[opendtv] Re: Spectrum Utility
- From: " " <iclaustrum@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:34:14 -0800
Great, another perversion of public resources.
TV spectrum regulations need to be amended to enforce the fact that this
valuable spectrum commodity granted to broadcasters by the public is not to
be wasted on anything other than what it was intended for: a single,
high-definition stream.
A reasonable compromise rule might be: 90% of the total (19.3 mbps) bits
shall be in-the-clear, conveying a single 720p or 1080i formatted video
program, with at least 16 mbps average dedicated to the video portion.
Quality shall not be intentionally lowered to make additional room for
opportunistic data. (Tricky, precise specification language to follow).
Otherwise, video quality will spiral ever downwards as more "opportunistic"
ways to redirect the bits are cooked up. Will we eventually end up with a
heavily watered-down 3 mbps 480p primary .1 program, whilst the remainder is
wasted on something that is best delivered by satellite or WiMax-like
delivery?
Our royal-minded, privileged broadcasters need to be reminded that they are
not entitled to public resources. Other, genuinely useful services like
cellular telephone and wireless broadband have to pay hundreds of dollars
(or much more) per customer at auction. Broadcasters should not be allowed
to do with this precious gift as they please, on top of forcing cable and
satellite MSO's to carry their signals (using arcane laws intended for
newspapers), and force us mere commoners to pay additional monthly fees as
we are now seeing with the Time-Warner et al spats.
What will be the next entitlement? Enact a poll tax to guarantee the
continued welfare of broadcasters? RIAA has already started
something similar with college campuses.
Too bad dinosaurs didn't have such a powerful lobby group pestering Nature
to insure their continued existence well past their prime.
On 1/29/07, John Willkie <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Cable in San Diego had not a cent of government investment, and the Las
Vegas situation is rather unique, and I suspect not unconnected to the "dem
and dose" nature of investing in Las Vegas at the time. One must keep in
mind that until recently, the telephone company in Las Vegas was one of the
two mob-controlled U.S. telephone companies. Sure helped with the
bookmaking operations in Kansas City.
Development fees aren't government funding – it's private, but in some
cases mandated by government.
There might have been some Minnesota government in USSB, and Intelsat (who
did the initial application) is an international government-controlled
entity, but aside from that the only government money in DBS start ups was
the money the FCC spent on processing the applications.
John Willkie
------------------------------
* From:* opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
* On Behalf Of *dan.grimes@xxxxxxxx
*Sent:* Monday, January 29, 2007 9:37 AM
*To:* opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
* Subject:* [opendtv] Spectrum Utility
There has been discussion for some time on how a utility might be
developed to provide digital media over a broad spectrum using the TV
spectrum. Recently there has been discussion with arguments on how it would
be paid for, even suggesting this would be a socialist undertaking.
But didn't the cable companies get started with government money? If I
remember right, the cable system installed in Las Vegas was paid for by tax
payers to get it initially installed. Then, Prime Cable (at the time) ran it
and paid Clark County a franchise fee. Now that the cable system is well
established, it is run privately (and pretty much a monopoly, I might add).
But I believe additions to the system are still funded by development fees
and not direct corporate outlays.
Did all the funding to start DBS come from private investments? For some
reason I thought there was government help there, too.
But perhaps I am mistaken.
Dan
Other related posts:
