[opendtv] Re: Bob likes COFDM

  • From: dmenolan <dmenolan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Open DTV list <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 09:35:24 -0500

My last post before Easter..

The question is this: If the one that works is far more expensive than CO=
FDM on a like-for-like spec and we know that COFDM works then why not do =
the obvious: ditch ATSC. But the loss of face for the Koreans would be wa=
y too much to bear. Much better to simply obfuscate and stall!

DN

-------------Forwarded Message-----------------

From:   INTERNET:opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, INTERNET:opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To:     , INTERNET:opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
        =

Date:   25/03/105 12:53 PM

RE:     [opendtv] Re: Bob likes COFDM

 =

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
> =

>  =3D
> =

> 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 fol=
k=3D
> =

> s,
> =

>>NTSC will continue.
> =

> =

> I disagree. There will be no outcry because very few people will bother=
 t=3D
> o try, and thus not notice how unreliable indoor ATSC reception is. By =
th=3D
> e time NTSC is shut off, the 85% cable+sat figure will have grown to ne=
ar=3D
> ly 95%. Of the remaining single-digit percentage, many will be people w=
ho=3D
>  simply have little interest in TV, whether digital or analog. Those ot=
he=3D
> rs who fall in the economic hardship category will be taken care of by =
Un=3D
> cle Sam at a modest cost -- very modest, relative to the spectrum aucti=
on=3D
>  proceeds. =3D
> =

> =

> DN INSERT: Jay's comments were quite apposite. The loss of the emergenc=
y =3D
> broadcast service will be an issue for FEMA, DoD etc and indeed in coas=
ta=3D
> l areas of other countries threatened by tsunami. All that needs to hap=
pe=3D
> n is for a disaster without any TV service (simple) being available and=
 t=3D
> here will be an outcry. There are going to be significant consumer conv=
en=3D
> ience losses: one day its there, next day its gone..
> =

> =

>>The only people to lose their shirts will be CE and silicon vendors pre=
p=3D
> =

> ared
> =

>>to spend millions of dollars on bleeding edge 8VSB technology: and how =
m=3D
> =

> any CEOs,
> =

>>CFOs and investors will sanction that spend if there are no perceived m=
a=3D
> =

> rkets?
> =

>>None: which is what we are seeing right now. The vendor community is wa=
l=3D
> =

> king away..
> =

> I think the vendor community walked away several years ago. But I still=
 c=3D
> ontend that there is a market for "letter of the law" junk 8-VSB receiv=
er=3D
> s. The CE mfrs must put SOMETHING in those DTV sets to satisfy the mand=
at=3D
> e. Since almost nobody will use those receivers, the operative phrase i=
s =3D
> "the cheaper, the better." Suppose, for example, there was a performanc=
e =3D
> issue with closed caption decoders, such that a robust decoder added a =
no=3D
> ticeable dollar figure to the price of a TV set. How many consumers wou=
ld=3D
>  voluntarily spend more for a closed caption decoder that "really works=
 w=3D
> ell?" How many would opt for the "junk" quality decoder that was only s=
o-=3D
> so, but added $0 to the TV and was only included to satisfy some federa=
l =3D
> law?
> =

> DN insert: Of course. This is just going through the motions: don't act=
ua=3D
> lly *WANT* to incur the cost to make it work. CEA of course talk about =
AT=3D
> SC enabled sets: the more interesting real world figure would be ATSC *=
CO=3D
> NNECTED* sets to antennas.. A very small number.
> =

>>Now a 'completely new and unproven digital modulation technology': wasn=
'=3D
> =

> 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 regard=
in=3D
> g the idea that "it may take a few more generations to get it right." I=
 t=3D
> hought you'd pick up on my sarcasm there. =3D
> =

> DN insert: Alas, yes. COFDM does not really have a viable competitor no=
w.=3D
>  n=3D3D infinity for the 8VSB decoder that works. Its only the fantasis=
ts o=3D
> n this list who think its going to come good: economics has killed off =
an=3D
> y interest in fixing 8VSB. There comes a time when you have to a)either=
 t=3D
> hrow in the towel and adopt the other system b) reinvent the wheel or c=
) =3D
> ditch OTA TV altogether (unless you retain NTSC). Economics, like death=
, =3D
> is final.
> =

> =

> =

>>What a tragic mess US DTV has become!
> =

> =

> DN insert: I was referring solely to terrestrial digital television in =
th=3D
> e US, not the other systems, which as elsewhere in the world are doing =
ve=3D
> ry nicely.
> =

> On the contrary, it's moving along quite nicely. The quantity of HDTV p=
ro=3D
> gramming continues to grow, as do the number of HD displays in consumer=
s'=3D
>  homes. Satellite is 100% digital, with more HD capacity on the horizon=
. =3D
> Cable has fully embraced HDTV and is moving rapidly to 100% digital sim=
ul=3D
> cast of analog channels, in preparation for the eventual shut-off of it=
s =3D
> NTSC tier. IPTV from the telcos is coming soon, and even wireless DTV o=
n =3D
> hand-held devices.
> =

> American consumers will soon have a plethora of wired & wireless DTV de=
li=3D
> very choices -- all using distribution networks that work. In that pres=
en=3D
> t and future digital entertainment world, 8VSB is but a minor footnote =
of=3D
>  passing historical interest. And ATSC will be most remembered for givi=
ng=3D
>  us a few "standards" that will withstand the test of time -- like 16:9=
, =3D
> 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 wo=
rk=3D
>  to wither on the vine and die! The 'other' system had implemented 16x9=
 b=3D
> efore ATSC and 5.1 is Dolby IPR. As for MPEG2 that was a global standar=
d =3D
> whose retirement home is beckoning on the horizon..
> =

> Dermot
> -- Frank
> =

> -------------Fo=3D
>  =

>  =

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 Fr=
eeLists.org =


- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word un=
subscribe in the subject line.




----------------------- Internet Header --------------------------------
Sender: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Received: from turing.freelists.org (freelists-180.iquest.net [206.53.239=
.180])
        by siaag2ad.compuserve.com (8.12.11/8.12.7/SUN-2.17) with ESMTP id 
j2PCq=
I0g011975
        for <dmenolan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fri, 25 Mar 2005 07:52:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
        by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP 
=
id 3FAA1891B0;
        Fri, 25 Mar 2005 07:53:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1])
        by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
        with ESMTP id 18754-07; Fri, 25 Mar 2005 07:53:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1])
        by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP 
=
id B0978891A5;
        Fri, 25 Mar 2005 07:53:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list opendtv); Fri, 25 Mar 2005 07:52:40 =
-0500 (EST)
X-Original-To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
        by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP 
=
id 3E5EF89164
        for <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fri, 25 Mar 2005 07:52:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1])
        by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
        with ESMTP id 18667-05 for <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
        Fri, 25 Mar 2005 07:52:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net (rwcrmhc12.comcast.net [216.148.227.=
85])
        by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP 
=
id D1F8789116
        for <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fri, 25 Mar 2005 07:52:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [192.168.0.11] (c-24-129-87-71.hsd1.fl.comcast.net[24.129.=
87.71])
          by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with ESMTP
          id <2005032512523801400sd0ele>; Fri, 25 Mar 2005 12:52:39 +0000=

Message-ID: <424409D9.9030108@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 07:53:45 -0500
From: Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.1 (Windows/20040626)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: Bob likes COFDM
References: <200503250434_MC3-1-9998-4D34@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-Reply-To: <200503250434_MC3-1-9998-4D34@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamd / ClamAV version 0.75.1, clamav-milter version 0.7=
5c
        on siaag2ad.compuserve.com
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p9 (Debian) at avenirtech.net
X-archive-position: 7096
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Errors-To: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-original-sender: trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: normal
Reply-To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-list: opendtv
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p9 (Debian) at avenirtech.net
X-Virus-Status: Clean

 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: