[opendtv] Re: AT&T backs Verizon, TMo hesitates on LTE

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 07:44:30 -0400

At 5:48 PM -0500 8/19/10, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:

There is little doubt in my mind that our ideas of "appropriate infrastructure" are going to be drastically different.

Nor mine.


For example, you also said yesterday that the cellular infrastructure used by cellcos is "more efficient" than the infrastructure used by broadcasters. Not so fast. For the kind of one-way flow broadcasters need to create, small cells in a MFN (which cellcos use) are a bad idea. A cell infrastructure is very much more expensive (hence "inefficient") than what the broadcasters use, FOR BROADCASTING, and it requires no less spectrum to boot.

I talked about this yesterday.

Let's focus on the 600-700 MHz spectrum

Broadcasters want to use it for the one-way services you describe. It is unlikely for economic and legal reasons - i.e. the cost to acquire programming rights - that broadcasters will ever provide access to the broad range of content that is available today via the MVPDs and now increasingly via the Internet. So the reality is that broadcasters would simply like to maintain the status quo for as long as the business can still attract advertisers. You have pointed out that they have already stated that building a more spectrally efficient infrastructure is cost prohibitive.

The telcos ARE investing in spectrum and the infrastructure to use it. Ther are two ways (maybe three) in which the can leverage the investment in the UHF spectrum:

1 a&b. Two way data services. As you pointed out, the UHF bands are better used for large cells, but are limited in their data capacity. This use fits well with rural areas. It also fits well with the QOS issues I noted in urban areas. Thus it makes sense to use the telco tower infrastructure for multiple networks. If a phone can get a good signal from a cell operating in the GHz bands it makes sense for the telco to switch the user to the band that provides better data throughput. If a phone cannot get a strong signal from a GHz cell, it makes sense to switch to the UHF band to deal with signal strength and attenuation issues.

2. Unicast data services. Many of the bits that people want to access with mobile devices are the same. These may fall into two categories as well. Broadcast streams and data broadcasting to local cache in the mobile devices.

For the most part, broadcasters are ONLY interested in supporting Broadcast Streams. A few are beginning to understand the potential for data broadcasting. Fortunately the MHP standard does provides the underpinnings necessary for data broadcasting.

So it boils down to which approach - broadcast or broadband - is going to drive the investment to build out the most efficient infrastructure that will be most valued by the public.

There's nothing efficient about requiring two-way negotiations and many towers for a broadband BROADCAST service like OTA TV.

True. But it is easy to leverage the existing and planned tower infrastructure of the telcos to offer all of the services I described above.


Sure, you can change TV to be a purely on-demand service. If that's the future of OTA TV, then a cell infrastructure would be necessary, *and* you can probably forget about the F of FOTA.

There is no reason NOT to continue to broadcast streams and cached data services.

Perhaps the best solution is to let the telcos build out the infrastructure and let existing broadcasters provide free ad supported streams. Instead of paying broadcasters to vacate the spectrum, why not allow the telcos to build the "spectrum utility," share it with the broadcasters, and give the politicians a percentage of the revenues generated instead of a lump sum up front?


I just don't buy, and have never bought, this idea that the OTA TV infrastructure is way wrong, as you keep advocating. Usually, when things have evolved over time, they are much more tweaked than the naysayers like to believe.

It's not way wrong Bert. It is underutilized, and the content oligopoly no longer sees a future there.

I would have more respect for the FCC if they used their role as spectrum managers to bring everyone together to come up with common sense solutions, rather than pitting one against the other to drive up the price the politicians can charge for the spectrum. In the end, the consumer pays the price...

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.

Other related posts: