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

  • From: "Bob Miller" <robmxa@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 22:26:51 -0500

On Dec 1, 2007 7:20 PM, John Willkie <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  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.
>
>
>
Not a matter of me understanding the FCC. It is what Richard understands
after his visit to the FCC. They will not let him use FM on his stations
based on his interference studies.

> 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.
>
I don't think I said MediaFlo was doing serious business. I doubt if they
are. I do think they plan on doing so though.

>
>
> Other than carriers, who are talking about testing, but beyond that,
> nobody sees a market for mobile phone carriers to deploy mobile tv
> infrastructures.
>
You can buy MediaFlo in NYC today from Verizon. If that is a test OK but
they are not talking test when you question them, they are asking you to
sign up for the service.

>
>
> 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.'
>
Again there was no way to know that the investment of $1000 would mean
anything. There was no way to know that having made the $1000 deposit, not
investment, would have allowed one to increase that deposit to any amount
the next week. That was a decision the FCC made after the deadline. In the
second auction we did make a small investment that will do well but that is
not what we proposed to do.

Bob Miller

>
>
> John Willkie
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *De:* opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:o
> pendtv-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: