[opendtv] Re: News: LTE Tempts With Advanced Services
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 17:05:35 -0500
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> Sorry Bert, but you still do not get it.
>
> People DO like to watch "live" TV, whether it is really live (like
> a sporting event or American Idol), or just happens to be broadcast
> when they feel like watching (aka Prime Time). YES, they can access
> pre-produced programs via multiple infrastructures and do this at ANY
> time. But millions of people still watch TV shows when they run in
> the antiquated Time & Channel universe.
You still don't get it, Craig. *If* they want to watch the show live, chances
are, they are doing so from home or from a hotel room. Chances are, they ain't
doing it on their cell phones, while on the go.
And *if* they happen to be watching live while on the go, maybe waiting for a
plane to take off or in the doctor's office, they (a) can get access to that
content over their WISP's net (only up to broadcasters/networks to let this
happen), and (b) chances are real good that they won't be able to catch the
whole show uninterrupted. So they'll want that non-live option anyway.
All of which says, there's absolutely no imperative to dismantle the truly
efficient broadcast infrastructures, but at the same time, one could consider
doing so. If broadcasters and/or TV networks want to go the 2-way network
route, the only thing they really need to do is, make those live streams
available over the Internet NOW. That's it. No need to do a single other thing.
(Oh, and be prepared for most OTA broadcasters to go out of business in the
process, of course.)
> You seem to forget that the congloms still tightly control FIRST
> ACCESS to their most valuable programming, especially sports.
So your thesis is, the broadcasters should create an isolated LTE
infrastructure, just for their own and conglom content? Because what, congloms
are going to remove all their non-live stuff from the fox.com and hulu.com and
netflix.com sites?
You might possible have a point, however my bet is, the congloms wouldn't go
for this anyway. Know why? Because any 2-way computer-friendly network is going
to make it that much easier to forward content from one net to the other, over
the smart appliances that use LTE/WCDMA.
And no, you say, the LTE networks would NOT be 2-way capable. Purely a
broadcat-only LTE network. Well then, the idea is even more ridiculous, more
like the existing ATSC network, far less likely to change a thing.
> I would definitely use an LTE broadcast service IF it existed.
> But I would NOT buy a stand alone ATSC-MHP receiver or any other
> mobile device that ONLY worked with TV broadcasts.
That's shows the weaknesses in your logic, right there. First off, if the LTE
net for TV were truly TV-only, there would be no incentives for the cellcos to
support it in their cell phones, more than ATSC MH. Simply because, it detracts
from their own TV-carrying revenues. Secondly, the congloms wouldn't get their
seond revenue stream, so they wouldn't push it any more tan ATSC MH. Thirdly,
ATSC MH is not power hungry as you pretend, since it operates similar to DVB-H,
so incorporating it into cell phones is not more or less attractive to the cell
bean counters than what you propose.
> You mean the efficient ATSC infrastructure that hardly ANYONE is using?
That's once again, ENTIRELY up to the broadcasters and networks.
First of all, ATSC, cable broadcast spectrum (as opposed to cable's VOD
spectrum and Internet broadband spectrum), *and* DBS spectrum, all fall into
the same broadcast-optimized model. None of these use LTE or anything else that
is 2-way capable.
And more to the point, broadcasters and networks can make the ATSC option as
attractive and valuable as they feel like. Nothing about switching to an
isolated LTE spectrum would make a lick of difference, to the congloms. If ABC
would allow ABC Family to be transmitted as a subchannel, just one example, and
other networks did similar, demand for ATSC would go WAY up. If they DON'T do
so, because they want dual revenue streams or what have you, then they wouldn't
do so just because the OTA uses broadcast LTE.
If they WANT that dual revenue stream over ATSC, that's doable too. Just
develop conditional access. It's far easier to do that than to change out the
whole OTA infrastructure.
Your logic just doesn't hold, IMO.
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: