[opendtv] Re: Future of TV broadcasting
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 21:58:24 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> Bert might recall some of the concepts that I suggested broadcasters
> could exploit, like Data Broadcasting.
Yes, however I took the OPPOSITE view. Which is to say, anything that is
"broadcast," to use up spectrum capacity efficiently, has to be of high value
to "everyone." It is difficult to justify broadcast, for whatever kind of
content, in an era of ubiquitous two-way networks. You're often better off with
content stored at edge servers, and unicast, once data storage becomes cheap
enough.
Case in point, mobile devices are already set up with 2-way network interfaces.
It's just hard for me to see why they should regress to broadcast protocol,
EXCEPT for those very special, infrequent occasions.
So in short, you can look at this two ways:
1. Broadcasters have to broadcast more than just TV content, which is what you
and Mark are saying, or
2. Broadcasters have to distribute TV content without insisting on doing so via
broadcast transmission protocol, which is what I'm saying.
Of course, there's always a mix of both possible too.
> The problem Bert, is that most broadcasters have little or nothing
> to deliver. They are more like the MVPDs than the content congloms.
Content distribution has always been their primary job. That's why broadcasters
have to take that "content distribution" mission in life, and apply it to
today's communications technologies. That's my point. Instead of just trying to
stick with "broadcast protocol" in an era when it's not GENERALLY useful
anymore.
> You keep pointing out that the content congloms are going
> direct-to-consumer. Clearly they don't need broadcast affiliates to do
> this. And they are not licensing this content to broadcasters to
> deliver via the Internet or other data transmission techniques.
True enough. To stay with the content distribution mission in life in the
Internet era, broadcasters have to show to their affiliated congloms how they
can add value. I already suggested a sort of CDN role, for the local market's
ISPs. But you're right. The congloms can deal with any other CDNs, for Internet
delivery. It's up to the broadcasters to get creative and take back this
distribution role for themselves. So this is the other side of the coin, from
what Mark is suggesting. I just see this as a more likely future role, than a
role of sticking with broadcast protocol for content delivery.
> At one time, we talked about downloading software updates to our
> TVs over-the-air. Most new TVs have an Internet connection...
Exactly! And given this state of affairs, rather than broadcast LG Model X
updates to everyone, carousel style, for hours on end, why not let the LG Model
X go fetch the update by request? It already has that 2-way connection. This
wasn't true in the 1990s, but it's becoming truer every year that goes by.
> Which means that to survive, broadcasters need to be in the
> content creation business.
Not necessarily, although that would be one option. Broadcasters have to find a
role that adds value to the congloms, for delivery of the conglom content, once
walled gardens are not the only game in town.
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:
