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

  • From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:45:04 -0800

Subsequent to this posting from Bob Miller, I heard from Richard Bogner,
even though I had not contacted him.


Apparently, Bob Miller communicated with him, and told him that I felt that
Richard had no options with the FCC on this DTV channel 6/ FM situation.


Anybody who paid attention ? apparently this did not include Bob Miller ?
knew that I had outlined several options that Richard could pursue, and I
asserted that I didn?t believe the FCC staff had much to stand on.


In his first email message, Richard outlined a new engineering thinking and
said that he had plenty of options. 


Then, he sent me this, under the heading ?error.?


?Sorry, it was Miller who was wrong, not you.  I should have known!?


I will state it again.  Bob Miller sets the bar high for things he opposes,
and low for things he favors.  In other words, he is DESTINED to be unhappy,
erroneous, or both.


His engineering friend knows it, but probably uses other words.


Bob wrote: (excerpted from below) ?It is what Richard understands after his
visit to the FCC?


Wrong. Again.


I make mistakes, and I tend to admit them.  Bob Miller makes mistakes, and
never admits them.  He just lurks until the next erroneous spasm of emails. 


I am tiring of the intellectual (not to limit it) dishonesty.  I note that
I?m the only person who tends to spend the time to burst his faulty


John Willkie



De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
nombre de Bob Miller
Enviado el: Saturday, December 01, 2007 7:27 PM
Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [opendtv] Re: New Thread: What becomes of Legacy Analog Equipment



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

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: