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

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 21:59:29 -0400


The obvious reply is, instead, that failure of USDTV had little to do with
ATSC (although it was not helped by the fact that in 2003, 5th gen receivers
were just barely coming to market). It's main reason for failure was a poor
value proposition, for people who were by then used to many more choices
available on cable and DBS.

Yes I mentioned the problem with the value proposition. But reception was a
major issue as well. The cities where it was deployed were "best case" markets
with transmitters on mountains above the city with good line of sight to most
homes in the market. Deployment in most major markets would have been
problematic, although receivers did improve. The profit margins were too thin
to deal with establishing reliable service...

Slimmed down bundles on the Internet are **far more likely to succeed**. To
once again belabor the obvious, because people have an essentially limitless
choice of "slimmed down bundles." Not just one. If you don't like CBS All
Access, you might like Sling. Or Netflix, or, or or. With USDTV, only one
choice.

Yes, there is a chance that someone will figure out how to put together an
Internet MVPD that will appeal to a significant segment of the market.

But you continue to suggest that non MVPD OTT services will satisfy the viewing
public.

CBS All Access is far to limited, and does not even offer access to the very
important CBS NFL broadcasts. Netflix is a SVOD service that competes with HBO
- neither offer much in the way of live content (HBO does have an occasional
concert or boxing match).

Sling is the only OTT service you mentioned that offers something to compete
with the facilities based MVPD services. You did not mention Sony Vue, which
offers most of what you can get from the facilities based MVPDs, but it is
missing ESPN and Disney, and it costs as much as the others by the time you add
ISP service.

More specious comments. So, just how successful was DVB-H, Craig? The big
issue with mobile is that live TV on mobile is not terribly useful. Mobile
wants on-demand, with very few exceptions (sports, maybe the rare breaking
news items). To design a system optimized for those very few exceptions makes
it very suboptimal for everything else. DVB-H tried and failed. We have also
been over this countless times. Can you get into a better argument this time
around?

Missed it again. Millions of people are watching TV shows on tablets. Today,
parents are more likely to give a kid a tablet than to put a TV in their room.
Broadcasting is a wireless medium - it is absurd in this day and age for it to
not support mobile reception. I might add that car theater systems were quite
popular, but have largely been supplanted by tablets. I do see many TVs at UF
tailgate parties; and to be fair, most are tuned to ATSC channels - a few
people actually set up portable DBS dishes.

And many people who travel now watch TV on their tablets and laptops while
staying in hotels. I do this frequently with my tablet.

The ATSC RF standard is the biggest problem (See above).

See above? You said nothing meaningful above, Craig. The only point that
might have had any validity is the one about mobile, and that was easy to
discount years ago. Systems optimized for mobility exist. They have to be
two-way cellular, to support on demand, and are therefore not a good fit for
broadcast. Can we move beyond the old mantra?

The mobile systems have been a bust in the U.S.

I don't know how well DVB-H has been supported, however, neither ATSC or DVB
have had much success getting tuners into tablets and smartphones.

Reception was a big issue for USDTV.

And iP multicast works just fine for LTE broadcast, which is being deployed by
the telco competitors who are lining up to buy the recovered broadcast spectrum
next year.

So bottom line, your argument is baseless.

Next is the outdated compression technology and the lack of
extensibility.

The first part, "compared with what?" ATSC has no trouble changing to H.264
or H.xxx.

Sure it does. No existing TV with ATSC tuner could decide the bits. Not that it
would be that difficult to support it, as I pointed out earlier today - many
smart TVs already decide h.264. But it would take some dedicated souls to
pioneer an "upgrade" that would require an add on module or internal
re-engineering to support non-standard ATSC bit streams.

Any widely distributed broadcast standard has the same issue of
compatibility, when making the switch. Same with DVB-T, same with the
proprietary boxes in digital cable systems. They all have to stick with
H.262, until the time is right for the expensive changeover. Already been
over this too, Craig.

Yes, closed system standards with dedicated boxes (receivers) do present
significant problems. That is why we pushed for an open, extendible and
interoperable standard. It did not happen.

But many MVPD systems have been deploying h.264 for years. both DirecTV and
Dish use h.264 for local stations and some other channels. Comcast started
switching to h.264 in some markets last fall. And h.264 is the de facto
standard for OTT services, often offering up to ten service profiles to support
a wide range of bit rates and screen resolutions. Any new broadcast standard
must do the same to remain relevant; the exception being that layered coding
will be more efficient for IP Multicast broadcasts, than sending multiple
streams at different resolutions.

The Internet has evolved along the open, extensible path. As a result we can
view streams on screens the size of a wristwatch to a 4k home theater display.
It's just a matter of philosophy and NOT locking everything down in hardware.

Cheap receivers are not software upgradable. The standards are easy to
upgrade, including ATSC, but that has NOTHING to do with software
upgradeability of a cheap receiver!

How about a $35 HDMI dongle?

You really need to get in touch with modern realities. The days of hard wired
standards with proprietary IP are numbered, if not already over.

Why just two? I would agree that even with 720P a multiplex
can only support two channels of HD. But HD is not that
important to most of the niche channels .....

Craig, do you really think you are saying anything I don't know? Do you
really think that I don't know about DTV subchannels? Why the verbose waste
of time?

Because you made the statement that ATSC multiplexes could only support two
stations.

Respond to the main point: If you can grasp that maybe two stations sharing
one multiplex may constitute an "oligopoly," then why is it that you cannot
grasp that 200 channels sharing a local monopoly distribution pipe, with *no*
easily accessible alternative to the user, would have done that since the
1970s?

If I could understand what you are asking...

The delivery of TV content has been controlled by oligopolies since the medium
was born. We have seen several step functions in terms of the number of channel
choices possible over the ensuing decades.

- Four to ten channels per market in the broadcast era
- 30 to 300 channels with cable and DBS
- Your personal VOD channel with the Internet.

The reality is that it costs a bundle to create high quality content, thus the
barriers to market entry are very high - hundreds of millions or billions in
the case of Netflix.

OTA, or over the (neutral!) Internet, this "oligopoly" is far, far less
likely, Craig.

Only the name of the characters change Bert. It's the same old story - if you
want access to the best content, it will cost you.


You need to focus on reality, not your personal desires to reshape it.

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