[opendtv] Re: How Many Strikes Until They're Out?
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 09:43:40 -0400
At 5:58 PM -0700 4/1/08, John Willkie wrote:
You 1) have no evidence, going by the article (you are just reading into it)
"can be used for testing" doesn't mean they actually work. And, the
observation of a Microsoft engineer doesn't mean anything in this context.
I made a remark and provided the source to back it up. The other
devices ARE being tested, as was the second Microsoft device until it
failed. It is logical that Microsoft should not fix their prototypes
for this round of testing, as a complete re-test would be needed if
they re-submitted. So the FCC will need to use the remaining devices
to complete the tests.
2) are engaging in an ad-hominem attack. My concerns with white space
devices have nothing to do with the NAB nor with retransmission consent
payments (which didn't exist 20 years ago.)
Sorry john. But you sound just like the NAB every time the subject of
white spaced comes up. I would love to hear YOUR concerns about using
the white spaces.
Retansmission consent was adopted into law as part of the 1992 Cable
Reregulation Act. And for what its worth, broadcasters were
pressuring Congress to authorize retransmission consent payments
before the Advanced Television process began. I have a close friend
who is a VP of Engineering for a station group who wrote his Senior
Thesis on the need to compensate broadcasters for their signals
in...1970.
What you are missing is the way in which Re-trans consent was used by
the media conglomerates to take control of the multi-channel TV
business. The first round of agreements (except for CBS who took
cash), gave broadcasters prime real estate on cable systems to build
new franchises including: ESPN, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC Family, and FX. The
conglomerates then went on a buying spree and took control of 90% of
all of the content that is now available to consumers. They also
ended the practice of giving affiliates compensation and have taken
back many ad avails around highly rated programming. To compensate
for this the conglomerates are allowing stations to use retrans
consent for the new agreements that are replacing those entered into
in the early '90s , which have now expired.
You are opposed to over the air broadcast tv, and now you think that the
NAB's latest position gives you the opportunity to pour old whine into new
bottles.
WRONG. I am a big supporter of OTA TV, and will continue to work to
enable it to survive. I have consistently said:
- that broadcasters are using the spectrum to prop up a dying business model.
- that the technology they chose for DTV continues the absurd
practice of wasting half of the spectrum they are assigned to protect
the other half.
- that we could have a FTA multi-channel system with the same content
that now costs the average American home about $50/mo.
- That broadcast TV should deliver content to devices with antennas -
in homes, in vehicles, for portable computers, and for hand held
devices. This is the main competitive advantage over distribution
systems designed for fixed receivers.
So drop YOUR ad hominem attacks.
I've said all along that there was no real white space, but, that a device
attached to the internet and a multi-kilobuck spectrum analyzer or agile
field-strength meter could detect nearby transmitters. However, they
wouldn't detect nearby receivers, and these devices will -- if/when deployed
-- curtail service in remote areas. (interference travels much farther than
signals, a fact well known to rf types, and reflected in the FCC's F(50,50)
and F(50,10) curves.
Nosie was a concern for analog TV. So were ghosts. We figured out how
to deal with both of these issues by the time the DTV process began.
And we figured out how to build high powered transmitters with much
better masking and control of out of band emissions. The issue is
quite simple to understand John.
The key is to offer a signal to every household that has enough
headroom to overcome the noise floor. This is easy to do today, but
costs more than deploying a few big sticks that require all of the
interference protection.
And I don't have a clue what you are talking about in terms of
interference traveling farther than signals.
This is all about out of band emissions, and transmitters that
operate at a fraction of a watt, or even a few watts, are not going
to travel as far as a megawatt transmission. Yes, a local small power
device may swamp a distant TV signal. That is not a problem with the
white space device - it is a problem with the design of the TV
transmission system, a problem that can easily be solved with an
on-channel repeater for that distant market.
Indeed, I wonder why Apple hasn't joined into the fray. Wouldn't these
devices make AppleTV more relevant?
Not at all. Apple TV is designed to attach to fixed receivers in the
home. And Apple TV already supports 802.11n for wireless networking.
There is considerable speculation that the next generation Apple TV
will include a DTV tuner and DVR functionality. If this is true, then
it is also feasible that it would be able to connect to new broadband
services in the white spaces. But it will already have a back
channel, so there is no need for it to transmit anything in the TV
bands.
There is little doubt that Apple will support efforts to use the
white spaces, but they are not going to build the infrastructure,
just the devices that use it.
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:
