[opendtv] Re: Spectrum Utility
- From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 13:11:15 -0800
You, and the original poster (whom I did not respond to because the message
came without identifying material, outside of "opendtv-bounce at
freelists.org" ARE INCORRECT and jaundiced.
When the law was 'passed' the language was specific, sure, but you evidence
either a lack of knowledge of the actual law or you have forgotten its
provisions. The 5% applies not to something other than one SD program, but
to non-broadcast uses of the channel; that is, ones were a fee is charged to
viewers or users.
And, the language is not about services other than one SD program. The law
requires broadcasters at the very least to provide a virtual channel in the
clear that is equivalent to their NTSC service that is due to be eliminated.
I was talking to a fellow vendor yesterday who told me that Congress had not
debate on the floor the analog transition. (He thinks that analog will not
go away.)
I told him that I remember many days of debate on the floor of the House and
Senate (and at the committee level) on the subject of analog going away.
Of course, it was before the actual Telecom Act (amendments) of 1996 was
'past.'
I would suggest that for people who want only sd-equivalent services to be
offered by broadcasters, there are wide regions of Europe where that is the
case. Many have licence fees to be paid on a per-receiver basis.
That is clearly not the model in ATSC countries, nor in Australia.
John Willkie
EtherGuide Systems
Are your PSIP systems ready for prime time? www.etherguidesystems.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Bob Miller
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:19 PM
> To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [opendtv] Re: Spectrum Utility
>
> When was this "intended" intended?
>
> When the law was past the "intended" was very specific, one SD program
> in the free and clear, 5% of all revenues generated by any use of the
> remaining spectrum.
>
> Any other hot air expended by Congress was only for the masses not for
> the broadcasters.
>
> Bob Miller
>
> On 1/30/07, iclaustrum@xxxxxxxxx <iclaustrum@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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:
