[opendtv] Re: Broadcast and other topics
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 11:35:43 -0400
On Jun 29, 2015, at 9:54 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
The ONLY fact that is relevant here is that I was specifically
talking about the fact that ATSC 1.0 supported the broadcast of
multiple linear streams.
The only important part is that you need to shut off that TV droning in the
background, and concentrate. This is the exchange, June 25:
This is getting old and I am not going to keep playing Bert's game.
I made it super clear, "when using the Internet definition of multicasting,"
because I had been talking about a potential 2-way OTA ATSC 3.0. So we are
talking about LTE/IP type multicasting here. Your response? "Big deal, ATSC
1.0 already does this multicasting." Wow, Craig. Really on the ball, eh?
Hello? Hello?
Hello Bert.
Whatever you want to call it, ATSC 1.0 delivers multiple programs in one 6 MHz
multiplex.
As for ATSC 3.0, the standard is still being developed, so we cannot assume
that it will simply mirror existing Internet standards. I would remind Bert
that ATSC uses parts of many standards, but does not full conform to them. The
whole point of the organization is to integrate proprietary IP do they can
license the standard and make money.
If broadcasters want to build out a 2-way cellular network in the spectrum they
control, they do not need a new standard from the ATSC. The standards already
exist for LTE, LTE Broadcast, and the various IETF specs that are used now by
OTT services.
So it is absurd to say that the ATSC is primarily working on a 2-way OTA
standard, even if there are some 2-way features based on a return path in the
broadcast spectrum OR by simply leveraging existing 2-way networks for the
return channel.
So, Craig, explain to us what, in the above paragraph, leads you to believe
that this only applies to broadcast? In detail, please.
It is their stated requirements for the physical layer of the standard they are
creating.
Do you expect the IETF to develop a broadcast standard?
The term "connected TVs" means "TVs with IP receivers built in," Craig. I
said specifically that it's all about convenience. A little old lady may hold
on to her legacy broadcast OTA viewing or linear streams through the MVPD
box, just because they're already there. But with a proper connected TV, she
wouldn't anymore, most likely. So that speeds up the process of sunsetting
broadcast mode.
This was merely a way to point out that common terms can be used to describe
multiple things. You are the one who is trying to be the language police. I
would also point out that a very high percentage of what you call connected TVs
ALSO have external devices connected to enable Internet video streaming, and
that in the article that started this thread, the author made no distinction
between built-in or added on when he talked about connected TVs.
So in short, every single slide that mentions anything about services to be
supported makes it clear that a 2-way network is required for ATSC 3.0.
Sorry, but you are absolutely wrong. There is no requirement that broadcasters
build out 2-way cellular networks. 2-way is one of a large number of
requirements to be addressed by the standard, nothing more..
And is spite of this, Craig gets obstinate with: "most of the services can be
supported with one way broadcast" Show me where this is implied, Craig. Point
to the slides and quote what they say, to give you the impression that ATSC
3.0 is just another broadcast standard.
Everything they propose can be supported by using existing 2-way networks for
the back channel signaling.
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
