[opendtv] Re: News: FCC Floats Cash-For-TV-Spectrum Scheme
- From: Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:38:16 -0400
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.
Other related posts: