[opendtv] Re: Toward digital TV
- From: Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:50:43 -0500
Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
> 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.
The argument seems to hold indefinitely. Many people have discussed,
demonstrated, or ballyhooed new chips or tuners but for some reason that
does not ever seem to translate into marketable product. That has not
changed yet. It will be obvious when it changes because there will be
reports like the Accurian where something seems to be a good deal.
People will talk about being able to conveniently and economically get
OTA without signing your first born to some satellite provider. When
those reports continue because the manufacturer is making a profit on
them with happy customers then we will be there.
But I see no sign yet. Only paper proofs, promises, and prototypes.
- Tom
> 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.
>
>
>>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?
>
>
>>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?
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
