[opendtv] Re: (No Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:30:37 -0400

  • From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:02:07 -0700

Barry;

How many angels could fit on the head of that pin?

You are attempting twist my apathy on your issue into my giving a point.

I don't have any dog in the modulation fight.  You are trying to draw me
into this.  Been there, done that.  When Sinclair came up with their
ill-timed proposal, I thought it was worth looking into, but that it was
ill-timed and politically unfeasible in the U.S.: it was enacted into law in
1996.

Sinclair's proposal was one that they would uniquely benefit from, what I
called then and now "dual illumination."  What you miss here is that in the
United States (and Taiwan) both DVB and ATSC systems can co-exist.

Bob Miller can try his system here, and Crown Castle will be using something
similar.  However, it is impossible to do ATSC (or even terrestrial HDTV,
outside of Australia) in any DVB country.

I'm in favor of free media marketplace, and free over the air broadcasting.

I personally know some of the people behind the ATSC system, and I'm a
member of an ATSC specialist group (T3/S1).  I anticipate becoming an ATSC
member in due course, and even joining DVB.

I respect the work that all these groups have done.

When I look at the various broadcast metadata forms out there (my niche), I
find that PSIP emulates the way that broadcasting is practiced in the U.S.
and much of the world (outside of Europe.)  When I look at DVB-SI, I find
virtually nothing that would work in the U.S.

I suspect that is because, from the start, there was no input in DVB from
the U.S. broadcast community: stations and the NAB.

So, were the decision made to adopt DVB in the U.S., there might be some
advantages in the modulation model.  Indeed, I was talking a few months back
with a high-ranking engineering executive at CBS, someone who is a lurker on
this list, and he admitted that there are some advantages in COFDM
modulation over 8-VSB.  He said that he would never say such a thing
publicly, but we were "among friends."  We also frankly "discussed" the
situation with E-VSB.

However, adopting DVB in the U.S. would, absent a WHOLESALE revision of the
DVB-SI spec, result in U.S. television stations becoming passive
retransmitters of network programming.  That might work in Europe, but in
the U.S., Canada and Mexico, local stations are federal/state constructs:
most of the programming is created elsewhere, but localism is an important
component.

A wholesale revision of DVB-SI would take much time, and is likely to be
impossible to adopt here.  Have you ever noticed that the only U.S.
broadcaster to adopt DVB is the essentially proprietary Dish Network system?
Do you think that the cable companies and broadcasters conspired to keep DVB
out?  How come I never hear complaints about why DVB-C isn't used, and we
have to settle for the Motorola and SA versions of SCTE?  Is modulation less
important (or more?) to broadcasters than cable?

When we had the fires in Southern California last year, or even the recent
spate of hurricanes in Florida, those stations that Craig said are just
passive retransmitters, went live all day and night with coverage of strong
interest to their local communities.

In the European model, that would only have happened if the events were of
overriding national interest.  Hurricanes and fires cause local problems, so
regular programming would have ensued.

To me, the greatest challenge that broadcasters in free media marketplaces
have with the digital transition is how to populate more channels at the
same or less overall cost than they currently spend on a single channel.

I want to see expanded channel offerings from terrestrial broadcasting.  I
don't care what country you are talking about: IN THE DVB WORLD, DTV means
the same number or fewer program sources in the same (or less) bandwidth.
IN THE ATSC world, DTV means the possibility of more channels in the same
bandwidth.

Modulation schemes are of deep interest to RF engineers.  The licensing
model has more impact on what viewers can see and when.

And, what's really at play in the modulation wars -- even going back to the
1920's -- is patents, IP and licensing.   I know I'm not the only person on
this list who knows this, but I'm the only one who talks publicly about
THAT.

John Willkie

-----Original Message-----
From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Barry Wilkins
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 6:07 PM
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: (No Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:30:37 -0400


John,

Your reply considered the possibility of local manufacture being one of
the incentives for the Australian choice. This would not be likely as I
understand local(Australian) manufacture of TVs to be Nil as it is in
NZ.

You then said you did not suggest it was political and then stated you
could not answer the question.

If it was not political and not because of local manufacturers self
interest then would you not consider the possibility of choice purely on
technical grounds.

According to other sources this is precisely why they did choose COFDM.
I understand they have not been disappointed. What would have been the
result up until now, had they chosen 8-VSB? It would be reasonable to
expect they would have had the same problems in central cities as has
been suffered in the US.

So, did they make the right choice? I think yes.

Though there are those that now say the modulation issue is a non issue,
I have noted that at the time of consideration of the 2 choices the
8-VSBers did not accept the performance advantage for COFDM as has been
experienced (in environments where it is of great benefit). Now that the
issue is a so called non-issue, the (some) 8-VSBers say the option of
using COFDM came too late.

So, lastly, if the exercise could be repeated now, would the choice in
the US be different?

Regards

Barry Wilkins=20


-----Original Message-----
From: John Willkie [mailto:johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxx]=20
Sent: Tuesday, 12 October 2004 1:25 p.m.
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: (No Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:30:37 -0400

No, I don't think that it was political, but I'll leave that to people
who
followed Australia's adoption closely.  I suspect it was economic, with
increased revenue for local manufacturers.  Perhaps not.

But, since you put the question to me, I cannot answer it, since my
point
was that I doubt that Canada nor Mexico was influenced by U.S. politics.
Trying to turn that into Australia adopting COFDM due to politics is a
point
someone else will have to make.

I can say that Australia adopted COFDM, but in a manner very much
U.S.-like.
They did not do it to dumb down and denigrate broadcasting.  As far as I
can
see, this is quite unlike all the other COFDM countries, which clearly
did
it to denigrate broadcasting and broadcasters.

John Willkie

-----Original Message-----
From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Barry Wilkins
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 2:57 PM
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: (No Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:30:37 -0400


So John,

Why exactly, in your opinion, did Australia choose COFDM rather than
8-VSB? They had adequate information and did thorough testing. They are
interested in HDTV just like the US. Do you think it was it political?

Barry Wilkins



-----Original Message-----
From: John Willkie [mailto:johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxx]=3D20
Sent: Tuesday, 12 October 2004 7:19 a.m.
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: (No Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:30:37 -0400

Yes, you aren't in your right mind.

Nobody is asking anybody to make a decision vis a vis COFDM vs 8VSB now,
at
least in most countries.  For example, is that an active discussion in
France, Germany or the UK?

Yet, when people in their right mind make the decision -- Mexico unduly
influenced by the U.S., yeah, that seems logical to somebody living on
Roosevelt Island -- and they make a decision contrary to your uninformed
objectives, the decision is political.

You are clueless about politics: national and international.  (I have no
data points on local or state).

Indeed, the argument can be made that the people advocating COFDM need
to
resort to politics to make their arguments stick (a bit.)  And, there is
ample evidence that the COFDM advocates have a tin ear when it comes to
politics.

Note:  I don't play politics, but I do watch, from somewhat of a remove.

You want to ignore the market dynamics aspects of the decision to a
purely
engineering one.  That's a non-starter, since IN COUNTRIES WHERE 8-VSB
has
BEEN ADOPTED, commercial broadcasters outnumber non-commercial or
governmental ones.  In countries where COFDM has been adopted (save only
Australia) the non-commercial and governmental broadcasters far
outnumber
the commercial ones.

So, when the market-oriented management of TV stations, groups and
networks
hear your arguments (save for Sinclair, which follows it's own drummer
down
to inner Baltimore to pick up ... never mind) they think: do we want to
be
like the U.K. or Germany.

You do have an up: getting the wannabes, entities with only aspirations
of
distribution but lacking content or access to content, to go your way.
After they fail, broadcasters might be interested in picking up the
distressed assets IF YOU HAVE DEVELOPED NEW AND EXCITING SERVICES.

Mark my words.

John Willkie

-----Original Message-----
From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Bob Miller
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 9:19 AM
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: (No Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:30:37 -0400


Kon Wilms wrote:

>Bob Miller wrote:
>
>
>>No one in there right mind would chose 8-VSB over COFDM now, in 2000,
in
>>1999 or five years from now. Mexico, Canada S. Korea and the US were
all
>>political decisions IMO. The best interest of the public were not and
>>are not being considered.
>>
>>
>
>You forgot to remove the punctuation mark ',' after the words 'COFDM
now'.
>
>Cheers
>Kon
>
Are you suggesting that I am living in the past? How about ...

No one in their right mind would chose 8-VSB over COFDM now, or in 2000,
or
in
1999, or five years from now.

You didn't mention that I misspelled their as there.

Bob Miller



----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

=3D20
=3D20
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org=3D20

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

=20
=20
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org=20

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 10-2004