[opendtv] Re: Latest 5th Gen
- From: dmenolan <dmenolan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Open DTV list <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 03:04:44 -0500
Perhaps this is one of the most trenchant and intelligent posts ever made=
on this reflector. Its part of the charge sheet in this ATSC fiasco whic=
h is a fiasco without end. As far as the vendors are concerned they want =
a) systems that work b) sell c) a minimal set of returns and d) margins. =
ATSC fails on all four counts. That's why its going nowhere. Australia ha=
s now been proved very wise to have chosen DVB-T instead of ATSC, its loc=
al variations are easily catered for, and it is leveraging off the back o=
f global DVB-T economics. And the Aussies must be laughing up their sleev=
es..
Keep at them John: the facts, the facts and the facts.
Kind Regards,
Dermot Nolan
PS, I loved the analogy about the Kama Sutra. I fell off my chair laughin=
g this morning. We have another phrase on this side of the pond: 'Armcha=
ir Generals' who sit, spout, and steam. To be ignored.
--
=
Craig,
If we had a simple plug and play DTV system, that was capable of portable=
=
and mobile as well as delivering HD to fixed receivers, it would be just =
as =
powerful as NTSC.
DTV Must Carry is already part of the rules. Whenever a station turns of=
f =
it's NTSC, either voluntarily or after the dreaded cutoff date, Must Carr=
y =
of their primary program stream is assured. Status Quo.
If NTSC is the goose that laid the golden eggs, then ATSC simply laid an =
egg.
If the CEA wanted to sell lots and lots of pretty, big, and expensive HD =
displays, then a workable DTV system would help, not hurt that cause. =
Digital Broadcasting Australia shows on their website HD STBs offered for=
=
sale by no fewer than 14 different manufacturers. Not 14 different model=
s, =
FOURTEEN DIFFERENT MANUFACTURERS. (25 different manufacturers when SD onl=
y =
boxes are included!), Most of the HD STBs are priced at around $700 AU, =
which is less than $550 US. This in a market of 14 million PEOPLE, not =
households. It's insane that we're still sticking with ATSC after all th=
ose =
"the next generation will be the magic one" promises.
The NAB decided to stay with ATSC rather than fight it out over changing =
the =
DTV system because 1] They truly believed that the receiver problem was a=
n =
easy fix (after all, look at the European system, and digital is digital,=
=
right? Can't be that hard.) and 2] Congress was salivating over the untol=
d =
Billions that a spectrum auction would bring, and threatened the =
broadcasters with new legislation giving free air time to all candidates =
as =
part of a "campaign finance reform" package if the broadcasters dared to =
rock the boat and delay the transition. Little did they know that the de=
lay =
would be due to the uncontrollable part of the equation, the manufacturer=
s.
Look, Craig, Bert, and everybody else, the free market is the most powerf=
ul =
and efficient system in the world to allocate resources. If a nation of =
14 =
million people with a unique DTV system (DVB-T, HD, 7 MHz channels) can h=
ave =
14 different manufacturers vying to sell them High Definition DTV STBs, t=
hen =
surely those same 14 companies and more would be crawling over each other=
to =
break into the US market with 300 Million people. But they're not. Why =
not? Because they know how difficult (read: expensive) it is to build an=
=
ATSC box that actually is plug and play. They aren't stupid. They have =
labs. They can build prototypes and mess around with them. And they kno=
w a =
money sinkhole when they see one.
The point is, almost 6 years later we're still waiting for 1999 COFDM =
performance out of an ATSC box, but we will never get it because ATSC isn=
't =
capable of portable, mobile, or low power (consumption) operation. Maybe=
=
with Representative Tauzin out of the picture, Congress can finally see t=
hat =
no matter how many times LG demos a prototype box, unless it can be made =
economically, and by many vendors, then they aren't going to be made, =
period.
It's disgusting that it comes down to someone like Bert arguing for ATSC =
when he hasn't even tried one yet. That's like a virgin arguing the fine=
r =
points of the Kama Sutra. Meanwhile, we have people like Bob Miller, and=
=
Sinclair Broadcasting, who have seen both side by side and know exactly h=
ow =
many light-years COFDM is ahead of 8-VSB, yet are dismissed out of hand.
But no, let's stay the course. I do believe that may be an iceberg ahead=
, =
Captain Smith...
John
(The definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over, expectin=
g =
different results.)
----- Original Message ----- =
From: "Craig Birkmaier" <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
> What is so difficult to understand Bob?
>
> This really is SIMPLE.
>
> Terrestrail television broadcasting exists in the United States today
> for two reasons, neither of which have ANYTHING to do with technology:
>
> 1. Must Carry, re-transmission consent, and local-into-local (SHIVA),
> are fundamentally tied to the NTSC franchise. These regulatory perks
> guarantee the survivability of the OTA franchise, while giving the
> media conglomerates a powerful tool to retain control of the ENTIRE
> television audience. In short, TV is the most lucrative public
> franchise ever granted by a government - it is hanging by a tenuous
> thread that cannot sustain another Supreme Court legal challenge.
>
> NTSC is " The Goose that lays the Golden Eggs."
>
> 2. Poliitical control. The NTSC franchise is the most powerful
> political tool ever conceived by our elected representatives. While
> it is financially lucrative for the franchisees, it is politically
> potent for for the politicians. It is the only Television service
> that reaches into nearly 100% of U.S. homes. It provides a powerful
> stage for political actors, who have used this stage to bring about
> radical changes in social mores and Federal government intervention
> into just about every aspect of governance that our Forefathers
> delegated to the States via the Constitution.
>
> The collusion between the politicians and their NTSC franchisees is
> unprecedented. Consider two current events:
=
=
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at Fr=
eeLists.org =
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word un=
subscribe in the subject line.
----------------------- Internet Header --------------------------------
Sender: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Received: from turing.freelists.org (freelists-180.iquest.net [206.53.239=
.180])
by siaag1af.compuserve.com (8.12.11/8.12.7/SUN-2.17) with ESMTP id
j2N0R=
01j018059
for <dmenolan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:28:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP
=
id BAA54876CA;
Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:27:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 32607-02; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:27:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP
=
id 37A8286694;
Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:27:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list opendtv); Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:27:07 =
-0500 (EST)
X-Original-To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP
=
id E72F888428
for <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:27:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 32498-02 for <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:27:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from smtp017.mail.yahoo.com (smtp017.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.17=
4.114])
by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with SMTP
i=
d 87B828845C
for <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:27:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from unknown (HELO JohnS) (shuttj@xxxxxxxxxxxx with login)
by smtp017.mail.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Mar 2005 00:27:05 -0000
Message-ID: <05e201c52f3f$0a614880$63eb0a23@JohnS>
From: "John Shutt" <shuttj@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <423FCCB3.1040201@xxxxxxxxxx> <p06210208be65b8f81f6d@[192.168=
.0.100]>
Subject: [opendtv] Re: Latest 5th Gen
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:27:04 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=3Diso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-Virus-Scanned: clamd / ClamAV version 0.75.1, clamav-milter version 0.7=
5c
on siaag1af.compuserve.com
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p9 (Debian) at avenirtech.net
X-archive-position: 7029
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Errors-To: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-original-sender: shuttj@xxxxxxxxx
Precedence: normal
Reply-To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-list: opendtv
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p9 (Debian) at avenirtech.net
X-Virus-Status: Clean
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
