The only part of the "old model" Broadcasters are stuck with is the providing of an MPEG2 encoded video channel, and the public service obligations that go along with that.
The real issue is the need for a culture change, and an understanding of what mobility buys you. This is NOT so much about the technology (coverage issues are fairly easily addressed), it is about "What's the business?" We think we have a handle on it...can't speak for others here. We are busy making sure that the defined system (most viable) is fully acceptable. We have a good record of understanding the issues.
You state "Are they (Broadcasters) going to change? I don't think so." I state "Are they (Broadcasters) going to change? They have to."We will fight for the right to remain standing at the end of this and every other day. This has been a long fight, and there is no intent to give it up...
On 7/30/2008 10:33 AM, Bob Miller wrote:
I don't know what the latest specs are on M/H but don't they have more than one setting? If as with the test in 2000 we would have to accept all the parameters of the current US system, big stick/high power, and only compare DVB-T or other modulations to the setting available to M/H is one thing. A new competitor in 700 MHz would not so limit their network. They would choose a robustness level that maxed out the bit rate while matching the network they are willing to build. And their network might be more dense in some urban areas which would allow for a less robust mode and higher bit rate while more robust and lower bit rate in a rural area. All kinds of possibilities in trying to balance the cost of the network with their perceived value of bits delivered and robustness levels. Computer models might have to be used and the best case would change with time. I think new entrants to the OTA broadcasting arena will have much higher values of bits delivered and be willing to build complex expensive networks to do that at very robust levels and that over time they will constantly invest more to ever improve on that. Current broadcasters as evidenced by the report will be tweaking their old model which they are stuck with by law and betting that content will save the day. They are/will be putting a lower value on bits delivered, be unwilling to lobby for the changes needed so that they can build the network needed and constantly be working from a position of catch up reacting to their competitors and looking to Congress to protect them instead of innovating . That is their history. Are they going to change? I don't think so. If I could build the network I want, with bits valued as much as I expect the marketplace would value them, then I expect that with DVB-T2 and its 30 to 50% advantage over DVB-T, I would be able to deliver 18 Mbps very robustly to mobile, fixed and portable devices including cell phones. If you are right about the 4 Mbps and I am right about the 18 Mbps then my channel would be able to deliver 450% of the bits an M/H channel can. I give NO value to the MPEG2 stream or if any a negative value equal to its share of the electric bill. Does that mean that channels using DVB-T2 are worth 450% of a broadcasters channel using M/H? No it means they are worth infinitely more since theirs become virtually worthless under the contraints of M/H, the 5% tax and their mindset IMO. I would not use DVB-T anymore than I would use M/H. Why not use the best available. I would not worry about battery life in cell phones. First because I would not build a network based on delivery to cell phones. I would be after the entire TV market and that includes the living room. But again I would not focus on the living room at the expense of the rest of what will be a massive market for ubiquitous reception of video and audio data. And I would not waste 3 Mbps for the required MPEG2 NTSC program. I am sure with a little work we could come up with something like 1 Mbps or less to satisfy that requirement while legacy receivers wither on the vine. And if what I outlined above were the environment for broadcasters I am sure some would challenge the FCC with bit rates that starve the requirement to the point of court challenges. You have got to test in court to find the edge. That is if you value bits as I would and as I think any market should sans government involvement. At the moment I think government involvement has devalued the broadcasters future value of their spectrum by something over 95% while saddling taxpayers with what would be unneeded expense for receiver subsidies and advertising of the coming transition. Bob Miller On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 7:13 AM, Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:----------------------------------------------------------------------Bob - As I understand it, after using 1/4 FEC and first subtracting maybe 3 mbps for the mandatory MPEG-2 compatible channel, M/H might be able to deliver about 4 mbps of robust payload to a mobile receiver thru a 6 MHz ATSC channel. Can DVB-T* do better? - Tom Bob Miller wrote:I think we will see cell phones in the US able to receive FTA DTV using DVB-T2, DVB-T or DMBT viewable on its native screen, projecting its content to a 20" screen or sending its image to wearable set of glasses for HD or 3D HD. If broadcasters are still didling along with multicast of their precious content using 8-VSB and M/H they may have a problem. Bob Miller On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 10:23 PM, John Shutt <shuttj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:My feeble stab at it: In Europe, competing cell phone services use GSM, and sell SIM cards for service activation. The customer is free to purchase a GSM handset independent from purchasing service, and can port their instrument when switching service among providers. Therefore, customers buy handsets with the features they want. Since Verizon is opening up their network to third party handsets that they certify, perhaps that will allow people to buy phones equipped with ATSC M/H receivers and use them with their Verizon account, instead of being locked into only the phones that Verizon offers. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Albert Manfredi" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>Transfer the argument to Europe. Can you answer what would make Europe so different?---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.-- Tom Barry trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.
-- 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 =================================== "If you listen to all the people saying why you shouldn't, or can't, do something, you'll never do anything." ------ Edward Whitacre Jr. -------- =================================== "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." ------- Arthur C. Clarke ------- ===================================
