# Does anybody know what this vague ad is about? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 5, 2010, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anybody-know-what-this-vague-ad-is-about/523814 "2010-01-05T23:38:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2010, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anybody-know-what-this-vague-ad-is-about/523814/1 "2010-01-05T23:38:02Z")
There’s an Ad that’s been playing which says something about special interest groups want to limit free over-the-air antenna TV and to write your representative to save antenna TV. They don’t say who these “special interest groups” are and they don’t say how they want to limit over-the-air broadcasts. If you’ve seen these ads and know what they are talking about, could you tell me? I’ve tried Googling, and have came up with nothing. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2010, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anybody-know-what-this-vague-ad-is-about/523814/2 "2010-01-05T23:43:53Z")
I have heard that the broadcast networks have been thinking of going all-cable. Maintaining stations is expensive, and ad sales are down (this was a part of the recent Fox-Time Warner dispute). Nothing definite, but the idea has been raised. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anybody-know-what-this-vague-ad-is-about/523814/3 "2010-01-06T00:52:14Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > I have heard that the broadcast networks have been thinking of going all-cable. Maintaining stations is expensive, and ad sales are down (this was a part of the recent Fox-Time Warner dispute). > > Nothing definite, but the idea has been raised. So the ads are encouraging us to have the government force station owners to operate unprofitable stations? Wow. Anyway, thanks for answering the question. ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anybody-know-what-this-vague-ad-is-about/523814/4 "2010-01-06T01:18:37Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > Maintaining stations is expensive, I thought most of the stations were affiliates and not owned by the networks. ---
**Author:** ![mobo85](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@mobo85](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mobo85)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anybody-know-what-this-vague-ad-is-about/523814/5 "2010-01-06T01:50:47Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > I thought most of the stations were affiliates and not owned by the networks. The networks own the [major affiliates in the major metropolitan areas](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owned-and-operated_television_stations_in_the_United_States). I know here in NYC they’re all O&O stations- the call letters have the name of the station (WABC, WCBS, WNBC), and I believe it’s the same in LA (KABC, KNBC, KCBS). ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anybody-know-what-this-vague-ad-is-about/523814/6 "2010-01-06T02:26:14Z")
From [here](http://www.tvnewscheck.com/articles/2009/12/11/daily.10/): > [@](#): > > “The broadcast industry could see the greatest assault on the public airwaves since the 1980s, with the anticipated release of the FCC’s National Broadband Plan set for February 17, 2010,” says the e-mail. > > The NAB fears that the plan will recommend that all or some of broadcast spectrum be reallocated for wireless broadband access, a service the FCC believes will soon be facing a spectrum shortage. > > “A variety of interest groups - from the Communications Technology Information Association (CTIA) to AT&T to Broadband for America - have already launched TV spots attempting to position a national broadband plan as having no potential drawbacks,” the e-mail says. > > "Meanwhile, some proposals being floated by the FCC would eliminate high-definition broadcasting and multicasting altogether. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anybody-know-what-this-vague-ad-is-about/523814/7 "2010-01-06T03:00:10Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > From [here](http://www.tvnewscheck.com/articles/2009/12/11/daily.10/): > > > [@](#): > > > > “The broadcast industry could see the greatest assault on the public airwaves since the 1980s, with the anticipated release of the FCC’s National Broadband Plan set for February 17, 2010,” says the e-mail. > > > > The NAB fears that the plan will recommend that all or some of broadcast spectrum be reallocated for wireless broadband access, a service the FCC believes will soon be facing a spectrum shortage. > > > > “A variety of interest groups - from the Communications Technology Information Association (CTIA) to AT&T to Broadband for America - have already launched TV spots attempting to position a national broadband plan as having no potential drawbacks,” the e-mail says. > > > > "Meanwhile, some proposals being floated by the FCC would eliminate high-definition broadcasting and multicasting altogether. Now see, if the ad would mention this information I think it would be more effective. As it is, it makes me think the people behind the add have dubious motives because they aren’t being specific about anything. ---
**Author:** ![twhitt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/87869e/32.png) [@twhitt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/twhitt)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anybody-know-what-this-vague-ad-is-about/523814/8 "2010-01-06T04:22:49Z")
It’s possible that this is part of the debate over whitespace, which relates to the use of portions of the broadcast spectrum between the broadcast TV channels for non-television uses; probably small, handheld electronic devices. My understanding is that the TV networks think that using whitespace fewer than two whole channels away from a used bandwidth would negatively effect reception. As an example, if in your area, network channels 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, and 15 are used for local TV, only the space that would have been used for channel 12 would not interfere with your reception. Other interested parties believe that bandwidths which are one full channel away from a broadcast network, like in this example 7, 11, 12 and 13 would all be safe to use. Since this difference of just 1 or 2 channels represents a fourfold increase in the spectrum available as whitespace in my example, there’s a hot debate over what a reasonable amount would be. In crowded television markets this could prohibit the sale of any whitespace for non-tv uses. It sounds an awful lot like you’re being asked to defend the TV station’s interests against the interests of big telco and whatnot. I wouldn’t get involved until I had more information.