[opendtv] Re: OTA

  • From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:28:20 -0500

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.

Other related posts: