[opendtv] Re: Broadcast and other topics
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 01:13:57 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
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.
And NONE of that needs to be "live," let alone broadcast (one to all, whether
anyone is watching or not). That's my point. No one in his right mind would
watch that "live," if given half an option, an option that he actually
comprehended, and no one would waste spectrum actually broadcasting, if given
half an option. "Live" would be used a minority of hours per day, perhaps
*some* sports. And broadcast would be used even less than that, perhaps for the
Superbowl.
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.
Proclaims Craig. Instead, they would go away instantly if the luddites were
given a just-as-easy-way of watching this on demand. Including news, btw, as I
already described. And whatever truly justifies "live" would most likely not be
broadcast anyway. You're just living in the past, Craig, and you are again
going back to square one on topics we have already covered.
You can keep arguing that people will access everything on demand,
but the facts say otherwise.
What "facts"? You never give anyone "facts," Craig. The "facts" are that
consumption of linear TV is on the decline, while consumption of TV programs in
general is up. Why are you arguing about something that's been going on for
several years already, Craig? And once again, "live" does not mean "broadcast."
Let me give you an example of luddite thinking. When I described how I watch
TV, to a person I have long thought represents the "average" person quite
believably, she didn't even know what I was talking about. It's different from
what she was used to, so it took some doing to explain the new model. This is
the reason why almost anyone still watches "live," Craig. It's what they are
used to. But that's changing, and the younger generation has no trouble at all
figuring it out. The market for linear streams is eroding, and will erode very
quickly, as decent UIs are developed and as more CBS All Access type of
services emerge. The fact that many new TVs are "connected," whether the buyer
asks for that feature or not, is one catalyst that will accelerate the trend to
on demand. And TV viewership can only benefit from this. Content owners like
Leslie Moonves, James Murdoch, or Richard Plepler, have figured this out,
Craig. They keep feeding "live" streams to the luddites, but they get that they
have to move forward with the new way of doing business.
The season finale of AMC's Walking Dead attracted 15.8 million
viewers.
Legacy thinking, again. What makes you think that the numbers would be anything
but higher, if that last episode was offered on demand? On demand does not have
to mean a week late. On demand can be the same day, where different people
might start watching even just minutes apart.
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.
Come now, Craig. Is this the TV news that fewer and fewer people are watching,
only because they have found better ways of getting the news whenever they want
it? Are these the TV news departments that are going out of business? And
you're now telling us that they have to ride this out until they are good and
disappeared?
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.
Different issue entirely. First of all, because most radio is consumed as
background noise, while driving a car. And gets promptly interrupted as soon as
the car gets to its destination. And yet, for long radio programs, news
analysis shows, those too benefit from being made available on demand, as
podcasts for instance. For music programs, pop rock type, their content lasts
about 3 minutes each. No reason to make that available on demand.
TV programs, actual TV and not YouTube videos, are a different beast entirely.
No one likes to walk into a movie theater when the movie has already started,
Craig. That's the way it is with most TV. They go "by appointment" mostly
because that's the only choice they know. But that's changing fast, with
connected TVs and also those cheap but hopelessly limited boxes like Apple TV.
So please stop trying to reinvent an industry
Craig, again, you are living in the past. The industry is reinventing itself,
and as is your habit, you are missing the change. Eventually, when you can't
ignore the trend any longer, you will no doubt write copious prose to explain
why it happened. This is happening, Craig, because many people are refusing to
watch by appointment. So figure it out. Why would you insist that TV should
continue to be by appointment, and even worse, should continue to waste their
resources by using broadcast mode, instead of applying a hefty chunk of those
resources to the delivery modes people actually want?
The engagement that makes the ads work better with VOD
probably won't work for something turned on as background
noise.
No ad works when the TV is background noise. At the same time, VOD works fine
for background noise too. So do those cheap noise makers.
What you fail to consider is that the market is supporting
both for many types of content.
What you fail to consider is that stagecoaches and canal barges did not stop
working overnight. But the trend away from those technologies was patently
obvious, after the railroad arrived. Same applies here. First, "live" does not
mandate "broadcast," and second, "live" is on the decline anyway. After the
railroad arrived, it would have been foolish to invest big money in digging
canals, Craig. This is where the TV industry is today.
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,
Just repeating and repeating, as you are repeating and repeating. Those profits
do not depend on remaining with legacy technology. The profits using the legacy
methods are eroding. Profits are instead on the rise when new technologies are
exploited.
The fact remains that you are proposing the most expensive
option in terms of building out a new broadcast infrastructure.
Nope. It's already built, for the "expensive" part anyway. Yes, ATSC 3.0 could
also build out expensive new infrastructure to compete against other cell
networks, which is what they claim to want to do.
Not long ago I suggested that broadcasters could build out the
2-way networks you are championing and compete directly with the
MVPDs.
I have no problem with TV broadcasters getting into 2-way wireless service, as
a new business. I have a big problem with someone suggesting that this should
be the only way they can survive. Until Internet broadband became ubiquitous,
TV broadcasters were the only ones delivering TV content unwalled, using open
standards that every TV supports. Craig might well have suggested that
broadcasters get into something entirely different, as another way to force
everyone on walled garden TV content distribution. I'd like for Craig to find
where he suggested this, and what my response was.
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.
Not only as "potential," but as "essential." Read again (and again and again)
the first few slides. The point they make is that ever since ATSC 1.0, this
type of service has become expected. The other point they make is, no way can
they re-create ATSC, if it's just going to be just another broadcast standard.
The point Mark Aitken made was, no way do they want to adopt just DVB-T2 as is.
If many broadcasters are uncomfortable with ATSC 3.0, Craig, it's because they
worry about how those lofty goals in the mission statement can possibly be met
economically. And the answer is, rely more on existing 2-way networks, while
allowing the pure broadcasts to ride out into the sunset.
Because the ATSC requirements place as much, if not more
emphasis on broadcast requirements as they do on a dense
2-way cellular network.
You are wrong. Don't tell me, Craig, show me. Here's some more for you to
ponder:
http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0086/atsc--where-we-stand/273471
"Flexibility in service options is a keystone of the next-generation ATSC 3.0
DTV broadcast system, including the opportunity for terrestrial broadcasters to
send hybrid content services to fixed and mobile receivers seamlessly-combining
both over-the-air transmission and broadband delivery."
And they several bullets:
"Spectrum is becoming increasingly scarce
Major improvements have been made in video coding efficiency
A strong desire exists for higher-resolution images
Audio has become more efficient and immersive
Interactivity has become expected on the part of consumers
Delivery paths other than broadcast have become commonplace
Mobile devices have proliferated
Tablets are in widespread use"
Interactivity expected, delivery other than broadcast. None of those bullets
imply broadcast is the main event here, Craig. Take a look at the protocol
layers, which include HTTPS (and obviously TCP, both mandating 2-way channels),
and IP multicast (also requires 2-way channels). Take a look at how the
"broadcast PHY" layer is under protocol layers that require 2-way service. Take
a look at the "broadband PHY."
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:
