[opendtv] Re: Mobile TV
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 02:44:45 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
But that has NOTHING to do with broadcast television. The game I
watched was behind a pay wall (ESPN) and you could say I also
paid for the LTE bits.
And "broadcasters" have nothing to say about ESPN either. Disney is the only
one that would have a say. ESPN is already available live, over IP media, but
only by subscription. But that's ONLY up to Disney. Plenty of high value
content is available FOTI, even if not live. If the US TV networks decide to
make this other content available live also, FOTI live, they can make it happen
whenever they please (for what it would be worth). **None of this can be
decided by the middlemen anyway**. It's up to the content owners, not the
broadcasters. In Europe, there's plenty of live TV over the neutral Internet.
Has been for many years.
I talked with a Millennial cord cutter this weekend who is very
happy with OTT and an antenna. So at least in terms of reception,
ATSC 1.0 is getting the job done for those who care. The real
question is whether broadcasters will be willing to invest in
another transmission system?
I think, Craig, that you are still living in an era when TV signal distribution
**had** to occur over a separate infrastructure, out of necessity. No other
infrastructure was capable of the wideband task. We are past that now.
The content owners aren't pushing for any new OTA standard, nor, as you point
out above, is the viewing public. The content owners have begun the process of
taking IP delivery seriously, including especially on-demand, and including
mobile, because the viewing public wants it that way.
The evolution of technology that has provided us with today's OTT
services did not happen suddenly.
No one ever said it did. In fact, I pointed this out to you many times. But now
it is available, with plenty of neutral appliances compatible with it, so
there's no excuse to stay away from it, moving backwards.
The Internet provided the neutral "test bed" to support the
evolution.
Test bed? Come now. Do you really expect that the TV industry will create a
parallel universe here, Craig? I doubt it. Once you have the general purpose
medium in place that can handle TV signals, there is no reason to create
special purpose media for TV signals. That's legacy thinking.
In the old days, the telephone network was unable to carry TV. That's why
separate TV distribution networks were needed. Times have changed. These
"times" started changing in the 1980s and 1990s, Craig, when the telephone
industry began designing and then deploying SONET first, and then BISDN. BISDN
never actually happened as they envisaged, BECAUSE it was replaced by IP over
DSL. And the cable industry, similarly, began deploying IP over DOCSIS. Then
metro area Ethernet and other PON designs. So you seem to be advocating
retrenching back to separate TV distribution nets, for no technically
justifiable reason.
Perhaps this is a case of "if you're a hammer, then everything looks like a
nail."
On the other hand, the ATSC standard was locked down from day one,
You're only recycling old opinions, and they are incorrect to boot. The ATSC
standard was never "locked down," any more than RFC 791 "locked down" the
Internet. The only thing that kept appliances stable was that they, not the
standard, had not been designed to be upgradeable. But none of this impacts IP
appliances, or IP delivery of TV content, so it doesn't matter. TVs are now
starting to come out with IP front ends, as are many other devices. No need to
recycle old discussions.
Modulation matters.
No, it doesn't, not as a new topic of TV-unique discussion. Modulation issues
are addressed by the IEEE, and those who design and deploy the various,
diverse, general purpose media. Modulation issues vary, depending on the
specific medium. It's different for every version of Ethernet, for example, as
it is for every WiFi variant.
If broadcasters are to survive, they must embrace the stuff I just
wrote about,
I doubt that. If broadcasters are to survive, they need to find a critical,
meaningful role, providing value added, for Internet distribution of TV
content. Your idea is to have TV broadcasters re-create their old separate
distribution network, hampered by its one-way-only capabilities, and never mind
that MVPD media never required their signal distribution sevices anyway.
We are way past the 1970s, Craig.
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:
