[opendtv] Re: White paper from CEA
- From: "Tony Neece" <tonyneece@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 00:11:16 -0800
Thanks for the spelling correction. Wasn't sure how he spelled his =
name. =20
Quoted from a New York Times article, June 24, 2004:=20
"LG's new technology is a giant leap toward addressing the multipath
reception problems," said Nat Ostroff, Sinclair vice president for new
technology. Now that consumers will easily be able to receive digital
broadcasts, "the incentive is there for us to go to full power."
I also read a similar statement of his in TV Technology. From that
I gather Mr. Ostroff's position is that with the improved receivers, =
there
is no longer sufficient compelling benefit to COFDM as to warrant an on
going battle to revert back to square one with our DTV standards. =20
-----Original Message-----
From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] =
On
Behalf Of John Willkie
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 11:17 PM
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: White paper from CEA
Another little missed item: it's Nat Ostroff, not Osteroff, and just =
where
did he say this? (Care to comment, Nat?)
John Willkie
> -----Original Message-----
> From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx =
[mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Tony Neece
> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 5:43 AM
> To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [opendtv] Re: White paper from CEA
>=20
> The simple fact is that the broadcasters did at first promote DTT. =
Then
> along came the controversy over changing to COFDM. That caused =3D
> everything
> to come to a halt. STB R & D stopped. Sony and others pulled back =
=3D
> product
> in the pipeline as well as support for HD broadcast production. It =
=3D
> looked
> like VHS vs Beta again. With almost no receivers out there it would =
have
> been asinine for the broadcasters to heavily promote their Digital =3D
> service.
>=20
> The next step came when the dust settled over the modulation standard, =
=3D
> and
> even Nat Osteroff, the most ardent supporter of COFDM, agreed that the
> improved equalizers for ATSC reception made COFDM a dead issue.=3D20
>=20
> What then happened was that the big retailers told the manufacturers =
=3D
> that
> they would be wasting their time to expend R&D on STBs, because the
> retailers had decided it was not in their interest to advertise and =
sell =3D
> an
> item that reduced the incentive to buy new TV sets or sign for Cable =
or =3D
> DBS.
> It was the retailers that killed the market. I read of one retailer =
=3D
> that
> actually told a TV station to STOP advising their viewers to get =3D
> converters,
> because they weren't selling them and didn't want people coming in =3D
> looking
> for them!!! =3D20
>=20
> Oh but how much more fun it is to blame the big bad broadcasters for =
the
> sluggish transition, despite that for 7 years now they have been =3D
> spending
> millions upon millions for new transmitters, new STL's, new terminal =
and
> studio equipment, even new towers in some cases, and a double or =
triple
> power bill at the transmitter sites. The broadcasters did this =3D
> willingly,
> even eagerly in most cases. The station personnel dug in to learn
> completely new technology and measurement technique. No small task =
=3D
> that.
>=20
> It is just too much to expect the broadcaster to carry all the load, =
=3D
> when
> even now, DTT receivers are few and far between in the hands of =
viewers.
> Now, really, does anyone truly think the retailers would be eagerly =
=3D
> pushing
> DVB-T STBs if we had somehow gone that route?=3D20
>=20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx =
[mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] =3D
> On
> Behalf Of Manfredi, Albert E
> Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 4:29 PM
> To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [opendtv] Re: White paper from CEA
>=20
> Frank wrote:
>=20
> > Does anyone think there is any real chance that the
> > FCC could be convinced to reverse it's decision on
> > allowing COFDM? How many corporate executives are
> > foolish enough to bet their careers on a business
> > model that assumes such a change of heart will happen
> > at the FCC?
>=20
> I agree completely. So what's stopping these corporate
> executives from playing in the ATSC market?
>=20
> > That RFP is a joke.
>=20
> That RFP is only a joke if the NAB allows to become a
> joke. In my opinion, it's a good way to kick start the
> market, because it should convince the CE guys that
> *broadcasters* are actually interested in DTT now, as
> opposed to before. And by the way, if anything, the
> NAB ought to include recording devices as well as
> bargain basement simple STBs.
>=20
> > assuming anyone even responded to the RFP
>=20
> I don't understand this. Are you saying that the NAB
> was just making it all up?
>=20
> =
http://www.nab.org/newsroom/pressrel/Releases/100505_Thomson_LG_Converte
> rBox.htm
>=20
> I thought they selected LG and Thomson.
>=20
> > Most companies that are actually in the IC business
> > and highly capitalized have given up on that idea for
> > ATSC DTT. Good luck to any newcomers.
>=20
> But the 5th gen LG chips exist, in quantity production,
> do they not? I don't understand what you're saying here
> either. And it looked like Micronas is also getting
> into the chip market, and perhaps Samsung too.
>=20
> Leaving aside the conspiracy theory for why these DTT
> products aren't coming to market, the only rational
> explanation I can come up with is that the broadcasters
> have been so uninterested in pushing this transition
> that the CE guys saw no credible market out there. Maybe
> the CE guys are expecting OTA to die. (Or maybe Dale is
> correct, and the CE guys are *ensuring* that OTA will
> die.) I'll accept that poor performance was a good
> reason for broadcasters to be uininterested -- in the
> past!
>=20
> Now that decent and low cost receivers have been demoed
> and that some of these are being sold (in LG integrated
> sets, anyway), the best way to get DTT going is for the
> broadcasters to get in the thick of the action, JUST
> LIKE their cable and DBS counterparts do.
>=20
> Bert
>=20
> =3D20
> =3D20
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>=20
> - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
> FreeLists.org=3D20
>=20
> - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
> unsubscribe in the subject line.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>=20
> - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
> FreeLists.org
>=20
> - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
> unsubscribe in the subject line.
=20
=20
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org=20
- 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:
