Thread

1. trollbridge · 1786041906 · focus · HN ↗

   Broadcast TV seems laughably irrelevant. It’s difficult to find official numbers, but under 1% of US households have no cable, satellite TV, home Internet, or a cell phone. The latter two are how people consume video and TV to a large degree today.

   In exchange, we have a great deal of spectrum tied up for terrestrial TV, much of which goes to running infomercials or else is surreptitiously leased for terrestrial data broadcasts. And the government gets to decide to regulate it so it becomes inherently politicised - like favouring certain owners.

   Realistically - this spectrum should simply be reassigned for IP based services, with perhaps some set aside for non profit / educational uses, some for commercial, etc.

   (Radio is pretty much the same boat but I can see a case to be made for keeping some analog FM radio broadcasts. The 6MHz per channel for TV is insane.)

   1. dyauspitr · 1786042320 · focus · HN ↗

      > but under 1% of US households have no cable, satellite TV, home Internet, or a cell phone.

      Why are you bundling all those things together? The only thing we care about here is cable or satellite TV for your argument.

      1. eigencoder · 1786042403 · focus · HN ↗

         Those are all the things that replace broadcast TV

         1. mulmen · 1786044692 · focus · HN ↗

            They replace it for delivery. That's not what this is about. The change discussed here is about content creation. That content is already delivered through multiple channels.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.