[opendtv] Re: TV Technology:
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 07:59:56 -0500
On Jan 29, 2017, at 10:30 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
And the carriers DO NOT dictate the features of these phones.
Wrong. Read through it, don't just scan the first paragraph as you usually
do. The scheme stinks of collusion. Its designed promotes collusion.
http://www.howtogeek.com/163558/how-carriers-and-manufacturers-make-your-android-phones-software-worse/
Thanks for confirming what I already wrote. Carriers do control some of the
functionality on some (but not all) Android phones. This is more common on the
cheap models from second tier vendors looking to capture some market share, and
is one of the major problems with the highly fragmented Android platform.
Yup. THe business model that they are now being forced to adopt
for very practical reasons. It mad sense to let third parties buy
the tower assets so that all carriers can use the vast majority
of existing towers.
No, you missed it. The separate companies were allowed to invent different
and incompatible digital cellular schemes, by the FCC, in the interest of
"innovation." That's why Bell Atlantic, at the time, went big time with
Qualcomm's CDMA, as opposed to the older TDMA used by others, including
GSM-based service.
Yes, the FCC did not attempt to control cellular standards; not sure they could
given the fact that the carriers are paying billions to use this spectrum.
But that is just history in a market where there was limited competition at the
handset and application level. As handset vendors began to break up this
business model there has been increasing pressure to move toward common
modulation standards as we have seen with LTE.
This is not an uncommon pattern for competitive markets. Much the same happened
with PCs: Apple II, IBM PC, Mac, Windows, Linux, Chromebook...
Anyway, whatever the history, the different carriers own their slices of
spectrum in the US. In principle, we could have a more European approach to
this. There is indeed no sense having to deploy different slices of spectrum
in each cell, only because different carriers are sharing a tower. I mean
sure, sometimes the traffic load will warrant this, but often it just creates
waste. If "repacking" makes sense for OTA TV "repacking" makes **even more
sense** for the cell carriers.
Yup. The difference is that they have the legal authority to do this at any
time without having to run to the FCC for regulatory approval. As the
technology advances and networks are built out with microcells it is likely
that there will be more spectrum sharing;
So Bert. Is WiFi such an International standard?
WiFi consists of local hot spots, to extend the coverage of a local broadband
connection. Think of WiFi as nothing more than a big honking Ethernet layer 2
switch, Craig. Think of it as a local fan-out box, to feed multiple devices
from that one broadband modem (broadband modems are also IP routers). That's
all it is.
And cellular phones extend the ability to connect to the global phone network.
What nonsense...
Please read a bit of this article from Qualcomm:
https://www.qualcomm.com/news/snapdragon/2015/01/05/lte-wi-fi-and-back-call-continuity-brings-next-generation-calling
The reality Bert, is that WiFi is going to carry a substantial portion of the
VOIP load in the future. The MVPDs have deployed more than a million hot spots
to help enable and extend this capability.
WiFi was not designed to provide seamless wireless access in large
geographical areas, as OTA TV and cellular telephony must do. So the
situation is totally different. But yes, WiFi is an international standard.
The standard discussed in the Qualcomm article allows the creation of seamless
wireless access across large geographic areas.
Craig adds 2 and 2, and gets 6. As often happens, Craig, you are confused.
WiFi hot spots can operate "anywhere," in the sense that if they interfere
with each other, too bad, so sad, no one else gives a damn.
The standard is designed to deal with local interference, as is the case with
the use of unlicensed spectrum to support wireless phone handsets that connect
o the legacy twisted pair copper telco networks. As I drive around, my iPhone
identifies the WiFi networks it "sees." Years ago I did experience some issues
connecting to WiFi networks in hotels due to capacity issues, but the
technology has evolved and interference and capacity issues are largely a thing
of the past.
Use of licensed spectrum is instead intended to avoid this mutual
interference problem, so that the service is GUARANTEED to work. BUT, in
spite of this, WiFi access points have to meet the IEEE 802.11 standards.
There's an organization to ensure that they do. You can't legally buy a WiFi
access point that transmits 1000 W, Craig.
Nice trip around the issue. My original question was as stated above:
"Is Wi Fi an International standard?"
And speaking of fiefdoms, that term does an admirable job of
describing TV broadcasting. In many countries the government
operates the fiefdom;
Perhaps, but I can easily buy a TV set that is compatible with every single
OTA TV tower out there, Craig, and the TV networks share the same TV band.
This is by design Bert. It is how you create a viable OTA TV service. That
being said, USDTV was a legal OTA service that was not compatible with TVs that
contained the mandated ATSC tuner...
Try again...
I don't need a different TV to watch each network, and the TV networks do not
need multiple frequency channels, to get access to every TV set in the market.
Duh.
I'm finding myself, as always, having to belabor the obvious for Craig's
benefit?
No, you are simply stating the obvious. And how do the networks access TVs that
are not connected to an antenna or MVPD service. How do local stations reach
the growing number of homes that only use Internet access?
Broadband will become a lifeline service, we are told. So, not a big deal in
the long run. And your PC can then access any site, even pay sites. How you
pay the site is a totally different matter. Don't waste my time with silly
arguments, Craig. Pay with a money order, if your must.
Walled Gardens Bert...
The very clear majority of TV is being consumed on demand. In spite of the
propaganda we read, ATSC 3.0, as it is being developed now, as is described
in the standards written so far, is purely a one-way broadcast medium.
Therefore, in spite of the (deliberately) misleading words, ATSC 3.0 is not
designed to offer TV the way most of it is being consumed. At best, it can be
used to feed PVRs, as a work-around measure, to provide emulated on demand
service.
Stick with technical realities, Craig. Going off on nonsensical tangents is
just a waste of words.
Technical realities are not the problem Bert. The reason local stations cannot
offer the programs they stream "live," is that the content owners will not
license the on-demand rights to their affiliates. YOu might take note of the
fact that this is not the case for the network O&O stations that are available
through several VMVPD services, Hulu and the conglom .com and streaming
services like CBS All Access.
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:
- » [opendtv] TV Technology:- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology:- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology:- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology:- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology:- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology:- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology:- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology:- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology:- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology:- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology:- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology:- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology:- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology: - Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology:- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology:- Ron Economos
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology:- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology:- Ron Economos
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology:- Albert Manfredi
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology:- Ron Economos
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology:- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology:- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology:- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology:- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology:- Ron Economos
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology:- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology:- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology:- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology:- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology:- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology:- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology:- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology:- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology:- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology:- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] TV Technology:- Manfredi (US), Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology:- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] TV Technology:- Manfredi Albert E