[opendtv] Re: Broadcast and other topics
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 07:37:54 -0400
On Jul 6, 2015, at 7:19 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Broadcast is a protocol in which the same stream is sent to everyone, whether
or not anyone is actually watching. The broadcast spectrum used in a cable
system can also be put to much better use these days. The decision of
broadcasting, IP multicasting, or IP unicasting, is as relevant to a cabled
2-way network as it is to a wireless 2-way network. Broadcast is a protocol,
not a service. The service is TV content delivery, be it live or on demand.
Broadcast is no longer mandatory, to provide that service.
Duh.
But thank you for answering your own question about the Beat's 1 Internet Radio
Station. Now you are applying the term broadcast to suit your own arguments.
There are MANY things that are no longer necessary Bert. We don't need to cut
down trees to print newspapers and books, but they still exist and fulfill a
perceived need.
Options and competition are good. How TV content is delivered has been evolving
throughout ore lifetimes and will keep evolving in the future.
The FCC has been using the lifeline revenues to promote broadband for more than
a decade. You could also argue that wired telephones are no longer necessary,
but millions of people still have them. I get a letter from AT&T every week
trying to get me to come back to their DSL service bundled with IP telephone
service.
Obviously, the way the wires and cables are used can change as technology
evolves. Clearly cable will evolve to become broadband.
Been over this a bunch of times, Craig. Dedicating a PC to TV makes for an
expensive STB. Connected TVs are on the increase, but not widespread yet, and
limited still. And the also-limited streaming boxes are making a difference,
even while they are pathetic in the options they give the owner. I already
explained why luddites continue to use the old way.
Changing the subject again. One of your favorite tactics!
You wrote (about broadcasting and linear cable):
Instead, they would go away instantly if the luddites were given a
just-as-easy-way of watching this on demand.
The public has been given the option you desire, and the majority of homes are
using it. Apparently they know that OTT services exist and that they have the
OPTION to watch TV content on demand. But the old options are still there
attracting huge audiences, and producing the vast majority of industry profits.
Rather than discussing this, you argue about the devices being the barrier to
acceptance. Sorry, but a $39 Google Chromecast dongle is not a barrier, and the
user interface is a huge leap forward from a remote and PSIP.
Repeating, linear streams on the decline, on demand on the rise. The TV
industry has to stay ahead of this trend. Including trying to come up with
this ATSC 3.0, which must be considerably different from ATSC 1.0.
The TV industry IS staying ahead of the trend. They are controlling the shift
to IP distribution, rather than being eaten by it as so many other industries
have.
ATSC 3.0 may we'll be trying to adapt to this new world, but it is not
abandoning broadcasting, no matter how you try to convince us that the end game
is just another cellular 2-way IP network.
If broadcasters simply want to deliver everything as IP unicasts, and the
occasional IP Multicast, they do not need ATSC 3.0. They can do it now over
existing 2-way networks, and reach both fixed and mobile screens.
Uuuh, Craig, what does "built around" even mean? If CBS All Access were
primarily about their linear streams, might as well just use your rabbit ears
and watch OTA.
Options Bert.
Tablets and cell phones do not have, nor do they need rabbit ears.
CBS All Access is instead where at least some in the industry claim they are
heading. A mix of live and on demand, where obviously, at any instant in
time, your choice of on demand content will be hugely larger than your choice
of "live." (And, "live" does not necessarily mean "broadcast.") Echo echo
echo.
So now you agree that the linear streams, whether they are really live or just
pre-produced content are still going to be there. How they are delivered is
just an option. Broadcasting, MVPDs, the Internet, and packaged media are all
options that will continue to exist for many years to come.
http://www.journalism.org/2015/04/29/cable-news-fact-sheet/
http://www.journalism.org/2015/04/29/local-tv-news-fact-sheet/
Yes, profits for now, but their viewership does not seem to increase along
with population growth. It's instead eroding, even if not very fast. So it
makes sense for them to deliver their news in better ways than linear and
broadcast.
Interesting links, but they hardly support your case. The audience for a Fox
News keeps growing, while the others keep shrinking - but Pew Research can't
take sides.
Even if the audience is shrinking, the service is still viable and producing
profits. There are still newspapers printed on dead trees in almost every city.
Horse drawn carriages still exist and produce profits.
Options.
Oh really? So it's someone else who has been insisting that ATSC 3.0 is just
another broadcast standard? And who goes on and on about profits still being
made by linear, one-to-all broadcast?
I have not said ATSC is just another broadcast standard. It is a more flexible
broadcast standard that provides multiple physical layer options to support
existing and new business models that ATSC cannot support. YOU are the one who
is ignoring all of the options and claiming it is going to be a dense 2-way
cellular infrastructure. This is just one option, and the most expensive to
boot.
Simplistic reasoning. These businesses are growing, Craig:
The TV business is growing too Bert.
Just because one segment is shrinking does not mean that everything is
shrinking. It is evolving with new options.
But not by the broadcasters, and not while trying to keep FOTA TV viable. The
infrastructure has been built, wired and wireless, by telcos and by MVPD
networks, which do not offer FOTA TV or FOanything service.
Really? What has free got to do with this?
The MVPDs are required to carry local broadcasters and pay for their content.
And broadcasters are free to charge for premium content as long as they give
the FCC 5% of the revenues.
Broadcasting is advertiser supported, and those costs are passed along to
consumers - nothing it really free Bert. People are now willing to pay for
entertainment.
So, if you are trying to say that a concept of ATSC 3.0, which depends
entirely on broadcaster-owned and built infrastructure, is going to be too
expensive for FOTA TV, I will agree. But if you view ATSC 3.0 as that
umbrella standard that's meant to support all the new ways TV content should
be delivered, over who knows what infrastructures, perhaps mostly not owned
by broadcasters, then it's a different matter.
I don't see Verizon using ATSC 3.0 as the basis for their new virtual MVPD
service.
And broadcasters do not need ATSC 3.0 if they decide to cash in next year and
deliver content over the Internet.
What I do see is the possibility that broadcasters could embrace ATSC 3.0 and
build out multiple infrastructures over time. First with existing big sticks
and SFN gap fillers, and in some markets, with medium density 2-way cellular
networks. I do not see them building out the density to support VOD - no need,
as they can just use the same Internet that hosts their websites and streaming
services today.
Remember: my position has long been that broadcasters should continue to use
ATSC 1.0, for FOTA broadcast, until virtually everyone has migrated to IP
delivered TV reception. I've always been skeptical about ATSC 3.0. (Just as
I've always been skeptical about your notions of SFNs, and with sound
technical reasons.) But that doesn't mean that I just imagine what ATSC 3.0
should be, and then try to convince others that my imaginary concept is what
it is. This is your modus operandi, Craig.
And I have suggested that all that they need to do is update the applications
layer of ATSC 1.0 to support better codecs and HTML5, while using the Internet
for their back channel and VOD services.
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:
