[opendtv] Re: Point-Counterpoint: Peter Tannenwald Responds To The Chairman : CommLawBlog

  • From: Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 15:45:45 -0500

Craig Birkmaier wrote:
 
> There is no way to interpret this as unicasting Bert; that is what
> peter says is the problem. He IS talking about periodically sending
> content to local cache using a carousel as you describe.
 
I guess I always wonder how far back in history I have to go so we can stop 
having to restate the obvious.
 
Again, there is nothing new there, Craig. Everyone knows that, to a point, 
broadcast can more efficiently send audio and video content out to millions, as 
opposed to unicast. Everyone knows that local storage can allow consumers to 
view that broadcast content any time they want. And everyone also knows that 
there is also content that only few might want, and that is more efficiently 
send over unicast.
 
For example, if only five people in your town want to receive a particular 
program stream, does it make sense to tie up a broadcast channel for that 
stream? Or would it be better to tie up only that amount of spectrum in no more 
than five small cells of the two-way cell network? Same question when Tom wants 
to have a conversation with Sally. Do we tie up a broadcast channel for that? 
No, of course not.
 
Furthermore, broadcasting data files, as opposed to streaming media, over a 
one-way infrastructure reduces some of that efficiency you get with broadcast. 
Because it requires some sort of data carousel.
 
There's nothing new in any of this, Craig. These are *all* well know concepts.
 
Furthermore, there is no issue of "1st decade technology." It's simply false to 
state that every user's request generates a new stream. This is the case ONLY 
in the two-way networks we have (wired or wireless). It is NOT true when I turn 
on my PVR, for example, it is NOT true when an MVPD subscriber tunes to Channel 
5 TV, it is NOT true when I tune in Channel 5 over ATSC either.
 
So what is this supposed limitation of 1st decade technology?
 
For OTA one-way broadcast, we have a perfectly viable technology now, that is 
considerably more efficient than the two-way wireless networks, when the metric 
used is strictly b/s/Hz. Obviously, it's not as efficient if you want to make a 
telephone call! This is ATSC. For that one-way OTA broadcast mission, it's not 
hampering anything. Similarly, there is the one-way broadcast standard used in 
wired MVPD networks, very similar to ATSC.
 
> The real issue is spectral reuse in congested areas, where SFN's
> can be used to increase spectral reuse and to tightly define
> local markets.
 
No. As we have already gone over ad nauseam, if you are limited to 
single-market broadcasting, and you need to achieve continuous coverage between 
markets, SFNs buy you essentially nothing. If anything, they reduce spectral 
effifiency, because of the need for the large GIs that is not required if using 
one big stick, even when supplemented by gap fillers.
 
So as I said, there is nothing new in any of this.
 
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: