[opendtv] Re: Twang's Tuesday Tribune (Mark's MondayMemo)2004April20
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:05:21 -0400
Tom Barry wrote:
> Sorry Bert but "whining" is a rather loaded word, at least to me. I
> calls 'em as I sees 'em. And the fact that supposed "powers that be"
> have decreed something to be true has about the same
> credibility to me
> as the emperors new clothes.
I was speaking in general terms, Tom. Sorry.
The general point is that I don't think there's a chance in hell that
the FCC is going to reopen the modulation question now. That
opportunity came and went, for better or for worse.
So I really see no point to all this petulant-child-like rehashing of
old test results that are no longer relevant, and old arguments that
do nothing to bring us where we need to be.
Some of the old arguments, in the chorus of complaints about ATSC,
were just flat wrong. For example, the idea that ATSC is "not
extensible" was always wrong. Finally USDTV has proven this beyond
any doubt, by proposing to go with H.264 compression for their pay
service subchannels.
The reception difficulties in multipath environments were
demonstrated many times, and are being addressed bit by bit. I
really fail to see what good it does to dredge up 1999 comparison
tests every time someone conducts a new set of trials. Especially
because these recent tests don't include COFDM at all.
Let me give you an example. If a recent test result says, "With
such-and-such a criterion, the unit was successful in 87 percent
of test sites," how would that compare with "Back in 2000, I
managed to make the COFDM receiver work just about anywhere I
tried."
You can't tell which is better with the information provided.
The *implication* of such a comment is that COFDM is still better.
Maybe, but maybe not. If the anecdotal COFDM test of years ago did
not cover exactly the same sites with exactly the same
transmitters and the same criterion for success, any conclusion
about which is better now would be invalid. We don't know what
power density was available in the 2000 anecdotal test or how the
sites compared with those used now, or how many sites were
tried, and so on. 87 percent may certainly translate to "success
just about anywhere I tried."
Anyway, who cares? What matters is that the scheme we *have* to
deal with is getting there finally, and there's no reason to
believe it will never be adequate.
> I still believe ATSC can likely be fixed but I refuse to pretend it=20
> needs no fixing,
Which no one has been pretending.
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:
