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

  • From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 01:24:58 +0000

Craig Birkmaier wrote:

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

THEY ARE COMPETING WITH FACILITY BASED MVPDs.

They, Sling, compete against MVPDs as much as OTT sites do, Craig. That
"complementary" nonsense is more or less a feel-good comment for those who
resist change. Or for those who need to be cajoled.

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.

Please point to anything that hints I don't already know that, Craig. Much like
your "explanation" to me that ATSC multiplexes can carry more than two
subchannels.

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

I've been saying that OTA broadcasters need to find a proper Internet role, and
can, *and* that MVPDs too need to repurpose their bandwidth away from broadcast
and toward two-way broadband service instead. Craig seems to gleefully ping on
the OTA aspect only. Bandwidth dedicated to one-way broadcast, in general, has
to be allocated in closer proportion to the actual use of "live" streams. As
time moves on, fewer and fewer luddites can be expected to insist on by
appointment TV, with a few obvious exceptions.

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.

Absolutely, for sports and for news mostly, BECAUSE the congloms are resisting
putting this live content on the Internet. And also, luddites. So there is this
viable market, yes. It's not just me saying it, Craig. The numbers tell the
story. Use of OTA has gone up to about 20 percent of households now.

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...

Wrong on many levels, Craig, and again you aren't moving on. We *just we
through this just yesterday*. Mobile devices prefer VOD except for very few
occasions. Wireless to mobile devices requires much more infrastructure and/or
much lower spectral efficiency than wireless to fixed. Therefore, wireless to
mobile is best handled by cellcos, who can dynamically change their
configuration from two-way cellular to mobile-optimized broadcast, as needed at
that time. But for the luddites who cut the cable and still want by appointment
TV, OTA broadcast should be optimized for lots of choice, rather than less
choice with mobile robustness. MOVE ON. Why is Craig circling back to square
one again?

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

I have no LOS to any tower, Craig. But if terrain is a big problem, which it
certainly can be, EVERY scheme has to install solutions. Repeaters or
translators. All of them, Craig. Even cell systems have to install extra towers.

Not even close. ATSC created an end to end standard.

Only to the extent that Craig doesn't understand standards. Craig, pick up
A/53, or pick up A/90, and show me where it prevents new packet formats from
being IDed and then fully defined. Show me where these two, or any others, are
written in such a way that makes any future packet formats impossible to create.

The fact that the transport layer can deliver non-standard,
unsupported streams is nice but useless.

ROTFL. As opposed to what, Craig? Pick up RFC 3551. Does it mention H.264? No.
Does that mean that H.264 was "unsupported, nice but useless?" No, Craig. It
means that when you need a new mode, you have the hooks needed to extend the
standard. And ATSC does. The proof is, it was extended.

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

Oh, so it can be extended. Wait, Craig, you just said above it was unable to be
extended. Which is it, Craig?

The big limitation with ATSC, and with DVB as well, is that they are one-way
broadcast standards. Other than some half-baked ideas we have seen here (backed
up with banalities such as "all you need is a backchannel"), it is difficult to
justify using the one-way broadcast path when two-way media exist. That's the
MAIN reason why these so-called innovations to ATSC are hard to justify. But
for example, could ATSC, as a standard, handle UHDTV? No problem! It's plenty
spectrally efficient enough, and we have proof that new codecs can be
implemented in the standard, because they already have been.

The installed base of TVs? That's a concern. If it were Apple, no problem. Just
make them all obsolete.

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.

Other related posts:

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