[opendtv] Re: 2013: The year of the OPEN DTV?
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 09:37:01 -0500
At 5:35 PM -0600 1/14/13, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
Aha! "The implementations." I can even agree with THAT, however that
has nothing to do with the standard. With an STB, new features CAN
be added to the standard, without having to go back to square 1. New
codecs, new error correction codes, even a new modulation scheme.
And TV sets can be built to be as extendable as any PC.
Gotta love it!
This from a guy who has spent the last decade+ ranting against the
use of set top boxes.
Which gets back to the root issue:
Why put the parts of a system that is going to evolve rapidly inside
an expensive display.
Clearly the solution is to add an external PC with apps designed to
deliver content to that expensive display.
;-)
Put it this way: How extendable is the "implementation" of your
typical tablet or smartphone? Very little. You toss them out. And
yet, they're Internet devices. So, when you guys complained to the
ATSC about their standard being un-extendable, and how "extendable"
IP was, you totally confused the issue. (Uncharitably, a bit like
trying to compare apples with oranges, without knowing the first
thing about oranges!!)
How many smart phones and tablets have you tossed out Bert?
I am currently using an iPhone 4 that is 2.5 years old. It runs every
app available for the iPhone 5 except SIRI, although it is relatively
easy to install a work around for this. The reason it is not
supported natively is processor speed - i.e. the end user experience
is not as good as on the faster 4S and 5. I still use my original 2G
iPhone all the time; it is now a very capable iPod Touch.
But Bert does have some valid points here...
The IP driven Internet evolved along similar lines, with new apps
emerging as network bandwidth and processor speeds improved. The big
difference is that almost all of the IP stack (and applications) are
software based; older systems may run slower, but in general they do
not fail.
What we have seen in the PC space is a huge slowdown in the
replacement cycle - the machines are fast enough to handle what
people do for five years or more, even as the underlying technology
evolves. Please note that the "netbook" was supposed to be the PC for
the masses - no need for the fastest processor or best screen, as the
base PC is "good enough."
A couple of interesting asides.
1. Last week I had to move a phone outlet in a home where we rebuilt
a block wall to accommodate a much larger window. What should have
been a simple job took 2.5 hours because of non standard construction
technique - horizontal lathing strips that had to be exposed and cut
to drop the wire. All this to plug in a legacy wireline phone.
2. I was crawling around in an attic yesterday in preparation for the
installation of a bunch of recessed lighting fixtures for my in-laws.
I kept crawling over Cable TV coax wires, not unlike the antenna
wires coming out of Bert's chimney.
I am about to buy my first tablet - with it I will be able to make
Facetime video phone calls and watch TV via any of the web sites that
Bert keeps promoting - note that this requires my cable username and
password. But it all just works since I have a wireless router for my
broadband service.
Just sayin'
Did you ever try to push a Flash video to your iPhone or AppleTV?
No. Why would I want to?
I never see those question marks in place of a video player anymore
because the Internet community quickly embraced new technologies that
made this a non-issue. It is worth noting that FLASH is still out
there, although even Adobe is now moving to HTML5 and h.264. What is
important is that it has been a relatively transparent transition for
consumers.
That doesn't work either. And yet they are Internet appliances. Did
you ever try to use your iPhone over an LTE network? That doesn't
work either. Toss it out.
Bert raises an interesting parallel issue here - RF standards for
wireless Telco networks versus RF standards for broadcasters. The
issues are VERY much the same.
Telco standards are evolving very rapidly - from analog to digital
voice to VOIP, from 2G to 3G to 4G and LTE for data. In the U.S. the
telcos chose to drive this evolution rapidly by subsidizing the
phones via the service contract. Many of these phones were designed
to be useful for only a few years with the expectation that they
would be replaced with new phones that ride on the bleeding edge of
the evolving standards.
To be certain, there is a cost involved in this strategy. But not all
old phones get tossed. There is a thriving business in used phones,
especially the better designed smart phones like the iPhone, and some
Android phones. If I decide that I want to upgrade to an iPhone 5
with LTE, I can trade in or sell my iPhone 4 for about $110; I can
sell it for more on Craig's list. For now I will wait until AT&T
actually deploys LTE in Florida. What you see here is a strategy that
encourages innovation and upgrades.
Where is that strategy with respect to DTV broadcasts?
The answer is that the congloms in the content and distribution
business decided to lock down the technical standards to drive the
cost of the receivers to commodity levels. But they ALSO "encourage"
consumers to enter into subscriptions to access the most desirable
content live. But the revenues from these subscriptions enrich the
content creators and sports franchises. Instead of throw away phones
we get throw away content and a bunch of actors and athletes that
live by a different set of rules that the rest of us.
The good news is we are approaching an economic tipping point for
everyone. Phones are good enough to be useful far beyond the end of a
two year contract, and TV subscriptions are getting so costly that it
is now possible to pay directly for much of the content we want.
Wonder if Bert noticed that the TV guide site he posted had links to
CBS (free) and iTunes $1.99.
The consumer can now decide whether to pay to avoid the commercials
or subscribe to an expensive MVPD package. Or to hook a PC up to the
TV until they figure out how to shut it down without a subscription.
Here's the thing. As the last mile connection to individual
homes approaches the aggregate bandwidth available in the
broadcast medium, you really have to start wondering why you
need that broadcast medium, yes?
No. This assumes that people ONLY need TV bits delivered via
wired networks.
4G, anyone? If the last mile connection of two-way networks becomes
just about as fast as the aggregate of the one-way broadcast
infrastructure, it should give people pause.
Clearly this does raise some interesting issues about the next
generation TV RF standard.
But it is equally clear that this is an Apple and Oranges discussion.
Those 4G bits will cost you; unless the cost per bit from the 4G
networks drops several orders of magnitude, this will not be a viable
alternative to cable, DBS and broadcast TV.
On the other hand, if the next TV RF standard ALSO uses LTE, there
will be a huge audience of mobile devices ready to receive those
Free-To-Air bits. But more important, the broadcast bandwidth will be
used far more efficiently in terms of serving a mass audience, AND
optimizing the TV transmission network to deliver the desired bits
where the people are. IP multicast can do much the same for wired
networks, but you will still be paying for those bits.
In short:
1. A non-extendable IMPLEMENTATION does not mean the standard is
non-extendable.
2. Some Internet appliances are every bit as "non-extendable" as ATSC TV sets.
This from the guy who is critical of the CE industry for not putting
PC capabilities in every TV...
As for Internet Appliances, choose wisely, not cheaply! You get what
you pay for.
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:
