[opendtv] Re: Post on alt.tv.tech.hdtv of interest today
- From: "John Willkie" <JohnWillkie@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 10:16:27 -0700
I do know -- at least I have had several email exchanges with -- Pat; we
have common memberships on several industry groups and at one point I needed
help with their forest of acronyms.
You continue to be clueless. MPEGIF is an advocacy group and as such does
no standards or engineering. Unlike, say, MPEG or DVB or SMPTE or ATSC or
ARIB.
You have -- to be polite -- uncohesive, events-driven "arguments" (mostly
rationalizations and FUD) on the politics, engineering, and social
environment that broadcasters are in. And, without exception, these
arguments are entirely devoid of understanding, facts or anything close to
reality. Hundreds of people on this list know it; they talk about you
behind your back.
Maybe they do that with me as well, but when I am approached at industry
gatherings by fellow list members, it's mostly "you seem to try to keep
everybody else honest." (Hey, if it seems that way ...)
As to your arguments about fear among broadcasters, you are entirely
confused. Broadcasters are less fearful of Congres than the other way
around; most people get their political news from broadcasting. There is a
general fear of the unknown future, a fear that would be MUCH GREATER were
there to be two digital paths for them to contemplate. (That's why I told
Nat Ostroff a few weeks back that to get DVB permissive in the U.S., all the
angles need to be worked out in advance)
John Willkie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Miller" <bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 10:02 PM
Subject: [opendtv] Re: Post on alt.tv.tech.hdtv of interest today
> I don't know Pat but others from Harmonic and MPEGIF have contacted me
> the last few days on the subject.
>
> A note on conversations I am having. Everybody wants receiver standards
> and or to be able to use COFDM and MPEG4. Virtual consensus. But
> everyone is still afraid to raise their hand unless everyone else does.
> No one wants to be tarred and feathered like Sinclair.
>
> Congress therefore thinks broadcasters are happy with what they have.
> Actually broadcasters seem to be just scared s**tless of Congress just
> as they were in 2000. Maybe they should be.
>
> But am making progress.
>
> Worries are the same as five years ago.
>
> If they talk modulation they get hit with charge of delaying the
> transition. I think the delay is 8-VSB and the solutions is anything but.
>
> They say that in the asking for MPEG4 they risk Congress taking back
> spectrum because they don't need so much. That was true for MPEG2 also.
> And I don't think there is much risk of Congress wanting to go that far.
> They just want to get the transition over with and MPEG4 could help. And
> the Congress we have today is not the one we had in 2000 nor do they
> seem to see the issues that same and there are new dogs in this fight
> who have new ideas, want the transition over with and have the means and
> money to fight.
>
> And each broadcaster has at least one other problem. But this can be
> done, at least real hearings on real problems.
>
> One thing I have suggested. If MPEG4 was allowed obviously all current
> receivers become obsolete so we could then talk modulation. If COFDM and
> MPEG4 both were adopted the US could do what Australia is doing,
> multicast SD and HD versions of the same content. OZ was criticized for
> doing this because it is inherently inefficient.
>
> The thing is that the multicast with MPEG4 would be more efficient than
> the current MPEG2 HDTV single cast. That is the SD and HD multicast
> would take up no more room and most likely much less room than the one
> HD signal does with MPEG2 and offer better quality and more headroom at
> the same time.
>
> And if we did COFDM and MPEG4 and multicasting of an SD and HD of same
> content we could use very inexpensive COFDM SD receivers as the
> converter boxes the House is talking about. Right now in quantity those
> COFDM converter boxes would cost something less than the $50 retail
> price of some SD boxes in the UK. France has $70 retail price SD COFDM
> STB's for sale days after they started broadcasting COFDM SD. Who knows
> how cheap they will get over the next year or so.
>
> Least expensive HD COFDM receivers would not be that much more
> expensive. Probably for as little as $100 to $120 retail.
>
> And over some period of time we could probably more easily retire the
> "same program" multicast idea than we are now retiring NTSC. And over
> that same period of time MPEG4 will mature into a codec capable of 4
> times that of MPEG2. (got that from Harmonic a while back)
>
> The cost of 10 million SD COFDM converters being contemplated in
> Congress would be about one third the cost of the contemplated LG
> promise of $100 8-VSB converters in 2007. If we can even rely on a
> company, LG, that just dropped out of the STB 8-VSB market altogether to
> make any such converter. Maybe in fact LG would be more happy making
> COFDM converters since they are happier making COFDM HD boxes for OZ
> while dropping 8-VSB receivers in the US. Could we hope for such logic
> to prevail?
>
> Today not 2007 you could most likely buy 10 million COFDM converters for
> $35 each or is it possible even less? That would make Congress's
> subsidized program cost a lot less. 10 million at $100 is $1 billion
> after all while 10 million at $35 is $350 million. And Congress would
> not have to send a installation technician with a rotorized 30 foot
> antenna along with those $35 COFDM converters like the would have to
> with those $100 LG converters.
>
> Of course that would be a perfect post Iraq contract for Haliburton. The
> LG converter antenna installation contract that is.
>
> Bob Miller
>
>
>
> Ron Economos wrote:
>
> >The ATSC TSG/S6 group is actively working on
> >H.264 and VC-1. Maybe you should contact
> >Pat Wadell of Harmonic/Divicom to avoid duplicated
> >efforts?
> >
> >Ron
> >
> >Bob Miller wrote:
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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:
