[opendtv] Re: FCC chairman offers plan to save broadcasters - CNET
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 08:27:03 -0400
On Apr 10, 2014, at 5:49 PM, "Manfredi, Albert E"
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Craig Birkmaier wrote:
>
>>> 2. The only practical and believable way of getting broadcast TV to
>>> cell phones is for the FCC to break up the cellco stranglehold on
>>> cell phone manufacturers. As is, there's a counter-incentive for
>>> cellcos to permit independent broadcast TV bands on their phones.
>>
>> Under what authority could the FCC do this?
>
> Whatever authority the government used to allow independent telephone
> manufacturers to make products usable over the Ma Bell network. Somehow, that
> was made to happen, right?
Interesting, but irrelevant.
AT&T agreed to end the vertical integration of the U.S. Phone monopoly in 1982,
after thirty years of anti-trust litigation. The RBOCs were created and they no
longer were required to buy phone equipment from Western Electric. The consent
decree allowed any third party device connect to the telephone network, as long
as it did not cause harm to the network. There were NO mandates from the FCC
regarding the capabilities of these new devices.
This is an important historical precedent, but the FCC has never had the
authority to dictate the design of phones for wired or wireless devices.
Along those lines, the latest effort by the FCC to implement the 1996
legislative mandate to unbundle cable Set Top Boxes is called Allvid. It is
essentially a home gateway device to which the cable system would attach to
deliver services. In this the FCC is specifying features, which has tied the
whole thing up in litigation. An interesting side note, is that when the FCC
issued the Cable Card ruling they mandated IEEE-1394 (FireWire) ports on cable
boxes. They later rescinded this apart of the order because the industry moved
on and developed HDMI, and the DRM that is part of it.
The best case you could make is that the FCC could consider a smartphone to be
three devices: a phone, a FM radio, and a TV.
That's a huge stretch.
>
>> And the cellcos no longer determine what goes into most of the phones
>> they sell.
>
> Prove it. If it were true, I could easily subscribe to any cellco I pleased,
> with a simple, user-performed reconfiguration of my cell phone. And I could
> walk into any store and buy any cell phone, and expect it to work on any cell
> network. Just as I can do with a wireline phone. It's only then that the cell
> phone manufacturers could be expected to install any features the customer
> wants.
Technically this is mostly possible, as it is already possible in Europe. But
Europe has one RF standard for phones. We are moving in that direction in the
U.S. With LTE, but devices must be optimized for different standards, frequency
bands and other legacy issues in the U.S.
You can move a GSM iPhone between carriers by swapping out the Sim Card. But
the Verizon network uses different RF standards. Some newer chips can work with
everything, but this is a moving target. as you noted recently, the industry is
already working on 5g standards.
The question is whether the FCC should dictate design, and whether everyone
should use the same RF standards. I would prefer that the government not
dictate features and design. The marketplace is the proper venue for that.
Here is a good example. The AT&T network allows simultaneous use of voice and
data. The Apple iPhone was the first device to take advantage of this - you can
talk and browse simultaneously. Apple also convinced AT&T to support Visual
Voice Mail, which is hosted on Apple servers. These features differentiate the
product from other smartphones and using another network. On Verizon you cannot
use voice and data simultaneously. Verizon allows subscribers to access Apple's
a Visual Voice Mail for free, but charges users of other phones for their own
voice mail service.
So I ask. Is this collusion or the normal differentiation and innovation we
desire from open and competitive markets? Would you like the FCC to sit in
judgement of every new idea, then take several years to run the idea through
the normal comment and rule making process.
> Craig, don't even try to address this question, until you get your facts
> straight. Begin by tabulating the spectral efficiency of LTE in SFN mode,
> with respect to tower spacing. Then price out the backhaul network you would
> need, never mind the number of transmitters you would need. Enough of your
> vague arm waving.
You are wrong. None of this is difficult, nor is it more expensive. Big sticks
cost a bundle and are VERY expensive to operate. If the telcos can offer LTE
broadcast, so can broadcasters.
>
> Oh, also, do you know of any LTE network that can afford to offer FOTA
> anything? Name one, please.
Obviously we pay for cellular broadband, so nothing we pull from the Internet
or a proprietary telco service a free. But broadcasters could continue to offer
content free if they built out an LTE broadcast network. They even have a
source of capital to do it, as Chairman Wheeler suggested - sell back a portion
of the spectrum they are using and use the money to deploy a new broadcast
standard. Wheeler suggested moving to OFDM. This could be LTE broadcast, or a
new standard that is mobile friendly using only a small number of towers in
each market. The current standard is not mobile friendly; even the newer mobile
handheld standard is unworkable.
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:
