[opendtv] Re: TV Technology:
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 08:09:34 -0500
On Jan 24, 2017, at 10:46 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Perhaps in large urban markets. Out in the boonies? Still, I was never a fan,
so it's okay with me.
Out in the boonies there is no shortage of spectrum available for alternatives
devices. The major dust-up about using white spaces came from those in urban
markets concerned about interference with both TV signals and other devices
like wireless microphones .
Sounds like Craig repeating the same generic rhetoric we've been reading, but
never any convincing ideas to back it up. Push comes to shove, it's still a
one-way broadcast OTA service. It should be easier to receive than ATSC 1.0,
assuming reasonably robust modes are used. Aside from that, it has the same
fundamental limitation of any one-way broadcast medium. I've yet to see any
of these "many reasons to be positive."
Sorry to annoy you again with facts Bert.
When a valuable resource is being used in efficiently by a small percentage of
the population it is reasonable to express concern, and to suggest that this
spectrum should be revitalized to provide services that appeal to the entire
population.
Simply making the existing service a bit more reliable (receivable?) is not
going to move the needle. I don't use an antenna now; why would I start using
one with ATSC 3.0 if the service is unchanged?
One could argue that mobile reception will be the big change! And in the next
breath the person making that argument will tell us we need a mandate to put an
ATSC 3.0 receiver in every smart phone sold in the U.S.
I'm sure that a liberal FCC in the future could find the rational for such a
receiver requirement in phones as they are now being used as TVs too.
Never mind that I already have very reliable mobile reception of TV via my
cellular data service, with far more choice than local broadcasters cab provide.
I do not think it unreasonable to suggest that the broadcast spectrum be used
to serve everyone, nor to suggest that broadcasters re-invent themselves if
they hope to survive.
Eliminate the requirement for ATSC 1.0 tuners
We all know, Craig, that you champion only anti-competitive systems. Much
like you champion the limited-use streaming boxes, that deliberately block
access to the vast majority of streaming sites.
Get real.
Why would you require an ATSC tuner in every TV when you authorize broadcasters
to use ATSC 3.0?
But that completely misses the point. Why should the government mandate we buy
something that most people do not use, when it is as simple to add a tuner to a
TV as it is to add a connectedTV box?
Maybe that tortured liberal FCC prof the future could mandate that every TV
include a connected TV capability? Funny how this has already happened in large
part due to marketplace forces...
As for Net Neutrality, there will be no battle. It will be rolled
back
Like I just finished saying. Chairman Pai will most certainly get an
avalanche of complaints, if he rolls back net neutrality, and the MVPD/ISPs
take advantage in ways they well know how. It will be most interesting to
watch.
Yes it will be interesting to watch nothing happen. There never was a net
neutrality problem. Any abuses can already be addressed via - brace yourself
Bert - the legal system and other agencies that are tasked with regulating
anti-competitive behavior.
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