[opendtv] Re: Demand for free DTV rising in Australia
- From: "johnwillkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:06:33 -0700
Well, that's been your main thrust, but you have also pimped for m/h.
As for being against MPEG-2 (what those who have read the document call
13818).
Are you against MPEG-2 systems? That would mean no PSI, no way to
demodulate a transport stream into program elements, no way to combine those
program elements into one or more program services, no way to synchronize
the audio and video elements, no way to even push these out on a regular
time base (or basis.)
In 13818-2, are you against the packetization of video? Are you against
packet and sequence start codes? Are you against captions (ATSC) using the
user_bits structure?
As for MPEG-4. Have you ever seen an implementation of MPEG-4 systems?
(14496-1)? Have you ever seen an implementation of 14496-2 video? (not the
codecs, which is what you ignorantly actually mean, but the system used for
putting video in 14496 transport streams?
Are you against DSM-CC? (13818-6)
I'd say that the answer to all those questions is no. There might be an
implementation of 14496-1 in the wild, but IT'S LARGELY BASED ON 13818-1, so
in your world, you would optimally exclude anything that had anything to do
with 13818, thence you would have little or nothing to work with.
I don't blame the tools (MPEG-2, MPEG-4, ATSC) for my problems or situation.
But then, I actually read the documents and I rely on my reading of them
when I talk to others. (Not the other way around.)
And, I'm in favor of MPEG-2, -4, -7, and anything else that comes along.
John Willkie
-----Mensaje original-----
De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
nombre de Bob Miller
Enviado el: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 8:14 PM
Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [opendtv] Re: Demand for free DTV rising in Australia
If addressed to me I am not beating any dead horse foreign or
otherwise. Take a look back at my post you will see that I was never
in favor of DVB-H. Like DVB-T and DMB-T/H.
We looked at DVB-H and concluded that it was a kludge meant to address
the power problem of cell phones. Thought that the battery, chip
makers etc. should solve that problem. Didn't like the idea of mini
movies and didn't see a business in partnering with cellular
companies.
Do believe in ubiquitous reception of DTV portable, fixed and mobile.
Think there is lots of content out there and more to come. Don't think
broadcasters have any kind of lock on it. Think a majority of the
current crop of OTA broadcasters will sell in the next few years.
Have been for DVB-T, DMB-T/H, MPEG4. Against MPEG2 (not transport),
interlace and 8-VSB.
My horses don't need beating, they are doing all right.
Bob Miller
On 6/27/07, johnwillkie <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> YOU are so far removed from reality, it's startling.
>
> I have a friend who sells professional digital plants around the world.
> He's a 'nominal' ATSC member, but he sells in all markets, with the
possible
> exception of Japan, and buys from all countries, with the possible
exception
> of China.
>
> Several years ago, I mentioned on this list that DVB-M/H test and
> transmission gear was a hot commodity, due to a conversation he and I had
> had.
>
> That's not the case now. We were talking the other day about the ATSC
mobile
> proposals. He mentioned that the timing might be about right, since
> "DVB-M/H is dead."
>
> "What about all the trials: Paris, UK?" He also mentioned the Italian
> trials. "All the trials are over," he said, and "nobody is buying any
> gear." There is no action, no inquiries, nothing.
>
> By the way, he wasn't speaking of just his own sales and inquiries.
>
> So, bob, you've now gone from beating a "foreign" horse to beating a dead
> foreign horse.
>
> There were telos interested in m-h. Bow, all they need is interested
> customers, and a way to 'make money' when they don't own the content and
> have to "buy it at retail" and "sell at wholesale."
>
> Broadcasters, of course, have the 'content.' Not to mention largely
owning
> the position "we don't charge viewers anything."
>
> John Willkie, who can't wait to see (and probably oppose) the Qualcomm
> proposal.
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
> nombre de Bob Miller
> Enviado el: Friday, June 22, 2007 9:27 PM
> Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Asunto: [opendtv] Re: Demand for free DTV rising in Australia
>
> So far, ignoring 8-VSB for the most part, they are making the right
> decision whether informed or not.
>
> The fact is they are informed and if a decent modulation was allowed
> in the US tomorrow they would all be very active participants in its
> rapid and wildly successful success. Just like in most other
> countries.
>
> Bob Miller
>
> On 6/21/07, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Dale Kelly wrote:
> >
> > >> New Zealand too, they have or want to install a DBS-based
> > >> Freeview system too. Because in those countries, they DO NOT
> > >> expect 100 percent coverage with COFDM.
> > >
> > > That's argument is a bit of a reach.
> > > New Zealand is very mountainous and has a significant rural
> > > population that simply can't be economically covered by OTA
> > > service. This indeed has nothing to do with modulation but
> > > I would wager that, watt for watt, they will achieve more
> > > reliable OTA service using COFDM.
> >
> > ATSC is the only game in town in the US, for free TV to all the wide
> > open spaces and mountainous regions. So if someone argues that Freeview
> > is not being forced on the cable companies, surely the fact that FOTA TV
> > here is not being forced on DBS must figure in there somewhere?
> >
> > In any event, corporate heavies are guided by what they are told at
> > meetings. As long as there is this peristent pessimism concerning ATSC,
> > festering there without being proven or disproven, it does nothing more
> > than cause paralysis among their ranks. Add to this the sometimes
> > outrageous claims made about the competition, claims that defy the laws
> > of physics, and all I can think is let's have another set of comparison
> > tests. I don't see this persistent gloom disappearing anytime soon,
> > without such tests.
> >
> > Poorly informed people make wrong decisions. It's that simple.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
