[opendtv] Re: FCC CHAIRMAN PROPOSAL TO UNLOCK THE SET-TOP BOX: CREATING CHOICE & INNOVATION

From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 02:31:35 +0000

Craig Birkmaier wrote:

The one-way broadcast medium doesn't have, cannot have, any of
those features. you cannot control the broadcast stream from
your set, Craig. Even if it's digital broadcast. The best you
can do is record it, and then control the recording in playback.
Do I really have to explain this?

No Bert. You do not, because, as I keep pointing out, this is
just irrelevant minutiae.

This is why you never learn new things, Craig. You dismiss the key points as
being minutiae, and you instead go back to your vague, fuzzy, malleable,
uninformed (and let's not forget annoying), generalities.

The underlying transports (and standards stacks) are different.

Explain, in detail, what is different and what is the same, between one-way
broadcast of DTV and streaming protocols. For instance, pick a streaming
protocol that uses MPEG-2 TS for synchronization, just to see more clearly the
differences that matter. If you spend some quality time investigating the
details, you will then see for yourself, the similarities and the differences,
and WHY there have to be differences.

The cable industry does not use Table 3;

Honestly, who gives a damn? Table 3 simplifies matters. The only purpose of
having different optional formats is to allow for SOME variation in the
bandwidth used for the different streams of a multiplex, and to most
efficiently transmit those different streams. In a one-way broadcast medium,
where every single receiver tunes to that same stream, who cares if Table 3
isn't huge? It makes no difference, Craig.

And yes, absolutely, legacy matters too. If a mode of Table 3 makes it easier
to transmit some old NTSC show, then including that option makes perfect sense
too. Your obsession over Table 3 shows, to me, a rather glaring lack of
perspective. And never mind that it can be changed, although naturally that
will require some STBs or HDMI sticks, for TVs that can't handle the new
formats.

It prohibited progressive scan EDTV formats

Obviously false. Table 3 supports 704 X 480 and 640 X 480, both progressive and
interlaced. It may not support 720 X 480, but this ends up making no big
difference. In other words, only you seem to care. And it also supports 30 and
60 fps, in addition to the slightly reduced rates which are NTSC legacy.

Except for he wrongheaded decision to lock everything down

Show me where the standard is locked down. Show me why other transmission
options cannot be created. Just quote an ATSC standard that claims everything
must be frozen in time. For once, do so.

The biggest obstacle is that TV sets aren't upgradeable
remotely.

Mine is. I get notices to upgrade frequently.

I'm sure you are only talking about your proprietary, walled-in, rent by the
month STB, but the concept is the same. TV sets could have been made remotely
upgradeable, where every manufacturer uses A/90 to transmit updates. Or, less
elegantly, uses an Internet or telephone link to send updates. There is NOTHING
in the ATSC standards that claims this can't be permitted. Nothing at all.

They could do as all of their competitors do, and offer
attractive options that the public would pay for.

You mean, those people bailing out because they FINALLY notice an "attractive
set of options" emerging? You make me laugh, Craig.

Instead of me trying to guess what your misunderstandings
are give us some examples of whiz bang new features you'd
want from a one-way broadcast

We've been doing that for years Bert.

Using the royal we again, Craig? The best you have ever offered were half-baked
ideas about restaurants in the area, even after seeing that the Internet can do
this so much better. The simple FACT is, by not understanding the difference
between a two-way network using a client-server model, and one-way broadcast,
you miss the absurdity of your so-called great ideas.

Broadcast receivers cannot control the streams being broadcast, Craig. Your
ideas would require constant wasting of bandwidth, to transmit what most people
by far would never want, and a huge amount of storage capacity in each TV set.
All to make a feeble and unconvincing attempt to emulate what is so much better
done over the Internet.

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.

[opendtv] Re: FCC CHAIRMAN PROPOSAL TO UNLOCK THE SET-TOP BOX: CREATING CHOICE & INNOVATION

Other related posts: