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

  • From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 01:49:23 +0000

Craig Birkmaier wrote:

But you continue to suggest that non MVPD OTT services will
satisfy the viewing public.

They do, increasingly so, although in conjunction with either OTA TV or with
basic-basic cable.

Sling is the only OTT service you mentioned that offers something
to compete with the facilities based MVPD services.

Sling doesn't carry the major TV networks, nor the local stations with local
news/weather, so it's as much an add-on as most other OTT sites. I never meant
to give an exhaustive list of OTT sites, Craig. They all have their advantages
and disadvantages, because they have to compete head to head. Unlike MVPDs,
which are presumed to be the only umbilical to your house. Sling's strong suit
is clearly live sports, ESPN initially. That was the big news about Sling.

Missed it again. Millions of people are watching TV shows on
tablets. Today, parents are more likely to give a kid a tablet
than to put a TV in their room. Broadcasting is a wireless
medium - it is absurd in this day and age for it to not support
mobile reception.

Been there, done that, already covered the topic to this point. Mobile live TV,
on whatever tablet or phone, doesn't attract a big following. Mobile wants VOD,
VOD needs a two-way medium. That's why broadcasting TV to mobile devices does
not attract a huge following. I already addressed that the few examples are
best handled on a case by case basis, when necessary (big game), on a cell
network which does not have to dedicate spectrum permanently to broadcast.
DVB-H also failed to gather a following. Can we move beyond this point?

Reception was a big issue for USDTV.

I have my antennas in the fireplace, Craig.

Yes, closed system standards with dedicated boxes (receivers)
do present significant problems.

Then why don't you BEGIN your arguments at this point, instead of rehashing the
old arguments that we went over and over already (as you do below)?

That is why we pushed for an open, extendible and
interoperable standard. It did not happen.

No, Craig. Your complaint is with the implementers of ATSC, who didn't want to
go to the trouble of making software updatable boxes. ATSC can be used to
download updates to receivers of any number of different brands, just like the
Internet can be used for this. How do you think IETF standards are updated,
Craig? Do you think that the Internet standard (RFC 791) knows anything about,
say, H.264? Go ahead and look it up, Craig.

http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc791.txt

Comcast started switching to h.264 in some markets last fall.

Just in time for H.264 to be old news. Once again, there is *no problem*
defining an ATSC frame format to carry H.264, or anything else. See ATSC
Standard A/72, from 2008. Your problem is with the implementers of the
standard, not the standard. Cable companies are STILL supporting the analog
tier, Craig, largely because they haven't updated all their STBs yet. They had
their own transition, and because they insisted on renting out their own
proprietary STBs, it became their responsibility instead of the customers' to
get these boxes deployed. So they too have to proceed slowly. Analog OTA, on
the other hand, has disappeared just about entirely. Years ago.

How about a $35 HDMI dongle?

That's fine. For people who have more modern TV sets with HDMI inputs, no
problem. When you have limited RF spectrum for broadcast, Craig, and when you
have people with old TVs out there, making changes of broadcast standards is
far more painful than it is over a medium that supports UNICAST SESSIONS, or a
walled-in medium where you have complete power.

Because you made the statement that ATSC multiplexes could only
support two stations.

Obviously, you misread, and if you had thought about it for a microsecond, you
would have known. And you can feel free to look back in the archives. OBVIOUSLY
I know that ATSC multiplexes can carry many channels. I know this a lot better
than you, Craig.

Respond to the main point:

If I could understand what you are asking...

You, Craig, jumped up and down about stations perhaps having to share the same
RF channel, after the auction. You said that this is "proof" of the oligopoly.
Do you not grasp that when cable local-monopolies first became a fact of life,
and carried not just all of the OTA stations, but also dozens of other content
streams, *that's* when this "oligopoly-fostering" distribution started? When TV
stations transmit OTA, or on separate Internet portals, they have to compete
against each other. On MVPDs, they can instead collude.

If you know ahead of time that your content will be delivered to households
whether that household watches it or not, then you can make demands of the
combined monopolistic delivery pipe. You and the other tier members get
together and set your prices, and actual demand for your product is a secondary
consideration.

If instead you sell more directly to the household, then you have no one to
collude with.

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:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 04-2015