On 10/2/06, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bob Miller wrote:
> All I know is the California law stipulating 8 Watts on > and 1 Watt on standby. The debate in the Senate Commerce > Committee was pretty intense over this issue.
Came from the EU. I did a brief search on line, no luck.
OK it came from the EU but the relevant point is that it is the law in California and this Republican, states rights uber alles, is wanting to squash this little gem.
> How much will an 18 to 22 Watt receiver cost those > demographically challenged folks the converter box is > aimed at in spirit at least? > > What does 2 Watts cost 24/7/365?
First, it's not on 24/7. I'd say even if it were, that's still noise level. Not saying that limiting the power draw is a bad thing. Just let's not make more of it than it deserves. How many 22W bulbs do you worry about in a typical home? Most people think nothing of running 60 or 100W bulbs constantly, more than one in each room, even if they're not in the room. If you make a huge deal about a very small percentage of savings, it doesn't seem so productive.
Got to start somewhere and California is. An extra Watt or ten per household 24/7/365 adds up. The only reason that the converter box is not on 24/7 is that it doesn't include a PVR or anyway to connect one. But the CA law is about all STB's and wouldn't it be nice if we had Chinese receivers that only need 1/22nd the power when on that the converter does while costing less than the subsidy the converter is receiving.
Anyone heard the price of a converter yet? Probably hold that for another midnight surprise like they did in 2001 with the results of the MSTV test. My pick is $125 for the cheapest one.
Of course, politicians are after VOTES, not necessarily doing what is technically most productive.
On the Bendov paper, what does all this mean?
"Distributed on-channel transmission could play a critical role in the transition to software-defined DTTV. As S2Rx receivers become available, the modulation of distributed on-channel transmitters would be switched from 8-VSB to COFDM. The main transmitter, using 8-VSB modulation, will continue to serve all legacy receivers. Meanwhile, switching to COFDM modulation will significantly increase the quality of service in areas not covered by the main 8-VSB transmitter and create entirely new service for mobile DTTV users."
Is he suggesting a SFN where both 8-VSB and COFDM are used in overlapping coverage zones of the same frequency channel?
Aside from that, I think he's making too big a deal about modulation. DBS is a very good counter-example. Its success is not because it offers "triple play" (TV, broadband Internet, and telephony) not because it offers interactivity, not because it offers mobile service, and not because it uses COFDM. Similarly, even though it does use COFDM, success of Freeview in the UK is primarily due to the greater channel offerings to fixed TVs, compared with PAL. So let's keep this all in perspective.
TV service is like shopping malls. No matter how convenient and how ample the parking, the only way to attract customers is to have the right stores. OTA broadcasters are evidently not so keen to offer the right stores. Just create some sports-related multicasts and see what happens.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
