[opendtv] Re: NAB: FCC's Wheeler Piles on Praise for Broadcasting | Broadcasting & Cable

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 3 May 2015 23:04:53 -0400

On May 3, 2015, at 9:30 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

If they do move away from it, then there's hope.

It varies by carrier and by handset manufacturer. But the trend, as noted in
the article you posted is toward universal modems.

But as of this past December, Craig, that model is still in place, and the
phones we got, even though we went through Amazon and not Verizon, still had
to be specific to Verizon. So as of today, maybe not in the future, the
carriers still have a say.

The article I linked to stated that Verizon is still hanging onto the subsidy
model. I don't know what phones you bought, but just because they are specific
to Verizon does not mean that Verizon requires this. We are still transitioning
to LTE, and the old GSM and CDMA networks are still in use. So there are still
many phones that are specific to carriers based on the modem chip being used.

Catch 22. Can't get more viewers without the adequately large amount of
choice, Craig. Consumers want choice, that's why cable got a foothold to
begin with. Choice. If you remain with broadcasting, instead of using an on
demand model with unicast and distributed servers in the system, and you need
to make your system attractive to real-world consumers, then you need to send
all those streams out all the time.

Consumers want programs, not networks and channels with schedule grids.

Yes, cable got a foothold by providing viewers with more choices and entirely
new programming concepts:
- content oriented channels for news, weather, sports etc.
- special interest channels
- movie channels
- music channels

But that was in an era when everything was linear except your VCR. VOD only
became possible after cable systems upgraded to 700 MHz (or 1 GHz) digital
infrastructures.

We have evolved through DVDs, DVRs, and now have the ability to access programs
on demand.

Broadcasters cannot offer this kind of choice OTA, at least not on demand. They
could download programs to local storage during off peak hours, but this
concept is dated as well.

Broadcasters could offer most of the live linear streams that attract viewers,
but they would need to sell this content to subscribers - this content is not
going to move back to free TV.

Like your local newspaper, there will continue to be a place for local radio
and a few TV broadcasters, but the consumer has moved on. The public is now
comfortable with paying for TV entertainment, whether it is a cable bundle,
Hulu Plus, Netflix, or HBO Now.

And even then, no matter how you try to restate this, Craig, or what other
factors you try to wedge in, the plain fact is that "live" broadcast to
handheld devices is only used, by actual consumers, for very, very limited
occasions. Some sports, breaking news, and breaking weather alerts.

Sorry, but this is not even close to being true.

Tablets are handheld devices and are now used extensively to watch television
programs. In most cases this is as a second screen in the home, or in a hotel
room, and sometimes at work. I have used my phone as a WiFi hot spot to watch
programs on a tablet as a passenger in a car.

Watching program length video on a smartphone is far less common, and the high
cost of cellular data also acts to limit use to watch program length video.
When a handheld device can access WiFi, viewing program length content is more
common.

Many tablets now have LTE modems; if broadcasters moved to LTE broadcast, it is
likely that many more tablets would support the standard.

So, what makes most sense to me is to not invest a huge sum to duplicate the
big stick model with LTE, but to change the model into something more
on-demand-oriented, which automatically moves you to IP unicast delivery,
distributed servers, and the occasional broadcast. This is the main point.
*If* you assert that broadcasters need to move to LTE, *then* I'll reply that
what they really have to move to is on demand, primarily, over LTE. Not
broadcast, at least not most of the time by any means.

Broadcasting is not unicasting. There is not enough spectrum, either TV or
cellular, to move the masses to wireless video on demand. Perhaps some day, but
it really does not matter.

Most TV viewing in the home will be via wired broadband, although broadcast LTE
could play a role. The problem with broadcasting is making appointments. It
will continue to be viable and profitable for live content, especially sports,
but will continue to lose viewers of most episodic content, who are moving to
VOD.

And this would only work if cellco phone subsidies are out of the picture.

Subsidies have nothing to do with it. If there is a viable LTE broadcast
service, the handset makers will decide whether or not to support it. If it
helps sell handsets, or better yet, if they can develop paid services for the
associated ecosystems, it will happen.

If not, TV broadcasting may just disappear.

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:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 05-2015