[opendtv] Re: Post on alt.tv.tech.hdtv of interest today
- From: "John Willkie" <JohnWillkie@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 20:05:24 -0700
Bob;
You are not new to the industry. You were five years ago, when you started
on this list. In otherwords, your words can evidence what you have learned.
It's not a good sign, since you flounder around.
Think of it this way: MPEG4 is marketers. the organizations I referred to
are engineers ONLY. If you think that MPEG4IF knows more about AVC than
one of the MPEG committees, your cluelessness continues.
In other words,
> As an advocacy group they would be able to
> inform me of how they could help with the issue of MPEG4 AVC or whatever
> codec might be considered as a replacement for MPEG2.
>
is just stupid writing.
you also wrote
> One reason I post here is to learn so you and those hundreds of people
> that know more than I can fill me in when I am way off the mark. The
> above from you is meant to put me in my place and to inform me that you
> are far more knowledgeable than I. That's OK but not that helpful.
So, you make uninformed statements here -- inconsistent ones, at that -- so
that informed people might object loudly and give you a mild mid-course
correction when a new ship is in order.
My intent is NOT to be HELPFUL to you. My intent in replies to your
postings is to get you shut up and listen. I am largely unsuccessful in
this endeavor. For more than a year, I've considered leaving this list
because of you ignorantly lighting flames with only glee in your eye, and a
few others hereabouts. Then, I meet list members in person, and they ask me
to stay on the list, IF ONLY TO DEAL WITH YOU.
I clearly know more than you; I also clearly learn -- not merely purport to
learn -- from others on this list. It's the saving grace of this list.
Ignorantly, you stated
> One thing about your post that does bother me is that you often put
> words in others mouths that they did not say or imply. When I said that
> broadcasters were fearfully of Congress I did not also say that Congress
> was not fearful of broadcasters nor did I imply that. It would appear as
> I have told broadcasters that Congress is a lot less fearful of them
> than in the past.
>
Who gives a f**k? You were wrong about broadcasters being fearful of
Congress. When, pray tell, was the last time that the broadcasters lost a
battle in Congress? (Hint: it was the late 1960's)
> I think, in my ignorance, that this is a good time for broadcasters to
> confront Congress and the FCC and take it to their customers and would
> be customers OTA. Inform the public of what OTA could be. From Pravda
> 04/07/2005...
>
Yes, this proves your ignorance. You want broadcasters to fight your
battles. They won't, and only a handful of broadcasters can even see the
"problems" that you describe as problems. They are clearly problems for
you, but not for broadcasters.
Most -- if not all -- of the issues you identify were resolved to
broadcasters satisfaction in 1994-1996. They were widely debated even years
ahead of that. Those who are ignorant of the past are condemned to repeat
it.
You clearly have some support at Sinclair. The reality there is that
Sinclair sees the situations almost entirely differently than every other
broadcasters. I am not here to say who is right -- only time will tell.
But, using Sinclair as your base of support is a non-starter with virtually
all other broadcasters. Most seem to despise Sinclair, for reasons that I
am never able to parse into sentences, despite having tried for many years.
Then, you add this at the end:
> Congress and the FCC are supposed to be interested in more competition
> for runaway cable bills at least according to the last Chairman of the
> FCC. This could be an issue that Congress could latch onto if presented
> right.
Are you drunk or crazy? This amounts to a non-sequitur in the current
thread. What do cable bills have to do with broadcasters? Oh, you don't
know that the "broadcasters can compete with cable" ship sailed many decades
back?
Cable is a transitional technology and service: it's only unique service --
public, educational and governmental public access channels -- they think
are a burden, but cable modems will keep them alive in the face of superior
delivery technology.
John Willkie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Miller" <bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 12:22 PM
Subject: [opendtv] Re: Post on alt.tv.tech.hdtv of interest today
> John Willkie wrote:
>
> >I do know -- at least I have had several email exchanges with -- Pat; we
have common memberships on several industry groups and at one point I needed
help with their forest of acronyms.
> >
> >You continue to be clueless. MPEGIF is an advocacy group and as such
does no standards or engineering. Unlike, say, MPEG or DVB or SMPTE or ATSC
or ARIB.
> >
> >
> Being new to the industry I would be the first to inform you that I am
> clueless as to much of what you suggest. But where did you get a clue
> that I was suggesting that MPEGIF was a doing engineering or standards.
> I believe what I said was that I was in touch with both Harmonics and
> MPEGIF and nothing more. As an advocacy group they would be able to
> inform me of how they could help with the issue of MPEG4 AVC or whatever
> codec might be considered as a replacement for MPEG2.
>
> >You have -- to be polite -- uncohesive, events-driven "arguments" (mostly
rationalizations and FUD) on the politics, engineering, and social
> >environment that broadcasters are in. And, without exception, these
arguments are entirely devoid of understanding, facts or anything close to
> >reality. Hundreds of people on this list know it; they talk about you
behind your back.
> >
> >
> One reason I post here is to learn so you and those hundreds of people
> that know more than I can fill me in when I am way off the mark. The
> above from you is meant to put me in my place and to inform me that you
> are far more knowledgeable than I. That's OK but not that helpful.
>
> >Maybe they do that with me as well, but when I am approached at industry
gatherings by fellow list members, it's mostly "you seem to try to keep
everybody else honest." (Hey, if it seems that way ...)
> >
> >As to your arguments about fear among broadcasters, you are entirely
confused. Broadcasters are less fearful of Congres than the other way
> >around; most people get their political news from broadcasting. There is
a general fear of the unknown future, a fear that would be MUCH GREATER were
there to be two digital paths for them to contemplate. (That's why I told
Nat Ostroff a few weeks back that to get DVB permissive in the U.S., all the
angles need to be worked out in advance)
> >
> >
> One thing about your post that does bother me is that you often put
> words in others mouths that they did not say or imply. When I said that
> broadcasters were fearfully of Congress I did not also say that Congress
> was not fearful of broadcasters nor did I imply that. It would appear as
> I have told broadcasters that Congress is a lot less fearful of them
> than in the past.
>
> I think, in my ignorance, that this is a good time for broadcasters to
> confront Congress and the FCC and take it to their customers and would
> be customers OTA. Inform the public of what OTA could be. From Pravda
> 04/07/2005...
>
> "Indeed, prospective digital television will offer as wider range of
> channels and programs as commercial satellite television operators do
today"
>
> http://ad.pravda.ru/cgi-bin/iframe?11,15,39663
>
> Whether accurate or not it is true that broadcasters could be doing a
> lot more with OTA than they are.
>
> Congress and the FCC are supposed to be interested in more competition
> for runaway cable bills at least according to the last Chairman of the
> FCC. This could be an issue that Congress could latch onto if presented
> right.
>
> Bob Miller
>
> >John Willkie
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Bob Miller" <bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 10:02 PM
> >Subject: [opendtv] Re: Post on alt.tv.tech.hdtv of interest today
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>I don't know Pat but others from Harmonic and MPEGIF have contacted me
> >>the last few days on the subject.
> >>
> >>A note on conversations I am having. Everybody wants receiver standards
> >>and or to be able to use COFDM and MPEG4. Virtual consensus. But
> >>everyone is still afraid to raise their hand unless everyone else does.
> >>No one wants to be tarred and feathered like Sinclair.
> >>
> >>Congress therefore thinks broadcasters are happy with what they have.
> >>Actually broadcasters seem to be just scared s**tless of Congress just
> >>as they were in 2000. Maybe they should be.
> >>
> >>But am making progress.
> >>
> >>Worries are the same as five years ago.
> >>
> >>If they talk modulation they get hit with charge of delaying the
> >>transition. I think the delay is 8-VSB and the solutions is anything
but.
> >>
> >>They say that in the asking for MPEG4 they risk Congress taking back
> >>spectrum because they don't need so much. That was true for MPEG2 also.
> >>And I don't think there is much risk of Congress wanting to go that far.
> >>They just want to get the transition over with and MPEG4 could help. And
> >>the Congress we have today is not the one we had in 2000 nor do they
> >>seem to see the issues that same and there are new dogs in this fight
> >>who have new ideas, want the transition over with and have the means and
> >>money to fight.
> >>
> >>And each broadcaster has at least one other problem. But this can be
> >>done, at least real hearings on real problems.
> >>
> >>One thing I have suggested. If MPEG4 was allowed obviously all current
> >>receivers become obsolete so we could then talk modulation. If COFDM and
> >>MPEG4 both were adopted the US could do what Australia is doing,
> >>multicast SD and HD versions of the same content. OZ was criticized for
> >>doing this because it is inherently inefficient.
> >>
> >>The thing is that the multicast with MPEG4 would be more efficient than
> >>the current MPEG2 HDTV single cast. That is the SD and HD multicast
> >>would take up no more room and most likely much less room than the one
> >>HD signal does with MPEG2 and offer better quality and more headroom at
> >>the same time.
> >>
> >>And if we did COFDM and MPEG4 and multicasting of an SD and HD of same
> >>content we could use very inexpensive COFDM SD receivers as the
> >>converter boxes the House is talking about. Right now in quantity those
> >>COFDM converter boxes would cost something less than the $50 retail
> >>price of some SD boxes in the UK. France has $70 retail price SD COFDM
> >>STB's for sale days after they started broadcasting COFDM SD. Who knows
> >>how cheap they will get over the next year or so.
> >>
> >>Least expensive HD COFDM receivers would not be that much more
> >>expensive. Probably for as little as $100 to $120 retail.
> >>
> >>And over some period of time we could probably more easily retire the
> >>"same program" multicast idea than we are now retiring NTSC. And over
> >>that same period of time MPEG4 will mature into a codec capable of 4
> >>times that of MPEG2. (got that from Harmonic a while back)
> >>
> >>The cost of 10 million SD COFDM converters being contemplated in
> >>Congress would be about one third the cost of the contemplated LG
> >>promise of $100 8-VSB converters in 2007. If we can even rely on a
> >>company, LG, that just dropped out of the STB 8-VSB market altogether to
> >>make any such converter. Maybe in fact LG would be more happy making
> >>COFDM converters since they are happier making COFDM HD boxes for OZ
> >>while dropping 8-VSB receivers in the US. Could we hope for such logic
> >>to prevail?
> >>
> >>Today not 2007 you could most likely buy 10 million COFDM converters for
> >>$35 each or is it possible even less? That would make Congress's
> >>subsidized program cost a lot less. 10 million at $100 is $1 billion
> >>after all while 10 million at $35 is $350 million. And Congress would
> >>not have to send a installation technician with a rotorized 30 foot
> >>antenna along with those $35 COFDM converters like the would have to
> >>with those $100 LG converters.
> >>
> >>Of course that would be a perfect post Iraq contract for Haliburton. The
> >>LG converter antenna installation contract that is.
> >>
> >>Bob Miller
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Ron Economos wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>The ATSC TSG/S6 group is actively working on
> >>>H.264 and VC-1. Maybe you should contact
> >>>Pat Wadell of Harmonic/Divicom to avoid duplicated
> >>>efforts?
> >>>
> >>>Ron
> >>>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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:
