[opendtv] Re: News: FCC Floats Cash-For-TV-Spectrum Scheme
- From: Bob Miller <robmxa@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:21:39 -0400
You had to be way early to raise the money to be in the auction that
was supposed to happen June of 2000. I still didn't have the money for
Auction 44 when it did finally begin to happened in 2002 but tried a
Hail Mary with only a few days to raise the money between the time we
were declared eligible bidders and the time we could put up the
deposit. The Hail Mary was to call for money from those who could do
it without us, could see the possibility, but who were not qualified
to bid and for whom it was too late. Qualcomm, Microsoft and about a
dozen others. My first call within a minute of becoming a qualified
bidder was Quallcom. They had $125 million of funny money won in court
against the FCC that could only be used in an auction of spectrum and
this seemed the easiest money to get.
I had figured out that no one would bid on channel 55 because few had
both the right deposit amount and had signed up for the right to bid
on 55. Aloha Partners was one of those few. I told Qualcomm that if we
did not bid no one would bid on any of the six regions for 55. I was
wrong, Aloha bid on the western region and won it for minimum first
bid. I had told Qualcomm that we would win all six regions for first
minimum bid and I think we would have. With our 35% discount that
would have been something under $20 million if I remember right.
Channel 55 country wide for $20 million. I think that Channel 56 went
for $1.5 billion in Auction 73 last year.
So was I way early or was AT&T way late when they and Verizon spent
most of the $20 billion or so last year for spectrum they could have
bought some of for a penny on the dollar a few years earlier?
Was Qualcomm way early when they bought five of six regions of 55 for
$30 million of so in Auction 49? When they bought the last piece from
Aloha for probably $55 million they had a total of $85 million in the
game worth $1.5 billion now or at least when Auction 73 ended. That is
Warren Buffet early.
In 2000 when we were first talking to people with money I was telling
the car companies that we would need $2 billion for the auction that
was to take place that June. $1.5 billion for a DTV station that
covers the US is dirt cheap to me almost ten years later.
Yes I do believe that a DTV station that covers the entire US is worth
$15 billion if used right. That is it will generate enough income to
demand that price. Try to buy one from any of the then current players
for that in 10 or 15 years. None will not be for sale.
We have basically been in a 10 year Republican recession with a couple
of fake highs. I think we are starting to build a base for a sustained
term of real long term real growth which will see assets like spectrum
show phenomenal growth in value. Especially broadcast spectrum if it
is used to broadcast.
Bob Miller
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My Sprint/HTC Win Mobile phone already has much of that (GPS, free CNN
> TV, broadband) though the (easily replaceable) micro-sdhc memory chip
> is currently only 8GB, not a terabyte. But I have never yet seen a
> decent deal on a mobile phone with either the pocket projector or
> (especially) the heads up display. I think IBM was advertising small
> wearable computers with heads up displays many years ago but have never
> seen one offered with a phone plan. I'd like one.
>
> I think much of predicting technology is not knowing what but knowing
> when. And I'm often way to early on the when. I think maybe you were too.
>
> It is still a very open question to me whether mobile TV receivers in
> phones will become common faster than just mobile TV like mine over the
> Sprint network included in my data plan. I won't really bet either way.
>
> - Tom
>
>
>
> Bob Miller wrote:
>> Not suggesting two devices. Our business plan in 1999 started out with
>> the statement that in the near future people will make the decision
>> leaving their home, going mobile, on what size screen they would take
>> with them.
>>
>> The suggestion was that they would be taking ONE device. If it was a
>> cell phone it would also be a computer and would include a mobile DTV
>> receiver. No matter what the device size it would have at least those
>> components. Since my partner also had a traffic information company we
>> knew that GPS and mapping would be in this device. We were playing
>> with the software that would become Google Earth so we showed that
>> with our demo. Soon we added the idea that the device could be used
>> with a heads up display worn as glasses or similar device. Then we
>> showed pictures of pocket projector prototypes and talked of using
>> your cell phone device as a receiver to project HD at the beach by
>> connecting to such a mini projector. We did not expect to see
>> projectors become part of cell phones as they are now.
>>
>> Integral to our plan was the idea that storage would become so small,
>> hold so much and be so cheap that a terabyte would fit in our cell
>> phone and our plan called for the reversal of normal recording
>> protocol. Instead of choosing what you wanted recorded our device
>> would record everything being broadcast except for what you said you
>> did not want recorded. We planned on two channels and this way you
>> would not miss anything that maybe you did not know about beforehand.
>>
>> On a visit to Nokia we made up the name for the prototype receiver we
>> wanted them to make calling it the hockey puck because we thought the
>> Finland was into hockey and they might like that. Recently I read a
>> spokesman for Nokia talking about a WiMax receiver he called the
>> hockey puck.
>>
>> Still think the best use of at least some of this spectrum is
>> broadcasting using a decent modulation. And if done right would put
>> the highest value on said spectrum. If done right you will reach the
>> most people the most of the time and be able to deliver the most
>> content. The download side of broadband is still by far the heaviest
>> traffic. Most of it could be off loaded to a straight broadcast
>> venture. I know it is being considered. Broadcasting to the Internet.
>>
>> Bob Miller
>>
>> Bob Miller
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 1:44 AM, Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> inline ...
>>>
>>> Bob Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well whatever they care about, HD or must carry, they do want to get
>>>> the most value out of the spectrum they "own" I would expect. So maybe
>>>> they should say to the FCC that if they were allowed to combine their
>>>> broadcast on one or two channels in SD then they should be allowed to
>>>> use the freed up spectrum to do broadband. That or take a good chunk
>>>> of the $$ the spectrum auction raises.
>>>>
>>> Some version of that seems both reasonable and probable, eventually.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I would expect that they will take the $$ and must carry after much
>>>> lamenting. I wonder what they would do if the choice was between the
>>>> $$ and must carry or must carry and a Freeview like OTA audience in
>>>> place in the US. That is say 100 million households actually using
>>>> their OTA spectrum with a modulation like DMB-T2 that worked very well
>>>> and was efficient mobile.
>>>>
>>>> That would make their spectrum worth about ten times what it would be
>>>> worth using LTE broadband IMHO.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I am not knowledgeable about spectrum values like that. Have to take
>>> your word for it.
>>>
>>>> Does anyone have the market value of OTA spectrum in the UK today? It
>>>> would be interesting to compare it to the 700 MHz Auction 73 prices
>>>> that folks thought were so high. What is the value of a "pop" per MHz
>>>> in the UK today for a broadcast use? The per pop price in Auction 73
>>>> varied wildly because a cell in NYC is worth infinitely more than one
>>>> in Arizona and the Telcos need a lot more in high pop areas while they
>>>> may need no more in rural areas.
>>>>
>>> Again, dunno.
>>>
>>>> Still thing the broadcast value is
>>>> much higher in any area than a broadband value. Especially since the
>>>> broadcast will be able to reach all mobile devices at the same time in
>>>> the future.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Not sure if the broadcast value is really higher long term. Broadband
>>> can easily do broadcast if everybody chose to support multicasting.
>>> Multicast is more efficient when enough people want to simultaneously
>>> receive the same data at the same time. That's also pretty much the
>>> function of prime time TV today. Though both these days could also use
>>> DVR's or the equivalent. Anyway, given the spectrum, 2 way wireless
>>> broadband can pretty much subsume all the others.
>>>
>>> Pretty much everybody has a cell phone these days. That means we are
>>> all already carrying around a wireless receiver that can evolve into a
>>> multi-purpose communication/computing/media device. I don't see any
>>> reason people should have to carry two.
>>>
>>> - Tom
>>>
>>>> Bob Miller
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Now they only have to get around the must carry of an HD signal even
>>>>> though the broadcast would be SD"
>>>>>
>>>>> I sort of figured any station relying on must carry to get on cable
>>>>> probably didn't care about HD much anyway. And any station relying on
>>>>> retrans consent can negotiate it if important to them. I suspect the
>>>>> cable system would even prefer the HD versions for the stations they
>>>>> like well enough to negotiate retrans consent. So I think that part
>>>>> probably all works out in the wash for most channels.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Tom
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob Miller wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow that was quick. June 12th to October 23rd. Thought the thought
>>>>>> would take six months to a year to gestate. Thought it would come from
>>>>>> a Congressperson. And thought the problem was how to justify must
>>>>>> carry if broadcast spectrum was auctioned off.
>>>>>> While it was talked about here that spectrum use by broadcasters could
>>>>>> be reduced to only have an SD version on one or two channels I never
>>>>>> put that together with the idea that that would be the ongoing
>>>>>> justification for must carry. Now they only have to get around the
>>>>>> must carry of an HD signal even though the broadcast would be SD
>>>>>> problem, Or maybe they could compress to 480P for broadcast and still
>>>>>> free up most of the channels for an auction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway most of the TV spectrum will be used for broadband. It did not
>>>>>> have to be that way. Still think that 55 and 56 will end up being used
>>>>>> the way we wanted to use some of this spectrum, basically broadcasting
>>>>>> to the Internet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This guy was sick yesterday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob Miller
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.tvnewscheck.com/articles/2009/10/21/daily.4/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TVNEWSCHECK FOCUS ON WASHINGTON
>>>>>>> FCC Floats Cash-For-TV-Spectrum Scheme
>>>>>>> By Kim McAvoy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TVNewsCheck, Oct 21 2009, 9:16 AM ET
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FCC broadband czar Blair Levin earlier this month met with leading TV
>>>>>>> broadcasters in Washington to discuss the nation's urgent need for more
>>>>>>> spectrum for wireless broadband access to the Internet and the
>>>>>>> possibility
>>>>>>> of broadcasters' relinquishing most of their spectrum to help meet that
>>>>>>> demand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> According to sources familiar with the Oct. 8 meeting with the board of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> Association for Maximum Service Television (MSTV), Levin suggested
>>>>>>> broadcasters might want to consider returning their spectrum in
>>>>>>> exchange for
>>>>>>> a share in the billions of dollars that would come from the auction of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> spectrum to the wireless industry.
>>>>>>> Story continues after the ad
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Broadcasting would retain just enough spectrum so that each station
>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>> provide a lifeline standard-definition service to the millions of TV
>>>>>>> viewers
>>>>>>> who still rely on over-the-air reception.
>>>>>>> Broadcasters could no longer offer over-the-air HD and second channels
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> mobile video would be off the table, but they could continue to provide
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> single channel of TV to every home in their markets as they do today -
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> full-blown HD via cable and satellite carriage and SD via the
>>>>>>> over-the-air
>>>>>>> lifeline service.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Broadcasters considered the idea at the MSTV meeting and at the board
>>>>>>> meeting of the National Association of Broadcasters last week in Dallas.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Although some were intrigued by the possibility of cashing in on their
>>>>>>> spectrum, the consensus was that broadcasters should hang on to it and
>>>>>>> move
>>>>>>> ahead with plans on monetizing it further through multicasting and
>>>>>>> mobile
>>>>>>> video.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "On the surface, it just doesn't have any great appeal," says Paul
>>>>>>> Karpowicz, president of the Meredith Broadcast Group and NAB TV board
>>>>>>> chairman.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TV stations have made a tremendous investment in new digital
>>>>>>> transmission
>>>>>>> facilities and HDTV and are spending more to bring mobile DTV and other
>>>>>>> digital services to market, he says.
>>>>>>> "From our perspective, we'd like to hold on to the spectrum we've got
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> develop it."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jim Goodmon, president of Capitol Broadcasting and an MSTV board
>>>>>>> member, is
>>>>>>> also saying no thanks to the cash-for-spectrum plan. "The notion that
>>>>>>> somehow we are going to turn in our spectrum is completely foreign to
>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "I am not saying I am against what the FCC's trying to do. They do need
>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>> spectrum, but, if it's broadcasters' spectrum, that's not the right
>>>>>>> place to
>>>>>>> get it."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Levin initiative also touched off concern among the broadcasters
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> the cash-for-spectrum plan, presented by Levin as voluntary, may turn
>>>>>>> into a
>>>>>>> government mandate if the wireless and computer industries and broadband
>>>>>>> advocacy groups get behind it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And some fear that, voluntary or not, broadcasters would somehow get
>>>>>>> cut out
>>>>>>> of the spectrum auction proceeds.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As a result, sources say, NAB allied with the broadcast networks and
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> are now mobilizing to protect the broadcast spectrum. "It may well be
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> fight of a lifetime," says one TV industry representative.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Levin is a former top-level FCC official during the Clinton
>>>>>>> administration
>>>>>>> called back by new FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to formulate a
>>>>>>> comprehensive plan for making broadband Internet access available to
>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In a speech in Washington in August, Levin warned that the FCC was
>>>>>>> interested in finding more spectrum for the cause. "This is already
>>>>>>> clear
>>>>>>> from the record: A key input is spectrum and everybody agrees there is
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> enough of it. Moreover, demand curves from new uses by smart phones
>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>> a massive increase in demand ahead for that input."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In one of his first major policy speeches, at a meeting of wireless
>>>>>>> phone
>>>>>>> operators under the aegis of CTIA in San Diego on Oct. 7, Genachowski
>>>>>>> declared that "the biggest threat to the future of mobile in America is
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> looming spectrum crisis."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "As this audience knows, it takes years to reallocate spectrum and put
>>>>>>> it to
>>>>>>> use," he said. "And there are no easy pickings on the spectrum chart.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "But we have no choice. We must identify spectrum that can best be
>>>>>>> reinvested in mobile broadband."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Levin declined to discuss any specifics about his meeting with MSTV
>>>>>>> members,
>>>>>>> saying only that he met "with a number of different broadcasters
>>>>>>> discussing
>>>>>>> a number of spectrum-related issues."
>>>>>>> But he underscored his purpose: "The record is pretty clear that
>>>>>>> America, if
>>>>>>> it wants to be ready for the mobile broadband future, is going to need
>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>> spectrum."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A growing number of academics and policy experts believe that
>>>>>>> broadcasting
>>>>>>> is an inefficient use of spectrum, especially given that TV stations now
>>>>>>> reach most of their audiences via cable or satellite.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tom Hazlett, a professor of law and economics at George Mason
>>>>>>> University and
>>>>>>> former chief economist at the FCC, has been a longtime and articulate
>>>>>>> advocate of putting broadcast spectrum to better use.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In an open letter to Genachowski published in the Financial Times last
>>>>>>> June,
>>>>>>> Hazlett suggested that the FCC bounce broadcasters from their spectrum -
>>>>>>> "they're just cluttering it up" - and auction it off to the highest
>>>>>>> bidder.
>>>>>>> Based on past auctions, he figures the auction of some 300 Mhz of
>>>>>>> broadcast
>>>>>>> spectrum would bring in up to $75 billion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Funny thing is, the stations don't care about broadcasting their
>>>>>>> signals
>>>>>>> anymore, either," he says. "That's expensive and wastes fossil-fuel
>>>>>>> generated electricity. Bad for the environment and it pollutes the most
>>>>>>> beautiful radio spectrum on God's Green Earth."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: