[opendtv] Re: B&C: Microsoft Claims Rural White Spaces Plan Could Cost Less Than $12 Billion
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 07:42:27 -0400
On Jul 15, 2017, at 7:46 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
Proof of what Bert?
Proof of what your claimed. That the ATSC is interested in providing
broadband service with ATSC 3.0, and then show me the numbers. I spoonfed
back to you exactly the kind of proof I was expecting. So you should not have
needed to ask.
ATSC is a quasi standards organization created to develop broadcast standards
that will enrich the member companies via the IP that they place into the
standard. it does not represent broadcasters, nor are broadcasters limited by
the standards that the ATSC produces.
At the current time, ATSC 1.0 has been authorized for use by broadcasters, but
there are no FCC mandates regarding which portions of the standard must be used
above the modulation and transport levels. Hence there are many features, and
follow on amendments that have never or rarely been used.
The FCC appears to be moving to allow broadcasters to deploy the ATSC 3.0
standard on a voluntary basis. It is too early to tell which portions of the
3.0 standard may be implemented, if ANY.
There is intense pressure on the FCC to move to an entirely new approach to
spectrum management, or just to close down and get out of the way. The book I
am reading - The Political Spectrum - contrasts the heavy handed regulation of
most chunks of spectrum, with the policy in place since the '80s to auction
spectrum. It describes the lack of innovation and widespread underutilization
of large chunks of FCC managed spectrum, with the rapid pace of innovation that
has occurred when companies that license spectrum determine the technologies
deployed, and consumers upgrade devices to embrace these innovations.
So when I told you that broadcasters might choose to deploy technologies in
their spectrum that will allow them to remain competitive, I was not limiting
this to the voluntary ATSC 3.0 standards. And then there is the distinct
reality that the ATSC could incorporate additional capabilities, as they did
with the ATSC 1.0 standard.
The important FACt in this discussion is that the NAB (not the ATSC) is
behaving as they always have, claiming that it is "not in the public interest"
to allow Microsoft (or anyone for that matter) to use unlicensed white spaces
to compete with broadcasters. If they wanted to compete they should have bought
the spectrum during the recent auction.
And the beat goes on...
I did not say that ATSC 3.0 is the total solution;
So, you don't know. I asked for proof, and you don't have it. Like I said,
they could always adopt IEEE 802.22, pool together and use their spectrum,
but get out of broadcasting and into broadband. But to be credible, they
would have to aggregate several channels, even in rural areas. Unless they
want to serve maybe one or two households.
Not using the ATSC 3.0 standard is a distinct possibility Bert.
If you have a way of PROVING what the broadcasters will do in the next decades
I am sure we would all like to know...
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
