[opendtv] Re: ATSC and Lip Sync

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 08:43:12 -0400

At 11:04 AM -0400 6/3/09, John Shutt wrote:

The dreaded "legacy operation model."

Yes, it is a legacy model for the creation of streams, BUT, it does demonstrate that the bits can be "conditioned" for different geographic regions of their "National" market. Unfortunately there is no parallel for the way broadcasters treat their local markets - everyone gets the same bits.

Internet television is very often a real-time experience. It is the only way I can access some live sports content that is not available via my local cable system.

And even more often, if that content is available on your local cable system is unavailable online at all.

It's all about rights. Increasingly content owners are expanding their distribution by providing rights to additional distribution channels.


As for being a niche experience, we disagree. There is nothing "niche" about watching a broadcast network show via the Internet - this is just another way to time shift the viewing of that content, and it still contributes to building the overall audience for the program. The cable guys have know that accumulating an audience works for years - you DON'T have to get everyone to sit down at 8:30 on Tuesday night to watch "Happy Days," or wait for the re-run 6 months later.

You cannot have 20 million simultaneous US web viewers of a live Super Bowl program in High Definition.

Just because this is not the way it is done today, does not mean it cannot be done. You could be eating these words in a few years as higher speed bandwidth to the home becomes commonplace.

But the broadcasters DO have the rights to some very valuable content like the Superbowl. The best counter to this argument is to see what has happened to the broadcast networks with respect to sports in general. We have seen the flight of sports rights to ESPN and several regional sports networks because these entities are able to collect subscriber fees to help pay for the rights. This may well happen with "pay Internet" in the future.

And these number shave little to do with broadcasting at the local level. Broadcasters have feasted at the table of high quality content for decades because - in the beginning - they were the only game in town. Cable - and now DBS - have eaten into this in huge ways, and they may well kill broadcasters simply by paying more for the rights to the content you believe that "only broadcasters" can deliver. And did I mention that cable and DBS are working on highly targets ads, and they already know who every subscriber is, and what they watch?

If nothing else, the local ISPs would choke on the traffic.

IF you can deliver TYV via cable, you can deliver it via the Internet. This is just a topology issue. Even more important, we will see an explosion in bandwidth in the next decade driven by technology - the ability to deliver more bits over existing pipes - and new infrastructure such as those that may be built in the TV white spaces.

The part I get is that content is still paid for by cable or network broadcasters for first run viewing on their networks, paid for with real time ads. The Hulu and other online viewing options are in addition to, not instead of, their original broadcast. This makes online viewing secondary to broadcast viewing, just as DVD distribution is secondary to broadcast.

Evolutionary. In the end it will always be about making money with content. The distribution networks that can pay the most for the rights are likely to survive. And this is why I say that broadcasters need a new business model. Advertisers are growing unwilling to pay premium rates for smaller and smaller audiences. And consumers are growing tired of the constant interruptions and increasing number of minutes per hour that are filled with ads.

Bottom line, broadcasters need to be able to target sub markets and even individuals so that they can create enough value for advertisers to survive.

You want proof? Name a television series starring well known Hollywood talent that runs exclusively on the internet, and has at least a 13 episode run.

Now do the same for broadcast.  Which list is longer?

Irrelevant today.


Internet viewing is at best a supplemental viewing option, not a primary one, for the majority of eyeballs. There are those for who internet viewing is their primary viewing option, but the numbers are overwhelmingly skewed to the broadcast delivery method.

Not really. The numbers are skewed to multi-channel delivery of TV content. Broadcasters are becoming a smaller and smaller portion of the mix. If you doubt this, consider the FACT that cable programming now dominates the ratings in ALL DAY PARTS. For other than a handful of events like the Superbowl, broadcasters are capturing no more than 40% of the audience in prime time. In the day parts it is typically below 20%.

You asked me to name a TV series that got its first run on the Internet, but you did not mention cable, which now generates far more original content than the broadcast networks. Granted that much of this has lower production budgets, but one need only look at the Emmy's to see that the broadcast networks are no longer the only game in town. And local TV stations have their heads in the sand when it comes to content generation other than news...and local TV news is going the way of the newspaper.

And my point is that you, as an individual, decided when to toss the Powerbook for the MacBook Pro. You made that decision when it became too slow or didn't support the newest software you wished to run. Your old Powerbood certainly doesn't support HD quality video decoding. at 60 fps.

Yup. But you are missing a major point. I did not lose a thing when I upgraded. I added new capabilities while retaining everything I was already doing. One could correctly say that the marketplace is driving this; that is, there came a point where the benefits of upgrading my hardware were significant enough to justify the expense.

Contrast this with broadcasters, who have done almost NOTHING to upgrade what they offer the public. Cable/DBS has taken nearly 90% of the former broadcast audience by offering consumers things they cannot get from broadcasters - on top of what broadcasters have always offered. What's more, they did this by charging the consumer for these new capabilities.

Now cable/DBS are beginning to look threatened. The reason?

Consumers are growing tired of paying for bundles of stuff they do not want. The tipping point is growing near when it will be possible to buy the programming you want ala carte, rather than sending the cable company >$50 per month.

And did I mention that Cable and DBS are now deploying their second generation of digital STBs. For the DBS systems a sizeable number of STBs have already been replaced with boxes that can handle H.264.

This notion that a TV or a STB should work for decades is simply...

Outdated.


You cannot use that same model for mass media communications. It's one thing when people update their equipment at their own pace, based on their own needs and means. It's quite another when every single audience member has to update at the same time in order to continue to receive content. As the glaring example, I give you the OTA digital transition fiasco. Can you imagine how much worse it would be if every cable and DBS subscriber were equally affected on the same cutoff date?

One could rightly say that the existence of cable and DBS have made the DTV transition a big yawn. Except that the ATSC companies have managed to TAX everyone for receivers that most people are not using.

Happy Trails!


That is in essence what you proposed in 1999, and what you advocate today. Any smartbox designed in 1999 would not be viable in 2009. Any smartbox designed in 2009 won't be viable in 2019.

Nonsense. This assumes that EVERYTHING changes.

But everything does not change...it evolves. My wife's 2003 G4 iMac still does everything she needs, including watching h.264 video.

Viability is directly related to extensibility. It begins with a solid foundation and dedication to the core principles of interoperability. This is the real payoff for going digital.

Consumers will support upgrades when the value received is sufficient to justify the expense.

When broadcasters commit to "Being Digital," rather than holding onto the digitized version of a dying analog business model, they might turn things around.

Thanks for the spirited conversation!

Regards
Craig


----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
unsubscribe in the subject line.

Other related posts: