[opendtv] Re: FCC Eliminates Simulcast Rules
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "OpenDTV (E-mail)" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:13:28 -0400
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> It is NOT my opinion. It IS a matter of record at
> the FCC. The FCC has already ruled that cable systems
> will only be required to carry a station's PRIMARY
> service when the station elects to move from analog
> to digital must carry or re-transmission consent.
Yes, perhaps multicast must-carry is not a mandate.
But to say that the broadcatsers are not "entitled" to
using their 6 MHz channels for multicasts is what I was
questioning. They are entitled by definition. If the
FCC doesn't narrow their channel to 2 MHz, it means
that the broadcasters are entitled to their 6 MHz.
> Not speculation,. It is a fact.
> The spectrum "may" have nothing to do with it. The
> big winner could be broadband.
Exactly. So that would work against cable systems much
more than against OTA broadcasters, since cable
systems sell broadband too, and OTA broadcasters don't.
That's my point. Broadcasters have a perfectly VALID
reason for wanting to retain their analog channel as
long as possible. Any other, secondary reason you
might come up with is pure speculation. Could work for
them, could work against them, could be neutral.
> And you continue to base your logic in terms of the
> CURRENT competitive options.
When cable was introduced here, a $7.95/mo basic
package was advertized. Soon, that increased to $13 or
so, and then it was dropped from the ads. Reportedly,
one can special-order such a basic package still, but
you won't see it in any of their fliers.
It takes no genius to figure out that if FTA
disappears, you will only see increased prices.
Forcing everyone to subscription services is a total
loser of an idea, for the consumer that is.
> > And I also mentioned availability of high quality
> > and low cost STBs, which are finally on the way.
> First, what proof do you have that such boxes are on
> the way?
You do have a way of hanging onto your old positions
even after they have been disproven completely.
Both Linx and LG have demoed good receivers, which
exceed the performance of any competitors at the 19.39
Mb/s bit rate and cost no more. LG has written that
their chipset will be in production by this holiday
season. I think if you look at Mark's memo that LG
says now it will have the built-in 5th gen receivers
before Christmas and STBs with 5th gen right after.
Linx, before it got sold, had press releases that gave
a similar schedule.
> Next, explain why the broadcasters proposition is
> better than that offered by multichannel competitors.
That's very obvious: it's free. Check out the UK and
Berlin experience.
> What is the correlation between the remaining 15% who
> do not subscribe to a multichannel service, and AGE.
Again, I already posted the result of the mabb
experience in Berlin. You're 180 out on this too. The
age of DTT users went down compared to OTA analog
users. It trends down, not up, at least as long
as it's "new."
> Sinclair is on the other side of the table. They
> would be a shadow of what they are today with their
> affiliations with major networks.
Not necessarily at all. If they didn't have all the
restrictions set up by the FCC, they could expand
tremendously. Why wouldn't a network think about
"out-sourcing" its OTA infrastructure, if the deal
made sense? It is in the self-interest of the
Sinclairs of the world more than *anyone else* to
make DTT work well, and that would not be lost to
the major networks.
> DBS does not have 100% reach. Just ask Mark Schubin.
>
> There are many homes/apartments that are unable to
> receive DBS services. The reasons include terrain or
> building blocking, tree blocking, etc.
Not true, by the FCC defintions. You could make the
same argument for OTA, but it won't hold any water.
Coverage is determined by the pattern of the
broadcaster, not by minutiae you list. So in fact,
both DBS systems have 100 reach, and Sinclair cannot
have that privilege.
Your other arguments have to do with the local
broadcasters themselves, which I was not focusing on.
I'm saying that the OTA broadcast system as a whole
is way much more regulated and constrained than their
competition. I don't insist that the affilate model
that exists today should be the only model for OTA
infrastructure, as you seem to do.
> FINALLY. The broadcast networks DO HAVE the
> potential for 100% reach.
Can Sinclair own at *least* one 6 MHz channel in all
US markets? Can the major networks do that on their
own? Does DirecTV have to limit its coverage pattern
to at most 39 percent of the US land area?
Okay, so NBC is available in 100 percent of US homes.
Why can't NBC be available to 100 percent of US homes
via the *same* OTA provider, e.g. Sinclair or one of
their own, as it can be when received via DBS?
The rules that govern OTA are far more stringent than
the rules that govern their competition.
> There is an excellent example of this that has been
> working for nearly a century...it's called the
> telephone.
No, Craig. The telephone was for the longest time a
local monopoly, comparable only to a utility. Now
that they are no longer a local monopoly, it makes
no SENSE to over-regulate them anymore, and those
rules are changing. They will be more like cable.
They will offer TV, or whatever else, and no one
is preventing them from creating video content.
Your idea is just a throw-back to the old local
utility monopolies. It's obviously possible to go
that way, but totally unnecessary to retain
competitionin an OTA infrastructure.
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:
