[opendtv] Re: Genachowski pitches his upcoming national broadband plan
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 07:50:57 -0500
At 6:03 PM -0600 2/25/10, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
If you don't expand the market area that way, then the frequencies
used in the SFN in one market cannot be reused in the next market
over. Not if you want continuous coverage between markets. Which is
true also with big sticks, by the way. Check out the Euro SFNs, and
this is the case. They are on different frequencies, in adjacent
market areas. Like big sticks.
And if you think that SFNs in adjacent markets CAN use the same
frequencies, while still maintaining different signals for each
affiliate, because you claim that SFNs create a tighter coverage
pattern with more well defined boundaries, then you can't use the
excuse that only a small number of medium powered sticks would do
the trick. You may be able to reduce (not eliminate) the dead zones
between markets with SFNs, but only if you create a dense mesh of
quite low powered sticks. And accept some interference zones in the
boudaries.
I just don't see how better than 50 percent utilization can work
without some higher level policy changes.
You are making a bunch of assumptions here that are subject to
further review...
You are correct that there must be adequate separation of signals on
the same frequency - this can be achieved by physical separation and
through the use of directional patterns on broadcast antenna. The
distance issue is directly related to power levels - in some cases
terrain blockage may be a factor as well, allowing re-use of a
frequency at closer distances.
The truth lies somewhere in the middle ground. Cellular networks use
a very dense mesh thanks to low tower heights and low power levels.
The reality is that each market is unique and the distance to
adjacent markets is a variable. The degree of spectral re-use can be
designed into the infrastructure base on each markets' unique
characteristics.
Talk of dead zones is not germane to a market-based coverage
discussion. What is relevant is proper coverage of a market - I don't
know anyone who want to cover areas where there is no significant
population density - satellite can provide coverage to remote areas.
It is a worthwhile discussion to consider a fundamental change to our
current market structure. There may be benefits in regional networks
versus today's local markets, both in terms of continuity of coverage
and the ability to deliver more channels via improved spectral reuse.
But your proposal is a major policy change, one that has the
potential to shift even more power into the hands of the media
conglomerates.
One can also argue that reassignment of the broadcast spectrum for
broadband is a viable alternative, which would allow consumers more
direct control of the content they want to access via the public
spectrum resource.
If broadcasters do nothing - i.e. maintain the status quo - the
current system will die and it is likely that the broadband approach
will happen by default.
So the debate rightly belongs to the broadcasters - and by this I
mean the stations that exist today, not the conglomerates that
provide what "some" consider to be valuable content. IMHO this
debate needs to begin soon, before the weakest among the stations
take the spectrum moey and run.
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:
