[opendtv] Re: The Competition
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 12:50:32 -0400
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> The real issue here is how rapidly consumers will shift their
> dollars from traditional entertainment distribution infrastructures
> to a pay as you go system based on downloading content.
First things first. The first question is what does this infrastructure
consist of, and is the idea (a) viable or (b) different in any way from
what the competition is offering.
Wi-Fi public nets had all the media buzz a few years ago. Much of the
problem with that notion was that 802.11 wasn't designed to do what
those proponents thought. So instead, you get hot spots, either outdoors
or indoors, which are exactly what 802.11 was designed to provide.
In this article, I didn't see mention of WiMAX. But let's assume WiMAX
it is. Unlike 802.11, 802.16 (WiMAX) is a scheme to set up wireless
point-to-point links, and the range can be much more than 100 meters
(nominal for the slower 802.11 variants). Multicast and broadcast
channels are also possible with 802.16e.
But to provide 2-way service to many subscribers, this will end up being
very much like 4G cell network technology, competing directly with
Verizon and AT&T. Smallish cells to support lots of frequency re-use, to
allow the system to scale up to many broadband subscribers in a small
geographic area.
> If Verizon, AT&T and the new WiMax consortium can deploy wireless
> data networks that deliver >5 Mbps in the next two years, the game
> is essentially over. There will be little need for physical
> distribution, and paying for a mobile TV subscription will be
> ludicrous.
They would have to deliver a lot more than 5 Mb/s to make DVDs or BluRay
obsolete, though. Until a subscriber can download an HD movie in far
less time than it takes to view it, the disc media will continue to be
more convenient. This is especially true for mobile appliances such as
this article addresses.
The price charged by broadcasters for MPH, assuming they will charge a
fee, can be substantially lower than the price a 2-way service would
have to charge. Because for a 2-way service to offer dedicated 2-way
links, like 4G and WiMAX would have to do, they need to balance how much
broadcast spectrum to eat up vs. how much to make available for
dedicated 2-way service.
> And then there is the nagging little problem of technology. Can
> U.S. broadcasters compete by putting a band-aid onto a legacy DTV
> standard that leaves them at a huge disadvantage in terms of
> spectral efficiency?
Infrastructure costs and spectrum requirements for a 2-way cell service
vs a broadcast tower are what you should be comparing. The spectral
efficiency of 8T-VSB, or even 1/2 or 1/4 rate, are going to be totally
comparable with what you'll get on WiMAX, for a given robustness level.
(Parenthetically, I saw another example of journalistic confusion in the
paper today. The article was about how the media buzz got away from
Ethanol fuels. In recalling the Ethanol promise, the journalist compared
"clean ethanol" against "climate-changing fossil fuels." Astounding
level of misunderstanding and befuddlement.)
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:
