[opendtv] Re: Opinion: Putting A Price Tag On TV Spectrum
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:12:44 -0600
We've seen most of those points made already. I'll pick a few apart.
"That's the 294 MHz of rich, fertile bandwidth that iPhone users (and the
network engineers they bug most) dream about morning, noon and night."
Is this true, or is this the same old technically-challenged rhetoric like the
rhetoric of "effecting climate change"? The spectrum used by TV, especialy now
that the 700 and 800 MHz bands have been given up, is hardly ideal for mobile
two-way devices. The wavelength is too long. It would be more ideal for fixed
broadband RF service. Too bad he went for the more trendy iPhone hype to make
this point.
"Indeed, if you had it to do over again, you wouldn't even use terrestrial
broadcast. I know because some of you have done it over with ESPN and CNBC and
FX and scores of other cable networks." [...] "That's fine. You've still got
good shows."
What? What do "broadcasters" have to do with ESPN, CNBC, or FX, or "you've
still got good shows"? I thought those were CONGLOMS, not broadcasters. Sure,
congloms can piggyback their stuff over other folks' cable, satellite, 3G, or
other type of networks. Who is he talking to? The congloms that have already
sold off their OTA assets (preaching to the choir), or the broadcasters whose
survival is the OTA delivery pipe?
"But no one is watching your off-air-only channels."
Maybe he isn't. Didn't we see a news item that claimed that OTA viewership had
increased since analog shutoff? The dust has hardly settled on DTT, so it's
time for a recount.
"The carriers are starved for airspace, and you're way long in the stuff."
Not true, from recent articles we've read. It's all a tradeoff. Carriers can
also make better use of their spectrum by creating smaller cells, which they
have to do anyway to accommodate two-way devices at higher spectral efficency.
More spectrum is only a partial solution. Use a search engine and look up
"femtocells."
"At the same time, it should provide a mechanism to supply the 10 million
households not having a cable or satellite subscription with free broadcast
video service for five or 10 years."
Ah yes. Lull people into complacency with a new entitlement program, so they
too can become dependent on another monthly subscription fee.
"Existing stations would have the right to continue broadcasting, to relocate
to another channel assignment or to go off off-air. No worries about coverage.
The new spectrum owners will pay cable and satellite operators to guarantee
carriage. If not, you won't vacate."
So, let's take some entity like Allbritton Communications. What exactly are you
offering them, once you force them off the air? Carriage of a couple of daily
news and weather shows? Really? Ironically, if such broadcasters had been
filling upo their channel capacity with their own programs, apart from the
content of their affilated conglom on the "main channel," they might have made
a better deal of this.
"So 'free' TV service remains, but the delivery platform will be
technology-neutral. And you'll be part of the solution, for which you will be
compensated."
So, call it "early retirement," which is what this is. Some people want early
retirement, some have to be coerced into it. Let's not sugarcoat coersion.
Bert
-------------------------------------
Craig Birkmaier posted:
http://www.tvnewscheck.com/mobile/newsletter/article.php?id=37599&type=pm&date=20091125
Putting A Price Tag On TV Spectrum
By Tom Hazlett
Nov 25, 2009, 3:42 PM ET
Hi, broadcasters. I'm an economist. Happy Thanksgiving. Let's talk turkey.
People say you're sitting on some very valuable radio spectrum. Like about $107
billion worth at March 2008 prices. And "sitting" is the inoperative word
because the FCC's broadcast TV license has you frozen on those 49
channels.That's the 294 MHz of rich, fertile bandwidth that iPhone users (and
the network engineers they bug most) dream about morning, noon and night.
You're just running up a wretched electricity bill while the world has moved
on. There's no app for that.
Indeed, if you had it to do over again, you wouldn't even use terrestrial
broadcast. I know because some of you have done it over with ESPN and CNBC and
FX and scores of other cable networks. That Travel Channel deal valued the
network at $1 billion. You folks could have a broadcast travel channel of your
own and broadcast it on one of your digital subchannels to all 114 million TV
homes. But no one is watching your off-air-only channels. Not even Aunt Minnie
in Peoria, the one who was supposed to go bonkers when analog went dark last
June.
That's fine. You've still got good shows. I don't need forensic experts from
CSI: Hollywood to know that. You're not 100 percent of the TV market, like you
were when the FCC stepped in to limit upstart cable TV systems 40 years ago on
the grounds that cable would "siphon" viewers, but would never be a real
competitor. (Boy, did the Washington bureaucrats blow that one) But you've
still got the Super Bowl and Dancing With the Stars, and haul in $40 billion in
ads every year -- or you did until recently. You don't need the TV band for
that. Others like mobile broadband, smart phones and e-readers and M2M networks
do. It's the coming wireless bandwidth tsunami. The carriers are starved for
airspace, and you're way long in the stuff. Time for a deal. You know that. I
know that. Even the new crew at the FCC knows that. But they think that you're
imbued with the "public interest" and have a spiritual attachment to
terrestrial radio transmissions. I follow the money. Your greatest desire as a
broadcaster is to secure cable and satellite carriage.
That's business, not religion. You bought your stations from a broadcaster who
also had a deep, metaphysical investment in the "public interest" and followed
that shining light right all the way through escrow.
A fierce commitment to the TV allocation table of 1952 is your opening bid. You
won't budge until you know three things. First, how much will you be paid to do
your part? Second, how will your life change? And, third, how can you be sure
that you won't get whacked by the opportunists in Congress -- the ones you've
been scaring all these years about any competitive threat to "free, universal,
over-the-air TV" -- when they catch a clue that you're prepared to sell out?
The first two questions are answered by seeing what the FCC should do. It
should split the TV band into seven overlay licenses of 42 MHz each. Then
auction all seven. At the same time, it should provide a mechanism to supply
the 10 million households not having a cable or satellite subscription with
free broadcast video service for five or 10 years. This can be done by
vouchers, as with the DTV set-top box subsidies or via a procurement auction.
It won't cost more than $3 billion ($300 times 10 million), a small fraction of
the spectrum auction receipts.
The overlay licenses will embed encumbrances -- you. Existing stations would
have the right to continue broadcasting, to relocate to another channel
assignment or to go off off-air. No worries about coverage. The new spectrum
owners will pay cable and satellite operators to guarantee carriage. If not,
you won't vacate.
So "free" TV service remains, but the delivery platform will be
technology-neutral. And you'll be part of the solution, for which you will be
compensated. How does something like $30 billion spread across 1,750 full-power
TV stations sound to you? That figure simply derives from the prices paid in
last year's 700 MHz auction. At $1.28 per MHz per capita, a station in New York
might clear $200 million. A station in Spokane, Wash., about $8 million. Again,
these are estimates. Real prices may vary.
That gets us down to your greatest fear: you lose your "public interest" veneer
when you start quoting sell prices. So, don't. Just sit there. Let the FCC move
forward with a smart plan like this. It's actually in the public interest to
unleash new bandwidth for the services consumers most desire. And it makes the
U.S. more competitive in the Global Broadband Race.
Here's the blunt end of the stick: Losing your special place is no longer much
of a problem. There's just not much left in your business model. What can
"public trusteeship" deliver that matches $30 billion? Or a tenth of that?
Thomas Hazlett is professor of law and economics at George Mason University. He
formerly was chief economist of the FCC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
