[opendtv] Re: Post on alt.tv.tech.hdtv of interest today
- From: Bob Miller <bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 23:54:48 -0400
Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>Bob Miller wrote:
>
>
>
>>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.
>>
>>
>
>FWIW, I agree. That's why going in with concise and focused arguments makes
>good sense. But going in with
>a loaded agenda, off on too many tangents, doesn't make sense.
>
>
I don't have an loaded agenda. Any hearings would be on receiver issues
first, second MPEG4 and if either of those lead to modulation as a
solution that would be good IMO.
>The focus should be *primarily* that receiver OEMs have stated an
>unwillingness to do anything helpful without
>a date certain being set for analog shutdown. That's something Congress can
>address with the stroke of a pen.
>
>You have the price estimates, so it's unwise to hide them. The estimates say
>$50 for an ATSC HDTV STB by end
>of 2006. That's far better than what Berlin had to go with at the start of
>their transition. They were hoping for $200 STBs at the start, and SD ones at
>that.
>
>
We are talking today not 2.5 years ago and Berlin had receivers in the
$125 range within months of launch. I didn't see any $50 price estimate
for 8-VSB receivers by end of 2006. I have seen an LG representative at
the House Hearing a month or so ago waving a box over his head and
saying that LG would produce such an 8-VSB converter for $100 in 2007 if
they got an order for 10's of millions. Since then they have dropped out
of the STB business which puts a ? mark behind their name.
>If you have other topics to present, like this idea to change to COFDM, then
>the arguments need to be really
>unambiguous. For example, an immediate requirement for mobile reception might
>make a case for a switch to
>COFDM now. Indoor reception and other such arguments are just too late *now*.
>Maybe in early 2002 they were
>still compelling. The NAB missed that opportunity.
>
>
No I think the discussion starts with what will get the transition
moving. Congress seems to be focused on converter boxes for the 4.6% to
15% of viewers who depend on OTA. They are not even considering anything
else at least in the house. The Senate is another story. There is a
chance there.
What are the issues with those converter boxes that the House sees as
the total and only solution? Cost and will they work. That is what any
hearings should focus on. With 8-VSB you have cost and reception issues.
If no other modulation is considered then I think a real set of hearings
would find the cost will be too high. Cost politically and in dollars.
5th gen receivers could only be made by LG or someone who would owe LG
royalties for everyone made.
The political cost would be very high if billions are spent on receivers
that are even slightly problematic. Those OTA dependent viewers are not
die hard early adopter HDTV advocates and will complain about reception
problems especially if they find that they have to install expensive
directional antennas in cities. Politically bad receiver technology or
expensive and bad receiver technology should prompt a "let us hear more
about this quagmire we are knee deep in before we get neck deep in it".
At that point if Hearings got that far and only then would the subject
of compression and modulation come up as solutions and opportunities.
>I think the mobility requirement is weak at this point. The market case has
>not been made. (And, FWIW, I wouldn't discount further receiver improvements
>to support mobile operation with 8-VSB.)
>
>
I would. I can't imagine that anyone will go to the trouble to make
8-VSB work mobile in the face of what will be lots of mobile COFDM
solutions and very very inexpensive receivers made for cell phones, lap
tops etc.
I think that mobility is required for the long term health of OTA but it
is the last thing Congress would want to consider and would be given the
least weight UNLESS it is framed in Homeland Security and first
responder issues. I can see witnesses testifying to the utter nonsense
being presented today that 8-VSB is going to be used mobile on fire trucks.
I think mobility is a major issue in this context.
>So if I were the one listening to your arguments, I'd wonder why you're at the
>same time pretending to want the transition to be on its way, and then
>simultaneuously delaying it by a few more years with this modulation changing
>tactic.
>
>
I am not pretending. We own spectrum that cannot be used before the
transition is over. We have a stake in getting it over ASAP. I believe
that switching to COFDM and MPEG4 is the quickest way to get this
transition over. It would energize the entire broadcast community with
tools they know they need if anything real will ever be done with OTA.
Anything else in my mind are just games pretending at transition. NO one
is going to get excited about a transition that delivers millions of
lowest bid 8-VSB converter boxes. That is a transition to the end of OTA
broadcasting.
It would be just a matter of time and endless more hearings on the
continued failure of OTA followed by the sale of the spectrum after
Congress finds some fig leaf of a legal argument to maintain must carry
for broadcasters who have been stripped of their spectrum altogether.
>AVC is another area where your goals seem ambiguous. Inclusion of AVC within
>ATSC is something that can be
>done with the stroke of a pen. The candidate standards have been written. But
>if I were to listen to you
>arguing for AVC *and* simulcast of MPEG-2 SD, I would be baffled by your
>confused objectives. Why argue for
>a new codec and immediately wipe out any efficiency gains with this
>simulcasting requirement?
>
>
I assume AVC is allowed other than the one SD MPEG2 requirement. The
problem is that if we were to allow AVC for the full 6 MHz then all
current receivers would be obsolete. I did not advocate simulcast of AVC
and MPEG2 in the last post. I advocated AVC multicast of an SD and HD
version of the main content like in Australia using COFDM. That would
then allow for very inexpensive COFDM receivers NOW as converters for
all analog TV sets.
In fact just the savings in receiver cost for the House version of a
transition would pay for receivers for all early adopters and modulators
for all broadcasters. Not even taking into account the savings on
antennas, the increase in the value of the spectrum with MPEG4 or the
political disaster that would be averted IMO.
>(Ooooh, I get it. A hidden agenda. Watch out for this guy. That's not the
>message you want to get out, right?)
>
>
My agenda is not hidden, I lay it out right here. But the broadcasters
have to decide themselves what their agenda is. It has to start with
receiver issues, can proceed to compression options and only then
proceed to modulation. It is a natural progression to me but only can
happen if broadcasters get brave.
My agenda is to get the process started, hearings in the Senate Commerce
Committee. My feeling if we get it started it may go the right way.
Strongly believe the quickest way to a successful transition is to
switch modulations and codecs now.
Two things that are happening right now that are important. Congress is
really paying attention now. Problem, they are not hearing anything new.
Second, LG has decided to stop making STB's. If they think that is
sending the correct message for their interest in 8-VSB I think not.
Bob Miller
>So tally up your arguments. The focus ought to be on a date certain, and then
>get something out of the OEMs.
>Your other tangents just do not seem helpful, to me. On the contrary, they
>defocus your message and make
>your intentions suspect?
>
>Bert
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
