On Nov 27, 2007 2:00 PM, Mark A. Aitken <maitken@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Mark Aitken says (inline...) > > Bob Miller wrote: > > One transmitter maybe more later. > > I'm waiting for DVB-SH ;-) > 8-VSB would work better for that. > > > Any of the 11 or 20 proposals, bring them on. As long as they use MPEG2 > and are receivable by all current 8-VSB receivers. > > Any of the proposals do not "break" current receivers, they just (as Craig > put it) 'steal' bits from the main/standard VSB channel. > In theory they don't break current receivers but who in their right mind plans on using any of them with MPEG2? In use they break legacy receivers. > > > If we are talking a new version of 8-VSB that breaks any legacy receivers > and works with MPEG4 that is another story. I am and have always been open > to any modulation that works. > > Broadcaster could (today) provide one MPEG2 SDTV quality signal today, and > commit the rest to AVC if they wished. Just aren't receivers that could do > much with it... > Again technically doesn't break the receiver but in use, the spirit of 8-VSB if you will, they break current receivers. Current receivers could not receive any of the AVSB MPEG4. > > > But we are only talking of the current 8-VSB standard which has to work > with legacy receivers and MPEG2. That is the whole argument. As soon as you > break with that you might as well consider all state of the art modulations > and codecs and the possibility of mandating that receivers can be updated to > some degree to what we know may be coming down the line within reasonable > cost. > > The only command is one MPEG2 encoded channel of equivalent quality...the > rest of the bits can be anything! > We are talking the spirit here. Can you imagine having used that argument when arguing for COFDM? What if we broke a 6 MHz channel into two parts? An 8-VSB 2 Mbps segment and a DVB-T 4 Mbps segment and said that we were not violating the legacy 8-VSB receivers because they could still receive an MPEG2 SD program in the same 6 MHz channel? How would that have been received? > All things we advocated in 1999. > > Who started the band-wagon you hopped onto? > We were trying to avoid the bandwagon. We were about to do an experimental license with DVB-T in Stamford Ct. when the bandwagon derailed us. Internally that is. My partner vetoed it when the controversy flared up. > > > One of the strongest arguments to stay with the current 8-VSB would be > that legacy receivers can upgrade to say MPEG4. The fact that they can't is > one of the strongest arguments today to abandon 8-VSB and it gets stronger > and stronger as receiver prices fall for all modulations. > > (regards MPEG4) It is not an issue of 'can't'. There is NOT a technical > barrier, it is a business barrier based on current business. > How do you handle the spirit of 8-VSB? How do you explain to all current 8-VSB receiver owners that their receivers can only receive on SD MPEG2 program? I don't think you do it at all. I think things go on just as they are and OTA is less than ONE% of viewers and I think broadcasters will not have the power to protect their spectrum in new world. Bob Miller > > > High priced 8-VSB STB's were one of the main arguments for not > reconsidering the US modulation in 2000 even though there were few such > receivers. A strong argument can be made today that since receiver prices > are getting very low in price the individual cost to switch is getting very > small compared to the potential gain. > > Yeah, keep trying. With analog shutdown just 448 days away, not sure how > anyone thinks (believes) they could pull anything off... > > > Bob Miller > > On Nov 27, 2007 1:03 PM, John Willkie <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > You mean that's what the 11 proposals for h/h being sorted out by ATSC > > TSG/S4 is all about? I do believe you are talking about legacy proposals, > > not the trade offs of today. > > > > > > > > I'll leave aside your predictions about DTMB being operational by > > Christmas. At best, you're talking about one transmitter. > > > > > > > > John Willkie > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > *De:* opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > * En nombre de *Bob Miller > > *Enviado el:* Tuesday, November 27, 2007 9:54 AM > > *Para:* opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > *Asunto:* [opendtv] Re: New Thread: What becomes of Legacy Analog > > Equipment > > > > > > > > And when you are talking alternative modulations today it is a moving > > target. The trade off today is not between DVB-T and ATSC but between DVB-T2 > > coupled with MPEG4 or DTMB and MPEG4 and ATSC crippled with A-VSB and MPEG2. > > > > > > No contest. > > > > Any realistic comparison in any real world test between these standards > > would doom any concoction of 8-VSB saddled as it is with legacy receivers. > > > > Just allowing the US broadcast system to use MPEG4 would increase the > > value of the US OTA spectrum below channel 51 so much that it probably would > > pass the tipping point that would make it a valid competitor to cable and > > satellite used right even using 8-VSB. > > > > But of course you can't go there because logic says if you sacrifice > > legacy receivers that opens the pandora's box of all modulations being > > considered. After all if you are going to dump all current receivers why not > > upgrade everything to the best it can be. > > > > DTMB should be operational in the US by Christmas. The testing is to > > compare DVB-T to DTMB. You want to test 8-VSB or A-VSB against them in the > > open air and the bright light of day? It could happen. I am calling all > > 8-VSB types chicken. They were before, they are today and they will be > > tomorrow. I give them one thing, they are smart enough to stay chicken. > > > > Bob Miller > > > > On Nov 27, 2007 11:55 AM, John Shutt <shuttj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Bert, > > > > Combine 1999 guard interval performance of DVB-T, add in 2007 blind > > equalizers, and what do you get? Still something far superior to ATSC. > > > > ATSC still cannot do mobile at all, and the A-VSB and E-VSB schemes > > proposed > > come with a much higher bitrate hit than DVB-T HM. > > > > DVB-T still has a full continuum of bitrate vs. robustness that is > > settable > > by each individual broadcaster to meet their perceived needs. ATSC does > > not. > > > > I told you 5 years ago and I will repeat it today: Even if every ATSC > > reception issue was solved, I would still prefer DVB-T because of it's > > built > > in flexibility it affords the broadcaster. > > > > John > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > The facts are, one by one all the oft-repeated objections to 8-VSB > > have > > > dropped by the wayside, as was predictable from fairly early on. The > > > dreaded cliff effect remains, of course, which affects all modulation > > > schemes. It would be great to do another comparison test now, but > > since > > > no one would benefit from it, it won't happen. Alas. > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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. > > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > Mark A. Aitken > Director, Advanced Technology > > <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< > > =================================== > Sinclair Broadcast Group > 10706 Beaver Dam Road > Hunt Valley, MD 21030 > =================================== > Business TEL: (410) 568-1535 > Business MOBILE: (443) 677-4425 > Business FAX: (410) 568-1580 > E-mail: maitken@xxxxxxxxxx > Text PAGE: page.maitken@xxxxxxxxxx > HTML PAGE: 4436774425@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > =================================== > > "If you listen to all the people saying > why you shouldn't, or can't, do something, > you'll never do anything." > > ------ Edward Whitacre Jr. -------- > =================================== > "Any sufficiently advanced technology > is indistinguishable from magic." > > ------- Arthur C. Clarke ------- > =================================== > > >