[opendtv] Re: Did I get this one right?
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 08:45:52 -0400
At 6:36 PM -0400 10/19/07, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
One must look at this situation from two related perspectives:
1. Protection of existing users/services is very important; as
with any proposal to share spectrum, the key issue will be how
much interference can be tolerated.
And what you seem to ignore is the range between these potential new
transmitters and existing receivers that use the TV spectrum, compared
with the range between receivers and TV transmitters. The allowed 1 watt
level is very high, if it's right across a drywall from a TV.
I am not ignoring a thing, I was simply stating a fact. From a
technical perspective, the issue is going to come down to the levels
of interference that will be permissible. My post was not intended to
continue debating HOW MUCH interference can be tolerated.
2. licensing is a viable method to control the alternative uses
of this spectrum, but it also opens up a can of worms related to
the value of the spectrum that is being shared.
That's another matter entirely. I'm just addressing RF issues.
RF issues are not what is in play here, which is what my post was
trying to point out. potential interference is simply the tactic that
the broadcasters are using (AGAIN) to protect THEIR spectrum.
Unfortunately, you and many others are more than happy to play their
game and help spread the FUD.
The broadcasters now understand that they cannot keep others from
sharing this spectrum resource.
They have managed to keep the hounds at bay for nearly three decades
with the DTV scam. Knowing that the FCC is going to open up the white
spaces, they are now trying to set the terms of potential use and
competition.
Current incumbents, both the broadcasters using the TV spectrum
and the companies that provide broadband services today
(primarily cable and telco) would like any alternative use of
the spectrum to be regulated and presumably encumbered with user
fees so as to make these alternative uses less competitive with
existing products/services.
Again, this has nothing to do with the RF problems. It's fine to go off
into other reasons why TV folk might not like this, but that doesn't
undo the actual real issues with RF interference.
Once again, you are drinking their kool aid. The RF issues are
actually quite easy to manage and have been overblown by those who
are trying to keep the white spaces from being opened up to
UNLICENSED devices. This debate is really about competition, not
trying to protect a service that broadcasters depend upon for only
one reason:
Retransmission consent.
If broadcasters really cared about the spectrum they would use it to compete.
So, as usual, the real debate here is about protection - not
from interference, but from potential competition.
Not at all. You are simply ignoring what you don;t want to hear.
Well I certainly am growing tired of hearing your usual attempts to
help the broadcasters play their shell games. At least you finally
agree that the DTV transition has been about the protection of a
lucrative franchise, not an attempt to regain a competitive edge over
cable and DBS.
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:
