[opendtv] Re: Internet TV distribution architecture
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:30:50 -0500
> On Jan 9, 2014, at 7:52 PM, "Manfredi, Albert E"
> <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Craig Birkmaier wrote:
>
>> But there has been a great deal of activity in the area of
>> ISP/CDN collaboration in recent years, and we may in fact see
>> more ISP collocation of CDN servers as the streaming video
>> market continues to grow.
>
> Finally. Quelle surprise, eh?
No. Just reality. In some cases, mostly outside the U.S., colocation is
popular. Inside the U.S. It is rare, but growing.
>> Clearly, if the MVPDs and broadcasters went away we would
>> need a new ISP infrastructure with mirror servers.
>
> Thank you.
For what?
This is obvious. Now tell me how long it will be before the MVPDs and
broadcasters go away...
If ever.
> With increasing demand for this streaming option, as the WSJ article claimed
> wrt movies, the TV industry should, and is, responding. I started streaming
> TV content to my PC many years ago, long before I dedicated the PC to the
> TV/audio system. The TV networks have been improving that interface steadily
> and also adding more and more ads to each streamed episode. Which proves to
> me that the TV networks have recognized that people do use this medium and
> that they want the medium to be self-sustaining.
It only proves that they are desperate to keep as large an audience as
possible, given the huge decline in the viewing of the networks, and that they
are using the old bait &switch technique to build the streaming audience. Now
that they have folks like you hooked...
MORE ADS.
> I have to believe the TV networks know enough to know that they will need
> additional server capacity, if millions of households flock to this option.
Of course they know this. They also know that somewhere out there a "middleman"
will build this infrastructure as it is needed.
But what they are DOING is keeping the existing broadcast/MVPD business model
THRIVING, whole they figure out how to control Internet distribution.
>
>> In order for broadcasters to get into this game they would
>> need the rights to stream the content the broadcast today,
>
> No one is asking for any special favors. This is the same role broadcasters
> played previously, with OTA delivery.
Once upon a time you had to leave your home to be entertained. Then a new
technology changed that - Radio Broadcasting. The folks behind this amazing
technology made the case that the government should control this new medium and
the FRC was born. In 1934 Congress passed the Communications Act and the FRC
became the FCC.
Then another new technology came along - TV Broadcasting. And the folks that
controlled radio broadcasting made the case that they should control TV
broadcasting. At first they did not know what to do with this new medium - they
just put cameras in the radio studios.
For decades, FOTA was the only game in town. And local broadcasters were the
only way to reach an expanding audience. Then new technologies provided
competition for the broadcast oligopoly. Over the next two decades the congloms
took control of these new technologies.
Then the Internet happened. For the most part the congloms have controlled this
new technology, but the battle is far from over.
You constantly decry the role of middlemen, telling us the congloms should be
rid of them.
Broadcasters are middlemen. The congloms have been milking them for every dime
they can get, and HAVE NOT been willing to give them new distribution rights.
They CANNOT stream network content.
You cannot have it both ways Bert. There is no reason to allow broadcasters to
create a new standard and expand their business if the networks can do it
without them.
So pick one Bert.
> Although as your second article points out, perhaps broadcasters also have to
> convince the ISPs. Because perhaps the ISPs want all this action to
> themselves. This is something I've previously mentioned, btw. The TV networks
> MAY decide to just deal with ISPs, rather than today's middlemen.
>
> All possibilities, Craig. There is a role for broadcasters to play, was the
> original point.
A role for broadcasters as middlemen?
>> If broadcasters were able to get the streaming rights for a market,
>> they would still need to have servers to deliver the streams. Where
>> would these be located?
>
> They would be located in each of the ISP nets in that market, number
> depending on the size of the ISP network. One server can only manage so many
> thousands of sessions and so much aggregate bandwidth. The numbers are easy
> enough to figure out, once you have the details of the ISP network. All of
> this SPECIFICALLY to avoid a meltdown of the ISP net, a la 9/11. And there is
> a balance of increased server capacity and improved core network capacity. A
> balance, meaning that the more servers you distribute throughout the ISP
> network, the LESS increase in core speeds you would require.
Why would they need any servers. To replicate their existing business model,
all they need is one IP Multicast stream per market (or several if they are
multicasting today). Why would the networks let the local broadcasters stream
the network feeds AND Offer this content as VOD streams?
The networks could put their own servers in the ISPs.
> Man, can you be obtuse. Craig, if you do not understand the relationship of
> spectral efficiency and tower spacing, in a SFN, then you have no credibility
> when you pretend to explain how the SFN is laid out. It's that simple.
>
> The existing need for market coverage overlap, e.g. to offer broadcaster
> signals from adjacent markets to household between the two markets (e.g. Wash
> and Balt) will not change. Not unless TV broadcasting in the US becomes more
> regional and less market-based. Therefore, as we've discussed many times,
> whether you use a big stick or small sticks, you still CANNOT assign the same
> frequency channel to two adjacent markets. End of story.
>
You still do not understand how spectral reuse can solve these problems when
operating at low power levels. The "white spaces" are now measured in the
distance between potentially interfering cells rather than the distance between
interfering big sticks (I.e. states, not neighborhoods.
Yes cell densities may increase in highly populated areas, but the tower
infrastructure already exists, and more people = more eyeballs = more revenue.
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
