[opendtv] Re: ATSC 3.0 presentations
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 01:05:50 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
The reality is the awakening of broadcasters to reality. ATSC 1.0
was designed to emulate NTSC,
Only those who don't understand digital protocols would say such a thing,
Craig. From the git-go, any standard that packetizes video and audio allows for
future changes that would be much more difficult, or impossible, with NTSC. One
obvious and immediate early example being multicast channels. Another obvious
and early example was the ability to transmit any type of messages, having
nothing to do with video or audio, over ATSC (early examples being A/65 and
A/90). Just this alone SHOULD have indicated to you that the standard was
extendible. I think the only problem here is, Craig, that you weren't talking
to knowledgeable people, and/or, you didn't do your homework.
The one thing that made it necessary to replace ATSC 1.0 entirely,
was the poor choice of the modulation layer.
Works fine for me. And you'll note that DVB-T also changed its "modulation
layer," as you call it. The early receivers were simply not done right. That
"cold fusion" receiver tested in the Mark Schubin apartment, eons ago now,
proves that a lot can be done with the receiver, to make even ATSC 1.0 work
quite well. In any event, any component of any system will appear dated after a
few years. Analog TV seemed downright antediluvian to me, even in 1980.
The most important takeaway, however, is that it was unnecessary
and inappropriate to mandate ATSC receivers in every TV.
Especially inappropriate to those who are the mouthpieces of the MVPD industry.
I still marvel that the Internet manages to stay standard and neutral.
CE vendors do make software extendible sets Bert.
CE vendors **all** have to make software extendible **receivers**, not just the
GUI fluff, in order to allow a one-way broadcast standard to be updated
seamlessly. Not just one brand. With PCs and handheld toys, where the Internet
can provide any number of different interface formats, thanks to its 2-way pipe
and network of distributed servers, that limitation is much reduced (although
of course, not eliminated -- you can't do much of anything over the Internet
anymore, with a 15 year old PC).
This is why I'm not so keen on ATSC 3.0, *if* it continues to be a one-way
broadcast standard.
Broadcasters decided early on to limit the formats and features
in the standard that they would support.
Makes perfect sense, in a one-way broadcast standard that is supposed to be as
bulletproof as possible. And without certainty that all receivers out there are
upgradeable easily, e.g. with a software update, broadcasters are naturally
worried that they would lose their audience, if they tried something too risky.
There is still a place for one way broadcasting,
Sorry, Craig, but most or all of your objections would continue to apply, for a
one-way broadcast standard. You can't have it both ways. Either you understand
and accept the limitations of one-way broadcast, or you move on to more current
technologies.
Explain that, Craig. How would a wider channel allow form more
layered services than multiple narrow channels, aside from what
you save from having more guard bands between channels?
Fewer transmitters shared between multiple operators,
That changes nothing about "more layered services," Craig. I'll buy that wider
channels could result in fewer transmitters, which would force broadcasters to
share their infrastructure. Whether broadcasters want that is another question.
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:
