[opendtv] Re: Bob likes COFDM
- From: Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 07:53:45 -0500
dmenolan wrote:
<DN insert: Alas, yes. COFDM does not really have a viable competitor
now. infinity for the 8VSB decoder that works. Its only the fantasists
n this list who think its going to come good: economics has killed off
any interest in fixing 8VSB. There comes a time when you have to
a)either throw in the towel and adopt the other system b) reinvent the
wheel or c) ditch OTA TV altogether (unless you retain NTSC). Economics,
like death, is final.
>
I'm still not certain. Unless last years Shubin tests were somehow
completely fraudulent I think Bert is right and it is indeed possible to
make functional ATSC boxes. But they will likely be more expensive than
LG or anyone has really owned up to.
So if Congress really cared they could pin down LG and maybe find out
how MUCH more expensive it would be for receivers to duplicate that
Shubin-proof box. If it is a question of economics then I really don't
understand how Congress proceed here without that one extremely
important small bit of information.
It is a very simple question and LG already knows the answer. Make them
tell us.
HOW MUCH MORE FOR THE ONE THAT WORKS?
- Tom
> Hi Frank.,
>
> Happy Easter bunnies! And see in-line...
>
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Dermot Nolan
>
> ------------
>
> RE: [opendtv] Re: Bob likes COFDM
>
> =
>
> Dermot wrote:
>
>>Frank,
>>
>>However most people in the US are not currently affected as 85% are on
>>cable/satellite, NTSC continues, and when the baloon goes up to reveal
>>indoor OTA DTV doesn't work there will be such an outcry that, well folk=
>
> s,
>
>>NTSC will continue.
>
>
> I disagree. There will be no outcry because very few people will bother t=
> o try, and thus not notice how unreliable indoor ATSC reception is. By th=
> e time NTSC is shut off, the 85% cable+sat figure will have grown to near=
> ly 95%. Of the remaining single-digit percentage, many will be people who=
> simply have little interest in TV, whether digital or analog. Those othe=
> rs who fall in the economic hardship category will be taken care of by Un=
> cle Sam at a modest cost -- very modest, relative to the spectrum auction=
> proceeds. =
>
>
> DN INSERT: Jay's comments were quite apposite. The loss of the emergency =
> broadcast service will be an issue for FEMA, DoD etc and indeed in coasta=
> l areas of other countries threatened by tsunami. All that needs to happe=
> n is for a disaster without any TV service (simple) being available and t=
> here will be an outcry. There are going to be significant consumer conven=
> ience losses: one day its there, next day its gone..
>
>
>>The only people to lose their shirts will be CE and silicon vendors prep=
>
> ared
>
>>to spend millions of dollars on bleeding edge 8VSB technology: and how m=
>
> any CEOs,
>
>>CFOs and investors will sanction that spend if there are no perceived ma=
>
> rkets?
>
>>None: which is what we are seeing right now. The vendor community is wal=
>
> king away..
>
> I think the vendor community walked away several years ago. But I still c=
> ontend that there is a market for "letter of the law" junk 8-VSB receiver=
> s. The CE mfrs must put SOMETHING in those DTV sets to satisfy the mandat=
> e. Since almost nobody will use those receivers, the operative phrase is =
> "the cheaper, the better." Suppose, for example, there was a performance =
> issue with closed caption decoders, such that a robust decoder added a no=
> ticeable dollar figure to the price of a TV set. How many consumers would=
> voluntarily spend more for a closed caption decoder that "really works w=
> ell?" How many would opt for the "junk" quality decoder that was only so-=
> so, but added $0 to the TV and was only included to satisfy some federal =
> law?
>
> DN insert: Of course. This is just going through the motions: don't actua=
> lly *WANT* to incur the cost to make it work. CEA of course talk about AT=
> SC enabled sets: the more interesting real world figure would be ATSC *CO=
> NNECTED* sets to antennas.. A very small number.
>
>>Now a 'completely new and unproven digital modulation technology': wasn'=
>
> t
>
>>that what they said about COFDM in the period 1993-1998?. They are not
>>laughing now..
>
>
> You're absolutely right. Now I'll remove my tongue from my cheek regardin=
> g the idea that "it may take a few more generations to get it right." I t=
> hought you'd pick up on my sarcasm there. =
>
> DN insert: Alas, yes. COFDM does not really have a viable competitor now.=
> n=3D infinity for the 8VSB decoder that works. Its only the fantasists o=
> n this list who think its going to come good: economics has killed off an=
> y interest in fixing 8VSB. There comes a time when you have to a)either t=
> hrow in the towel and adopt the other system b) reinvent the wheel or c) =
> ditch OTA TV altogether (unless you retain NTSC). Economics, like death, =
> is final.
>
>
>
>>What a tragic mess US DTV has become!
>
>
> DN insert: I was referring solely to terrestrial digital television in th=
> e US, not the other systems, which as elsewhere in the world are doing ve=
> ry nicely.
>
> On the contrary, it's moving along quite nicely. The quantity of HDTV pro=
> gramming continues to grow, as do the number of HD displays in consumers'=
> homes. Satellite is 100% digital, with more HD capacity on the horizon. =
> Cable has fully embraced HDTV and is moving rapidly to 100% digital simul=
> cast of analog channels, in preparation for the eventual shut-off of its =
> NTSC tier. IPTV from the telcos is coming soon, and even wireless DTV on =
> hand-held devices.
>
> American consumers will soon have a plethora of wired & wireless DTV deli=
> very choices -- all using distribution networks that work. In that presen=
> t and future digital entertainment world, 8VSB is but a minor footnote of=
> passing historical interest. And ATSC will be most remembered for giving=
> us a few "standards" that will withstand the test of time -- like 16:9, =
> 1080i and 720p, DD 5.1 -- and for at least a few more years, MPEG2.
> DN insert: Leaving the one *free* distribution network that does not work=
> to wither on the vine and die! The 'other' system had implemented 16x9 b=
> efore ATSC and 5.1 is Dolby IPR. As for MPEG2 that was a global standard =
> whose retirement home is beckoning on the horizon..
>
> Dermot
> -- Frank
>
> -------------Fo=
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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:
- 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:
