[opendtv] Re: AT&T backs Verizon, TMo hesitates on LTE

From: Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 19:00:54 -0400
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
 
>> Of course that's possible. All you are proposing is a cellco
>> equivalent of disbanding FOTA TV and having everyone subscribe
>> to cable or DBS. You can expect your cellco bill to go way up
>> for that sort of service, compared to what you are paying now.
>> And also, you can expect the broadcasters to demand a piece of
>> those cellco subscription fees too.
>
> Not at all.
>
> I said the video streams would continue to be in the clear, not
> paid.
 
Well, that doesn't make any sense. Sorry, Craig.
 
If the cellco's cellular structure is used to carry the broadcasts, presumably 
what could happen is that every viewer would initiate a unique call, just as 
they do for any service from that cellular infrastructure. So now you have each 
user taking up all those Mb/s individually, because each one has a unique 
session set up. In the evening especially, when lots of people are watching TV, 
that would be very wasteful. Which means, very expensive. You see this, right? 
Instead of maybe a dozen 6 MHz channels to serve even millions of viewers, 
you'd have millions of viewers each one asking for (at least) his own 6 MHz 
channel. Short range, perhaps, but the scaling doesn't make sense.
 
Oh, you say, no, you would actually broadcast the signal? It still makes no 
sense. Broadcasting the signal over a cellular infrastructure means you are 
dedicating the same amount of bandwidth, or more, than the TV stations are 
already using now. Except that you are having to depend on a dense mesh of 
towers in a MFN. No spectrum savings, but much more expensive infrastructure. 
More towers, big backhaul network to tie all the towers together (much like a 
cable plant), much more labor-intensive, and so on.
 
Either way, if it costs MORE to transmit, how exactly are you going to convince 
people that the service can still be FOTA? What would happen is that the cellco 
would be happy to oblige, of course, but it would charge consumers more for the 
TV service than it would for just voice and the extra it already charges for 
data. (Oh yeah, cellcos already do that for TV programming.) With all you've 
been saying about ad revenue being inadequate, what makes you think the 
broadcasters could afford to make up the difference?
 
> So an equitable approach might require broadcasters to pay a carriage
> fee to the companies operating the cellular infrastructure - note these
> are typically not the telcos, but companies they pay to operate and
> maintain the cells, which often have equipment from multiple carriers.
 
Which is a more costly infrastructure than what the broadcasters use now, 
especially if you expect to transmit the TV signals with the same HD quality. 
And it either takes up the same amount of spectrum (true broadcast over the 
MFN), or it may take up less to much more spectrum, depending how many people 
are watching (that would be the "switched video" kind of cellular TV service).
 
Bottom line is, all of you "better ideas" seem to be attempts to get everyone 
hooked on MVPDs. There is a reason why broadcast radio and broadcast TV evolved 
as it did, Craig. Because it is the most efficient way to get the signal out to 
millions of people. For one-way traffic, it it the cheapest way to go.
 
Bert
                                           
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Follow-Ups:
- [opendtv] Re: AT&T backs Verizon, TMo hesitates on LTE
  - From: Craig Birkmaier
[opendtv] Re: AT&T backs Verizon, TMo hesitates on LTE

Other related posts:
