[opendtv] Re: Electronic Design: The end of TV as we know it
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:53:36 -0400
On Aug 17, 2013, at 6:53 PM, Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>> In a way, I agree. On the other hand, the sites these articles mention are
>> always and only the sites those crippled boxes designed by companies on the
>> take allow people to browse. It's hardly surprising, when people are made to
>> think that Roku or AppleTV are the only ways to get Internet content on TV
>> sets, that they will only use that handful of OTT sites. (Duh, right?)
I think you missed my point. The main reason that these sites are the most
popular is that they provide access to the most popular content on demand; this
has been driven largely by the shift from consumption of this popular content
via packaged media (DVD) to online streaming.
It is true that some popular content is offered via sites operated by the
owners of this content (ABC, Fox, NBC, CBS etc.). But this content is far more
limited, and mostly replaces the need to program your DVR when you cannot watch
current episodes at the time of broadcast. And it is worth noting that Hulu
Plus consolidates most of this content in a single site - albeit a premium
service - which CAN be accessed by the devices you characterize as being
"restricted," or some form of collusion between manufacturers and content
owners.
I would also point out that the cost of alternatives to Apple TV. Roku etc. can
be significant. Over the years you have been a fan of commercially available
DVRs to record OTA broadcasts. These devices typically cost far more than a
Roku, and are limited in terms of what can be recorded (e.g. antenna or clear
QAM); in the case of Tivo Premiere, the cost is low and the device can access
cable and OTT services, but the monthly subscription fee is significant and
incremental to the cable and OTT subscriptions.
>
> Again, I use Internet TV all the time. Daily, basically. I too watch popular
> US TV network shows, VOD (but, of course, HARDLY those exclusively). And yet,
> I never use the sites mentioned in these articles. Strange, huh? I must have
> some sort of inside knowledge.
Clearly what you are doing is possible for anyone who wants to hook a PC up to
a TV. But your approach is not representative of a significant portion of the
population. I'll leave it up to the audience to decide if this is a case of
"insider knowledge" or simply support of an approach that has not proven to be
appealing to the masses.
> On your first point, who knows why CEA has apparent this long term interest
> in promoting the demise of OTA TV? I've never been able to figure that out.
> Right from the time when they vehemently opposed the incorporation of digital
> tuners in TV sets, which makes less than zero sense from an organization
> supposedly on the side of CE manufacturers (not on the side of MVPDs).
> Remember how the CEA railed about how ATSC tuners would add $200 to TV sets?
> How ridiculous was that? First, it was obviously BS only for the high drama
> impact. And secondly, even if it make a lick of sense, why would the CE
> companies care? More money in their pockets, no?
While I will concede your point that the cost of OTA tuners did eventually
succumb to Moore's Law, the reality is that only a small percentage of homes
actually use them. I believe the CEA made the right decision in objecting to
the FCC tuner mandate, and that history has proven that they were right. Not
only are these tuners NOT being used, but they are now essentially obsolete.
Millions of consumers are extending the capabilities of their displays via the
HDMI port, as you are; the difference is that you are using a PC to access OTT
services, while they are buying a Roku, Apple TV or Chromecast dongle.
As far as money in their pockets, here are the real benefactors:
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/M2/Pages/Licensors.aspx
> On your second point, so? Are you discounting LPTV for some obscure reason?
Not discounting at all. Just saying that one possible reason for the higher OTA
only homes observed by some surveys may actually be low income families viewing
Free OTA broadcasts on virtually free analog TVs.
I wrote:
>> Given the fact that it was primarily CEA members who financed the
>> development of the DTV standard and forced the DTV transition,
>
> Short memory there, Craig? As far as I could tell, always to my utter
> amazement, the CEA was only interested in making everyone beholden and
> addicted to MVPDs.
Huh? Why would CEA members finance the development of the DTV standard if they
did not want people to use it?
Let me answer that question:
1. To obtain a government mandate to force the transition from NTSC to HDTV;
2. To entrench MPEG-2 technology in virtually ALL global television
distribution markets including MVPDs, broadcasters, and DVDs (please reference
the MPEG-LA link above).
3. To protect their investments in HDTV technology through control of the
MPEG-2 standards process, which has entrenched archaic technologies such as
interlace in virtually every television distribution market in the world…
OTHER THAN THE INTERNET.
> There you go. That too. Even though wireless broadband benefits telcos more
> than CE companies.
Really? Tell that to Apple, Samsung, Motorola, Amazon (Kindle) et al.
Smartphones and Tablets are CE industry products that rely upon both wired and
wireless broadband to access a wide range of services including streaming
video. Emerging new markets such as in-vehicle infotainment systems are almost
entirely dependent on wireless broadband.
How many smartphones, tablets and vehicles are able to receive OTA broadcasts?
>> Did the VHS standard help broadcasters?
>
> YES! Because it made it easier for people to watch content transmitted by
> broadcasters. It made more effective use of the broadcasters' signals. And,
> radio and CD sales go hand in hand (or went, actually).
So why did the content oligopoly spend so much money fighting Sony's Betamax
and other VCRs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.
To be fair, you may be correct that it did provide some useful features that
sometimes helped broadcasters. Time shifting was clearly a benefit. But the
ability to watch movies at home seriously cut into the ratings of broadcasters,
even as it helped the profitability of the parent companies that owned the
networks. It took less than a decade for broadcasters to stop filling their
schedules with advertiser supported movies that filled up a significant portion
of prime time.
As for radio, the congloms DID use broadcasters as their promotional arm for
decades; but those days are long gone, and now the congloms want radio
broadcasters to pay for their content, just like Pandora.
> As to DVDs, they help the content owners, obviously, not the local
> broadcasters. Ditto with the Internet. Because just like DVDs, the Internet
> allows bypassing the broadcaster, to get that high value content. So
> broadcasters have to find a way of using the Internet to their advantage, as
> we discussed on here many times now.
Or they may simply become buggy whips.
The traditional "time and channel" broadcast (and MVPD) model is slowly dying,
propped up only by virtually exclusive control over valuable live content
franchises.
Broadcasters DO NOT NEED SPECTRUM if they choose to move their limited local
content to Internet distribution.
But they COULD survive if they choose wisely and repurpose their spectrum for
LTE 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: