[opendtv] Re: Bob likes COFDM

  • From: Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 09:57:57 -0500

dmenolan wrote:

The point is that we don't know that, just suspect it.  The first step 
is to get the darn numbers so we don't have to speculate.

Let's make them tell us.  With implied strong penalties for vague or 
misleading answers!  There is too much at stake here to continue to 
fumble around in the dark and Zenith is no longer a US company to be 
protected.

Happy Easter.

- Tom

> 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.
> 
> 
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: