Craig Birkmaier wrote: > But THIS IS the case that must be support if broadcasters are > going to survive and deliver content to the devices that > consumers are buying and using a second MOBILE screens. Well, for sure, if broadcasters develop a new scheme that is incompatible with ATSC 1.0, what they're calling ATSC 3.0 these days, no question that the compression algorithm should be changed. But in that case, since this won't happen for a few years still, I'd certainly aim beyond H.264!! If I were designing this ATSC 3.0 starting today, I'd be specifying H.265. By the time the standard is ratified, vendors will have gotten serious with hardware accelerators and all the rest. And the new standard may accelerate the process. > As for need? you need to get over the idea that the business > model will look like the current model that is failing. We are > moving away from the "Time and Channel" program schedule model > to a demand based model. I've already covered that, multiple times. Mark Aitken's plan is to make use of the multicast/broadcast optional feature of LTE (which has not yet been fully developed in LTE, last I saw on this), and also to provide some two-way service, over the medium. And I already pointed out several times that the local broadcasters are ALREADY providing on-demand access to THEIR OWN content, over the Internet. Nothing new to develop here. At most, local broadcasters can also use this new LTE infrastructure for that local on-demand content. I've also pointed out that the congloms ALREADY provide on-demand access to most, unfortunately not quite all, of their FOTA content, over the Internet, bypassing the local broadcasters. So really, your ideas about this new on-demand TV are nothing new. When the wireless telcos deploy 4G, they do so specifically to facilitate the sending of streaming media to mobile devices. Honestly, what extra role a broadcaster-developed, separate LTE infrastructure would play, is, and has been, a bit of a mystery to me. The wireless telcos will be filling that function, unless broadcasters deliberately block them out (which would be a change from what's out there now). >> Why? They are already allowing just two DBS companies to cover >> an entire country. Why wouldn't they allow one or two companies >> to provide the RF infrastructure for a given OTA market? > Because there are more than 1500 licenses today controlled by > hundred of companies. They are not going to give this to 2-3 > companies. Yes, and you can also try to keep selling buggy whips, Craig. My main message is, if you go with this separate broadcaster-developed LTE utility, instead of retaining the current un-walled broadcaster model where multiple OTA broadcasters are on the air in each market, I have to question what role the vast majority of local broadcasters will have to play. 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.