[opendtv] Re: NAB: FCC's Wheeler Piles on Praise for Broadcasting | Broadcasting & Cable

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 08:08:29 -0400

On Apr 21, 2015, at 7:37 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>

The closer they get to a traditional MVPD, the less successful they will be
against other OTT sites.

They are not competing with the other OTT sites, to which they are
complementary.

THEY ARE COMPETING WITH FACILITY BASED MVPDs.

People bail out of the MVPD model because they want something different, not
the same. If cord cutting and cord shaving continues, then OTT sites will
know what they have to do. And it ain't to go back to the old formula, which
is the best suggestion that Craig has to offer.

They are bailing because they are paying too much for content they do not watch.

The entire idea of the skinny bundles with add ons is to allow customization
and a lower price. Verizon is doing the same with Fios.

No matter what Bert believes, there will be two kinds of TV in the future.

1. Real time broadcast streams - increasingly driven by live events

2. Video on Demand unicasts - the way most pre-produced content will be viewed.

And the most successful services will be selling subscription bundles, some
with the ability to customize the live stream services they want to pay for.


We've been here too, Craig. Did you already forget? Live sports that huge
masses want to see are not 24/7. When they occur, that's when it makes sense
to dedicate broadcast spectrum to them. Otherwise, mobile wants a two-way
channel for VOD. That suggests that the service provider has to have a
cellular 2-way network, not a broadcast network, and that PERHAPS, some of
the time, during a popular sporting event for example, some of the capacity
of that net will be dedicated to broadcast service.

In general agreement here.

I would note that most VOD to truly mobile devices is of short duration, not
full length entertainment programs. The reason is simple. If it can be viewed
anytime, anywhere, you will probably wait to watch it on a bigger screen when
you can pay attention. Live events are the exception, as they are appointment
driven.

I would also note that Bert is essentially arguing for the end of broadcasting
as we know it. Broadcasters who fill a channel 24/7 with linear content in a
program schedule, have no place in the world Bert is describing. He may be
right.

Aaaahhh, finally! Okay so Craig, please answer me this. Why didn't you start
with this sentence, and leave all the old stuff behind? See how much time and
aggravation we could have been spared? We got to this same point years ago,
Craig. Can we move beyond?

Because you sometimes say that there is still a viable market for traditional
broadcast television. You tell us that people are moving to antennas to
supplement the VOD content they get OTT. You wax eloquently about how many live
linear streams you can watch via the broadcast multiplexes in your area.

Who is not moving on?

If broadcasting is still a viable service, the infrastructure used to deliver
it is not the issue. It will not harm broadcasters if their signals dan ALSO be
received on mobile devices...

No need to hand the live events that are paying the bills for many broadcasters
to the telcos..

So receivers have improved to the point where there's no credible issue left.

Not true. Some areas still are terrain blocked or have too much multi path to
assure reliable ATSC reception.

And **especially** not if such services as USDTV would employ professional
antenna installation, as is the NORM in Europe, even for plain old FOTA TV.
We've been over this too, for eons. Craig is still living in the year 2000.

Sorry, but even a professional installer cannot establish a reliable service
under the conditions described above.

EXACTLY THE SAME as the ATSC standards, Craig. ATSC describes a flexible
layer 2 container, which uses MPEG-2 TS for synchronization. ATSC did not
have to predict the existence of H.264. It can carry H.264 just as easily as
it carries H.262.

Not even close. ATSC created an end to end standard. They used parts of, but
did not fully implement the MPEG-2 standard. And then they let manufacturers
deploy hardware that did not fully support their end-to-end standard.

The fact that the transport layer can deliver non-standard, unsupported streams
is nice but useless. It would require new hardware at the receiver, which you
argued endlessly against. You claimed the market needed the certainty to
develop dedicated chips to make the standard viable and affordable.

You get what you pay for, and extensibility was not part of your vision.

Craig is confused. The ATSC, just like the IETF, is an umbrella organization
that generates standards. Implementers and service providers, and academics
too, are the participants. They are the ones who make suggestions, then
propose and write the new standards, or standards updates, to be able to
support their innovations. It's not "the IETF." It is Cisco, Juniper,
Verizon, etc.

FOTFL

If Craig thinks that participants in the ATSC process don't want to innovate,
then blame those participants. Not the standard. Saying that "ATSC is a point
solution" is nonsensical.

The standard is what the participating organizations make it. The motivations
were and still are completely different.

Once again, there is *no problem* defining an ATSC frame format to
carry H.264, or anything else. See ATSC Standard A/72, from 2008.

Who used it?

Irrelevant, Craig. If you claim that ATSC can't be extended, then you have to
prove it. You have to focus, and in detail, explain why. So your claim is
false. End of story.

Irrelevant?

The ATSC standard has been extended several times - nobody uses the extensions.

The IETF standards are updated all the time. everyone uses them.

End of story.

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:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 04-2015