[opendtv] Re: WiFi Supplanting Broadcasting? Get Real!
- From: "John Willkie" <jmwillkie@xxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 16:38:20 -0700
Bob;
Nit: I believe the "panel discusion" of cable you were talking about was
ACTUALLY a hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee from Tuesday last
week. I saw most of it live. It did not address cable, but VOIP and
incumbent LECs, and the subject was a rewrite of the 1996 rewrite of the
telecommunications act. The speakers included Ivan Seidenberg of Verizon,
the CEO of Alltel and Brian Roberts of Comcast. Note: Verizon has no
significant cable interests. If I'm correct, we have radically different
levels of perception. If I'm incorrect, we live on different planets. Take
your pick.
Now, I'll address some of your "points."
"They seemed to think they were hot stuff because they are
starting to deploy VOIP."
This might have applied to Brian Roberts, but Ivan Seidenberg made the point
that since the 1996 telecom rewrite, not a single incumbent telephone
company has made a penny on service; they've only survived by getting
larger. So, I don't know who the "they" you refer to are.
"While friends I talk to are designing megaband wireless networks that
bypass them all."
That's at least 90% crap. What frequencies will they use?
"If you want to be very narrow in your definition of Wi-Fi and restrict
it to 2.4 GHz and 802.11b"
Well, well. First of all, I don't salute canards. I never made any mention
of 802.11b, but BY DEFINITION (not, obviously on your planet) Wi-Fi is ONLY
on 2.4 ghz. Other services can use those frequencies, but Wi-Fi does not
include other frequencies. Hint: Wi-Fi is an unlicensed service: you can
only do that at Wi-Fi power levels on 2.4 ghz. PERIOD.
"Of course broadcasting is being supplanted very effectively by cable and
satellite already."
Have you no intellectual honesty? You have previously said that
broadcasting is being supported by cable and satellite, now you seem to
think it is being supplanted by broadcasting. Hint: there are limited
broadcast channels, and the number in the U.S. is getting smaller. At the
same time, the number of channels that can be delivered by cable has gone
up, and the only real restriction on satellite channels is the number of
orbital positions and the number of receive antennae. MOST OF THE VIEWING
OF CABLE AND SATELLITE IS OF BROADCAST CHANNELS. Charlie Ergen was at a
Senate hearing the previous week saying he could not survive unless he had
HDTV local channels. Of course, you are more informed of these affairs than
I (not) and you are more familiar with the satellite business than Charlie
Ergen.
Even in your rantings, I see not a hint that 700 mhz is a Wi-Fi frequency.
Weren't you trying to counter my position on this? I said nothing about
higher frequencies.
"If not supplant them then radically change them in ways yet to be
determined."
Speak of youself, amigo. I know how they have been changed, and I think I
have a good grip on where things are going.
"Anyone can build a wireless IP cable/telco/ISP company today
for less than the annual maintenance of a current cable company and
without the regulations."
PROVE IT!
"Most broadcast spectrum in use today will be used for mobile services of
different kinds."
George Gilder has been putting out this bullshit since 1989, that I am aware
of. Will it be the case during his lifetime?
"We see it with the sale of channels 51 through 69."
Your hype and ignorance extends even to your use of tense. I have yet to
see a sale of channels 51 to 69. And, since you think that ATSC is dead and
that analog will be around for many years, your arguments are not
consistent. Who would have known?
"We see it with the FCC looking to now use channels below 51 for Wi-Fi."
You are patently incorrect. BY DEFINITION, Wi-Fi is unlicensed. The FCC is
talking about licensing the frequencies to service providers. Just because
T-Mobile and others are using unlicensed frequencies does not make WiFi a
licensed service. You are not an engineer, obviously: nobody can rely on
what you say, and intellectual rigor is not your cup of tea.
"It used to be that broadcasters had to only worry about Motorola
encroaching on their spectrum. Now there are more people with dogs in
this fight. New owners of spectrum in the 700 MHz band, Public Safety
which wants access to channels 63, 64, 68 and 69, Wi-Fi manufacturing
companies who are making money and spending some of it in DC and a
growing Wi-Fi WISP community that is raising its voice."
First? Who cares? Second, Motorola IS Public Safety, the BIGGEST WASTERS
OF SPECTRUM IN THE U.S. They've also used the LA County Sherrif and LAPD,
which we called the "posse." That was in the mid 1980's. Spending money in
DC is irrelvant: much can be accomplished without spending a dime. You
only need to kill all the viewers.
"The broadcasters on the other hand have not paid much attention to their
underutilized spectrum for a long time. They are not going to be allowed
to use this spectrum just to get their programming to cable headends
much longer."
Broadcasters watch their spectrum very closely. You're thinking just of
their broadcast channels, and I'm talking about all their spectrum,
particularly microwave. The spectrum is not underutilized: millions of
people use it every day. You want to replace that with hundreds of users.
Fat chance.
'As the current FCC Commish said last year,
"Whether he meant to or not, new FCC Chairman Michael Powell put the
issue on the table at an April press conference, in which he
addressed the implications for TV stations should cable and DBS attain
near–universal penetration. “If 100 percent of Americans don't get free,
over–the–air TV, what are we protecting?” Powell asked'
So, I'm led to believe that the Commission is a single entity, and that this
entity referred to one of it's consituent members as "new FCC Chairman
Michael Powel." Hint: Powell was a new FCC chairman in 2001.
Also, haven't you called for him resigning so that you would have clean
sailing for your COFDM in USA folly? What will your position be tomorrow?
Why can't UHF vork at VHF freqencies? Because the term applies to
frequencies higher than those of VHF. Maybe you should ask someone with a
clue?
John Willkie
-----Original Message-----
From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Bob Miller
Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 2:27 PM
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: WiFi Supplanting Broadcasting? Get Real!
John, John;
I was watching the rebroadcast on C-Span of a Cable panel discussion
yesterday.
I wanted to say the same thing to them that you say to Eliott, "get
real". They seemed to think they were hot stuff because they are
starting to deploy VOIP. While friends I talk to are designing megaband
wireless networks that bypass them all.
If you want to be very narrow in your definition of Wi-Fi and restrict
it to 2.4 GHz and 802.11b then it would not supplant broadcasting. Of
course broadcasting is being supplanted very effectively by cable and
satellite already.
If you include in "Wi-Fi" the revolution that includes 802.11g, a,
802.16 and 802.20 or Wi-Max which can cover 2 GHz to 80 plus GHz IMO,
and more importantly, if you include the mindset change that the
regulators are going through then, yes, Wi-Fi will supplant broadcasting
including cable and satellite.
If not supplant them then radically change them in ways yet to be
determined. So change them that a rational being will have a hard time
recognizing the current broadcast/cable/satellite infrastructure we
know. And that is if they use the disruptive wireless technology
themselves. Anyone can build a wireless IP cable/telco/ISP company today
for less than the annual maintenance of a current cable company and
without the regulations. Their monopoly position is over it is just a
matter of how fast they want to cannibalize themselves.
Most broadcast spectrum in use today will be used for mobile services of
different kinds. We see it with the sale of channels 51 through 69. We
see it with the FCC looking to now use channels below 51 for Wi-Fi. It
used to be that broadcasters had to only worry about Motorola
encroaching on their spectrum. Now there are more people with dogs in
this fight. New owners of spectrum in the 700 MHz band, Public Safety
which wants access to channels 63, 64, 68 and 69, Wi-Fi manufacturing
companies who are making money and spending some of it in DC and a
growing Wi-Fi WISP community that is raising its voice.
The broadcasters on the other hand have not paid much attention to their
underutilized spectrum for a long time. They are not going to be allowed
to use this spectrum just to get their programming to cable headends
much longer.
As the current FCC Commish said last year,
"Whether he meant to or not, new FCC Chairman Michael Powell put the
issue on the table at an April press conference, in which he
addressed the implications for TV stations should cable and DBS attain
near–universal penetration. “If 100 percent of Americans don't get free,
over–the–air TV, what are we protecting?” Powell asked
The attack on this underutilized spectrum had just begun. Till now
broadcasters faced little competition for it. They do now and it is
already telling. They will have their own words thrown back at them more
and more. In arguing for must carry (of all content in a 6 MHz channel)
since 1999 they have over and over suggested that they needed must carry
because OTA broadcasting did not work well and required 30 ft. rooftop
antennas that consumers would not install.
They are right consumers are not and will not and the question just gets
louder "what are we protecting?"
One question, why can't Wi-Fi work below 2.4 GHz? You do know that it
does work at higher frequencies now like 5.8 GHz right?
Bob Miller
John Willkie wrote:
>Eliott, Elliott;
>
>First, I asked proponents to get real about Wi-Fi, and this was offered in
>response. Bad start.
>
>Second, I loathe USA Toady for the lack of understanding and news and
>superficial coverage. And, this was before the Jack Kelly scandal. At
>least his phony stories made their deadlines.
>
>USA Toady must have read something different than I did. What I read was
>that Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) would be able to use these
>frequencies for wireless internet service. Personally, aside from
>interference issues with these waspy wisps, I think this is a good idea.
>
>Don't confuse what is being proposed here with going down to Best Buy and
>rolling your own. "Service providers" are entities, not users sharing
>internet connections within or among homes and businesses.
>
>One interesting idea is that it will provide a return channel for suitably
>equipped equipment for interactive TV, with transmission circuits on
similar
>frequencies to that of over the air television.
>
>The big challenge, for those of us interested in reality, is how Wi-Fi
>(WHICH ONLY OPERATES AT 2.4 GHZ) would be able to use frequencies below 700
>mhz. (Answer: it won't.)
>
>And, this would either be complementary to broadcasting, or complementary
to
>Internet access.
>
>It certainly won't supplant broadcasting. Get real.
>
>John Willkie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: