[opendtv] Re: Up to the minute on demand newscasts
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:05:32 -0400
On Jun 23, 2015, at 8:29 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Says who?
The laws of physics.
We are talking more broadly about delivering TV content.
No. We were talking about what a broadcaster can do with a 6 MHz channel.how
many unicasts can they support in 6 MHz?
Even before using IP, MVPDs began doing so both live and on demand. If you're
watching HBO on demand, and someone asks "what channel are you watching," how
would you answer, Craig? Confusion?
Ales and oranges Bert. Yes wired MVPDs can support unicasts; they have 700 MHz
to 1 GHz to work with and fiber to risers to re-use that spectrum in multiple
neighborhoods. On older cable systems, the set top box DID turn to a physical
channel using MPEG-TS for a VOD event, but the end user did not see this. In
newer systems they just do unicasts over the broadband portion of the network.
And we are also talking about "news channels" like CNN, Fox
News, MSNBC, CNBC, Fox Business Channel etc.
Again, who says how these "channels" are viewed? I can go to the France 24
web site, and I can view the supposed "live stream" (which is in fact a mix
of actually live and pre-packaged stories), or I can view separate short
clips, or I can tune to Ch 30.7, for the ATSC version of the same "live
stream" I get online.
So as I said, these services can - and do - offer both live streams and demand
based services. All I am saying is that the live streams are not going away,
even as more people customize what they watch using the demand based services.
Tell me this, Craig. What's the difference between watching the online "live
stream" of France 24, and watching the OTA "live stream"?
Nothing except the physical medium used to deliver the same stream.
If someone were to ask "What channel are you watching," to the average person
watching the online France 24 "live stream," what would this guy answer?
Would he be befuddled by the question? Or would he say France 24? "Channel"
is an anachronism now, in the Internet TV era. It's become synonymous with
"source of content."
It is an anachronism for demand based services. But it is still a fact of life
for broadcasters and navigating the live streams delivered by MVPDs.
I will concede that it is possible to hide this with the proper user interface.
You could have a screen full of icons like Roku or Apple TV, select a content
source, which would then take you to a front end not unlike CBS All Access.
That is, it would let you watch the live stream(s) and access the program
library. So yes, the fact that some services still deliver streams assigned to
physical channels could be hidden from the viewer.
And they can. Let's be clear about this. The ONLY issue is how much spectrum
or other resource must truly be dedicated, 24/7, to one-way broadcast. For
those rare occasions in which many people simultaneously must get the same
content, and these are definitely rare in the greater scheme of things, there
is always IP multicast. Once you're connected via 2-way link, be it wired or
wireless, that's always an option for the ISP. So no need to go off and make
a big deal giving specific examples.
As I said before, we could evolve from the linear channel broadcast mentality
to a program based mentality. This has been done for decades, as broadcasters
sell time slots to other programmers, like Sunday morning Church services. With
a spectrum utility we could abandon the channel mentality and move to a program
paradigm, where the traditional network affiliates would only use spectrum for
specific live events.
But the current paradigm, where a broadcaster "owns" and controls a chunk of
spectrum would require a significant overhaul. What would the broadcaster do
with that spectrum when they were not delivering a live stream?
Can't do many unicasts.
Could do data broadcasting.
Could sell time slots to other programmers.
Could pool spectrum with the other broadcasters in the market and create a
utility...
The main point is, most of the time by far, you are better off assembling
even the scripted, 30 minute newscasts, as I described. Essentially doing in
the distributed servers what the studio is doing in their by-appointment news
broadcasts. The individual stories can be at least as fresh and up to date,
as I describe, compared with what they are in the by-appointment newscast.
It's called Headline News Network.
You could emulate this, even use virtual reality news readers rather than live
talent to read stories and throw to packages. But why change what they are
already doing? They can still offer all the same content for on demand
consumption as many are already doing, and this allows the viewer to decide
what stories they want to see.
Same deal. Get up for breakfast, and demand the show. If you're 10 minutes
late, no problem, you can still get it from the top. In fact, if you're way
early, you can still get the canned parts of the show, without the latest
happy-talk perhaps. That's entirely up to the entity that's assembling these
shows, on their video servers.
Yes this is possible. You could just program your DVR to do the same thing, or
the network could put the show on a server and allow access "from the top"
rather than tuning to the live stream.
But you still need people to create the show. There is little difference
between creating packages, and having someone walk onto the set for an
interview, with clips being rolled into that interview.
Who decides now, Craig? Why do you think that would change?
The news editors. I don't think that will change.
I think we will online to have live streams and on demand access to the same
content via a website.
And how often the run sheet is to be updated?
As often as the station or the network wants, Craig. Ain't it great?
Individual news stories, within this 30 minute program, can be updated by the
minute, if there's a need to, without having to wait until the next scheduled
news appointment.
Semantics. This is how the business works today for the 24/7 news channels.
Broadcast stations produce news programs for scheduled time slots. They often
run them again - especially overnight - and many are providing online access to
both the previous linear newscast and to individual stories/packages.
My main question is why not live?
Because technology does not constrain us to "live" anymore. Notice the
quotation marks. The only thing that was "live" was how the signal left the
studio. Most of the stories aren't actually "live" at all. Never were.
You must not watch many newscasts. Live via satellite or remote truck, or via a
webcast is very common. It may not be necessary, but it is part of the business.
We can now assemble the shows in dispersed servers, and feed out that signal
only as required. Not over a one-way broadcast pipe that must schedule the
streams way ahead of time, because it has to accommodate a long queue of
other programs, in that same one-way pipe.
As I said, we can end broadcasting as we know it and recover the spectrum.
And again, in my context, what I have been trying to get across, is that this
is legacy thinking, Craig. You are in effect telling me, "We need broadcast
because I only want to think in terms that make sense for that old one-way
broadcast pipe."
Sorry, but that broadcast pipe has physical limits. It cannot deliver unicasts
unless you go to a VERY DENSE MESH SFN. So either conceded that there will
always be some audience for broadcasting as we know it, or just shut the
service down.
I wish you had started here. The answer is, they don't. Broadcasters need to
find a role in the Internet, and they have one, as CDNs. This is why, in the
slightly longer term, the important parts of ATSC 3.0 are going to be the
Internet parts of ATSC 3.0.
You were doing fine until you mentioned ATSC 3.0. It has the same limits as any
other broadcast standard. Either broadcasters need spectrum, or they don't.
Next year we will see how the industry evolves. Some will take the money and do
as you say, just moving the most profitable stuff to the Internet. some will
just shut down. And some will continue to broadcast.
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:
