[LINK] Analogue TV frequencies not just used for TV, so spanner in works of spectrum sale

Kim Holburn kim.holburn at gmail.com
Thu Jan 25 07:56:59 AEDT 2007

On 2007/Jan/24, at 11:05 AM, Adam Todd wrote:
> At 09:58 AM 22/01/2007, Kim Holburn wrote:
>> I believe the simple economic answer is that more TV stations would
>> dilute the advertising dollar and the stations wouldn't be viable.
>> It has always seemed to me to be a monopolist's argument (tri-  
>> opolists?  quintopolists?).  That's the supposed answer to why we
>> only have 5 channels not why we don't use the unallocated channels
>> for something else.
> Kim - you really want another 10 channels of "Big Brother" and  
> "Australian Princess" or "Idol" or "Pop Stars" or heaven forbid  
> after all the promise of "Commercial quality material" another  
> Channel 31 with it's "We got the licence you guys are suckers and  
> we're going to show the same tacky trash that you did, only we have  
> the power" stations?

I think you're not asking the right question at all.  Why should the  
current 3.x commercial stations have a monopoly (or a tri-x-opoly)?   
Why should they be sitting pretty, funnelling wads of cash through  
their government sponsored spectrum toll ways when we could have a  
much more diverse lot of crap?  For instance, why can't we have some  
local or community TV?
If we freed up 3 analogue TVs worth of spectrum we could have how  
many digital stations?  15 isn't it?  Instead each successive  
government seems bent on putting the small amount of spectrum into  
fewer and fewer hands and letting more and more stations from  
different areas be taken over.


Kim Holburn
IT Network & Security Consultant
Ph: +39 06 855 4294  M: +39 3342707610
mailto:kim at holburn.net  aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request

Democracy imposed from without is the severest form of tyranny.
                           -- Lloyd Biggle, Jr. Analog, Apr 1961

More information about the Link mailing list