[opendtv] Re: A detail in the history of video standards

In many places, MPEG was viewed largely as being off-shore.  I even hear
people talking about it being a "French" outfit.  To which I ask "Leonardo
Chiagrigniole (cq) founded a French outfit?"

Dec (Digital instruments corporation) might have been involved, but that was
a company that as a practical matter died in the 1980's, and was ultimately
folded up into Compaq more than a decade ago.  And, they never had anything
to do with video or audio, except that some TV stations used DEC terminals
in their time-sharing traffic (commercial scheduling and billing) systems.

I gave the best top-down example: simple system identification that didn't
even contemplate the model used outside of Europe until the Australians were
looking to adopt the DVB scheme.

The ATSC system says "here's a whole bunch of spectrum and many different
ways of using it."  The DVB scheme says "here's digital TV, and we can use
it to cut down the spectrum used by broadcasting."    I would hope that it's
clear one system is more "top down" than the other, when the top is
government.

And, I shouldn't put all the "blame" here on the folks that developed the
DVB specs; there just was little to no input from people conversant with how
broadcasting outside of Europe operates.

John Willkie

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <olho_avatar_i@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 1:27 PM
Subject: [opendtv] Re: A detail in the history of video standards


> >I reject your assertion that the ATSC didn't incorporate foreign (to
> the US)
> >ideas into the ATSC specifications.  Unlike many who comment on these
> >aspects, I have actually read the underlying specifications.
>
> True, i have only read the more general specifications, out of
> curiosity, not for practical use, and was not really interested in the
> Pids/PSIP aspects of the thing.
>
> >ATSC specifications can and do co-exist in the world.  ATSC has taken
> much
> >care to insure that their specifications do not interfere with ARIB
> (Japan),
> >SCTE (Cable) and an offshore suite of specifications called MPEG.
>
> Is MPEG really viewed as an offshore development in the US ? After all
> american companies like Digital instruments have played an important
> part in it. But i suppose it should, as i read about developments by
> Thomson and France Telecom (among many other IP holders) that were close
> enough to the mark, even before the word "MPEG" became known.
> As MPEG is an important basis of the ATSC standard, i suppose it is
> indeed fair to retract my claim about the unwillingness to consider
> foreign inputs into the process.
>
>
>
> >Then, there's the nature of the specifications themselves.  DVB-SI, as
> a
> >practical matter, ONLY will work in an environment where there is a
> >network
> >that furnishes all it's programming to a local transmitter which
> >passively
> >relays the network programming.  That's why there is a transmtter tsid
> >and a
> >network tsid.  This wouldn't make sense in the US and most countries,
> >but it
> >does make sense to Europeans.
>
> >The US, indeed, much of the world, doesn't operate in such a passive,
> >top-down mode.  Europe, however, does and has since day one.  Time will
> >only
> >tell if this model straitjackets DVB countries in the future.
>
> I don't clearly grasp the implications of those choices. Could you
> describe a specific use case where the DVB-SI concept would be a
> limitation ?
>
>
> >There are more TV stations -- independent television signals -- offered
> in
> >Tijuana, Mexico, from Mexican transmitters, than are offered in Britan,
> >France, Germany, Korea and Taiwan COMBINED.
>
> >that
> >in the U.S., Mexico and to a good extent, Canada, the government has
> >little
> >or no presence in transmitting electrons to citizens?  Indeed, were the
> >government to start a channel, it would be regarded in the U.S. and
> >Canada
> >as propaganda.   In most DVB countries, it's called "state of the art."
>
> Do you see such virtue in numbers? It would seem this makes for more
> fragmented audience, less market share for each station, and less
> ressources to create good programming. Perhaps my european background
> leads me to downplay the value of local TV broadcasting.
>
> We do have local radios, though, and i can't say that i am thrilled with
> the result of the transition from State-only broadcasts. The FM band is
> crouded in places, with some stations interfering with others, we get
> more or less the same content duplicated at different frequencies, and
> lots of ads. "But", we are told, "those poor things need publicity to
> survive, isn't that obvious?" Well i think you have to question the
> wisdom of a system that will mathematically result in a public ressource
> (the spectrum) being used to harass the citizens with something they
> hate. The idea that all the fascinating developments of digital HDTV may
> end up in producing more of that kind of airwave pollution is a rather
> sobering thought.
>
> The presence of state-owned stations besides the private ones, in
> comparable numbers, gives at least a little hope that the latter will
> have to check themselves if they don't want to see their audience flee
> towards less aggressive audio-visual environments.
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>

 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: