[opendtv] Re: Consolidation of Internet companies

  • From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 23:23:55 +0000

Craig Birkmaier wrote:

> 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.

That's what makes it expensive, Craig. The fact that in order to make effective 
use of the available spectrum, you have to deploy many small cells. There's a 
lot of infrastructure involved, including of course the backhaul networks, even 
for wireless. 

> 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?

Something as high up in frequency as possible, to give you plenty of channel 
capacity, directivity, short range, easy frequency reuse. There is a lot of 
available spectrum up where these new home services should be. I'm talking up 
in the 20, 30 or more GHz.

> 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?

In rural areas, where it's already available now anyway, sure. In urban and 
suburban, no. It's too low in frequency, so it wants to propagate too far for 
effective frequency reuse (i.e. you can expect co-channel interference), and it 
is challenged for channel capacity too. I always thought this was oversold by 
ex-Chairman Genachowski, and I'm seeing perhaps less emphasis on this from 
Wheeler.

> 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.
> . . . 

Different discussion. The coverage of the individual TV networks was always 
intended to be nationwide, never limited by any concern about "having more 
voices heard." If anything, that concern would be allayed by urging more TV 
networks to be built. If there was any limitation in coverage, it was merely a 
problem with installing the broadcast infrastructure.

> Limiting ownership assured a diversity of voices. The intent has
> always been to keep the networks from dominating "the conversation."

That almost makes sense. Although again, in any given location, it is 
availability of multiple networks that solve that problem, more so than whether 
these same networks are available elsewhere or not.

> Cable changed everything; with satellite back haul it became easy
> to create national networks.

I think you really missed it, Craig.

First of all, satellite backhaul also works for OTA delivery. Secondly, the 
only thing cable changed was number of available nationwide networks, more than 
availability of existing TV networks nationwide. You had all manner of OTA 
translators and CATV systems, decades before cable and DBS MVPDs.

MOST OF ALL, what MVPDs do is they put a lie to this national caps pretense. 
They expose national caps as being a farce, which for some reason only need 
apply to delivery of ABC/NBC/CBS/Fox. Hey, what about HBO? What about ESPN? 
What about HGTV? (And on and on.) And when ex-Chairman Michael Powell explained 
this, look at all the platitudes he got back from our "leaders" in Congress, 
not to mention the trade scribes.

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: