[opendtv] Re: Supply chain agrees switchover measures
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 08:07:28 -0400
At 11:37 AM -0400 9/19/07, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
Well, as we discussed previously, it's almost as easy to include ATSC in
the mix. The differences are small and limited really to the demod
module only. Tuners and decoders can be, and are in fact, universal, and
the software required can quite easily accommodate all standards in one
package.
And why would any CE manufacturer build a multi-standard receiver?
Please explain the market demand. It's nice that we can do things
with technology, but there has to be a compelling reason.
Its not a brainwashed public, but rather brainwashed politicians
and regulators at every level of government in the U.S. that
have created and perpetuated the cable oligopoly.
Just to be clear, then, since I think everything is being painted with
too broad a brush:
The FCC mandates, coupled with the FCC-encouraged "agreements" between
cable systems and CE manufacturers, DO NOT fit in your description.
These two items, championed by Michael Powell, were meant to counter the
"brainwashed politician and regulators" you mention. But you sure can't
tell that from the knee-jerk rhetoric we all saw in response, eh?
The cable systems NEVER had any good reasons to conform with ATSC
standards. They have monopoly control over their infrastructure and
they have "gone to the mat" to protect it. The FCC encouraged
"agreements" have done little to change this picture, and the cable
industry has largely ignored the politicians and regulators with
respect to opening up their proprietary CA systems and cooperating
with efforts to allow third party STBs that support two-way
communications.
In short, there still is no competition in the STB area, and in the
U.S. the CE industry has little interest in helping the broadcasters
with their NON-TRANSITION.
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.
- References:
- [opendtv] Re: Supply chain agrees switchover measures
- From: Manfredi, Albert E
Other related posts:
- » [opendtv] Supply chain agrees switchover measures
- » [opendtv] Re: Supply chain agrees switchover measures
- » [opendtv] Re: Supply chain agrees switchover measures
- » [opendtv] Re: Supply chain agrees switchover measures
- » [opendtv] Re: Supply chain agrees switchover measures
- » [opendtv] Re: Supply chain agrees switchover measures
- » [opendtv] Re: Supply chain agrees switchover measures
- » [opendtv] Re: Supply chain agrees switchover measures
- » [opendtv] Re: Supply chain agrees switchover measures
- » [opendtv] Re: Supply chain agrees switchover measures
- » [opendtv] Re: Supply chain agrees switchover measures
Well, as we discussed previously, it's almost as easy to include ATSC in the mix. The differences are small and limited really to the demod module only. Tuners and decoders can be, and are in fact, universal, and the software required can quite easily accommodate all standards in one package.
Its not a brainwashed public, but rather brainwashed politicians and regulators at every level of government in the U.S. that have created and perpetuated the cable oligopoly.
Just to be clear, then, since I think everything is being painted with too broad a brush: The FCC mandates, coupled with the FCC-encouraged "agreements" between cable systems and CE manufacturers, DO NOT fit in your description. These two items, championed by Michael Powell, were meant to counter the "brainwashed politician and regulators" you mention. But you sure can't tell that from the knee-jerk rhetoric we all saw in response, eh?
- [opendtv] Re: Supply chain agrees switchover measures
- From: Manfredi, Albert E