[opendtv] Re: News: Those licenses will soon be worthless...
- From: "John Shutt" <shuttj@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "OpenDTV" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:58:28 -0400
---- Original Message -----
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> John Shutt wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately you don't understand the dynamics.
>>
>> We have been waiting in the United States since 1999 for
>> a working receiver. We still don't have one on the market.
>> COFDM would have changed that dynamic 6 years ago.
>
> Fairy tales, John. I don't believe that for a second. A
> working receiver was demonstrated, and when the manufacturer
> decided not to market the thing, the only loud complaints
> we heard were from a few zealots on AVS Forum. I checked the
> NAB site and found nothing on the subject. With Sinclair as
> the only exception, I have to believe that Craig is right on
> this one. Broadcasters are happier to retain the status quo.
> The big concern is to delay analog shutoff and get multicast
> must carry.
Bert,
At Boeing do you post all of your internal discussions regarding ongoing
projects on a public web site?
Why would you think that the NAB or PBS would?
Why is it so hard to believe that if we had a receiver that was plug and
play like the one that Sinclair demonstrated in 1999 that the dynamics of
DTV would
be different? Each broadcaster in each market being able to choose his/her
own bitrate/robustness ratio for their business model, HM COFDM, DVB-H, et
al, would open up opportunities to make OTA attractive (and profitable)
again. Simply trying to do almost as well as the NTSC it is replacing is a
losing proposition, and has been since Sinclair showed the world just how
poor ATSC functions.
Sinclair showed in 1999 that you can tape a simple bow tie antenna to a
stick, pick an apartment, waive the antenna anywhere you want, and you
barely could make the picture fail. With ATSC you had to find the one spot
where it worked, if at all.
Sinclair and DVB showed at the 2000 NAB convention HM COFDM that could be
received everywhere on the convention floor, except inside of a transmitter
cabinet, and even then only when the door was fully closed.
Sinclair showed in 2000 that you could hold a double bow tie antenna and
walk from the back of a packed hearing room in Washington, DC to the witness
table, and not lose the picture, while the carefully aimed Silver Sensor
feeding the ATSC receiver had to be taped down to a window sill.
Bob Miller showed in 2004 that a 100 watt transmitter could cover most of
Manhattan with mobile reception.
Fairy tales come out of you, Bert, who has zero practical experience with
any form of Digital Television, therefore has zero expertise in the area.
My offer still stands to lend you the marvel of the Free World in my office,
and the Silver Sensor to go with it. Who knows, maybe it will work so well
for you that you can throw it back in my face.
>
>> The only analogy one can draw with UHF and US DTV is the
>> tuner mandate.
>
> Yes, and I believe that after analog is shut off, DTT will be
> a good thing for broadcasters. But just like UHF, there's
> this chicken and egg problem to get over first.
The only thing DTT will be good for after analog shut off will be as a data
delivery
mechanism to cable head ends. The current crop of tuner/chip combos that
are being mandated are no better than what is in my office, and I can
guarantee that the frustration of the 25% or so that try it will be so great
that they will give up trying. I field these phone calls to my station to
help viewers, and I know the frustration level that is out there with the
current generation of receivers.
>> > Indoor reception of COFDM at that site is
>> > still "unproven" (therefore presumably impossible).
>
> Tom Barry wrote:
>
>> That statement is illogical. The conclusion does not
>> logically follow under any interpretation I can come up
>> with.
>>
>> We have no idea of what sort of reception to expect at
>> Mark's.
>
> Sorry, Tom, I'm simply being consistent with the prevalent
> sentiments on this site. No test results are deemed credible
> until demoed at Mark's apartment, and no product is deemed
> feasible until it sits on a store shelf.
Ignore all of the previous demonstrations, and please don't watch
www.viacel.com/bob.wmv. You seem so eager to jump on anecdotal evidence
when it serves to reinforce your notion that ATSC is good enough, yet ignore
hard evidence that COFDM is not just better, it is far superior to 8-VSB as
a modulation method, and DVB is far superior to ATSC as a data standard.
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> There is no cut off date in the UK and they have sold 6
>> million receivers.
>
> Yes, Bob, we've been over this many times. There is a
> cultural difference between the UK, France, and Italy and
> other parts of Europe and the US. OTA is used a lot in the
> former countries, but not the latter. Why don't you argue
> with Frank Eory on this subject? He's said the same thing.
With a viable DTT service, we can CREATE what the UK and the rest of Europe
has done with OTA. With ATSC the most we can count on is continued lobbying
for cable must carry of the entire data stream, as that is the only reliable
way to deliver bits to viewers.
Why don't you ask Mark Schubin, who has seen first hand the 1999 Baltimore
Sinclair demonstrations, the 2000 Sinclair/DVB HM COFDM demonstrations, and
all of the latest and greatest 8-VSB receivers paraded through his
apartment.
Why don't you ask Stephen Long, who has seen both side by side as well?
Why don't you ask Frank Eory which modulation method he prefers?
Why don't you watch www.viacel.com/bob.wmv, and compare it to the Samsung
I'm willing to lend you?
John
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
