This was one of your better posts Bert! I think the take-away is that we want a system that caches the programs we want to watch, when we are not watching something that is live. We agree that there is a LOT of content out there. There is also a huge amount of duplication across the 500-1000 channel ocean. Not having what the viewer/subscriber wants can be a show stopper. Having more than they want is not a major benefit, especially if they must pay for all of the stuff they don't want, as is the case with cable and DBS today. Broadcasters could strike a reasonable balance with a free multi-channel (but not necessarily real-time) service, and still offer premium content as well. It's all about using the capacity to keep those caches filled with the right stuff. Regards Craig At 7:37 PM -0400 8/4/05, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: >Craig Birkmaier wrote: > >> So cable is in a quandary because the future appears >> to be about giving subscribers access to the content >> they want, rather than a big ocean of content that >> they must surf to find what they want. Much of the >> capacity of the system today is consumed with stuff >> that the typical subscriber does not watch > >A PVR can solve that, providing its own search engine >and only recording what the viewer wants to see. > >It's still possible to use the cheap firehose approach >instead of the more expensive VOD or individually >switched channel approach, if you have a PVR. Think of >it this way: the smarts go in the end system, the PVR, >rather than being distributed throughout the network. >Makes for a cheaper network. It's a tradeoff. > >> OTA DTV cannot compete with cable or DBS in terms of >> the size of the ocean...they will always lose that >> battle. But they can compete by leap-frogging cable >> and DBS, providing a wide range of content that can >> be downloaded to cache. Only the stuff that is live >> needs to be delivered at a specific time...the rest >> can be delivered anytime, and that equates to >> massive capacity when spread across say 30 channels >> operating 24/7. > >Cable and DBS can of course do the same thing. > >But I don't see this massive capacity suddenly >available with non-real-time downloads. The massive >capacity ONLY comes as a result of filling up the 24 >hours/day with *desirable* content, in each of your >6 MHz multiplexes. > >If you rely on PVR-like devices, i.e. with lots of >capacity, then whether the programs are downloaded >in real time, faster than real time, or slower than >real time, it makes absolutely no difference to >aggregate system capacity. > >When transmitting faster than real time, you will be >limited in the number of simultaneous streams that >can be offered. Simply because it takes nore channel >capacity to transmit faster than real time. If >slower than real time, you can offer more streams >but it takes longer to get them in storage. And both >of those options prevent real-time viewing. > >The trick is to get rid of the wasted time. If you >can rely on recording devices and fill the 24 hours >with good stuff people want to see, then it's not >that important at what rate the programs are >transmitted. Obviously, as long as programs meant to >be consumed "live" are transmitted in real time. > >So, while OTA could offer a lot more to viewers, >cable and DBS could in turn offer a lot lot lot >more to viewers. > >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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.