[opendtv] Re: OTA
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 10:47:42 -0500
At 7:20 PM -0500 3/11/12, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
The point I'm trying to make is, this is not very remarkable. If you
make the in-home connection via one of these short range, in-home
wireless techniques, it does not change the nature of the actual
distribution pipe. The distribution pipe remains as it is. Fact is,
it's only a small change from having that in-home coax distribution
plant, or even more similar to having a cordless phone. Having a
cordless phone hardly changes the fact that you're using basic
telephone service.
The point is that the mobile/portable devices people are using TODAY
DO connect to WiFi, and in some cases 3G/4G. They DO NOT connect to
ATSC or ATSC M/H and it is HIGHLY likely they never will.
What is remarkable is that you think manufacturers are going to
support ATSC and ATSC M/H in future mobile devices.
But it also means that in many areas, LTE broadcasting WILL work
inside the home, and "may not" have the same cost per bit as the
telco LTE services.
You mean, just like very often you can receive ATSC indoors?
No. Not like ATSC indoors. yes this is possible in many areas, but it
is irrelevant. It is a standard that is going to be replaced, and the
only way it can work with the devices people are buying is via an
ATSC dongle.
Fine, but as I said repeated times, this LTE scheme won't be a FOTA solution.
You "might be right," but for the sake of the future of broadcast TV,
I certainly hope you are wrong. There is NO reason why LTE broadcast
CANNOT WORK for broadcasters, ESPECIALLY in areas with higher
population densities. And it may even work with higher power levels
in rural areas on bigger sticks.
And it is also unlikely to be an "unwalled" solution. In order to
keep such a scheme viable, you need a fleet of trucks out there
tweaking the system all of the time. And there's no way that an
individual broadcaster is going to deploy such a scheme over his
individual 6 MHz band (never mind that LTE uses 20 MHz or wider
channels). So, you pay a price for going this route. **You are
simply inventing a new umbilical service, where ATSC does not need
one**. Hardly ground-breaking, Craig!
We are already taking the first steps toward a "utility" approach to
broadcast RF infrastructure. When the spectrum buy back is finished,
many existing stations are going to opt to become ATSC sub-channels
using the spectrum of other broadcasters. When ATSC 2.0 is finished
you are likely to see an entirely different approach to market
coverage, where local broadcasters pool their spectrum to effectively
utilize LTE broadcast. As foor the fleet of trucks and cell sites...
They already exist. The mobile broadband industry ALREADY shares
sites among multiple carriers and uses third party service companies
to maintain the networks. There is NO reason that broadcasters cannot
leverage this infrastructure unless they are so arrogant that they
think they can do it on their own, or worse, they just update the big
stick model with newer codecs and receivers.
And it is entirely feasible that a cheap box with a simple antenna
will be able to receive the broadcasts in more challenging areas,
and put these bits on the home's WiFi network.
It is just as feasible that a cheap box can be used to receive ATSC
broadcasts in challenging areas, and distribute the signal indoors
via WiFi or 60 GHz schemes. My WiFi provides bit rates that
typically range from 180 to 270 Mb/s (subject to the vagaries of
MIMO). Plenty adequate to rebroadcast several ATSC multiplexes
simultaneously. And faster versions of 802.11 are on the way. The
advantage being, NO NEED for the new umbilical LTE infrastructure.
Sorry Bert, but ATSC is not a viable approach moving forward. You do
not need to beleive me. Take another look at what Mark Aitken posted.
Disagree. First of all, local broadcasters will have to deal with
this new LTE umbilical service. Just as they now have to deal with
ISPs and MVPDs, to provide access to content in your home. And
secondly, since you are postulating an LTE infrastructure ONLY used
for TV broadcasting, my contention is, it will be funded exactly the
same way as MVPDs are! What's the difference? Retrans consent or
must carry, and local broadcasters still in the distribution path
for conglom content.
There is a huge difference between sharing carriage costs across a
utility, and demanding payment for content being offered by
competitors. The larger issue here may be whether the media
conglomerate are willing to keep the market based OTA broadcast model
alive. They can just as easily pay the telcoms to deliver their bits,
as they are doing today, paying Internet bandwidth providers to
provision the streaming video services from their websites.
At least, if the actual Internet is used, you're giving the congloms
a way to bypass local broadcasters. It's a more flexible system. If
you rope off LTE spectrum just to create an isolated TV broadcasting
utility, you're back to an MVPD that happens to use an RF instead of
a fiberoptic infrastructure.
That all depends on how good the broadcasters are at using their
spectrum for negotiating leverage. Remember, broadcasters are already
paying out huge amounts to operate their ATSC transmission
facilities. Nothing is free.
Broadcasters already have an RF system they can AND DO use, that can
do the same. There's no need to invent anything new.
The current broadcast RF system cannot do what you are saying.
Again, look up Vcast, Craig. Broadcasters do make their signals
available over 3G, today. All you are suggesting is that this
service be provided over a roped-off part of the spectrum, not
shared with other 2-way services.
You mean the Verizon walled garden for media content?
Like Flo, this is going nowhere, OTHER THAN providing the proof of
concept that you can use 3G EVO to deliver content to mobile devices.
I would agree however, that if broadcasters DO NOT get their act
together soon, the telcos WILL use some of their spectrum for (paid)
LTE broadcasts. It is up to the broadcasters to use their spectrum to
develop a service that people actually want, delivering content to
the devices they are already using.
Not very exciting!
True. But very threatening!
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:
