[opendtv] Re: How Valuable is Low-Band VHF Anymore? | TvTechnology
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 14:53:57 -0400
On Jul 11, 2015, at 7:41 PM, Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Yes, we have covered this before. It's easy enough to interpret the rhetoric
to mean that the ATSC is using ATSC 3.0 as that umbrella standard, seamlessly
bringing broadcast, over the existing TV spectrum, together with broadband
over OTHER networks. That's fine with me. I've already said that if this is
the case, or if they simply continue using ATSC 1.0 for the broadcast
component, that broadcast delivery will soon enough go into disuse. As of
now, OTA broadcast has seen a surge of interest because of cord cutting
mostly. But if broadcasters get serious with broadband delivery, mark my
words, the broadcast component will be used less and less, in short order.
Thanks for at least admitting that the ATSC 3.0 requirements are a bit
ambiguous about how services that require a back channel can be supported. The
Mbbtv document was clearly written with the idea that an OTA broadcast can be
enhanced using the e siting broadband connection in a home or in a mobile
device.
As for how traditional broadcasting will adapt (again) to new competitive
options, we will have to wait and watch (or not). Clearly the broadcast
networks are trying to offer more live content, and not just sports. But we
agree that other than for a shared social experience, most episodic programs
are moving to VOD delivery; and even here, the social networking can help build
the VOD audience.
And as I have mentioned several times, for local broadcasters to get into the
VOD business they will need the rights to popular content. I can see the
syndication market evolving to fill this need, but I don't see the content
congloms licensing programs that they can use for their own OTT sites.
The FCC would not care if the service on the existing TV frequencies is only
the broadcast aspect, I agree. If the service over the TV frequencies will
include broadband delivery, as is also easy enough to interpret from that
Triveni presentation, then the FCC might take notice.
Perhaps. Again, this is a question of "degree."
If broadcasters create a back channel sufficient to handle many of the most
basic requirements to enhance TV services, I don't think they would care. If
they they to compete with MVPD services, they might raise an eyebrow. And if
they try to sell a pure broadband service the FCC might cry foul, and would
certainly want more than a 5% cut.
The FCC is involved to the point of auctioning off that wireless broadband
spectrum at outrageous prices, which amounts to a hidden tax on all future
users of that additional wireless broadband service.
I agree about the hidden tax, collected up front. But governments sell us other
scarce resources like water.
But I was specifically talking about the technical standards like LTE. There
the AfCC has not tried to "protect the public interest" as they have done with
broadcast radio and TV standards.
Most European nations set technical standards for cellular service, avoiding
the incompatibility issues that lock in customers and require significant
duplication of infrastructure.
I wrote:
You cannot have it both ways Bert.
Bert replied:
Not sure where that came from.
From your contention that mobile TV is a bust.
Truth is there was a small but viable audience for mobile NTSC receivers. With
ATSC 1.0 such an audience was not technically feasible. With the MHP add on, it
became feasible, but the window of opportunity closed thanks to smart phones
and tablets that connected to cellular and WiFi networks. No device
manufacturer was comfortable with supporting MHP - a few supported FM radio.
But the stats you are celebrating suggest that there is a mobile TV audience
for smartphones and tablets. So the real issue is whether ATSC 3.0 can enable
this. Clearly switching to the wide range of COFDM constellations and guard
intervals planned helps, as will SFNs. But will device manufacturers cooperate?
LTE Broadcast is quite feasible as it is mostly a software exercise to support
and at least Verizon is implementing it.
The one certain way to get local broadcast content into these devices is to
make content available via the Internet, using the network connections these
mobile devices already support. And they can do this today without a new
standard.
Consumption of what type of TV content, Craig? Consumption of OTA linear
broadcast TV? No.
At least for some CBS affiliates, CBS All Access is doing this. They saw a
significant spike in usage for the NCAA basketball finals. Many stations are
making their newscasts available from their websites, or at least some of the
"packages" used in these newscasts.
NFL games would certainly be popular, if the NFL would grant the mobile rights
to the networks and local affiliates. Even CBS All Access can't stream these
games.
That's what matters here. What people watch on mobile devices, with rare
exceptions, is on demand content.
Not true for me. I mostly stream live sports to my iPhone or tablet when away
from home. On demand can wait...
If ATSC 3.0 plans to use the TV spectrum for only that old linear broadcast
signal, it will go into disuse in a hurry, assuming of course the broadband
component is for real. If the broadband component is only make-believe, then
the broadcast service will be used by cord cutters as it is now, and
gradually disappear, as content owners put more and more stuff on the
Internet.
Could happen...
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
