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.