[opendtv] Re: 20050509 Mark's Monday Memo

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.

Other related posts: