[opendtv] Re: Mobile TV
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 02:50:38 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
Happy New Year Bert!
I was hoping we could start off the new year by avoiding the
circular arguments that have dominated our discussions
Happy New Year back. And yes, I was hoping that too, but you wouldn't let me.
ABC sports has become just another ESPN network,
Even if that's true, the bulk of ESPN programming is out of reach of
"broadcasters." So as I said, any decision made is up to Disney only. Disney
already made ESPN available online via Sling TV, and they've indicated a
possibility that it will become its own OTT site too, in the future.
Broadcasters had nothing to do with those negotiations.
but ATSC is useless for mobile.
First of all, ATSC was made useful for mobile, and more could have been done.
If anyone cared. But mostly, the way mobile is set up in the US, even devices
that theoretically could use broadcast signals (including radio) seem to have
that feature blocked, by the cell service provider. Craig. We've been over this
many times. There's no incentive for the cell carriers to support these
features. Consequently, they most often don't.
But I cannot watch a NFL football game over the Internet,
Not so, right? Plus, that's just a matter of time.
http://nflnonline.nfl.com/
The NFL licensed the mobile rights to Verizon, so in some markets,
if you subscribe to Verizon you can watch these games via
Broadcast LTE.
So it's not up to Disney, or just the content owners.
In this case, you are talking NFL itself, the owner of content, without even
ESPN in the picture. TV Broadcasters were not involved in the deal between the
NFL and Verizon, nor was ESPN. Why laboriously belabor the obvious, Craig?
This is still an experiment to determine the level of consumer demand;
I posted an article today to show why the TV networks are moving in this
direction. As if we haven't discussed this angle at laborious lengths already.
If they own the rights they could move to FOTI
Who is "they," Craig? Again, that's all up to the content owners. If the TV
networks want an online presence, they can make it happen tout de suite. And
they are. That's not up to broadcasters.
But this also raises the question of how their broadcast affiliates
are protected, and how geoblocking can be implemented. For many
sporting events the networks only have local or regional rights.
Once again, the league is the owner, and the owner can do whatever they please.
Including demanding geoblocking, if they choose. Broadcasters are not in that
picture, unless they take on the critical Internet roles as we've talked about.
We are not yet ready to turn off the TV transmitters, and shut
down the subscription MVPD services.
Those are the same empty words you used last year, and you're repeating them
again. We've been over the numbers. Repurpose the cable spectrum wasted on
broadcast streams, and I've shown you multiple times that the same PON
structures used today can provide many, many times as much Internet bandwidth
as they are doing now, or even after the intro of DOCSIS 3.1. The only obstacle
is the deployment of adequate edge server capacity, which is progressing as
fast as people are demanding service.
Please stop the circular arguments, Craig. We simply do not require separate
infrastructures anymore, in the very near future. Whether "broadcasters" adopt
H.264 for OTA is simply not an issue. Transcoders exist, and what TV signals
are used by the different media are transcoded, as necessary, already.
as the content owners are in no rush to change the business models
They are changing the business models, Craig. The content owners are all that
matters.
But this brings us back to the core discussion of this thread:
what should broadcasters do with respect to updating the
standards they use to deliver TV to the masses?
N-O-T-H-I-N-G! The OTA broadcasters are already *not* delivering their content
"to the masses," via their own broadcast standard. The content is being
delivered over a variety of standards "to the masses" (cable, DBS, Internet),
ALREADY. The "broadcaster" is bypassed entirely, for these "masses." What
broadcasters need to do is find a true role in Internet delivery of TV content,
using the multiple standards that already exist for this type of distribution.
For most of the viewing public FOTA has been irrelevant for decades.
So why did you bother even asking the question above? The ATSC signal is not
the one used by the bulk of "the masses" anytway.
The Internet was open, scalable and extensible. Interoperability
was not guaranteed
I'm glad you finally got this, Craig.
In other words, the industry does not need another ATSC standard
Tell me something I haven't already explained, Craig. A new ATSC standard may
be more useful in countries where broadband Internet is still rare. The problem
is, you get all tangled up in discussions about "royalty streams," as if that's
even the issue. ATSC 1.0 is in use now, to millions of households, so fine. Let
is soldier on as long as needed. Meanwhile, distribution schemes are moving
away from one-way-broadcast.
The ATSC standard was never "locked down," any more than RFC 791
"locked down" the Internet.
Wrong.
Many components of the original standard have never been supported.
Like I said, it was NOT the standard that was locked down, Craig. More circular
arguments from you? Table 3 need not be considered "locked down." The only
thing that worked to keep the standard stable was the cheap, non-upgradeable
receivers in the field.
None of this matters now. Internet-enabled TVs already exist. Obsessing over an
OTA standard makes little sense.
I am simply saying it is time to make broadcast TV part of the
network of networks that is the Internet.
Broadcast TV works just fine as is, and over time, its use will decline. As
will use of all other one-way-only TV media. There is no technical reason to
think that the OTA standard needs to look any different, just because other
media exist, Craig. None.
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:
