[opendtv] Re: Consolidation of Internet companies
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 07:59:29 -0400
On Jun 22, 2014, at 9:22 PM, "Manfredi, Albert E"
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Right. I agree. So that's why the FCC needs to carefully craft this ruling.
> I've said this before, and I'll repeat it. The part of the system that has to
> be heavily regulated, because the "barrier for entry" is simply too high,
> needs to be focused down to the smallest possible subset of components. In
> this case, it's the physical plant, meaning the cabling and rights of way,
> that become the biggest obstacle. So that's what the FCC should concentrate
> on, wrt Title II classification. Not all the other subsystems an ISP service
> needs to support.
Yes, the problem continues to be the investment needed for the "last mile." And
to a lesser extent the cost to bring broadband to rural markets.
>> Wireless solutions offer great promise, but once again, regulatory
>> policy favors the entrenched oligopolies;
>
> Wireless also requires large infrastructure investment, especially in high
> density areas. It's main advantage is that wireless can afford local
> competition, where cabled cannot. So again, if wireless is to play a big role
> in broadband Internet service, perhaps the FCC should also consider
> classifying a piece of that system under Title II.
I think you missed my point here. The wireless infrastructure is not that
expensive; the spectrum needed to make it a practical solution is the problem.
Why are Verizon and AT&T giving up on fiber to the home?
The cost of the last mile is not justified.
So they are deploying fiber to risers around the community and relying on the
existing twisted pair copper for now. My best guess is that they will use new
spectrum to deliver wireless broadband from these risers in the future; and
they will probably offer Wi-Fi from these locations as well. The biggest
question is what spectrum should they use?
So here is your big chance Bert. Assuming this is the telcos long term plan,
what kind of wireless connection would you use from the riser to the home?
What spectrum would you use?
Let's assume the telcos buy the spectrum that broadcasters vacate in the next
auction. Are there advantages in using this spectrum for fixed wireless
broadband? Could an effective mesh network be built using riser locations
distributed throughout the service area?
> As far as I know, NBC, CBS, and ABC had nationwide coverage always. So no
> matter how you slice it, broadcaster national caps never made a lot of sense.
> Not in the way the lazy rhetoric implies, anyway. Politicians and trade
> scribes often indulge in dramatics and theatrics, implying that issue A has
> anything to do with problem B. "Voices heard" over the airwaves, by
> individual US citizens, are way more a function of local caps than national
> caps, and it's always been so. And yet, you'd never know, listening to the
> complainers.
Nationwide is a bit of an overstatement.
They started in the major markets, where they owned the stations.
They grew into smaller markets using affiliates.
They grew further with CATV systems to fill in coverage gaps.
They grew into even smaller markets when UHF proliferated in the '80s, and via
translator networks that extended larger markets.
True nationwide coverage became possible with DBS.
But this is a side show.
The intent of a market based system was to provide local access, news, etc. and
local advertising access. Limiting ownership assured a diversity of voices. The
intent has always been to keep the networks from dominating "the conversation."
The networks liked ownership caps, as it virtually assured that new national
networks would be difficult to create. It took Fox decades to build a national
network of affiliates.
Cable changed everything; with satellite back haul it became easy to create
national networks. FOTA has been in decline ever since.
Consider your current worldview Bert. You believe the Internet is the ultimate
distribution network; I agree. After the reverse auction FOTA will be
consolidated into a lifeline service.
>
> If each TV network owned a set of nationwide O&Os, we would be no worse off
> than we are today, in this regard. Or someone would have to explain to me how
> it would be worse.
>
And we would be no better off.
It's way too late!
Broadcasters are fundamentally dependent on cable and DBS carriage today, and
the Internet tomorrow.
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: