[opendtv] Re: Mobile TV: $2 Billion in Ad Buys

At 11:07 AM -0400 4/21/08, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:

Craig Birkmaier wrote:


 Bert has long held that it is important to have long term
 certainty about the target receiver for any broadcast system.
 In this he has been supported by the ATSC and broadcast
 community. Bottom line:

 "We cannot have ANY receiver go black for any ATSC broadcast
 mode."


You continue to misunderstand.


No. You just love to argue and change your tune to support your position.


Of course a broadcast system has to rely on the compatibility of
receivers, and of course it helps to have long term stability. But
enhancements can be introduced, and always have been, preferably
backward compatible with legacy receivers. Looking back always helps.


There are two measures of "backward compatibility:"

1. The enhancement works with  legacy products;
2. The enhancement does not break legacy products, but you need new hardware to take advantage of it. 

In the case of the ATSC, it may be a bit of both...time will tell.



FM was introduced, was it not? And it was not compatible with AM. FM
stereo was introduced too, but it was backward compatible with FM mono
receivers. So it is, and always has been, a mixed bag.


FM was a new service. No existing radio receiver could use it.
FM stereo was backward compatible - I owned an add on box to convert an early FM radio to stereo reception. 


 > Imagine the public reaction when the millions of consumers,

 who have been forced to buy an ATSC receiver in their big new
 HD capable display, learn that they will need a new STB to
 receive the enhanced ATSC broadcasts...


If the new feature is something they want, they will go for it. If not,
they won't. You make a far bigger deal of this "forced to buy" than I'm
sure the vast majority of consumers makes.
Speak for yourself. The vast majority of these receivers are NOOT being used. This is just another example of special interest using the government to advantage its IP creating a huge profit windfall. 

But the real issue here is the broadcaster.
We have been told for nearly a decade that they will only use capabilities that DO NOT cause problems with the installed receiver base. Thus there are MANY features in the ATSC standard that are not being used because most receivers do not support these features. Given this reality, it seems a bit strange that the ATSC would NOW consider adding more features that will not work with the government mandated receivers.
If broadcasters will not support enhancements, why bother changing a thing? If they are interested in enhancements, why maintain legacy support for an outdated standard that limits their options?
This is a catch 22 situation, with broadcasters entrapped in a standard by government mandate, while those who have acquired spectrum at auction have the freedom to deploy any technology and to manage upgrades for their customer base.
On multiple occasions at NAB I heard that it is now easy to propagate new technologies/enhancements, because the telcos and handset makers have created the consumer expectation that they need a new phone every year or two. If broadcasters buy into this business model for the MPH service, why would they NOT want the same flexibility for the service targeted to fixed receivers?
But they cannot have this flexibility because they allowed themselves to be entrapped into an inferior technology that is now mandated by the FCC. I guess this sword has two edges. 



The cost to the consumer is
noise level, Craig. Consumers finally did accept FM, did they not?
Because broadcasters and the CE industry made it worth their while. Much
higher fidelity sound, stereo, and the price was right. When the time
came to upgrade, they naturally went for FM.
Apples and oranges. Once again, FM was a NEW SERVICE. Granted it was easy for the CE guys to ADD FM to the menu, but the consumer was not told, nor did they consider FM to be an upgrade to an existing service. And the government NEVER mandated that you must buy an FM radio if there is an AM receiver in the product.The marketplace decided. 


 > But the DVB is moving on. DVB-T2 may be deployed in the U.K. by

 the time any meaningful MPH deployment takes place here in the U.S.


Again, you misunderstand. We don't know exactly what DVB-T2 consists of.
At least, I haven't seen anything explicit, other than the 32K mode and
MIMO scheme, which might be one of the candidates.
Yes I do know what DVB-2 consists of. Moreover, I have seen test results from field trials. All that is lacking now is the paperwork. I attended a session at NAB where this was discussed extensively. 


This is a separate discussion from MPH, or any high robustness scheme
for handheld devices. You seem to be confusing the two, even though you
have no information on what DVB-T2 will really be.
Sorry Bert, it is the same discussion, as I intended it to be. DVB is moving forward with a new standard that will require new hardware, after a nice run with their first generation standard. And they have a nice hook to get people to upgrade - HDTV.
We are moving backward, trying to add capabilities to a poorly designed standard that has seen little popular use. If left to the marketplace to decide - as has been the case in Europe - the ATSC standard would never have had any traction. It took a government mandate to force it into the hands of consumers. 






 And there there is MIMO and the possibility of allowing DVB-T2 to
 deliver upwards of 40 Mbps in an 8 MHz channel.

 So much for Bert's spectral efficiency arguments.


Yes, Craig, at close to 24 dB of C/N. You really do need to keep all
these facts together.

The MIMO scheme was measured to work, with certain problem areas, at
about 24 dB of C/N. The Shannon limit for 44 Mb/s in a 7.4 MHz channel
is 17.8 dB of C/N.

The Shannon limit for 8T-VSB is 10.47 dB of C/N, and actual results are
consistently in the 15.something dB range. So those are the important
points to keep in mind.


All irrelevant.
If we had allowed broadcasters the freedom to deploy either 8-VSB or DVB-T, as Sinclair requested, there would be no effort to add support for mobility to the ATSC standard. In fact, I strongly suspect that it would already be dead. 



In order to ensure that the MIMO scheme can in fact provide twice the
bit rate, you are almost forced into an SFN configuration, for the
typical market. So that means greater costs for US broadcasters, who
already now seem happy to let the MVPDs do their heavy lifting for them.
Yes, and this is a good thing, despite your protestations. This is EXACTLY what will happen with the spectrum just acquired by the telcos. You see Bert, they must give the consumer good reasons to upgrade their handsets every two years. All that U.S. broadcasters have done for decades now is to give their viewers good reasons to subscribe to cable and DBS.
By the way Bert. I asked a representative of the BBC whether they were planning on using MIMO in the enhanced Freeview service. The answer was not, as they plan on using their EXISTING transmission infrastructure while operating both DVB-T and DVB-T2 services. 


So how exactly does this help? There is no free lunch, Craig.
Exactly. So broadcasters in the U.S. are going to ride into the sunset, since they are severely disadvantaged by an inferior technical standard. This should match up well with the business model the content conglomerates are pursuing, which will leverage the Internet and the mobile technologies that will be deployed by the telcos.
The ONLY chance that broadcasters have to survive is to petition the FCC to allow them to use a modern SFN-based transmission infrastructure that will allow them to remain competitive. 

Game over in 5 years...



Honestly, if you can maintain a more positive attitude with a new
microbrew, that would be great!
No problem. There is intense competition in the craft beer market segment, which has led to 17% year over year growth, while the big boys are barely growing at all, and are now starting to offer better products... 

Have you seen all those new Michelob ads?

If I don't produce great beers with a good story line we will fail.
The good news is that consumers who get a taste of great beer are far more likely to try the tremendous variety of craft beers that are now being produced and widely distributed. They are FAR LESS likely to say "My beer is "brand "B," "C," or "M."
Kinda like you Bert. Most of the country has moved on and is watching a wide range of specialty programming in addition to the pabulum from the networks. But you are still drinking the swill, and trying to convince us that it tastes great. 

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: