[opendtv] Re: OTA
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 11:29:02 -0500
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.
Other related posts:
