Hmmmmm.
There have been numerous demonstrations of Interactive TV in one way broadcast
channels. You simply send the interactive elements as metadata and let the
receiver manage the interactions with the viewer. The BBC has done this for
years. And before that Europe had the "teletext" system where pages of
information were send in the VBI.
There's nothing new here. You can do this with the data broadcast standard
A-90. You are interacting when you use the ATSC program guide.
But Ron is correct. Why waste valuable broadcast bits when you can deliver
interactive services from your website to a billion mobile devices. Another
reason ATSC 3.0 is inventing stuff nobody will use.
Been there. Done that with Data Broadcasting.
Regards
Craig
On Nov 6, 2016, at 5:10 AM, Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Ron Economos wrote:
What's so horrible about an Internet back channel? You seem totally hung up
on this point.
You mean, what's so horrible about admitting that in order to provide
interactivity you need an Internet (or other) 2-way communications channel,
and NOT a one-way broadcast channel? Nothing is wrong with that, because it's
the truth. What's wrong with stating facts as they are? The one-way broadcast
channel, in practice, plays no part in the interactive service.
Also note: to me, at least, "backchannel" implies a one-way link back to the
source. You need a 2-way channel for any credible interactive service, let's
not pretend otherwise. The total capacity of the one-way 6 MHz broadcast
channel is nowhere close to enough for interactive service to customers in
any typical TV market.
The two simple points are: (1) ATSC 3.0 does not provide interactivity over
the public airwaves (contrary to what the article states), and (2) on demand
TV requires an interactive link with the customer (2-way channel). There
should ne no need to belabor these two points?
Bert
