[opendtv] Re: Technology years
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 08:28:27 -0500
At 10:23 AM -0500 1/24/07, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
I'm afraid you're mixing up two separate discussions here. The
difference is not whether one can innovate or not, the difference is
that the Internet is a many-to-many, primarily unicast medium, while the
ATSC operates in a few-to-everyone broadcast medium, with no credible
scaling of a return path and not nearly enough spectrum for any hopes of
unicast downlink either. That's what limits small, independent efforts.
Pardon my French Bert, but that's about the biggest pile of CRAP you
have ever dumped on this list.
To begin with, you made the comparison between the IETF and the ATSC
- talking about the way the organizations operate, and how they
manage the process of managing and extending their respective
standards. I took the discussion a step further, talking about how
their underlying philosophies promote or stifle innovation.
To summarize once again, one organization codifies innovations around
industry consensus, while the Knights of the ATSC Round Table sit in
their castle, protecting their intellectual property and giving lip
service to the consensus of the industry they are purportedly serving.
No need to discuss this aspect further, as there is ample evidence
from many members of this list to support the claims above.
But now that you have opened up the can of worms about YOUR
perceptions of the differences and intended purpose of the Internet
versus DTV broadcasting...
Once again, I must remind you that you have a closed mind on this
subject and not a clue about what COULD HAVE BEEN created to support
an OPEN Platform for DTV broadcasters, which would have allowed for
the same kinds of innovation we see with the Internet.
The Internet is MANY networks that are interconnected:
wired/wireless, public/private, one-to-one, one-to-many and
many-to-many. DTV broadcasting could EASILY have leveraged the
philosophies behind the Internet, and become a highly valuable
extension of the "Information Superhighways."
Broadcasters DO NOT NEED a back channel to become part of "The
Internet." They already have a pervasive back channel - the Internet
itself.
Did you notice the Sony BRAVIA Internet Video Link announcement at
CES? The one about the the module that they have designed to attach
to virtually all of the TVs that they will be selling in the future.
The module that connects to the broadband connections in a consumers
home (unfortunately only via wired Ethernet), allowing the viewer to
access digital media content from the Internet. The module that uses
an icon based user interface (the Hross Media Bar or HBR) to add the
"Internet Channel" to your programming choices.
I guess you heard about Apple TV, another device that attaches to the
big screen in the family room to expand the media landscape that can
be accessed via the TV. At least Apple included a high speed 802.11n
link in addition to an Ethernet port; and there is a USB port that
has many people speculating about how the functionality of Apple TV
could be extended...
Perhaps with the addition of a USB ATSC tuner?
And then there's the iPhone, which combines a media player with a
wide screen display, a cellular telephone, web browser and messaging
center. It includes multiple wireless network interfaces. How
difficult would it be to add a TV tuner? Not hard at all for DVB-T or
-H. Rather problematic for ATSC considering the power demands.
The point is that the BACK CHANNELS are already in place for
broadcasters. All they need is a platform to exploit it. A platform
that can deliver all kinds of IP multicast bits for all kinds of
applications. A platform that is open and extensible, not locked down
and hard wired.
The ATSC and DVB-T can do much the same thing, within the constraints of
their broadcast medium. For example, any broadcaster can decide to
transmit using any codec he likes, on a subchannel, with proper CA. The
FCC doesn't prevent this. It's difficult only because there are very few
broadcasters out there, and whatever they try only makes sense if huge
masses of people can receive.
Exactly. And the way you enable this kind of innovation is to
ENCOURAGE the development of an open extensible DTV platform. It's
actually not that difficult. Broadcasters could team with Sony or
Apple and use their platforms - all that would be needed is to
support the "transport layer" of the ATSC standard.
It's kind of ironic, that this is EXACTLY what we recommended to the
FCC during the ACATS process. "Just define how the bits are
delivered, don't try to place restrictions on the kinds of bits that
can be delivered.
The ATSC system is hard wired;
You keep saying this, but it's no more so than the Internet. What you
call hard wired is simply an artifact that happens when you want the
consumer toy to be as cheap and high performance as possible.
Blackberries are also hard wired, for example. You're mixing up
different topics.
No I am not. You are the guy who keeps beating the drum for a $50
ATSC receiver. IMHO that is the WRONG GOAL.
The proper goal is a FREE DTV receiver, that is subsidized by the
applications that it supports. Instead, broadcasters choose to be
subsidized by their competitors.
What typically happens, is that participants who hope to do
something meaningful with the standard LEAVE IN DISGUST, after
coming to the realization that a small cadre of companies have
total control over the standard (and the royalty pool), and
that the "open" process is just a sham.
"The grass is greener," I suppose. A lot of IETF participants also
become exasperated.
No doubt. But the reality is that the IETF does codify the really
useful stuff into standards, and as a result new capabilities are
being added to the overall "Internet Experience." based on acceptance
by the marketplace of new technologies that ANY company can develop
independently of the standards process.
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:
