[opendtv] Re: --FCC OKs WiFi between TV channels
- From: "John Willkie" <jmwillkie@xxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 17:45:16 -0700
Please, pray tell (or shut up on this):
detail every action taken by broadcasters to "draw out" the DTV transition.
I suspect that if you were cabable of, and engaged in real investigation,
you would find out that the single entity responsible for any delay in the
DTV transition is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
To quote from you: "I can offer no good explanation for this but it seems
the broadcasters
strategy is two pronged: Hang onto spectrum and hang onto must carry."
I challenge you: My belief is that you cannot offer any good example.
My perspective is that I actually talk to station and network engineers
about their facilities, about their difficulties in getting their facilities
on the air, and about the future of DTV. I tend to not read the trades, and
I don't believe anything I read about this in non-trade sources.
That might sound harsh at first, if you were to actually INQUIRE, you would
find out that many TV stations operate from sites that are leased from the
Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, etc. And, you would
find out that VIRTUALLY EVERY station that is delayed in getting a license
for their DTV facilities is because they haven't gotten final site approval
from the feds.
You would also discover that many of these federal victims are now operating
at sub-optimal sites at less than full power, ONLY because of the lack of
approval. In many western cities (Albuquerque, Phoenix, Tucson, Denver and
maybe even Las Vegas come to mind) the ONLY way to broadcast to those
cities -- to cover the entire city with a city grade contour -- is to use a
federally-owned site. The FCC's allocation proceedings are rife with
examples.
Also, to add to the chain of ignorance, there are no "must carry" rights on
satellite. Nobody is forcing satellite systems to carry local into local
traffic. The opportunity was created at their request, without any
requirement, other than "if you carry, you carry all." That's NOT a
must-carry right: it's clearly a non-discriminatory provision. Cable and
satellite systems are VERY discriminatory, but you'd only know that if you
actually had tried to negotiate with them. I've been there, and tried that.
Call me an apologist for broadcasters, but you cannot prove it. I have
plenty of examples on this list that your comments are half-baked,
uninformed but purporting to be otherwise, and are almost un-thought.
Cross-polinating with Bert does not improve the situation.
John Willkie
-----Original Message-----
From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Tom Barry
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 4:59 PM
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: --FCC OKs WiFi between TV channels
> It makes no sense to say that the DTV transition is "to retain
> the status quo." What might make some sense is to say that
> *broadcasters* are implementing the DTV transition using a
> strategy whose sole purpose appears to be to retain their cable
> rights. But maybe that doesn't fit in a nice little sound bite.
I've sometimes thought that but that alone doesn't explain why they
seem to want to hold the duplicate spectrum forever. I've been
corrected a number of times on this by people associated with or
sympathetic to the broadcast industry. The broadcasters spend a huge
amount of money on power and duplicate effort continuing the drawn out
dual TV transition.
And yet they give every impression of wanting to continue in this
fashion, so I assume that is what they choose for some reason. If all
they wanted was must carry rights on cable and satellite then it seems
they would support a faster transition, even if they didn't believe
anyone was yet watching it digitally.
I can offer no good explanation for this but it seems the broadcasters
strategy is two pronged: Hang onto spectrum and hang onto must carry.
- Tom
Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
> Tom Barry wrote:
>
>
>>You could also use zero power TV stations for many of them,
>>all in the
>>same channel. And would all probably switch if it still guaranteed
>>must carry status.
>
>
> Zero power seems like it wouldn't qualify, but what you say is
> the point I was trying to make.
>
> It makes no sense to say that the DTV transition is "to retain
> the status quo." What might make some sense is to say that
> *broacasters* are implementing the DTV transition using a
> strategy whose sole purpose appears to be to retain their cable
> rights. But maybe that doesn't fit in a nice little sound bite.
>
> 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.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: