[opendtv] Re: (No Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:30:37 -0400

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:57:15 -0400

At 9:08 AM +1300 10/15/04, Barry Wilkins wrote:
>I cannot help but think though, that because (a large portion of or
>all?) the patent revenues may go to Korea, AND there have been
>performance difficulties AND the relative cost of silicon to build an
>ATSC receiver that performs well is expensive, then it looks like a 3
>way loss situation. This is ironic as I understand that the US
>originated COFDM modulation. Why wasn't there an effort to ditch the
>ATSC modulation at the earliest opportunity if (a) the revenue was
>likely to go overseas, and (b) there were strong indications of
>performance limitations and (c) there was an opportunity to use a US
>version of COFDM that you could get patent royalties from?

There are two considerations here.

First, at the time the decision was made  the 8VSB modulation system 
was being promoted by Zenith (the creator of the technology), which 
was a U.S. company with economic problems. Those problems were solved 
in 1999 when LG bought Zenith in a bankruptcy proceeding.

Second, COFDM was given a cursory glance during the ACATS process. 
One issue was that the COFDM developments were running several years 
behind the 8VSB developments, so the ability to obtain 6 MHz 
equipment for testing was limited. Another problem was an economic 
analysis that cast doubt upon the feasibility of creating Single 
Frequency Networks. The analysis found that it would be cost 
prohibitive - at the telco rates for digital lines that existed in 
~1994 - to route synchronous signals to multiple transmitters. 
Ironically, the ATSC has now issued a specification for 
synchronization of multiple transmitters in an SFN that requires 
exactly the same connections. Fortunately, the original analysis was 
seriously flawed, not taking into consideration the reality that 
competition would bring down the cost of broadband connections.

As for the performance limitations, all we can say in retrospect, is 
that the Grand Alliance system was NOT properly tested. The multipath 
issue was well known going in, however, the tests carefully avoided 
geographic areas where multipath might prove to be a killer. And then 
there was the testing criteria, which specified 30 foot outdoor 
antennas.

The more important issue identified by Frank, is that the history of 
DTV in the U.S. will reveal the real intent of the process - to 
maintain and extend control over the distribution of entertainment 
content. In retrospect, the royalties going to the Grand Alliance 
companies are just the tip of the iceberg. There is the ISO/MPEG 
patent pool to contend with, andwe now have all of the downstream 
royalties for technologies to implement the Broadcast Flag to deal 
with as well.

Bottom line, the royalties to implement NTSC were about $1. The 
royalties to implement an ATSC receiver may well exceed $40.

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. 10-2004