[opendtv] Re: E-VSB Turkey (was Re: [opendtv])
- From: Mark Aitken <maitken@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 11:12:03 -0400
I am on board with your statements, with one exception. Field Trials
reveal what the involved parties want to be known, and the last MAJOR
one revealed very little of the whole truth, just bits and pieces that
were used to show the ghostly outlines of VSB promises/needs for the future.
Eory Frank-p22212 wrote:
>Mark Aitken wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>Based on a resent response (letter) from the FCC regarding a specific
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>matter, the FCC has expressed that on a practical level, if a
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>Broadcaster uses E-VSB (part of the current ATSC Standard A/53C with
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>Amendment No. 1 and Corrigendum No. 1: ATSC Digital Television Standard,
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>Rev. C.) the only concern they would have would be if there was no
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>"normal" VSB available for minimum content reception. Otherwise, one can
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>use E-VSB today without an STA (but notice would be appreciated). There are
>>other promising methods being reviewed inside ATSC activities
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>that may lend well to helping resolve concerns in some areas of ATSC
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>performance. Join the ATSC process (or at least participate...you only
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>need be a member to vote if you have direct and material interest in the
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>activities.) if you want to know more...
>>
>>
>
>
>
>It is unforgivably irresponsible of the FCC to allow broadcasters to use E-VSB
>under such loose restrictions. This is completely unproven technology for
>which there are very few transmitters or receivers deployed. Not to mention it
>will stagnate rather than accelerate viewer acceptance of the HDTV-driven DTT
>transition.
>
>
>
>
>
>Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>>EVSB is meant to be a hierarchical
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>modulation sort of service rather than a complete replacement of the
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>19.3 Mb/s channel. And even then, the ATSC seems to think it's okay to
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>cut the capacity down to 8.5 or 4.3 Mb/s total, off prime time.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>All it was really meant to be was a delay tactic to buy more time to improve
>8-VSB receivers and stymie the COFDM rabble-rousers.
>
>
>
>
>
>>The nice thing about E8-VSB is the way it permits very
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>narrow robust channels to be created, taking away as little
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>as possible from the wide stream capacity. It gives a lot
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>of granularity in that way.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>It permits no such thing. Increased FEC power is useless if you don't have
>signal acquisition - for example, due to multipath. There is no real-world
>evidence that these E-VSB streams result in any real-world improvements in
>receivability for urban or suburban viewers. Far-field rural viewers who are
>more noise-limited than multipath-limited may benefit from the extra dB's, but
>that's about it. "taking away as little as possible from the wide stream
>capacity" is a total joke. You know better, Bert. The bit rate penalty on the
>wide stream is enormous, even for modest amounts of so-called "robust" E-VSB
>data.
>
>
>
>
>
>>On the other hand, it does not allow for
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>fine tuning of the robustness of the whole 6 MHz band. That could have
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>been done by directly changing the FEC used in the band, but such a
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>scheme would not have been backward compatible. EVSB had to be layered
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>over the 8-VSB, 2/3 trellis, and RS[208,188] FEC that was already
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>there.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>It isn't backward compatible anyway, so what's the point?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>Anyway, it's still IMO well suited to the task you
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>suggested. But here too, some field trials would be nice.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Field trials would reveal the truth, and nobody wants that. Just call it
>"robust" and maybe people will believe it. Meanwhile, any broadcaster who uses
>it will alienate his HDTV viewers by destroying the very thing that made them
>interested in his DTT channel in the first place...all in the hopes of picking
>up a handful of extra rural viewers in the far-field, where the lower Gaussian
>noise threshold of E-VSB could actually result in a measurable improvement.
>What the heck, the urban & suburban viewers all have cable & satellite anyway,
>where there is plenty of non-broadcast high-def to watch. Broadcasters who
>squander that high-def advantage on E-VSB snake oil will do so at their own
>risk.
>
>
>
>-- Frank
>
>
>
>
--
Regards,
Mark A. Aitken Director, Advanced Technology
***********************************
Sinclair Broadcast Group
10706 Beaver Dam Road
Hunt Valley, MD 21030
Business TEL: (410) 568-1535
Business MOBILE: (443) 677-4425
Business FAX: (410) 568-1580
E-mail: maitken@xxxxxxxxxx
Text PAGE: page.maitken@xxxxxxxxxx
HTML PAGE: 4436774425@xxxxxxxxxx
www.newscentral.tv
www.sbgi.net
===================================
"America will never be destroyed
from the outside. If we falter
and lose our freedoms, it will be
because we destroyed ourselves."
~ ~ ~ Abraham Lincoln ~ ~ ~
***********************************
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This email message and any files transmitted with it contain
confidential information intended only for the person(s) to whom this
email message is addressed. If you have received this email message in
error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or email and
destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you.
***********************************
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
