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

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 08:13:40 -0400

At 1:47 PM -0500 6/14/12, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
Finally a basis to go on. So, this LTE broadcast TV network two way. It is simply another cell network, run by the TV broadcast industry. Fine. Let's go with that.
Now, explain to me this: Why on EARTH would a Verizon or an AT&T want to sell phones to people that support the frequencies owned by the TV broadcaster(s)?? When they, the cellcos, don't make a cent from those streams?? And, if the TV spectrum is two-way, as you now assert, the TV broadcasters will be able to offer even non-TV-related services that would now compete with the cellcos' services. Had the TV spectrum been a one-way broadcast system only, at least the cellcos would have a little less to worry about? (Still would compete, but to a lesser degree.)
Guess you haven't noticed that the Telcos have lost control over the features that go into today's smart phones. Something to do with some upstart company from Cupertino that conned them into supporting phones that run independent third party apps...
In a way, this is similar to what is happening to the MVPDs. By offering the best WIRED broadband pipes, the earthbound MVPDs have enabled competition with their one-way analog and digital TV services. 

Such is the nature of technology driven disintermediation.
But Bert "may" have a valid point, given the current state of radio technology, especially as it relates to LTE. The first and second generation LTE chips have been rather power hungry, and most implementations are tuned to the frequencies used by the carriers that sell the phones. Thus an LTE enabled iPAd sold in the U.S. works with Verizon and AT&T, but does not support the frequencies being used for LTE in Europe and Australia.
As Bert is well aware, having told us for years that ATSC receiver chips would become cheap commodities, software driven radios are likely to deal with the issues of supporting services on different frequency bands.
And then there is the potential for broadcasters to get their pals in Washington to help them with another mandate - Thou SHALL support Broadcast LTE if you are building a device that support Telco LTE. Hopefully the marketplace will embrace the next U.S. TV standard. 




 What you continue to avoid is the reality that none of these standards
 are being supported in the mobile devices consumers are buying by the
 millions.
And what you continue to miss is that this is NOT a technical issue. Those portable phones will support whatever the provider networks allow them to support! This is in fact no different than it is to allow the phones to support ATSC/MH, along with the cellco's own two-way standard. The technical difference is easily overcome. The problem is the will to do so, and you have not given any credible rationale why cellcos would allow a competing two-way cell network on their phones.
Sorry, but the technical difference IS NOT easily overcome. To support ATSC MH, a phone would require a very complex chip in addition to the RF chip used to support multiple generations of Telco networks. And the ATSC MH chip would be a major power hog, having a huge impact on battery life. One need only look at lack of products in the marketplace that support the ATSC MH standard - most are dongles for notebook PCs.
It is also fair to say that watching TV on a smartphone, whether the bits are coming from the Telco LTE network or broadcasters will have some limits based on power consumption.
But it is clear that technical evolution will make supporting multiple LTE services across multiple frequencies feasible in the near future. It worked for ATSC receivers.
Finally. Yes, indeed, some new and different organization will be required, because individual broadcasters (and O&Os) cannot be competing against one another anymore, while at the same time creating this combined utility. Whether they become a coop, or whether one "broadcaster" buys out the others, or what have you, is something that will have to be figured out. But the reality is, local broadcasters exist primarily to deliver high value content that someone else owns. If that role goes to a coop or to a single broadcaster who owns the utility, then the local broadcaster's role becomes questionable.
The government is not likely to allow one broadcaster to buy up all of the spectrum in a market. Most cellular towers today are run as a pooled resource with multiple carriers on the same towers. This infrastructure is typically leased to a company that operates the towers for all stake holders.
As you are well aware, I would prefer to see a real spectrum utility that operate the Broadcast LTE network, giving first priority to existing broadcasters. Clearly it is too early to tell how this is going to play out.
I would also note that individual broadcasters have never really competed with one another. They operate a service with multiple programming choices. Yes broadcasters ina market compete for the same advertising pie, but the real competition is with other media: newspapers, cable ad insertion, and now Internet streaming.
For example, we have in this market affiliates for each of the major networks, a single O&O, and one broadcaster, with 12 MHz, that relays content from a set of 10 international 24-hour news channels. Some of the TV subchannels are "rented out" to other content owners, like ThisTV, Bounce, AntennaTV, RTV. There is precious little broadcaster-exclusive content in any of this, aside from the local news. 

Exactly. A spectrum utility will not change this much.
What will change is how spectrum resources are used in off peak periods. Today broadcasters fill up much of the broadcast day with paid programming, infomercials etc. Ultimately, the content delivered via Broadcast LTE networks will be driven by consumer demand. The congloms will compete with other content providers to fill the network.
Then again, we could see the broadcast spectrum become a wireless MVPD service, with most content ONLY available to those who subscribe to a traditional MVPD service.
So again, *what* do all of the local broadcasters bring to the table, after someone else does the RF transmission job for them? 

Content.
Oh, I forgot another point. Can you calculate how many towers will be required, with 2 Km spacing needed for 3.1 b/s/Hz, to provide coverage to a market like DC, NY, LA? It's a simple geometry problem.
The infrastructure already exists. What is more relevant, is that in the areas outside of major markets, the Broadcast LTE network can use higher power levels and taller towers to reduce the density of the mesh. 

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