[opendtv] Re: NAB: FCC's Wheeler Piles on Praise for Broadcasting | Broadcasting & Cable

  • From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 00:49:39 +0000

Craig Birkmaier wrote:

Whole story? That's one mode out of what, 18? And it's not what
I'm talking about.

So what are you talking about?

For some reason, Craig feels a certain compulsion to make a specious reply,
when the answer came in the very next sentence.

There are so many variable here that it is impossible to comment
intelligently.

And then Craig proceeds with the old mantra, having learned nothing over the
many years. Craig, honestly, if someone makes some facile sound-bite comment,
don't automatically pledge religious adherence to it. The very least you should
do is to remain skeptical, until you educate yourself enough to see whether it
makes any sense. Otherwise, you remain UNABLE to "comment intelligently."
Repeating the old sound bite, refuted a ton of times, doesn't cut it.

Remember USDTV? It was a slimmed bundle delivered via ATSC, and
it was a major fail.

Please don't bother telling us that that is ancient history,

That would be a really stupid reply. The obvious reply is, instead, that
failure of USDTV had little to do with ATSC (although it was not helped by the
fact that in 2003, 5th gen receivers were just barely coming to market). It's
main reason for failure was a poor value proposition, for people who were by
then used to many more choices available on cable and DBS. Slimmed down bundles
on the Internet are **far more likely to succeed**. To once again belabor the
obvious, because people have an essentially limitless choice of "slimmed down
bundles." Not just one. If you don't like CBS All Access, you might like Sling.
Or Netflix, or, or or. With USDTV, only one choice.

And then there is the minor matter that ATSC is not capable of
delivering bits to the hundreds of millions of mobile devices

More specious comments. So, just how successful was DVB-H, Craig? The big issue
with mobile is that live TV on mobile is not terribly useful. Mobile wants
on-demand, with very few exceptions (sports, maybe the rare breaking news
items). To design a system optimized for those very few exceptions makes it
very suboptimal for everything else. DVB-H tried and failed. We have also been
over this countless times. Can you get into a better argument this time around?

The ATSC RF standard is the biggest problem (See above).

See above? You said nothing meaningful above, Craig. The only point that might
have had any validity is the one about mobile, and that was easy to discount
years ago. Systems optimized for mobility exist. They have to be two-way
cellular, to support on demand, and are therefore not a good fit for broadcast.
Can we move beyond the old mantra?

Next is the outdated compression technology and the lack of
extensibility.

The first part, "compared with what?" ATSC has no trouble changing to H.264 or
H.xxx. Any widely distributed broadcast standard has the same issue of
compatibility, when making the switch. Same with DVB-T, same with the
proprietary boxes in digital cable systems. They all have to stick with H.262,
until the time is right for the expensive changeover. Already been over this
too, Craig.

As to "not extendible," same thing. We've been over perhaps 1000 times how ATSC
is as extensible as any other digital standard. How did DVB-T get "extended" to
DVB-T2, Craig? Just a software upgrade? Do we really have to revisit all of
this again? Remember that long thread about IPv6?

Cheap receivers are not software upgradable. The standards are easy to upgrade,
including ATSC, but that has NOTHING to do with software upgradeability of a
cheap receiver!

Okay, I'll buy that, but with at most two stations sharing
any OTA multiplex.

Why just two? I would agree that even with 720P a multiplex
can only support two channels of HD. But HD is not that
important to most of the niche channels .....

Craig, do you really think you are saying anything I don't know? Do you really
think that I don't know about DTV subchannels? Why the verbose waste of time?

Respond to the main point: If you can grasp that maybe two stations sharing one
multiplex may constitute an "oligopoly," then why is it that you cannot grasp
that 200 channels sharing a local monopoly distribution pipe, with *no* easily
accessible alternative to the user, would have done that since the 1970s?

OTA, or over the (neutral!) Internet, this "oligopoly" is far, far less likely,
Craig.

I think the only way with Craig is to force him to focus, like I had to do with
HDMI metadata, or SFN design constraints, or countless other examples.

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:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 04-2015