[opendtv] Re: Interesting Point
- From: John Willkie <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 04:18:04 +0100 (GMT+01:00)
dream on. XM and sirius and Media Flo have no content that I'm interested in
paying for.
As for your non-definition of broadcasting: mine is slightly paraphrased from
FCC rulings. Yours comes from third-hand sources. Why didn't you offer an
engineering definition? (mine is paraphrased from a legal definition, but
suffices as an engineering definition.
Once again, I'm not interested in transmission: only metadata, transport
streams, and content. I have no cross to bear, unlike ...
John Willkie
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Miller <bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Oct 26, 2005 2:51 AM
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: Interesting Point
John Willkie wrote:
>he delusion continues.
>
>ATSC's legal position is as the adopted standard for the United States. Do
>you disagree or just don't understand what that means? (It's like selling PAL
>sets in Maine.)
>
>
I agree that ATSC is the standard that broadcasters must use on channels
below 52 period now and for some time in the future period.
>If DVB-H includes DVB-T, I don't really care, since nobody with any content
>that I am interested in, at least within 1000 miles of my home, is now, or
>will in the forseable future, offers a usable DVB service.
>
>
Whatever your definition of a usable service is. You being the keeper of
definitions. I believe that a DVB service is being offered in your area
at the moment however. The vast majority of satellite customers in the
US are using DVB-S even in San Diego. The broadcasters XMRadio and
Sirius are both using DVB-T within "1000 miles" of where you live I
believe. And within MY foreseeable future Crown Castle will offer
DVB-T/H services in the same area.
And others will be offered in the "foreseeable" future though that
depends on how far you can foresee and that would influence your
definition of "foreseeable" I am sure.
What I should have said as to DVB-T/H is that where there is DVB-H there
also is first DVB-T.
>I say this despite the fact that as of a few days ago, Qualcomm's Media Flo
>was available in San Diego, on Channel 53 (we have a DTV station on channeol
>55 for the moment.)
>
>Media flo IS NOT BROADCASTING. I have yet to hear of a single proposal to
>offer broadcasting services on any channel above 51, and I doubt that you have
>heard such things in reality./
>
>
I don't know what your definition of broadcasting is buy mine includes
Media Flo.
>Since you are sub-par as to terminology (MPEG-2 technology going down the
>tubes?), let me provide you with the definition of broadcasting: a point to
>multipoint one-way wireless transmission system, providing unencrypted signals
>designed for reception by the general public.
>
>
I don't agree with your definition of broadcasting. I would accept these
"broadcasting, transmission of sound or images to a large number of
receivers by radio or television."
http://www.answers.com/broadcasting&r=67
"To transmit (a radio or television program) for public or general use."
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=broadcasting
Nothing in either about it having to be free or unencrypted. I think
broadcasting is a more general term than your definition allows, too
restrictive. I like these better
>Media flo is not one way, provides encrypted communications, which are not
>designed for reception by the general public, but the people who have paid a
>fee to somebody for access.
>
>
The broadcast part of Media Flo is one way. The back channel for when
someone wants to participate, not required, is the cell phone data
connection. Channel 55 is being used one way in a broadcast mode.
>So, your prediction is a non-starter. Nobody interested in transmitting for
>free in the clear has even thought of using channels above 51, nor has any
>such entity or person given much of a thought of using DVB, given ATSC's legal
>position.
>
>
No one would give a thought to using DVB-T below channel 52 for obvious
reasons, its illegal. Anyone contemplating using any channel from 52 to
59 will use a version of COFDM no matter what they contemplate on doing
including transmitting in the free and clear. Which I believe could
happen seeing the success of Freeview and envisioning the added appeal
it would have if a mobile service were added to it.
Bob Miller
>John Willkie
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bob Miller <bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Oct 25, 2005 8:32 PM
>To: JohnWillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [OpenDTV] Interesting Point
>
>Inclusion of DVB-H by definition includes DVB-T.
>
>What legal position of ATSC? They have none on channels above 51 as
>Qualcomm is proving by deployment of COFDM on 55. As I have been
>predicting for many years ALL channels from 51 through 59 will be used
>for broadcasting even if some of the current owners of this spectrum do
>not know it yet. And they will ALL use a version of COFDM.
>
>And as channels 52 and below realize what the competition is doing with
>DVB-T and H they will clamor for the ability to compete.
>
>Maybe that clamoring will come as the last moments of NTSC approach and
>the broadcasters employ their last tool of delay, the poor reception of
>mandated receivers, to hold off the inevitable. Congress could throw
>them the bone of allowing COFDM if they just shut up. The evidence
>worldwide of the superiority of COFDM will be very apparent by then as
>it well may be right here in the US. The scramble to buy the remaining
>channels in the lower 700 MHz spectrum and the plans of the would be
>winners will also stimulate interest by broadcasters in actually being
>able to use their OTA spectrum to compete in this new market.
>
>Having every laptop capable of receiving DVB-T/H will be just another
>incentive. Unless of course 8-VSB improves so much that manufacturers
>also include ATSC receivers in every laptop. LOL falling on the floor
>LOL, having a spasm, someone call 911!!!
>
>Bob Miller
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Other related posts:
