Even worse how about if the entity that purchased spectrum can't even use it for years because those who were given it free are squatting on it? Of course the buyers knew the terms going it but the terms related to a transition in 2006 not 2009. And of course the buyers knew that they were dealing with a government that was beholding to the interest who were given the free spectrum and that anything could happen even a change of transition time to 20020 or beyond. (not a typo) You just have to take your chances. As the Bible says, "To those who are given much, it is expected that much more will be given later". (That is the King Bush version of the Bible as published by the Republican Press and vetted by the Council of Crawford). Bob Miller On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 12:14 PM, <dan.grimes@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Sorry, this was an unfinished thought and I was called away to fix > something. > > What I am trying to get at is the fact that the broadcasting business has > become overly inflated and complicated, requiring a lot more money and > resources than is really necessary to provide the obligation (public > service) in exchange for the spectrum. > > While I can appreciate that the entire OTA system (at least old model) may > no longer be viable business-wise for the broadcaster, and I can appreciate > the need for new revenues, it is still important to realize that the > spectrum is given to them for a purpose and that purpose must be fulfilled > to the expectations of those of us that still use it. If the broadcasters > cannot do this and stay in business, then they need to get out of > broadcasting and make their money another way. > > I think it is unfair for a broadcasting corporation to be "given" spectrum > with an obligation, then use the spectrum to make a bunch of money, not > fulfill the obligation (consumer's expectation of the obligation), and then > compete with corporations that did have to buy spectrum in order to make > money. > > Dan > > ----- Forwarded by Dan Grimes/UNLV on 07/30/2008 09:03 AM ----- > Dan Grimes/UNLV > > 07/30/2008 08:55 AM > > To > opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > cc > Subject > Re: [opendtv] Re: Frames Per Second of 720PLink > > > > Certainly the old model and obligations are holding back the ability to > revamp the entire system. It was also suggested on this forum that the > "contract" between the people and the broadcaster is no longer valid. > > There is an option: scrap the whole system and require broadcasters (or > anyone for that matter) to buy the spectrum they are using. Then they can > charge all they want and don't have to provide the public service. > > I think it is important for broadcasters to remember why they have been > given their spectrum. They do have an obligation. > > But then again, I know there is much more to the story. > > Dan > > > > "Mark A. Aitken" <maitken@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent by: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > 07/30/2008 08:01 AM > > Please respond to > opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > To > opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > cc > Subject > [opendtv] Re: Frames Per Second of 720P > > > > > The only part of the "old model" Broadcasters are stuck with is the > providing of an MPEG2 encoded video channel, and the public service > obligations that go along with that. > > The real issue is the need for a culture change, and an understanding of > what mobility buys you. This is NOT so much about the technology (coverage > issues are fairly easily addressed), it is about "What's the business?" We > think we have a handle on it...can't speak for others here. We are busy > making sure that the defined system (most viable) is fully acceptable. We > have a good record of understanding the issues. > > You state "Are they (Broadcasters) going to change? I don't think so." > > I state "Are they (Broadcasters) going to change? They have to." > > We will fight for the right to remain standing at the end of this and every > other day. This has been a long fight, and there is no intent to give it > up... > > > On 7/30/2008 10:33 AM, Bob Miller wrote: > I don't know what the latest specs are on M/H but don't they have more > than one setting? > > If as with the test in 2000 we would have to accept all the parameters > of the current US system, big stick/high power, and only compare DVB-T > or other modulations to the setting available to M/H is one thing. > > A new competitor in 700 MHz would not so limit their network. They > would choose a robustness level that maxed out the bit rate while > matching the network they are willing to build. And their network > might be more dense in some urban areas which would allow for a less > robust mode and higher bit rate while more robust and lower bit rate > in a rural area. All kinds of possibilities in trying to balance the > cost of the network with their perceived value of bits delivered and > robustness levels. > > Computer models might have to be used and the best case would change with > time. > > I think new entrants to the OTA broadcasting arena will have much > higher values of bits delivered and be willing to build complex > expensive networks to do that at very robust levels and that over time > they will constantly invest more to ever improve on that. > > Current broadcasters as evidenced by the report will be tweaking their > old model which they are stuck with by law and betting that content > will save the day. They are/will be putting a lower value on bits > delivered, be unwilling to lobby for the changes needed so that they > can build the network needed and constantly be working from a position > of catch up reacting to their competitors and looking to Congress to > protect them instead of innovating . > > That is their history. Are they going to change? I don't think so. > > If I could build the network I want, with bits valued as much as I > expect the marketplace would value them, then I expect that with > DVB-T2 and its 30 to 50% advantage over DVB-T, I would be able to > deliver 18 Mbps very robustly to mobile, fixed and portable devices > including cell phones. If you are right about the 4 Mbps and I am > right about the 18 Mbps then my channel would be able to deliver 450% > of the bits an M/H channel can. I give NO value to the MPEG2 stream or > if any a negative value equal to its share of the electric bill. > > Does that mean that channels using DVB-T2 are worth 450% of a > broadcasters channel using M/H? No it means they are worth infinitely > more since theirs become virtually worthless under the contraints of > M/H, the 5% tax and their mindset IMO. > > I would not use DVB-T anymore than I would use M/H. Why not use the > best available. I would not worry about battery life in cell phones. > First because I would not build a network based on delivery to cell > phones. I would be after the entire TV market and that includes the > living room. But again I would not focus on the living room at the > expense of the rest of what will be a massive market for ubiquitous > reception of video and audio data. > > And I would not waste 3 Mbps for the required MPEG2 NTSC program. I am > sure with a little work we could come up with something like 1 Mbps or > less to satisfy that requirement while legacy receivers wither on the > vine. And if what I outlined above were the environment for > broadcasters I am sure some would challenge the FCC with bit rates > that starve the requirement to the point of court challenges. You have > got to test in court to find the edge. > > That is if you value bits as I would and as I think any market should > sans government involvement. At the moment I think government > involvement has devalued the broadcasters future value of their > spectrum by something over 95% while saddling taxpayers with what > would be unneeded expense for receiver subsidies and advertising of > the coming transition. > > Bob Miller > > > > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 7:13 AM, Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Bob - > > As I understand it, after using 1/4 FEC and first subtracting maybe 3 mbps > for the mandatory MPEG-2 compatible channel, M/H might be able to deliver > about 4 mbps of robust payload to a mobile receiver thru a 6 MHz ATSC > channel. Can DVB-T* do better? > > - Tom > > Bob Miller wrote: > > I think we will see cell phones in the US able to receive FTA DTV > using DVB-T2, DVB-T or DMBT viewable on its native screen, projecting > its content to a 20" screen or sending its image to wearable set of > glasses for HD or 3D HD. > > If broadcasters are still didling along with multicast of their > precious content using 8-VSB and M/H they may have a problem. > > Bob Miller > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 10:23 PM, John Shutt <shuttj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > My feeble stab at it: > > In Europe, competing cell phone services use GSM, and sell SIM cards for > service activation. The customer is free to purchase a GSM handset > independent from purchasing service, and can port their instrument when > switching service among providers. > > Therefore, customers buy handsets with the features they want. > > Since Verizon is opening up their network to third party handsets that > they > certify, perhaps that will allow people to buy phones equipped with ATSC > M/H > receivers and use them with their Verizon account, instead of being > locked > into only the phones that Verizon offers. > > John > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Albert Manfredi" > <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Transfer the argument to Europe. Can you answer what would make Europe > so > different? > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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. > > > > -- > Tom Barry trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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. > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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. > > > > -- > > Regards, > Mark A. Aitken > Director, Advanced Technology > > <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< > > =================================== > Sinclair Broadcast Group > 10706 Beaver Dam Road > Hunt Valley, MD 21030 > =================================== > Business TEL: (410) 568-1535 > Business MOBILE: (443) 677-4425 > Business FAX: (410) 568-1580 > E-mail: maitken@xxxxxxxxxx > Text PAGE: page.maitken@xxxxxxxxxx > HTML PAGE: 4436774425@xxxxxxxxxx > www.newscentral.tv > www.sbgi.net > =================================== > > "If you listen to all the people saying > why you shouldn't, or can't, do something, > you'll never do anything." > > ------ Edward Whitacre Jr. -------- > =================================== > "Any sufficiently advanced technology > is indistinguishable from magic." > > ------- Arthur C. Clarke ------- > =================================== > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.