[opendtv] Re: Hearings :Cost of Converter Boxes
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "OpenDTV (E-mail)" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 17:46:26 -0500
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> Apple's digital music strategy is not a passing fad.
> It is a well executed strategy across multiple
> platforms that dovetails with other aspects of their
> "digital life" applications.
So you bought into the propaganda hook, line, and
sinker. So what? If Apple has any business sense, they
will definitely introduce incompatible upgrades, to
force people to buy the new box. That's not a problem
for the market iPods are targeted at, though. It's
all about owning the fashionable gizmo, which by
definition means a short lifetime.
> Any system can specify the platform. USDTV is
> doing it. Freeview is doing it.
You're confused. Freeview is meant to use a standard
to which any TV must conform. USDTV is instead a
subscription service that can afford to sell its own
boxes, with any compression algorithm it cares to
use, for the USDTV-only channels. If they want to
migrate to something other than MPEG-2 or even other
than AVC/VC-1, no one will stop them. Not so with
Freeview. Shouldn't be so for any sensibly designed
FOTA system.
I doubt the FCC was as clueless as you imply, when
they didn't buy into that notion of specifying only
through the transport layer. Or if they had been,
they would have had to correct themselves pretty
fast.
> But most important, digital media appliances that
> pull bits from the Internet are evolving
> continuously in reaction to marketplace forces.
But this is just irrelevant jibberish. TV is not
just any other new attempt at making money off the
Internet. It is an existing service that makes
plenty of money as it is. You don't stop baking
bread just because someone opens a sushi bar next
door.
> You do not add extensibility onto a poorly
> designed system after the fact. It must be built
> in from the beginning.
Extensibility is already built into ATSC and DVB,
every bit as much as it was in Ethernet and IP
(taking in consideration that broadcast is one
way). You should do the research before repeating
these unsubstantiated comments. IP extensibility
happens exactly as A/90 describes ATSC
extensibility. There is simply no difference
in kind. And this, by the way, *includes* the
physical layer. Updating Ethernet beyond a coax
10 Mb/s scheme required a rewrite of the standard.
It didn't just happen. Nor is it backward
compatible to coax. For compatibility, you either
bought a new PC adaptor card or perhaps an
external media converter. More likely, a new PC!
> Gap fillers can extend the service into
> problematic area. But they cannot improve
> spectral efficiency, because it is the big
> sticks that cause the market-into-market
> interference that reeks havoc with spectral
> efficiency.
What kills spectral efficiency, in what you
describe, is NOT the big stick. It is instead
having separate markets close together. We've
been over this countless times. If you want to
use less spectrum, assign the same frequency to
the same channel over as large an area as you
can. Of course, *if* you want to cover a small
area, you're better off with weak transmitters.
So what?
As I already explained, one solution for Euro
TV would be to create nationwide SFNs, since
each of their channels is typically nationwide.
But this involves some difficult compromises,
so they accept less spectral efficiency and
use different frequencies even between close
together locations. It's all about choosing a
compromise, not about making the only choice.
For example, if the Eiffel Tower transmitters
were tuned to the same frequencies as those gap
fillers in Paris *and* as the 1 KW transmitters
in Mantes, that would result in greater
spectral efficiency than they can achieve now.
*But* it would require synchronization, because
at least some of these low power sticks are more
than 7 miles from the Eiffel Tower (Mantes is
about 30 miles). So simple repeaters won't do.
So the next best thing is to use lower power
translators, which is what they did. Nothing
that special about translators, right?
If they increased power from the Eiffel Tower,
they might be able to eliminate some of the
small sticks nearby. All tradeoffs. In Berlin,
they went as high as 200 KW for that exact
purpose. To be able to eliminate the need for
more small sticks. In France, 30 KW is about as
high as they go.
> TV broadcasting as we know it was a successful
> service for many decades, until competition
> rendered it mostly irrelevant as a delivery
> infrastructure.
These are words that don't describe what
happened. What renders umbillical services more
attractive to 81-85 percent of the market is
primarily *one* thing and one thing only: more
choice of TV broadcast material.
Freeview and the German equivalent prove one
simple point: given somewhat more choice than
analog TV could provide, terrestrial TV
broadcasting can flourish. No need to talk about
iPods or other toys and gizmos. Freeview is
about TV, simple broadcast model. People still
eat bread, even if occasionally they buy sushi.
TV ain't going away anytime soon.
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:
