[opendtv] Re: Mobile TV
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 11:17:10 -0500
On Jan 5, 2016, at 9:50 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
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.
Your first statement is very important. Why is this content out of reach of
broadcasters?
It is because the viewing public enabled Disney/ESPN to grow dramatically via
the second revenue stream from the MVPDs; and that viewing public continues to
fund the very expensive rights to programming that is disappearing from FOTA
TV.
If you want to watch the College Football National Championship next Monday, an
antenna is useless; you can stream it online if you have authentication
credentials. No doubt some people will subscribe to Sling TV to watch the game,
then unsubscribe within 30 days.
As far as the future is concerned the content owners have all said that they
will offer some form of ala carte or direct to consumer service via the
Internet...
Someday.
And technically broadcasters, or more specifically the conglomerates that own
them, have EVERYTHING to do with these negotiations. They decide what to offer
FOTA, FOTI, or via subscriptions.
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.
Sorry Bert, but you cannot place this blame entirely on the telcos. They no
longer control many of the devices connected to their networks. You mention
radio reception being included in many of these devices, but blocked by the
telcos. Many Android phones do enable the FM reception embedded in most
WiFi/Bluetooth chips. But to make this useful you need an antenna and amplifier
for the antenna. In most cases the earphones supplied with the phone provide
the necessary antenna.
There are ads running currently in our market for the Nextradio App for Android:
http://nextradioapp.com/
Note that the carriers are supporting Nextradio.
Apple does not have the amp needed to support FM reception in iPhones; you
might conclude this was a design decision made to protect iTunes and the new
Apple Music service. But it, like adding an ATSC mobile tuner chip, is a
question of demand for the feature, and cost relative to usefulness. The
antenna needed to support mobile ATSC is unwieldy to say the least; the antenna
that comes with this ATSC mobile receiver is nearly six inches long.
http://www.qualitymobilevideo.com/tvtatsc-m.html?gelid=CPPkscG3lcoCFVJhfgodZIIK4w
What you are ignoring is reality.
You just posted an article about the media consumption habits of 18-24 year
olds. They do listen to broadcast radio, most likely while driving. But this
group, and most other demographics have moved on to online streaming for both
music AND radio. Apps for my iPhone and iPAD are available for many broadcast
radio stations - like iHeart radio - and most radio stations now stream via
their websites. The data requirements for audio streaming are minimal, and
essentially free where you can access WiFi.
Then there is the reality of watching TV on a mobile device. As you saw in the
article you posted, smartphone video consumption is minimal - most of this is
social media related not TV entertainment. Tablet consumption is only slightly
higher.
The real question is what do TV broadcasters offer that people want to watch
while mobile. According to the article you posted, live TV still dominates
total viewing hours, but a major portion of this content is behind MVPD pay
walls - thus an ATSC tuner is limited in term of the content people want to
watch.
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/
Already covered this - the number of games is very limited at this time. No
doubt this will change as new rights deals are negotiated.
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?
Because rights must be negotiated. ESPN has Monday Night Football; CBS, Fox and
NBC also have deals with the NFL. Anyone can negotiate for NFL rights; there is
a little chatter about Apple, Google or Amazon bidding for Thursday night
football, but most analysts believe CBS will get this deal, and it is likely
that they will get Internet streaming rights as well, or share them with
NFL.com.
The point is that sports right are complex and many existing rights deals were
put together before Internet streaming was even an issue.
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.
What article?
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.
The content owners are broadcasters - they own stations that reach nearly half
of the total broadcast TV audience. For content they own they can choose to
stream it live; for content they buy they must buy the streaming rights.
But the fact remains that the content owners ARE NOT choosing to stream live TV
with few exceptions. They ARE choosing to make some of their content available
for streaming on a delayed basis.
In other words they are specifically NOT choosing to compete with their O&O
broadcast stations and affiliates who have the first run live viewing window.
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.
Sorry, but broadcasters have the live rights to most NFL games. In most cases
these contracts do not allow the networks or the stations to stream the games.
At some point the NFL could grant these rights as new contracts are negotiated.
For now they are still experimenting.
Those are the same empty words you used last year, and you're repeating them
again. We've been over the numbers.
Exactly. And the numbers clearly indicate that we are not ready to shut off the
transmitters, DBS satellites, and wired MVPD services. So please do not raise
this canard again.
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.
Sorry. You need to stop with your assertions that we no longer need these
"other" infrastructures. No doubt you are correct that what you are arguing for
is possible. But only our list members are listening to your arguments; the
owners of these other infrastructures are not listening, nor do they agree.
As for the use of h.264 for OTA, the issue is about to become important. When
the industry consolidates after the spectrum auction, compression efficiency
will become far more important. Then again, with your online TV setup, you are
limited to SDTV quality, so this may not matter...to you.
Transcoding has both monetary and quality costs. If the source is already
compromised a transcoder will cause more damage. It's time for broadcast TV to
catch-up with reality.
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.
True, but that does not mean that the remaining audience, which you claim is
growing as people cut the cord, should not enjoy the same benefits as the
masses.
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.
And the best way to start moving in this direction is to adopt the standards
that they will use to feed the Internet for their broadcast operations - the
ones that pay the bills.
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.
Because they still operate transmitters and feed the infrastructure used by the
masses. You cannot have it both ways Bert. They need to update internal
operations to support the Internet; there is no reason to keep their core
business locked into outdated legacy technology.
Like I said, it was NOT the standard that was locked down, Craig.
Again, you are wrong.
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.
Here we go again. From Merriam Webster:
Stable
firmly established : fixed, steadfast <stable opinions>
b : not changing or fluctuating : unvarying <in stable condition>
c : permanent, enduring <stable civilizations>
The very first receivers locked down the standard by only supporting the table
3 formats rather than the MPEG-2 standard. Game over...
But there is stability!
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.
Your opinion. I provided well reasoned arguments to support my position.
You tell us they need to move to the Internet and find their rightful role in
the new world. Fine. Then they need to support Internet standards. Broadcast TV
is not going away any time soon; there are good reasons to keep it
interoperable with current standards.
Doing nothing is not a solution - if that's the plan the time has come to cash
out in the upcoming spectrum auction and let those still standing do something
to stay relevant.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
