I believe the correct word is "flounder", not "founder". But here's one
paragraph that's on the mark.
"Widespread adoption by phonemakers will require ATSC 3.0 to be built into
multi-purpose communication chips, made by the likes of Qualcomm, MediaTek, Samsung and
others. It seems unlikely that this can just be enacted in software using existing radios
inside phones-although there have been some such attempts. But before that happens,
broadcasters will need to begin broadcasting in ATSC 3.0."
I'm still very skeptical about ATSC 3.0.
On 06/27/2017 05:28 PM, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
This is still just someone's opinion, but his points make sense to me. I'd add one that
seems to be missing: who says that mobile users are truly interested in
"linear-live" at all, with a statistically minuscule exception of some games?
Why wouldn't people on the go more believably prefer to watch things on demand, such as
when they are not busy doing something else that precludes watching TV?
My feeling is that broadcasters should indeed get serious about reaching multiple devices with
their content, but as this author puts it, not necessarily by being "stubbornly tied to using
ATSC 3.0 as its bridge to the modern era." And more precisely, "stubbornly tied to using
OTA BROADCAST as the bridge to the modern era," is the way I would have put it.
In theory, in the sales hype, ATSC 3.0 includes all manner of other capabilities that have nothing
to do with broadcast. But it's only the live OTA broadcast aspects of it that have gotten any
attention. Sure, A/336 and A/338 also exist. But even there, they consider the live OTA broadcast
as being the "primary signal." Without that broadcast being a "primary signal,"
would those standards have been needed?
He also asks what's in it for the mobile operators. More expense for phones,
with no added revenues to them.
Another example of a failed attempt that he doesn't mention is DVB-H. I think
the assumption is these attempts failed because people don't want to carry the
extra device. Is that the whole truth? I doubt it.
I get the impression that the majority of laymen, and trade scribes, believe all this unexplained
stuff about "interactive" and "on demand," even when all they hear explained to
them is OTA broadcast. There's a certain logical disconnect that has not hit home yet. Same logical
disconnect that has people believing a one-way broadcast can give them Internet access.