[opendtv] Re: News: FCC Floats Cash-For-TV-Spectrum Scheme
- From: Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:44:44 -0400
inline ...
Bob Miller wrote:
> Well whatever they care about, HD or must carry, they do want to get
> the most value out of the spectrum they "own" I would expect. So maybe
> they should say to the FCC that if they were allowed to combine their
> broadcast on one or two channels in SD then they should be allowed to
> use the freed up spectrum to do broadband. That or take a good chunk
> of the $$ the spectrum auction raises.
Some version of that seems both reasonable and probable, eventually.
> I would expect that they will take the $$ and must carry after much
> lamenting. I wonder what they would do if the choice was between the
> $$ and must carry or must carry and a Freeview like OTA audience in
> place in the US. That is say 100 million households actually using
> their OTA spectrum with a modulation like DMB-T2 that worked very well
> and was efficient mobile.
>
> That would make their spectrum worth about ten times what it would be
> worth using LTE broadband IMHO.
>
>
I am not knowledgeable about spectrum values like that. Have to take
your word for it.
> Does anyone have the market value of OTA spectrum in the UK today? It
> would be interesting to compare it to the 700 MHz Auction 73 prices
> that folks thought were so high. What is the value of a "pop" per MHz
> in the UK today for a broadcast use? The per pop price in Auction 73
> varied wildly because a cell in NYC is worth infinitely more than one
> in Arizona and the Telcos need a lot more in high pop areas while they
> may need no more in rural areas.
Again, dunno.
> Still thing the broadcast value is
> much higher in any area than a broadband value. Especially since the
> broadcast will be able to reach all mobile devices at the same time in
> the future.
>
Not sure if the broadcast value is really higher long term. Broadband
can easily do broadcast if everybody chose to support multicasting.
Multicast is more efficient when enough people want to simultaneously
receive the same data at the same time. That's also pretty much the
function of prime time TV today. Though both these days could also use
DVR's or the equivalent. Anyway, given the spectrum, 2 way wireless
broadband can pretty much subsume all the others.
Pretty much everybody has a cell phone these days. That means we are
all already carrying around a wireless receiver that can evolve into a
multi-purpose communication/computing/media device. I don't see any
reason people should have to carry two.
- Tom
> Bob Miller
>
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> "Now they only have to get around the must carry of an HD signal even
>> though the broadcast would be SD"
>>
>> I sort of figured any station relying on must carry to get on cable
>> probably didn't care about HD much anyway. And any station relying on
>> retrans consent can negotiate it if important to them. I suspect the
>> cable system would even prefer the HD versions for the stations they
>> like well enough to negotiate retrans consent. So I think that part
>> probably all works out in the wash for most channels.
>>
>> - Tom
>>
>> Bob Miller wrote:
>>
>>> Wow that was quick. June 12th to October 23rd. Thought the thought
>>> would take six months to a year to gestate. Thought it would come from
>>> a Congressperson. And thought the problem was how to justify must
>>> carry if broadcast spectrum was auctioned off.
>>> While it was talked about here that spectrum use by broadcasters could
>>> be reduced to only have an SD version on one or two channels I never
>>> put that together with the idea that that would be the ongoing
>>> justification for must carry. Now they only have to get around the
>>> must carry of an HD signal even though the broadcast would be SD
>>> problem, Or maybe they could compress to 480P for broadcast and still
>>> free up most of the channels for an auction.
>>>
>>> Anyway most of the TV spectrum will be used for broadband. It did not
>>> have to be that way. Still think that 55 and 56 will end up being used
>>> the way we wanted to use some of this spectrum, basically broadcasting
>>> to the Internet.
>>>
>>> This guy was sick yesterday.
>>>
>>> Bob Miller
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> http://www.tvnewscheck.com/articles/2009/10/21/daily.4/
>>>>
>>>> TVNEWSCHECK FOCUS ON WASHINGTON
>>>> FCC Floats Cash-For-TV-Spectrum Scheme
>>>> By Kim McAvoy
>>>>
>>>> TVNewsCheck, Oct 21 2009, 9:16 AM ET
>>>>
>>>> FCC broadband czar Blair Levin earlier this month met with leading TV
>>>> broadcasters in Washington to discuss the nation's urgent need for more
>>>> spectrum for wireless broadband access to the Internet and the possibility
>>>> of broadcasters' relinquishing most of their spectrum to help meet that
>>>> demand.
>>>>
>>>> According to sources familiar with the Oct. 8 meeting with the board of the
>>>> Association for Maximum Service Television (MSTV), Levin suggested
>>>> broadcasters might want to consider returning their spectrum in exchange
>>>> for
>>>> a share in the billions of dollars that would come from the auction of the
>>>> spectrum to the wireless industry.
>>>> Story continues after the ad
>>>>
>>>> Broadcasting would retain just enough spectrum so that each station could
>>>> provide a lifeline standard-definition service to the millions of TV
>>>> viewers
>>>> who still rely on over-the-air reception.
>>>> Broadcasters could no longer offer over-the-air HD and second channels and
>>>> mobile video would be off the table, but they could continue to provide a
>>>> single channel of TV to every home in their markets as they do today - in
>>>> full-blown HD via cable and satellite carriage and SD via the over-the-air
>>>> lifeline service.
>>>>
>>>> Broadcasters considered the idea at the MSTV meeting and at the board
>>>> meeting of the National Association of Broadcasters last week in Dallas.
>>>>
>>>> Although some were intrigued by the possibility of cashing in on their
>>>> spectrum, the consensus was that broadcasters should hang on to it and move
>>>> ahead with plans on monetizing it further through multicasting and mobile
>>>> video.
>>>>
>>>> "On the surface, it just doesn't have any great appeal," says Paul
>>>> Karpowicz, president of the Meredith Broadcast Group and NAB TV board
>>>> chairman.
>>>>
>>>> TV stations have made a tremendous investment in new digital transmission
>>>> facilities and HDTV and are spending more to bring mobile DTV and other
>>>> digital services to market, he says.
>>>> "From our perspective, we'd like to hold on to the spectrum we've got and
>>>> develop it."
>>>>
>>>> Jim Goodmon, president of Capitol Broadcasting and an MSTV board member, is
>>>> also saying no thanks to the cash-for-spectrum plan. "The notion that
>>>> somehow we are going to turn in our spectrum is completely foreign to me.
>>>>
>>>> "I am not saying I am against what the FCC's trying to do. They do need
>>>> more
>>>> spectrum, but, if it's broadcasters' spectrum, that's not the right place
>>>> to
>>>> get it."
>>>>
>>>> The Levin initiative also touched off concern among the broadcasters that
>>>> the cash-for-spectrum plan, presented by Levin as voluntary, may turn into
>>>> a
>>>> government mandate if the wireless and computer industries and broadband
>>>> advocacy groups get behind it.
>>>>
>>>> And some fear that, voluntary or not, broadcasters would somehow get cut
>>>> out
>>>> of the spectrum auction proceeds.
>>>>
>>>> As a result, sources say, NAB allied with the broadcast networks and they
>>>> are now mobilizing to protect the broadcast spectrum. "It may well be the
>>>> fight of a lifetime," says one TV industry representative.
>>>>
>>>> Levin is a former top-level FCC official during the Clinton administration
>>>> called back by new FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to formulate a
>>>> comprehensive plan for making broadband Internet access available to all.
>>>>
>>>> In a speech in Washington in August, Levin warned that the FCC was
>>>> interested in finding more spectrum for the cause. "This is already clear
>>>> from the record: A key input is spectrum and everybody agrees there is not
>>>> enough of it. Moreover, demand curves from new uses by smart phones suggest
>>>> a massive increase in demand ahead for that input."
>>>>
>>>> In one of his first major policy speeches, at a meeting of wireless phone
>>>> operators under the aegis of CTIA in San Diego on Oct. 7, Genachowski
>>>> declared that "the biggest threat to the future of mobile in America is the
>>>> looming spectrum crisis."
>>>>
>>>> "As this audience knows, it takes years to reallocate spectrum and put it
>>>> to
>>>> use," he said. "And there are no easy pickings on the spectrum chart.
>>>>
>>>> "But we have no choice. We must identify spectrum that can best be
>>>> reinvested in mobile broadband."
>>>>
>>>> Levin declined to discuss any specifics about his meeting with MSTV
>>>> members,
>>>> saying only that he met "with a number of different broadcasters discussing
>>>> a number of spectrum-related issues."
>>>> But he underscored his purpose: "The record is pretty clear that America,
>>>> if
>>>> it wants to be ready for the mobile broadband future, is going to need more
>>>> spectrum."
>>>>
>>>> A growing number of academics and policy experts believe that broadcasting
>>>> is an inefficient use of spectrum, especially given that TV stations now
>>>> reach most of their audiences via cable or satellite.
>>>>
>>>> Tom Hazlett, a professor of law and economics at George Mason University
>>>> and
>>>> former chief economist at the FCC, has been a longtime and articulate
>>>> advocate of putting broadcast spectrum to better use.
>>>>
>>>> In an open letter to Genachowski published in the Financial Times last
>>>> June,
>>>> Hazlett suggested that the FCC bounce broadcasters from their spectrum -
>>>> "they're just cluttering it up" - and auction it off to the highest bidder.
>>>> Based on past auctions, he figures the auction of some 300 Mhz of broadcast
>>>> spectrum would bring in up to $75 billion.
>>>>
>>>> "Funny thing is, the stations don't care about broadcasting their signals
>>>> anymore, either," he says. "That's expensive and wastes fossil-fuel
>>>> generated electricity. Bad for the environment and it pollutes the most
>>>> beautiful radio spectrum on God's Green Earth."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>>>>
>>>> - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
>>>> FreeLists.org
>>>> - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
>>>> unsubscribe in the subject line.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>>>
>>> - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
>>> FreeLists.org
>>>
>>> - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
>>> unsubscribe in the subject line.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>>
>> - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
>> FreeLists.org
>>
>> - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
>> unsubscribe in the subject line.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>
> - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
> FreeLists.org
>
> - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
> unsubscribe in the subject line.
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
