[opendtv] Re: News: Reps. Barton, Stearns Offer Alternative DTV Bill

  • From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 18:29:41 -0800

Uh tom, all virtual channels are "sub-channels" since there is nothing to
indicate what is a sub-channel and what is a "main" channel.  So, are you
saying that you never watch digital television?

Also, I have seen stations that provide a (mostly hd) service on one
channel, and a 704 service on another, and a 480 on a third channel.

John Willkie

-----Mensaje original-----
De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
nombre de Tom Barry
Enviado el: Friday, February 06, 2009 6:12 PM
Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [opendtv] Re: News: Reps. Barton, Stearns Offer Alternative DTV Bill

Also consider almost everything on sub-channels is these days 4:3 480i, 
WORSE quality than you can easily download on the Internet.  I have 
never spent 5 consecutive minutes on any sub-channel.  I have also never 
found even one show on the MyTV network to watch and in Gainesville 
never even watch the CW channel since it is a 480i sub-channel.

Though I do like the CW shows Smallville and Supernatural I will 
sometimes instead download them as needed for the much better quality.

Many people don't care yet but as folks get used to progressive fixed 
pixel HD sets I think we will find that 480i sub-channels are going to 
be viewed as low budget losers going forward.

And I don't think I have ever even seen a 480p sub-channel, which 
otherwise might be the sweet spot for the secondary content.  For 
instance I would like a 480p wide screen CNN headline news.

720p/24 movies might also work as a sub-channel but probably also won't 
be used.  I mostly predict more 480i infomercials, televangelists, and 
weather channels. It's depressing.  ;-(

- Tom


Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> At 11:20 AM -0500 2/5/09, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>> Craig Birkmaier wrote:
>>
>>>  If HD is included in the mix the number of SD channels (or
>>>  their quality) is significantly reduced. You are well aware
>>>  of this based on all of your posts regarding the issues that
>>>  the UK is facing relative to adding HD to the Freeview mix.
>>
>> Again, with HD in the mix, I now get 29 channels (30 reported after the
>> last channel scan, but we must have lost one multicast along the way --
>> oh yeah, it's Mark Aitken's fault, on CW54). Granted, not all stations
>> transmit an HD stream. The PAX station and the fun independent station
>> only transmit SD streams (respectively 4 and 5 streams). *However*, to
>> balance that out, most of the main network stations either transmit just
>> one stream, or maybe two. Only PBS and these other two I just mentioned
>> are using their spectrum efficiently. So there's plenty of growth
>> possible.
> 
> But you situation is IRRELEVANT. You are getting that may channels 
> because you are pulling bits from two markets. Furthermore, a very high 
> percentage of those bits are duplicated.
> 
> Please stop trying to use your example to prove something that is not 
> relevant to the discussion.
> 
>>
>> Besides which, 8T-VSB is relatively high in spectrum efficiency. Given
>> that stations in the US are separated into markets, and that many
>> markets are adjacent with no discontinuity in coverage possible between
>> them, there is not a whole lot better you can do. Even DVB-T2 would not
>> provide higher spectral efficiency, at least not while staying *within
>> the FCC planning factors* that apply here. When DVB-T2 is tuned to
>> higher spectral efficiency than 8T-VSB, it also requires higher power
>> density. I showed you this already. And it still has a higher peak to
>> average ratio, that also conspires against it in some ways. There is
>> simply no free lunch.
> 
> Yes, 8-VSB is relatively efficient in its use of the 6 MHz channel. But 
> this is NOT why the current broadcast system is VERY inefficient in 
> terms of actual spectral efficiency. It is inefficient because almost 
> half of the spectrum cannot be used to protect the other half from 
> market-into-market interference; this is especially true in congested 
> population areas like the one in which you live. The very fact that you 
> can receive signals from two markets illustrate this problem perfectly.
> 
> I agree there is no free lunch. But there ARE better ways to achieve 
> high spectral efficiency - the most important one is to control spurious 
> emissions. You cannot win this argument Bert, because the reality is 
> that we CAN use the same spectrum to deliver twice as much data simply 
> by building proper transmission networks that DO NOT interfere with 
> adjacent markets.
> 
> 
>> First off, there's nothing in the UK system that differs substantially
>> from the one here. I'm speaking in terms of RF spectrum usage. They also
>> have to achieve continuous coverage (with multiple translators), or they
>> rely of Freesat. Even with national service. They rely on lower power,
>> but many more towers. Essentially the same scheme, scaled down. Ditto
>> with Italy and France.
> 
> You are correct. The topology of the transmission networks in the UK and 
> most of the rest of Europe ARE substantially different than the high 
> powered big sticks we use here.
> 
>> At the very most, I get THREE programs that are duplicated, and mostly
>> in prime time. Because those 29 channels I'm talking about come with my
>> current antenna setup, which does not receive all of the Baltimore
>> stations. So no, there is not much duplication at all now. Below, is a
>> list of the programs, so you can see (a) how many stations do not
>> multicast, or not enough, and (b) just what the Baltimore content really
>> is.
> 
> You cannot even count.
> 
> Two ABC, Two CBS, Two Fox, Two PBS, Two CW, and countless duplications 
> among all of the sub-channels for which you do not list the content 
> delivered. Remember, the vast majority of the broadcast day is filed 
> with off network and other syndicated programming. There is only so much 
> of this stuff to go around and it is HIGHLY duplicated between the 
> Washington and Baltimore markets, but not necessary offered in the same 
> time slots.
> 
> Sorry Bert, but you are missing the forest for the trees. You may get a 
> lot of channels, but you do not ANY of the channels that make up about 
> 60% of what US TV viewers watch.
> 
>>
>> Also, remember that broadcasters can transmit whatever they want on
>> their multicast channels. For example, EVEN during prime time, the Fox
>> affiliate in Baltimore transmits a multicast channel that our local Fox
>> station does not provide. And the ABC affiliate here similarly transmits
>> multicasts not available in Baltimore.
> 
> This stuff is either drawn from the same pool of syndicated programming 
> available to both markets, or it is locally produced by the stations.  
> How much of the stuff on the sub-channels do you watch?
> 
> 60%?
> 
>>
>> The content is in fact varied, and it could be far more so, if
>> broadcasters made it happen.
> 
> 
> BIG IF. But still irrelevant since it is based on pooling the channels 
> in TWO markets.
> 
> Regards
> Craig
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 02-2009