[opendtv] Re: OTA
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 09:51:34 -0400
At 3:28 PM -0500 3/15/12, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
Well, for sure, if broadcasters develop a new scheme that is
incompatible with ATSC 1.0, what they're calling ATSC 3.0 these
days, no question that the compression algorithm should be changed.
But in that case, since this won't happen for a few years still, I'd
certainly aim beyond H.264!! If I were designing this ATSC 3.0
starting today, I'd be specifying H.265. By the time the standard is
ratified, vendors will have gotten serious with hardware
accelerators and all the rest. And the new standard may accelerate
the process.
Well, we got you on the right track finally. I thought it was being
called ATSC 2.0 but it really does not matter. What matters is that
it is capable of delivering content to fixed and mobile screens in a
manner that is compatible with emerging industry standards that are
being used on the most popular devices.
I've already covered that, multiple times. Mark Aitken's plan is to
make use of the multicast/broadcast optional feature of LTE (which
has not yet been fully developed in LTE, last I saw on this), and
also to provide some two-way service, over the medium. And I already
pointed out several times that the local broadcasters are ALREADY
providing on-demand access to THEIR OWN content, over the Internet.
Nothing new to develop here. At most, local broadcasters can also
use this new LTE infrastructure for that local on-demand content.
If they do nothing more than they are doing today broadcasting will die.
Clearly there is a need for local content, especially news and public
affairs. The question is whether this is enough for broadcasters to
survive.
You seem to think that the media conglomerates are going to stay with
local broadcasters into the future; but then you say that the
congloms can bypass local broadcasters via the Internet. Depending on
the congloms for content is not something you want to base a new
business model on. On the other hand, if broadcasters do build the
infrastructure to reach mobile devices using LTE broadcast, they may
find many customers.
The point I was trying to make is that the TV business is
bifurcating. It is no longer necessary to schedule an appointment
with your TV to watch most of what broadcasters deliver. The ONLY
content that gets people to watch TV at a specific time today is live
sporting events and a handful of live reality shows.
LTE broadcast of live sports has huge potential - the real issue is
who will have the rights to deliver these bits. The congloms may
still spend a small fortune for rights packages, but it is becomming
very obvious that the rights for fixed screens and the rights for
mobile devices will likely be negotiated as separate packages. IF the
leagues can use LTE broadcast to reach the mobile market, they could
keep broadcasting viable as a paid carriage service.
I've also pointed out that the congloms ALREADY provide on-demand
access to most, unfortunately not quite all, of their FOTA content,
over the Internet, bypassing the local broadcasters.
Yup... the congloms no longer need broadcasters - they just want the
profits the broadcasters are making off of popular content.
So really, your ideas about this new on-demand TV are nothing new.
When the wireless telcos deploy 4G, they do so specifically to
facilitate the sending of streaming media to mobile devices.
Honestly, what extra role a broadcaster-developed, separate LTE
infrastructure would play, is, and has been, a bit of a mystery to
me. The wireless telcos will be filling that function, unless
broadcasters deliberately block them out (which would be a change
from what's out there now).
Why is this a mystery?
Yes, some of the bits that will be delivered via 4G networks will be
traditional TV content. But frankly, I doubt this is going to amount
to a large percentage of what these networks are used for. If people
want to watch program length TV shows and movies on a mobile screen
like an iPAD, it is far more likely they will download the content to
the device via "uncapped" wired/WiFi networks, than burning up
expensive bits on their "capped" wireless contracts.
The major attraction for mobile TV usage will be to watch live events
when you are not able to connect to the wired Internet. And here,
demands on the spectrum provide a clear advantage to Broadcast LTE
over traditional two-way data links.
So the only real issue here is whether broadcasters will build this
infrastructure or let the telcos do it. OR, if they both do it and
compete (I find this unlikely).
Yes, and you can also try to keep selling buggy whips, Craig. My
main message is, if you go with this separate broadcaster-developed
LTE utility, instead of retaining the current un-walled broadcaster
model where multiple OTA broadcasters are on the air in each market,
I have to question what role the vast majority of local broadcasters
will have to play.
This is not about buggy whips Bert, unless you are talking about ATSC
1.0, which is going away.
Moving to a shared spectrum utility does not change the fundamentals
of the broadcast business. A broadcast license is THE MOST valuable
asset that a broadcasters has. In larger markets you are NOT going to
see the top 4-5 broadcasters take the money and run. They understand
the value of this (nearly free) spectrum and the advantage they have
over the telcos, who are spending billions to get more spectrum. The
challenge is to develop a business model for this spectrum that will
be viable in the long haul.
And by the way, broadcasting is part of the largest WALL GARDEN in
the world. The small percentage of homes that use the FOTA service
represents only a trickle of the total economic value of
broadcasting. And these laggards still count towards their ratings -
actually them may make up a large percentage of the audience, as is
the case for PBS stations. It is the "buck a month" from every MVPD
subscriber that is keeping broadcasters viable today, although this
business model is probably not sustainable in the future either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
