knutsen@sri-unix (06/09/82)
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-AI rcvd at 29-May-82 0130-PDT Date: 29 May 1982 0121-PDT (Saturday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: DBS vs. guns, bombs, and sheep To: HOME-SAT at AI Remailed-date: 8 Jun 1982 0017-PDT Remailed-from: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow <Geoff at SRI-CSL> Remailed-to: HOME-SAT@SRI-CSL: ; Via: Su-Ai.ArpaNet; 8 Jun 82 0:47-PDT Greetings. As many of you are no doubt aware, there is considerable interest (to say the least) in the U.S. regarding the deployment of Direct Broadcast Satellites. Unlike the existing C band birds, these new high power units would operate at higher frequencies (12 GHz.) and would be designed to transmit directly to very small (~1 meter) dishes at subscribers' homes. The fare to initially be offered on these systems seems to mainly consist of the same sorts of programming we see now on existing cable, STV, and MDS systems. The "official" idea behind DBS is supposedly to better serve areas of the country that are currently devoid of reasonable programming sources, due to lack of local stations and/or cable systems. However, most of the proposals currently filed with the FCC seem to actually be oriented more toward urban areas which are already well served by a variety of program sources. Some (not exactly unbiased) surveys claim that half of all cable subscribers would drop off the cable if given the chance to subscribe to DBS systems, and about 60% of non-cabled households would join up. Personally, I find these figures to be highly unbelievable -- I would never give up basic cable for 2 or 3 channels of premium fare. And in fact, the monthly fees being proposed for these (scrambled) DBS systems are higher than the basic cost of cable including some 24 hour premium programming channels. In any case, while it hasn't been talked about much, there is a chance that the whole U.S. DBS effort may be severely shortcircuited by purely political factors. (This would not exactly upset the National Association of Broadcasters -- which hates DBS as a threat to local broadcasters [and I'm not so sure that I disagree with all of their arguments!]) There are currently a variety of DBS proposals before the Commission ... a number of which have been provisionally accepted. However, the Commission is proposing that any early approval of such systems would have to be "interim only", since the whole issue of sprectrum allocation for DBS and other services will come up at the Regional Administrative Radio Conference (RARC) next year. RARC is a meeting of Western Hemisphere nations where spectrum allocations are debated and allocated. In relation to satellite services, the big problem is that geosynchronous satellite space is very limited, and a number of countries must share that same space. The "developing" countries are very concerned that countries such as the U.S. will "use up" most of that space before they are ready to launch their own birds in the future. The protests of these countries cannot be ignored, unless RARC is disbanded and "free for all" becomes the order of the day. How do bombs, guns, and sheep fit in? The Latin American countries have never been exactly happy about the way the U.S. has planned to use the spectrum, and a very colorful session at RARC has always been expected. However, it appears that the Falklands situation has the potential to make the situation MUCH worse. Anti-American feeling is getting worse than ever in much of Latin America, and no doubt will remain to some extent even once the dispute has been "settled". Of course, it could be worse, right? Right. It is. Did I mention where the 1983 RARC is to be held? One guess. Buenos Airies! Hmmm. DBS is an exciting concept, but it is beginning to become increasingly clear that political elements could damage or even scuttle many of the existing DBS plans. The real world comes home again. --Lauren--