[opendtv] Re: Point-Counterpoint: Peter Tannenwald Responds To The Chairman : CommLawBlog

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 08:00:34 -0500

At 4:48 PM -0600 11/26/10, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
Where in my arguments do you see that I was only talking about data broadcasting? The arguments addressed all kinds of broadcasting, including, but not limited to, data files.

First, Data Broadcasting does not necessarily mean "DATA" files. It means file based broadcasting; i.e. sending files that contain content to local cache in mobile devices so that it can be consumed on demand.

You miss the main point, that Peter is talking about using the up to date transmission technologies for broadcasters, so that they can innovate and survive.

In the article, he mentions how Verizon was going to create a form of broadcasting over its LTE network, for the TV streams. And then he talks about how ATSC is supposedly "inefficient" at this. (See my previous post for the exact quotes.)

ANd he is absolutely correct. The existing ATSC standard is completely outdated, and the new MHP standard is so inefficient that it could never compete with LTE networks.

And just because the letters "LTE" are involved, you shouldn't make the illogical leap that it must be more efficient than ATSC. The modulation per se is not "more efficient," and the extra baggage carried around, because this LTE network is actually a two-way network, further conspires to reduce the spectral effiency. Yes, ease of reception can probably be greater, but then again, if you deploy a dense network of low-powered TRANSLATORS for ATSC, similar to this LTE network but one-way broadcast only, you would likely see greater spectral efficiency and equal ease of reception as the LTE cell network.

Nothing illogical at all. Big sticks are VERY POOR at spectral re-use in congested areas. And ease of reception (read power consumption) is very important for mobile devices.

And dense networks of ATSC transmitter makes no sense, given far better options with next generation COFDM architectures.


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: