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 > > > >