[opendtv] Re: 050615 Wolfsson's Wednesday Words (Mark's Monday Memo)
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 16:25:58 -0400
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> > The best approach is the cheapest approach. If a standard
> > receiver can be installed that handles OTA, cable, and DBS,
> > without having to incur the extra cost of an
> > interchangeable module scheme or of external converter
> > boxes, then this is the cheapest route. The different
> > distribution systems are more similar than they are
> > different.
>
> To date, no manufacturer has built such a tuner.
Cable-OTA and DBS-OTA tuners have been built, though, without
incurring any meaningful price penalty.
> What it does mean is that it is an absurd waste of money, as
> virtually NO customers have the need to receive signals from
> OTA, Cable and DBS on the same device.
We have already addressed the cable issue, where that single
umbillical has been known to go on the fritz more than just
occasionally. And of course, OTA and DBS are (could be) a
match made in heaven, to supply the local programming in an
easy way to DBS subscribers, and to appear seamlessly
integrated with DBS channels.
> So including multiple tuners may also mean multiple smart
> cards and other components.
True. It makes eminently good sense to develop a unified and
standard CA approach. Oh gee whiz. Everyone said that was a
great feature of DVB. I wonder why it suddenly becomes a bad
idea for ATSAC/Cable/DBS here in the US? Interactivity too.
And again, there's no reason to assume that STBs won't exist
forever, essentially, as new features are added by these
service providers. Eventually, the good ones will be
integrated in new sets, the bad ones will die off.
> They took it up with the DBS company when they agreed to
> the terms and conditions of service. In return the DBS
> company typically paid a large percentage of the cost of
> the receivers.
Again, let's be consistent. You have argued in the past that
one of cable's marketing points is that they can operate
with TVs sans extra box. It makes sense for cable to retain
that advantage even after the transition is complete, even
with true digital sets. It makes no sense for DBS to
continue to force extra boxes on its customers, once TV
appliances have gone digital. It's up to them, of course.
If they prefer to put off many consumers, they are certainly
free to do so.
> Uhhhhh Bert...they did try to crack down on "other
> purposes." That was the whole point, to control
> retransmission of "protected content." This is why the
> Appelas Courts overturned the FCC regulations on the
> Broadcast Flag, stating that the FCC had no authority to
> dictate the design of products or the downstream uses of
> broadcast bits.
Well, if you believe this will stick, Craig, then you
should have no worries about "fair use rights." As I have
been saying for years, the *words* the FCC used to describe
the effect the BF should have, and the technical
descriptions of how it would work, were internally
inconsistent.
> Since I am writing about local news production in HD,
> please tell me what benefits you expect to get from
> such broadcasts,
Simple. Just like FM radio. As long as WTOP only offered
news in AM, I never listened. As soon as they went to FM,
I started listening.
There are optional ways of hearing radio news. I opted
for nice sound vs band-limited AM. Same will happen with
owners of large TV screens when news time rolls around.
Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
