[opendtv] Broadcast and other topics

  • From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 00:54:20 +0000

Craig Birkmaier wrote:

Over twisted pair copper?

http://www.cnet.com/news/lowly-dsl-broadband-poised-for-gigabit-speed-boost/

Agree that they are moving to an all IP infrastructure. But they
will continue to deliver linear streaming channels for many years
to come.

None of this stuff happens exactly overnight. For one thing, you need to get
more "connected TVs" out there. The simple point is, though, that dedicating an
infrastructure to broadcast, or a chunk of spectrum of that infrastructure to
broadcast, is becoming just plain wasteful.

Once again, Craig, "live" does **not** automatically require
"broadcast."

Semantics.

Absolutely not! This is how these discussions become so aggravating. Educate
yourself, Craig. Read RFC 1112, as an initial primer on multicast. Then find
out why the only forms of "broadcast" in IPv4 are called "limited broadcast" or
"directed broadcast," and why IPv6 has no form of broadcast at all. The
broadcast domain in IPv4 is essentially limited to the span of an individual
subnet only, blocked by any edge router of that subnet.

It was set up this way for a reason, Craig. Again, once you have installed that
2-way medium, and you have multicast capability, there's no good excuse to keep
broadcast around. All your "live" content is much better either multicast, if
masses of people are watching it, or unicast.

[On the 17 "channels.] They were talking specifically about core
channels and all carte add-ons. I have no problems with calling
them sources, as each source will likely offer both a streaming
channel and access to their program library.

And beyond that, my bet is that in most cases, no one in that survey was
insisting that these 17 "sources" had to have the live streaming channel. For
example, my bet is that if some of the choices were streams such as HBO,
Showtime, HGTV, ABC Family, and similar, the responders were NOT insisting they
wanted by-appointment streams. They were merely listing content sources. So
between that, and the fact that multicast or unicast are far better than
broadcast, **once you have a 2-way medium in place**, there's simply no need to
go on with broadcast.

Now, read the blurbs about ATSC 3.0. The only way to do what they claim is with
a 2-way medium. So, why continue with broadcast?

Except broadcasters have perhaps 70 MHz in most major markets,
or more.

That certainly helps, but it would require pooling spectrum and
making a huge investment in infrastructure - i.e. creating a
broadcast spectrum utility.

You almost got it, until that last phrase. No broadcast anything. The
"broadcasters" would indeed have to pool their spectrum, to create a cellular
infrastructure. As I already said, either that, or the alternative is to make
heavy use of the Internet, via telco nets for instrance, in ATSC 3.0, and then
retain some actual broadcast spectrum for stuff that really must be live. And
my claim is, that last part will whither away to very little indeed, in due
course, as the luddites find out how much better TV can be. The 2-way Internet
nets will meet all of the missions of this ATSC 3.0, including handling any
rare live streams, and it will seem anachronistic to dedicate any spectrum to
broadcast. A waste.

Semantics again Bert. Broadcast becomes IP multicast - no
problem.

Big problem, actually, if you think that ATSC 3.0 can actually be a broadcast
medium, and still handle IP multicast efficiently. This is hardly just
semantics.

But to do what you suggest, broadcasters would become MVPDs,

I would *not* want to move backwards. What I suggest primarily is that
broadcasters would become OTT sites. Broadcasters continue with their current
role of delivering TV content to different markets, but they would do so by
becoming sort of CDN+ nets, where the + takes care of all the content creation
and choreographing, much as they do now, but over the Internet. I've already
suggested that in the past, and Mr. Moonves happily obliged, by creating CBS
All Access.

As to the spectrum they currently have, yes, they COULD pool their resources
and turn that into a neutral wireless 2-way net, competing with the other
wireless telcos. But I certainly would not suggest they create a walled garden
with this wireless spectrum!! That would be a complementary role, and once
again, that would comply with the ATSC 3.0 verbiage we read.

As a matter of fact, I have big doubts about the wisdom of
changing ATSC at this time, if the new ATSC is going to
continue to rely only on broadcast.

And I suspect that many of the broadcasters who keep their
spectrum feel the same way. They could upgrade the compression
to h.264 and get much more bang for the buck.

Yes, in essence, but I would not waste time with H.264. If anything, keep H.262
during a transitional period, and add H.265. At least then, the necessary long
simulcast transitional period will be less wasteful of spectrum. But this would
be transitional, a move to keep older TV sets running, and the luddites
content. Although even the luddites will eventually buy those connected TVs,
and figure out that it so much better. It's all about convenience. A built-in
and well designed IP GUI will easily make converts.

Where did you come up with this garbage.

ATSC 3.0 will still support big stick broadcasting/multicasting.
It may allow for two-way and cellular, but nothing they have
said suggests it will be a requirement.

This is an example of how aggravating Craig can become, for lack of educating
himself.

Okay so the first point is, "ATSC 3.0 will still support big stick
broadcasting/multicasting" is devoid of meaning, when using the Internet
defintion of multicasting. The second point is, "It may allow for two-way and
cellular, but nothing they have said suggests it will be a requirement" is also
nonsensical, and untrue.

Nonsensical because you cannot "allow for two-way and cellular" and still be a
broadcast system, unless you use someone else's infrastructure for cellular
(which I covered above). And the second point is, 2-way is certainly a
requirement. You can't get the personalized service, access to whatever you
want content, etc., without a 2-way network.

It might help Craig to find out what ATSC 3.0 is all about. Here too, all it
takes is a quick search.

http://pbs.bento.storage.s3.amazonaws.com/hostedbento-prod/filer_public/TechCon2014/TC14%20Presentations/Chernock_ATSC3_1_v05.pdf

Look at slide 34. Look at the second bullet. You cannot have the two bullets
without a 2-way network, Craig.

Now, look at slide 35. It says, "Hybrid delivery (broadcast and broadband)." My
already stated position is, broadcast is a waste once the 2-way medium is in
place (multicast being the far better choice), and "broadband," naturally, is
that non-broadcast *requirement* that Craig didn't know exists.

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.

Other related posts: