[opendtv] Re: Hearings :Cost of Converter Boxes
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 10:55:23 -0500
At 4:26 PM -0500 2/28/05, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> > Dare I say iPOD and AAC in the same sentence?
>> How in the world could Apple hope to succeed,
>> when the masses were traveling down the MP3
>> highway?
>
>I simply find the comparison pointless. The iPod
>is a fad that will only keep the public interest
>for a short time. Poprietary is fine for such a
>fad. In fact, newer iPods will no doubt obsolete
>older iPods as soon as Apple thinks the time is
>right.
I'm not surprised at your response. It demonstrates just how out of
touch you are.
Apple's digital music strategy is not a passing fad. It is a well
executed strategy across multiple platforms that dovetails with other
aspects of their "digital life" applications. And the only thing that
is proprietary is their DRM implementation.
If Apple was interested in fads, they would have chosen MP3 audio
compression, as that's what everyone was using. But they chose an
OPEN INDUSTRY STANDARD called AAC instead; by the way, iTunes works
just fine with MP3 files, but the iPod is optimized for AAC. Apple is
not going to obsolete older iPods; they MAY add AAC+ as an encoding
option for iTunes and future iPods, but there is NO reason to do so
in a manner that is not backwards compatible. New iPods would
support both AAC and AAC+. iTunes would support both and have the
ability to convert AAC+ files to AAC for the folks who have older
iPods that do not support AAC+. Please note that this is just
speculation to serve as an example.
On the other hand, Microsoft IS promoting a proprietary audio codec
for their music service.
> TV is a mature service that has stood the test
>of time. Forcing the public to a fad model is
>totally unwarranted, and the FCC was perfectly
>correct in not buying into that argument. That
>is, the FCC was absolutely correct in not
>accepting the notion that only the Physical
>through Transport layers needed to be specified
>for FOTA DTT.
This is your opinion. I agree that Terrestrial TV broadcasting is a
mature service. It is showing its age and is committing suicide
because broadcasters want to hold onto a legacy rather than trying to
compete.
Based on the information I was privileged to at the time, the FCC
came very close to setting only the bare minimum standard. They had
ample evidence that the marketplace can make these meaningful number
of homes starts to use the ATSC service it will be completely out of
date.
The competition will have move on...
>
>For subscription DTT, sure. For FOTA, absolutely
>not. It's like trying to sell the DOT on the
>idea that every road should be a toll road, and
>it's okay for the toll keeper to specify the
>(non-standard) vehicle type permitted on the
>road. That model *can* work. But if the DOT
>balks at this, I say thank goodness.
This is pure rubbish.
Any system can specify the platform. USDTV is doing it. Freeview is
doing it. But most important, digital media appliances that pull bits
from the Internet are evolving continuously in reaction to
marketplace forces.
You do not add extensibility onto a poorly designed system after the
fact. It must be built in from the beginning. Broadcasters can define
a platform, if they see the need to do so. As long as they rely on
competing platforms to deliver their programming, however, they will
stay out of it, and let others do the heavy lifting.
>
>> This is true. But the reality is that the U.S.
>> chose to stay with the big stick model,
>> sacrificing spectral efficiency.
>
>But this is not necessarily true.
Yes it IS necessarily true Bert. Gap fillers can extend the service
into problematic area. But they cannot improve spectral efficiency,
because it is the big sticks that cause the market-into-market
interference that reeks havoc with spectral efficiency.
>And once again, the big stick model is the correct
>model for wide area coverage, *even if*
>supplemented by small sticks. The Eiffel Tower TV
>antennas are over 1000' up, in case you didn't
>know. That's pretty tall, I'd say. Low power, yes,
>but pretty big anyway.
You finally got it Bert. You cannot define the service by the tower
height alone. It is the combination of tower height and power levels
that determine coverage and market-into market interference.
As you say...the Eiffel Tower transmitter is LOW POWER. US.DTV
allocations are all HIGH POWER.
> > in areas with dense populations this ALSO involves
>> the allocation of channels for sub-market services
>> that can handle the local needs of each sub-market.
>
>No problem at all. That's what low power TV and radio
>is supposed to be. This does not mean all
>transmitters need to be low power.
No. that is not what low power services are about. They are about
competition, and have been stubbornly opposed by broadcasters.
Translators are a different subject.
And I have NEVER said that all transmitters need to be low power. I
have consistently said that the transmission networks need to be
optimized for each market and take into consideration the realities
of close market spacing. Big high powered sticks can be used
effectively in the wide open spaces, but they are a big problem in
the urban NE corridor, and in other areas with close market spacing.
>
>> 2. The infrastructure must be flexible with respect
>> to the services that can be delivered on an
>> instantaneous basis, providing efficient use of
>> allocated spectral bandwidth for a constellation of
>> services that will adapt dynamically to real market
>> requirements.
>
>And those services that fit this model can be
>designed to find empty frequency bands and use them,
>then get off as soon as they're done. This does not
>mean that TV, or GPS, or other fixed services, have
>to go this route.
Broadcasting DOES need to go this route to survive. It cannot survive
with the current business model. It is absurd to allocate spectral
band to monolithic services as we do today, when a single well
designed broadcast infrastructure can deliver all existing and many
new services to fixed, portable and mobile appliances. This may piss
off competitors who would like to operate similar services, but there
is a higher level justification for designing and building the
service properly...the public good.
TV broadcasting as we know it was a successful service for many
decades, until competition rendered it mostly irrelevant as a
delivery infrastructure. Now it exists ONLY because of political
gerrymandering.
We can use the broadcast spectrum to provide an open infrastructure
that virtually any content producer can use to launch a digital media
service. Thinking of this as ONLY TV or Radio is legacy thinking.
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: