[opendtv] Re: EETimes.com - DVB ponders next-gen terrestrial DTV standard
- From: "Albert Manfredi" <bert22306@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 15:50:50 -0500
Bob Miller wrote:
>Don't put words in my mouth about what I have said about
>people buying modulation or robustness. We all know what
>people buy and what they don't. They are not buying 8-VSB.
And you did it again! Unbelievable.
It's not 8-VSB that people aren't buying. It is what is offered as FOTA DTT
in the US, perhaps, that doesn't inspire the masses. Don't you see the
difference? (This will change, as it did in Germany, when analog goes dark.
But one would have preferred the change in attitudes to be caused by
something more positive.)
>One thing that baffles me is that broadcasters are not
>pushing for MPEG4.
It only baffles you because you distort the importance of AVC. If
broadcasters haven't even figured out how to put together an interesting mix
of multicasts, what makes you think they even care, at this point, about
more compression efficiency. As you yourself said, all they worry about is
must-carry over cable. AVC is completely secondary at this point. First they
need to care enough to set the correct time on their DTT transmitters, for
example.
Tom Barry wrote:
>>The robustness problem was solved three years ago. It's time to
>>stop beating tired old drums.
>
>Yes, you told us three times. But I still don't believe it.
>
>For something to be a solution to the ATSC "robustness problem"
>it must be a commercially viable solution. If that was really so then
>we would see plentiful examples of that solution for sale.
We've been over this, Tom. No one has ever suggested that the TECHNICAL
solutions were economically out of reach. No one. The fact that they aren't
being introduced, especially in separate components, does NOT mean that the
solutions are outageously expensive. It simply means that the bean counters
aren't seeing enough beans lining up.
Now follow this. We have been suggesting on here that the really good ATSC
receivers, i.e. those which do not require window placement of the antenna
in Mark's Manhattan apartment, are those which IN ADDITION to a good demod
also implement a better than average tuner. And we have many times in the
past months suggested what that better tuner might consist of.
Question: is this type of tuner commonly available in DVB-T receivers?
As far as we have seen on this list, the answer is *no*. And the reason
might be in part because in Euro countries, TV transmission towers tend to
be co-located. Which means, by pointing in one direction you get all the
national networks. So the field strength model becomes more similar to a
cable plant than to the DTT scenario we often see in the US. You tend not to
get that close-by transmitter that clamps down the AGC and prevents
reception of more distant stations. Or in rare cases when this might occur,
*THEIR* documents suggest use of directional antennas. There is no differnce
in the physics.
Now here's the point:
If the bean counters won't support production of boxes with decent tuners
and decent demods for ATSC receivers in the US, what makes you think that
similar bean counters would support production of decent tuners for a 6 MHz
US variant of DVB-T? If the only problem is a perceived lack of interest in
DTT in the US, these bean counters will not change their tune JUST BECAUSE
the modulation isn't 8-VSB. They would continue to make the boxes
unavailable.
Bert
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
