[opendtv] Re: Mortgage stuff
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:09:02 -0400
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> Bill and I did not always agree about the major technical issues,
>
http://www.wfschreiber.org/technical/FCC_Digital_TV%20_Descion.html
This is an interesting read, showing how much has changed from 1998 to
today. Having followed the process from 1986, although (thankfully
maybe) not as a player, the litany of roadblocks, real sometimes but
mostly imagined, was rather exasperating to me too.
Interestingly, Bill Schreiber wanted only 2 or 3 formats in Table 3: "If
the Commission itself had taken the four systems and chosen the 2 or 3
really necessary formats, a much better result could have been obtained,
but such a procedure is evidently impermissible in today's political
climate."
And he wanted layered coding for HD, so that only those with high SNR
would be able to decode HD content. And he thought cheap receivers would
not be possible. And he opposed interlace.
As it turns out, much of what was thought to be difficult to impossible
has happened. For example, the use of non-square pixel formats is not a
problem for TV or for computers. And:
"It became clear that the HDTV system would be all-digital, and that
simulcasting would be used during a transition period lasting 10 to 15
years. The Commission developed a plan to lend a second channel to
existing licensees for digital transmission, and to reclaim the existing
NTSC channels at the end of the period. It was assumed that enough
viewers would have purchased digital receivers by that time to make the
shut-down of analog broadcasting politically acceptable. The existence
of more than 200 million NTSC receivers and more than 60 million NTSC
VCRs gives some idea of the magnitude of that task."
Thanks to the Michael Powell, FCC, it not only happened, but could have
happened a couple of years ago.
"What would have motivated them to make the considerable investment
required to move heavily into HDTV broadcasting would have been HDTV
provided by their competitors -- cable and satellite. The latter,
however, have opted for multiplexing a number of standard-definition
programs in each channel, which means that terrestrial broadcasters will
probably do the same. Provision for this kind of service is included in
the GA system standard."
My comment is and was, never underestimate the power of the marketplace.
Give people something better at an affordable price, and it will sell.
And heaven knows NTSC could have stood improvement. Everyone jumped on
the HDTV bandwagon, in spite of all the nay-saying. It's just that ATSC
is the only system that did so from the start, and can now reap the
benefits of avoiding simlcast.
"The only way to guarantee that all receivers will accept all of the GA
formats is for the FCC to require it. The Grand Alliance does not have
the power to enforce this requirement even on its own members, not to
mention other manufacturers. Since the Commission is clearly reluctant
to do any receiver regulation at all, a second possible action would
have been to require broadcasters to use only these formats, with the
industry using a labelling scheme so that consumers could at least know
the capabilities of the receivers that they buy."
"It seems likely that this 'compromise,' in which the standard is not
fully delineated (the table of scanning formats was eliminated, so the
use of any number of scan lines and any aspect ratio, interlaced or not,
is legal), will slow down the acceptance of digital broadcasting,
perhaps making the eventual shutdown of NTSC impossible."
The broadcasters and CE industry took matters in their own hands, here
and elsewhere, and NTSC/PAL shutdown is imminent or has already
happened.
"As pointed out above, the GA system has no migration path to higher
quality, too many formats, no provision for inexpensive receivers, and
uses interlace. The arguments presented by the Grand Alliance and member
companies in support of these highly disadvantageous characteristics are
for the most part false and in all other cases, at least misleading."
And yet, that too happened, and in multiple countries, and with cheap
receivers.
"The quotation from the ATSC document alleges more effectiveness to the
packet-identification numbers (PIDs) than is warranted. It is true that,
in the absence of a high-definition data stream, some packets could be
used for other services. However, unless someone learns how to do HDTV
in less than the capacity of the full channel in a manner that is
compatible with the early receivers, it will never be possible to
improve the quality of an HDTV signal, e.g., by moving from 1080 I to
1080 P, using this method."
"This section repeats the incorrect notion that PIDs provide headroom
and guarantee that consumer equipment will continue to operate properly
as the system is altered over time."
This too happened. Use of PIDs seems obvious now. And a migration path
does exist, not just to schemes like A-VSB, but also to H.264 or future
codecs.
Much disapproval of interlace, e.g. 1080i. I don't know that 1080i is
much of an issue anymore, and probably could be abolished as cameras and
displays that would benefit from interlace are disappearing. But it
works fine, for sports too.
The moral of the story being, things change, stuff happens.
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:
