[opendtv] Re: Frames Per Second of 720P

  • From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:07:35 -0700

If you read the entire report, it mentions that the opportunity is narrow,
and details how Qualcomm's MediaFlo isn't entrenched.  How about
double-digit MONTHLY disconnect rates?  The report holds to my position,
that MediaFlo is a demonstration project, with $326MM in sunk costs, and
virtuall no revenues.

And, it only reaches narrow areas, unlike broadcasting reaches hither and
yon.  It also might be interesting if M/H reaches areas beyond current
service areas, by tuning back the "cliff effect" some.

John Willkie

-----Mensaje original-----
De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
nombre de John Shutt
Enviado el: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 7:33 AM
Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [opendtv] Re: Frames Per Second of 720P

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark A. Aitken" <maitken@xxxxxxxxxx>

> So what if there were money to be made EXCLUDING new business? (not my 
> words)
> http://www.nabfastroad.org/jan14rptfinaldouble.pdf
> $2.0B annual total ($1.1 annual local market station take) based just on 
> additional ad revenues. (not my numbers)

Not even the Study's numbers.  The study says:

"Given these advantages and the present status of the mobile television 
marketplace, we conclude this report by estimating the impact of a M/H DTV 
standard on the number of devices able to receive M/H DTV services by the 
year 2012 and the resulting additional revenues generated by the 
availability of those services. In order to estimate the impact of the 
standard we assess the likelihood of success under four different scenarios:

"1. A single system is introduced into the marketplace and that system is 
the one the ATSC standardized.

"2. Two systems are introduced into the marketplace and only one of those 
systems was standardized by ATSC.

"3. Two systems are introduced into the marketplace and the ATSC was not 
able to agree upon a standard.

"4. Three systems are introduced into the marketplace and the ATSC did not 
agree upon a standard."

Then the study predicts ad revenue based on those four scenarios as follows:

Scenario 1 - $1.1 billion
Scenario 2 - $0.6 billion
Scenario 3 - $0.2 to $0.4 billion
Scenario 4 - $0.1 billion

Are these four Scenarios based on systems just for broadcasters, or do they 
include systems that compete against broadcasters?  If the latter, then 
guess what?  It's already too late for Scenario 1.  Qualcomm's MediaFLO is 
already well entrenched in the marketplace in most major markets, and the 
white areas will be filled in after the analog cutoff in Feb of 2009.  (We 
are on their channel 55 in the Lansing, MI market so we know how anxious 
they are for us to clear out!)

So that leaves Scenario 2 as the best case.  Two M/H systems, with one 
approved by ATSC.  Best case revenue?  $600 million by 2012.  With Crown 
Castle throwing in the Modeo towel, that seemingly eliminates Scenarios 3 
and 4. However, this study completely ignores Sirius Backseat TV, a 
satellite delivered mobile television service that would be a direct 
competitor for at least the "M" part of ATSC M/H.  However, there was no 
scenario for three systems and only one approved by the ATSC, which is what 
we will have if Sirius Backseat TV survives the XM merger.  It may not only 
survive, but the service may get expanded by the merger, yet another factor 
ignored by this report.

Where is the money going to come from for stations to build out this ATSC 
M/H infrastructure?   The report quotes a "mere" $100,000 per station.  That

may cover a new ATSC M/H capable exciter for the RF Plant, but does it 
include the ability to receive additional programming streams into the 
master control plant?  Does it include additional server space?  Additional 
automation?  More channels of traffic software?  Subscription billing? 
Conditional Access infrastructure?  With most stations still deeply in debt 
with the digital transition and trying to rebuild studios for HD, and many 
groups teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, I don't think the money is 
there for stations to equip ATSC M/H, especially if the anticipated revenues

are not generated quickly.

Why does this study think that it is imperative for an ATSC M/H standard to 
be announced by February 2009, the analog cutoff date? The only major 
competition is Qualcomm's MediaFLO, and it is already launched with Verizon 
and AT&T, and will simply be expanded to secondary markets in Feb 2009.  Is 
it not better to get a standard right the first time, down to the last 
detail, than to get it fast?  As an example I submit E-VSB, which has been 
an ATSC approved standard since 2004, and yet apparently is so useless that 
a new M/H standard is required.  Being fast almost never results in being 
the best.

And finally, were was the NAB back in 1999-2000 when we had the chance to 
switch to a DTV system capable of mobile performance with little or no 
compromise to fixed receivers, and with no need to negotiate additional 
M/H-specific program rights?  Europe has proven that DVB-T is receivable by 
in-car receivers, portable devices, and laptops.  Adding DVB-H brings in the

handheld cell phones.  This study talks about a unified ATSC M/H standard to

leverage economies of scale, and if we had DVB-T, we would be leveraging 
worldwide economies of scale for the production of DVB-T M/H devices.  If 
this study's predictions of potential market and revenue are correct (which 
I seriously doubt,) I see this report as a complete vindication of the 
Sinclair DVB-T proposal of 2000.

Unfortunately, I predict that this whole M/H proposal will go the way of 
USDTV and MovieBeam.  Millions down a rat hole for infrastructure, and never

even coming close to breaking even with ad revenue, subscriptions, or any 
combination thereof.


You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.

You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at 

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
unsubscribe in the subject line.

Other related posts: