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

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:48:25 -0400


On Apr 20, 2015, at 9:49 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

As Spock would have said: your reasoning is not logical.

There are about 115 million TV homes in the U.S. 85% subscribe to MVPD
service, most to the extended basic bundles. Netflix has 36 million
subscribers. Logic suggests that the majority of these also subscribe to a MVPD
service.

This is to be expected, as Netflix, Hulu, HBO, Amazon Prime et al do not
provide much in the way of news, live events, etc. some people may be satisfied
to supplement OTT services with an antenna, others will subscribe to a MVPD
service and add one or more OTT services.

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.

Yet. They have announced the intention to do so. But network and local news are
not the force they once were. Only 22.6 million viewers watch the network
evening news. Local news is still important, and still available FOTA for those
who want it. And many people have turned to the web for most of their news.

They do offer CNN as part of the core bundle, and are planning a add on news
bundle.

What Sling DOES offer is live TV. Obviously ESPN, but A&E (e.g. the Walking
Dead and mAD Men), TBS, and others. VOD is certainly growing, but the live
streaming channels still have a huge audience.

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.

You cannot have it both ways Bert. Some people are satisfied with: "in
conjunction with either OTA TV or with basic-basic cable." Others want more
than just ESPN. The problem is that people like different things. Bundles may
include what they want, but they are filled with stuff they don't want.

We are just beginning to see the emergence of slim bundles and more
customization of the channels we can buy. SVOD sites are part of this mix, but
not sufficient to stand alone.


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.

Not true. Live sports is very important to those who are truly mobile. This may
include both smartphones and tablets. VOD is much more likely to be consumed
via a tablet, both in the home and when traveling (e.g. In a hotel room).

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?

To be fair, Broadcast TV no longer attracts a huge following - about 15% of
U.S. homes use antennas, and only 35-36% of all homes watch during prime time.
If people don't watch the networks at home, they probably won't watch them on a
mobile device.

You may be right that the only financially viable true broadcast market left is
LTE broadcast from the telcos.

Reception was a big issue for USDTV.

I have my antennas in the fireplace, Craig.

So?

Remember Steve, who could not get good reception with an outdoor antenna on the
west side of DC? Multi path is still a significant issue for many, not to
mention terrain blocking.

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.

The ATSC was interested in one thing - licensing proprietary IP mandated by the
FCC. Who cares if it works, when more than 80% of these receivers are never
used?

The Internet is primarily transport, with an open playing field to develop new
technologies that be delivered or enhanced with bits. The IETF does not try to
predict where things will go; they codify the stuff that works and people use
frequently.

You championed Flash, which embodied many very important technologies related
to graphics animation and audio/video streaming. This created the demand for
HTML5, which provides open standards for much that came before with Flash.

The important factor here is that consumers tend to buy/upgrade the devices
needed to take advantage of what the Internet offers. This drives innovation.
The ATSC did not drive, nor has it proven the ability to support innovation. It
did what was intended for the companies who bought and paid for the standard -
it enabled the ability to deliver HDTV to the masses, who had to buy new TVs.


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.

Who used it?

Your problem is with the implementers of the standard, not the standard.

True. The implemented killed even the limited extensibility of MPEG-2.

Cable companies are STILL supporting the analog tier, Craig, largely because
they haven't updated all their STBs yet.

This is starting to change, but has nothing to do with the STBs - you did not
need a STB for analog cable, except if you bought an encrypted premium service
like HBO.

Analog cable has continued to serve millions of CRT based NTSC TVs that were
move to another room, or the time share at the beach.

Just saw a story this morning that Cox is turning off the analog tier in Omaha.
I expect analog cable to be gone by the end of this decade.

H.264 will be around for many years, as there are more than a billion mobile
devices that support it. H.265 will likely be phased in with new devices. One
of the things that makes this work is that servers negotiate the QOS with
devices when they deliver video streams. It is VERY likely that h.264 and h.265
will coexist, with h.265 gaining traction as 4k TVs grow in popularity.

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.

Analog OTA is very much alive. It is called LPTV.

The DBS systems have been more aggressive about deploying upgraded boxes
because of their limited spectrum, and the need to deliver local stations into
every U.S. Market.

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.

When 100% of a market used the broadcast standard, that may have been true.
Your ATSC tuners are worthless for your primary mans of watching TV today...

OTT

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?

You are talking about two different things here. cable started as CATV, the
only extra content was a camera pointed at some weather gauges. When some
pioneers in the cable industry decided to go billions in debt to compete with
the broadcast networks, the picture changed. But it only took a decade for the
content oligopoly to figure this out and buy up 90% of what cable and DBS
delivers (with a lot of help from the politicians who gave them retrans
consent). As a result we have one new member of the oligopoly (Time Warner),
that is not a traditional broadcaster. It looks like Netflix and Amazon are now
trying to join the club.

When TV stations transmit OTA, or on separate Internet portals, they have to
compete against each other. On MVPDs, they can instead collude.

They can also collude on the Internet. It is called bundling.

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.

Yup. Just like Sling and the new SVOD services. Nobody expects anyone to watch
everything in a bundle.


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. 04-2015