[opendtv] Re: Twang's Tuesday Tribune (Mark's Monday Memo)2004April20

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.

>
>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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.



>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.

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.

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.

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.

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


>
>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.

Other related posts: