[opendtv] Re: Internet TV distribution architecture
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 00:29:49 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> 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...
The more content choices are available, the less viewership you expect for any
one show. So it makes complete sense to make all of their TV shows available on
as many media as possible, especially on the Internet, since so many new
handheld toys use the Internet.
The only real question that makes sense is, when will the decline in the more
ancient distribution methods become painfully apparent? Just as movie revenues
are coming from Internet distribution methods these days, it doesn't take
special cognitive powers to figure out that TV revenues are, or soon will be,
thanks to the younger age groups, shifting in that same direction.
> You constantly decry the role of middlemen,
If they don't add value, sure. So, for instance, with Internet distribution,
some level of local broadcaster involvement can still make sense. No, not to
erect huge towers, when the time comes that no OTA users are left. But to
insert local content, and to manage local mirrored servers, that would be a new
role that might make sense. Or not. Obviously, the networks hold the cards. The
networks could go to more of a European TV model, where network TV is either
regional or nationwide.
> Why would the networks let the local broadcasters stream the
> network feeds AND Offer this content as VOD streams?
Because there's demand for both types of service. Surely you must know that
MVPDs offer both types of service. What makes you think that the Internet can't
support that and a whole lot more? Besides which, my bet is that the TV content
owners would MUCH prefer for people to stream on demand, than to copy to local
storage. Wanna bet on that?
> 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.
Is it possible that a little birdie isn't whispering to you that you're
continuing to BS and arm-wave on this topic? All of this has already been
explained to you.
If you use LTE broadcast, you will not gain any significant spectral reuse at
all. And you will instead be paying with multiple hundreds of towers needed to
cover a single market. Why? Because without better spectral reuse, you have to
equal the spectral efficiency of today. Each broadcaster would probably want to
air as many subchannels as he is airing today. With LTE broadcast, that takes
many hundreds of towers, in the larger markets. DVB-T2 would require way fewer
towers.
The spectral reuse problem is governed by market size. We have big markets. You
cannot use the same frequencies, even with SFNs, if you need some overlap in
market coverage, with the adjacent market. And if you DIDN'T need overlap, the
ONLY way to use the same freqs would be to create *dead zones* between markets.
Up and down the East Coast, you don't want dead zones.
Frequency allocations are ALREADY efficiently checkered. For full power
stations, which need to cover the entire market plus some overlap, it's ALREADY
Richmond, Wash/Balt, Phila, NYC, Boston, where for instance Richmond and
Philadelphia, and Wash/Balt and NYC, use the same full power frequencies.
For low power stations, adjacent markets ALREADY use **the same freqs**. Low
power in Wash/Balt are ALREADY using the same freqs as full power stations in
Phila. Ditto between Richmond and Wash. Many of the same freqs are already used
in both markets.
With LTE broadcast, this would not change. Yes, at the edges, signal will be
improved. But the checkerboard of frequencies, by market, remains largely
identical. If you want to provide coverage of the area, some overlap for
households that commute to either city, and you still need to avoid
interference at the fringes.
So that's what it means. Now, do your homework and see how many towers a
broadcaster would need with LTE broadcast, for existing, geographically big
markets.
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:
