[BC] Looks like we got snookered!

[Mike McCarthy]

And that it would be ungodly expensive to build here.  I can easily see a 
Class A station having a STAFF of field guys to support 10, 15, 20 cell 
sites with their program.  Then comes the rent...and who owns the sites.

MM

At 11:36 AM 1/3/2006 -0500, Robert Meuser wrote
>Mike:
>
>The part Dana missed is that part of the loooong roll out in Canada is 
>that they can not get L band radios that are sensitive enough. There is a 
>lot of blockage in those bands.  Cellular combats thats by having many 
>local cells. Eureka could also have a cellular structure, but is was not 
>built out that way in Canada.
>
>R
>
>Mike McCarthy wrote:
>>Dana....
>>The broadcasters, particularly the big guns didn't want the new spectrum 
>>which would in effect give the peanut whistles equal footing in audio 
>>quality and improved coverage. They STILL DON'T EITHER. This is long 
>>before the last ownership dereg. took place and CC, et al. were able to 
>>go on a buying spree. That and the industry and technology were not 
>>prepared for a new band.  Things change....over 10 years.
>>Who could have imaged wireless broadband and the myriad of new things 
>>which now requires spectrum for short distance communications needing as 
>>much as they do now.
>>Yes, we got Ibiquity and I agree it's a neutered system which has great 
>>harm potential to the AM band. But after seeing the LONG roll outs in 
>>Britain and Canada, we're rolling out Ibiquity a whole lot faster here.
>>MM
>>At 05:58 AM 1/3/2006 -0800, DANA PUOPOLO wrote
>>
>>>Check this out:
>>>
>>>http://www.upi.com/Hi-Tech/view.php?StoryID=20051230-083814-1294r
>>>
>>>If I recall, a slice of this spectrum was the VERY place where Eureka 
>>>DAB was
>>>to have gone. Hmmm...I'm wondering why the space wasn't available when
>>>broadcasters wanted it (Seems the Pentagon needed it to test missles), but
>>>when the cellular industry wants it: *POOF!!* there it is!
>>>
>>>Of did Ibiquity, the NAB and the "status quo" broadcasters get their way 
>>>A la'
>>>lobbying?
>>>
>>>I find it interesting that the ONLY people who GET DIGITAL RADIO SLOTS 
>>>are the
>>>ones that already own analog ones. Wasn't the original purpose of DAB to:
>>>"Level the playing field"? I guess having a few consolidators owning most of
>>>the good stations is level enough for the FCC and Congress.
>>>
>>>Well, it looks like the broadcasters (and their short term greed) just shot
>>>themselves in the foot - AGAIN!
>>>
>>>See, one of the things the cellular industry is going to DO with this new
>>>spectrum is deliver CONTENT (remember that word in earlier discussions?) to
>>>the public.  Guess who's going to get short shrift as a result?
>>>
>>>The Broadcasters......
>>>
>>>I learned a moral a long time ago. It said: "Be careful of what you wish 
>>>for,
>>>because it might come true". The Consolidators and NAB wished for 
>>>Ibiquity and
>>>that's EXACTLY what they got - a crappy, neutered DAB system - but the
>>>cellular industry gets the last laugh here, because THEY got (the) 45 mHz of
>>>spectrum that the consolidators and NAB gave up - to compete against them!
>>>
>>>Along with another 45 Mhz in the 2.1 gig band....
>>>
>>>-D
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>This is the BROADCAST mailing list
>>>To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
>>>For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: 
>>>http://www.radiolists.net/
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>This is the BROADCAST mailing list
>>To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
>>For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: 
>>http://www.radiolists.net/
>
>_______________________________________________
>This is the BROADCAST mailing list
>To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
>For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: 
>http://www.radiolists.net/