[opendtv] Re: Fw: Re: Frames Per Second of 720P

  • From: "Bob Miller" <robmxa@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:59:22 -0400

Anything in particular we don't agree on. That would be the only
interesting conversation IMO

I think I agree with most of what you say non technical. I disagree
with some things on their practicality.

Bob Miller

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> At 9:14 AM -0700 7/30/08, dan.grimes@xxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Good point. The competition is now global, as one can see from the story
> about News Corp that i just posted. As the politicians and mega corps try to
> move us toward a "global economy," or worse, the replacement of national
> laws and regulations with homogenized global regulations as Murdoch seems to
> be pushing for, the importance of localism seems to be fading.
>
> Consumers do not get upset if broadcasters skimp on their public service
> obligations - they could care less about most locally produced content,
> UNLESS a major story breaks, and then it is no longer local, but gets
> coverage from the regional and national services. A few cases in point...
>
> When we have a hurricane here in Florida, broadcasters step up and do a good
> job with their public service obligations - they do not need to be coerced
> to do this, as the potential audience increases dramatically during these
> periods of "emergency." In this, radio broadcasters seem to do a better job
> than the TV guys, which is entirely appropriate, since radio is the most
> reliable media when power lines and cable lines start to come down.
>
> And when there is a big story, like "Don't taze me bro,"  the U.F. student
> who disrupted a campus speech by John Kerry and was removed with help of
> tasers, the story is quickly picked up by the cable nets and national news
> services.
>
>> 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.
>
> Unfortunately, the real purpose of TV broadcasting today is to help prop up
> the media oligopoly in the U.S. The big media corporations have used the
> former power they once wielded with TV broadcasting to build new empires.
> Local broadcasting is ONLY important to them because of the regulatory
> advantage they have over competitors because of the importance of
> broadcasting to the politicians
>
> One can build a very good argument that the TV spectrum could be used, as it
> is in the U.K to provide a viable and affordable multi-channel service for
> the masses. Instead it is being used to drive up, and prop up the price, of
> the multi-channel services. Rather than real competition, we see a valuable
> resource being used to protect the media conglomerates - and their 35%
> profit margins - from competition.
>
>> 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.
>
> Hard to disagree with this statement. The only caveat here is that the same
> regulatory framework that gives the congloms their advantage in the
> entertainment business gets in their way when it comes to being competitive.
>
> The 700 MHz spectrum is about bits...lots of bits for mobile applications,
> of which TV content may only be a small piece. Not to agree completely with
> Bob, but this spectrum is VERY valuable, and most of that value is derived
> from the ability to use this spectrum for whatever bits consumers demand,
> not just to watch Oprah.
>
> 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.
>
>
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: