Manfredi, Albert E wrote: >John Shutt wrote: > > > >>Until the US offers "DTV Exclusive" programming, it will >>take an analog cutoff to provide any incentive to buy >>digital STBs. >> >> > >Concur 100 percent. Offering more than analog OTA had been >offering seems important also in France and Germany. > > And it would have been offered ala USDTV ventures in 2001 if COFDM had been allowed. And it will be offered when and if there is a solid receiver. > > >>Would this situation been different had the US adopted >>the Sinclair petition? In my opinion YES because >>broadcasters such as Papas and Sinclair would have been >>touting DTV much more than they did, and networks would >>have been looking for ways to leverage more profit by >>offering DTV exclusive derivative multicasts of their >>cable brands. (ESPN/Disney for ABC, News for NBC, MTV >>for CBS, and movies for Fox) >> >> > >I agree, Craig would probably disagree. Craig argued that >the major networks are just as happy making that extra >content they produce exclusive to cable and DBS. My >question was always why not do both? > > Because they are not paying attention. If COFDM had been allowed others would have badgered broadcasters to pay attention. USDTV has gotten the attention some broadcasters who have invested in it. But again if we had a working modulation with inexpensive plug and play receivers all this would have/will happen. Would have happened in 2001, will happen whenever. Broadcasters will start paying a lot more attention now that the deadline is set and will pay even more attention after multicast must carry is finally buried by Congress or the Supreme Court. > > >>As exampled by the prototypes that have been tested by >>Bob Miller, even 2005 STBs fail to live up to the LG >>prototype, so there still is something else to be solved. >> >> > >I think this is overstated, as you know. The problem was >solved, and I've only seen conjecture that the solution is >somehow too expensive. I think a good guess is that the >difference in the LG prototype was the tuner, yes? > > Problems are not solved. STB's that we know we can get today that are not as good as the prototype we have a possible business plan, with unavailable prototype quality receivers we have a better but uninteresting plan with receivers that are probably $100 to $150 more than what COFDM would cost but with COFDM today we have a very exciting plan. Whatever the difference with the prototype only one thing matters, it doesn't exist. >If so, you might be interested to look at the Zarlink web >site. Remember that a Zarlink employee co-authored that >interesting article from Digital TV DesignLine, where he >discussed what it took to make a tuner compliant with A/74. > >Well, gues what? Zarlink seems to have made an all-standards >tuner, probably the motivation for that article. It is >compatible with all their demods, ATSC, DVB-T, DMB-T. It >suggests an intriguing situation where DVB-T front ends are >designed to comply with A/74. > >Anyway, the point is that if the tuner was the difference, >these same good tuners would apply to all DTT receivers, so >the argument that they cost too much can't hold. Or at >least, not for very long. > > We assume they will cost too much and they definitely don't exist. So that is why nothing is happening. So call LG and ask them why. Bob Miller >Bert > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.