Ther have been a number of attempts to address Cliff's question, and Bob has probably come closest to hitting the nail on the head.
There are several issues at play here:1. Spectral efficiency and its impact on the number of channel that can be assigned to each market.
2. The use of PVRs to deliver content to local cache during non peak hours.3. Changes in the basic nature of how content will be distributed in the future.
Currently, the DTV system design in the U.S. is very poor in terms of spectral efficiency. The use of high powered big sticks means that half or more of the spectrum in each market cannot be uses to protect adjacent markets. This is particularly severe where Cliff lives in the N.E. corridor. By moving to low powered SFNs we would gain two major benefits.
First every market would have the ability to use at least twenty 6 MHz channels, without concerns about interference to adjacent markets. It is worth noting that the 6 MHz channel assignments are arbitrary. With SFNs we might choose to move to 7 or 8 MHz channels, which would further improve spectral efficiency. Second, some of these channels could be used for sub markets, providing highly optimized services for each sub market.
Bottom line, we could easily design a system that could deliver the equivalent of extended basic cable - i.e. 50-60 real time streaming channels. And there would still be spectrum left over to support data broadcasting and other new services.
As Bob noted, we can push huge amounts of content to cache during off peak hours. It is important to note that the programming that fills many cable channels uses checker-boarding techniques to build audiences. That is, the same episode of a program is offered multiple times during any given month. This is an ideal situation for PVR caching, as you can still get the benefits of word of mouth promotion, after the first instance of a new program.
And this ties directly into the third point, which is that the whole notion of networks and channels is losing steam. Program adjacency is virtually meaningless today. The browser channels - the broadcast networks and their cable rerun networks - are no longer able to hold an audience with one blockbuster program. People surf these channels continuously. Ironically it is the highly targeted special interest channels that seem to be able to hold the audience today, primarily because the viewer has an interest in many of their programs. But these special interest channels can easily be delivered to cache.
We are moving into an era where people are looking for the content they want, not the content that is offered 24/7. This matched up well with an OTA data broadcast system that combines popular 24/7 channels that are streamed with a virtually unlimited amount of content that is pushed to cache. The most important aspect of this shift is that it may eliminate the gatekeeper control that the broadcasters and the media conglomerates now have over programming. If we were to shift to a utility model where everyone bid for access to the system, independent producers could offer a single program or series, without having to negotiate carriage with a gatekeeper, and split the revenues with them.
The other issue that was discussed is content control - i.e. censorship. This is easily dealt with using the utility model. The utility model can use encryption to deliver content that is either paid for, or restricted (i.e requires adult access control).
So bottom line, the spectrum CAN be used to compete with todays multichannel services. Cable and Telcos are most of the way there, as they offer streaming and data today. DBS is disadvantaged, as they would need fleets of spot beam satellites to deliver specific bits to specific markets and subscribers.
IF we used the spectrum properly, Free TV would flourish again, although the business model would be nothing like the network system we have today. More important, the spectrum would be used to deliver all kinds of services to all kinds of receivers ( fixed, portable and mobile).
This could happen in my lifetime, but I;m not counting on it. Regards Craig At 9:50 PM -0500 12/13/06, flyback1 wrote:
It occurred to me just now it might be time to ask a basic question.How many digital OTA television stations would have to built in Philadelphia or, if you wish, each and every market in the US to cover each market with all the same number of SD and HDprograms now available in those markets over cable or satellite?Is the FCC's allotment of channels market by market sufficient to accomplish such a task, or would there be adjacent and co-channel interference from one market into another, not to mentionwithin the same market that would stop the process cold?C'mon, somebody choose a market they are familiar with and tell me how many digital stations it would taketo provide all the channels available on cable or satellite.If it WERE technically possible, would it be economically feasible to attempt such a massive venture?No?If not, is it because cable and satellite are much more efficient technically and economically when providingseveral hundred channels some which interactive, to each customer?If digital OTA can't provide the wealth of programming that cable or satellite can in any given market, why are we wasting time and money with 8VSB, ATSC, arguing about it, searching for the grailof set top boxes,instead of holding a really great OTA WAKE with weeks of parties, lots of booze and hors derves,and finally, in the end, toppling over all the towers to protect the birds? Bob Miller wrote:On 12/13/06, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:> The article quotes an increase from 10M homes this year to 24Mhomes in four years going to HDTV. So guess what that says about OTA users?The number of OTA users will go up but the percentage of all with HD content will go down. When the dust settles it will be 2%. This will represent those who both want HD and only want to receive it OTA. A lot of people will want to receive TV OTA but that demand will be filled more and more by new broadcasters using other spectrum like channels above 51 and wireless broadband. Opps! Forgot, should include present TV spectrum below 51 also since WiFi and its cousins will be allowed to use that spectrum also with smart radios. Bob MillerTo be absolutely clear: these numbers refer households actually watching HDTV. Not just owning an HD-capable set. Bert ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.
