[opendtv] Re: Charging to Use "Free" Spectrum
- From: "John Shutt" <shuttj@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 12:29:07 -0500
In lieu of purchasing spectrum, any OTA broadcaster that leases bits or charges
for a subscription service pays 10% of the gross to the US Government annually.
I believe that this arrangement will allow for a more flexible use of the
spectrum that is less disruptive to the viewing public than a straight spectrum
auction would be. It allows different business models to be tried, and if they
fail the underlying service doesn't also go away.
How much did UNLV spend in recent years on new antennas, transmitters,
encoders, and the ability to simulcast ATSC and NTSC for the better part of a
decade? I know MSU spent a ton of money on the digital transition. I won't
begrudge a local station from trying to recoup part of that forced investment,
even though there isn't much that ATSC is really good for other than being a
placeholder for access to cable subscribers. (Right, Craig? ;) )
John
----- Original Message -----
From: dan.grimes@xxxxxxxx
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 12:06 PM
Subject: [opendtv] Charging to Use "Free" Spectrum
John Shutt wrote:
"There is nothing that would prohibit stations from carrying ATSC streams
with video encoded with the latest and greatest codec, as long as at least one
stream remained NTSC quality MPEG-2."
I know this will not be a popular statement, but if the broadcasters are
going to get the spectrum for "free", it is my opinion that they should be
required to provide all the content on them free and clear. If they want
subscription fees, they should buy the spectrum at auction.
I realize legally, broadcasters only need to throw out a low quality picture
for free and use the rest of the bits for other services, but in my opinion,
this does not satisfy the spirit of the notion that they are providing a public
benefit for use of the public spectrum.
Of course, I am not saying that I am not for better uses of the spectrum,
just that I think there needs to be better definition of how the public
benefits for giving the broadcasters the spectrum.
Just my two cents.
Dan
Other related posts:
