Begin forwarded message:
From: Richard Bennett <richard@bennett.com>
Date: December 22, 2009 10:35:25 PM EST
To: dave@farber.net
Cc: ip <ip@v2.listbox.com>
Subject: Re: [IP] darn good question 21bn to buy back spectrum from tv companies
The most obvious way for this to play out is for cable operators to be
required to offer a package of basic access to local channels for free
to anyone in the area they serve. In return for that "public interest"
obligation, the cable companies should be able to drop the local
government and public access channels; the public should be able to get
this stuff off the Internet anyway. Once TV has been completely moved
to cable, the spectrum can be reassigned to mobile networks, who will
use it to meet the demands of, you guessed it, video streaming. The
mobile operators will have to pay a fee for this, in part to cover the
costs of free cable, which they will gladly do as long as they can get
some of the ad revenue from personalized advertising. Certain business
entities will insist that all ad revenues belong to them rather than to
the operators, and there will be a big fight in DC over the right to
sell advertising, which is now known as "Internet Freedom."
In the end, we will have over-the-air triple play, just as we have wireline triple play, probably with some fraction available for free or nearly free. On the other hand, we might just abandon to notion that we have a right to free OTA TV, and go the route of the UK, where everybody pays a license fee for each TV set; they use the money collected that way to pay for BBC, but we in the US would use it for some other purpose, like paying for health care. That may not be a bad thing.
RB
On 12/22/2009 6:54 PM, David Farber wrote:
In the end, we will have over-the-air triple play, just as we have wireline triple play, probably with some fraction available for free or nearly free. On the other hand, we might just abandon to notion that we have a right to free OTA TV, and go the route of the UK, where everybody pays a license fee for each TV set; they use the money collected that way to pay for BBC, but we in the US would use it for some other purpose, like paying for health care. That may not be a bad thing.
RB
On 12/22/2009 6:54 PM, David Farber wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Doug Humphrey <doug@joss.com>
Date: December 22, 2009 9:44:35 PM EST
To: dave@farber.net
Cc: "ip" <ip@v2.listbox.com>
Subject: Re: [IP] 21bn to buy back spectrum from tv companies
I don't understand why the government is paying toget this spectrum "back". I do not BELIEVE that thiswas "purchased" by the TV industry (although I couldbe incorrect on this). I thought that it was being usedby the Broadcast industry for TV, under requirementsto provide "public services" as part of their operations,and since they are no longer using it, the spectrumshould belong to the US Government to re-use inwhatever way they deem in the public interest. Yes?
doug
On Dec 22, 2009, at 8:37 PM, Dave Farber wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Joly MacFie <joly@punkcast.com>
Date: December 22, 2009 7:55:40 PM EST
To: Bruce Kushnick <oia@lists.bway.net>
Subject: [OIA] 21bn to buy back spectrum from tv companies
http://broadcastengineering.com/news/fcc-considers-tv-spectrum-1102/
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Open Infrastructure Alliance
http://lists.bway.net/listinfo/oia