[opendtv] Re: Qualcomm
- From: Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:51:09 -0500
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
I asked if they
> would have watched live TV during such a trip. The answer was quite
> revealing. The answer would be yes, IF the transmission system does
> not suffer from the same local availability as radio, which forces
> constant re-tuning, with no guarantee of program continuity as you
> move from market to market. This suggests that a mobile DBS receiver
> might be well accepted, if the technology can deliver signals
> reliably. But a national system does nothing to deal with the real
> need for local information when mobile. perhaps there will be
> overlays of national and local...
While local content is needed I have never understood why it is needed
by every single channel. In many ways it would make more sense to have
a few national channels that make no pretense of being local and let
people switch to a local channel when they really want local. Then we
can find out which one really gets watched most of the time. I realize
there are politics involved but it might be a useful experiment.
An interesting but impossible twist on this might be a single national
channel that carried ALL the big 4-6 networks in SDTV. With a modern
codec that could probably be done very nicely on a single ATSC or COFDM
or satellite channel. And if your car had a PVR with a cheap 250 GB
hard drive in it you could constantly cache the entire most recent 24
hours of ALL national network channels (in SDTV) plus a few saved shows.
Of course to do this would likely be illegal, immoral, and impossible
to negotiate for various reasons. But the technology is probably not
what's stopping it.
- Tom
>>At 6:02 PM -0500 11/10/04, Kon Wilms wrote:
>>
>>You're waving your hands and speaking in exactly the same way as those
>>'failed' businesses -- local caching, receiver modules, targeting,
>>off-peak hours, content franchises, sports. None of this is rocket
>>science. Its all been tried (I say tried since noone succeeded) before.
>>And consumers *dont care* about the technology. The only care about the
>>content. So whats the content going to be, and who will provide it, and
>>how will it be so killer for me as a consumer that I will pay a premium
>>for this service as well as the half-brick receiver needed to watch it?
>
>
> You continue to think of this as a TV service. I think of it as a
> data broadcast service that also can deliver audio and video streams.
>
> Obviously people DO want information when they are mobile. Radio is
> still thriving. PDAs are increasingly making all kinds of data
> available to mobile users. And Road Warriors can't wait to connect to
> broadband services in airports and hotel rooms (not to mention
> watching DVD movies on their laptops).
>
> I will be the first to agree that most people are not going to watch
> a cached sitcom while riding the commuter train or bus to work. Most
> people don't even watch this stuff anymore...at anytime.
>
> I strongly suspect that the primary use of the new Qualcom network
> will be the delivery of highly targeted subscription-based services.
> If you are an NBA freak, then you may subscribe to a service that
> will let you listen to games, see highlight clips, etc. If you are
> wondering where this content will come from, just look to the source.
> The Sports franchises are very careful about segmenting the rights to
> their products. They ALREADY offer a wide range of "data" services
> via the Internet, and it is a very small leap to delivering these
> bits via a subscriber-based data broadcast network.
>
> Likewise, people on the move will need directory services, especially
> when they are away from their home markets. These services may well
> incorporate audio and video, as they do now on the web.
>
> The fact that all of these pieces have not been put together in a
> successful venture...yet, does not invalidate the concepts. It says
> more about what is practical, and at WHAT price. You did not see many
> PVRs when hard disk storage cost $1 a megabyte; things broke loose
> when the cost came down to $1 a gigabyte.
>
> And then there is the reality that many entrenched industries are
> working overtime to blunt the new competition that technology-based
> disintermediation is causing. I noted that Ted Turner understands
> just how much control the entrenched media are exerting over the
> Internet.
>
>
>
>>I'll put it like this - I am a gadget freak, I have tons of gadgets at
>>home, some useless and some useful. Convince me why I would be
>>interested in this product.
>
>
> I'm not certain that the phone handset, or the "half-brick" receiver
> are the real end-game here.
>
> They are just one potential venue for mobile data. Vehicles are a
> much better venue in my estimation for several reasons.
>
> First, we spend so much time in them. In a recent message I described
> the Car Theater system my daughter and her boyfriend have created.
> Her mom and grandfather were entertained Sunday with The Stepford
> Wives, during a five hour trip back from Alabama. I asked if they
> would have watched live TV during such a trip. The answer was quite
> revealing. The answer would be yes, IF the transmission system does
> not suffer from the same local availability as radio, which forces
> constant re-tuning, with no guarantee of program continuity as you
> move from market to market. This suggests that a mobile DBS receiver
> might be well accepted, if the technology can deliver signals
> reliably. But a national system does nothing to deal with the real
> need for local information when mobile. perhaps there will be
> overlays of national and local...
>
> Second, we do a great deal of shopping while mobile - you have to
> drive (or walk) to those brick and mortar stores. The availability of
> high quality directory information when mobile could be a very
> important part of commerce in the future.
>
> The ability to cache all kinds of information in a vehicle is going
> to happen soon. Couple this with a decent display (that can be
> viewed when the vehicle is NOT moving ) and you can do many things
> that can be fed by a data broadcast system.
>
> Vehicles have the space and power to accommodate a well designed
> mobile reception system. You can install a good diversity antenna,
> and run components that could never be used in a battery powered,
> hand-held brick.
>
> Next, you have notebook PCs. Everything is already there, except for
> the receiver, which can easily be integrated, or added on with a
> small module. This is much more important to me than a TV receiver in
> my phone.
>
> Now here is a question for you.
>
> Friday afternoon at about 3pm ET, the Judge in the Peterson case
> announced that the verdict would be read at 4pm ET. I have heard that
> a huge portion of the population managed to tune into this
> announcement. Some listened to a TV news network. Some listened on
> the radio.
>
> Now ask yourself this. If you received an alert that this would
> happen, and the ONLY device you had available to tune in was you
> phone, would you not listen?
>
>
>
>>And what bits might that be? What exactly can I do with a phone
>>*visually* while I am driving, for example? Nothing.
>
>
> Aside from the possibility of projecting video on the windshield, I
> would agree that watching video while driving may not be desirable.
> But driving is only one aspect of mobility, and as I have already
> suggested, the vehicle as a venue of information and entertainment is
> ALREADY a huge market. It would be very unfair to say that your
> cellphone is useless if you are outside of your vehicle.
>
>
>>I'm sure this will forge ahead but like I put it before -- you need a. a
>>killer device and b. a killer service. Just having a killer network
>>doesn't buy you anything except a guarantee that you will have no viewers.
>
>
> To rephrase slightly, you need:
>
> a. A range of devices that work in mobile and portable venues;
> b. A range of services that people want and will pay for;
> c. A variety of networks that provide seamless access to the services
> people want, on the devices that are using at any point in time.
>
> If you are looking for the killer app or a breakthrough device you
> will miss the big picture. This is about the proliferation of things
> we are already doing across multiple platforms, so that we can access
> the bits we want, anywhere, anytime.
>
> 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.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
