[opendtv] Re: New Thread: What becomes of Legacy Analog Equipment

  • From: "Bob Miller" <robmxa@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 19:05:55 -0500

On Dec 1, 2007 6:33 PM, John Willkie <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  I didn't say that the FCC needed to do the interference studies;
> proponents do.  You might recall me saying that for DVB-T in the U.S. to
> even be considered, proponents needed to do interference studies.
>  Otherwise, the FCC can just play simple defense.
>
>
>
What I said was the the FCC would not accept Richard's interference studies
if he did them and is not going to do them themselves so Richard received a
flat no from the FCC. He has no options.

> If you think MediaFlo is something more than a demo infrastructure, I
> would suggest that you move a few miles off an interstate highway in an area
> between metro areas.  How many people could be watching tv on interstate
> highways?  Using their cellphone?
>
>
>
You could characterize it as a demo but I think they are doing it as a
serious business though from the beginning with no real enthusiasm. Would
like partners or to spin it off ASAP.

> I don't do cynicism.  If you want to whine about not wanting to spend a
> $1,000 in 2000 and what you ultimately left on the table, this is probably
> not the right venue.
>
>
>
I am not whining. When we did not put up $1000 we had no way of knowing that
the FCC was going to change the rules a few days later and allow anyone who
had put up even the minimum deposit to make a further deposit of any amount
over a 3 or 4 month period. I had four days to raise money for Auction 44
from the time I was a qualified bidder until deposits were due. Four more
months would have helped. I don't understand why the FCC would not allow us
to participate since everything changed and it was basically a new auction.
They should either have opened it to everyone all over again or at least
allowed those who had initially signed up to participate.


> Google doesn't need to worry about revenue projections, or lost
> opportunities.
>

Not today they don't. They are king of the hill today but if they are trying
to save the world they may stumble.

Bob Miller

>
>
> John Willkie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *De:* opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *En
> nombre de *Bob Miller
> *Enviado el:* Saturday, December 01, 2007 3:01 PM
> *Para:* opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Asunto:* [opendtv] Re: New Thread: What becomes of Legacy Analog
> Equipment
>
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 30, 2007 10:37 PM, John Willkie <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> You are missing much.
>
>
>
> I don't see how you can use a different form of modulation within a single
> 6 Mhz channel and be backwards-compatible.  Indeed, your friend Richard
> Bogner was told in a face-to-face meeting with the FCC this week that he
> cannot use FM modulation in the same channel as 8-VSB because no
> interference studies have been made.  (Richard told me this in a series of
> private email messages, which I summarized in a message this week on my PSIP
> list.)
>
>
> Said no to his doing interference studies, they do not intend to do
> interference studies themselves so a total no.
>
>
>
> Also, I don't see how you could save bits by transmitting black and white
> images, since chroma and luma are needed to make pictures, even if the
> source is black and white.
>
>
>
> The chroma formats permitted by MPEG-2 are 4:2:0, 4:2:2 and 4:4:4.  They
> are *component*: A matrix, block or single sample from one of the three
> matrices (luminance and two chrominance) that make up a picture.
>
>
> Shows you what I know. Thought b&W would save something.
>
>
>
> I note that one of the m/p/h proposals is from Qualcomm, which has spent
> mightily – perhaps a billion dollars – on the MediaFlo demo infrastructure
> in the U.S.  It would be the height of "creative destruction" if their
> proposal to the ATSC resulted in destroying that infrastructure or wasn't
> compatible with it, nor wasn't backwards compatible with 8-VSB.  I think
> that trying to integrate a single-carrier system and a multiple-carrier
> system into the same 6-Mhz channel is "mightily difficult" if not simply
> impossible.
>
>  "Demo" infrastructure? You can buy a cell phone that receives their
> MediaFlo in NYC. They may lose money on it but it would seem to be beyond
> demo.
>
>
>
> Perhaps you haven't thought much about it.  I also note the news today
> that Google has decided to bid in the next auction round.  Perhaps that is
> behind your newly-resurected interest in bashing 8-VSB and the parties that
> have to make a business around it?
>
>  I didn't think anyone actually had to make money with 8-VSB. I thought
> they just held the spectrum to justify must carry. Is it possible that any
> business could show less interest in a valued asset than broadcasters have
> shown in their OTA spectrum?? Not including Sinclair and a few others there.
>
>
> If Google is bidding on using the spectrum for the Internet their own
> spokesman has rightly addressed the limited potential of that as a business
> model on the Communicators a couple of months ago. Broadcasting would be a
> better use IMO. AT&T may be buying for broadcasting like Aloha demonstrated
> to them in Las Vegas which is close to what we have been proposing since
> 1999.
>
> It will be interesting to see how much Google will spend. Remember that
> this same spectrum, but including 54, 55 and 59, was supposed to generate
> $100 Billion in 2000. Such an estimate rested on the UK's $35 Billion and
> Germany's $45 Billion auctions of the same year.
>
> Less 54, 55 and 59 but with 8 more years of inflation that $100 Billion
> would be more like $130 Billion today, a far cry from the $15 Billion I have
> seen in print lately. And  in 2000 you did not have Yahoo, Google, Apple and
> who knows how many other players who had not the faintest clue about what
> could be done with this spectrum or why they should do it in 2000. I know
> Qualcomm had not a clue 10 minutes after our company became confirmed
> bidders in Auction 44 because I was on the phone asking them to work with us
> as soon as I got the news. Had a list of those who should be bidding but had
> not signed up for whatever insane reason and as soon as I saw that they were
> not on the list was calling them.
>
> I am just wound up because it has been a long time of working on this
> since 2000 and I can't play in a $100 Billion auction. Could have in 2000
> though. Money wise will do just fine but it was never about the money.
>
> Bob Miller
>
>
>
> Hope this helps
>
>
>
> John Willkie
>
>
>
>

Other related posts: