AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
771 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
"a company called iBlast will eventually be broadcasting Anime content to computers. Backed by major U.S. television station owners iBlast will first launch its service in Los Angeles on July 25th. The company will broadcast content via currently unused digital television bandwidth at an impressive rate of 19 megabits a second (almost 3 times as fast as the fastest cable modem service). Special hardware will be required for computers to receive the content, including a digital television antenna and a receiver, which will be available as an internal PC device or an external USB attachment. The hardware will cost between $99 and $199, while the monthly service will cost between $5.99 and 9.99 Initially the service will only be available in the LA area and the only specified content that it will include at startup will be video games. However the service will expand to other US cities and teh content will expand to include Anime amongst other things. At this time details from the company are still sketchy.

"iBlast solves the distribution dilemma by broadcasting digital content from local TV stations.


The television broadcasting stations are under a 1996 Federal mandate to convert their systems to a new digital standard (ATSC). This digital standard allows local television stations to broadcast traditional programming, high- definition digital television, and data. In recent years, television stations across the nation have been upgrading their equipment to the digital standard. Already, more than 260 television stations in the U.S. have converted their equipment to the digital standard, reaching more than three quarters of all U.S. TV households. Within the iBlast network, TV stations reaching 52 million households are already broadcasting a digital signal. And these numbers are growing every day."


There's more info on this evility at iBlast's website . We want all the bandwidth for our television programs, damnit!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,804 Posts
Quote:
The company will broadcast content via currently unused digital television bandwidth at an impressive rate of 19 megabits a second (almost 3 times as fast as the fastest cable modem service).
This statement is a total misrepresentation of the process. IBlast will not use anywhere near the total 19.3 Mbps rate.


MPEG-2 produces variable bit rate data, the bit rate being dependent on the entropy (amount of detail and rate of change of picture content) of the program being compressed. The data stream in which the program is transported is a constant bit rate stream. When the bit rate of the program is low, the unused capacity of the transport stream is stuffed with bits that carry no information relevant to the program. It is these bits that IBlast will exploit. When the program bit rate is high, no bits will be available or allocated to IBlast.


This process is called opportunistic datacasting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,129 Posts
It should be called opportunistic scaming. The underlying problem is not that it is possible. It's the degree to which it will be abused to the detriment of video quality. There will be big bucks paid to allow just a "little bit more" data through. The foxes are watching the hen house. Ahhh, another generous executive retirement on the horizon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,804 Posts
Every broadcaster that has built their digital plant has made a multimillion dollar investment in the hardware. So far, the return on that investment has been zero. How long do you think they will continue to sink money into the digital transition if they can't make back a little of the money they are spending? If you are going to complain about a plan that allows the broadcasters to recoup some of their investment without impacting the quality of the service to you, then you are unreasonable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by spwace
Every broadcaster that has built their digital plant has made a multimillion dollar investment in the hardware. So far, the return on that investment has been zero. How long do you think they will continue to sink money into the digital transition if they can't make back a little of the money they are spending? If you are going to complain about a plan that allows the broadcasters to recoup some of their investment without impacting the quality of the service to you, then you are unreasonable.
Yeah. What he said..................
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,273 Posts
iBlast is hardly a new company. They've been around for awhile.


They've actually been of some use to the HDTV community; they've done some interesting studies on OTA reception; see the results on their website. And broadcasters may get some small revenue from them while they're around.


But I never understood their business model. 19 Mbps shared among, what, 10+ million people in the L.A. basin? How is this at all interesting, when comparied against cable modems or DSL? And how about emerging 802.11b wireless hotspots, which I think will kill off any chance they have?


They only way they could succeed is by providing a very compelling content, that cannot be obtained elsewhere, that is so compelling that a large percentage of their subscribers would be interested in it. The one such content I know of is entertainment video -- which is what the broadcasters already have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,423 Posts
â€How long do you think they will continue to sink money into the digital transition if they can't make back a little of the money they are spending?â€


What ever it takes to stay in business after they lose the analog channel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,667 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by spwace
Every broadcaster that has built their digital plant has made a multimillion dollar investment in the hardware. So far, the return on that investment has been zero.
Excuse me, when the government allocated the spectrum, they did not guarantee a return-on-investment. If the broadcasters don't like it they can return the spectrum.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
237 Posts
I am sure that everyone understands broadcasters need to make money to stay in business. I think what we, the digital consumers are looking for is a firm commitment that the goal is HD, or highest available quality format. If it were clearly stated that this was the goal and all these ancilliary datacasting, multicasting, etc... schemes were being employed in order to make the digital transition viable, I think that that would be acceptable to most. I (and I think most of us) feel that the aquisition of this spectrum by broadcasters does incur some commitment to the public for delivery of High Definition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,782 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by spwace
Every broadcaster that has built their digital plant has made a multimillion dollar investment in the hardware. So far, the return on that investment has been zero. How long do you think they will continue to sink money into the digital transition if they can't make back a little of the money they are spending? If you are going to complain about a plan that allows the broadcasters to recoup some of their investment without impacting the quality of the service to you, then you are unreasonable.
I've seen similar comments from other people, especially those in the broadcasting business. My question is, do they have a choice? I thought that the government's mandate to make the transition to digital was just that...a mandate. Granted I don't understand all of the intricacies involved here, but I was under the impression that those who chose not to upgrade their facilities to broadcast in digital would be unable to remain in (the broadcasting) business after the transition was completed and analog broadcasting ended. This whole transition thing is costing EVERYBODY a lot of money....consumers, broadcasters, content producers, etc. Unless there is some expectation on the part of certain parties that the government is going to abruptly decide that we should keep analog and forget about digital, I don't see why so much time is being spent (at this late stage of the game) on trying to obtain an immediate "return on investment" or figuring out a "business model" for HDTV. How come these people didn't make this a major issue when the proposal to go digital was still in the planning stages? Isn't planning ahead and budget forecasting a part of every successful business? Or did some entities plan all along on using the digital broadcast spectrum (they were given for free) for purposes OTHER than DTV?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,129 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by spwace

If you are going to complain about a plan that allows the broadcasters to recoup some of their investment without impacting the quality of the service to you, then you are unreasonable.
You very clearly graduated at the top of your class at Wordsmith Community College. It is rare to see a response from you that does not twist the original posters comments or its context. Try putting your bifocals on and read what I actually posted one more time. Remember, context is important.


Your other "clever" quotes from this post I will leave for others to dismantle, which will be like shooting fish in a barrel.


Cheers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
Question: DTV doesn't necessarily mean HDTV, so I assume HDTV carriage isn't mandatory. Can someone point me to a reference that explores this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,782 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by onemoretime
Question: DTV doesn't necessarily mean HDTV, so I assume HDTV carriage isn't mandatory. Can someone point me to a reference that explores this?
I cannot find the article, but a Congressman recently reminded broadcasters that the main reason each was allotted the amount of spectrum they were given was because broadcasters said that this amount was required in order to broadcast HDTV. They are EXPECTED to use at least part of that bandwidth to provide the american taxpayer with HDTV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,804 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Man E



It should be called opportunistic scaming. The underlying problem is not that it is possible. It's the degree to which it will be abused to the detriment of video quality. There will be big bucks paid to allow just a "little bit more" data through. The foxes are watching the hen house. Ahhh, another generous executive retirement on the horizon.

Quote:
Originally posted by Spwace



Every broadcaster that has built their digital plant has made a multimillion dollar investment in the hardware. So far, the return on that investment has been zero. How long do you think they will continue to sink money into the digital transition if they can't make back a little of the money they are spending? If you are going to complain about a plan that allows the broadcasters to recoup some of their investment without impacting the quality of the service to you, then you are unreasonable.

Quote:
Originally posted by Man E


You very clearly graduated at the top of your class at Wordsmith Community College. It is rare to see a response from you that does not twist the original posters comments or its context. Try putting your bifocals on and read what I actually posted one more time. Remember, context is important.


Your other "clever" quotes from this post I will leave for others to dismantle, which will be like shooting fish in a barrel.


Cheers.
In your original post you make the point that IBlast is a threat to HDTV because it might be abused. My point is that the greater threat is the unrelenting opposition, by some members of this forum, to any form of profit taking by broadcasters. Another example of this attitude is kelliot's statement that there is no guarantee of a return on investment. He leaves it to the reader to figure out what means, so I assumed he thinks broadcasters should be compelled to provide a free service. How does this attitude help further the cause of HDTV?


I'm not trying to be clever, I'm just trying to correct what I see as misinformation.


You're willingness to make statements about my education and eyesight, in spite of the fact that you know absolutely nothing about me, gives me cause to doubt your credibility on everything else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,423 Posts
â€My point is that the greater threat is the unrelenting opposition, by some members of this forum, to any form of profit taking by broadcasters.â€


I have no objection to broadcaster making a profit from providing the service of broadcasting TV content. I object to datacasters that think they have found a way to get free digital bandwidth at the expense of taxpayers. If you want to provide data casting invest the big bucks in the spectrum when it becomes available just like all other service providers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,129 Posts
You sure have a unique way of looking at text. I indicate a threat to PQ based on the long standing record of corporate "deceive to succeed" methodology, and you counter that I am against broadcasters making money without affecting PQ :confused: Very logically sound argument :rolleyes:


I have no knowledge of, nor desire to know, your educational background. Attendance at WCC is an honorable thing for those engaged in the art of topic twisting. Wearing glasses is inconsequential as well. I have pretty thick ones myself... but I make every effort to wear them when reading a comment to which I am considering a reply. It would be a drag to accidently twist someone's words around.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,804 Posts
Quote:
You sure have a unique way of looking at text. I indicate a threat to PQ based on the long standing record of corporate "deceive to succeed" methodology, and you counter that I am against broadcasters making money without affecting PQ Very logically sound argument
In my original post, which was a response to the original quote that began the thread, I explained why the technology that was being used would not degrade PQ. Your post claimed that broadcasters would probably dedicate bandwidth above and beyond opportunistic data and that it would hurt PQ and therefore was a bad thing. One can only conclude that you made that statement as a blanket argument against datacasting as a source of revenue for the stations.


Please explain where I am misunderstanding you. Be specific.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,129 Posts

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
599 Posts
Folks seem to forget that in this stage of the game that HD is NOT required.

It is desired but not Required.

I for one would love to work for a network that could afford to do HD 24/7.

But the reality is that in for long term sucess, there must be give and take.


DTV is datacasting.


It's just that some of the bits represent video and audio.


Analog stations have been broadcasting data in the VBI for years.

And as far as I know no one has gotten rich from it.
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top