[opendtv] Re: Broadcast and other topics
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 00:10:36 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
It's an engineering issue, not a religious belief, Craig.
There is no broadcast mode Internet-wide, or even enterprise
intranet-wide, or at all in IPv6. There are excellent
reasons why this is so.
That has NOTHING to do with the fact that ATSC will support
COFDM broadcast modes.
*Think*, Craig. If a very, very flexible global network standard, which can
support live or on demand streams, which can support 2-way broadband service,
to billions of households around the world, can do so **without** a broadcast
mode, does that not make you wonder why the ATSC of the future requires such a
broadcast mode? Read the mission statements of ATSC 3.0. What in that list of
goals makes you think broadcast is required, when the Internet can so well do
without? Answer that, please.
Give me a break Bert. Look at the physical layer
requirements.
You still haven't answered. ATSC 3.0 may very well include a broadcast mode,
and does, but what precisely in "the physical layer requirements" gives you the
impression that it's mandatory? I have to disabuse you of this notion, but
first you have articulate exactly what makes you think the words imply
broadcast. Does COFDM mean broadcast? Does a GI mean broadcast? Does H.264 mean
broadcast? Where do you read "broadcast" in any of those words? I can't
disabuse you of your misconceptions if you refuse to be specific.
The content makes the "multi-million dollars," Craig, not the
delivery protocol.
Really. What is the projection for retransmission consent
revenues over the next few years?
*Think* Craig. Do these billions depend on the specific delivery protocol, or
do these billions depend on the fact that the content is wanted by millions of
households? Do you really think that if these TV shows were delivered over the
Internet, instead of using MPEG-2 TS broadcast, they would disappear? Yes,
there will be improved competition, but the content is what people will
continue to seek out, Craig, no matter the delivery protocol.
The fact remains that the spectrum is given to broadcasters for this
service.
The fact remains that the RF spectrum was provided at a time when it was the
only way to get the content out to millions of households. Now, especially when
the FCC extends its lifeline mandates to broadband, you have to get out of this
legacy thinking. The changes won't occur overnight, but there's a pretty clear
trend to show where wired and wireless comms are heading, Craig, and one-to-all
broadcast is not it.
Absolutely true. One report says 48% of all TV viewing is OTT;
False that all of the available options are made easy for every luddite out
there, Craig. I've explained this to you a ton of times. You have access to a
handful of pay TV sites online only. And it always makes me laugh when I read
articles that imply there's nothing else out there. It's humorous. Perhaps you
too believe this is the case.
If Apple waits years and years before providing that cbs.com
"app," which it didn't provide until 2013, Craig feels that
Apple must have had a darned good reason for doing so.
They did. They needed A license from CBS.
Absurd, right? Did Dell need a license from CBS, Craig? Or Asus? Or HP? Or
Microsoft? Or is it that Apple deliberately developed a non-standard approach
that forced CBS to take special steps to meet Apple's needs?
Nothing in the ATSC requirements talks about using the broadcast
spectrum to compete in the broadband market.
Nothing in the ATSC 3.0 requirements says that the existing broadcast spectrum
must only be used for broadcast, either. You might have inferred this, but it's
not stated anywhere. And I went through that Triveni presentation many times,
to confirm this.
No. I just don't agree that broadcasters need dense cellular
networks to get into the broadband business. They need a
system that is not limited to outdoor antennas on 30 foot
masts. Medium density for SFNs where needed can meet the
ATSC requirements for mobile reception.
Words that make no sense.
First you say, "I just don't agree that broadcasters need dense cellular
networks to get into the broadband business." Okay, does that mean you expect
broadcasters **will** want to get into the broadband business? Sure sounds like
it to me!
Then you say, "Medium density for SFNs where needed can meet the ATSC
requirements for mobile reception."
Do you think that SFNs are enough to "get into the broadband business"? How
exactly will SFNs provide 2-way broadband service? If broadcsasters want to
"get into the broadband business," Craig, and especially wireless to handheld
devices, they will unquestionably need a dense mesh of towers. Just as Verizon
and AT&T do.
The only way broadcasters would **not** necessarily need a very dense mesh is
if they stay **out** of the wireless broadband business, and instead use other
cell nets for broadband. Even if any potential new wireless broadband service
owned by broadcasters is on different spectrum that the existing TV spectrum,
they'll still need a very dense mesh.
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:
