Well, that article is clearly wrong on a couple points. It seems every medical office still has and uses fax machines and require labs send their results via fax. And because some cannot afford cable and/or the Internet, or it just is not available in their area, free TV "over-the-air" broadcasts are (by law, BTW - at least in the US) and always will be available. And that means so will the television in some form or another. It may mean external "tuners" connected to computer monitors, but a tuner is what makes a TV a TV.
It's funny, I wanted to start a topic with the exact same title. However, I'm concerned about something else. It seems to be a trend that ISP's are migrating to IPTV combined with so called cloud based DVR's. Normally I wouldn't have a problem with this, but the issue is that all services like internet, phone and TV will eventually rely on a single modem. So if there's something wrong with the modem, it's game over. I think this is very troubling. So my solution would be that cable and fiber optics modems should ALWAYS be integrated into DVR's and perhaps in the future into TV's. This would mean that both live TV channels and on demand services (Netflix, Hulu) will work without having to rely on a separate cable/fiber optics modem. Good idea or not?
Seriously guys, nobody is worried about this? This is exactly what's wrong with the world nowadays. I believe that you should be able to plug in a TV into the wall, and you should be able to receive basic cable TV channels, without having to rely on an external modem. Does anyone perhaps know how big these cable/fiber optics modem circuit boards are, shouldn't it be easy to integrate them into DVR's and TV's?
Huh? So you think consumers should have to fork over extra money so EVERY TV they buy has a modem built in? No. I have 5 TVs in my house. I don't need 5 modems. And if you mean every TV should be able to pick up, via an antenna, basic TV channels, as I said above, they already do - at least in the US where ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, and PBS already broadcast, for free, OTA - by law. Easy? Yes. But it is not about ease. It is about cost.
I will try to explain it as clear as possible. Currently, in Europe and North America we make use of the DVB-C and ATSC standard for delivering both live TV and on-demand services, with the exception of online streaming. But in the future, ISP's might switch to IPTV. The problem is that both TV's and DVR's don't have IPTV tuners on board. In fact, you need a modem to process IPTV. This means that in the future, both TV's and DVR's might become completely useless if they can't connect to a modem in order to receive the IPTV signal. I think this is troubling, and a huge step back. If ISP's believe that IPTV is the future, no problem. But TV and DVR developers should then make sure they integrate an IPTV tuner/modem into these devices. Of course, you will still need an external modem for internet and VOIP. Does this make sense?
We just went through this whole process when the entire country, by order of the FCC, switched from analog to digital. It was painful but a fact of life. At least for now in the US, they cannot force users into paying to receive basic TV. This is because the government owns the frequencies, not private companies. And they are not going to force service providers to run cables into every home. So this means it will remain OTA radio broadcasting way into the foreseeable future. Yes, TVs will have to have some sort of tuner - but then the inclusion of a tuner is what turns a monitor into a television - so nothing new there.
I don't have any problems with digital TV, except for the fact that there are still a lot of channels that are only available in SD. This is probably one of the reasons they want to switch to IPTV, because it's more efficient with bandwidth. It will make it easier to offer more channels in HD and 4K. And IPTV also makes it more easy to broadcast video on all devices like TV, tablet and smartphone. In Holland, most people make use of either cable or DSL/fiber optics. Only cable ISP's are regulated, this means that it's required for them to offer basic cable (about 30 channels most in SD), but you still need to pay for it. Exactly, so from a technical point of view it would be interesting to know how they are planning to tackle this problem. And it's not just TV's, it also about DVR's. Currently, these cloud based DVR's always need to be connected to a modem. You already said it, it's probably to cut costs, so a single modem is responsible for providing internet, VOIP and TV, how dumb is this? I think this stuff should be regulated.
You are stuck on this and you need to move beyond it. It is not a problem. OTA HD is available, for free in the US and that is not going to change in the foreseeable future because they are not going to force everyone into paying for some sort of cable (or cell) service, nor are they going to force service providers to deliver that content for free.
The author makes some good points but @Bill_Bright is correct about OTA broadcasts in the U.S. While the author claims that "Legacy broadcast license holders like broadcast TV and radio stations will sell their airspace to 5G carriers and retire to Florida. They’ll get offers they can’t refuse." - I doubt that this will be the case, or that it will happen en masse. Even if some, or many, commercial radio & TV stations sell their airspace, there's a well-established network of public/community stations (especially radio) that will persevere. There are probably many places in the U.S. where OTA television is paltry or non-existent. I for one live in a metro area with many large hills and receive only a very limited number of channels. But my area is also rife with community and public radio stations that provide an excellent variety of news and entertainment. In fact, OTA radio is my primary source for these, aside from bingeing on streaming shows with the wife for an hour or two most evenings. OTA TV and radio broadcasting may be in for a lot of changes but I hardly think it will disappear. Viva the community/public media network!
No you can't. You can receive basic "over the air" or "broadcast" channels (like ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and PBS) but not basic "cable" channels. By definition, "cable" channels require a "cable".
Then I guess you're still misunderstanding. There is a difference between the US and Europe of course, but that doesn't mean there isn't a problem. You seem to be too focused on OTA. But that's not what I'm talking about, in Holland we don't really use OTA. This is about the future of cable TV in general. Bottom line is, that if cable TV providers will switch from DVB-C and ATSC to IPTV, then you can't simply plug in your DVR and TV into the wall. In fact, those wall sockets will become totally useless, similar to how VOIP replaced the PSTN/ISDN system. And this goes a step too far in my book. TV's and DVR's should be able to receive the TV signal directly via coax cable, it shouldn't have to rely on any external modem.
Let's take you as an example. Let's say you would like to receive premium TV packages on all of your 5 TV's via cable. With IPTV you would need to connect all of those 5 TV's to the modem, either via LAN or WIFI. And this same modem will also need to take care of internet and VOIP connections to computers and phones. If the modem malfunctions, then you don't have any internet, phone or TV. You can't even watch recordings, because everything is stored in the cloud. Does nobody see the problem, I wonder just how dumb the world is becoming.
I understand perfectly. You are either not getting it, or refuse to accept the facts. I am not "too" focused on OTA. You refuse to accept that OTA is free here and therefore, having to buy (because no one is going to give it away) cable access is never going to happen. Irrelevant! What you want is to force all TV makers to include a cable box (of some sort) into every TV. And consequently, you want to force all TV buyers to pay for it (because TVs makers are not going to give it away for free). And because receiving any cable channel (basic or premium) requires (1) a cable and (2) a subscription to a provider, you want to force cable providers to provide service to every household, and you want every household to pay for it - because, again, no one is going to give it away. The only other solution is to raise taxes and have the government (IE: taxpayers) pay for everyone to get access. FTR, I never said it wasn't a problem. What I am saying is your solution is not feasible or affordable and you don't seem to understand that.
OMG, seems like you are still misunderstanding what my concern is about. I will try to explain it one more time, and perhaps others can help me out if this attempt fails once again. Let's forget about satellite television and terrestrial television, I don't care for them. So no more talk about OTA. Let's also forget about ISP's that deliver TV via DSL/fiber optics, because they have always made use of IPTV. My concern is strictly about ISP's that deliver the signal via coaxial cable. In general, we call this cable TV. The concern is about the switch being made from DVB-C and ATSC to IPTV. This will happen in both Europe and the US, so yes it's quite relevant. Perhaps it's not relevant to you because you don't use cable TV, but that's not relevant in this particular discussion. My solution actually is both affordable and feasible, because this is how it has been working for the last 15 years! So instead of DVB-C and ATSC tuners, I expect them to integrate IPTV tuners into TV's and DVR's. But so far I have seen zero indication that electronic makers have any plans to do this.
BTW, turns out that the equivalent of DVB-C (which is used by Europe) is not called ATSC, but it's called QAM. Perhaps this is were the confusion is coming from. So replace the word ATSC with QAM in all of my posts LOL. But that doesn't change anything about what I said, it's all still accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAM_(television)
Again, I understand your concern. But again, you refuse to understand why it will not become reality - regardless how bad you want it. No. See, this is you, once again , dismissing facts and trying to re-define reality because you don't like them. Rasheed does not get to dismiss facts and redefine reality because Rasheed does not like them! That's just silly! Let's start with a couple basic facts you keep refusing to accept. Basic cable channels require a cable. To receive cable TV, you need some sort of receiver - the protocol is irrelevant - this receiver needs to be built into the TV, or come in a separate box the TV connect directly or indirectly into. The cable companies are NOT going to run cables to all homes for free. The cable companies are NOT going to deliver cable channels for free. The cable channels are NOT going to provide their content to the cable companies for free. Somebody has to pay for all this and it is NOT going to be the cable companies. And I, as a taxpayer, am not willing to pay to have cable service delivered to every home in this country. You cannot declare "no more talk about OTA". Why? Because OTA is a reality. Free OTA is here because citizens/taxpayers don't want to be, and should not be forced into paying for cable service many simply cannot afford just to get the weather or learn the news. This argument now is you, once again changing your story because you, once again, were shown to be illogical. Initially, YOU SAID, That's where I stepped in and regardless the fact I agree it would be nice if every TV ever sold could plug into every possible content delivery method in any home, at no extra cost to the consumer, I am tired of trying to explain to you why that is not going to happen.
Actually, I accept all of this, but this is not what the discussion is about. You say you understand my concern, but then you say the protocol is irrelevant. But guess what, my concern is strictly about the protocol being used, do you now get it? The only one being illogical is you. I already said that this discussion is strictly about cable TV, not about satellite TV and terrestrial television, but yet you somehow refuse to accept this. Yes OTA is a reality, just like plains and automobiles are a reality, but this is completely irrelevant because the discussion is about cable TV and the migration to the IPTV protocol. What I meant with this statement is that you should always be able to receive at least a basic cable TV package, when you plug in your TV. This is exactly how it currently works in both Europe and the US. So you shouldn't need to connect a TV to a DVR or modem for live TV. But this will change when ISP's switch to IPTV. This hasn't got anything to do with extra costs to consumer.
But that's the thing, we don't seem to disagree, but seems like we are talking about different subjects. Bill even says that IPTV receivers will need to be built into TV's and DVR's. But that's what I'm trying to explain, it seems like without some form of regulation, this won't happen. ISP's and electronic makers don't seem to care about inconvenience to consumers, they only seem to care about cutting costs.
BTW, I have done some reading, and apparently in the US, the FCC has decided that all TV's must have a built-in ATSC tuner (which is related to terrestrial television) but there is no such requirement for QAM tuners strangely enough. But anyway, what I'm talking about isn't anything new, if you use DSL/fiber optics in Holland, your TV and DVR are worthless without a modem connection, because they both don't come with IPTV tuners on board. And seems like cable providers are going the same route, this is my concern. Here are some interesting articles: https://www.lifewire.com/vizio-eliminates-tuners-on-many-tvs-4023105 https://avc.com/2012/02/clearqam-what-it-is-and-why-it-matters/ https://turbofuture.com/home-theater-audio/What-is-the-difference-between-NTSC-ATSC-and-QAM
I've done some more reading, and seems that IPTV tuners don't even exist? All traffic that's related to IP (internet, VOIP and IPTV) is processed by the modem, so seems like in the future, TV's will simply become displays. I can only hope that IPTV modems will always be integrated into DVR's. Here are some examples, the first one has an integrated cable modem, this means that it would be able to process IPTV. The second one would need to be connected to an external modem. https://www.arris.com/products/dcx4220-cable-set-top/ https://www.arris.com/products/vip6162w/
