[opendtv] Re: Continuous performance improvements or not
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:26:56 -0500
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> You like to compare the IETF and ATSC, so explain this.
>
> Why has there been CONTINUOUS evolution of video codecs used
> for Web applications?
It's obvious, Craig. It's because the hosts connected to the web are
primarily COMPUTERS, with hard drives, which can more or less be
upgraded. They aren't consumer electronics appliances.
As a matter of fact, when the streaming media business started,
computers would regularly run out of steam as new codecs were developed.
But it was par for the course. People were used to the idea that their
machines couldn't keep up with the newest codecs, and they'd just go and
buy a new PC. I had a series of 486, Pentium 100, and Pentium 333 MHz
computers that quickly became overwhelmed with every streaming media
innovation.
TVs and radios aren't that sort of appliance. People would be mighty
irked if their TVs and radios became part of that same PC racket. Ditto
with toasters and refrigerators. Even on here, people have talked about
how a TV bought 60 years ago can still work today. This was not said
disparagingly, Craig. This was put out there as a model of what people
expect. You choose not to listen.
> Worst case the performance might be less that perfect on an
> older underpowered computer, but nothing broke.
Nonsense. The PC couldn't keep up with the media stream. Period. They
would decode a little snippet, then big skip, another snippet, etc.
Simply incompatible with the new codec software.
> IF we had made the decision to develop DTV in this country in a
> manner that was scalable, interoperable and extensible, as I
> and others (including FCC Chairman Al Sikes recommended in 1992),
> we would now have the equivalent of what has happened via the Web
> on our TVs.
You, and whoever you claim the others were, simply didn't get it, Craig.
ATSC was always as extensible as any other layered protocol. As I tried
to explain many, many times, the publication of A/90 proved that.
If the ATSC refuses to allow extensions, that's another matter. The
standard itself isn't the problem. I showed you eons ago, when A/90
first came out, how ATSC could be extended to carry H.264 or other,
newer codecs, for example.
> An interesting concept. Why do you think this is not happening?
Because TVs aren't PCs, so it takes a big investment for broadcasters to
deploy the necessary new hardware for the new service. USDTV tried.
Cable and DBS companies do this, of course, but their systems end up
being walled gardens and expensive to run.
You have always wished for TVs to become PCs. I doubt this is what
anyone else really wants.
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.
Other related posts:
