[opendtv] Re: ATSC Receives 10 Proposals for Mobile-Handheld TV Standard


-----Mensaje original-----
De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
nombre de Craig Birkmaier
Enviado el: Saturday, June 23, 2007 7:56 AM
Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [opendtv] Re: ATSC Receives 10 Proposals for Mobile-Handheld TV
Standard

At 6:08 PM -0700 6/22/07, johnwillkie wrote:
>Perhaps, but
>
>1) there wouldn't have been ten proposals;

Some of these proposals are there in name only based on technologies 
that are NOT backward compatible with 8-VSB. This was encouraged so 
that manufacturers could better understand what would be needed to 
support multiple modulation standards in cheap mobile handsets.

JW> then they won't survive more than a month or two.  You see, backwards
compatibility is mandated by the Grand Alliance, and the FCC adopted the
same language about 14 years ago.  Stare decisis.

However, absent seeing any details on the proposals, I'm not so sure that
say, if Nokia proposed a "dual illumination" scheme in the right way, that
such a system wouldn't be backwards compatible, as long as receivers had DVB
and ATSC tuners.  

You did note that Motorola made a proposal?  That sounds like it could be
"DVB-ish" at the least.


>2) the adopted system wouldn't be compatible with 8-VSB, but would have
been
>compatible with DVB-T;

And it would be compatible or only slightly different from the 
modulation standards being used by the mobile telco operators. 

Jw->  yeah, we should all be concerned about those hundreds of paying users,
a number that could grow to thousands of telco users before this century is
out.  

So now 
we are faced with the possible reality that mobile receivers will 
need to support both COFDM and the chosen mobile ATSC technology. 
This would soon ripple into chips for fixed receivers, with the 
ultimate outcome that the most efficient and reliable system would 
win in the marketplace.

Jw->  see two comments up.  You're not thinking broadly enough.  Another
possibility: interleaving the various signals?

Funny how this is EXACTLY what Sinclair asked for all those years ago...

Jw->  Sinclair EXACTLY asked for ATSC mobile proposals?  Somehow I missed
that. Was that 1999 or 2000?


>3) the proposals wouldn't have been as advanced; and

They are NOT as advanced in terms of what they bring to the table, 
unless one of the untested systems can deliver significantly higher 
bit rates. From what I have seen to date, all of these proposals are 
significantly less efficient that what was demonstrated with COFDM in 
Las Vegas in 2000.

Jw->  That's not right, but I notice that your second sentences takes back
what the first offers.  Let me ask this simply:  nobody learned nothing
about modulation and reception in the last 8 years?


The only advance i can find is in the ability to chew up lots of 
transistors on highly integrated chips. And this in turn also chews 
up power, which is the biggest hurdle for small cheap hand held 
receivers.

Jw->  funny that you can make such a conclusion whithout seeing a single of
the 10 proposals.  Otherwise, you comment deserves a "duh."  Chips always
bet more dense, traces always get smaller, heat always goest up on a
per-volt basis, and voltage on chip always goes down.  I'm not saying that
will happen forever.  What happens when a '0' bit is represented by a
voltage less than .0001 volts and a '1' is represented by a voltage greater
than .0002 volts?

>4) adoption would have been problematic in the meantime, since it would
>have;
>5) at least partially been disrupted by the dtv transition itself.


What transition? Almost anything would have been more productive than 
what has ACTUALLY HAPPENED in the U.S.

The billions of dollars invested in 8-vsb transmission equipment, and the
simple fact that sinclair's bold "dual illumination" proposal was only of
interest to a single broadcaster with the ability to operate dual
transmitters in a single city.  So, other broadcasters would have asked for
another DVB companion channel, and keep it when analog sunsets.

I suspect that you are oblivious to these likely events because you have
little belief that broadcasters have a right to exist, let alone use public
airwaves for the price they currently pay.  (At one time, it was free.)

>
>Also, think about this:
>
>These proposals are outside of the "Grand Alliance" process/paradigm, in
>that they will all be evaluated on what I presume to be a relatively even
>playing field, with BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY being required.

See above. I think the correct statement would be:  harmonization via 
support for multiple standards will emerge as the real requirement.

Jw->> once agan, you need to read the introductory language to A/52 which
includes and reaffirms the "backwards compatibility" paradigm, and even
includes a reference to the FCC document where these principles were adopted
by the FCC.

>
>It would be kinda cool to get the possibility for more bits, but I guess
>that's the '1999' argument and not the '2000' one.  :-)

The way to get more bits is to use the spectrum efficiently. That 
ain't gonna happen with VSB big sticks...

jw->  I've challenged you about a dozen times on this.  PROVE IT.  Do a
full-scale engineering work-up.  You will learn that you have been wrong.



These  kludges will result in fewer, not more bits in total. What I 
think John Shutt was saying is that the proposal that has the lowest 
bit penalty will win.

Jw->  If broadcasters have their way, I suspect that will be the case.
However, broadcasters don't control ATSC nor T3, nor T3/S8.  I suspect that
it largely come down to IP costs, even if that isn't no the agenda.

Jw->  Which is why I plan to formally oppose Qualcomm's proposal.  They have
PROVED for almost 20 years that they will NEVER license their IP on a fair,
reasonalble, nor a non-discriminatory basis.  
\
Jw->> (We should thank their perfidy and attitude; it cause them to lose the
rights to 2 MPEG-4 video pantents because they lied to MPEG.  They lost
about $10 million before a home-town jury.  Now, they begging to not be
forced to pay $10 million to Broadcom's attorney's.  [Qualcomm brought this
suit; it portends badly for the suits Broadcom brought against them.]

Jw->> And, did I mention that one of my brothers is a Q vp?

Jw->> gonna be fun ...

John Willkie

Regards
Craig

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