[opendtv] Re: Kennard and Powell to the rescue
- From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:15:37 -0800
Discussing things with you is folly; you only look back, never forward.
And, you hold several false memes, including "the implied requirement for
HD". There was never such a thing, implied or otherwise. I know; I sat
through days and days of hearings and floor debates in the House and Senate
(via C-SPAN).
Indeed, I'd say that at least 1/3 of DTV stations never show HDTV, and don't
even have an encoder capable of HDTV.
Nor do I have a clue as to what this "mobile 8-VSB debate" was or where it
was held. Was it between you and Bert?
The spirit and explicit language of DTV before the Congress was that digital
television would enable broadcasters to transmit high-quality digital
signals, and that they could use their digital spectrum for new and
innovative services, including ones that had yet to be thought of. M/H
would fit into that; DVB cannot, since it's a different form of modulation.
There was also (foolish) talk about digital paging and telephone via DTV.
However, the EXPLICIT requirement was that broadcasters would always have to
use their digital channel to transmit at least one at least NTSC-equivalent
(the FCC has morphed this into one SDTV-equivalent) signal in the clear with
their digital facilities.
If the requirement was MPEG-2/A-53/A-52, this is why your
DVB-in-the-USA-using-broadcast-facilities was dead on arrival before
Congress: you wanted something else, which would have required new
legislation; not merely an FCC proceeding.
You aren't just talking about how good the old lightbulb was, you are
talking about how good the old lightbulb could have been, if, if, if, if,
if, if, if.
DVB-H and DVB-T2 are basically dead or badly bleeding. But, you pine for
them. The only commercial mobile tv systems in the world use a different
form of communication, and are only in operation due to government mandates
and dedicated slices of spectrum.
Time and progress has moved on. You have not.
John Willkie
-----Mensaje original-----
De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
nombre de Bob Miller
Enviado el: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 11:44 AM
Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [opendtv] Re: Kennard and Powell to the rescue
The way I have understood it as long as you deliver an SD quality
program with MPEG2 you can do a lot of wacky things with the rest of
the spectrum.
You were suggesting as I understood it that maybe that required SD
program could be delivered on the M/H side. Sounds like a good idea
but wouldn't it still have to be delivered in MPEG2 is the question.
If so MPEG2 will take up more bits on the M/H side.
If as you say you have to leave 4.7 Mbps on the 8-VSB side then you
couldn't handle HD on the M/H side with MPEG2 for sure.
IMO M/H breaks with the spirit of the law as expressed very forcefully
in the past modulation wars where even sacrificing a few bits for a
more robust 18.6 Mbps COFDM was anathema.
Early on in the mobile 8-VSB debate I understood that the mobile 8-VSB
would be receivable by legacy receivers though they could not take
advantage of the increased robustness that M/H offered. At the time
this information was used to satisfy any argument that M/H took part
of the spectrum and made it not receivable by legacy receivers which
at the time IMO would have broke more than the spirit of the
regulation.
Now I am told that M/H requires MPEG4.
If we were to go back to 1999 or 2000 and suggest this for mobile all
hell would have broke loose.
Another spirit was the implied but not regulated requirement for HD.
IMO M/H breaks all the spirits of the regulations and could not have
taken place back in them days.
Of course I have always said that when the time came broadcasters
would be all over mobile, they would have to be.
Unfortunately they have the wrong tools and about one year in will be
screaming uncle. (IMO)
Or in the worst of all worlds we could end up with a mobile system
that has MediaFlo, M/H, DVB-H and maybe DMB-T all in a cell phone with
M/H being the worst of the bunch.
Sooner or later we will sort out this mess.
Bob Miller
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 1:38 PM, John Willkie <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> John;
>
> Could you show me the language in the United States Code (which is what I
so
> badly alluded to) that mandates MPEG-2 transmissions of at least SDTV
> quality?
>
> I am familiar with the regulations; I was speaking of the legal, not
> regulatory, requirements.
>
> I note that the FCC has proven to defer heavily to the ATSC on technical
> requirements. (I don't think that would happen with a move to M/H.)
> Congress has made no such deference.
>
> John Willkie
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
> nombre de John Shutt
> Enviado el: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 4:05 AM
> Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Asunto: [opendtv] Re: Kennard and Powell to the rescue
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>> You merely make an assumption that broadcasters need to transmit MPEG-2
>> content in the clear (in at least SDTV quality); I think the wording
isn't
>> all that clear on this point, and MPEG-4 content could apply. However,
it
>> would be outside the spirit of the legislation.
>
> John,
>
> If I, or anyone else on this list, made such an ill-informed statement,
you
> would have jumped on their throat with both feet.
>
> It is trivial to prove your statement "I think the wording isn't all that
> clear on this point" wrong. 47CFR73, governing DTV transmissions, states
in
>
> part:
>
> "73.624(b): DTV broadcast station permittees or licensees must transmit at
> least one over-the-air video program signal at no direct charge to viewers
> on the DTV channel."
>
> And:
>
> "73.682(d): Effective February 1, 2005, transmission of digital broadcast
> television (DTV) signals shall comply with the standards for such
> transmissions set forth in ... ATSC Doc. A/53B, Revision B with Amendment
1
> and Amendment 2..."
>
> The version of A/53 adopted by the FCC both by part 73.8000 and by
> modification in the Federal Register can be found at:
> http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_53-Part-1-6-2007.pdf
>
> In the above document, which the ATSC acknowledges is the version adopted
by
>
> the FCC but not necessarily the most current version, there are 99
> references to "MPEG-2" and exactly zero references "MPEG-4."
>
> Since all ruling documentation spells out MPEG-2 compression constraints,
> and doesn't even define MPEG-4 compression, I hardly think that any video
> transmissions encoded in any format other than MPEG-2 would qualify as
> satisfying 73.624(b), and would place the offending station in jeopardy of
> FCC sanction.
>
> John
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
