[opendtv] Re: FLO Spectrum Sale Hints at UHF Spectrum Value
- From: Bob Miller <robmxa@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 22:32:23 -0500
The low price paid for Qualcomm's spectrum is simply Qualcomm selling
way to low.
Bob Miller
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> IMO the main thrust of the article got lost in the discussion of band
> aggregation.
>
> True, the 6 MHz channels vacated by TV stations are not enough to support
> wireless broadband. But the 3G and 4G wireless standards are capable of
> aggregating different frequency bands, to achieve their 5, 10, or 20 MHz
> bandwidths. (Some more than others. 3G cdma2000 can aggregate slices of just
> 1.25 MHz. LTE is similar. WCDMA is not as clever in this regard.)
>
> So the question is, why the low per-market value placed on Ch 55?
>
> Bert
>
> -------------------------------
> http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/111190
>
> FLO Spectrum Sale Hints at UHF Spectrum Value
> by Doug Lung, 12.22.2010.
>
> One of the precepts of the FCC's plan to reallocate up to half the usable
> broadcast TV spectrum for broadband is that the market value of the spectrum
> would be much greater if it's used for broadband rather than for broadcasting.
>
> If the price AT&T is paying for Qualcomm's prime FLO spectrum is any
> indication, the FCC may have a hard time convincing broadcasters to
> voluntarily give up their spectrum.
>
> AT&T is set to pay $1.925 billion for spectrum currently used for Qualcomm's
> FLO TV operation. While that may sound like a large amount, consider that,
> according to the TWICE article on the shutdown, FLO was operational in 107
> markets. Dividing 107 into $1.925 billion gives an average price per market
> of only $18 million. The price per channel would be less, as Qualcomm also
> owns Block E spectrum in some markets.
>
> How many TV stations would be willing to give up their TV channel for $18
> million? In reality, they would receive much less, as the government would
> want its cut for deficit reduction.
>
> One possible reason for the lower price is this is "unpaired" spectrum--there
> isn't a separate block of frequencies to be used for two-way communications.
>
> This doesn't appear to be a problem for AT&T, however. An AT&T and Qualcomm
> press release announcing the deal said that "AT&T intends to deploy this
> spectrum as supplemental downlink, using carrier aggregation technology. This
> technology is designed to deliver substantial capacity gains and is expected
> to be enabled with the completion of 3GPP Release 10."
>
> It's hard to imagine UHF broadcast spectrum bringing a much greater price.
> After all, the FLO spectrum is close to frequencies that Verizon is using to
> build out its LTE network, so equipment will be available. The spectrum
> doesn't have to be cleared, and there are no adjacent broadcast channels to
> cause interference.
>
> An article in TWICE on the sale, Qualcomm To Sell FLO TV Spectrum to AT&T
> states. "Qualcomm also plans to develop LTE multicast technologies
> specifically to deliver high-bandwidth video and other multimedia content."
>
> LTE multicast sounds a lot like broadcasting to me.
>
> Perhaps broadcasters should stop using the phrase "Mobile DTV," and instead
> call it "broadband multicasting" or "wireless multicasting" to make it sound
> more 21st century.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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:
