Whoops. Hit send gave way through.
From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: April 19, 2015 at 9:36:58 AM EDT
To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [opendtv] Re: NAB: FCC's Wheeler Piles on Praise for
Broadcasting | Broadcasting & Cable
On Apr 18, 2015, at 8:07 PM, Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Whole story? That's one mode out of what, 18? And it's not what I'm talking
about.
So what are you talking about?
Your contention was the now familiar vague mention that to carry many
channels you needed a "proper infrastructure," not ATSC, with no
justification, no proof, and at best, a few half-baked notions that we've
hopefully put to rest by now.
There are so many variable here that it is impossible to comment
intelligently. ATSC does a very poor job of utilizing the spectrum in any
market. With geographically distributed transmitters, and many areas where
reception is difficult or impossible, the current system cannot support a
viable multichannel service.
Remember USDTV? It was a slimmed bundle delivered via ATSC, and it was a
major fail. This may have had more to do with the value proposition than the
ability to receive all the channels, but it clearly did not provide a service
people were willing to pay for.
Please don't bother telling us that that is ancient history, that your
experience clearly shows that a multichannel service is technically feasible.
It is, but it is not financially feasible, because there are too many missing
pieces (not to mention the inadequacy of of a standard that now relies too
many outdated components). ATSC cannot support a competitive pay service, and
nobody is interested in watching a bunch of second rate commercial laden
channels that do not offer the popular content people are willing to pay for.
And then there is the minor matter that ATSC is not capable of delivering
bits to the hundreds of millions of mobile devices that are driving most of
the changes you applaud. Unless the next ATSC standard moves to a technology
that is compatible with these new screens, it will be stillborn. And the
indications are that this won't happen, as the ATSC is mostly interested in
using proprietary technologies to create another patent pool. .
No, Craig. One subject of conversation is the RF standard. An entirely
different topic is what type of content gets carried on it. You evidently
allowed your personal tastes on the content to block any hope of educating
yourself on the RF standards issues.
The ATSC RF standard is the biggest problem (See above). Next is the outdated
compression technology and the lack of extensibility. The ATSC achieved what
they set out to do: they created a new digital broadcasting system optimized
for outdoor antennas, locked down to a receiver that cannot evolve. So we
have millions of receivers out there than hardly anyone uses, and
manufacturers are now adding the "extensions" that make new TVs more useful -
support for Internet/WiFi, support for h.264, support for more advanced
graphics and GUI, and HDMI, which is allowing consumers to add cheap dongles
or boxes that add the OTT streaming services you are so excited about.
The facts are obvious. If you start sharing transmission assets/expenses
you > are part of the local broadcast oligopoly, Okay, I'll buy that, but
with at most two stations sharing any OTA multiplex.
Why just two? I would agree that even with 720P a multiplex can only support
two channels of HD. But HD is not that important to most of the niche
channels you can currently receive via the antenna in your fireplace. A
multiplex can easily support five or six SDTV channels, even with the
antiquated MPEG-2 compression technology.
An updated standard - or just a group of stations willing to broadcast 480p
streams encoded with h.264 - could allow more channels in a multiplex. And it
would be very easy to add a dongle or work with smart TV manufacturers to
support the decoding of h.264 streams.
Craig complains about maybe two stations sharing an OTA multiplex
constituting an "oligopoly" (even though everyone has instant access to all
the other multiplexes).
I am not complaining. I am stating the obvious - market based broadcasters
operate as an oligopoly. They always have, and as long as they continue to
support proprietary standards, they always will. There is no way to change
the business model unless you get everyone in the market to break from the
pack.
This is possible, but highly unlikely. The larger, profitable stations
affiliated with the major networks will resist changing to a new business
model, because they want to ride the existing lucrative business model into
the sunset. To be absolutely clear, the network affiliates do not care how
well the OTA transmission system works - they WANT people to subscribe to a
MVPD service so they can get the retrans consent revenue.
And yet he's blind to the fact that 200 stations sharing a single
locally-monopolistic pipe would enable a far more credible form of
"oligopoly," at least while they operate on that medium. Odd, no?
And this is what I'm talking about: "Mr. Bewkes and Mr. Plepler argue that
the new service is complementary to their existing business, appealing to
those who refuse to pay for cable or satellite TV. Yet some cable and
satellite executives complain that HBO Now has the potential to undercut
their offerings. For some smaller cable operators, the cost of HBO Now is
cheaper than the rate they charge for HBO packages." *This* is proof of how
a medium creates what Craig calls "oligopoly." This is what inflates prices.
This is an example of the content owner having a difficult time competing as
he sees fit, because the locally monopolistic distribution pipe has
conflicting self-interests. Although I would certainly agree with the cable
operator, if the cable company refuses to be the administrator of HBO Now.
HBO needs to do that on their own, or find some neutral third party.
