[opendtv] Re: Competition
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 22:41:01 -0400
On Aug 10, 2015, at 8:47 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You know how the telephone network, then the Internet, pretty much displaced
the old telegraph network entirely? "Telegrams" still existed for a number of
years, but they were not transmitted on that old, separate telegraph net
anymore.
Hmmmm... I wonder why?
It's this sort of effect. When the new network can accommodate what the old
one was doing, plus a lot more, the new one displaces the old one, Craig.
Yup. Ever send a text message?
Once again, I think about these things in engineering terms.
No. You think like an engineer trying to market the amazing product you just
designed.
Technology certainly changes the way we do things. But in many cases the things
an older technology was able to do remain important and evolve.
The telcos did render the concept of a telegram largely irrelevant, but the
idea of sending simple text messages did not go away. You love your engineering
standards. Have you ever heard of SMS and MMS?
Just about everyone now carries a mobile phone and can talk (and video chat)
with everyone they know, even track their location. But for some strange reason
people are using this revolutionary technology to send each other text messages
(modern telegrams). And then there's the "IP Multicast" version ...
#TWITTER
Go figure...
Who knew the Millennials are so retro.
Not letting ambiguous popular culture terms like "TV broadcast" confuse the
issue, as you do. Not letting your nostalgic affection for "linear delivery"
derail the discussion, as you do.
Whatever.
It does/can exist, especially if the MVPDs would quit wasting last-mile
bandwidth by filling it up with ~4.5 Gb/s of always-there broadcast traffic.
The broadband architecture is one in which the end user only uses the
bandwidth he needs at that time. So a household with 4 simultaneous HDTV
programs running needs about 60-80 Mb/s absolute worst case, and much less
than that in practice (thanks to stat mux), **not** 4.5 Gb/s. And upstream,
there are ways of filling up the distributed servers using "out of band"
links, as we have already discussed, and as the MVPDs know well with their
own VOD in-network service.
You almost figured it out. You started to do the math, then gave up.
Hundreds of channels, thousands of homes watching those channels, often
multiple different channels at the same time. Or perhaps you could do the math
for a DBS service; hundreds of channels to 35 million homes...
Now factor in what you believe most people will do - video on demand. Now every
stream is unique.
The math says: WE'RE NOT THERE YET.
That's true, although we can stream two simultaneous programs even there. And
as we already discussed, Verizon keeps pressuring us to go to FiOS, and has
stopped maintaining their DSL service. If something breaks, they told us
either we move to FiOS or find another ISP. Well okay, I can accept that.
Sounds like you can accept a lower quality of service.
What happened to the 20 Mbps needed for an HD stream in your tirade above? Do
you think you are getting HD?
More like 360P or 480P.
So excess bandwidth already exists. And more than that, the streaming
protocols are self-adjusting. If congestion occurs, you get a reduced
bandwidth stream until the condition eases.
Or less with congestion.
Sorry, but excess bandwidth does not exist....yet.
From the 2015 FCC Broadband Report:
Key findings include the following:
17 percent of all Americans (55 million people) lack access to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps
service.
53 percent of rural Americans (22 million people) lack access to 25 Mbps/3
Mbps.
By contrast, only 8 percent of urban Americans lack access to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps
broadband.
Rural America continues to be underserved at all speeds: 20 percent lack
access even to service at 4 Mbps/1 Mbps, down only 1 percent from 2011, and
31 percent lack access to 10 Mbps/1 Mbps, down only 4 percent from 2011.
Overall, the gap in availability of broadband at 25/3 closed by only 3
percentage points last year, from 20% lacking access in 2012 to 17% in 2013
Americans living in rural and urban areas adopt broadband at similar rates
where 25 Mbps/ 3 Mbps service is available, 28 percent in rural areas and 30
percent in urban areas.
The report does not say what would happen to the Internet if everyone who can
buy 25/3 broadband did so, and started using it to replace broadcast and MVPD
services. That would represent a MASSIVE increase in demand for local and wide
area networks.
Fortunately, it will take a decade or more for consumers to create this demand,
and the capacity will be added as needed.
Show me how to get ESPN without buying a bundle of linear streaming
channels.
Been over this circle a bunch of times too, Craig. You claimed that your
much-loved "the bundle" would never unravel, and it was not long after that
that John Skipper proved you wrong. Now you try to change your words to "a
bundle," from "the bundle," and I've already pointed this out to you many
times.
No you keep changing the argument. You keep saying that ESPN is available
direct to consumer. It is not.
The bundling business model is evolving; it is not going away. For some, the
cost may come down. It depends on what you want and need. If you need more than
one stream in your home - you say you use two - Sling won't help.
The simple fact is, a lot of subscribers are making welfare payments to ESPN,
in a traditional MVPD. A lot of these got sick of it and shaved or cut the
cord. Disney understood. The Sling TV model changed that dramatically.
Not dramatically, but it's a start. Hopefully we will see more choice with less
bloat.
That's funny, Craig, because I remember distinctly quoting Bewkes, Skipper,
Moonves, and several others, time and time and time again, when you were
obstinately stuck on "will never happen." It's you who won't listen. These
guys are making the changes that you insisted "would never happen." And you
still don't listen, even after you're proven convincingly wrong.
They are sticking their toes in the water and experimenting. You misinterpret
and exaggerate what they say.
Nuff said.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts: