Aaron62

Orrymain

I think it's a jumping step to Captain Kirk's century. Do I believe it's necessary? No, it's indulgent. Most of the iPHone and other smart phones are toys, not necessities, and they pull people away from other things. While I say that, it's just a bridge to what comes next, when a tricorder and whatever those slim report packs are called that the yeomens walk around give us all we need.

Mockingbird

I think that we will see mor portable and less in home. What remains in home will be more geared toward a cinema type experience. Large screens and comfort. Information and entertainment on the go are here to stay

Piggie

I agree with Mockingbird. It's now something of a fad, that has morphed already into a trend that will finally become the way things are.

If MPH itself survives will depend on which devices are available to use it. How well it works. Lets say new phones will include it (that alone is a big if). Then if you are near the towers it will be fine. If you are on the go or want to watch cable only channels then you will pay the $10 a month or so streaming video. But as Aaron points out, why even pay for the cable channels when most with large screen phones have internet and can go to YouTube, Hulu, etc.... Then stream the program they want, not what is on TV.

But that said will it be the pay cable type service on phones that dies? If you have internet and can watch Youtube, etc, why pay for streaming video from cable channels that costs you ever month and might not have the show you want?

In that case MPH might become a better partner on handhelds than streaming cable TV, because the internet sites and MPH are free.

Still I think the single biggest obstacle to MPH will be which devices will have a receiver. I don't believe it will catch on if it requires a separate device. Today consumers want everything in one device.

Will the next I-phone say: "MPH? We have an app for that!"

Then toward the future, the G4 and G5 phones planned for the 700 MHz range (our old UHF channels) will be very close to the UHF TV channels. So it would be less work to build receivers in the phones for at least UHF MPH channels.

Which begs another thought. VHF is not going to work well on MPH, or at least in this Pig's perspective. Now imagine MPH makes a hit. What happens to those stations that ran like poker players to secure an VHF channel? Will they then have to lease bandwidth on a competitor to stream their VHF station on someone's UHF transmitter? To me that would prove to be too ironic, since I am one of the ones that said the FCC let WAY too many stations move to VHF.

__________________
The more I understand, the less I know.

Eureka

But Youtube is not live TV.

IIRC, VHF is being left out of mobile trials. It would be practically impossible to have an antenna large enough in a handheld device that would work with VHF. If mobile handheld TV catches on, VHFs are screwed unless they have a sister station they can use to piggback a sub channel on.

I think VHFs are screwed, anyway - at least where weather frequently interferes with solid reception. It's raining/lightning near here right now and our local DTV chs on VHF are a pixelly mess, full of audio dropouts. The UHFs are rock solid.

Aaron62

True YouTube is not live, but that's kind of a plus in my book because I can select the clips or shows I want to watch. Not saying it's a replacement to live TV, but there are other possibilties that are going to be available in the futue over the phone too for streaming video, news, and movies. The main factor here for me would be getting free TV OTA, but I still can't see myself walking around a mall with my girlfriend, or sitting somewhere in the public watching TV with sound. It's annoying enough when people are on the phone or walking around like zombies trying to text at the same time. It'll be even more of a pain in th rear having to hear what someone's watching on TV.

Piggie

Youtube not being live though makes a perfect blend for local MPH, but it's also perfect blend for pay TV via cell phones. I still say success will more depend on which devices go on the market to receive it.

I know MPH isn't yet and probably won't be considered for VHF which was what made me chuckle as we just passed the "Hidden Transition" and it's troubles that are still going on those that felt cutting back to VHF was a grand idea.

The reason I chuckle is I am having a horrible experiences with VHF here where I live. At least 2 of the 4 VHFs I have didn't need to move to VHF, they choose it thinking lots of range, small electric bill. 2 of the stations don't have a sister UHF, they are sister VHFs.

Besides lightning, here in the Gulf coast they spaced VHF's too close together. Tampa and Jacksonville FL share 3 VHF channels at 165 miles between farms. Seeing high band 80 miles out is common here back in the analog days, during the day, there most of the time. I used to watch WFTV RF CH9 analog for decades at 81 miles during the day as well. Seldom was it not watchable. At night it was clear. Same with Ch 12 analog out of Jax at 61 miles, that was clear almost all the time.

During our normal night time tropo 80 to 100 mile reception is the norm, not an exception or hot skip night. This leaves a HUGE zone between Tampa and Jacksonville where you can't count on receiving digital. The zone is large enough it extends into their FCC contours on a regular basis at night about a 1/4 to 1/3 of the way in. I bet they didn't count on that happening, if they did, then shame on them.

======

somewhat related Trip did a great post on AVS
The official upcoming final DTV Table Of Allotments/channel change thread - Page 136 - AVS Forum

__________________
The more I understand, the less I know.

Piggie

Think how easy it will be to watch TV driving. Be hard to prove unless you wreck and you know you screwed up, or the officer is on a horse to look down in the car. There are enough wrecks already from texting.

If you think about it driving is getting dangerous. Something like 1 in 10 is drunk, how many are texting? It would be ok with me if they only hurt or killed themselves. That would be natural selection at it's best.

__________________
The more I understand, the less I know.

Trip

The folks at WUSA would be surprised to hear that.

- Trip

__________________
KJ4IEA

Comments are my own and not that of my employer or anyone else.

Eureka

VHFs are a PITA here, too. The stations' answer is "put up a big outdoor VHF antenna or sub to a pay service (which they get a cut per viewer from)." I have an outdoor VHF antenna with good gain, but the problems persist.

I bet quite a few VHF stations have lost a lot of casual viewers, using rabbit ear/loops on secondary sets for catching the news/weather in the kitchen, etc. The average rabbit ear viewer just isn't going to bother installing an outdoor antenna for a portable TV, when all their UHFs work fine.