is becoming obsolete.

In my basic thinking, I presume that 5 channels are obviously not enough for two-way communications between their transmitters and the routers of millions of people. (As an aside, this would probably require the invention of some kind of router network throughout the broadcast area of each station but I'm not as concerned with that at this point.)

But through "frequency-division multiplexing" or digital compression along the way - what are the chances of this technology coming to fruition within the next few years?

I ask this question here at Freerepublic.com because I know there are many geniuses within reach here at any given moment.

[Elderberry]

I would think that fiber to the house would be a better option.

I can’t see the local TV stations getting into the internet provider business.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Far better than that would be if the electric companies were allowed to provide Internet service over their existing AC lines.

Every house with electricity is already wired to accept it. The only reason the electric companies aren't offering it is because the big-government/big-corporate criminal complex the cable and phone companies lobbied again$t it.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

How Broadband Over Powerlines Works

[coloradan]

One TV channel is a few MHz of bandwidth, say 6. If 100,000 people tune in to that station, it still only occupies 6 MHz of bandwidth. But if 100,000 people want to surf the web at TV-signal-class bandwidths, each looking at their own different thing, then the necessary signal bandwidth is 6 MHz * 100,000 = 600 GHz, which is a bit more than is available with present technology. Not to mention that doing this leaves zero space for every other use of the spectrum: other radio and TV broadcasts; commercial land and aviation communication, military, radio, satellite, ham radio, garage door openers, Wifi, bluetooth, and a lot of other things that use the electromagnetic spectrum.

[publius321]

“I can’t see the local TV stations getting into the internet provider business.”

I know what you mean. But something has been going on the past several months. Sinclair Broadcasting is on the move acquiring stations. Mom & pops are not likely to do something like that but most of these stations are owned by larger companies, the largest owner being SBGI.

I can’t imagine a WORSE business to be in - unless - the owner could use their spectrum, towers and assets for something that is profitable.

Companies like CMCSA depend on their monopoly of high speed Internet and charge dearly for it.

Imagine being able to TOTALLY cut the proverbial cord (as many are only partially doing now). On top of that, imagine being able to have your high speed Internet totally wireless and be able to go across the nation as these stations are owned and could be operated as one giant Wi-Fi service.

[Doogle]

"...someone call for a genius?.......can wait till they show up"

[publius321]

That is very interesting. Thank you E. Pluribus Unum.

[buckalfa]

I seem to remember back in the day that commercial AM radio stations (WLW,etc.—the old late night beep beep sounds on the dial) used to offer radio facsimile services piggybacked with their broadcast signal. Internet should work on tv signals but the economics probably do not make sense.

[shibumi]

Here.

Use your phone to record your question.

Vlog about it.

[nhoward14]

There is already something better than what you propose. It is called WiMax. However, it is questionable whether anyone would be able to profit from building the infrastructure necessary to support this technology.

[moose07]

Just by way of a thought...my ISP is tv network.
The data is sent to them over a cellphone network.
no cables.
Have freeped from the middle of a forest before now, using my home service provider.

[Biblical Calvinist]

I dunno if you’re looking for something like this; Aereo allows you to recieve High Definition broadcasts of Local channels,(abcnbccbsfox) streaming from the internet to your tv set, or tablet, or Roku. Here, check it out = https://aereo.com/

For favorite programs from cable stations.. Hulu Plus may be the way.. http://www.hulu.com

Internet streaming, in my opinion, is the way to go, MUCH better than paying your hard earned money for bundled service, paying for many channels that no one watches..

[Klaatu Barada Nikto]

<< Far better than that would be if the electric companies were allowed to provide Internet service over their existing AC lines. Every house with electricity is already wired to accept it. The only reason the electric companies aren’t offering it is because the big-government/big-corporate criminal complex the cable and phone companies lobbied again$t it. >>

In reality, it was David (Ham Radio Operators) versus Goliath (big-gov’t/corp., etc.). When Broadband over power lines was tried at the urging of gov’t, the interference to radio communications was huge. Those power lines acted like huge antennas with spurious radiation at high levels.

[discostu]

Someone was working on a method to do that, the FCC crapped on them because they couldn’t guarantee people wouldn’t download porn and the guys at the FCC are too dumb to understand that using the airwaves for the internet doesn’t put the contents of the internet on the airwaves.

[Las Vegas Ron]

have created a way to send data over power lines and into homes at speeds between 500 kilobits and 3 megabits per second (equivalent to DSL and cable).

I didn't see a date on this article but it appears to be old.

3 mb/sec.?

My DSL connection push's 20 mb/sec.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Thanks.

[VideoPaul]

Given only a 75kHz channel for FH radio, and a 6 MHz channel for television, not really. You’re not the first on who’s had that thought. There wouldn’t be enough throughput.

[martin_fierro]

Ping

[Yo-Yo]

Television stations do not have 5 ‘channels.’ They have one 6 MHz channel, which is currently used with a modulation scheme called ATSC that delivers 19.4 Mbps (Megabits per second) of data. That data can be split up any way the television station wishes; as a single High Definition channel, as one slightly lower quality HD channel and one or more standard definition channels, or a bunch of standard definition channels.

The problem in delivering wireless internet service using this ATSC data stream is twofold:

First of all, the television station only has a single 19.4 Mbps data stream that would have to be shared by all of the users simultaneously. That’s not a lot of data if you get 20 people each trying to stream a different movie from Hulu at the same time, let alone 20,000 subscribers.

Secondly, there is currently no back channel, or any way for your computer or other device to talk back to the television station to request a web page, upload photos, etc. That backchannel would have to be over some other system, either a dial-up telephone line or a wireless cell phone service of some sort.

So, no, it isn’t going to happen.

Now, there is a possiblility of a new company purchasing the 6 MHz chunk of bandwidth from the television company, and designing a new service entirely. That is not only possible, it is very likely in the not too distant future.