[opendtv] Re: Commentary: Be Wary Of FCC's Cash-For-Spectrum Plan
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:44:55 -0600
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> WOW!
>
> This is a very well written commentary by a former broadcaster who
> now specializes in spectrum allocation and reallocation proceedings.
I wasn't as taken as you obviously are, in large part, because we saw most of
these points already, and they didn't sound much better then.
Some comments.
1. OTA DTV usage is up? Let's hear more about that. I think the article is
correct in stating that this administration is stuck on "broadband access." But
if this existing TV spectrum is being used better than before, then isn't that
at least a consideration? Or do we just sweep that under the rug?
2. And speaking about sweeping under the rug, wow! They even want to auction
off the unlicensed bands. Amazing how free they are with OUR spectrum. (Hey,
let's sell public roads to a company that will then turn them to toll roads.
We're so clever. Imagine how much money hat will add to the treasury. It takes
some brass to come up with ideas like that.)
3. They talk about "transition." What transition? After a broadcaster has given
up his 6 MHz channel, why would anyone expect that "broadcaster" entity to
survive? You don't need a "broadcaster" for the cable content, any more than
you need a "broadcaster" for, say, the A&E channel or ESPN. People on MVPDs
want certain content, and aside from the occasional local news and weather,
after OTA broadcasters give up their OTA spectrum, they can be history. Don't
need no OTA-deprived "broadcaster" for my NCIS fix, thank you very much.
(Parenthetically, I am not suggesting that "broadcasters" SHOULD continue to
exist. I just don't think that these realities should be camouflaged with words
like "transition." It's no tranbsition. It is elimination.)
4. Repacking the spectrum is of course desirable. Then again, we all know that.
The DTV transition just finished doing some of that repacking.
5. At least the article does make the point about the archaic national cap.
Amazing. But that line of reasoning becomes OBE if OTA spectrum is taken away
from TV. MVPD channels don't worry about a national cap.
Most importantly, IMO,
6. I don't think many of these articles are very instructive about how well or
poorly the TV spectrum is used. They just make the point that it's not
efficiently used, and everyone is expected to nod their heads and to conclude
that "ATSC is flawed." (These are the "head nodders" I allude to sometimes.) So
let's use the cell phone concept, even though small cells are primarily used to
deploy an efficient two-service, and would NOT be used to deploy an efficient
broadcast service.
It certainly is possible to deploy a large number of very low power
translators, using ATSC or DVB-T. Done. That would potentially make reception
much easier, would require many more towers than now, and if reception is to be
easier for the vast majority of people, it would also create a higher RF power
density environment on average. It would allow for more spectrum reuse in a
given area. But that also costs a whole lot more for the broadcasters to
support, most likely creating the need for a subscription service.
Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: