[opendtv] Re: ATSC 3.0 presentations
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 09:16:37 -0400
On May 29, 2015, at 9:51 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
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.
I did not say that.
I said that broadcasters only wanted a system that protected their existing
linear appointment TV business model. And that it was designed for outdoor
antennas feeding fixed receivers.
I've been over this so many times, over so many years, that I wonder how you
don't expect a reaction each time.
Of course I expect this reaction from you each time. It is what you do.
What broadcasters ended up using has NOTHING to do with limitations imposed
by the ATSC standard. Nothing. Can we use more accurate words?
Of course it does. The standard was designed with many limitations, including a
non conforming implementation of MPEG-2. And going in it was know that it would
not work with mobile reception or low complexity hand held receivers, many of
which were available and DID work with NTSC.
The reality has not changed over the past three decades:
1. They wanted to keep land mobile from grabbing broadcast spectrum.
2. They were willing to be used by the CE industry to implement a HD standard
designed for the analog world. When it became obvious that this was a poor
choice for a digital TV system they doubled down, believing it would slow the
transition to computer based video processing techniques.
3. They did not care if the new standard encouraged more viewers to abandon
antennas and pay for a MVPD service, which in turn would pay them.
But it's all in the standard.
Duh. Kinda like adding fins to a 1959 Cadillac.
None of this stuff mattered because the broadcasters did not want to use it,
and the capabilities of receivers were locked down in hardware by the time the
first sets hit the market.
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.
ATSC could have been extendable, but too many of the basic building blocks were
simply outdated by the time the standard was finished.
Look at this from a slightly different perspective that you understand. Like
most of us, you are pleased with the way the Internet has evolved, and
acknowledge that this required periodic upgrades to both hardware and software.
Imagine what would have happened if Microsoft had said we are locking
everything down when they launched Windows '95. No more updates, no new
processors or graphics chips. We are just going to freeze the specs and let
everyone race to the bottom on price.
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.
So you are acknowledging that all OTA TV planning missed the boat. No argument
there - everyone was trying to protect their business model and their
investments in early digital processing gear. Europe was more conservative,
moving to 625 line widescreen digital and leaving HD for the next generation.
This proved to be a very good move, as it allowed a major improvement in
delivered picture quality and cheaper TVs. By not mandating HD they let the
market decide, which it did; HD sets sold well in Europe even without HD
broadcasts. Why? Because SDTV was more than adequate for the first generations
of HD displays, and DVD provided very high quality widescreen 625 line content.
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.
Bull crap!
We can argue about how important one way broadcast is in our new digital world
where access to two way data is becoming ubiquitous. But if there is a market
for broadcast programming - and I believe there still is - the ability to
access it on mobile receivers, and indoors without complex antennas will be
critical.
Designing yet another broadcast standard optimized for fixed indoor receivers
is nonsensical. The technology exists to deliver one-way broadcast bits to both
mobile and fixed receivers with little loss in spectral efficiency.
Because they were in the pockets of the MVPDs.
FOTFL...
THe MVPD were the enemy, as they controlled the boxes needed to access their
advanced services. With cable ready analog TVs, you only needed these boxes to
access premium channels like HBO. With digital cable and DBS you needed a box
for every TV, and the CE industry was blocked from the market - they still are.
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.
Yes Bert. The MVPDs have evaded every attempt to unbundle the proprietary boxes
and DRM systems. But now OTT services are bypassing both broadcasters and
MVPDs, with cheap mass produced technologies:
- WiFi
- h.264
- HDMI
- powerful graphics processors
- and software based DRM with verification servers
Is that the fault of the standard?
No it is the fault of the broadcasters who willingly allowed the standard to be
frozen with the first generation receivers. And the CE industry contributed to
this as well, by improperly/incompletely implementing parts of the standard, so
that upgrades became impossible.
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.
CE vendors did not design for OTT video either. But they now offer smart TVs
that are just as upgradable as the computer you use to watch Internet TV.
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.
Bull crap again!
We are talking about a one way packet data system that most likely will ALSO
have Internet access for the signaling needed to push upgrades and new
services. This is not about becoming a generic data pipe or trying to squeeze
dozens of services into a 6 MHz channel. It is about the ability to push new
services as they are developed and accepted by consumers.
If I can put a $39 dongle into my TV and watch Netflix, a broadcaster can do
the same in terms of hardware/software upgrades. They can't offer video on
demand, but they can support a system that pushes popular content to local
storage for anytime consumption.
This is no different than telling your DVR to record a program. I told
broadcasters how to do this two decades ago. Don't be surprised if Apple is
able to offer local stations with their new virtual MVPD service, that they
will make it easy to "subscribe" to your favorite shows.
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.
Same thing.
With two way you can request the packets, and even request that packets be
resent.
With one way you tune to the streams of packets, and use error correction to
cover lost packets.
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:
