[opendtv] Re: HDTV DVB-T receiver for the UK
- From: Bob Miller <bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 12:18:21 -0500
Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>Tom Barry wrote:
>
>
>
>>I've obviously become somewhat disgruntled on
>>this myself. I figured that if it was only chip
>>complexity that was the problem then Moore's Law
>>would solve it for us.
>>
>>But having apparently been fooled one more time
>>I am not very inclined at the moment to believe
>>further promises.
>>
>>The modulation standard debate in the USA
>>certainly does seem settled. And I don't know
>>even know if COFDM would be any better.
>>
>>
>
>That last sentence is really the whole point. If
>I were to subscribe to conspiracy theories, I'd
>say that those responsible for keeping the good
>8-VSB receivers out of the market would do exactly
>the same thing with COFDM products. They would
>make sure that the ones sold here would have
>inadequate dynamic range and inadequate
>selectivity, knowing full well that those two
>measurements are critical in US markets.
>
>
>
>>But I can certainly still voice the opinion that
>>there is still something suspiciously wrong with
>>ATSC.
>>
>>
>
>Something might seem suspiciously wrong, but not
>necessarily with the ATSC. Who is likely to gain
>if OTA doesn't work any better with DTT than it
>did with analog? Not the broadcasters.
>
>
That is debatable. Broadcasters are in the heat of battle over must
carry. A dysfunctional 8-VSB has been used as an argument for this must
carry since 2000. All you have to do is listen or read the transcripts
of testimony by the NAB and broadcasters in DTV transition hearings.
In a hearing in 2001 the NAB rep specifically explained to the panel of
Congresspersons that consumers would not go back to putting an antenna
on their roofs to receive OTA. That they would not go in the basement to
find the old rabbit ears. These are broadcasters talking to some of
their best customers about how to keep them in business and the
Congresspersons in office.
It is in the interest of Congresspersons and broadcasters that OTA
doesn't work well UNTIL must carry is decided in their favor
(broadcasters) and they will not stop until it IS decided in their favor.
All bets are off the second that must carry for multicast is decided FOR
broadcasters if it ever is. At that moment I would expect them to show a
renewed interest in making their OTA spectrum work. Something they have
had an aversion to since I have been involved in this industry. Sinclair
being the obvious but somewhat ambivalent exception. Actually if must
carry of multicast is decided against broadcasters they will have a
renewed interest in their OTA spectrum as well, and even greater interest.
I suspect that privately broadcasters are paying a lot of attention to
their OTA broadcast but feel it is in their best interest to lay low
until must carry is decided. I look at the low profile of USDTV since
being financed by broadcasters, the recent quiet around the Emmis
proposal and the deep freeze related to 5th gen news. It may be all
related to the present fight over must carry. I have always thought that
must carry was behind most of our problems since 1999.
A lot happens in the back room.
This story is instructive to me in the line at the end, "We may never
know, because probably no one will appeal this regulation. Certainly the
broadcasters won’t. But the FCC needs to watch out when this sleeping
dog decides to start biting."
The author is talking about California law that may legislate OTA
receivers out of existence. What does the author know "Certainly the
broadcasters won't" , that we don't. It would seem he suggest that of
all those who may be interested in OTA DTV broadcasting, broadcasters
are obviously the least interested. Or at least that it is understood
that broadcasters are only interested in that which would delay DTV OTA.
http://www.cedmagazine.com/ced/2005/0205/02cc.htm
Bob Miller
>All I'm saying is that if we're looking for
>ulterior motives, now that obviously well designed
>8-VSB receivers have been proven to be feasible,
>we should move beyond the self pity (even outright
>groveling) about ATSC and take in a broader view,
>no? The question ought to be, given that 8-VSB
>receivers have been designed to work right, given
>that the working solutions were supposed to be on
>the market last quarter, *now* what's the holdup?
>
>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.
Other related posts:
