[opendtv] Re: Questions about DTT Transition and Channels 60-69

the fear among broadcasters and their attorneys in 1987 was that, with the
two land mobile petitions still on the table, and the FCC's first Managing
Director being a clear advocate of land mobile interests over broadcast
interest -- and the fear was NOT unfounded, as anybody who ever talked to
McKinney knows -- that the matters would get immediate traction.

Ultimately, almost a decade later, they did get not only traction, but
primacy on channels above 51.  Long after McKinney left the seventh floor
corner office.

John Willkie

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Craig Birkmaier" <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 8:19 AM
Subject: [opendtv] Re: Questions about DTT Transition and Channels 60-69


> At 12:32 AM -0700 9/28/05, John Willkie wrote:
> >NAB started the ball rolling to defend their turf.  The rolling ball led
to
> >DTV.  Ipso facto, the transition to digital started out as being about
> >public safety communications.  And, with (or without) foresight, they did
> >this five years before the word digital was entered into the proceeding,
> >meaning that more than one channel wouldn't be needed for HDTV.  From one
> >perspective, it was foresight.  From another perspective, it was a lack
of
> >foresight.
>
> You are still spinning your wheels John. While there is good evidence
> that the public safety interest were trying to get more spectrum, by
> your own admission, they got little traction at the FCC. In
> Washington you need money to get people to pay attention - public
> safety costs the politicians money, it does not line their pockets.
>
> The real force at work was Land Mobile, which was desperately trying
> to grow the mobile telephony business. As a result of the NAB
> delaying tactics they were forced to use technology to solve their
> problem - moving into less desirable spectrum to get the job done.
>
> If you doubt this, just look at the money pouring into political
> coffers from the mobile telephony business today, in an attempt to
> bring the DTV transition to a much needed conclusion. The politicians
> have perfected the art of playing one industry against another to
> keep everyone paying - even to the extent of doing major re-writes of
> communications law, carefully crafted so as not to work, requiring
> another rewrite a decade later.
>
> The more things change, the more they remain the same.
>
> Regards
> Craig
>
>
>
> >
> >The need for public safety and personal communications continues to grow,
> >while the utility of broadcast channels -- in a heavily cabled
> >environment -- is subject to challenge.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: