At 7:20 PM -0500 3/11/12, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
The point I'm trying to make is, this is not very remarkable. If you make the in-home connection via one of these short range, in-home wireless techniques, it does not change the nature of the actual distribution pipe. The distribution pipe remains as it is. Fact is, it's only a small change from having that in-home coax distribution plant, or even more similar to having a cordless phone. Having a cordless phone hardly changes the fact that you're using basic telephone service.
The point is that the mobile/portable devices people are using TODAY DO connect to WiFi, and in some cases 3G/4G. They DO NOT connect to ATSC or ATSC M/H and it is HIGHLY likely they never will.
What is remarkable is that you think manufacturers are going to support ATSC and ATSC M/H in future mobile devices.
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.You mean, just like very often you can receive ATSC indoors?
No. Not like ATSC indoors. yes this is possible in many areas, but it is irrelevant. It is a standard that is going to be replaced, and the only way it can work with the devices people are buying is via an ATSC dongle.
Fine, but as I said repeated times, this LTE scheme won't be a FOTA solution.
You "might be right," but for the sake of the future of broadcast TV, I certainly hope you are wrong. There is NO reason why LTE broadcast CANNOT WORK for broadcasters, ESPECIALLY in areas with higher population densities. And it may even work with higher power levels in rural areas on bigger sticks.
And it is also unlikely to be an "unwalled" solution. In order to keep such a scheme viable, you need a fleet of trucks out there tweaking the system all of the time. And there's no way that an individual broadcaster is going to deploy such a scheme over his individual 6 MHz band (never mind that LTE uses 20 MHz or wider channels). So, you pay a price for going this route. **You are simply inventing a new umbilical service, where ATSC does not need one**. Hardly ground-breaking, Craig!
We are already taking the first steps toward a "utility" approach to broadcast RF infrastructure. When the spectrum buy back is finished, many existing stations are going to opt to become ATSC sub-channels using the spectrum of other broadcasters. When ATSC 2.0 is finished you are likely to see an entirely different approach to market coverage, where local broadcasters pool their spectrum to effectively utilize LTE broadcast. As foor the fleet of trucks and cell sites...
They already exist. The mobile broadband industry ALREADY shares sites among multiple carriers and uses third party service companies to maintain the networks. There is NO reason that broadcasters cannot leverage this infrastructure unless they are so arrogant that they think they can do it on their own, or worse, they just update the big stick model with newer codecs and receivers.
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.It is just as feasible that a cheap box can be used to receive ATSC broadcasts in challenging areas, and distribute the signal indoors via WiFi or 60 GHz schemes. My WiFi provides bit rates that typically range from 180 to 270 Mb/s (subject to the vagaries of MIMO). Plenty adequate to rebroadcast several ATSC multiplexes simultaneously. And faster versions of 802.11 are on the way. The advantage being, NO NEED for the new umbilical LTE infrastructure.
Sorry Bert, but ATSC is not a viable approach moving forward. You do not need to beleive me. Take another look at what Mark Aitken posted.
Disagree. First of all, local broadcasters will have to deal with this new LTE umbilical service. Just as they now have to deal with ISPs and MVPDs, to provide access to content in your home. And secondly, since you are postulating an LTE infrastructure ONLY used for TV broadcasting, my contention is, it will be funded exactly the same way as MVPDs are! What's the difference? Retrans consent or must carry, and local broadcasters still in the distribution path for conglom content.
There is a huge difference between sharing carriage costs across a utility, and demanding payment for content being offered by competitors. The larger issue here may be whether the media conglomerate are willing to keep the market based OTA broadcast model alive. They can just as easily pay the telcoms to deliver their bits, as they are doing today, paying Internet bandwidth providers to provision the streaming video services from their websites.
At least, if the actual Internet is used, you're giving the congloms a way to bypass local broadcasters. It's a more flexible system. If you rope off LTE spectrum just to create an isolated TV broadcasting utility, you're back to an MVPD that happens to use an RF instead of a fiberoptic infrastructure.
That all depends on how good the broadcasters are at using their spectrum for negotiating leverage. Remember, broadcasters are already paying out huge amounts to operate their ATSC transmission facilities. Nothing is free.
Broadcasters already have an RF system they can AND DO use, that can do the same. There's no need to invent anything new.The current broadcast RF system cannot do what you are saying.Again, look up Vcast, Craig. Broadcasters do make their signals available over 3G, today. All you are suggesting is that this service be provided over a roped-off part of the spectrum, not shared with other 2-way services.
You mean the Verizon walled garden for media content?Like Flo, this is going nowhere, OTHER THAN providing the proof of concept that you can use 3G EVO to deliver content to mobile devices.
I would agree however, that if broadcasters DO NOT get their act together soon, the telcos WILL use some of their spectrum for (paid) LTE broadcasts. It is up to the broadcasters to use their spectrum to develop a service that people actually want, delivering content to the devices they are already using.
Not very exciting!
True. But very threatening! 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.