[opendtv] Re: OTA
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:10:25 -0500
At 3:40 PM -0500 3/12/12, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> 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.
So, build a box that converts ATSC from outdoors into WiFi for
indoors. I kind of thought that was obvious enough that we didn't
need to mention it explicitly, Craig. Or for that matter, if
congloms put all of their content online, instead of just some of
it, then you won't even need that converter box. As far as I can
tell, the local broadcasters ALREADY have their own content online,
that that part's done. None of this is earth shattering, Craig.
In principle, your idea has some merit. But there are several issues
that would add to the complexity. And this does NOTHING to allow for
reception when the mobile device is outside of the home.
The biggest issue is codec support. Today's mobile devices have moved
beyond the first generation codecs used by ATSC - there is NO SUPPORT
for MPEG-2. There are several reasons for this:
1. Licensing costs - several dollars per device versus a relatively
low annual cap for h.264;
2. Codec efficiency - MPEG-2 is simply not efficient enough for
mobile applications, especially over wireless broadband networks;
3. Hardware acceleration - again, licensing costs make it expensive
to support MPEG-2.
We recently talked about the improving sales of outdoor antennas;
this market is limited by the number of homes with ATSC capable TVs
that WANT to receive OTA broadcasts. A device such as you propose
that would receive ATSC broadcasts and put them onto a WiFi network
would appear to have a much larger potential market - there are
ALREADY more iPads in the U.S. than HDTVs with ATSC tuners.
But the device would ALSO need to have a "transcoder" that would
convert ATSC MPEG-2 streams into h.264 streams. This would add
significant expense to the device, but it is still possible it could
sell for around $100 - $150.
By the way, I believe you are correct, that we are moving toward
distribution over the wired Internet for fixed receivers in the home.
This is the final nail in the traditional broadcast TV model and a
huge threat to the MVPDs, who are likely to become wire line
bandwidth providers in the near future.
If it *is* "highly unlikely" that cell phone makers incorporate
ATSC/MH, Craig, it is only because they are in bed with Verizon,
AT&T, et al. That's all. Why should Verizon "allow" the cell phone
manufacturers to incorporate M/H, when they can sell Vcast instead?
With your fixation that ATSC and M/H "have no future," you're simply
advocating these cozy deals.
NO BERT. It is because ATSC does not work for mobile and ATSC M/H is
too inefficient.
In case you had not noticed, the telcos no longer have the same
control over devices they once had. And they have even LESS control
over the services delivered over their wireless broadband networks.
Apple or Samsung could easily build phones that support M/H, without
risking the ire of the telcos. But they will not, because there is no
market for such devices, and it would severely impact battery life.
It's not a question of "hope." It's a question of understanding the
techniques you're advocating BEFORE you get stuck in something
that's worse than what came before. The LTE spectrum being
considered now, and for the true 4G to come in the future, requires
very wide channels. These wide channels can be aggregated from
smaller slices, but the individual channels are still at the very
least 20 MHz wide, and migrating up quickly to 40, 80, and 100 MHz.
So, there's no question that if the broadcasters want to go this
way, they will have to create, or simply rent space from, a utility.
That utility can be something that already exists, like Verizon or
AT&T, or it can be a new creation just for TV broadcast.
YUP
The crucial point being, it's just another MVPD.
Nope. It's just a carriage utility. The broadcaster still controls
the content of the bits they deliver to the utility.
At one time you could have said the same about the telcos - they
controlled every application in their walled gardens. But that
"trust" has been busted by Apple et al.
Going to LTE will create the opposite effect. All of the current OTA
broadcasters would become only sources of local content, assuming
that role survives. The congloms and other TV networks, like those I
just mentioned, will be the main source of content. And the true
"value added" of local broadcasters, i.e. to get content on the air,
will be gone.
The true value add of local broadcasters has ALWAYS been in question.
The ONLY franchise they have control over is local news; today they
compete with other broadcasters for this audience, as well as local
newspapers and independent source. Very few local broadcasters create
other forms of content that draw a large enough audience to be
profitable.
As I said before, local broadcasters began life in the carriage
business for the networks. They will need to find a new business
model to survive.
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.
I did read Mark Aitken's post, and I provided comments already. In
essence, he is proposing that broadcasters come together and create
this LTE utility. (In his plan, the utility would *not* be limited
to TV broadcast only.)
Correct. To survive, broadcasters will need to offer new forms of
content that can be delivered to (primarily) a mobile audience.
So I'm saying, perhaps the one or two broadcasters that take that
utility role will win out, and the rest will have little value to
add, other than their local news/weather. The congloms, ThisTV,
Bounce, etc., would have no reason to deal with their previous
affiliated station. They would deal with the new utility owner
instead, just like another MVPD.
Quite possible. I suggested as much above.
But this is already happening. The networks are DEMANDING a big chunk
of the retrans consent revenues from their local affiliates. And some
of the best content franchises are beginning to move toward the
distribution of their own content. There is nothing to stop the NFL
or Major league Baseball from going direct to the consumer, rather
than through a conglom.
The only excuse there is for MVPDS these days to deal with local
broadcasters is that local broadcasters transmit the OTA signal in
the market area. Why should local broadcasters remain involved in
this retrans consent/must carry scheme, with the utility concept? No
reason at all. It would be an anachronism. The one or two LTE
utility providers are the winners in the market area, and all the
other broadcasters are history.
Essentially nothing would change with the utility model, IF the
congloms decided to stick with local broadcasters.
BIG IF.
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:
