Future of FTA

[olliec420]

Ok so heres where i think FTA is going and it doesn't look good...

So last year when Viasat 1 went online it had more bandwidth than all the other sats combined. (i don't know if thats visible sats or worldwide but yeah...)

So as new sats are made I'm sure they will have comparable capacity otherwise that would just be stupid right?

Well since these birds can handle so much data so fast and cover such a large area, i think they are going to be used for ip traffic that can be scaled to the needs for every individual client looking for space.

Also terrestrial ip networks bandwidth is now so cheap, even the pirates don't go after fta anymore, they just post streams online with so many google ads around them now they make money that way.

Also the raised capacity will help out the pizza guys with 4k and all but i think backhauls will probably go over the internet... or if via satellite, ip packets with allocated bandwidth to what they need be it 4k, hd 1080 and the like.

Do you think days are numbered and the sky will be for nothing more than a big ethernet jack and feed hunting and all might go away?

 

[primestar31]

Seriously? Yet another post that the sky is falling?

You have now entered "troll territory".

What happens, happens, and then we'll switch to the new thing. Why keep starting thread after thread inciting people?

I'm OUT of this thread now, because it won't end well.

 

[Tron]

Broadband internet access is still nowhere near universally available. As long as that is the case, satellite transmission will be a viable method of distribution.

 

[skysurfer]

I do know some TV stations are using Ka-band for satellite newsgathering now (IP streams uplinked over a Ka-band sat to the tv station's studio). For the backyard dish owner, it becomes unfortunate that you will only be able to tune in those streams for stations in your downlink beam -- nomore watching news feeds from all the way across the country since they will be in a different Ka-band downlink beam.

IP video may be the next thing since it's already started, but at some point there will have to be receivers to come out to make decoding/viewing unencrypted IP video streams easier than how it is done now.

Thankfully at this moment, most newsgathering is Ku-band so we all across the country can continue to watch the same feeds as long as we are in the footprint of the satellite.

 

[olliec420]

Troll, come on man, I'm trying to make an educated guess on where the industry is going so I can plan for myself and am looking for other peoples opinions in the community as well. Everyone on the internet is so quick to call troll whenever something that doesn't sound good to them is posted.

If there is already a thread on ka/ip future satellite hobbyist speculation, I apologize for the dupe as I did not see one.

 

[olliec420]

I do know some TV stations are using Ka-band for satellite newsgathering now (IP streams uplinked over a Ka-band sat to the tv station's studio). For the backyard dish owner, it becomes unfortunate that you will only be able to tune in those streams for stations in your downlink beam -- nomore watching news feeds from all the way across the country since they will be in a different Ka-band downlink beam.

IP video may be the next thing since it's already started, but at some point there will have to be receivers to come out to make decoding/viewing unencrypted IP video streams easier than how it is done now.

Thankfully at this moment, most newsgathering is Ku-band so we all across the country can continue to watch the same feeds as long as we are in the footprint of the satellite.

Good info, I didn't think about the tight beams on ka. Hopefully like you say we get a way to pick up what we can with some sort of ip ird.

 

[northgeorgia]

Who knows the future: more stations, less stations, different types of stations. One thing I believe is that it won't ever die in our lifetime. Why? Let's look at the other technologies:

IPTV ... The newest thing, but as mentioned, doesn't reach all viewers due to lack of infrastructure. Easily controlled by government and companies by blocking IP addresses. Many bugs to be worked out to even get to the "Netflix" or "YouTube" level for a lot of independent IPTV stations.

Pay Satellite: Bev, Charlie, and Dave are doing just fine. Globecast is moving pay packages to IPTV to have a go with the new technology, but are keeping the other FTA stuff on the air. They say with good reason that 4DTV is dead (and Analog FTA C-band as well), but from what I read, there's still a channel or two hanging on out there. However, even in the case that Analog C-band and 4DTV completely dies out, one can just hook up a modern FTA receiver, actuator, and positioner and get lots on C-band!

Cable: Improved over the years. Now you can get telephone and Internet service as well as TV. Cable is here to stay.

Over the Air Television: Black and white to color, standard to high definition, analog to digital with sub-channels. Cell phone companies are greedy with the spectrum, but the FCC still sees the practical need for free local television, especially during emergency events. In fact, I see more antennas now then I did 10 years ago.

Telephone: The landline may seem obsolete, but lots of folks still have them. If you don't have a cordless phone, the advantage is that they don't go out when the power does! The technology expanded into cell phones and then smart devices (with their own networks such as 4G). The telephone companies themselves are upgrading to fiber optics to bring faster Internet and television services. Will the landline die? I doubt it. I figure it will somehow evolve into something more advanced (I've read about some non-recommended and dangerous experiments people did with electricity via the phone lines; so there could be potential for future development in ways I can't even imagine).

Radio: AM Radio, FM Radio, and yes, even Shortwave Radio are still alive. Pager services are still active. New modes and modulations are still being created for radio encryption. We added Satellite Radio and now IP Radio with services such as Tune In and Pandora.

We still have the Post Office. Competing parcel delivery services, E-mail and online bill payments may have threatened some correspondence, but it hasn't shut it down. I suspect they will simply reform themselves.

In Mexico, they still have a National Telegram service in operation. We used to have a popular one here in the U.S., of course. It didn't really go away, it's just that it's used only for sending and receiving money now. Dear ol' Western Union sent their last telegram in 2006! But don't fear. American Telegram (http://www.americantelegram.com) still processes thousands of telegrams.

So, that's why I think FTA will be around for a long time, even as it evolves to something more technical. There'll always be something to watch. And don't forget, regardless of what we speculate about feeds, there are TV stations up there now that WANT us to watch them because FTA is their best way of distribution

 

[eurosport]

Telephone: The landline may seem obsolete, but lots of folks still have them.

...and for some areas, like mine, the landline is also the internet with DSL service. No cable out here.

 

[olliec420]

Who knows the future: more stations, less stations, different types of stations. One thing I believe is that it won't ever die in our lifetime. Why? Let's look at the other technologies:

IPTV ... The newest thing, but as mentioned, doesn't reach all viewers due to lack of infrastructure. Easily controlled by government and companies by blocking IP addresses. Many bugs to be worked out to even get to the "Netflix" or "YouTube" level for a lot of independent IPTV stations.

Thats exactly what i think the quote un-quote "problem" is; its not a problem per se, its a MAJOR advance in technology in an area that hasn't seen advances since the late 90s and 2000s with digital and in that case and how will it be utilized. I was thinking like what North GA was saying that i bolded until i sat down and thought about the bandwidth of Viasat-1, more capacity than EVERYTHING up there combined in 1 bird. If all new launches were capable of that kind of pipe... With the kinda of results i have seen with exede... Streaming Ip looks better and better financially, am i wrong?

I have been around a while but don't often talk this frankly in forum. Primestar, i have to say i felt kind of insulted about the troll call. Honestly, I am an IT director and have been for a while and have seen many technologies come in and change, I have guessed a lot of mobile technologies moves right and has done quite well for me and I'm just looking to talk about it but not in a doomsday scenario or otherwise. That is what this is all about is talking about satellite technology and i believe this directly affects fta enthusiasts.

As far as eurosport's post, we're talking majorly affordable bandwidth anywhere only with the only caveat of a 600ms latency. Perfect for streaming or back hauls.

Im sorry if I'm not communicating this right, do any of y'all kinda know what i mean? I always have good ideas in the head but sometimes hard time conveying them in words... Also I'm not trying to toot anyones horn, mine or exede or viasat... I'm just saying that was my experience with the technology and i was quite impressed and what would happen if every bird was replaced/upgraded? On a separate non FTA note i think its going to be one of the greatest advances to happen to the internet since optical fibers once they deal with the latency, stocks on satellite tech R&D and manufacturers might be good buys if so .

 

[Titanium]

Olliec420,

Several times each year someone posts a similar thread about the pending demise of FTA. Each time folks have responded with similar observations. Your thread just joined the list with other "Chicken Little's" in the eyes of many members. Don't take it too personal that many members have grown weary...

All distribution will evolve. When infrastructure upgrade is required to transition, the evolution is slowed. Cutting edge distribution changes typically only occurs in revolutionary new products that shake up the chain of distribution.

As long as traditional live stream distribution by terrestrial and subscription cable and satellite are available, embraced by the majority of the paying viewers (or advertisers) and current model downlink equipment meets the needs of the distribution method, wide area distribution with a single transport stream via satellite is highly cost effective.

As pointed out, large geographic distribution areas and limited bandwidth availability outside urban areas continue to support the direct to home distribution method of live stream broadcast via satellite.

I highly disagree with the suggestion that a geosynchronous satellite with limited bandwidth could serve adequate data to a major demographic in a wide area footprint and provide an individual experience with live streaming or other entertainment medium.

Streaming IP is still a transport stream encapsulation. While better codecs will provide increased bandwidth efficiencies, this also requires significant infrastructure change and monetary investment to realize savings in bandwidth. Unless there would be a significant increased return on investment, why would a live stream distributor change the distribution method?

 

[olliec420]

Olliec420, Several times each year someone posts a similar thread about the pending demise of FTA. Each time folks have responded with similar observations. Your thread just joined the list with other "Chicken Little's" in the eyes of many members. Don't take it too personal that many members have grown weary... All distribution will evolve. When infrastructure upgrade is required to transition, the evolution is slowed. Cutting edge distribution changes typically only occurs in revolutionary new products that shake up the chain of distribution. As long as traditional live stream distribution by terrestrial and subscription cable and satellite are available, embraced by the majority of the paying viewers (or advertisers) and current model downlink equipment meets the needs of the distribution method, wide area distribution with a single transport stream via satellite is highly cost effective. As pointed out, large geographic distribution areas and limited bandwidth availability outside urban areas continue to support the direct to home distribution method of live stream broadcast via satellite. I highly disagree with the suggestion that a geosynchronous satellite with limited bandwidth could serve adequate data to a major demographic in a wide area footprint and provide an individual experience with live streaming or other entertainment medium. Streaming IP is still a transport stream encapsulation. While better codecs will provide increased bandwidth efficiencies, this also requires significant infrastructure change and monetary investment to realize savings in bandwidth. Unless there would be a significant increased return on investment, why would a live stream distributor change the distribution method?

Well said from an industry player, thanks for the input Brian.

 

[toucan-man]

Does this have any relevance to the topic at hand,

http://www.philly.com/philly/busine..._kill_free_sports_network_programs_on_TV.html

 

[Lone Gunman]

I highly disagree with the suggestion that a geosynchronous satellite with limited bandwidth could serve adequate data to a major demographic in a wide area footprint and provide an individual experience with live streaming or other entertainment medium.

An example of this would be Wild Blue and Hughes Net. Talk to someone who has that service and you'll find out how bad an idea that already is.

Only way Satellite internet would be at my house is if there was NOTHING else available because everyone that I've ever known that had it said it was expensive, bandwidth limited and it sucked.

 

[bobvick]

An example of this would be Wild Blue and Hughes Net. Talk to someone who has that service and you'll find out how bad an idea that already is. Only way Satellite internet would be at my house is if there was NOTHING else available because everyone that I've ever known that had it said it was expensive, bandwidth limited and it sucked.

Actually Exede from ViaSat is quite good. It does have latency, around 700ms, but the only real major drawback now is the limitation of bandwidth to 10, 15, or 20GB per month. Of course they do have the late night freezone from 1:00-5:00 AM, unlimited data usage in those hours. I usually run about 14-18Mbps down and 3-Mbps up. I have their 10GB per month plan and use it only when I am streaming video or downloading something on my DSL as 4 Mbps down is the fastest DSL speed I cab get out in the country where I live. I am quite pleased with it much more so than the old HughesNet/Direcway.

 

[northgeorgia]

Does this have any relevance to the topic at hand,

http://www.philly.com/philly/busine..._kill_free_sports_network_programs_on_TV.html

Aereo is kind of unique since they're taking free TV and making users pay for it with no fees going back to the networks. As for the whine from the Networks about pulling content from OTA, I believe Fox threatened that a few years back and they're still on the air. I mean really, when all is said and done, why would a network want to pull their "good" (yes, I use that term tongue in cheek) programming from an entire market, resulting in higher ratings from their competitors? As far as numbers go, these days the networks truly have limited competition with cable: sports (ESPN, etc.), reality TV (A&E), and when big events happen, news (CNN, etc.). The Duck Dynasty Christmas Special had 8.8 million viewers on A&E last week and was the #3 most watched cable program. Blue Bloods on CBS had over 10 million viewers and was #10 in the most watched Network program. The biggest market is still OTA! You may have Disney and ABC Family, but the company is most concerned about ratings on ABC

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/top10s.html
http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/top10s.html

 

[toucan-man]

Wouldn't those strong network numbers mostly be viewers watching via pay tv, not OTA ?

 

[northgeorgia]

Dunno -- it is possible; my father is definitely one who pays for free TV. He watches 80% network programming. Still, the programming lineup remains the same whether you pay for it or watch it for free. If let's say, Fox, takes its popular programs (Glee, American Idol, The Simpsons, etc.) off its network affiliates, they would have to stick them on a new premium channel. If they do this, they are taking a huge risk in assuming that people will tune in. I may stop on ABC Family maybe once a year while flipping through hundreds of premium channels, whereas I will sit and watch something ridiculous on Network OTA. What happened recently to Al Jazeera comes to mind. Even success can be a failure. When I was a kid, I'd wake up early every Saturday morning and flip between ABC, CBS, and NBC to watch their competing lineup of cartoons. Then you had all of these kid channels pop up on cable broadcasting cartoons and kid shows 24 hours a day (eventually). The networks slowly offered less and less; these days there are hardly any Saturday morning cartoons at all on the Networks. But... Parents and even kids themselves soon tired of the silly green slime fare on one of the more popular kid networks. Parents were concerned that these shows may be teaching non-sense or perhaps even bad morals. Kids simply got bored. Somehow even the cartoons didn't hold the magic of the old Hannah-Barbera variety, and if you could find those cartoons, they were either running them into the ground or playing them irregularly -- who could say when their favorite show was on? A network to the rescue: PBS. PTV launched in 1993, and rebranded itself as PBS Kids in 1999. Both parents and kids started turning back to the networks. Nickelodeon must have felt the pinch, because they launched "Noggin" later in 1999, later rebranded as Nick Jr. in 2009. Still, the competition is pretty fierce for my 4-year-old nephew, at any rate. He watches about 40% Nick Jr. (via channel or on Netflix) and 60% PBS Kids, depending what's on. And to be honest, I don't know if older children even bother to watch cartoons that much any more, and certainly not at a special time, since everything is on 24-hours and even on-demand now.

I guess, then, I would say that stripping a network of certain programs and expecting them to fly on a separate premium channel just doesn't work most of the time. Classic TV programming? Maybe. Recent programming? No. Already "Glee" is in its last season on Fox and they're showing reruns of previous seasons on another day of the week. Shows just die out and viewers lose interest. The next step would be to launch something on your new premium channel and compete with the other (reality, sensational, special interest, etc.) programming on cable/pay satellite, or (yep) launch something new on your OTA network, where you can also use your local news affiliate to put in a good word or two about your new season lineup

I call their bluff.

 

[rv1pop]

OK, I will bite ... Smile of a Child ! Jan Crouch is reported to have decided to take her precious CHILD off G19 (97W). The protests were so immense that within 3 or 4 days it was back on. Now it is one of TBN's world wide networks -- including in English in Russia (and also in the Russian language). There are some broadcasters that will stay FTA - and some transponders that will never be scrambled - even when the satellites are switched. The bankroll in the original launch had a clause .... ['Nuf said.}

 

[Blindowl1234]

In 8-10 years I think you'll see less from the USA on FTA. We've lost a bit in the last 5 years.Technology is better here than in a lot of other countries too. Quite a few ways to deliver and receive the content. Many of the foreign channels on 97W will be around a while. It's still the easiest way for them to distribute content to the far corners of the world.

 

[Mr Tony]

I remember when someone found an article that Equity was going to move everything to C-Band and get rid of their 2 KU Transponders

oh that really got folks riled up with "the end of FTA"
(they never moved to C-Band....but then they went belly up like 3 or 4 years later)