[opendtv] Re: ATSC 3.0 presentations
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 01:51:07 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
Yes Bert, we know that a packet data system can deliver any and
multiple payloads. That is not what I was talking about.
If you know that, or should I say if you knew that, then there's no excuse to
continue saying that ATSC was designed to only emulate NTSC.
And this is the only new capability that broadcasters have used,
other than HD, which was the whole point in the first place.
I've been over this so many times, over so many years, that I wonder how you
don't expect a reaction each time. What broadcasters ended up using has NOTHING
to do with limitations imposed by the ATSC standard. Nothing. Can we use more
accurate words?
None of this stuff has been used to any real extent,
But it's all in the standard. When you make these assertions that ATSC was only
to emulate NTSC, or that ATSC is not extendible, you are simply wrong. Change
the words, Craig, after so many years, to say what actually happens here.
8VSB was a poor choice as it major problems with multi path, and
as you point out, the receiver complexity was well beyond the
technology available in 1995
Not so sure about that, but okay, OFDM would have been a better compromise. But
by 2002-2003, the single carrier scheme was quite well worked out, for
receivers, and it continues to have its advantages. Especially as spectrum gets
crunched down, and co-channel interference is likely to be a more major
concern. The OFDM vs single carrier tradeoff is well known by now, Craig. Each
has its strong points.
The larger issue, however, was the decision to build a system
that used the same reception standard as NTSC - an outdoor
antenna on a 15' mast.
Another topic we've been over time and time again. The truth is, all OTA TV
planning, even in Europe, is done with the 10 meter mast receive antenna
criterion. Indoor reception is always catch as catch can. With the newer
receivers, ATSC is far, far better for acceptable indoor reception than NTSC
ever was. Unless you're one of those who was satisfied with just about any
amount of crappy analog picture.
We tried to get the broadcasters to understand that mobility
and the Internet were going to transform their business,
but they did not care. Now they do.
We've been over the tradeoffs for mobility, Craig. Let's finally move on from
the old simplistic verbiage. For mobile use, among other things, I don't think
you need very much one-way broadcast. Maybe just on occasion. So let's move on,
beyond using the same words as 10+ years ago.
they needed new receivers to for their digital transition,
which WERE NOT mandated, even though cable ready NTSC tuners
were standard by the time the digital transition began. The
CE industry objected,
Because they were in the pockets of the MVPDs. MVPD nets went to proprietary
receivers, instead of using the original NTSC standard as they had been at the
beginning, so they could send scrambled signals. Then instead of agreeing on a
standards-based scrambling system, they got to prefer the monthly rent revenues
for their proprietary boxes. Come digital TV, they weren't about to give up
that extra revenue stream. That's all there is to this, Craig.
Huh? Yes, the ATSC did create extensions to the standard.
But none of them were ever implemented by the CE industry.
Is that the fault of the standard? So yes, in principle, extensions could have
been used, and CE vendors could have sent the software updates using, for
instance, A/90 or more precisely, A/97, or even the Internet. But broadcasters
know full well that CE vendors had not designed for any of this. Hence, the
extensions could not be used reliably. This is all very self-explanatory,
Craig, and we've been over this countless times.
Thank you! The Internet has been successful for two major
reasons:
1. Standards are codified after they have been proven to be
a commercial success. Anyone can innovate by delivering
bits that are not understood by the computers and other
platforms that draw their bits from the Internet.
This is not feasible in a spectrum-constrained one-way broadcast medium. A
broadcasters can hardly afford to offer dozens of different streams over his 6
MHz channel. I already explained why the distributed server architecture, and
2-way medium, makes this modus operandi feasible over the Internet.
2. Because of #1, people have been willing to upgrade their
browsers and other Apps to gain new capabilities.
The infeasibility of #1 makes #2 not happen, over a broadcast medium.
So once again, let's move on from the old simplistic narrative? Please? I think
I understand the meaning of Richer's individual words, wrt ATSC 3.0, but
together they don't explain anything. Not unless ATSC 3.0 is a 2-way standard.
IP without a 2-way channel is really just PR verbiage. We've been over this
too, so PLEASE don't ask me again about IP multicast! This also holds true for
IP multicast.
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:
