[opendtv] Re: Charirman Genachowski speech at NAB
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 08:24:03 -0400
At 8:02 PM -0500 4/12/11, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
He says incentive auctions are a win-win for broadcasters and
broadband, and a "slam dunk" for the public. I'm not so sure about
that last part. At least, not for those who actually use FOTA TV.
There are still folks in Ohio and Pennsylvania who ride in horse
drawn buggies. Is this a valid argument against the need for roads
for automobiles?
IF FOTA TV goes away it will not be caused by the governments' hunger
for the proceeds from spectrum auctions. It will be caused by the
failure of the business model of broadcasters. There is nothing in
what the FCC is proposing that will end broadcasting. It is up to
broadcasters to determine if they can continue to operate profitably
or bail. Technology will more than make up for any loss of spectrum.
He says voluntary incentive auctions are voluntary, although the
broadcaster might not be allowed to remain in its existing 6 MHz
channel. Interesting.
Why. Clearly they are going to repack the spectrum again. Some will
bail, some will stay, but may need to be relocated.
He doesn't seem to understand the comment that if two broadcasters
share spectrum, mobile DTV will suffer. Or at least, he responds
with generalities about "business models," which makes me wonder.
Why? If the correct transmission technology is chosen, mobile DTV may
well have a chance. The current crippled ATSC MHP standard is the
problem - it is too inefficient, too fragile, and highly unlikely to
be implemented in most mobile devices.
Again, this is mostly about business models. Delivering HD streams to
fixed receivers "may not" be the application that will allow
broadcasters to survive. And again, this does not mean that you would
lose the ability to receive free broadcasts in your home. Clearly it
is possible to deliver a competitive MVPD service in the spectrum,
aka Freeview.
He doesn't buy the argument that we need a new broadcast standard
first. I tend to agree on that. Unless the "new standards"
proponents are prepared for big changes, such as (a) deploying a
dense mesh of towers to exploit MIMO advantages throughout market
areas, or (b) installing regional networks to allow SFNs to really
save on spectrum, I haven't seen any convincing arguments that
appreciable amounts of spectrum can be saved with a modulation
change.
Nor does switching to H.264 seem to have the 2:1 benefits that one
keeps reading about. Even the French scheme, where they increased
from two to three HD programs in a 24 MHz channel, doesn't support
the 2:1 hype. Not unless these are all sports programming, which
they are not. (Compare this with the common mix of 1 HD + 3 SD, in a
19 Mb/s channel, with MPEG-2 compression. Assume whatever numbers
you like.)
But a change to compression would seem like the simplest of all.
Perhaps make it a jump to H.265, while we're at it.
What is needed is a reliable. flexible transmission infrastructure to
deliver bits. All the rest of this stuff is applications layer trivia
that can and will change continuously. It would be a huge mistake to
saddle broadcasters with ANOTHER "point" standard that defines the
entire system from transmitter to receiver.
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:
