[opendtv] Re: ATSC 3.0 presentations
- From: Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 19:06:34 -0400
Craig 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.
These are your exact words on Thu, 28 May 2015 07:41:36 -0400, Craig:
The reality is the awakening of broadcasters to reality. ATSC 1.0 was
designed
to emulate NTSC, ...
You have said this countless times, and each repetition sounds more clueless.
The standard was designed with many limitations, including a
non conforming implementation of MPEG-2.
That continues to sound like you never read the standard, or never understood
what it says, or have no idea how standards are written and how they evolve.
There was never any reason to believe that ATSC would be limited to just MPEG-2
compression, nor to Table 3 (whatever it's called now). Just like there was
never any reason to believe that the original TCP/IP standards would be unable
to support web browsing or even streaming media.
None of this stuff mattered because the broadcasters did not want to use it,
For the nth time, then SAY THAT. Don't make it sound like those writing the
standard got it all wrong. You do that, I have to believe, either out of total
lack of knowledge, or out of a desire to create high drama. Like, everything
was to be scrapped from day one, arms waving around in an act of desperation.
Imagine what would have happened if Microsoft had said we are locking
everything down when they launched Windows '95.
And by insisting as you do, you confirm the former explanation. Nothing was
"locked down," Craig, except in your imagination. And I explained this to you
so many times one wonders why at least you can't come up with some new words
that more accurately describe what you want to say. (Unless you really mean to
remain stuck in misunderstanding.)
So you are acknowledging that all OTA TV planning missed the boat.
Not even slightly, Craig. I simply understand the tradeoffs. And I have
explained these countless times too, be it just indoor reception, or SFNs, or
OFDM vs single carrier. Pretty much all OTA TV is designed for that 10 meter
antenna standard, in terms of planning. Even your much ballyhooed LTE concept
was designed for outdoor antennas. This is because the designers understand the
tradeoffs. You simply have to move beyond your simplistic narrative from the
1990s.
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;
Complete nonsense. Europe got gun-shy with analog HD-MAC, and essentially
missed out on OTA HDTV. Less than a handful of channels only in any market,
most receivers out there still unable to receive it, because it requires
another transition. Whereas here most larger markets have perhaps a dozen or
more HD channels, and essentially every TV sold for years and years has been
able to use it. And of course, this has nothing to do with the receive antenna
planning factors.
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.
Because lucky for us, IP delivery is still neutral, much like the original NTSC
was. So sure, CE vendors wouldn't want to miss out, why should they? And yet,
Craig, just as you opposed mandating neutral ATSC receivers, as if in bed with
the MVPDs, you also oppose mandating a neutral Internet, as if hoping that
history will repeat itself, now that broadband access is the sole province of
what were previously walled gardens. Amazing! Amazing you appear not to get
this!
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.
"We" don't really know what ATSC has in mind yet, but MAYBE what you say is
true. Problem being, if it is true, that the business about IP transport would
be not much more than BS PR, when applied to that broadcast one-way stream. And
also, the usefulness of that one-way broadcast pipe would be way, way
diminished, compared with its usefulness in the past. Broadcasters could most
likely give up all but maybe one or two 6 MHz channels, in any market. Live
broadcasting would be a very secondary service offering, **if** this media hype
about going to IP transport is technically truthful.
Do yourself a favor, and read this excellent tutorial, if dated now, to
understand what IP is all about:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1180.txt
With one way you tune to the streams of packets, and use error correction to
cover lost packets.
And this one-way function does not use or need IP in any way, except maybe as
window dressing. Do read RFC 1180. It's only some 40 pages long, and well worth
the education.
Bert
Other related posts:
