[opendtv] Re: IEEE Ericsson article on use of LTE for TV

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:46:59 -0400

At 3:54 PM -0500 6/19/12, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:

Craig Birkmaier wrote:


 Apps are programs. And yes, perhaps that's a start at telcos "losing
 control," but I have yet to see an "app" that will allow an iPhone or
 any other phones to run on a competitor's cell network. Or that will
 permit reception of TV broadcasts OTA, for that matter.



 > http://www.telly-app.com/
Are you serious? Can't you see how that works? Do you think it allows the iPhone to receive ATSC broadcasts? Read more carefully, Craig. You're confused. 

Come on Bert. I'm not confused, or stupid.
Unfortunately, in the U.S. there are multiple cellular standards and hardly anyone builds devices that work across all networks. In Europe things are much different; you can't just run an app, but you can change SIM cards to use different networks.
And Apple has been trying to convince carriers to move to an embedded programmable SIM, which was approved by the GSMA in 2010. 

http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/gsma_approves_apple-style_programmable_sim_cards/

But the European carriers are not happy.

http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/embedded_iphone_sim_idea_miffs_europe_cell_carriers/
As for watching ATSC on almost ANY mobile device, as I pointed out, USB dongles are about the only route. Perhaps Bert remembers an earlier thread in which I suggested that someone should build an ATSC receiver that decodes to baseband, re-encodes using h.264, then rebroadcasts over WiFi?
Why re-encode? Simple in addition to the cost, space and power for an ATSC chip, you also need to pay the royalties for an MPEG-2 decoder. You could forego the MPEG-2 ATSC service and only build an ATSC MH receiver...
Guess how the Telly TV App works with an iPHONE? The PC with the ATSC dongle does everything I outlined above.
Bottom line, don't expect to see any iOS or Android smart phones with integrated ATSC or ATSC MH receivers. 


 > Nothing stopping them. Since Samsung has both IP in the standard and builds

 chips and ATSC MH products, you might ask why they are NOT adding MH support

 > in their smartphones.
Duh! Over here, we buy phones whose design is at the mercy of the cellcos. Why would Verizon wireless want their cell phones to support ATSC/MH? When they offer a competing product for a monthly fee?
Stop it Bert. Apple does not design phones "at the mercy of the Telcos." Neither does Samsung. 




 The GPS chips is used extensively by apps for location based services.
Exactly. If there's a will, on the part of the cellco, because it benefits them directly, they will build it in. If not, they won't.
How does adding the GPS capability benefit the Telco? They can figure out where you are using triangulation from their towers. And they DO NOT offer any services that even need this. 

Apple is even bypassing their lucrative text messaging services with iMessage.

The days where telcos controlled every aspect of your service are OVER.


Quoted run times for cell phones using Pandora is also not good.
I use Pandora frequently at the brewery on my five yeaar old iPhone 2G which is still running on the original, non removable battery. It runs all day without being plugged into the charger.
Just like anything else, ATSC/MH would go through a development cycle, as did ATSC 1.0 receivers, as are doing LTE tuners, and the power draw drops. Point being, it's much like DVB-H. The design is such that it should not draw excessive power. But even then, as with LTE for that matter, if you use the hand held device to watch TV for long periods of time, battery draw will definitely be a factor.
The point being that nobody is willing to invest the R&D dollars to do this because there is no market and the world is moving to LTE. 




 The required channel bandwidths will be possible with spectrum pooling.
That's ridiculous, sorry. Of COURSE the spectrum can be cobbled together through pooling. The point is, what will these competing companies, whose main job is to transmit others' content on their own transmission facilities, do after the transmission facilities are combined? This is such a simple question. 

Charge for carrying other peoples signals.




 I have not agreed that broadcasters will use any of their spectrum for a
 return path.
Fine, so you continue waffling, that way whatever you say can be changed. No return path means the TV-run spectrum cannot be VOD. That's right away a liability.
Not true. As I have said REPEATEDLY, the Telco data service provides the return path, just as it does today if you access a broadcast station's web site.
Plus, *if* all you're talking about dedicating spectrum to true broadcast, then my suggestion is, hand that spectrum over to the cell networks. First, because you won't have the problem of the cellcos freezing out broadcaster's spectrum. Second, the cellcos can dynamically assign more or less spectrum to 2-way service, depending on time of day for instance.
How are the telcos going to freeze out broadcast spectrum. The guys you need to convince are the one that make the phones, not the telcos. The telcos are going to stay in the game for ONE REASON - they control most of the spectrum needed to offer wireless broadband.
Or, let the broadcasters hold on to their spectrum, don't get stuck on LTE if you're not interested in 2-way capability, and see if there's any chance of broadcasters reaching an arrangement with cell phone makers. 

You're getting warm.

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:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 06-2012