All one needs to do is to read just a few supreme court decisions on this point -- particularly equivalence -- to find out who is offering rubbish on this thread. I realize that this attacks the underpinning of your tv utility concept; but I didn't make the court decisions. We all have to live with them. Then, there's the "regulatory takings" provisions enacted early in the "Contract for America" phase. Case closed. John Willkie ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Birkmaier" <craig@xxxxxxxxx> To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 6:57 AM Subject: [opendtv] Re: 20050509 Mark's Monday Memo > > Rubbish > > All the government would need to do is provide an equivalent service > for existing broadcasters, so that they could keep providing ONE > primary service. This could easily be written into the rules for a > spectrum utility. > > The government is not responsible for the "Book Value" of these > stations, as they never officially created a market in the broadcast > spectrum. > > The alternative is even easier. Do noting for a few more years, and > that book value will become vaporware. > > Regards > Craig > > > At 12:31 AM -0700 5/31/05, John Willkie wrote: > >To,; > > > >It's time to put aside the smokeables and put aside the tumblers and TRY to > >gain some sense. > > > >The government COULD mandate that the sky is green and the seas are yellow. > >But, they won't, and those can be done without paying the price. > > > >The government cannot take back all the TV stations in the U.S. without a > >finding that EACH ONE has violated the Communications Act. The government > >can -- arguably -- do this now much easier than after the transition, when > >stations get "renewal expectancy." > > > >And, if the government did not make a finding that each station was > >violating the communications act, they would have to pay full market price > >for each station. > > > >Your share would probably be around $3000. Probably more. Let me know when > >you write the check that your mouth continues to offer. > > > >John Willkie > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Tom Barry" <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 5:55 AM > >Subject: [opendtv] Re: 20050509 Mark's Monday Memo > > > > > >> The government could probably create a spectrum market fairly > >> quickly simply by leasing all spectrum to the highest bidders > >> instead of selling or "loaning" it. Lease cost could be adjusted > >> periodically based upon market forces, with staggered lease > >> expirations. The government wouldn't have to actually run the any > >> spectrum utility, simply ensure that no one could just squat on > >> the spectrum by making that squat too expensive. > >> > >> But I'm not sure the spectrum would be considered worth as much if > >> you didn't get to be a permanent gatekeeper. (mixed blessing) > >> > >> - Tom > >> > >> > >> Craig Birkmaier wrote: > >> > >> > At 3:38 PM -0400 5/23/05, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: > >> > > >> >>Yes, there might be times where a simulcast makes > >> >>sense, but hopefully not at the expense of the main > >> >>signal. For example, service to mobile handheld devices > >> >>to cover the entire market area might be quite > >> >>inefficient if the normal DTT transmitter(s) are used, > >> >>but might be better handled by a cell service. > >> > > >> > > >> > Your response shows your bias in terms of the way the DTV > >> > infrastructure should be operated. > >> > > >> > In my example, the content provider is paying fees for carriage of > >> > specific services. I am assuming that a spectrum utility is operating > >> > that infrastructure, and that they can segment the services in > >> > whatever way makes the most sense on an instantaneous basis, just as > >> > DirecTV and Echostar do today. With these services you do not tune to > >> > a specific satellite and transponder for HGTV; that channel may move > >> > from one transponder to another based on the desires of the operator > >> > - virtual channel tables are used to direct a receiver to HGTV, > >> > wherever it is currently being mapped to the system. > >> > > >> > The need to cripple an HDTV service to make room for other channels > >> > in a multiplex is a uniquely tied to the current way in which > >> > broadcast channels are assigned and operated by the government. Each > >> > 6 MHz channel is a unique service, operated by the licensee. The > >> > licensee must decide how to allocate their bits between services > >> > including the possible use of hierarchical modulation for different > >> > classes of service. > >> > > >> > On the other hand, with a spectrum utility, all of the 6 MHz channels > >> > assigned to a market would be operated by a single entity. They would > >> > have the freedom to allocate those channels in any way they need to > > > > on an instantaneous basis. If a content provider bids for carriage of > >> > a service at say 12 Mbps using modulation appropriate for fixed > >> > receivers, that is what the utility would be contractually obligated > >> > to provide. Ditto for any other service. The utility would decide > >> > where to map that content and how to best utilize all of the channels > >> > in the service to meet the demands of "the marketplace." > >> > > >> > It is quite possible that the utility would NOT use hierarchical > >> > modulation at all, choosing instead to operate some channels in > >> > robust mode and others in high bit rate modes. This could be a > >> > benefit to portable/mobile receivers, as there might be 10-20 robust > >> > services in a single channel all accessible via only one tuner. > >> > > >> > Bottom line, being able to manage 60-100 MHz of bandwidth in a market > >> > dynamically, as opposed to 10 or more operators each of whom has only > >> > 6 MHz to manage changes the game entirely. > >> > > >> > The alternative that you suggest - i.e. segmentation of spectrum into > >> > different competing services - would likely result in less efficient > >> > use of the spectrum and higher costs to content providers and > >> > consumers. Even more important, however, it is likely that the > >> > consumer would need different appliances to use each service. > >> > > >> > > >> >>It might make more sense for broadcasters to give > >> >>Verizon retransmission consent on Vcast than to try to > >> >>try to use either DVB-H or E-VSB, for these handhelds. > >> > > >> > > >> > Who is talking about handhelds? Only the phone guys. > >> > > >> > There will also be portable TVs, notebook computers, > >> > receivers/displays in vehicles (for passengers), etc. More important, > >> > however, the phone companies like to charge for bits; they will want > >> > to charge a per minute fee for everything you watch, because they > >> > paid a huge fee to buy the rights to use the spectrum. > >> > > >> > > >> >>> Why is our policy based on the idea that this > >> >>> capacity belongs to the broadcaster? > >> >> > >> >>Only for OTA TV and radio transmission. For cable, DBS, > >> >>and satellite radio, the capacity belongs to another > >> >>gatekeeper -- the service provider. > >> > > >> > > >> > Different gatekeepers, same problem. When you allocate spectrum to an > >> > operator, rather than a service, the operators will use their > >> > gatekeeper abilities to control the market. On the other hand, if you > >> > allocate spectrum to a service, and create a marketplace to determine > >> > the instantaneous cost of buying access to that service, you > >> > eliminate much of the inefficiency and gerrymandering that occurs > >> > with our current system. > >> > > >> > > >> >>Is there a problem with supporting both models? > >> > > >> > > >> > None at all. The technology now exists to make the allocation of > >> > spectrum to monolithic gatekeeper services a relic of the past. Bits > >> > are bits, and one well designed digital broadcast infrastructure can > >> > deliver any and all services with dynamic re-allocation of resources > >> > driven by real marketplace demands. > >> > > >> > Regards > >> > Craig > >> > > >> > > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: > >> > > >> > - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at > >FreeLists.org > >> > > >> > - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word > >unsubscribe in the subject line. > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: > >> > >> - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at > >FreeLists.org > >> > >> - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word > >unsubscribe in the subject line. > >> > > > > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: > > > >- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings > >at FreeLists.org > > > >- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the > >word unsubscribe in the subject line. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: > > - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org > > - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.