The author completely misses the point in this article. TV content delivered
via wireless networks IS COOL AGAIN. Ask any Millennial and the next generation
of kids “addicted to their cellphones.”
He also ignores the fact that the audience for the “Broadcast Networks” is
spiraling into irrelevance, other than live sports, which in the case of the
NFL is also in serious decline.
And then there is the minor issue of time shifted viewing - the old business
model of programming stations with a grid of scheduled programs has been
replaced with on demand OTT services, even for the Broadcast Network shows Bert
likes to watch.
It is difficult to imagine that a new broadcast standard is going to change
these realities.
But Bert tries...
On Mar 8, 2018, at 9:24 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
It's not the technology. It's people who impress themselves because they
spend money on whatever - in this case, being tied to a monopolistic
umbilical. They got more sports, they became popular. Then, surprise
surprise, they got upset when the rates wouldn't stop climbing.
Such as? I'd love to read an article, for once, which would state clearly
WHAT whiz bang services would actually use, or more importantly need, the
one-way broadcast channel of ATSC 3.0. Everything that the press wow people
with, be it on demand, interactivity, targeted ads, hyper local, you name it,
ALL of that depends on the Internet broadband link. The broadcast link may
exist or it may not, and those new features would do just fine. Vice versa is
not possible. The Internet is key here. How does that message keep getting
lost?
Indeed. Notice how ATSC 3.0 is not needed, for interactivity, for on demand,
for lots and lots of new program options. And too, how much of TV viewing
time is spent with actual TV broadcast, when a household is set up as Bill
describes?
His other point is that people back when were actually looking for excuses
for getting cable. Excuses like, my condo association won't allow antennas,
so I need cable. Now they actually want to install antennas. Perhaps to some
degree, but I'll bet the bigger truth is that people will more readily forego
that local broadcast signal, when they have enough alternatives available
online? Broadcasters need to get an online role.
Honestly, if you dissect the content of the article, the only relevance of
ATSC 3.0 would be, it should make it easier to install that antenna and get
robust OTA reception. Never mind that ATSC 1.0 has gotten pretty good with
the newer receivers, that it could be made even better, and that we are
ultimately obsessing over what is the least important of the TV links. Oh,
and that no one is selling ATSC 3.0 receivers, even when they do in their
home markets.
But there's more. Let's not so quickly forget that it was only thanks to
Michael Powell's FCC that we managed to get ATSC 1.0. Until the Powell FCC
forced the issue, ATSC was the best kept secret in this country. Every other
TV-related organization out there, be it stores, broadcasters, CE vendors,
all seemed happy to kill off ATSC. This FCC is definitely in bed with those
same 3 or 4 companies, so what are the odds? Zilch.’’
People are cutting the cord because they have found better ways of watching
TV. Those better ways do not require one-way broadcast links. It would make
more sense for local broadcasters to jump on the online bandwagon, one way or
another, and let ATSC 1.0 soldier on for the OTA signal? At least, people CAN
count on that receiver existing.