[opendtv] Re: Hearings :Cost of Converter Boxes

At 5:43 PM -0500 2/25/05, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>It is for the same reason that the ATSC and DVB want the
>basic DTT program stream to use MPEG-2 compression, It is
>specifically to avoid situations where the receiver goes
>dark. This is a good thing, not a bad thing, but of course
>it slows down innovation.

No this is a legacy thing. Tight control of the system from 
end-to-end. It is completely unnecessary.

>  > There is no way that a U.S. or European broadcaster
>>  can launch an H.264 service, unless they are willing
>>  to deploy proprietary receivers like the cable and
>>  DBS systems.
>
>Deploy or sell. Duh! Just like MS Word and PowerPoint
>would not have become de-facto industry standards
>either, except that individuals and businesses went out
>and bought new computers and new software.

So you agree. What you need is a product that people actually want to 
buy. IF you can provide this, the plumbing underneath is largely 
irrelevant.

Dare I say iPOD and AAC in the same sentence? How in the world could 
Apple hope to succeed, when the masses were traveling down the MP3 
highway? People buy services and perceived advantages in 
functionality, not technology.

U.S. and European broadcasters lack the essential mentality to be 
competitive. They have been living off of the efforts of others for 
too long and have no ability to work together to build a competitive 
service.

>
>You imply that TV and other CE appliances have to follow
>this same path. I argue that this is not a foregone
>conclusion for mature appliances, such as TV.

Your perception is correct. Legacy products and services that seek to 
control evolution are destined to fail.

>Either DVB or ATSC can be designed to work with tall or
>short sticks, high or low power.

This is true. But the reality is that the U.S./ chose to stay with 
the big stick model, sacrificing spectral efficiency. Until this 
changes there is no way for terrestrial broadcasting to field a 
service that will be competitive with cable and DBS, or IPTV, 
whatever that means.

>
>>  The ultimate solution is to build a transmission
>>  infrastructure that maximized spectral re-use so as to
>>  deliver the right mix of services based on the demands
>>  on the system. There is no single answer,
>
>Your last 5 words are the correct thought here. If you
>have a strictly broadcast scenario in which you need to
>achieve wide area coverage, certainly some form of SFN
>is a good way to go, but small sticks by themselves
>might not be the right answer at all.

To be specific I meant the following:

1. The infrastructure for each market should be optimized to provide 
a high reliability, easy-to-use service; in areas with dense 
populations this ALSO involves the allocation of channels for 
sub-market services that can handle the local needs of each 
sub-market. Total geographic coverage area, terrain, and adjacency to 
other markets will be major factors in system design. There is no 
single answer.

2. The infrastructure must be flexible with respect to the services 
that can be delivered on an instantaneous basis, providing efficient 
use of allocated spectral bandwidth for a constellation of services 
that will adapt dynamically to real market requirements. This will 
likely mean a shift to constellations that are optimized for mobile 
and portable reception during certain day parts, and fixed reception 
during other day parts. No single approach can provide the proper mix 
of services on a dynamic basis.

3. The correct answer will change over time as technology evolves. 
new services will  be added while other services will be dropped when 
they are no longer in demand.

4. There will be a variety of receivers in the product mix. Some will 
be optimized to capture only a single service, while others will be 
able to tune into the entire range of services. Some will be 
optimized for use in fixed locations. Others will be optimized for 
portability, and some will be optimized for mobility. There is no 
single answer, this it is impossible to define a single receiving 
device as the FCC has attempted to do.

>
>Context is everything. The small stick solution that
>makes perfect sense in the unicast cellular world does
>not translate to being the answer for nationwide TV
>broadcast DTT networks. Or even market-wide TV nets.


Who said anything about NATIONWIDE DTT networks? If that's all we 
want, then Satellites are a far better way to reach the entire 
nation. The value of a terrestrial network is the ability to serve 
regional and local needs efficiently. We do not need to protect one 
market from another if the content in each market is identical.

Context is everything!

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.

Other related posts: