[opendtv] Fw: Re: Frames Per Second of 720P

  • From: dan.grimes@xxxxxxxx
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:14:10 -0700

Sorry, this was an unfinished thought and I was called away to fix 
something.

What I am trying to get at is the fact that the broadcasting business has 
become overly inflated and complicated, requiring a lot more money and 
resources than is really necessary to provide the obligation (public 
service) in exchange for the spectrum.

While I can appreciate that the entire OTA system (at least old model) may 
no longer be viable business-wise for the broadcaster, and I can 
appreciate the need for new revenues, it is still important to realize 
that the spectrum is given to them for a purpose and that purpose must be 
fulfilled to the expectations of those of us that still use it.  If the 
broadcasters cannot do this and stay in business, then they need to get 
out of broadcasting and make their money another way.

I think it is unfair for a broadcasting corporation to be "given" spectrum 
with an obligation, then use the spectrum to make a bunch of money, not 
fulfill the obligation (consumer's expectation of the obligation), and 
then compete with corporations that did have to buy spectrum in order to 
make money.

Dan

----- Forwarded by Dan Grimes/UNLV on 07/30/2008 09:03 AM -----

Dan Grimes/UNLV
07/30/2008 08:55 AM

To
opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc

Subject
Re: [opendtv] Re: Frames Per Second of 720P





Certainly the old model and obligations are holding back the ability to 
revamp the entire system.  It was also suggested on this forum that the 
"contract" between the people and the broadcaster is no longer valid.

There is an option:  scrap the whole system and require broadcasters (or 
anyone for that matter) to buy the spectrum they are using.  Then they can 
charge all they want and don't have to provide the public service.

I think it is important for broadcasters to remember why they have been 
given their spectrum.  They do have an obligation.

But then again, I know there is much more to the story.

Dan




"Mark A. Aitken" <maitken@xxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
07/30/2008 08:01 AM
Please respond to
opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


To
opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc

Subject
[opendtv] Re: Frames Per Second of 720P






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 -------
===================================


Other related posts: