> On Oct 29, 2014, at 6:18 PM, Manfredi, Albert E > <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I thought we already debunked that idea. I searched for availability, and > it's available for me. In the DC market, the CBS affiliate is NOT an O&O. The > affiliate, WUSA, belongs to Detroit Free Press Inc. > > So in fact, CBS All Access is the perfect example of how local broadcasters, > including affiliates and not just O&Os, can get a role in this new Internet > TV era, and a perfect example of how the conglom makes it happen, for its own > benefit. Which is perhaps the best way for this to happen. Even if things evolve to the point where local broadcasters can stream the programming from the network they are affiliated with, this is just another way to get something that is already free. The value of the live TV aspect of a $6/mo subscription is questionable at best, especially if you must pay each of the major networks $6/mo. And if the most popular content like the NFL is blacked out... And then there is the reality that CBS, not the local station is selling the subscription. The station is already sending CBS a portion of their retrans consent fees. What's in it for the station? At best, the stream will include local ads. And this still does not deal with the issue of rights to stream all of the syndicated programs a station broadcasts. > Also, you might want to read this: > > http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/17/media/moonves-interview-cbs-all-access/index.html > > Read the end of the article. It explains how this service gives CBS an > alternative to bundles, and it quotes Les Moonves saying, "You don't want to > be beholden to anybody. You don't know where the world's going to go." > Another direct quote: "Every media company in America is thinking about > direct-to-consumer, mobile, digital." This is a marketing test, a toe in the water. It has been broadly panned in the media as being a poor value. Nothing to see here other than a very public attempt to put a price on what an ala carte service would cost. > > That hits the nail on the head. This isn't someone who stubbornly sticks to > an MVPD model Craig. Moonves also wonders exactly what HBO is up to, that > article says. One more time Bert. The HBO situation is TOTALLY UNRELATED to the CBS service. HBO is not part of the extended basic bundle - it is an extra $15/mo or more, and HBO has already stated that it will cost this much for the OTT version. CBS is not part of the extended basic bundle either - it is part of the basic/lifeline bundle. What is critical is the $1+/mo that CBS and its affiliates are getting in retrans consent payments. CBS All Access is not going to generate billions in revenue- it may not even cover the operating costs. > >> An 80 MHz channel is adequate to deliver everything that broadcasters >> deliver in most markets. > > Point 1. The FCC wants to grab the 100 MHz wide 600 for purposes other than > broadcasting. And for those purposes, it will not provide very much new > capacity. It amounts to perhaps one or at most two channels, in the newer, > faster, cellular standards. This is absurd. > > Point 2. I agree that 80 MHz is enough for TV broadcasting in a market. Our > market uses 12 multiplexes, or 72 MHz. But there has to be overlap, Craig, to > (a) ensure seamless coverage in parts of the country where this is required, > and (b) to provide access from stations of both markets, in places where > people commute to either of two markets (or more than two?) for work. I'm > sure we've been over this a lot of times. So, you in fact need at the very > least 160 MHz, and in practical reality, more than that. Something we can agree on. The checkerboarding of markets will continue, and SFNs will make it easier to control market contours. AND broadcasters will still have plenty of spectrum to do what you describe - 300 MHz of UHF plus the VHF frequencies. The telcos will use the new spectrum on a more localized basis, although they could offer some regional/national channels and some local. The LTE broadcast technology provides the flexibility to architect services as needed. But the real question is what will John Q Public pay for? >> So the 600 MHz band should serve the telcos quite well. > > On the contrary, it propagates too well for small cell use, i.e. it is *NOT > optimal* for high frequency reuse, and it simply is not a lot of spectrum in > these modern cell schemes. Check out where WiFi and 5G are heading, in the > frequency spectrum, and then explain to me why. Propagation is largely a function of power level and tower height (HAAT). It may well turn out that the 600 MHz bands will be used for regional networks with higher power levels on taller sticks. I was driving back from Tampa yesterday and looking at the cellular tower inventory along the way. There is a mixture of free standing towers, probably around 100 foot, and taller towers (200-300 foot) with support wires on larger land footprints. Often they are quite close to each other. The taller towers are largely vacant above the midpoint except for some microwave links. One can easily imagine these taller towers being used for broadcast LTE sites that will cover larger geographic areas - i.e. lower cell density than the two-way data network where frequencies are reused in a tighter checkerboard to increase overall system capacity. 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.