At 5:47 AM -0500 3/10/12, Albert Manfredi wrote:
If you bring cabled broadband into your home, then transfer to wireless within the home, what's the big whoop about getting decent reception indoors? The point was, wireless from outside the home, even cellular, is not always so reliable indoors. Get it? I get ATSC indoors, but not 3G indoors. For instance.
BERT BERT BERT...What we are talking about here is network infrastructure and the best way to balance the load between the wired and wireless Internet. Clearly the bandwidth demands in the home, and the cost of provisioning that bandwidth, favor wired broadband to the home, with WiFi for in-home networking.
That being said, more people are cutting their wireline phone "cords" than MVPD services. So wireless broadband is working for MANY people. And we are just beginning to see the deployment of femtocells for in-home connectivity to the wired Internet using 3G/4G radios.
What this means in terms of the future of TV broadcasting, is that consumers are more likely to access this content over the wired network, something that broadcasters are beginning to come to grips with. But it also means that in many areas, LTE broadcasting WILL work inside the home, and "may not" have the same cost per bit as the telco LTE services.
And it is entirely feasible that a cheap box with a simple antenna will be able to receive the broadcasts in more challenging areas, and put these bits on the home's WiFi network.
The big IF here is what the content costs.The telcos may not care whether you are downloading ad supported "free" streams or paying for the content - they are being paid for carriage. Ironically, the U.S. broadcast industry grew on the same business model. TV stations sprung up around the country, based on an economic model where they were paid by the networks to carry their programming.
Local broadcasters will now face a more challenging world than the one in which they operate today with two revenue streams, thanks to retransmission consent. They will either have to fund their broadcasts only with advertising revenues, or charge for the content. If the latter, this will require an entirely new infrastructure to handle the transactions.
And I'm laughing right back at you, for your confusion. Broadcasters already have an RF system they can AND DO use, that can do the same. There's no need to invent anything new. It's called 3G or 4G, or regular broadband that people can send to WiFi. Of course, none of these are going to be FOTA, because the infrastructure is too labor intensive.
As Spock would say... this is illogical.The current broadcast RF system cannot do what you are saying. I believe what you are saying is that they can adopt a new RF system that is compatible with the mobile ( and fixed) devices that consumers are now using to consume media.
What I am saying, and it appears that Mark agrees, is that broadcasters now have little choice but to adopt the RF standard of their competitors.
This infrastructure IS NOT too labor intensive. It's just different. Big sticks are NOT cheap. Thjey cost a great deal to build and maintain, and they are inefficient in terms of power usage, That said, big sticks will still play a role in rural areas, even as the RF system changes.
But in many areas, there will be an economic imperative for competitors to work together to build out the LTE networks; broadcasters - if they are willing - may be able to leverage the telco infrastructure to create the kind of spectrum utility I have suggested for more than a decade.
ATSC and ATSC M/H are much lower cost systems than cellular, which is their advantage.
If you say so. I'm not certain that this is true, but it is irrelevant, as this is exactly where things are headed in areas with significant population densities. And it is ALSO irrelevant since they do not work adequately, and are not supported by the mass produced mobile devices people are buying.
If CE vendors don't support M/H in wireless handheld devices, it's only because they want to dig deeper into your pockets, being in cahoots with the wireless telcos. Get it? Do you think you're being clever by encouraging that?
No they are being pragmatic. There is no real market for M/H receivers and they require investments in RF technology that is clearly going nowhere. They are investing it what people want.
Broadcasters can share the infrastructure with two-way cellular, and deploy in-network PVR functions, or they can pay the telcos for that service, to distribute their content for a fee. Wow, they're already doing this!
Or they can work together with the telcos to deploy a new infrastructure that uses LTE broadcasts to manage the process of delivering bits to large groups in small areas, as the Qualcomm video demonstrated.
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.