[opendtv] Re: --FCC OKs WiFi between TV channels
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 10:12:30 -0400
At 4:33 PM -0400 5/24/04, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>If we merely stay the course, many the frequencies now assigned
>to NTSC, and an additional allocation of UHF channels, would be
>available for new stations.
How many? I think you will find that the number is going to be
relatively small in the areas where there is significant congestion.
Yes, there will be opportunities in areas where the spectrum is
under-utilized today; but the reason there is spectrum lying fodder
in these areas is that there is little demand for more stations in
rural areas.
Remember, we still do not know what will happen if all of the DTV
allocations are operated at their full authorized power levels. There
is strong evidence to suggest that the interference will be
intolerable where there are multiple markets in close proximity, like
the NE corridor. Any way you try to spin it Bert, you still need
taboo channels in adjacent markets to protect the high powered
broadcasts that would otherwise interfere if the frequency is used in
both markets. This IS NOT true for networks of lower powered
transmitters with directional masks to properly control emissions
into adjacent markets.
>
>Ultimately, if it's true that low-powered non-TV services can
>be introduced in that spectrum, it's hard to argue that low-
>powered TV stations wouldn't equally be possible in that same
>spectrum.
Apples and oranges. We are talking about either very low power levels
that travel only a few hundred feet/yards, or highly direction beam
type services that do not radiate throughout the market. Even a low
power station will interfere if you pump a few thousand watts into an
antenna that covers the whole market.
More important, IF we are going to keep using big sticks, why should
the taboos be used for more TV services? Broadcasters do not own this
spectrum, nor do they have a "legal" veto over how the frequencies
they are NOT assigned in a market can be used. The cartoon that Kon
published the link for, provides compelling arguments for why these
taboos should be used for unlicensed low power services.
And then there is the question of what kind of content would fill
these new low power channels. It makes little sense for broadcasters
to try to compete with the multi-channel services using a patchwork
quilt of high powered and low powered transmitters. IT makes much
more sense to use the spectrum efficiently so that its use can be
maximized in every market.
>A far better way to preserve the status quo would have been not to
>have a transition at all. But it's fairly obvious that many
>broadcasters are *putting up with* the transition only to preserve
>some semblance of status quo. Where "status quo" means "OTA is only
>there for show, but it does give me access to cable rights."
The real question is why do we need to maintain the status quo for a
legacy service that is undergoing fundamental change? One can easily
conceive a transition scenario where the incumbents in this spectrum
would be protected. It is less easy to conceive of a way to protect
the consumer investment in analog TV receivers. But at some point it
is reasonable to ask when that investment has been amortized; this is
especially true when the solution may be as simple as adding a $50
box to legacy sets. But that would require a different approach than
the one we are following today.
>
>A pity, especially in light of the success of freeview systems in
>Europe.
Gotta agree on this. It is abundantly clear that we could deliver 30
or more channels in the clear in the core spectrum with the right
technology and the right regulatory approach. But this would require
the goring of a few sacred oxen.
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: