[opendtv] Re: Migration to Internet-delivered TV
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 23:34:41 -0500
> On Mar 4, 2015, at 9:31 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> Craig Birkmaier wrote:
>
>> It's obvious Bert. The amount of content consumed via OTT services
>> (and TVE) is still about 5% of all TV viewing. I posted articles about
>> this recently. And then there is the small matter of broadband
>> penetration.
>
> Think again, Craig. First off, and I posted another article about this
> recently, as of now, between 90 and 95 percent of fixed connections are at or
> above 1 Mb/s, where certainly 1.5 Mb/s is adequate for TV streams, and 87
> percent of the population in the US was connected as of a year ago. So, the
> last mile part is not much of an issue, except for those way out in the
> boonies, who could use satellite broadband, even if ping times are long.
Sorry, but the fact that a large percentage of the population can stream SD
quality video does not mean that they are doing this enough to change the mix
of OTT versus traditional linear streams from MVPDs and FOTA broadcasters. Nor
does it tell us anything about the congestion that would occur if everyone
suddenly started watching OTT TV.
The stats tell you all you need to know.
>
> http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0086/akamai-reports-on-k-internet-readiness/273392
>
> http://www.internetworldstats.com/am/us.htm
>
> Secondly, check out the graph in Figure 4 of the first article. This
> increasingly steep rise in mobile data usage is being handled as the need
> arises, Craig. No one is waiting around for "the infrastructure" to be get
> past some imaginary threshold, as you are doing. And that's mobile, a bigger
> problem than fixed service.
It is rising like this for several reasons.
1. A high penetration of smartphones that use data for all kinds of apps, not
just video.
2. Major improvements in wireless data rates thanks to widespread deployment of
LTE
3. Major increases in data use for audio streaming- from the TV Technology
article:
> This information may be of interest to radio broadcasters, as research from
> Strategy Analytics suggests that audio accounts for more than ten percent of
> bandwidth on many mobile networks.
4. Extensive data usage for gaming applications
5. And significant consumption of short form video - e.g. YouTube and Vimeo
Most important, mobile devices are used in limited fashion with mobile networks
for video streaming because of data pricing. These devices are used as second
screens when mobile (e.g. Starbucks, Panera Bread, etc.), at the office, and in
the home when WiFi is available.
>
> Third, I don't buy your 5 percent. Take a look at this survey, from 5 year
> ago now, especially wrt the under 25 demographic:
> http://mashable.com/2010/04/12/tv-online/
Sorry, very old data points that do not match up with the much more recent
stats I have linked to recently.
>
> It says "most" of their TV viewing, way back then, was Internet for 8 percent
> of people, and 23 percent of young folk. And, way back 5 years ago, 51
> percent of people watched "some" Internet TV, while 54 percent of the younger
> demographic did. So all of this shows you that the demand is being met as it
> arises. Only you are sitting back waiting, Craig. If you have the broadband
> connection, or even 1.5 Mb/s, there's no waiting involved, Craig. Go ahead
> and begin streaming tonight.
I've been streaming for years, as have most Americans. But the total hours are
small in comparison to hour watching linear channels on the HDTV set in the
family room. You simply cannot will your way into winning this argument. We are
in the middle of a transition that will take many years.
>
>> According to the FCC, in 2013, 8.3% of U.S. homes did not have
>> access to broadband at 10 Mbps or higher.
>
> I watch 100 percent of my prime time TV from the Internet, and *I* don't have
> 10 Mb/s or higher, Craig. So that's quite irrelevant. You're fishing here.
You have DSL right? So you rarely get to see anything in HD. I had DSL and the
QOS for streaming was terrible. It was good for downloads, but low image
quality and buffering made most programs unwatchable. AT&T has increased speeds
here in Gainesville since I switched to Cox broadband, but 4 Mbps is about the
limit, and that's best case? I just checked and I am getting 22+ Mbps at 10:52
pm from Cox. The HD quality from Netflix is very good!
>
>> The problem with your argument is that it cannot grow to handle
>> the other 95% of video consumption overnight.
>
> That's a specious argument, Craig. The 95 percent figure is wrong, and
> nothing can happen overnight, in this regard. Look at the very steep rise in
> the graph in that first article, to understand what matters here.
That graph is irrelevant. It has almost nothing to do with what we are talking
about. It has everything to do with the fact that mobile devices are used to
access the Internet more than PC now...by a significant margin.
What matters is broadband access in the home - that is where most program
length TV entertainment is consumed. Primarily on tablets and via Apple TV,
Roku and game consoles connected to the HDTV.
> Besides which, anyone now connected to a cable system, who isn't connected to
> broadband, CAN be connected to broadband "overnight." Rural locations can use
> satellite broadband, as much as they would use DBS now. So you're overstating
> the problem. The shift to online viewing can happen as fast as people decide
> to use online TV, and it can also be hurried up by the MVPDs themselves, if
> they chose to do so. No one is waiting for "the infrastructure" to do
> anything special, Craig. The speed is only slowed by the luddites, not by
> "the infrastructure." Not anymore.
Thank you for finally being honest:
> The shift to online viewing can happen as fast as people decide to use online
> TV, and it can also be hurried up by the MVPDs themselves, if they chose to
> do so.
It is happening as fast as people want it to. Sadly, for you, it is not
happening anywhere near as fast as you would like. But cheer up, the MVPDs are
pouring major resources into speeding this transition up:
First via TV Everywhere, which serves the new screens and expands access to the
content subscribers are paying for.
Second via large scale deployments of WiFi to provide access to their broadband
subscribers when they are away from home. It should be noted that this is also
allowing the cable companies to compete with wireless networks for both mobile
voice and data.
The reality is simple people are increasingly using OTT video services in
addition the the traditional video services to which they subscribe.
> A problem that has been solved time and time again, for any number of web
> services, Craig.
This is not about the technology Bert. Edge servers are becoming quite common.
But the legal and business issues are not solved. It is encouraging that Dish
Sling has not encountered much pushback from local MVPDs, and that the content
owners are licensing to additional VMVPD services like Sony Play Station Vue.
What I don't understand is why you get so worked up about all of this. Are you
just waiting to be able to subscribe to Comcast Xfinity?
I think not. You clearly have no interest in paying for TV.
> Any problem that has been solved many times CANNOT be considered a show
> stopper. If the MVPDs do what Dish did with Sling TV, they could gracefully
> morph into OTT sites, competing directly against each other, starting
> tomorrow morning.
It appears to be happening. Won't happen tomorrow, or even next year, but with
TVE they are gracefully morphing into IPTV providers.
> No, Craig. It depends on nothing. It was simply a false statement.
There is nothing false about it Bert. Most of the world DOES NOT watch HDTV.
You are not watching HDTV via you DSL service. I guess if you really need to
see some real HDTV you can use that antenna.
>>
>
>
>>
>
> I can't even make sense of that. If Cox wanted to become an OTT site, as well
> as providing broadband service, they can do both jobs.
Give it up Bert. I was talking about Comcast, which is in your eyes the "Evil
Empire."
They are a MVPD that owns NBC/universal.
>
>
> Do you really not understand this yet? Is this another example of having to
> take years to get a simple point across? The MVPDs have geographic
> restrictions in who they can serve. Even DBS has these. TVE simply carries
> these artificial, irrelevant geographic restrictions into their Internet
> streaming offerings. Is it possible you still don't understand such an
> obvious point, Craig?
What's the point here Bert? MVPD services are what they are. Geographic
restrictions DO exist both in the MVPD and FOTA business models. They do not
prevent 95 million U.S. Homes from paying for MVPD service. When this
transition is complete and it is possible to buy TV bundles from
national/international services delivering programming over the Internet, more
than 95 million U.S. homes will still be paying for their TV entertainment.
You won't be one of them.
>
>> I can subscribe to Sling to obtain - PLEASE PAY ATTENTION -
>> Multiple Video Programs Delivered for my viewing pleasure.
>
> And is it possible you can't get past this point either, Craig? Let's see, "I
> can subscribe to Hulu Plus to obtain - PLEASE PAY ATTENTION - Multiple Video
> Programs Delivered for my viewing pleasure."
Wrongs you cannot access the live linear streams via HULU. Hulu is a SVOD
service, not MVPD service. Both are bundles, but the definition of MVPD is
VERY CLEAR.
> Gee, that makes Hulu an MVPD! And Netflix. And Amazon. So, Craig, clearly
> you're off track on this too.
>
NO Bert, they are SVOD services.
> Your MVPD is a monopoly within geographic restrictions, or close to. And
> priced to be so. Sling TV is not.
Sorry. Just a slimmed down MVPD bundle, providing access to a subset of the
linear streams offered by full MVPD bundle. No SVOD service provides access to
these linear streams (networks). CBS All Access does provide access - some of
the time - to one live stream, the CBS network.
> Hulu is not. Amazon is not. Sling TV is in every possible respect analogous
> to any other SVOD site, Craig, and unlike MVPDs and their TVE service.
Wrong.
>
>> The Government created the monopolies Bert, and the FCC to
>> manage them.
>
> What "monopolies" did the government create, Craig? Be specific. Did "the
> government" create MVPDs, Craig?
Telcos
Electric utilities
MVPDs - cable, fiber and DBS
The government did not create any of these per se, although there are many
municipal utility systems, including some municipal MVPD systems. The
government decided that these industries should be regulated as monopolies.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts: