[opendtv] Re: Twang's Tuesday Tribune (Mark's MondayMemo)2004April20
- From: Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 20:04:27 -0400
I think of "broadcasting" as maybe an economic term that does not
necessarily mean TV, or maybe even free. Certain bits are
sufficiently in demand that instead of on-demand, or a pull model, it
becomes more effective to just dedicate some spectrum or other
resources and send them out to everybody. That was the model for TV,
though you could question whether with must carry cable huggers all
existing stations still fill the bill.
But I'm not sure where "broadcasting" encrypted premium services fits
into this model. It still dedicates some spectrum, removing it from
use from everyone. So the 'casting is broad but the receiving is
narrower. I guess I'll have to think about this some more, though the
simple principle should remain valid.
- Tom
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> Bert is right. Fixing that which is broken is not interesting to the
> FCC. The transition is meeting and exceeding the goals of those who
> set us down this path.
>
> When the time comes to actually do something useful with the
> spectrum, it will be a matter of replacing that which is broken with
> something that works...
>
> That day is approach much more quickly than most would assume.
> Broadcasters are waking up, and they will eventually go back and ask
> the government to end this madness and allow them to build something
> that works. The alternative is that broadcasters will simply cease to
> be relevant, in which case someone else will use their spectrum for
> services that people actually use.
>
> Regards
> Craig
>
> At 11:05 AM -0400 4/23/04, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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:
