Craig Birkmaier wrote: > It only proves that they are desperate to keep as large an audience > as possible, given the huge decline in the viewing of the networks, > and that they are using the old bait &switch technique to build the > streaming audience. Now that they have folks like you hooked... The more content choices are available, the less viewership you expect for any one show. So it makes complete sense to make all of their TV shows available on as many media as possible, especially on the Internet, since so many new handheld toys use the Internet. The only real question that makes sense is, when will the decline in the more ancient distribution methods become painfully apparent? Just as movie revenues are coming from Internet distribution methods these days, it doesn't take special cognitive powers to figure out that TV revenues are, or soon will be, thanks to the younger age groups, shifting in that same direction. > You constantly decry the role of middlemen, If they don't add value, sure. So, for instance, with Internet distribution, some level of local broadcaster involvement can still make sense. No, not to erect huge towers, when the time comes that no OTA users are left. But to insert local content, and to manage local mirrored servers, that would be a new role that might make sense. Or not. Obviously, the networks hold the cards. The networks could go to more of a European TV model, where network TV is either regional or nationwide. > Why would the networks let the local broadcasters stream the > network feeds AND Offer this content as VOD streams? Because there's demand for both types of service. Surely you must know that MVPDs offer both types of service. What makes you think that the Internet can't support that and a whole lot more? Besides which, my bet is that the TV content owners would MUCH prefer for people to stream on demand, than to copy to local storage. Wanna bet on that? > You still do not understand how spectral reuse can solve these problems > when operating at low power levels. The "white spaces" are now measured > in the distance between potentially interfering cells rather than the > distance between interfering big sticks (I.e. states, not neighborhoods. Is it possible that a little birdie isn't whispering to you that you're continuing to BS and arm-wave on this topic? All of this has already been explained to you. If you use LTE broadcast, you will not gain any significant spectral reuse at all. And you will instead be paying with multiple hundreds of towers needed to cover a single market. Why? Because without better spectral reuse, you have to equal the spectral efficiency of today. Each broadcaster would probably want to air as many subchannels as he is airing today. With LTE broadcast, that takes many hundreds of towers, in the larger markets. DVB-T2 would require way fewer towers. The spectral reuse problem is governed by market size. We have big markets. You cannot use the same frequencies, even with SFNs, if you need some overlap in market coverage, with the adjacent market. And if you DIDN'T need overlap, the ONLY way to use the same freqs would be to create *dead zones* between markets. Up and down the East Coast, you don't want dead zones. Frequency allocations are ALREADY efficiently checkered. For full power stations, which need to cover the entire market plus some overlap, it's ALREADY Richmond, Wash/Balt, Phila, NYC, Boston, where for instance Richmond and Philadelphia, and Wash/Balt and NYC, use the same full power frequencies. For low power stations, adjacent markets ALREADY use **the same freqs**. Low power in Wash/Balt are ALREADY using the same freqs as full power stations in Phila. Ditto between Richmond and Wash. Many of the same freqs are already used in both markets. With LTE broadcast, this would not change. Yes, at the edges, signal will be improved. But the checkerboard of frequencies, by market, remains largely identical. If you want to provide coverage of the area, some overlap for households that commute to either city, and you still need to avoid interference at the fringes. So that's what it means. Now, do your homework and see how many towers a broadcaster would need with LTE broadcast, for existing, geographically big markets. 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.