At 11:49 AM -0500 2/22/06, Bob Miller wrote: > > > The business model includes the technology. It relies on it. No, it simply enables it. Or inhibits it as is the case currently in the U.S. But bottom line, U.S. broadcasters - for the most part - do not care whether it works, as they are trying to hold onto Retrans Consent, which makes it more profitable to use cable and DBS to reach their viewers and to collect subscriber fees. If broadcasters wanted to compete with cable and DBS, they would quickly move to a platform that would give them a competitive advantage. We are NOT talking just about modulation standards here: - We are talking about the reliable delivery of bits to fixed, mobile and portable devices. - We are talking about the delivery of all kinds of bits and services (a good way to look at this is to ask: How successful would the Internet be if it could only deliver program length video?). - We are talking about the development of viable platforms for the deliver of these bits. These platforms will compete with cable and DBS platforms and devices that pull their bits from the Internet today. The platforms must support a wide range of services, but every device need not support all of the available service. And the platform must have the ability to close the loop with the customer to deal with interactions and transactions. - And we are talking about fundamental changes in the way that content is aggregated and delivered. The notion that people are going to make appointments to watch TV live and that they will watch whatever appears next on a channel is fading. The content that will be delivered via a competitive broadcast system in the U.S. will come from MANY sources, not just a handful of media conglomerates trying to preserve their oligopoly. Broadcasters MAY make money aggregating and producing content, but the first priority must be to gain fair compensation for the delivery of bits for any entity that wishes to reach the public via the broadcast DTV infrastructure. Competitive access to the airwaves will be the key to success! >The only business model that works under these circumstances is the >current one. Maintain your control of Congress as to must carry and >obtain multicast must carry. Make consumers pay for your programming >over cable and take a piece of the action. Maintain OTA broadcasting >only in so far as it is necessary to maintain must carry. So far 8-VSB >works for those purposes. It stops working for those purposes when the >transition actually happens and many consumers who actually depend on >OTA find out the reality. Then all hell breaks loose IMO. Correct. The current ATSC standard is doing an excellent job of protecting NTSC and the related perks. You can depend on this thing blowing up again as the 2009 deadline approaches. The broadcasters can STILL play their hole card - the fact that the current ATSC standard does not enable a viable business model. > >It also stops working when cable takes multicast must carry to the >Supreme Court. First the government must give the broadcasters this new perk. it won;t happen, because everyone knows that this would give cable and DBS the ammunition they need to go back to the Supremes and have retrans consent overturned. > >Technology is the big hurdle but one that is easy to hurdle once must >carry goes away. Without must carry 8-VSB doesn't exist for an RF minute. This is irrelevant. Most broadcasters do not care if DTV works. Yes they would like multicast must carry, but it is not critical to their success. Retransmission Consent for ONE primary program is what is critical to their success - and this is preserved, even if NTSC goes away in 2009. 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.