[opendtv] Re: How Will Spectrum Auctions Impact Broadcasters?
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2012 17:03:51 -0500
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> Here's another possible scenario.
>
> 1. The ATSC gets moving on ATSC 2.0 and sets an aggressive schedule to
> have the new standard finished AND TESTED, by 2015.
>
> 2. Broadcasters begin to develop a "spectrum utility model" that returns
> 60 - 80 MHz of UHF spectrum for auction after build out of the utility -
> by 2017 for major markets, 2020 for smaller markets. Broadcasters begin
> talks immediately with the telcos to determine how the new broadcast
> utility can leverage existing cellular infrastructure - the goal is to
> build the infrastructure, sooner rather than later, so that the telcos
> can access the new spectrum resources (note: this should enhance the
> value to the telcos, driving up spectrum proceeds).
I see a disconnect in this. First thing is, ATSC 2.0 changes little. ATSC 2.0
is aimed at making more effective use of M/H, and that's about it, no? There's
no change in modulation, so it's not like it will support a cellular
infrastructure.
If you're actually talking about ATSC 3.0, then I seriously doubt anyone is
thinking about testing that by 2015.
Another thing is, in European OTA DTV infrastructures, starting with the one in
Berlin, they determined that going to SFNs (not the same as cellular,
admittedly) was only going to be cost effective if they kept the number of
sticks very low. That's why you see two or three sticks mostly, and the 4-stick
"umbrella configuration" in Paris (cheating, in the sense that they rely mostly
on the one big stick Eiffel Tower). Similarly in Rome, the "heavy lifting" is
done by the really tall stick on Monte Cavo to the South, not by the much lower
Monte Mario to the North. Most other places, one big stick reigns.
So, any idea that a dense cellular network of towers will cost the broadcasters
less than they're spending now for the broadcasting infrastructure, is wishful
thinking. But hey, someone who is familiar with the realities of RF
infrastructure can intelligently compare costs with the wireless telcos.
Okay so (eventually) we have this ATSC 3.0 cellular spectrum utility that will
cost broadcasters more than their current big sticks. Isn't there going to be
an incentive to consolidate? I mean for example, if the CW network wants to
retain its national footprint, why on earth would it want to deal with this
assortment of "local broadcasters" AND with an assortment of spectrum
utilities? That's like jumping from frying pan to fire. We've seen companies
consolidating left and right, in the past few decades, and this would seem like
a golden opportunity.
The FCC would probably have to revise its national cap rule. But the revision
would be something like, "No single 'spectrum utility' can serve more than 39
percent of US OTA markets." The content transmitted by each utility would
become no different from the content transmitted now by MVPDs. There are no
restrictions on how many markets can carry CW, CBS, or The Food Network, right?
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:
