When spectrum is unlicensed, it can be used for both commercial and non-commercial uses. My ISP operates its end-user links on 900 MHz unlicensed spectrum, but its backhauls are on highly-directional 2.4 GHz unlicensed links. That, of course, does not mean that 2.4 GHz cannot also be used for wifi in the home, or that 900 MHz cannot also be used for cordless phones. (In fact, I had to replace one of my cordless phones when I got my Internet connection because the two would interfere badly. If the phone was on the exact same frequency as the Internet, it'd knock the Internet out, but if it was merely adjacent, I would hear modem sounds on the phone.)

I wouldn't have expected Clear Channel to go along with it.

It was not an NAB event. Here's the FCC announcing that they were holding the event: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-298707A1.pdf

Who will pay for the new MPEG-4 boxes? Will the government be sponsoring another converter box coupon program?

The Mobile DTV standard is not designed for HDTV, and vice versa. The ATSC-MH standard takes about 1.8 Mbps on the standard ATSC side and adds so much error correction that you only get about 0.3 Mbps on the other side. Chopping a whole 19 Mbps channel down to 3 Mbps leaves almost no room even with MPEG-4.

Cellular architecture does not work with ATSC at all, except in severely terrain-shielded situations.

You're assuming, of course, that the stations are not making full use of their bandwidth NOW. Which many are. And you're assuming that the FCC isn't biased. They recently had a broadcasters summit where they analyzed and concluded that the FCC paper is a pipedream that would not work out in the real world where we all live and work. So, the FCC chose to ignore their own summit.

Wow, that's good to know. I guess I'm only imagining that my line speed is still at 26.4k or my friend on a larger nearby road still gets 14.4k. Wonderful upgrade there, Verizon! Glad to know you didn't pocket it and screw me over.

Point made, poor phrasing on my part. Multicast does exist, don't get me wrong, but good luck getting any major ISPs in the US to support it. Remember they're all offering their own subscription video services--do you really think they'll let just anyone multicast video over "their" network without getting a cut?

It's an effective "cannot" rather than a physical "cannot."

Yes, and it clearly states on one of their pages you must be on a "multicast-capable ISP." How many ISPs are "multicast capable" do you suppose?

TV over the internet cannot be multicast, meaning a one-to-one stream has to be set up for each viewer. It's HUGELY inefficient. Over-the-air is a one-to-many system. Transmit it just once and that same bandwidth is used for every person watching.