[opendtv] Re: Technology years
- From: "Dale Kelly" <dalekelly@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:27:53 -0800
Bert wrote:
> But the CE community has nothing to say about it, right?
Only in that they must include the feature in their equipment, which they
refuse to do unless broadcasters present them with a business plan of which
they approve. I'm not making this up, they have final approval at ATSC. On
the other hand they can simply veto it by omission.
> The limitation on how much bit rate can be taken up with E-VSB
> traffic ONLY applies to prime time (A/53E Section 5.6.1
> and is therefore purely a decision made at the broadcast end.
> There's no reason for the CE vendors to police the E-VSB
> received rate at certain times of day. That would be
> ridiculous, IMO.
Who defines Prime Time? In this case it was defined by two networks but,
should their business plan be protected by a National Standard? Do
independent broadcasters, who might consolidate and create a different
business plan, not have the right to use these bits as they please? How
about the Spanish language networks and others who might plan to mux SD
programs in a robust steam, rather than using HD for a "main" channel. etc,
etc.
You are correct, it is ridiculous and with such restrictions, artificial or
not, EVSB will likely never be widely implemented.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Albert Manfredi
> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 5:14 PM
> To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [opendtv] Re: Technology years
>
>
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
> >I wouldn't use OFDM for satellite either, what is that about?
>
> You asked what schemes did not use COFDM, and I answered. Let's not turn
> this into another religious discussion (as if it hasn't been one
> long enough
> already).
>
> I remember very well the ATM vs Ethernet vs Token Ring wars of
> the early to
> mid 1990s. Most of that was caused by "just enough knowledge to be
> dangerous."
>
> Dale Kelly wrote:
>
> >ATSC hardware was not up to the task until recently, in
> >the interim many jumped ship, while still mouthing support
> >they were in reality "following the money".
>
> This has been part of my aggravation since 2002/2003, when 4th
> and then 5th
> gen designs were announced, tested, AND demoed in the lab and in
> the field.
> I don't know whether this is "recently" or not. To me, in the CE
> business,
> 3-4 years is an eternity. The design of workable ATSC receivers has been
> available a long time, and by more than one company (Micronas, LG, ATI,
> Samsung, ST come to mind).
>
> If people in the business jumped ship by 2002/2003, they simply were not
> paying attention, or they jumped ship because someone made it worth their
> while to do so. To me, broadcasters in that time frame should
> have started
> getting serious about building this new market.
>
> >>Another parenthetical point is that some text in ATSC documents
> >>is just policy statements, I believe. Like the business quoted by
> >>John Shutt. To me, those are easily changed with the stroke of a
> >>pen.
> >
> >Tell that to the CE community.
>
> But the CE community has nothing to say about it, right? The
> limitation on
> how much bit rate can be taken up with E-VSB traffic ONLY applies
> to prime
> time (A/53E Section 5.6.1), and is therefore purely a decision
> made at the
> broadcast end. There's no reason for the CE vendors to police the E-VSB
> received rate at certain times of day. That would be ridiculous, IMO.
>
> Furthermore, the table D5.4a of A/53E clearly shows what the
> E-VSB bit rate
> would be with 100 percent E-VSB traffic. So I don't place any
> importance at
> all on that supposed poison pill. It's a big "who cares."
>
> I can tell the ATSC experience has thoroughly frustrated you and others.
>
> Bert
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Valentine?s Day -- Shop for gifts that spell L-O-V-E at MSN Shopping
> http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctId=8323,ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=
24095&tcode=wlmtagline
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
