[opendtv] Re: Point-Counterpoint: Peter Tannenwald Responds To The Chairman : CommLawBlog
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 08:22:41 -0500
At 4:31 PM -0500 11/24/10, Albert Manfredi wrote:
Even Kon noticed that data broadcasting is usually met by a big "who
cares" shrug. But more to the point, and we've been over this too
many times, data broadcasting is not TCP/IP. It requires some sort
of carousel, aside from the basic FEC on the fly. So this
immediately violates one of Tannendwald's notions, i.e. not to
repeat stuff over and over. With the data carousel, you can tolerate
occasional dropouts, but you are wasting bandwidth unless you can
justify the waste by a huge population of interested receivers.
Sorry, but Peter was talking about the inefficiency of using the
two-way data networks for unicasting the same content over and over
again:
The principal cause of the shortage problem is the architecture of
first-decade technology, where each user's request for content
generates a separate digital stream in response. One way to solve the
capacity problem is to drive more traffic to wired systems, a
seemingly unpopular option with the unwired generation. Another is to
deliver frequently used content only a few times instead of every
time viewing is requested. That is exactly what broadcasting does: it
efficiently distributes content over a stream that occupies the same
amount of spectrum no matter how many people use it. The only thing
that is different about today's demand for video content is the
desire for time-shifting, which is becoming easy to accomplish,
without using more spectrum, by storing and replaying content in the
user's device. That is what DVRs and advanced set-top boxes do today,
with cellphones and portable tablets not far behind.
There is no way to interpret this as unicasting Bert; that is what
peter says is the problem. He IS talking about periodically sending
content to local cache using a carousel as you describe.
So once again, a big stick supported by low power DOCRs is doable,
even with ATSC, to make reception easier, without incurring the
inefficiencies of true SFNs. Combined with data carousel, such a
system would work without having to pay the price of a two-way
infrastructure. If broadcasters find some killer app that makes it
worth their while, they could go this route immediately, with no
excuses, no new standards to ratify, and no make-believe
insurmountable problem with the infrastructure.
I think we are closer to agreement here. The real issue is spectral
reuse in congested areas, where SFN's can be used to increase
spectral reuse and to tightly define local markets. The big stick
will still have their place is less congested areas...
But we've been through all of this ad nauseam.
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:
