1996-01-23
Craig A. Johnson
Jamie Love of CPT has issued the clarification below on the DBS
auction to be held tomorrow.
Directly following it is a reply to Jamie by Richard Layman who says
that in his view Primestar is "akin to DBS," and concludes:
"Cross-ownership rules comparable to how newspapers cannot own
television or radio stations or cable television systems in a single
market (unless grandfathered in) ought to be applicable in this
situation.
--caj
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
The motion I posted here earlier today unfortunately displayed some of
my ignorance on this issue. FCC's international bureau has explained
to me that the Primestar service isn't considered DBS, and so the
three national DBS services, following tomorrow's auction, will be the
Direct TV/USSB, echo star, which isn't operational yet, and the new 28
"channel" license to be auctioned. Moreover, TCI owns an 11 channel
DBS permit, which it would have to sell, if it obtains the more
desireble 28 channel license to be auctioned. Primestar, which uses
the larger dish, isn't considered DBS, and wouldn't be effected by TCI
or any of its other investors acquiring a DBS license (unless the
service "migrated" to a true DBS license).
Of course we continue to oppose the licensing of DBS spectrum to
cable
or VDT operators, but in the rush to get something into the record
before tomorrows auction I made some stupid mistakes. jamie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
James Love, •••@••.••• P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036; v.
202/387-8030; f. 202/234-5176 Consumer Project on Technology;
http://www.essential.org/cpt/cpt.html Taxpayer Assets Project;
http://www.essential.org/tap/tap.html
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Date sent: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 18:45:13 -0600
From: Richard Layman <•••@••.•••>
To: Multiple recipients of list
<•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: our DBS motion
Jamie --
Maybe you made some "mistakes" in your petition according to the FCC,
but I don't think that you're wrong in considering Primestar akin to
DBS, in that it is a single television programming service comprised
of a number of different channels and PPV options, delivered to homes
via signals from the sky (satellite), picked up by equipment/dishes
that people have to buy, that is easier to use than traditional TVRO
setups, and is marketed to people in a manner which competes with
cable television and/or wireless cable television services.
In other words, maybe the technological methods for delivery vary, but
not the way it is perceived by potential customers. In other words,
the "form" may differ, but not the "substance."
I am chagrinned to admit that I didn't consider the clear
uncompetitive aspects of companies like TCI or Murdoch (Fox) in trying
to garner DBS licenses, since they are already significant players in
the delivery of cable television service and/or cable television
programming services and/or over-the-air broadcast signals.
(IMO) You are right that cross-ownership rules comparable to how
newspapers cannot own television or radio stations or cable television
systems in a single market (unless grandfathered in) ought to be
applicable in this situation.
Good luck.
Richard Layman, Mgr., Business Development, and Research Producer
Computer Television Network, 825 6th St. NE, Washington, DC 20002-4325
---- 202-544-5722 ---- 202-543-6730 (fax) ---- •••@••.•••
http://www.phoenix.net/~ctn
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
~ CYBER-RIGHTS ~
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
~
For subscription info, archived postings/documents, and other useful
material, visit the CPSR Cyber-Rights Web Page at:
http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/
You are encouraged to forward and cross-post list traffic,
pursuant to any contained copyright & redistribution restrictions.
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
~
