[opendtv] Re: Post on alt.tv.tech.hdtv of interest today
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 09:20:21 -0400
At 8:05 PM -0700 4/7/05, John Willkie wrote:
>Think of it this way: MPEG4 is marketers. the organizations I referred to
>are engineers ONLY. If you think that MPEG4IF knows more about AVC than
>one of the MPEG committees, your cluelessness continues.
Give it up John.
MPEG-4 is the name of the ISO MPEG sub-group that sets the standards.
MPEGIF is a marketing group made up of companies that have created
the MPEG standards and companies that are using these standard to
create marketable products. The overlap is huge, but the agendas are
very different.
>
>In other words,
>> As an advocacy group they would be able to
>> inform me of how they could help with the issue of MPEG4 AVC or whatever
>> codec might be considered as a replacement for MPEG2.
>>
>is just stupid writing.
No it is a legitimate question. MPEGIF can help with questions about
implementation. There are a number of e-mail lists - to which i am
subscribed - operated both by the ISO MPEG committees and MPEGIF that
deal with implementation and marketing issues. If you need assistance
in locating the right e-mail group, I am certain that Rob Koenan can
direct you to the correct list.
>
>you also wrote
>> One reason I post here is to learn so you and those hundreds of people
>> that know more than I can fill me in when I am way off the mark. The
>> above from you is meant to put me in my place and to inform me that you
>> are far more knowledgeable than I. That's OK but not that helpful.
>
>So, you make uninformed statements here -- inconsistent ones, at that -- so
>that informed people might object loudly and give you a mild mid-course
>correction when a new ship is in order.
The blind leading the blind. And with an ATTITUDE to boot. If you
cannot be helpful John, at least keep quiet.
>
>My intent is NOT to be HELPFUL to you. My intent in replies to your
>postings is to get you shut up and listen. I am largely unsuccessful in
>this endeavor. For more than a year, I've considered leaving this list
>because of you ignorantly lighting flames with only glee in your eye, and a
>few others hereabouts. Then, I meet list members in person, and they ask me
>to stay on the list, IF ONLY TO DEAL WITH YOU.
Maaybe if YOU would shut up and try to understand, people might listen.
>
>I clearly know more than you; I also clearly learn -- not merely purport to
>learn -- from others on this list. It's the saving grace of this list.
In this area it seems highly questionable that you know much at all.
And your continuing attitude that you know-it-all does no play well.
> > I think, in my ignorance, that this is a good time for broadcasters to
>> confront Congress and the FCC and take it to their customers and would
>> be customers OTA. Inform the public of what OTA could be. From Pravda
>> 04/07/2005...
>>
>
>Yes, this proves your ignorance. You want broadcasters to fight your
>battles. They won't, and only a handful of broadcasters can even see the
>"problems" that you describe as problems. They are clearly problems for
>you, but not for broadcasters.
Maybe he just wants broadcasters to start running their
business...like a business.
>Most -- if not all -- of the issues you identify were resolved to
>broadcasters satisfaction in 1994-1996. They were widely debated even years
>ahead of that. Those who are ignorant of the past are condemned to repeat
>it.
Most broadcasters DID NOT participate in those debates.There was no
need to, since this was a holding action, not an effort to re-invent
their business. This is still a holding action; the debate has not
changed in any material way in more than a decade. yesterday I posted
a story about a panel at the Cable Show, where the big media congloms
were saying essentially the same thing they have been saying for more
than a decade.
It's all about maintaining the upper hand over distribution John.
Making OTA DTV work is near the bottom of their list of things to do.
>
>You clearly have some support at Sinclair. The reality there is that
>Sinclair sees the situations almost entirely differently than every other
>broadcasters. I am not here to say who is right -- only time will tell.
>But, using Sinclair as your base of support is a non-starter with virtually
>all other broadcasters. Most seem to despise Sinclair, for reasons that I
>am never able to parse into sentences, despite having tried for many years.
Sinclair continues to enjoy support for a significant number of
smaller station groups. There is adequate evidence to suggest that
the movement that Bob wants to initiate could have significant
support among broadcasters. But it would also set off a civil war.
The real place to start this rebellion is with the people, not the
broadcasters. Unfortunately it is nearly impossible to get the
message to the people, as nobody with the ability to reach the masses
is willing to fire the first shot in what would be a bloody war.
Better to keep raping the consumer and just shut up.
>
>Then, you add this at the end:
>> Congress and the FCC are supposed to be interested in more competition
>> for runaway cable bills at least according to the last Chairman of the
>> FCC. This could be an issue that Congress could latch onto if presented
> > right.
>
>Are you drunk or crazy? This amounts to a non-sequitur in the current
>thread. What do cable bills have to do with broadcasters? Oh, you don't
>know that the "broadcasters can compete with cable" ship sailed many decades
>back?
Bob is exactly right. But a real plan needs to be placed at the feet
of the FCC and Congress. A plan that would illustrate that FREE
MULTICHANNEL TV is not only a viable reality today, but the BEST WAY
to bring about competitive market pricing and choice in content.
>Cable is a transitional technology and service: it's only unique service --
>public, educational and governmental public access channels -- they think
>are a burden, but cable modems will keep them alive in the face of superior
>delivery technology.
Sorry John, but you are showing your bias here. With 65% market
share, and new product areas including data and VoIP, cable is indeed
in a transitional phase. It's called GROWTH.
The ONLY THING that can derail Cable and DBS is real competition. If
broadcasters were willing to develop a competitive service that
provides 40-50 channels in the free and clear we would see real
competition and some price relief for consumers.
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:
