[opendtv] Re: Broadcast and other topics
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 09:04:37 -0400
Regards
Craig
On Jul 4, 2015, at 8:25 PM, Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Take your average 24 hour day. Just how much TV content *has* to be "live"?
Virtually none, unless there's a game that day (in which case maybe one
station in the market would need maybe 3 hours live out of 24).
Most local network affiliates do three hours of live by 9 am. They do another
two hours of live newscasts by midnight, and 2-3 hours of prime time from the
network they are affiliated with. Much of the prime time programming does not
need to be live, but those linear appointment streams are not going to go away
any time soon.
You can keep arguing that people will access everything on demand, but the
facts say otherwise. There is still a market for the linear streams from the
most popular sources.
Here are the top ten shows for the week of June 22 from Neilsen:
RANK PROGRAM NETWORK RATING VIEWERS (000)
1 AMERICA'S GOT TALENT-TUE NBC 6.5 11,075
2 NCIS CBS 5.8 8,782
3 CELEBRITY FAMILY FEUD ABC 5.1 8,282
4 NCIS: NEW ORLEANS CBS 4.8 7,390
5 60 MINUTES CBS 4.7 7,245
6 DATELINE-THU NBC 4.5 6,872
7 THE BACHELORETTE ABC 4.5 6,642
8 NCIS: LOS ANGELES CBS 4.2 6,203
9 BLUE BLOODS CBS 4.1 6,205
10 BIG BROTHER-WED CBS 4.0 6,915
Source: Nielsen. Primetime Broadcast Programs. Viewing estimates on this page
include Live viewing and DVR playback on the Same Day, defined as 3am-3am.
Ratings are the percentage of TV homes in the U.S. tuned into television.
The same is true for popular cable shows. When HBO premieres a new episode of
Game of Thrones millions tune in - 8 million for the season premiere on April
15th. The season finale of AMC's Walking Dead attracted 15.8 million viewers.
It is not just live sports that attracts an appointment audience, and nothing
suggests that this is going to change dramatically because of VOD. The network
catch-up sites are there in part to help people catch-up with a series, who may
then start watching the "live" broadcasts.
You keep telling us about how the Internet is providing new options, and you
are correct. But this does not mean that the old options are going to
disappear.
We already talked about this. Even a "live news" program, possible exception
being during some odd emergency situation, is much better assembled from
up-to-the-minute VOD clips, in distributed servers.
That is your opinion. But you are not a news director or a station manager who
has spent decades building the audience for the 6 o'clock news. The network
evening newscasts still attract an audience of about 24 million viewers.
Streaming radio services are all the rage now with Spotify and Apple now
competing for subscribers, yet millions of people still listen to radio
broadcasts. Rush reaches as many people in a week as the network evening
newscasts.
So please stop trying to reinvent an industry just because some technology
makes something possible. It is possible to put a powerful computer in a pair
of eyeglasses - Google did it and added a new word to the Urban Dictionary -
Glasshole.
You can buy that "Dick Tracy" wrist communicator now, but the market is still
very small.
And advertisers have no reason to mind. As we have seen, as I showed in a
post yesterday, their ads work better with online (typically VOD) content
anyway.
You are taking a leap here. The engagement that makes the ads work better with
VOD probably won't work for something turned on as background noise. I have no
problem if broadcasters want to make everything available as VOD, but some
folks do.
They must obtain the rights to stream the content;
They must create the demand that creates the engagement.
What you fail to consider is that the market is supporting both for many types
of content. There is an appointment audience AND a VOD audience. This could
change over time, but it will take decades.
Bottom line is, actual broadcast or multicast, for actual "live" programming,
is needed only for a small minority of the 24 hour day. And certainly not
needed by all stations in that market. Tell me what programming you think
needs to be live, and I'll explain how it's better done some other way.
Better for the viewer, I mean. (I've done this already, but you seem to not
understand what I'm saying. Give me numbers. Craig, not just words. Hours per
week, when true broadcast to everyone in the market, simultaneously, is
essential.)
Essential its is not the issue Bert.
McDonalds could say that it is only essential to be open from 6-9 am, 11am to 1
pm, and 5-7 pm. But the have learned what consumers want, and built their
business around offering appropriate menus throughout the day and evening.
We agree that the entire concept of local broadcasting is no longer essential,
that there are alternatives that could entirely replace it. But it is still an
industry making billions of dollars in profits, while many of your candidates
for replacing it are building their businesses and LOSING money.
So, as I said above, "live" is rarely actually needed, let alone "live"
watched simultaneously by a large percentage of the population (the sort of
"live" that justifies use of actual one-way broadcast mode).
Again, your opinion. The fact remains that millions of people watch these
broadcasts - albeit most are "connected" to a MVPD service, not an antenna -
and the broadcasters continue to make huge profits.
If you want to talk justification for using a valuable public resource, then it
is a different argument. Obviously the politicians are looking to squeeze the
less profitable broadcasters out if the spectrum, because they can raise more
money from companies using the spectrum for services that are willing to pay
for it.
Consequently, you have to decide how much to invest on the an infrastructure
optimized for one-way broadcast, i.e. big sticks or broadcast-only SFNs. This
type of infrastructure will not play a role in the 2-way network role the
station will be using the vast majority of time.
Again, your opinion. These are business decisions, many of which are out of the
hands of the local broadcasters. They do not exist today because they control
spectrum. They exist because that spectrum is being used to deliver content
from huge conglomerates who support the legacy business model, because of
retransmission consent, and the second revenue stream it creates.
That being said, the conglomerates could choose to kill broadcasting, deliver
the live streams through the MVPDs, and get out from under the OTA content
restrictions. At least for now that is not going to happen, because the
politicians still want a free broadcast service to reach the bottom feeders.
Opinion supported by facts. The popularity of VOD is only rising, as the
luddites get comfortable with it. And VOD can only gain in popularity as more
people buy connected TVs (I hear an echo). And too, when the FCC creates this
new broadband "lifeline" service, which is in the cards, that can only make
VOD TV that much more universally available. This was simply not practical 15
years ago, but in the past few years, it has become technically feasible. >
You are confirming what I said above. Just because technology makes something
possible does not mean it will replace a thriving business model.
PCs will continue to exist because they are useful for some applications. Horse
drawn carriages still exist because there are applications that are profitable.
Absolutely, Craig. Because the only people left who don't use it are
essentially the luddites who still rely on the cable box.
You mean 85% of U.S. Homes?
Once you have VOD, and I mean done right, where it takes no brain power to
use it (unlike a PVR, which for some reason is way above the abilities of
most people), there's very little reason to not use it.
And the majority of U.S. homes are using it...
And paying for a MVPD service, just as a majority used the technologies that
OTT services are replacing - the VCR and DVDs.
Makes no sense. Why would a station invest in an expensive infrastructure
only usable for one-way broadcast, just because maybe 3 hours *a week*
there's a high school football game? Watched by a tiny fraction of the
households in the market? Why wouldn't that station instead spend more effort
on figuring out a VOD scheme which can be also be used for IP multicast, in
those rare occasions? The LTE solution makes a whole lot more sense, in this
scenario, because the towers would do double duty as cellular net (for
unicast and IP multicast service) and as broadcast SFN, the latter only
if/when actually needed. (And I'm not suggesting the station itself *has* to
own the LTE or similar net, btw.)
It makes no sense to you.
But to a network affiliate in a major market still making millions of dollars a
year, broadcasting still makes sense. I would agree that they may be reluctant
to build yet another new broadcast infrastructure - that is the dilemma that
the ATSC faces, as there is little reason for most broadcasters to invest in a
new standard..
As you keep pointing out, it is possible today for broadcasters to do
everything you suggest using existing 2-way networks.
The fact remains that you are proposing the most expensive option in terms of
building out a new broadcast infrastructure. If this were the only option, the
ATSC would not be wasting their time creating new physical layer standards for
big sticks and SFNs.
Again, give me hours per day, or hours per week, when true broadcast service
would still make sense, once the station has gained use of a 2-way network.
They gained use of a 2-way network at the same time as everyone else. In
reality, those networks have only been capable of streaming high quality video
over the past decade, but the fact remains that there is nothing to prevent
local broadcasters from moving to VOD now, except the minor issue of obtaining
and paying for the streaming rights.
The broadcasters, and/or the congloms, Craig. The congloms can do whatever is
in their best interest. What we're talking about here is the TV revolution.
The roles played by the old players will change. I'm not trying to force-fit
the old roles into this new landscape.
Correct, you are trying to re-invent an industry to confirm to your minority
vision of reality.
Yes, I've explained this potential new CDN role countless times.
The only thing preventing broadcasters from doing this today is obtaining the
streaming rights for content people would actually watch, and advertisers would
support.
And I've also said that if broadcasters want to, they can add a new role to
their repertoire, as broadband providers. That would be a totally different,
complementary role which matches the rhetoric behind ATSC 3.0.
And I keep asking you where the money will come from to build a dense mesh
cellular network that matches your rhetoric.
And it would no doubt be a subscription service. "Too expensive"? Yes, for
FOTA TV service. But "too expensive" depends entirely on the competition.
Not long ago I suggested that broadcasters could build out the 2-way networks
you are championing and compete directly with the MVPDs. You trashed that idea
as backward thinking.
Disagree based on what evidence, Craig?
All the other options that the ATSC is designing into the proposed standard,
and the fact that many broadcasters are sitting on the sidelines:
http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/80748/broadcast-nets-not-united-behind-atsc-30
Broadcast Nets Not United Behind ATSC 3.0
The push to develop a new broadcast TV transmission standard that would also
serve mobile devices has not yet received the full support of ABC and CBS. Both
say it’s too early to commit without knowing all the financial and technical
ramifications. Other broadcasters, including Fox and NBC, also seem to be
hedging their bets.
How can you disagree with the fact that ATSC 3.0 stresses VOD, broadband
service, personalization, hybrid service?
The requirements document does list these as potential options. You are the
person who is interpreting these options as requirements.
You can't "disagree" unless you don't read what they say!
I read what they said. I disagree with what you are saying.
I showed you what ATSC 3.0 says. Now it's your turn, if you disagree, to
support your view. Spend some quality time justifying your position, Craig.
I've tried and tried and tried...
We disagree.
That's why ATSC 3.0 is not just a new broadcast standard. Where in the world
did you come up with this notion, Craig?
Because the ATSC requirements place as much, if not more emphasis on broadcast
requirements as they do on a dense 2-way cellular network.
Quote me anything to support your idea. Anything. Give me evidence, Craig. I
gave you plenty of it.
From the article about network support for ATSC 3.0:
Both say it’s too early to commit without knowing all the financial and
technical ramifications.
The financial ramifications of building a dense 2-way cellular network are
huge.
Show me the money Bert.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
