JUST DO IT. I've challenged you on variations of this RF issue for years. JUST DO IT. I believe that you can't, and that you don't know anybody who can. John Willkie, someone who has actually done RF planning more than a few times, and in various services regulated by the FCC. > -----Original Message----- > From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > On Behalf Of Craig Birkmaier > Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 4:30 AM > To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [opendtv] Re: "It can't be done" > > John > > Thanks for living up to my premise. There will always be folks, such > as yourself, who will say "it can't be done." > > The reality is that in all likelihood, there are probably existing > sites that could be used. > > This nation is literally covered with broadcast transmitter sites. > These include all of the sticks for full powered TV stations, Class A > and LPTV stations, and AM and FM radio stations, not to mention > existing translator sites. > > A properly designed digital broadcast infrastructure can replace ALL > of these facilities. > > Now before you go off the handle and tell me why it can't be done, > allow me to field the following premise. > > A long time ago - not quite 100 years - the politicians of their day > made the decision to create broadcast services that traded use of the > public airwaves for "broadcasting in the public interest." This was a > good plan, and has served us well, EXCEPT for one "minor" problem. > > The politicians allowed the broadcasters to create a secondary market > in spectrum licenses, which has resulted in the creation of billions > of dollars in "good will," on the books of broadcast companies. This > valuation is directly related to the value of the licenses in the > spectrum market, not the actual assets of the companies, in > particular the transmission facilities. > > As we have seen in recent years, companies are moving rapidly to > eliminate these "virtual assets" from their books, writing off > billions in valuation. If left to nature to take it's course, > broadcasting would survive until we reach equilibrium. That is, when > the paper assets are all written off, the industry will cease to > exist in its present form. > > There is a better way out of the valley below the digital cliff. We > can literally start over. Congress "could" authorize a new digital > broadcast service that would replace all of the existing analog radio > and TV broadcast services with a single transmission utility. As part > of this authorization, all existing transmission assets could be > transferred to the transmission utility, in return for some form of > payment: > > This payment could be in the form of a reasonable valuation of the > transmission facilities, to be paid from proceeds of spectrum > auctions or operating revenues from the transmission utility. OR it > could be paid in the form of credits for use of the new transmission > facilities, giving legacy broadcasters a kind of grandfathering > clause to guarantee their ability to transition to the new > infrastructure. > > Whatever the deal that would be brokered, we would wind up with a ton > of transmission assets around the nation. Some would be highly useful > in the form they presently exist. Some would be useful with > modifications, which generally would involve a reduction in antenna > heights and power levels. And some would simply be decommissioned and > sold to generate revenues to build out new infrastructure where it is > needed. There would also be the ability to relocates assets to areas > where they would be more appropriately used. For example, there are a > large number of big sticks in and around major urban areas that would > be replaced with SFN sites on lower towers or buildings. These big > sticks might be useful in rural areas that are currently underserved, > and do not have market adjacency issues. > > Bottom line, is that governments can be part of the process, helping > to determine which sites should continue to be used, which sites > should be de-commissioned, and where to locate new sites to build out > the networks. In the end there will be far fewer sites, with lower > sticks and lower powered emissions. In other words, everyone > benefits. > > I'm not saying that it would be easy, but it certainly CAN be done. > > Regards > Craig > > At 10:18 AM -0800 12/28/06, John Willkie wrote: > >I'm willing to bet that you, Craig, cannot find a feasible site in Santa > >Barbara county for a SINGLE new transmitter/antenna combination. > > > >My criteria: you getting a letter of intent from a landowner, for a site > >that serves part of the market, which meets all electrical/interference > >criteria and land use/RFR criteria of S.B. county and the municipalities > >therein. I'm including in the eligibles all current transmit sites and > any > >new ones you can find. > > > >A single site is just a start of a SFN, but you need to start there, > unless > >you are going to "flash-cut" your proposed SFN. (Which you cannot do, > >because you need to tune it up off-line before putting it into service) > > > >Let me give you a bit of perspective. In the early 1990s, a friend of > mine > >named Bob Suffel had a LPTV cp for Santa Barbara. He couldn't find a > single > >site where he could serve a sizeable audience, where he could get a > letter > >of intent, and where he could get land use approval from the county or a > >municipality. > > > >You did notice that I said land use/RFR criteria for Santa Barbara > County? > > > >Due to the terrain and the county having a RFR policy, you picked the > wrong > >county. > > > >Dale -- more knowledgeable about this county than I -- has politely been > >trying to clue you into this. > > > >One can name all sorts of places in the West where it's EXTREMELY > difficult > >to put up new stations that will reach sizeable audiences -- Phoenix, > Yuma > >and Tucson come to mind instantly -- but Santa Barbara is by far the most > >difficult due to county land use/RFR policies. Particular cities within > >that county are much worse than the unincorporated parts of the county. > > > >And, to iterate: this is only the first site that you want to use for > your > >SFN. > > > >I'm not saying that SFN's cannot be done. I'm saying you foolishly > picked > >the wrong/worst county to try it in. > > > >It's hard to find cell towers in S.B. County. They all have to be > disguised > >and have since day one. All broadcast towers go up on the "scenic" > hills. > > > >John Willkie > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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.