[opendtv] Re: news: Migrating to advanced video coding; What's the plan?
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 08:24:45 -0500
Sometime it is necessary to take pause....
and try to figure out what planet Bert lives on.
At 5:49 PM -0500 11/6/05, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
> > One of the most important points in those reports
> > was the fact that you SHOULD NOT lock down important
>> aspects of a digital standard, as was necessary for
>> an analog standard.
>
>Well, that's amazing, then. Because as recently as
>2001 you still hadn't appreciated that there's nothing
>"locked down" in ATSC, or any other digital scheme
>based on protocol layers, that can't be "unlocked" with
>the mere stroke of a pen.
You mean like changing the modulation standard to COFDM Bert?
You really do have a clue about any of this Bert.
Please admit this and stop trying to create the illusion that we can
fix everything by simply agreeing to make all existing HD receivers
obsolete with the stroke of a pen.
Right after Table 3 was REMOVED from the standard by the FCC, the
broadcasters started a PR campaign, stating that if ANY receiver
failed to make pictures with ANY of the formats in Table 3, that it
would be a disaster. Mark Schubin could tell you many tales about his
work in an ATSC committee trying to make the simple change to allow
SD formats with 720 samples per line in addition to the Table 3
format with 704 samples per line (i.e. fully conformant to the MPEG-2
MP@ML specs). This was shot down because the ATSC receivers from one
manufacturer could not decode the full 720 samples per line.
The article that Bert is spouting off about, suggests that it will be
very difficult for cable to use H.264 because the handful of
integrated ATSC receivers that support one-way cable would not be
able to view channels encoded with H.264. Perhaps Bert could send an
e-mail to the author and tell him that this can easily be corrected
with the stroke of a pen.
What is even MORE interesting is the FACT that Bert has been the one
who has constantly stated the need to define a platform and stick
with that spec. I guess he can change his opinions with the stroke of
a keyboard.
>
>AVC is just one example. It turns out, DBS *must* have
>AVC to compete against cable. Cable can offer HD for
>every channel, as well as local into local, without
>AVC, so obviously they will choose this route
>initially. Ditto with DTT. You go as far as you can
>with the existing standard, then you bite the bullet
>and update.
The DBS guys could solve their bandwidth problem with fleets of spot
beam satellites. The decision to use H.264 was pragmatic...
it will be cheaper to replace millions of STBs than launching 2x the
number of satellites needed to deliver local HDTV signals to every
community.
As for cable, they will move to H.264 within the next two years for
one simple reason. They need MUCH MORE bandwidth to support new
on-demand services, than they need now to broadcast the same stuff to
every neighborhood. It looks like the big networks are going to get
behind this "catch up" VOD service, since every viewer can be
tracked, and the service does not allow the skipping of commercials.
Cable can easily migrate their premium subscribers to new STBs that
support H.264, and re-deploy the older boxes to homes that do not
subscribe to VOD services.
If ANYONE needs H.264, it is terrestrial broadcasters, who are the
most constrained in terms of bandwidth. And NOW would be the time to
use that pen and update the ATSC standard, since only a few million
receivers have been deployed. But that is not going to happen. The
FCC is seeing to it that broadcasters are locked into a legacy DTV
standard that hardly anyone will use...
Mandated obsolescence...only in America!
> > What is needed is a plan - up front - to deal with
>> interoperability and extensibility.
>
>And in 1999, with the simple introduction of A/90, the
>obvious was accomplished. The path was clear, and it
>should have been clear to everyone involved even in
>1991. there's nothing unique about any of this. It's
>simply a matter of perspective, or lack of.
How bizarre. A standard that defines how to encapsulate IP data
packets and build data carousels, is going to be the path to
redemption.
How many A-90 capable receivers have you found Bert?
Yesterday i asked for assistance on a story about generating
additional revenue streams from a 6MHz DTV channel. The entire
process that produced A-90 was about Data Brodcasting, not a back
door to keep adding new technologies to the ATSC standard. To date
there is not a single consumer receiver that understands A-90. It is
possible to buy A-90 compliant gear from Triveni and possibly others
to build closed systems that could support additional revenue
streams, but only a handful of stations are doing this.
It takes more than a protocol that allows the transmission of
arbitrary data packets to create an extensible standard. The Internet
started with the fundamental notion of a "neutral" transport for bits
that can represent ANYTHING. It has evolved continuously for two main
reasons:
1. The use of programmable devices to support multiple standards for
what can be represented with these bits;
2. The ability of ANYONE to develop a new product or service, that
can be enabled with nothing more than a simple download of a new
application.
No doubt, Bert will argue that this requires ever faster and more
capable computers, if you want to use the latest, greatest apps. If
he comes back with this, then he is acknowledging the fundament basis
for extensibility - consumers will willingly upgrade their
"receivers" if there is something worth receiving.
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.
Other related posts:
