[opendtv] Re: Mobile TV
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 02:31:36 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
The content owners are broadcasters
Once again, this is false.
Disney owns ABC
And neither Disney, nor ABC, are broadcasters. ABC is the TV network arm of
Disney. There are a few ABC O&Os, yes, but that's the exception. Usually the
broadcaster is an independent organization affiliated with a network, in a
specific market.
You are twisting things to make unfounded arguments. For months I
have stated that network affiliates cannot stream network content
because they do not own it and that the networks cannot stream
content they license unless they contract for the streaming rights.
And forever, I have repeated that the only organization that matters is the
owner of content. So once again, Disney does not have to obtain streaming
rights from anyone, to decide to stream their content. There are NO STREAMING
RIGHTS ISSUES if Disney (and their ABC arm) decide to put content online. So
please cease with this canard.
Nearly 85% of U.S. homes subscribe to a MVPD service; and these
homes watch nearly 75% of their TV via these systems either live
or via time shifted DVR.
This proves nothing. Last century, just about 100% of video consumed by the
public was broadcast, either OTA, DBS, or over cabled media. Yes, there was
also some DVD usage. This century, that has already been cut just about in
half. Just because laggards are still using the old equipment doesn't PROVE
that other techniques are decades away from being feasible. When that much
video (which includes TV, but also Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, etc.) is already
being streamed online, and the transition has occurred so quickly, and there's
plenty of last mile capacity that could be added quickly for broadband, your
stuck-in-the-mud predictions of decades are way exaggerated.
Are we ready to stream online the Superbowl, to whatever million households?
Pretty much as fast as these households can set up their TVs for IP reception,
yes. We don't *need* to dedicate the equivalent of more than 5 Gb/s of last
mile capacity to broadcast, every single day of the year, just to feed
households with 20 Mb/s of HDTV, for maybe four hours per year. Is there
anything ambiguous about this?
And you claim the audience for FOTA is growing.
I don't "claim" this, it's fact. Last we saw, OTA is used by just about 20% of
US TV households again. But this is a transitional phase. At this instant in
time, as people cut the cord, they use OTA for live TV, which the vast majority
supplement with Internet TV. As soon as Disney and others decide it's time to
put even live TV FOTI, among other reasons because the spectrum auction may
remove some of their FOTA capacity, the dependency on OTA will be reduced.
Plus, the remaining problem with OTA is the one-way broadcast limitation, which
people are moving away from very fast. So there's plenty of incentive for
content owners to want an increased online presence.
We're not there yet, and the oligopolies have no plans
to abandon the distribution platforms that are producing
record profits.
The problem is not technical. Plus, you again forget that the economy is not
run entirely by the supply side. The content owners are responding to public
demand. Not in decades, but now. People are steadily eroding the legacy model
that you cherish. Let's wait and see the next set of stats on this process, to
see if anything is reversing.
Broadcasters already have a strong Internet presence. All they
need is to set up Internet servers, and even here they can use
local ISPs or CDNs.
(More like, local ISPs *and* CDNs. A CDN does not replace the ISP.) And for
what, Craig? What high value content will a broadcaster put on the Internet? If
the owner/TV network is already streaming online, what role would your local
broadcaster have? There could be a role, potentially, because as more people
use the Internet, there will be a greater demand for CDN services, and
broadcasters could take on this job. And of course, also production of local
content, which they are already doing now, and can stream now if they want to.
But prime time shows? Nope. Daytime TV? Nope.
Your attempt to draw parallels with Apple is absurd.
Not at all absurd. Remember when Apple, at long last, gave you permission to
think that HDTV is a good thing? Well, perhaps by showing you that Apple also
cares about reducing variability, to increase system reliability, you will
understand why ATSC transmissions, and receiver implementations, have been
stable.
You do not have a clue about this subject.
Apple does not manufacture or sell printers. They do sell third
party printers in the online and physical stores.
Try to understand the point, without having to have it laboriously spoonfed,
Craig.
Several manufacturers blocked this update because they hard
coded Table 3 formats and the MPEG extensions in the standard
No, Craig. What had been "hardcoded" was Table 3 IN THEIR PRODUCT, not "in the
standard." The standard is paper. The product is hardware and software
(firmware). In actual TV sets, Table 3 was often hardcoded in hardware. The
paper standard had no such limitation. Plenty of upgradeability is possible
with the ATSC 1.0 standard. Eons ago I explained the significance of A/90, as
ultimate proof of this.
But since the receivers in the field often had Table 3 hardcoded, the
broadcasters, OBVIOUSLY, resisted making any changes that would break reception
to millions of people. Much like Apple does not want you to buy just any old
printer. These are manifestations of the same thing: *reduce* the variability,
to increase reliability.
There is NO REASON that a broadcaster cannot continue to support
legacy receivers,
We've been over this too many times. The reason is that parallel streams, in a
one-way broadcast network, waste capacity. Sure, it's obvious that you can
transmit the same information in multiple streams, using different encodings.
Broadcasters are *fully aware* of this, Craig. For a time there, broadcasters
were transmitting ATSC/MH along with ATSC 1.0, were they not?
Example of simulcasts wasting capacity: in the US, many markets get lots of
HDTV. More than a dozen streams of HD, OTA. Why? Because any TV set can decode
these. In Europe, where HD was added afterwards as a simulcast stream, nothing
even close that that much. I don't know now, but originally, in Paris, it was
three HD channels OTA, all in one DVB-T2 multiplex. That's it. This is the
price you pay for parallel simulcast streams.
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.
Other related posts:
