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

At 11:35 AM -0700 4/28/04, jmwillkie@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
>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?

As long as they are just ideas on paper (or bits in the ether) they 
are concepts. When they are deployed they become services. A few of 
the concepts that I have helped to popularize are Digital media 
production on the "desktop," and  the PVR...

How to turn around the log jam we are stuck in is a VERY good 
question. You content that the market disagrees with these concepts. 
I contend that the big media oligopolies in partnership with their 
buddies in Washington are at fault. You cannot deploy services 
without a reliable infrastructure. Data broadcasting is a completely 
valid concept; Geocast, iBlast, et al have not been able to get the 
business off the ground for a few simple reasons:

1. The DTV transmission infrastructure is inadequate to support a 
commercial data broadcast service. And even if all stations were 
broadcasting at full licensed power, the percentage of sites where 
reliable service CANNOT be established is too high for a viable 
commercial launch.

2. Without a reliable infrastructure there is little incentive to 
develop the receivers necessary to launch such a service. You don't 
have to believe me...just ask Dewey.

The way to turn this Trojan Horse around is for broadcasters to agree 
that the current DTV transition is a path to nowhere. They need to 
identify the factors needed for OTA TV to compete effectively with 
the multi-channel services, then use their considerable lobbying 
power to convince Congress to get out of the way so that they can 
build an appropriate infrastructure and compete in a real 
marketplace. The good news is that at least some of the broadcasters 
are waking up to this reality.

>How's that working for you?

Based on discussions with MANY people at NAB, it appears that the 
value of my portfolio is appreciating.

>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?


The content already exists. The problem is that it is nearly 
impossible to get past the gatekeepers. And in case you had not 
noticed, the tools to create content have been democratized. By the 
way, what's the URL for "your" website...

>  >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 idea is very attractive to would be competitors of the media 
oligopoly. Needless to say, they are scared to death that what I 
propose might actually happen. here we are, 17 years after the 
broadcasters came up with this fabulous plan to keep the FCC from 
re-allocating their spectrum. As you know, ATSC receivers are selling 
like gangbusters. There is no reason to turn to the government for 
any help to move the DTV transition along...RIGHT?

With such a huge success, why would anyone need receiver mandates, 
cable must carry of multicasts, or a Bulls*#t Flag to protect the 
content that nobody is watching, much less interested in 
redistributing via the Internet that nobody uses...

RIGHT?

>
>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?

Since when are a hand full of powerful lobbyists with pockets full of 
money, and the politicians that they ply with this money the 
marketplace? Whoops, I forgot, this is the natural evolution of 
capitalism...

"To professionalize we must federalize."

>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?

By staying the course and educating the people who have the power to 
make it happen.

>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.

TV is what it is, and the powers to be want to keep it that way. When 
the advertisers find a better way to reach the masses the money will 
disappear, and the changes I am advocating will happen.

>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.


Glad to hear that you are at least thinking about this stuff. The 
world of digital media changed in VERY dramatic ways at this year's 
NAB. The vast majority of those who attended were unable to connect 
the dots. It is difficult to discard a lifetime of assumptions and 
experience that have suddenly been  rendered meaningless.

A decade ago the powers to be discounted the absurd notion that you 
could create broadcast quality video on a computer. A decade later, 
the computer has made the processing of HDTV bits affordable. More 
important, the proliferation of cheap IT technologies will make it 
easy to proliferate HDTV in many new applications that will dwarf the 
economic opportunities for HD in "broadcasting."

Better get your finger out of the dyke before it is washed away.

>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?

Because they cannot. It takes infrastructure. And it takes spectrum.

You can continue to delude yourself that there is no market for the 
delivery of bits to things that move.

Satellite Radio is clearly not a threat to terrestrial radio 
broadcasters...RIGHT.

You NEVER see someone using a cellphone in a car...RIGHT?

Nobody buys GPS receivers...RIGHT?

And GM is wasting investors money on those stupid OnStar ads...RIGHT?

Your right...delivering bits to things that move is absurd.

>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?

What I am talking about is the addition of another important network 
TO the Internet. How many people do you know who plan every minute of 
a trip.

"Let's look on the Internet to see where we can stop for gas and the 
2:30pm  bathroom break mom..."

"Dad, better get a move on it or we won't be at exit 256 at 12:35pm 
to pick up the Big Macs we ordered last night..."

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


Dittos.

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: