[opendtv] Re: B&C: Pai Pans ATSC 3.0 Framework Critics
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 01:45:54 -0500
On Nov 10, 2017, at 9:26 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Problem is, BOTH sides are confused. Neither one makes convincing arguments.
It is legitimate for people to be concerned, if the government is forcing
them to shell out dollars, for something they don't think they need. Last
time around, the FCC had a good reason for insisting on DTV, because they
needed that 700 MHz spectrum for cellular service. This time, there is no
legitimate excuse like that. So it's perfectly reasonable for people to
wonder why the government is getting in bed with certain special interests.
You are very confused.
The government IS NOT getting in bed with the ATSC special interests this time
Bert.
Clearly with ATSC 1.0 the government not only got in bed with the ATSC, they
forced everyone to pay the royalties if they bought a new “TV.”
Yes, the government recovered the 700 MHz spectrum, but it took more than two
decades from the time that the Advisory Committee was created (1987) until NTSC
was finally turned off in 2009.
The whole point of the ACATS process was to delay the recovery of “TV Spectrum”
for land mobile. It succeeded beyond the NAB’s wildest dreams. The only
downside was that broadcasters actually had to deploy the ATSC standard, and
simulcast during the transition. The huge upside was the receiver mandate,
which enriched the patent holders - most of which were TV manufacturers. As a
result, consumers were forced to buy ATSC receivers, the vast majority of which
have never been used.
This time it is clear there will be no mandate. What is far from clear is
whether there are any broadcasters - other than Sinclair - who actually want to
go through another transition. If they cannot make more money with ATSC 3.0,
why bother?
The questions about retrans consent are highly relevant. If a broadcaster can
use retrans consent to force cable systems to carry more content, they can
force them to pay more too. For example, a broadcaster could offer a 4K version
of a program, force the cable system to carry it alongside the HD version, and
demand another $1/mo for the 4K signal.
The other point is that darned few of these exciting new ideas bandied about
require a totally incompatible new standard.
Correct. This has always been the case, as everything above the modulation and
transport layers is just application bits. But there is still an FCC mandate in
place for ATSC receivers in new TVs. Obviously a broadcaster could do something
as simple as using h.264 video encoding for its sub channels, while keeping the
primary channel fully compatible with ATSC 1.0 receivers.
This would likely wind up with the same “noise level,” as some idiot would tell
everyone they need to buy another new TV.
This is the very substantial downside of relying on regulation, rather than
competition to drive innovation. Somehow, Netflix has managed to snag a huge
percentage of U.S. homes with a streaming service that DOES NOT WORK with HDTVs
and their mandated ATSC 1.0 tuners.
Yet, as we learned this week, Netflix worked with Anthony Wood to develop a
simple box to connect to the HDMI port on existing TVs. This little box allows
the TV to work with streams delivered via the Internet using h.264 video
encoding. By the time Wood’s first boxes were ready for market, Netflix figured
out they could work directly with TV manufacturers to provide a Netflix APP on
new smart TVs.
Bert may think that the folks at the FCC do not understand this - frankly I’m
not sure that the Democrats sitting on the Commission DO. But it is very clear
that Pi’s does.
Immersive sound can be broadcast alongside the current Dolby digital sound,
even starting tomorrow, with minimal extra bandwidth (in case anyone can make
effective use of it at home, which is doubtful). Yeah, 4K would require more
room, but no problem transmitting 4K and H.265 compression, over ATSC 1.0,
alongside the existing streams. And there is no problem at all providing
interactive content and video on demand either. None. I use TV VOD and
interactive content every day, and have for years, without having to beg for
a change to ATSC 1.0. The real problem is that today's FCC seems oblivious to
these facts. The real problem is that they can be wowed so easily.
Yes, it appears that the Democratic Commissioners are still living in the last
century...
In short, you have a digital scheme in place. Use it. Expand its feature set,
as you would do with any other digital standard.
There is more than ample history here Bert. The ATSC has created a litany of
add on standards for ATSC 1.0, none of which have seen any interest from
broadcasters. In fact, major features of the original base standard were
ignored.
So what we wound up with is a digital standard that allows broadcasters to
deliver multiple sub channels, which in turn allows broadcasters to force the
carriage of these sub-channels by the cable systems that must pay for these
signals too as part of their retrans consent deals.
Ironically, if the FCC had done what we asked in 1995 - adopt only the
modulation and transport layers of the standard, it is likely that what Bert
suggests above would have happened years ago.
And yes, the FCC is also unaware that a change in the OTA TV standard does
not mean that everyone must buy a new TV set. That too is incomprehensible,
but no more incomprehensible than the first issue.
Pai understands this. He said as much in his statement:
As to the "opponents" of that innovation, he said: "They dwell on the
challenges inherent in any technological transition instead of embracing the
benefits that innovation will bring.
The FCC did not mandate smart phones Bert. They were not even involved in the
standards for cellular beyond 2G, Yet billions of these phones have been
manufactured around the world.
The real problem is that monopolies have little reason to innovate. The media
conglomerates are just riding the “broadcast ship” down, drowning in all the
cash they are collecting via retrans consent.
Obviously this is the real problem with ATSC 3.0. Only the disrupters like
Sinclair have any reason to embrace another broadcast standard. The congloms
are embracing - and largely controlling - the migration of their content from
antennas to broadband.
If the FCC REALLY wanted to unleash the potential of broadcasters, it would
follow the lead of telco deregulation. Auction the broadcast spectrum, giving
incumbent broadcasters a credit for the spectrum they currently occupy, and let
those who want to pay for their spectrum compete.
Let ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, Sinclair, et al buy spectrum in EVERY market, and let
them work with TV manufacturers to build TVs and Roku style boxes for existing
TVs to whatever standard they can agree on. They would soon understand the
value of working together to develop and promote a new standard, and work out
sharing agreements (i.e. spectrum utilities) to use less spectrum more
efficiently.
BTW, it should be interesting to people that 5G wireless is looking to
so-called "non-orthogonal" modulation standards, one being FBMC, as these
rely heavily on equalizers. 5G is looking into this to eliminate the wasteful
guard interval of OFDM. So you know, the wind blows one way, and then another
way. I think if people were really interested in achieving more robustness
with ATSC 1.0, more can be done, without necessarily creating an incompatible
standard.
Why would you try to dress up a pig?
If you can’t compete with a smart phone that can seamlessly receive video
programs while driving down the Interstate, why bother?
The congloms understand this - that’s why they are more than content to stick
with ATSC 1.0 (without enhancements) until they shut down the service.
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:
