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

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 10:26:27 -0500

At 7:14 PM -0500 2/1/09, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:

Yes, but they allowed themselves to get stuck by complaints. One
example, the wide aspect ratio desired for TV screens by the ATSC.
Instead of appreciating the fact that the wide screens of TV sets would
soon become the norm ALSO for computer monitors. (If not 16:9, most
computer monitors sold now are 16:10. I fail to see any advantage to
that slight variance. It is, instead, a minor nuisance. Yet, certain
parties seemed hell-bent on retaining 4:3 screens.)
They did not get involved in the aspect ratio debate. There was input to the FCC to NOT select ANY aspect ratio. The big battle was between Hollywood and the ATSC. Hollywood wanted the aspect ratio to be 2:1 rather than 16:9.
In the end it still does not matter. Hollywood just started letterboxing everything to fit the full width of the 16:9 screen. There is no magical aspect ratio.
The use of 16:10 (among other aspect ratios) by the computer industry demonstrates the reality that the display aspect ratio just doesn't matter. The extra vertical pixels are used for the menu bar, allowing applications to offer a full 16:9 window that is not covered by the menu bar.
1.5:1 is also a popular aspect ratio - Tens of millions of iPhone and iPod Touch use it. 
1.6:1 is another that is popular on notebook computers...
I know of NO group that was hell bent on retaining the 4:3 aspect ratio - we did have a lengthy debate about the desirability of going 4:3 versus 16:9 in the early days of the transition when there was very little 16:9 content available. I did just that and was quite happy with that decision (for an analog CRT RPTV. By the time I was ready for a second generation HDTV moving to 16:9 was an obvious no-brainer.
Once again, this just proved that the aspect ratio of the display DID NOT need to be mandated. 



That's just one example of things that slowed them down, early on. And
I'm positive I can dredge up that discussion somewhere. Toward the end
of Reed Hundt's tenure, though, he became more assertive and less
tolerant of obvious delaying tactics by the various non-TV parties.
Sorry Bert, but it was the broadcasters who were primarily responsible for the delays. And remember, it took an act of Congress - in 1996 - to actually authorize the FCC to create the DTV service.
The groups who attempted to influence the ACATS/ATSC processes - primarily the computer industry - were working to accelerate the transition by helping to harmonize the requirements of the CE and computer industries. It was the broadcasters and ASTC members who used these battles to delay the entire process.
Once again you are re-writing history Bert. It did not happen the way you describe. 




 They were also well aware of the fact that the whole DTV standards
 process was being run by the CE industry with the willing complicity
 of broadcasters.


Many years ago, I pointed out to you that this is very similar to how
the Internet is being developed, after the initial ARPAnet days. The
main parties involved in the IETF are the equipment vendors, like Cisco,
Sun, and Microsoft (analogous to CE companies in the ATSC), and the ISPs
(analogous to the broadcast networks). So really, that is not a cause
for complaints, unless you want to also complain about the Internet.


HUGE DIFFERRENCE!
The ATSC process was closed to paying members and operated without the benefit of any real FCC oversight. It was driven by the desire to protect the TV industry from the obvious competitive impact of emerging technologies. Many WRONG decisions were made that still need to be corrected.
The IETF operates in a far different fashion, via consensus, not closed door meetings. And they typically codify existing practices that have become defacto standards, rather than trying to control the direction of new technology. And most important, they have never gone to the politicians to MANDATE any technologies and force them upon consumers... 

VERY DIFFERENT.



But I did accept your point that the broadcasters themselves might not
have believed the whole thing would ever have come to pass. To them, it
meant a big expense over many years, and it seemed obvious to me, as a
mere consumer, that they were not all that thrilled by any of it.
Born of protectionism. Managed to flatten out the product life curve of the broadcast industry. And predictably, the ATSC standard is now largely becoming irrelevant as is TV broadcasting in the U.S. 

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.

Other related posts:

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