[opendtv] Re: EE Times: Reinvention of Broadcast TV: 10 Things to Know
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 14:34:24 -0400
Regards
Craig
> On Oct 24, 2014, at 9:20 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
> <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> When reading that article, I kept thinking, aside from the unintelligible
> marketing babble, it sounds like a time warp. We're back to talking about
> robustness of a broadcast signal, same as in the 1990s, we're back to hyping
> up IP overhead piled on top of packets which are broadcast, same as in the
> days of ATSC-MH, we're talking about more efficient codecs, higher mode
> constellations, and better FEC schemes. Even when they get to mentioning LTE,
> it's LTE broadcast mode only.
I agree about the marketing babble!
The time warp is certainly interesting. I would remind everyone that most of
the questions being asked today about ATSC 3.0 were asked in the early '90s
while ATSC was being developed. Remember...
"Interoperable, scalable and extensible"
But nobody wanted to listen 20 years ago. And it is less than clear that they
are listening now.
This comment from Wayne Luplow is especially entertaining:
> Wayne Luplow, vice president at Zenith R&D Lab, disagrees. Even when
> consumers might have already bought a new UHDTV set by the time ATSC 3.0
> rolls out, they can get a compact receiver that can easily connect to a TV
> set via USB, for example.
And I would remind Bert that 2-way LTE with unicast requests is not feasible
(viable) unless broadcasters build an even denser mesh that what he believes
necessary for Broadcast LTE. This is true now, and will be further exacerbated
by whatever spectrum broadcasters sell in the next spectrum auction. A back
channel for signaling is feasible, to join Multicasts or to order PPV services.
> There's that one scheme where the signal is time-divided, so you can
> intersperse different modulation types over the same frequency channel.
> Interesting, but how much does even that answer the mail? How does LTE in
> such a scheme even work, unless you either create a two-way infrastructure to
> support LTE service, or at least create that dense mesh of towers, if using
> LTE only for broadcast? Said another way, how does this time-divided service
> apply to the problem at hand?
Good question. I am not aware of how you multiplex modulation schemes, but I am
willing to learn.
>
> Also, IP for broadcast is a big who cares (since IP is needed for routing
> packets, while broadcast intrinsically "routes" packets to everyone with no
> need for routing headers). How much good did IP overhead do to ATSC-MH?
ATSC - MH was stillborn.
>
> Sure, it's cool to think of 4K TV sent OTA. That's easy enough to do over
> 8T-VSB, just by changing codec to H.265.
What's cool about broadcasting 4K? It is far from certain that anything more
than an enthusiast market for 4k displays will ever exist. Even more important,
it is unnecessary; it would be better to use the new bits to do a decent job
encoding HD, which will allow high quality up conversion on 4K displays.
Mark Schubin made this point in his presentation at the SMPTE/HPA Conference
this week:
http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0110/smpte--hpa%E2%80%94more-resolution-frame-rate-or-dynamic-range/272943
The EETimes article did include some highly questionable statements fro Rick
Doherty:
> Rick Doherty, research director at The Envisioneering Group, says ATSC UHD is
> “equal to four full 1080P HD channels and dozens of SD streams.” That allows
> many broadcasters to “become multi-channel providers immediately” in his
> opinion. For example, “Disney can send out ABC, ESPN, Family Channel, News,
> etc., on a single channel. CBS can do HD, daytime soaps, oldies series, and
> news channels.” The bottom line is that “consumers and programmers get more
> choice,” he says.
The content congloms are not going to give this stuff away, and it is far
easier to sell such packages as OTT services. At best, you might be able to
receive encrypted broadcasts if you are paying for the OTT "bundle.
And this gem:
> Doherty of The Envisioneering Group believes that one advantage for TV
> broadcasters is that cable TV pricing continues to outpace inflation. “Even
> the smallest of antennas work wonders in urban and many suburban locales. On
> any given evening, more than half of America’s 110 million households are
> watching four networks.”
Talk about living in a time warp...
The broadcast networks have not had more than half of Americas TV households
for more than a decade. For the first four weeks of the season - according to
zap2it.com - the average prime time audience for the networks was:
> Among total viewers, CBS is ahead for the season averaging 11.90 million
> viewers. NBC is second with 9.90 million, followed by ABC with 8.70 million,
> FOX with 5.40 million, and CW with 1.60 million.
I believe that adds up to 37.5 million, or about 36% of U.S. homes.
And Gary Arlen nails it with this comment:
> Arlen sees that technology hurdle as significant, and the marketing barriers
> daunting, given consumers' constant shift in preferences. He stressed, “It's
> not simply that ‘broadcast TV is irrelevant,’ but that the model of linear,
> ad-supported mass media is irrelevant (except possibly for live sports).”
I couldn't agree more!
Bert continues:
> Sure, it's cool to redesign ATSC along exactly the same lines as DVB-T2, but
> how is that an appropriate innovation these days, to keep OTA broadcasters
> viable in the Internet era?
>
> I think the long and the short of it is, broadcasters have to get beyond mere
> broadcasting. ATSC 3.0, and LTE broadcast mode, do not appear to do that, in
> spite of the confusing words uttered in the article.
Agreed.
Broadcasters have little reason to exist without compelling unique content. The
content congloms can and will pull the rug out when their O&Os stop printing
money.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
