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

  • From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 16:20:19 -0800

The FCC can?t reject interference studies, unless the methodology is bad.
Apparently, you don?t understand the FCC, or somebody is looking for the FCC
to say no.

 

If you think that MediaFlo is doing serious business, I wonder what you are
smoking.  They have only one customer, with a second on the way.  Those
customers aren?t doing any business to speak of.  This isn?t sustainable.
Also, they ARE NOT GOING TO DEPLOY THEMSELVES in other countries.  I
actually keep close contact with the mobile TV content and infrastructure
markets, and the last I checked, the vendors of MediaFlo infrastructure
off-shore have no sales and no prospects, and only a few looky-loos.

 

Other than carriers, who are talking about testing, but beyond that, nobody
sees a market for mobile phone carriers to deploy mobile tv infrastructures.


 

The situation vis-à-vis broadcasting is quite different; they already have
the content, they probably won?t have to pay more to deploy content into the
mobile marketplace, and if they can deploy with their existing transmission
plants, there will be an interesting play.

 

Dealing with change and risk and the risk of change is what it?s all about.
You?ve got to raise table stakes, but you apparently missed your chance.  I
hope you?ve made a good rate of return on the $1,000 you ?saved.?

 

John Willkie

 

  _____  

De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
nombre de Bob Miller
Enviado el: Saturday, December 01, 2007 4:06 PM
Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [opendtv] Re: New Thread: What becomes of Legacy Analog Equipment

 

 

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

 

Other related posts: