[opendtv] Re: Twang's Tuesday Tribune (Mark's Monday Memo)

Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>At 9:43 AM -0700 4/27/04, John Willkie wrote:
>>You're dancing around the question, and I won't let you confuse anyone.
>
>Seems that you are the the source of much of the confusion. i have 
>been detailing the concepts I am talking about here for YEARS. There 
>is nothing difficult to understand about these concepts.  You simply 
>choose to brand them as being irrelevant. We disagree.
>

Concepts?  I tend to think about services.  I suspect that the market
disagrees with your concepts, and has done so resoundingly for YEARS.  How
you gonna turn that around?

>>
>>Who cares how many radio services are just audio tracks?  The question
is:
>>how can I find out what is going on?  Is there a news station available? 
Is
>>this an engineering exercise, or just more canards?
>
>Fine. We seem to agree that people who are away from the fixed TVs in 
>their homes are interested in news and other local information.  I 
>have proposed that these services be delivered via a single digital 
>broadcast service that is NOT differentiated as TV and Radio 
>broadcasting are today.
>

How's that working for you?

>This service will broadcast bits to local markets; the service 
>provider will be tasked with providing reliable service to a high 
>percentage of sites within the area define by that market (above 95% 
>of all sites). This will be accomplished using Single Frequency 
>Networks  with a small number of synchronous main transmitters and 
>repeaters to fill in the gaps. This service will provide an adequate 
>link budget to enable reception using indoor antennas, and simple 
>dipoles for portable and mobile receivers in the core market areas - 
>i.e. within this core a receiver is likely to see multiple main 
>transmitters. Away from the core market it may be necessary to use a 
>simple directional antenna which may need to be outside a dwelling to 
>improve the link margin.

I don't tune into technology:  I consume content.  How much content will
there be available in my lifetime the way you want it delivered?  More than
one byte?


>
>To further facilitate efficient spectral re-use, the system will be 
>adaptable on the fly. Service constellations may change with day 
>parts to provide more robust bits when people are on the move, and 
>higher bitrates when people are home, viewing fixed receivers. The 
>segmenting of services will be dynamic, based on market driven 
>requirements.
>

Wow!  This must be selling like gangbusters!

>The service will deliver broadcast bits to the masses. Those bits can 
>represent ANY kind of digital media: TV, Radio, Web pages, 
>directories...anything. Content providers will pay the utility to 
>deliver their bits using service parameters appropriate for their 
>application. The marketplace will determine the allocation of bits to 
>various services and the parameters used for those services. This 
>will take place on a dynamic basis based on marketplace demands.
>

The marketplace has spoken, at least for the time being:  you are allocated
zero bits.  How you gonna turn that around?  Get the FCC to allocate more
bits?

>We can argue until we are blue in the face about what services are 
>appropriate and where. Frankly, that too should be left for the 
>marketplace to decide. If the infrastructure is built properly it 
>will be possible to serve fixed receivers with low complexity 
>antennas, portable receivers with self contained antennas, and mobile 
>receivers, perhaps with somewhat more complex antennas, if necessary.
>

I want new services, and I want them now.  I won't argue with you about
this, unless you are a service provider and I'm having problem with your
services.  Rather than argue, I chose to innovate, and talk to the "likely
parties."


>Existing users of the spectrum will be protected for a period of 
>time, and compensated for any infrastructure that is acquired by the 
>utility in that region. But they will not be protected from new 
>competitors using the new digital broadcast service. The marketplace 
>will decide which services succeed and which die.
>

I suspect that existing "users" (actually there are transmitters and
receivers, but you cloud that into users) will be protected from these ideas
and thin concepts for many decades to come.

There will be more competitors in broadcasting -- particulary DTV -- in
coming years, per the FCC.

We can agree the marketplace will decide which services succeed and which
die, but I don't see the path for your services to even be tested, let alone
make it into the marketplace.  How are you going to turn that around?
>
>
>>Please describe the business and consumer model for delivering tv to
"kinds"
>>in backseats, and please describe why this content should be distributed
>>(I'll make it easy for you) over a whole metropolitan area.  I'm
>>particularly interested in why the kids need information fresher than
that
>>which could have been placed in the vehicle at the start of the journey.
>
>I've done this MANY times. There is a market for the consumption of 
>digital media in vehicles. Car theater systems are selling VERY well. 
>Many vehicles have PS2 and X-boxes. And many vehicles  now have 
>information displays with data bases of maps and other information. I 
>have even ridden in cabs with interactive information displays.
>

You've avoided the question:  LIVE TRANSMISSION has NOTHING to do with what
you say above. How do you get from your hype of "car theater systems" to
LIVE COMMERCIAL TV or video?  TV is live/one way/cold; the other
services/system you mention are dead/interactive/hot.  You seem to confuse
apples when trying to explain -- or avoid explaining -- the markets for
oranges.

>Rather than challenging the reality that there is a market for 
>digital media in mobile applications, perhaps you would be better off 
>thinking about the applications that could be enabled if a digital 
>broadcast system could deliver bits reliably to mobile receivers. We 
>are not talking just about traditional TV and Radio.
>

I think about this all the time, but I see a disconnect when I apply the
technologies of broadcast against your model.  I suspect I'm not alone.

>Here in North Florida, it is likely that Disney, Universal, Busch 
>Gardens, et al would buy bits to promote their theme parks. They 
>already have networks of low power radio transmitters along I-75 and 
>I-95 to do just that.  Now imagine an interactive service that would 
>allow vehicle occupants (other than the driver) to explore these 
>attractions, using audio, video , graphics and other forms of digital 
>media.
>

If "it is likely" how come they have not?  And the vehicle occupants other
than driver is a very small market, except on the Disneyworld access roads: 
the AVERAGE car in the U.S. has 1.28 occupants, down from 1.4 in 1976.   Not
a good trend for you, perhaps another one to ignore?

>How about a service that would provide travelers with guides to 
>services available along the interstates. As you move from market to 
>market these guides would be updated with information about the 
>region you are driving through. These guides could provide real-time 
>info on hotel availability, restaurants, attractions, etc. Coupled 
>with a two way telecommunications service it would be possible to 
>book reservations, and place orders ahead for the drive through 
>restaurant  at the next exit.
>

Sounds like the internet.  Can't this already be done from one's motel room
the night before?  How many people do you know that blindly make big trips?

>I could go on and on...but I think this gets the idea across.
>

Perhaps as well as it can be done.  Let me know when you make your first
sale.

John Willkie
>
>>
>>I AM LOOKING AT THE FUTURE.  You talk about services that have no
consumer
>>desire, answer no consumer need, have no service model, have no technical
>>model, have no business model, and you tell me that's the future.
>
>Rubbish. I have defined the service model. Most of the applications 
>exist today, but in form factors that are outdated. I would prefer to 
>access directory services electronically, no matter where I am. A 
>printed yellow pages is an archaic way to facilitate local commerce. 
>A digital broadcast infrastructure could deliver newspapers, 
>magazines, and directories to fixed, portable and mobile devices, and 
>keep these service updated dynamically.
>
>The stuff I am proposing will happen. It is just a question of how and
when.
>
>>YOU'RE WRONG!
>
>
>Perhaps.
>
>Then again, you may just have your head in the sand.
>
>Broadcasters are holding onto a legacy. A historically lucrative 
>legacy to be sure. They have NO incentive to change as long as the 
>government protects their exclusive franchise. There will be no real 
>competition and evolution will be frustrated, as long as the 
>politicians and their franchisees are able to control access to the 
>markets they serve.
>
>>
>>If it's all about technology, we'd be watching CBS sequential video these
>>days, and watching old programs using EVR (CBS's 1968-1969 technological
>>improvement to put TV shows on super-8 film.)
>
>It has NEVER been about technology. Technology FOLLOW applications 
>and market. Technology can, however, enable new services. Thus the 
>control of technical evolution CAN be used to frustrate innovation 
>and evolution. THIS IS CERTAINLY TRUE FOR BROADCASTERS, both the TV 
>and radio types. The Technology has blown past them - they exist 
>today because of the exclusive nature of their historic franchises. 
>Why should radio broadcasters care about competition from satellite 
>radio? Why should it NOT be possible to view Televisoon content from 
>ANY market in any market? The answers are political, not technical.
>
>>
>>And, if it's not driven by PSIP, amigo, just HOW THE HELL WILL POTENTIAL
>>VIEWERS KNOW ABOUT THIS LIVE CONTENT?  Will the "breaking news" items be
>>listed in the newspaper at the curb when the family leaves home?
>
>Obviously any digital broadcast service needs to have guides. Is PSIP 
>the answer? Perhaps. But it is a proprietary solution designed by 
>committee for broadcasters. IT is not used by Cable. It is not used 
>by DBS. It is not used on the Internet.
>
>In a world where virtually ALL networks are interconnected, it is the 
>linkage between networks that really matters. Some of the best guides 
>to HDTV programming exist on the Internet today; this is probably a 
>direct result of the fact that hardly anyone is actually receiving 
>off-air signals and the PSIP information they contain. And it is 
>partially the result of the fact that broadcasters are not committing 
>resources to make DTV work; the viability and reliability of PSIP 
>information is a joke in many markets today.
>
>Bottom line, it is simply a matter of teaching a receiver what to 
>look for. It may pull information from the headers in the digital 
>broadcast bitstreams. It may pull information from the guides 
>broadcast by that service. It may pull information from web based 
>guides or from web based service providers who buy bits from the 
>local digital broadcast utility to reach their subscribers who are on 
>the move. Otr it could be an e-mail from a friend who turns you on to 
>a new service that they discovered.
>
>
>>Craig, and all cohorts:  it's a cinch showing the fallacy of your
>>pie-in-the-sky-is-falling arguments.  Hell, I'm being charitable calling
>>them arguments:  it's just gee-whiz fancy.
>>
>>"What if Atilla the Hun had B-52's?"
>
>Spoken from the perspective of one who is trying to help broadcasters 
>maintain the status quo with a digital broadcast infrastructure that 
>does not work reliably, even for the legacy service they are trying 
>to protect.
>
>I'll be happy to compare track records on the vision thing. I'm very 
>much on the record with hundreds of published articles over the past 
>two decades. I have delivered many papers to conferences describing 
>the future, in enough detail to go out and build it.
>
>Did you notice that Apple computer is VERY MUCH alive and well. Did 
>you notice that the relentless march of Moore's Law has now tamed the 
>HDTV beast? Everyone who attended NAB noticed.
>
>You are betting your future on the ability of a handful of dinosaurs 
>to preserve a dying legacy.
>
>Good luck!
>
>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: