Craig Birkmaier wrote: >> In Europe, not only would competitors equally pay billions >> to make walled gardens out of the publically-owned broadcast >> spectrum, but govts pay for the OTA TV infrastructure. That's >> how the dense nets become affordable. Pretending that even >> more dense nets should be viable here just doesn't make any >> sense. Especially true if broadcasters prefer people to get >> hooked on umbillical systems. > > I'm not pretending, just stating the facts. The broadcasters > COULD use their spectrum to compete, but they choose to keep > the Free OTA supply of content very limited so that people will > subscribe to the multi-channel services where they can make > even more money. Well, okay, Craig, let's not go around and around the same circle. I already said, at the beginning of the thread, that the FCC should revisit whatever rules there are that create this conflict of interest for broadcasters. However this is a different discussion from the one of high power vs low power, tall vs short sticks. Broadcasters who compete successfully with OTA plants in Europe do so with very, very tall sticks, e.g. on selected peaks of the Alban Hills near Rome. > What is being cut is the absurd waste of spectrum by the > broadcasters due to the highly inefficient way in which they > use it. Again, you are barking upo the wrong tree. What is wasteful is to allow the conflict of interest to persist. The way the OTA spectrum is being used, especially now with simulcast digital and analog, is extremely parsimonious, as a matter of fact. > Remember, when FOTA broadcasting began in the U.S., the > networks paid the stations to carry their programs. Now the > stations are paying the networks. Nothing wrong with either model. In fact, see below. > When i moved to Gainesville in 1976 we had two stations, ABC > and PBS. The ABC station was losing money. The cable companies > had to go to other markets to bring in the other networks. CBS > came via microwave from Jacksonville, NBC came via microwave > from Orlando. By the Mid '80s the ABC affiliate started making > a good profit, in large part because they had no competition > for local news - they still don't, as the CBS affiliate runs > news from a Jacksonville station and the Fox affiliate runs > news from their sister station in Orlando. > > And several groups have tried to get NBC into Gainesville. NBC > says no way. This makes absolutely no sense. If it is broadcasters who pay the networks to carry their content, which is fair enough (if the local broadcasters gets the ad income), then why on earth should NBC object? It's the broadcaster's risk, not NBC's. When things don't make sense, usually the explanation is incomplete. I have to believe there are other players involved in keeping OTA in Gainesville completely sub-par. I don't understand why people just passively take it. Bert ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.