[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 23:37:22 +0000

Craig wrote:

[Same old stuff about MVPD membership]

Around and around we go, with Craig. Done with this, Craig. The number is
heading down, therefore the congloms are taking action. Absolutely, people are
finding that OTT sites WITHOUT the old school MVPD subscription can work.
That's why the congloms are taking action. You make it sound like there has
been no change.

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.

We've been here too, Craig. Did you already forget? The closer they get to a
traditional MVPD, the less successful they will be against other OTT sites.
People bail out of the MVPD model because they want something different, not
the same. If cord cutting and cord shaving continues, then OTT sites will know
what they have to do. And it ain't to go back to the old formula, which is the
best suggestion that Craig has to offer.

Not true. Live sports is very important to those who are
truly mobile.

We've been here too, Craig. Did you already forget? Live sports that huge
masses want to see are not 24/7. When they occur, that's when it makes sense to
dedicate broadcast spectrum to them. Otherwise, mobile wants a two-way channel
for VOD. That suggests that the service provider has to have a cellular 2-way
network, not a broadcast network, and that PERHAPS, some of the time, during a
popular sporting event for example, some of the capacity of that net will be
dedicated to broadcast service.

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

Aaaahhh, finally! Okay so Craig, please answer me this. Why didn't you start
with this sentence, and leave all the old stuff behind? See how much time and
aggravation we could have been spared? We got to this same point years ago,
Craig. Can we move beyond?

Reception was a big issue for USDTV.

I have my antennas in the fireplace, Craig.

So?

So receivers have improved to the point where there's no credible issue left.
And **especially** not if such services as USDTV would employ professional
antenna installation, as is the NORM in Europe, even for plain old FOTA TV.
We've been over this too, for eons. Craig is still living in the year 2000.

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.

EXACTLY THE SAME as the ATSC standards, Craig. ATSC describes a flexible layer
2 container, which uses MPEG-2 TS for synchronization. ATSC did not have to
predict the existence of H.264. It can carry H.264 just as easily as it carries
H.262.

Just like RTP! Check out RFC 3550 and then 3551. Do you see H.264 mentioned
anywhere? Nope. So before attempting to repeat your old mantra, Craig, explain
in detail why ATSC and RFCs 3550 and 3551 are, in your mind, fundamentally
different, wrt "extendibility."

Sorry to be blunt, but this is very much like your claims on the number of
towers needed for LTE broadcast mode. Before attempting your vague and verbose,
imprecise generalities, see if they even hold water. This should be good
practice even for trade scribes, no?

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.

Craig is confused. The ATSC, just like the IETF, is an umbrella organization
that generates standards. Implementers and service providers, and academics
too, are the participants. They are the ones who make suggestions, then propose
and write the new standards, or standards updates, to be able to support their
innovations. It's not "the IETF." It is Cisco, Juniper, Verizon, etc.

If Craig thinks that participants in the ATSC process don't want to innovate,
then blame those participants. Not the standard. Saying that "ATSC is a point
solution" is nonsensical.

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?

Irrelevant, Craig. If you claim that ATSC can't be extended, then you have to
prove it. You have to focus, and in detail, explain why. So your claim is
false. End of story.

Just saw a story this morning that Cox is turning off the analog
tier in Omaha.

Late bloomers, then. OTA analog was shut off almost 6 years ago!

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

Analog "very much alive?" BS. There are 14 LD stations in the DC market. Not
one LP left, according to the FCC database.

But it only took a decade for the content oligopoly to figure this
out and buy up 90% of what cable and DBS delivers

So, over the MVPDs they collude, just like I said. But OTA, or on the Internet,
they can't at all, or at least they can't to the same extent. Why? Because
consumers HAVE A CHOICE. There is no distribution monopoly to your house. If
the congloms attempted to collude, one of them, say HBO or ESPN, will soon
figure out hey, I can get more revenues if I get more flexible.

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

Enforced bundling doesn't work with competitive TV portals, Craig. Now do you
see? Enforced bundling only works when you're the only pipe offering TV content.

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