[opendtv] Re: FCC's spectrum plan gives broadcasters food for thought
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 17:50:18 -0500
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> The only reason that broadcasters "appear" to have limited spectrum is
> that they wanted it this way. They WANTED to limit choice.
Not true. Take the days prior to cable. Maybe the existing broadcasters at the
time didn't want more competition, but obviously there were newcomers that did
want in. That's why UHF started, for example.
> The reason that the MVPDs appear to have so much more spectrum is that
> they invested in the infrastructure to offer MUCH MORE choice than
> broadcasters.
Not true. Cable systems have continuous coverage, from 54 MHz to 900 MHz,
because they do not need to share with anyone else (like taxicabs and airports)
and they do not need to worry about interference zones caused by spatial
distribution of markets. So yes, they had to invest on laying cable, which is
why you should gladly pay those monthly fees. But OTA broadcasters wouldn't
have that same luxury anyway. OTA means sharing the medium with other RF
wireless devices and other RF transmitter sites.
And DBS is way up there in the spectrum, so each slice can fit lots of b/s,
even if they do not use very high spectral efficiency.
These are physical facts, Craig. They can't be misinterpreted in a credible
way, for politically-motivated arguments. At least, not to engineers.
> Broadcasters COULD have developed a digital infrastructure that
> offered FAR MORE choice that the ATSC system can deliver.
An example of going back to old false assumptions that cause you to draw false
conclusions. Yes, there WOULD be a way for OTA broadcasting to be more
spectrally efficient. It is called REGIONAL BROADCASTING. If you don't accept
regional broadcasting, then you have no argument. (By the way, I have no
objection to regional or national nets, which is why I support elimination of
the national cap. And looking into DVB-T2.)
Still, we have single-market TV here. So, when ATSC managed to offer 25
programs in this market, with easy room for 40 or more total, with the existing
spectrum allocations, the FCC took only a few months to threaten to yank it
away.
> The problem is not that broadcasters offer a threat - they decided NOT to
> compete with cable and DBS, but rather to take advantage of that investment,
Yes, that argument, that you have presented many times, I can agree with. But I
wasn't making the point that broadcasters are seeing MVPDs as a threat to them,
Craig.
I was making the point that MVPDs see OTA broadcasting as "cheating," because
OTA broadcasters don't have to pay as much for the infrastructure they use. To
me, the consumer, that just sounds like an excess of greed. FOTA has existed
since day 1, exists in all developed nations, and certainly in this country, it
is no threat to MVPDs. Therefore, MVPDs can relax.
> The complaints about FOTA are based primarily on the tremendous waste of a
> very valuable public resource
Personally, I think the Grand Canyon is a tremedous waste of a precious
resource, because I want to build condos there and they won't let me. Waaa waaa.
Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
