Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Wal-Mart now selling HDTVs and HDTV STBs

Tags:
  • HDTV
  • TV
  • Home Theatre
Last response: in Home Theatre
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 9:52:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I was in my local Wally-World this past weekend, and saw that they are
selling a variety of widescreen HDTV monitors with OTA STB boxes. System
prices were all three digits.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

More about : wal mart selling hdtvs hdtv stbs

June 2, 2004 5:54:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in
news:p ine.WNT.4.61.0406011746270.5324@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU:

> I was in my local Wally-World this past weekend, and saw that they are
> selling a variety of widescreen HDTV monitors with OTA STB boxes.
> System prices were all three digits.
>
> -- Mark --
>
> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
> Si vis pacem, para bellum.
>

Don't shop walmart but it sounds good
Anonymous
June 2, 2004 8:06:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <Pine.WNT.4.61.0406011746270.5324@tomobiki-cho.cac.washington.edu>,
Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> writes:
> I was in my local Wally-World this past weekend, and saw that they are
> selling a variety of widescreen HDTV monitors with OTA STB boxes. System
> prices were all three digits.
>
It is good that HDTV is more and more mainstream. The HDTV movement
is too big and strong for the FUDsters to have much impact anymore,
but they (the anti-HDTV people like Bob) are still irritating.

I suggest that any time that Bob does an off-topic post, that
we start doing followups to the digital TV newsgroup.

You know, Bob wouldn't post to the HDTV newsgroup unless he felt
that he would have a negative impact against HDTV (considering
his continual anti-HDTV nonsense.)

Bob isn't man enough to post his pro-15FPS internet quality DTV
postings on the digital TV newsgroups, because people are JUST
NOT INTERESTED in his FUZZ-VISION.

John
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
June 2, 2004 8:40:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

John S. Dyson wrote:

> In article <Pine.WNT.4.61.0406011746270.5324@tomobiki-cho.cac.washington.edu>,
> Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> writes:
>
>>I was in my local Wally-World this past weekend, and saw that they are
>>selling a variety of widescreen HDTV monitors with OTA STB boxes. System
>>prices were all three digits.
>>
>
> It is good that HDTV is more and more mainstream. The HDTV movement
> is too big and strong for the FUDsters to have much impact anymore,
> but they (the anti-HDTV people like Bob) are still irritating.
>
> I suggest that any time that Bob does an off-topic post, that
> we start doing followups to the digital TV newsgroup.
>
> You know, Bob wouldn't post to the HDTV newsgroup unless he felt
> that he would have a negative impact against HDTV (considering
> his continual anti-HDTV nonsense.)
>
> Bob isn't man enough to post his pro-15FPS internet quality DTV
> postings on the digital TV newsgroups, because people are JUST
> NOT INTERESTED in his FUZZ-VISION.
>
> John
>
My post are never anti HDTV. They are pro HDTV. It is those who blindly
support 8-VSB that are anti HDTV. This will become more apparent as
other HDTV countries continue their success and even accelerate while we
remain stagnant while switching signals and obsoleting receivers over
the next few years.
Anonymous
June 2, 2004 9:17:59 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <eTcvc.20270$be.15477@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
>>
> My post are never anti HDTV. They are pro HDTV. It is those who blindly
> support 8-VSB that are anti HDTV.
>
Bob, I have seen posts from YOU that you claimed that 480(i/p) was
sufficient. I am not pro/against any modulation scheme, other
than one that works (for example, what I use every day.)

I don't see 8VSB as being a threat, nor do I see COFDM as a threat,
however people like you who are apparently trying to compete for
payload are very clearly anti-HDTV.

John
Anonymous
June 2, 2004 9:18:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:c9jnu7$19oc$1@news.iquest.net...
> In article <eTcvc.20270$be.15477@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
> >>
> > My post are never anti HDTV. They are pro HDTV. It is those who blindly
> > support 8-VSB that are anti HDTV.
> >
> Bob, I have seen posts from YOU that you claimed that 480(i/p) was
> sufficient. I am not pro/against any modulation scheme, other
> than one that works (for example, what I use every day.)
>
> I don't see 8VSB as being a threat, nor do I see COFDM as a threat,
> however people like you who are apparently trying to compete for
> payload are very clearly anti-HDTV.

As a counterpoint, the broadcasters are more than happy to sell it. The bit
rate for HD programs will go down, down, down over the next couple of years.
13.5 Mbps is being thrown around as a good number for the HD program.

I don't like it either, but $$ talks and video quality walks.
Anonymous
June 2, 2004 11:39:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eTcvc.20270$be.15477@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
: >
: My post are never anti HDTV. They are pro HDTV. It is those who
blindly
: support 8-VSB that are anti HDTV. This will become more apparent as
: other HDTV countries continue their success and even accelerate while
we
: remain stagnant while switching signals and obsoleting receivers over
: the next few years.

======================
Bullshit!
You appear to only want TV in your car or on the Bus.
I actually WATCH OTA HD on up to 7 stations.
No problems (except those created by the network or the local).
It works!

You lie!
===========================
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 3:48:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Keith Jack (kjack2@video-demystified.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > I don't see 8VSB as being a threat, nor do I see COFDM as a threat,
> > however people like you who are apparently trying to compete for
> > payload are very clearly anti-HDTV.
>
> As a counterpoint, the broadcasters are more than happy to sell it.

Why should broadcasters--who already are depressed about the overall audience
defection to cable channels, video games, the Internet, etc.--sell something
that will compete with themselves even more?

Especially during prime-time, broadcasters earn far more from their share of
network commericals (and local commercials) than they could hope to get from
any start-up system of one-way data.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/RhymesWithOrange/BigDogs.g...
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 9:08:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <MPG.1b2869a68ff4f7689896ad@razor.nabs.net>,
Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> writes:
>
> Especially during prime-time, broadcasters earn far more from their share of
> network commericals (and local commercials) than they could hope to get from
> any start-up system of one-way data.
>
The broadcasters can also be influenced by snake oil hucksters
who might sell a sufficient commitment of bandwidth to destroy
their HDTV capability... Imagine a senerio where the broadcaster
had been sold a bill of goods by Bob, Inc, and then the bankrupcy
receivers of his snake oil business ends up owning the payload
capability. The receivers end up selling the payload to Ronco,
so we end up lamenting the loss of Tampon, Adult Diaper and
Impotency commercials??!?!?

In essense, the snake oil business is destined to fail, and he
would effectively weaken HDTV also... Perhaps the snake oil
unidirectional tampon commercial scheme is really meant to create
a misery loves company syndrome: the Bob guy who loses out on the tech
boom also tries to destroy HDTV!?!!?!

John
Anonymous
June 4, 2004 12:37:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Doug" <dseaman8@cox.net> wrote in message
news:p 4Jvc.46806$Yr.6196@okepread04...
> Leonard,
>
> I sell HDTV's in Nebraska. (No conflict of interest here, I hope) Do you
> have a list of recommendations for serviceability, repairs, etc, for
> different brands? Or do you just have a gut feeling about most brands?
>
> Doug

I service TVs in Florida. My experience tells me that all brands have
problems occasionally, some seem to consistently be more prone to failure
and some are notoriously hard to service because of design and/or lack of
support.

In general, serviceability is best with Mitsubishi, Hitachi, Sony, &
Panasonic. Sony parts prices are often higher than the others but this
varies a lot. Kudos to Mitsubishi for excellent customer relations and
support for out of warranty disasters. Kudos to Hitachi for having open
access to tech support and service information to all servicers who register
with the for free. Both of these companies have some very fine tech support
people and superb products.

Loewe is overrated in performance, excellent in support, other than limited
detail in schematics. This is the case with some of the other smaller
vendors as well and module level repair items from many vendors, which
unfortunately are becoming to common on the newer technology products.

I like Toshiba in terms of design and performance but parts keep coming up
short and support is variable. I like the performance of Pioneer products
but the serviceability is below average and some parts tend to be expensive
or only available in complete modules where other manufacturers supply
components. Support is variable to poor.

JVC, Philips, and RCA are notoriously lousy in terms of support. Recently
all three are difficult to service due to design. Philips may get better
now that the Chinese are taking over, but who knows.

Zenith (owned by LG, f.k.a. Goldstar) seems to have come around and is
building more reliable and more serviceable products than in the past,
according to dealers I know that do a lot of them. I don't, but from the
ones I have serviced this seems to be the case.

Samsung support is variable. Products range from very poor in design to
very good. Stay away from CRT and PDP based products and stick to the LCD
stuff, though even these seem to have some quirks. Similar comments for
Sharp.

I'd stay away from the re-branded names and lower end products in anything
HD.

Infocus is on my S**tlist for digital projectors due to their refusal to
sell any parts at all and insistence that the products go back to them or
one of their large service contractors, making even the most minor repair
cost hundreds more than it should. Some of the other vendors of this kind
of product do the same.

All of these comments have to be qualified by considering the dealer or shop
doing the service. A good dealer can often intervene on behalf of a
customer to solve problems such as warranty accommodations or parts
shortages. A lousy servicer can make even the best manufacturer look bad.

Leonard
June 4, 2004 4:21:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <c9jjne$189f$3@news.iquest.net>,
toor@iquest.net (John S. Dyson) wrote:

> It is good that HDTV is more and more mainstream.

Well, Wal-Mart tho.

One thing to wonder is if these are true HDTV receivers or if this is
the USDTV thing.
June 4, 2004 4:22:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <10br5iggfpds5af@corp.supernews.com>,
"Keith Jack" <kjack2@video-demystified.com> wrote:

> As a counterpoint, the broadcasters are more than happy to sell it. The bit
> rate for HD programs will go down, down, down over the next couple of years.
> 13.5 Mbps is being thrown around as a good number for the HD program.

Is this with newer codecs?
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 12:39:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

The STB at my local Super-Wally is an over-the-air, no-namo tuner that
appears to be of Chinese origin. The best part is the $199 price.
"Mark Crispin" <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
news:p ine.WNT.4.61.0406011746270.5324@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU...
> I was in my local Wally-World this past weekend, and saw that they are
> selling a variety of widescreen HDTV monitors with OTA STB boxes. System
> prices were all three digits.
>
> -- Mark --
>
> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
> Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 6:09:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"tcassette" <tcassette1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:p v9wc.46960$Yr.28127@okepread04...
> The STB at my local Super-Wally is an over-the-air, no-namo tuner that
> appears to be of Chinese origin. The best part is the $199 price.

did you check out the US DTV website?

In Los Vegas, these guys are compressing 12 "SD" cable channels into what
appears to be ONE ATSC OTA channel... whoa.. must be an incredibly lovely
image.
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 6:35:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vqmdnab9BqX0kV_dRVn-sA@comcast.com...
>
> "tcassette" <tcassette1@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:p v9wc.46960$Yr.28127@okepread04...
> > The STB at my local Super-Wally is an over-the-air, no-namo tuner that
> > appears to be of Chinese origin. The best part is the $199 price.
>
> did you check out the US DTV website?
>
> In Los Vegas, these guys are compressing 12 "SD" cable channels into what
> appears to be ONE ATSC OTA channel... whoa.. must be an incredibly lovely
> image.

I had to do some more checking on this as it seemed very strange

More details... USDTV is using WM9 compression to get the 12 channels and
the box is NOT a standard ATSC but something more powerful, a ATSC plus WM9
box made by Hisense Electric in China... supposedly 400,000 of them have
entered the country.
Also, the USDTV guys plan to ship a disk to go with the box to add PVR
services which will no doubt add additional non-realtime content.

And it appears that the USDTV channels are not coming from a single 12:1
multiplexed OTA channel but instead are actually non-MPEG coded secondary
and opportunistic bitstreams from multiple existing ATSC OTA broadcasters in
the subs - the US stands not for United States but for United Stations.

I wonder if the relative quality of the partner stations' ATSC HD streams
have decreased to make room for the USDTV WM9 bit streams.

This is extremely interesting.
Anonymous
June 6, 2004 6:19:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Randy Sweeney wrote:

> "Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:vqmdnab9BqX0kV_dRVn-sA@comcast.com...
>
>>"tcassette" <tcassette1@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:p v9wc.46960$Yr.28127@okepread04...
>>
>>>The STB at my local Super-Wally is an over-the-air, no-namo tuner that
>>>appears to be of Chinese origin. The best part is the $199 price.
>>
>>did you check out the US DTV website?
>>
>>In Los Vegas, these guys are compressing 12 "SD" cable channels into what
>>appears to be ONE ATSC OTA channel... whoa.. must be an incredibly lovely
>>image.
>
>
> I had to do some more checking on this as it seemed very strange
>
> More details... USDTV is using WM9 compression to get the 12 channels and
> the box is NOT a standard ATSC but something more powerful, a ATSC plus WM9
> box made by Hisense Electric in China... supposedly 400,000 of them have
> entered the country.
> Also, the USDTV guys plan to ship a disk to go with the box to add PVR
> services which will no doubt add additional non-realtime content.
>
> And it appears that the USDTV channels are not coming from a single 12:1
> multiplexed OTA channel but instead are actually non-MPEG coded secondary
> and opportunistic bitstreams from multiple existing ATSC OTA broadcasters in
> the subs - the US stands not for United States but for United Stations.
>
> I wonder if the relative quality of the partner stations' ATSC HD streams
> have decreased to make room for the USDTV WM9 bit streams.
>
> This is extremely interesting.
>
>
Heh I think Randy is getting it, he is starting to get it. And
broadcasters are to. This of course was suggested as far back as late
1999. The benefits of at that time VP4 compression and multiple program
streams with various resolutions and the ability to auto record for
later viewing pre Tivo.

The idea of using all the channels in a market to build an OTA
compelling alternative to cable and satellite that could include HD, SD
and ED and data delivered opportunistically was argued by me and others
on AVSForum, OpenDTV and here ever since.

Now that decent 8-VSB receivers are finally on the horizon broadcasters
are starting to pay attention. The problem is that with 8-VSB and
current FCC regulations current receivers will be regulated to receiving
ONE SD program while new receivers that can handle better codecs will
receive the multiple HD, SD, ED and data streams and PROBABLY in the
form of a subscription based service.

Since doing this with 8-VSB, a real kludge even with better receivers,
and since all current receivers will be rendered obsolete anyway, and
since it would be a real waste to still do even one program stream in
MPEG2, and since broadcasters now are finally becoming interested in OTA
broadcasting again I will bring up another prediction from the past.

Past prediction: if broadcasters ever get really interested in OTA
broadcasting and understand that they can compete with cable and
satellite doing OTA and come to understand how much value better codecs
add to the value of their OTA spectrum (and I thought after a
consolidation of stations by the big boys and a total failure of many
small broadcasters) THAT BROADCASTERS WOULD RISE UP AND GET THE FCC TO
ALLOW COFDM or some other more acceptable modulation. And I said the FCC
would be apt to do that very quickly when and if the broadcasters asked.

After hearing Congressman and Chairman of the House Commerce Committee
Barton in the hearings the other day I think this is now VERY LIKELY.

The plans that Emmis and USDTV propose have as their natural outcome the
elimination of any HDTV with MPEG2 that could be received with current
receivers. If a station has compelling content that they want carried on
cable they will use retransmission consent and sell it. If they do not
have compelling content they will use must carry and some HDTV may be
delivered via MPEG2 that way, that is THE NON COMPELLING STUFF that they
CANNOT SELL to cable.

Anything else will be sold via re-transmission consent and as the OTA
becomes more successful expect broadcasters to WITHHOLD their best
content as competitive juices start flowing. If enough broadcasters with
enough compelling content withhold that content and you can also get
things like HBO or ESPN via ala carte OTA subscription I don't see how
cable and satellite can survive. Who needs them?

Now what if broadcasters had all that, say 20 stations in NYC each with
a combination of HD, SD, ED and opportunistic data that would total out
to anywhere from 240 SD program channels or less with a mix of HD, ED
and SD. But broadcasters will want more than that. They will want to
reach mobile and portable receivers. They will want to be able to do on
channel repeaters and build their networks with SFN capability.

You need COFDM or a better modulation for that no matter what 8-VSB
proponents say. Countries like the Netherlands, Finland and Spain
already have such national networks. Germany, Australia, Japan, Taiwan,
Norway and others are not far behind.

Either current broadcasters use their spectrum wisely or they lose it.
If they lose it someone else will use it wisely. Congress has now put
them on notice. They are going to take back channels 51 through 69 NOW.
Others will use those channels wisely and be back to take the rest of
the TV spectrum if broadcasters stay asleep.
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 9:00:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

The problem Bob, is that WM9 is just the current format of the moment.
If you look into WM9, it's achievement over MPEG-2 relies heavily on
performance enhancements (i.e it requires a much more powerful
processor to decode in real-time than MPEG-2) it's also owned by
Microsoft, which is one of the most successful corporations in history
and one can attribute a large part of Microsoft's success to their
business model of reinventing their products in 2-3 year cycles.

Today we have WM9, WM10 is already in beta (no I'm not being
fecicious), to my knowledge there aren't any huge improvements in the
WM-HD codec, but the point is this gives Microsoft (or whatever
company that wants to follow) a model of creating a higher compression
rate as processors become more powerful. At some point you have to
lock-down, because in two-three years WM9 will be old technology in
the same since that you're looking at MPEG-2 now. I have nothing
against Microsoft, but I can see how it would be in their interest
(and to their gain) to get WM9 adopted and from there it will just be
another product for them to cycle and reinvent.

From my perspective, there's nothing wrong with MPEG-2, it delivers on
quality. It's very easy to look at technology such as WM9 and think
wow's that's what it's all about.. but establishing standards early on
is much more important. Thankfully that's what the FCC has done and as
a fruit of their efforts. Most OTA network affiliates now broadcast HD
feed and while not everyone is pulling that via 8VSB OTA tunner, a
good number of satellite owners are, and for those that aren't this
transition has forced local affilates to get invest in the HD
equipment, inspired them to film HD content and that feed is provided
to local cable companies for non OTA consumption. All of this has
added up to the US being #1 in accessiblity of HDTV programming. So
don't tell us about what's going on in Berlin or Australia because you
always have to take this back to Standard Definition Digital
Television discussion. Look at what those countries have for HDTV
programming and then if you're ready to have that discussion we can.

You should put more thought into your cause.

-Jeremy







Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<hbvwc.2905$uX2.1226@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> Randy Sweeney wrote:
>
> > "Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:vqmdnab9BqX0kV_dRVn-sA@comcast.com...
> >
> >>"tcassette" <tcassette1@cox.net> wrote in message
> >>news:p v9wc.46960$Yr.28127@okepread04...
> >>
> >>>The STB at my local Super-Wally is an over-the-air, no-namo tuner that
> >>>appears to be of Chinese origin. The best part is the $199 price.
> >>
> >>did you check out the US DTV website?
> >>
> >>In Los Vegas, these guys are compressing 12 "SD" cable channels into what
> >>appears to be ONE ATSC OTA channel... whoa.. must be an incredibly lovely
> >>image.
> >
> >
> > I had to do some more checking on this as it seemed very strange
> >
> > More details... USDTV is using WM9 compression to get the 12 channels and
> > the box is NOT a standard ATSC but something more powerful, a ATSC plus WM9
> > box made by Hisense Electric in China... supposedly 400,000 of them have
> > entered the country.
> > Also, the USDTV guys plan to ship a disk to go with the box to add PVR
> > services which will no doubt add additional non-realtime content.
> >
> > And it appears that the USDTV channels are not coming from a single 12:1
> > multiplexed OTA channel but instead are actually non-MPEG coded secondary
> > and opportunistic bitstreams from multiple existing ATSC OTA broadcasters in
> > the subs - the US stands not for United States but for United Stations.
> >
> > I wonder if the relative quality of the partner stations' ATSC HD streams
> > have decreased to make room for the USDTV WM9 bit streams.
> >
> > This is extremely interesting.
> >
> >
> Heh I think Randy is getting it, he is starting to get it. And
> broadcasters are to. This of course was suggested as far back as late
> 1999. The benefits of at that time VP4 compression and multiple program
> streams with various resolutions and the ability to auto record for
> later viewing pre Tivo.
>
> The idea of using all the channels in a market to build an OTA
> compelling alternative to cable and satellite that could include HD, SD
> and ED and data delivered opportunistically was argued by me and others
> on AVSForum, OpenDTV and here ever since.
>
> Now that decent 8-VSB receivers are finally on the horizon broadcasters
> are starting to pay attention. The problem is that with 8-VSB and
> current FCC regulations current receivers will be regulated to receiving
> ONE SD program while new receivers that can handle better codecs will
> receive the multiple HD, SD, ED and data streams and PROBABLY in the
> form of a subscription based service.
>
> Since doing this with 8-VSB, a real kludge even with better receivers,
> and since all current receivers will be rendered obsolete anyway, and
> since it would be a real waste to still do even one program stream in
> MPEG2, and since broadcasters now are finally becoming interested in OTA
> broadcasting again I will bring up another prediction from the past.
>
> Past prediction: if broadcasters ever get really interested in OTA
> broadcasting and understand that they can compete with cable and
> satellite doing OTA and come to understand how much value better codecs
> add to the value of their OTA spectrum (and I thought after a
> consolidation of stations by the big boys and a total failure of many
> small broadcasters) THAT BROADCASTERS WOULD RISE UP AND GET THE FCC TO
> ALLOW COFDM or some other more acceptable modulation. And I said the FCC
> would be apt to do that very quickly when and if the broadcasters asked.
>
> After hearing Congressman and Chairman of the House Commerce Committee
> Barton in the hearings the other day I think this is now VERY LIKELY.
>
> The plans that Emmis and USDTV propose have as their natural outcome the
> elimination of any HDTV with MPEG2 that could be received with current
> receivers. If a station has compelling content that they want carried on
> cable they will use retransmission consent and sell it. If they do not
> have compelling content they will use must carry and some HDTV may be
> delivered via MPEG2 that way, that is THE NON COMPELLING STUFF that they
> CANNOT SELL to cable.
>
> Anything else will be sold via re-transmission consent and as the OTA
> becomes more successful expect broadcasters to WITHHOLD their best
> content as competitive juices start flowing. If enough broadcasters with
> enough compelling content withhold that content and you can also get
> things like HBO or ESPN via ala carte OTA subscription I don't see how
> cable and satellite can survive. Who needs them?
>
> Now what if broadcasters had all that, say 20 stations in NYC each with
> a combination of HD, SD, ED and opportunistic data that would total out
> to anywhere from 240 SD program channels or less with a mix of HD, ED
> and SD. But broadcasters will want more than that. They will want to
> reach mobile and portable receivers. They will want to be able to do on
> channel repeaters and build their networks with SFN capability.
>
> You need COFDM or a better modulation for that no matter what 8-VSB
> proponents say. Countries like the Netherlands, Finland and Spain
> already have such national networks. Germany, Australia, Japan, Taiwan,
> Norway and others are not far behind.
>
> Either current broadcasters use their spectrum wisely or they lose it.
> If they lose it someone else will use it wisely. Congress has now put
> them on notice. They are going to take back channels 51 through 69 NOW.
> Others will use those channels wisely and be back to take the rest of
> the TV spectrum if broadcasters stay asleep.
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 10:17:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"JDeats" <jeremy@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:b0738dc6.0406071600.19e03324@posting.google.com...
> The problem Bob, is that WM9 is just the current format of the moment.
> If you look into WM9, it's achievement over MPEG-2 relies heavily on
> performance enhancements (i.e it requires a much more powerful
> processor to decode in real-time than MPEG-2) it's also owned by
> Microsoft, which is one of the most successful corporations in history
> and one can attribute a large part of Microsoft's success to their
> business model of reinventing their products in 2-3 year cycles.
>
> Today we have WM9, WM10 is already in beta (no I'm not being
> fecicious), to my knowledge there aren't any huge improvements in the
> WM-HD codec, but the point is this gives Microsoft (or whatever
> company that wants to follow) a model of creating a higher compression
> rate as processors become more powerful.

I'm in the WMP10 beta program and can tell you that there is no new WM10
codec. Microsoft is trying to establish a standard with the 9 series codecs.
While they might improve the encoding, my understanding is that any
improvements will be decodable by any OS/application embedded or otherwise
that supports the 9 series codecs.

Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 12:28:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"JDeats" <jeremy@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:b0738dc6.0406071600.19e03324@posting.google.com...
> The problem Bob, is that WM9 is just the current format of the moment.
> If you look into WM9, it's achievement over MPEG-2 relies heavily on
> performance enhancements (i.e it requires a much more powerful
> processor to decode in real-time than MPEG-2) it's also owned by
> Microsoft, which is one of the most successful corporations in history
> and one can attribute a large part of Microsoft's success to their
> business model of reinventing their products in 2-3 year cycles.
>
> Today we have WM9, WM10 is already in beta (no I'm not being
> fecicious), to my knowledge there aren't any huge improvements in the
> WM-HD codec, but the point is this gives Microsoft (or whatever
> company that wants to follow) a model of creating a higher compression
> rate as processors become more powerful. At some point you have to
> lock-down, because in two-three years WM9 will be old technology in
> the same since that you're looking at MPEG-2 now. I have nothing
> against Microsoft, but I can see how it would be in their interest
> (and to their gain) to get WM9 adopted and from there it will just be
> another product for them to cycle and reinvent.
>
> From my perspective, there's nothing wrong with MPEG-2, it delivers on
> quality. It's very easy to look at technology such as WM9 and think
> wow's that's what it's all about.. but establishing standards early on
> is much more important. Thankfully that's what the FCC has done and as
> a fruit of their efforts. Most OTA network affiliates now broadcast HD
> feed and while not everyone is pulling that via 8VSB OTA tunner, a
> good number of satellite owners are, and for those that aren't this
> transition has forced local affilates to get invest in the HD
> equipment, inspired them to film HD content and that feed is provided
> to local cable companies for non OTA consumption. All of this has
> added up to the US being #1 in accessiblity of HDTV programming. So
> don't tell us about what's going on in Berlin or Australia because you
> always have to take this back to Standard Definition Digital
> Television discussion. Look at what those countries have for HDTV
> programming and then if you're ready to have that discussion we can.
>
> You should put more thought into your cause.
>
> -Jeremy

Since I placed Bob on the Plonk list long ago, I didn't see his reply.

The question for the USDTV guys is whether or not their WM9 codec is hard
coded or worse, ASIC'd or if it is software updatable.

If it's fixed, then its future and life is little better then MPEG-2 of
ATSC.

As for HD vs a multiplicity of overcompressed SD, there is no question - HD.

But the use of PVR to deliver multiple channel content with ATSC
opportunistic data streams coinciding with full quality 1080 or 720 HD is
very do-able... and interestingly enough, works perfectly well with 8-VSB.
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 10:37:31 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

JDeats wrote:
> The problem Bob, is that WM9 is just the current format of the moment.
> If you look into WM9, it's achievement over MPEG-2 relies heavily on
> performance enhancements (i.e it requires a much more powerful
> processor to decode in real-time than MPEG-2) it's also owned by
> Microsoft, which is one of the most successful corporations in history
> and one can attribute a large part of Microsoft's success to their
> business model of reinventing their products in 2-3 year cycles.
>
> Today we have WM9, WM10 is already in beta (no I'm not being
> fecicious), to my knowledge there aren't any huge improvements in the
> WM-HD codec, but the point is this gives Microsoft (or whatever
> company that wants to follow) a model of creating a higher compression
> rate as processors become more powerful. At some point you have to
> lock-down, because in two-three years WM9 will be old technology in
> the same since that you're looking at MPEG-2 now. I have nothing
> against Microsoft, but I can see how it would be in their interest
> (and to their gain) to get WM9 adopted and from there it will just be
> another product for them to cycle and reinvent.

See below. Jeremy I know a little about codecs. Two of my partners
started ON2 and the other is a chip designer by trade. VP6 is still the
best.
>
> From my perspective, there's nothing wrong with MPEG-2, it delivers on
> quality. It's very easy to look at technology such as WM9 and think
> wow's that's what it's all about.. but establishing standards early on
> is much more important.

Early is not as important as right. Especially if you lock in as you
suggest. That is the kiss of death as we have seen with the US DTV
transition.

Thankfully that's what the FCC has done and as
> a fruit of their efforts. Most OTA network affiliates now broadcast HD
> feed and while not everyone is pulling that via 8VSB OTA tunner, a
> good number of satellite owners are, and for those that aren't this
> transition has forced local affilates to get invest in the HD
> equipment, inspired them to film HD content and that feed is provided
> to local cable companies for non OTA consumption.

Satellite does not use 8-VSB and is not locked into MPEG2. They can
change their modulation and codec anytime they want.

All of this has
> added up to the US being #1 in accessiblity of HDTV programming. So
> don't tell us about what's going on in Berlin or Australia because you
> always have to take this back to Standard Definition Digital
> Television discussion.

Not SD in OZ or Japan. Soon maybe France and Norway.

Look at what those countries have for HDTV
> programming and then if you're ready to have that discussion we can.

We can see below for schedule of OZ's HD.
>
> You should put more thought into your cause.

You could to.
>
> -Jeremy
>
Well here is more thought Jeremy. They are doing it. It will be done.
WM9, VP6 or MPEG4 will be used by USDTV and EMMIS to deliver more
programming. Whatever you think about it is irrelevant. They will do it
and current MPEG2 receivers will only receive one SD program IMHO.
Microsoft does not own all the codec technology. We may use VP6. The
Chinese may use something else but they did sign on to use VP6. The
Japanese are using MPEG4.

These codecs take more power but they also deliver twice the programming
in the same bandwidth which means more HD, SD or ED programming and at a
higher quality than MPEG2.

At some point you have to lock down? That BS is right from the PR of the
IP holders of MPEG2. And they did a great job of locking themselves in
for another run of IP royalties. Instead of locking down maybe we should
be looking at receivers that can be upgraded to better codecs for a few
years and modulation chips that can do the same. And locking down is the
kiss of death for all current TV/DTV models. Any locking down just gives
the edge to the competitors. Cable and satellite are not locked down.
They will and have to change when the competition changes. They have to
look for every competitive advantage. Broadcasters now have to join that
club and compete. They cannot be tied for 50 years to a format like they
were with NTSC.

In fact being tied to MPEG2 and 8-VSB has already put broadcasters at a
competitive disadvantage and they know it. That is why they are and will
go with models like Emmis and USDTV. And if cable, satellite and
broadcasters all LOCKED UP then they will be run over by the Internet.
It probably will happen anyway. The Internet is not locked up.

The big hurry you seem to think was so important was to lock in the IP
holders of 8-VSB and MPEG2 to the royalty river of money for as long as
possible before it was too late. They saw the handwriting on the wall
and spent lots of money in DC to LOCK IN to the gravy train. Every
minute counted because the computer industry which had arrived at the
party late was starting to make sense in DC. If they had waited another
6 months or year both 8-VSB and MPEG2 would not have stood a chance.

The big hurry has now been followed by the BIG WAIT while NO one buys
receivers. NO ONE should. It is a big rip-off and just because it is
being carried out by the FCC, CEA and Congress does not make it any less
a fraud than Enron. Same thing and similar numbers.

You say MPEG2 delivers on quality? It barely can fit 1080i into 19.34
Mbps as witnessed by every proponent of 8-VSB from the beginning. They
all said that 8-VSB needed every single bit of that 19.34 Mbps to do
1080i and they were right because in reality it needs MORE. MPEG2 cannot
handle 1080i in many cases as witnessed by macroblocking in action scenes.

Here is the Australian schedule for HDTV

http://www.widescreentv.info/

For a country of 20 million or one fourteenth our size who has been
doing DTV and HDTV for all of 2 1/2 years I don't think that is too bad.

I did not find the Japanese schedule of HDTV but they have been doing
HDTV for ten years so they probably have some content. They started DTV
HDTV last December and they must have decent content since they are only
in three cities so far and they have sold a million integrated HDTV sets
since December.

The very simple reality is that it may be as you say that the US has the
most HDTV content though I would like to look at Japanese figures first.
And it may be that we, in fact I am sure the US has the most extensive
number of transmitters doing HDTV on the air.

But that makes it all the more embarrassing that our DTV OTA digital
transition is such a disaster. The fact that we have the most
programming and the most transmitters should translate into the most
viewers watching HDTV, the highest penetration of receivers into our
households, the most active retailers selling OTA receivers with the
most aggressive advertising and the LEAST expensive receivers in vast
quantities because we are as you say the biggest market.

But NONE of the above is true. How can you explain that?

Why do the Japanese buy a million integrated HDTV sets in just a few
months when Japan has just started, has transmitters in only three
cities and may have less content than the US?

It just doesn't make any sense does it.
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 10:37:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Thanks for your comments. The point of my post was that WM9 archieves
it's higher compression rate based largely on processor improvements
in the last few years (try to decode an MPEG-2 at 720p on a Pentium II
800Mhz system and you'll have no problem... try to decode a WM9 on
that same system and it won't happen, it requires a Pentium IV 3.0
Ghz. Now, for set top boxes that processor is going to be a dedicated
chip on the board, but the point is the processing power isn't present
in older boxes to accept a software/firmware based upgrade.

Current boxes will suffer the same fate in 3-4 years from now when
newer codecs come out, because processing power will increase. Even if
a model was adopted where a swapable board could be plugged in to the
main board to provide this decoding power it still would be a huge
hassel for cable and satellite providers to keep up with and keep
reinvesting in the equipment, this is why I say that at some point
there has to be a lock-down on the technology, without that standards
keep involving and if standards keep involving people (including
broadcasters and cable/sat providers) are not going to invest in
equipment out of fear of throwing away money on soon to be outdated
technology (how hard is that to understand?). Adoption of a standard
and paying that standard some respect for several years helps make the
whole process work.

Microsoft cares about making money, that's it. That's what their share
holders care about, as processing power increases they have the
platform now (WM9) to keep reinventing the wheel again, because as
processing power increases they will be able to enhance WM in future
versions for even better compression ratios. Why wouldn't they? In
doing that, they would just be offering up a new product to sell (new
standard = new product to license). Let's say they don't do it. Some
other company will and this lava never gets to harden, no one really
benefits except the corporations who own the patents.

My opinion won't stop any of this from happening, it's just an
observation.


-Jeremy











Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<L8dxc.25710$Tn6.18764@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> JDeats wrote:
> > The problem Bob, is that WM9 is just the current format of the moment.
> > If you look into WM9, it's achievement over MPEG-2 relies heavily on
> > performance enhancements (i.e it requires a much more powerful
> > processor to decode in real-time than MPEG-2) it's also owned by
> > Microsoft, which is one of the most successful corporations in history
> > and one can attribute a large part of Microsoft's success to their
> > business model of reinventing their products in 2-3 year cycles.
> >
> > Today we have WM9, WM10 is already in beta (no I'm not being
> > fecicious), to my knowledge there aren't any huge improvements in the
> > WM-HD codec, but the point is this gives Microsoft (or whatever
> > company that wants to follow) a model of creating a higher compression
> > rate as processors become more powerful. At some point you have to
> > lock-down, because in two-three years WM9 will be old technology in
> > the same since that you're looking at MPEG-2 now. I have nothing
> > against Microsoft, but I can see how it would be in their interest
> > (and to their gain) to get WM9 adopted and from there it will just be
> > another product for them to cycle and reinvent.
>
> See below. Jeremy I know a little about codecs. Two of my partners
> started ON2 and the other is a chip designer by trade. VP6 is still the
> best.
> >
> > From my perspective, there's nothing wrong with MPEG-2, it delivers on
> > quality. It's very easy to look at technology such as WM9 and think
> > wow's that's what it's all about.. but establishing standards early on
> > is much more important.
>
> Early is not as important as right. Especially if you lock in as you
> suggest. That is the kiss of death as we have seen with the US DTV
> transition.
>
> Thankfully that's what the FCC has done and as
> > a fruit of their efforts. Most OTA network affiliates now broadcast HD
> > feed and while not everyone is pulling that via 8VSB OTA tunner, a
> > good number of satellite owners are, and for those that aren't this
> > transition has forced local affilates to get invest in the HD
> > equipment, inspired them to film HD content and that feed is provided
> > to local cable companies for non OTA consumption.
>
> Satellite does not use 8-VSB and is not locked into MPEG2. They can
> change their modulation and codec anytime they want.
>
> All of this has
> > added up to the US being #1 in accessiblity of HDTV programming. So
> > don't tell us about what's going on in Berlin or Australia because you
> > always have to take this back to Standard Definition Digital
> > Television discussion.
>
> Not SD in OZ or Japan. Soon maybe France and Norway.
>
> Look at what those countries have for HDTV
> > programming and then if you're ready to have that discussion we can.
>
> We can see below for schedule of OZ's HD.
> >
> > You should put more thought into your cause.
>
> You could to.
> >
> > -Jeremy
> >
> Well here is more thought Jeremy. They are doing it. It will be done.
> WM9, VP6 or MPEG4 will be used by USDTV and EMMIS to deliver more
> programming. Whatever you think about it is irrelevant. They will do it
> and current MPEG2 receivers will only receive one SD program IMHO.
> Microsoft does not own all the codec technology. We may use VP6. The
> Chinese may use something else but they did sign on to use VP6. The
> Japanese are using MPEG4.
>
> These codecs take more power but they also deliver twice the programming
> in the same bandwidth which means more HD, SD or ED programming and at a
> higher quality than MPEG2.
>
> At some point you have to lock down? That BS is right from the PR of the
> IP holders of MPEG2. And they did a great job of locking themselves in
> for another run of IP royalties. Instead of locking down maybe we should
> be looking at receivers that can be upgraded to better codecs for a few
> years and modulation chips that can do the same. And locking down is the
> kiss of death for all current TV/DTV models. Any locking down just gives
> the edge to the competitors. Cable and satellite are not locked down.
> They will and have to change when the competition changes. They have to
> look for every competitive advantage. Broadcasters now have to join that
> club and compete. They cannot be tied for 50 years to a format like they
> were with NTSC.
>
> In fact being tied to MPEG2 and 8-VSB has already put broadcasters at a
> competitive disadvantage and they know it. That is why they are and will
> go with models like Emmis and USDTV. And if cable, satellite and
> broadcasters all LOCKED UP then they will be run over by the Internet.
> It probably will happen anyway. The Internet is not locked up.
>
> The big hurry you seem to think was so important was to lock in the IP
> holders of 8-VSB and MPEG2 to the royalty river of money for as long as
> possible before it was too late. They saw the handwriting on the wall
> and spent lots of money in DC to LOCK IN to the gravy train. Every
> minute counted because the computer industry which had arrived at the
> party late was starting to make sense in DC. If they had waited another
> 6 months or year both 8-VSB and MPEG2 would not have stood a chance.
>
> The big hurry has now been followed by the BIG WAIT while NO one buys
> receivers. NO ONE should. It is a big rip-off and just because it is
> being carried out by the FCC, CEA and Congress does not make it any less
> a fraud than Enron. Same thing and similar numbers.
>
> You say MPEG2 delivers on quality? It barely can fit 1080i into 19.34
> Mbps as witnessed by every proponent of 8-VSB from the beginning. They
> all said that 8-VSB needed every single bit of that 19.34 Mbps to do
> 1080i and they were right because in reality it needs MORE. MPEG2 cannot
> handle 1080i in many cases as witnessed by macroblocking in action scenes.
>
> Here is the Australian schedule for HDTV
>
> http://www.widescreentv.info/
>
> For a country of 20 million or one fourteenth our size who has been
> doing DTV and HDTV for all of 2 1/2 years I don't think that is too bad.
>
> I did not find the Japanese schedule of HDTV but they have been doing
> HDTV for ten years so they probably have some content. They started DTV
> HDTV last December and they must have decent content since they are only
> in three cities so far and they have sold a million integrated HDTV sets
> since December.
>
> The very simple reality is that it may be as you say that the US has the
> most HDTV content though I would like to look at Japanese figures first.
> And it may be that we, in fact I am sure the US has the most extensive
> number of transmitters doing HDTV on the air.
>
> But that makes it all the more embarrassing that our DTV OTA digital
> transition is such a disaster. The fact that we have the most
> programming and the most transmitters should translate into the most
> viewers watching HDTV, the highest penetration of receivers into our
> households, the most active retailers selling OTA receivers with the
> most aggressive advertising and the LEAST expensive receivers in vast
> quantities because we are as you say the biggest market.
>
> But NONE of the above is true. How can you explain that?
>
> Why do the Japanese buy a million integrated HDTV sets in just a few
> months when Japan has just started, has transmitters in only three
> cities and may have less content than the US?
>
> It just doesn't make any sense does it.
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 12:59:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"JDeats" <jeremy@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:b0738dc6.0406080455.dd23501@posting.google.com...
> Thanks for your comments. The point of my post was that WM9 archieves
> it's higher compression rate based largely on processor improvements
> in the last few years (try to decode an MPEG-2 at 720p on a Pentium II
> 800Mhz system and you'll have no problem... try to decode a WM9 on
> that same system and it won't happen, it requires a Pentium IV 3.0
> Ghz. Now, for set top boxes that processor is going to be a dedicated
> chip on the board, but the point is the processing power isn't present
> in older boxes to accept a software/firmware based upgrade.

It's actually a 2.4 GHz processor that's specified for home PC's and the
requirements are reduced significantly for STB's that aren't running and
home PC at the same time. I decode WMV9 HD with an Athlon XP 2700 which runs
at 2.1 GHz without issue.

Here's some more news "press release" about Microsoft and ST
Microelectronics teaming up with WM9 technology for STB's and DVD players.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2004/jun04/06-...


Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 5:14:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Charles Tomaras (tomaras@tomaras.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> It's actually a 2.4 GHz processor that's specified for home PC's and the
> requirements are reduced significantly for STB's that aren't running and
> home PC at the same time. I decode WMV9 HD with an Athlon XP 2700 which runs
> at 2.1 GHz without issue.

I have no problem with a Celeron 1.7GHz decoding HD WMV, but then I have a
pretty fast video card (Radeon 9700). That extra 400 or so MHz of
processing power on the video card can make up for almost 2GHz of general-
purpose processor.

Before I upgraded video cards, I could *not* do the decode without stutters.
The previous card was a 3dfx Voodoo3 3000.

--
Jeff Rife | "I have a question that could affect our entire
SPAM bait: | relationship...did you kill Coach Mattay?"
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | "No!"
uce@ftc.gov | "But, you did dress him up like a woman...?"
| "Yeah."
| "Just checking."
| -- Alex Lambert and Brian Hackett, "Wings"
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 7:13:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

JDeats wrote:
> Thanks for your comments. The point of my post was that WM9 archieves
> it's higher compression rate based largely on processor improvements
> in the last few years (try to decode an MPEG-2 at 720p on a Pentium II
> 800Mhz system and you'll have no problem... try to decode a WM9 on
> that same system and it won't happen, it requires a Pentium IV 3.0
> Ghz. Now, for set top boxes that processor is going to be a dedicated
> chip on the board, but the point is the processing power isn't present
> in older boxes to accept a software/firmware based upgrade.
>
> Current boxes will suffer the same fate in 3-4 years from now when
> newer codecs come out, because processing power will increase. Even if
> a model was adopted where a swapable board could be plugged in to the
> main board to provide this decoding power it still would be a huge
> hassel for cable and satellite providers to keep up with and keep
> reinvesting in the equipment, this is why I say that at some point
> there has to be a lock-down on the technology, without that standards
> keep involving and if standards keep involving people (including
> broadcasters and cable/sat providers) are not going to invest in
> equipment out of fear of throwing away money on soon to be outdated
> technology (how hard is that to understand?). Adoption of a standard
> and paying that standard some respect for several years helps make the
> whole process work.
>
> Microsoft cares about making money, that's it. That's what their share
> holders care about, as processing power increases they have the
> platform now (WM9) to keep reinventing the wheel again, because as
> processing power increases they will be able to enhance WM in future
> versions for even better compression ratios. Why wouldn't they? In
> doing that, they would just be offering up a new product to sell (new
> standard = new product to license). Let's say they don't do it. Some
> other company will and this lava never gets to harden, no one really
> benefits except the corporations who own the patents.
>
> My opinion won't stop any of this from happening, it's just an
> observation.
>
>
> -Jeremy
>
The computer industry and the Internet are not locked up. All other
forms of delivering video to the home are now in direct competition with
broadband Internet. That broadband is about to explode to another level
with new players.

The current digital transition locked into MPEG2 and 8-VSB is falling
behind rapidly. Broadcasters have already found a way around MPEG2
because of this competitive threat. This kludge solution obsoletes all
current 8-VSB receivers that is broadcasters will not deliver any more
than SD to them. Broadcasters will deliver whatever they are serious
about over MPEG4 or whatever.

So that fact is that our LOCK-UP has already been picked.

The kludge solution by broadcasters waste spectrum in the delivery of
that SD program to satisfy the FCC. The FCC MANDATE waste consumers
money buying a receiver that is obsolete.

Broadcasters will find that being LOCKED OUT of better modulation that
would allow mobile reception forces them to compete with other methods
of delivery to fixed receivers in the home that have much more
bandwidth. (broadcasters 6 MHz, cable satellite and ultra broadband Gbps
plus).

This same modulation LOCK-UP keeps them from doing what they can do but
their competitors cannot and that is MOBILE/PORTABLE reception just as
manufacturers will be flooding the world market with all kinds of mobile
devices that broadcasters could deliver DTV to.

The rest of the world's broadcasters will be doing this in spades. New
broadcasters will be doing it in the US on spectrum bought at auction.
Broadcasters will find themselves in the same boat as S.Korean and
Taiwanese broadcasters found themselves, stuck with 8-VSB and demanding
COFDM.

8-VSB still promises just a torturous path of wasted time and money
before we finally do things right IMO.

The Senate Commerce Committee is having a hearing tomorrow on the
digital transition. Michael Calabrese is a witness. Here is a note from
him. I don't agree with what he proposes. It will fail also because of
8-VSB but he makes a lot of good points like abolishing the MANDATE.
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 7:15:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Bob Miller wrote:

> JDeats wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your comments. The point of my post was that WM9 archieves
>> it's higher compression rate based largely on processor improvements
>> in the last few years (try to decode an MPEG-2 at 720p on a Pentium II
>> 800Mhz system and you'll have no problem... try to decode a WM9 on
>> that same system and it won't happen, it requires a Pentium IV 3.0
>> Ghz. Now, for set top boxes that processor is going to be a dedicated
>> chip on the board, but the point is the processing power isn't present
>> in older boxes to accept a software/firmware based upgrade.
>>
>> Current boxes will suffer the same fate in 3-4 years from now when
>> newer codecs come out, because processing power will increase. Even if
>> a model was adopted where a swapable board could be plugged in to the
>> main board to provide this decoding power it still would be a huge
>> hassel for cable and satellite providers to keep up with and keep
>> reinvesting in the equipment, this is why I say that at some point
>> there has to be a lock-down on the technology, without that standards
>> keep involving and if standards keep involving people (including
>> broadcasters and cable/sat providers) are not going to invest in
>> equipment out of fear of throwing away money on soon to be outdated
>> technology (how hard is that to understand?). Adoption of a standard
>> and paying that standard some respect for several years helps make the
>> whole process work.
>>
>> Microsoft cares about making money, that's it. That's what their share
>> holders care about, as processing power increases they have the
>> platform now (WM9) to keep reinventing the wheel again, because as
>> processing power increases they will be able to enhance WM in future
>> versions for even better compression ratios. Why wouldn't they? In
>> doing that, they would just be offering up a new product to sell (new
>> standard = new product to license). Let's say they don't do it. Some
>> other company will and this lava never gets to harden, no one really
>> benefits except the corporations who own the patents.
>>
>> My opinion won't stop any of this from happening, it's just an
>> observation.
>>
>>
>> -Jeremy
>>
> The computer industry and the Internet are not locked up. All other
> forms of delivering video to the home are now in direct competition with
> broadband Internet. That broadband is about to explode to another level
> with new players.
>
> The current digital transition locked into MPEG2 and 8-VSB is falling
> behind rapidly. Broadcasters have already found a way around MPEG2
> because of this competitive threat. This kludge solution obsoletes all
> current 8-VSB receivers that is broadcasters will not deliver any more
> than SD to them. Broadcasters will deliver whatever they are serious
> about over MPEG4 or whatever.
>
> So that fact is that our LOCK-UP has already been picked.
>
> The kludge solution by broadcasters waste spectrum in the delivery of
> that SD program to satisfy the FCC. The FCC MANDATE waste consumers
> money buying a receiver that is obsolete.
>
> Broadcasters will find that being LOCKED OUT of better modulation that
> would allow mobile reception forces them to compete with other methods
> of delivery to fixed receivers in the home that have much more
> bandwidth. (broadcasters 6 MHz, cable satellite and ultra broadband Gbps
> plus).
>
> This same modulation LOCK-UP keeps them from doing what they can do but
> their competitors cannot and that is MOBILE/PORTABLE reception just as
> manufacturers will be flooding the world market with all kinds of mobile
> devices that broadcasters could deliver DTV to.
>
> The rest of the world's broadcasters will be doing this in spades. New
> broadcasters will be doing it in the US on spectrum bought at auction.
> Broadcasters will find themselves in the same boat as S.Korean and
> Taiwanese broadcasters found themselves, stuck with 8-VSB and demanding
> COFDM.
>
> 8-VSB still promises just a torturous path of wasted time and money
> before we finally do things right IMO.
>
> The Senate Commerce Committee is having a hearing tomorrow on the
> digital transition. Michael Calabrese is a witness. Here is a note from
> him. I don't agree with what he proposes. It will fail also because of
> 8-VSB but he makes a lot of good points like abolishing the MANDATE.

Forgot the note.

Dear Colleagues,

This Wednesday, June 9th, the Senate Commerce Committee will convene a
9:30 AM hearing on "Completing the Digital Television Transition,"
(<http://commerce.senate.gov/&gt;). The Committee will hear testimony from
spectrum policy experts, including the New America Foundation's Michael
Calabrese, who will present a plan using targeted, consumer subsidies to
rapidly complete the DTV transition, while also generating tens of
billions of dollars against the deficit with the swift return of analog
broadcast spectrum.

New America's proposal for a consumer subsidy to rapidly complete the
DTV transition is detailed in the Spectrum Policy Program's latest Issue
Brief, "Speeding the DTV Transition," available here:
http://www.newamerica.net/Download_Docs/pdfs/Pub_File_1...

Building on the success of the nine-month Berlin, Germany DTV
transition, the Issue Brief details how progressive consumer subsidies
can quickly move the remaining 15% of U.S. households that only receive
"over-the-air" broadcast TV to purchase inexpensive, set-top converter
boxes to enable them to receive digital signals. By tapping less than
2% of the expected revenues from the auction of analog broadcast
spectrum to pay for the subsidy, the politically tricky DTV endgame can
be accomplished by the end of 2007, freeing up valuable spectrum for
wireless broadband services and establishing a much-needed trust fund
for the future of public television.

The New America Foundation plan, co-authored by Calabrese and J.H.
Snider, includes the following provisions:

1) Fixed Turn-off Date: January 1, 2008 deadline for analog turn-off and
spectrum clearance.

2) Reschedule Auctions: For assignment of licensed portion of the
returned spectrum for 2006.

3) Consumer Subsidy: Using a fraction of auction revenues, authorize a
refundable tax credit available to consumers during 2007 to offset the
cost of converting from analog to DTV reception.

4) Consumer Flexibility: Give consumers flexibility to apply the credit
to over-the-air (OTA) converter boxes, new DTV sets, or for initial
satellite dish or cable set-up costs.

5) Revoke DTV Tuner Mandate: Reverse FCC's 2003 "tuner tax," allowing
the vast majority of consumers to avoid the unnecessary cost of an OTA
tuner.

6) Spectrum Reallocation: Preserve 24 MHz of spectrum for public safety,
divide the remaining 84 MHz equally roughly in half for use by licensed
and unlicensed wireless broadband providers.

7) Switch from Analog to Digital Must-Carry: Upon return of their
analog channel license, a broadcaster can choose single channel digital
must-carry (with no signal degradation); after Jan. 1, 2008, cable
systems must carry broadcasters' primary digital signal, but can choose
to cease down-converting the digital signal for analog reception.

8) Update DTV Public Interest Obligations: The obligations of broadcast
licensees should be extended to all "free" OTA programming streams and
expanded to include the lesser of 3 hours or 3 percent of programming
time for local civic and electoral programming.

9) Earmark spectrum revenue for PBS and DOIT: A portion of the spectrum
auction revenue should be earmarked for investment in the future of
public television and digital education, capitalizing a trust fund for
the future of PBS and/or a Digital Opportunity Investment Trust.

This Issue Brief and dozens of other Spectrum Policy program papers and
reports are available at our website, www.spectrumpolicy.org.

Kind regards,

Michael Calabrese
Director, Spectrum Policy Program
New America Foundation
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 7:22:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I think the point of his post was that WM9 relies on processor
improvements to decode HD in real-time and that processing power
improvements have made WM9 possible, while the hardware requirements
to decode MPEG-2 are signifigantly less.

If you take the discussion to STBs the same principle seems like it
would be true by whatever factor. That is, even if a STB requires much
less CPU/GPU power than a PC a STB would require much less power to
decode an MPEG-2 in real-time. The processing power has to come from
somewhere. This seems like it would be an accurate statement, does it
not?






"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message news:<FMOdnedJn6zEf1jdRVn-gQ@comcast.com>...
> "JDeats" <jeremy@pdq.net> wrote in message
> news:b0738dc6.0406080455.dd23501@posting.google.com...
> > Thanks for your comments. The point of my post was that WM9 archieves
> > it's higher compression rate based largely on processor improvements
> > in the last few years (try to decode an MPEG-2 at 720p on a Pentium II
> > 800Mhz system and you'll have no problem... try to decode a WM9 on
> > that same system and it won't happen, it requires a Pentium IV 3.0
> > Ghz. Now, for set top boxes that processor is going to be a dedicated
> > chip on the board, but the point is the processing power isn't present
> > in older boxes to accept a software/firmware based upgrade.
>
> It's actually a 2.4 GHz processor that's specified for home PC's and the
> requirements are reduced significantly for STB's that aren't running and
> home PC at the same time. I decode WMV9 HD with an Athlon XP 2700 which runs
> at 2.1 GHz without issue.
>
> Here's some more news "press release" about Microsoft and ST
> Microelectronics teaming up with WM9 technology for STB's and DVD players.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2004/jun04/06-...
>
>
> Charles Tomaras
> Seattle, WA
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 7:59:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"JamesMason" <jmason@funnydelight.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D 4e30081.0406081422.1b83d5ed@posting.google.com...
>I think the point of his post was that WM9 relies on processor
> improvements to decode HD in real-time and that processing power
> improvements have made WM9 possible, while the hardware requirements
> to decode MPEG-2 are signifigantly less.
>
> If you take the discussion to STBs the same principle seems like it
> would be true by whatever factor. That is, even if a STB requires much
> less CPU/GPU power than a PC a STB would require much less power to
> decode an MPEG-2 in real-time. The processing power has to come from
> somewhere. This seems like it would be an accurate statement, does it
> not?

Yes it seems reasonable save for the fact that the cost of the required
processing power has diminished and continues to diminish very quickly. I
think we are reaching a point where the economy of processing power vs
bandwidth will turn the tide towards muscle.

Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 10:32:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"JDeats" <jeremy@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:b0738dc6.0406080455.dd23501@posting.google.com...

> Microsoft cares about making money, that's it. That's what their share
> holders care about, as processing power increases they have the
> platform now (WM9) to keep reinventing the wheel again, because as
> processing power increases they will be able to enhance WM in future
> versions for even better compression ratios. Why wouldn't they?

Because making money is very difficult if you piss off your customers.
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 10:33:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:FMOdnedJn6zEf1jdRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
>
> "JDeats" <jeremy@pdq.net> wrote in message
> news:b0738dc6.0406080455.dd23501@posting.google.com...
> > Thanks for your comments. The point of my post was that WM9 archieves
> > it's higher compression rate based largely on processor improvements
> > in the last few years (try to decode an MPEG-2 at 720p on a Pentium II
> > 800Mhz system and you'll have no problem... try to decode a WM9 on
> > that same system and it won't happen, it requires a Pentium IV 3.0
> > Ghz. Now, for set top boxes that processor is going to be a dedicated
> > chip on the board, but the point is the processing power isn't present
> > in older boxes to accept a software/firmware based upgrade.
>
> It's actually a 2.4 GHz processor that's specified for home PC's and the
> requirements are reduced significantly for STB's that aren't running and
> home PC at the same time. I decode WMV9 HD with an Athlon XP 2700 which
runs
> at 2.1 GHz without issue.

I run WM9 HD (720P) on a 1.7G P4 Dell with GeForce 5200
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 11:01:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

But do you see the expontential increase in processing power every few
years slowing down? From what I gather it isn't. Taking that into
consideration it seems that if there is a way to achieve a higher
compression ratio based on processor performance enahncements why
would the trend stop? It seems that to stay competitive Microsoft
would continue down this path.

Since the public seems to embrace new technology every few years (by
"embrance" I mean they're willing to pay for it), it makes since that
Microsoft would pursue this. If that were the long term plan, it
wouldn't make since to put out a PR telling the world about those
plans for obvious reasons.

It would also put Microsoft it a great position, because they become
the technology providers and the communication providers: TimeWarners,
ComCast, DirectTV get to compete for who will jump on a new standard
before the others.

It seems were already discussing WM9 vs MPEG-2 and the advantages the
providers who offer WM9 have today. Who knows, this may just be the
natural progression of things that eventually leads us to HD on every
channel, I don't think anyone would argue that would be a bad thing.

Also, maybe it's a lot less dramatic than some of us are making out.

BTW. I noticed you're based in Seattle. Do you happen to work for
Microsoft?


*****************
James



"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
> Yes it seems reasonable save for the fact that the cost of the required
> processing power has diminished and continues to diminish very quickly. I
> think we are reaching a point where the economy of processing power vs
> bandwidth will turn the tide towards muscle.
>
> Charles Tomaras
> Seattle, WA
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 5:10:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

JamesMason (jmason@funnydelight.co.uk) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> But do you see the expontential increase in processing power every few
> years slowing down? From what I gather it isn't.

Actually, if you look at the top-end processors from companies like Intel,
we are slowing down in the increase in raw clock speed. The newest "top
of the line" just has things like more on-chip cache, faster FSB (which
really is in many ways just a function of the surrounding) chipset, etc.
The next fastest thing will be 64-bit processors, but that probably won't
invade the embedded market for a very long time.

Top of the line last year was just over 3.0GHz. Right now, it is 3.4GHz.
But, a year before that, top of the line was down around 2.0GHz, and previous
to that were chips that did far fewer instructions per clock cycle.

This same effect probably won't hit the STB market for a *long* time, though,
as they are always several generations in speed behind the bleeding edge.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/TractorBeam.jpg
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
June 10, 2004 3:34:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Rife wrote:
> JamesMason (jmason@funnydelight.co.uk) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>But do you see the expontential increase in processing power every few
>>years slowing down? From what I gather it isn't.
>
>
> Actually, if you look at the top-end processors from companies like Intel,
> we are slowing down in the increase in raw clock speed. The newest "top
> of the line" just has things like more on-chip cache, faster FSB (which
> really is in many ways just a function of the surrounding) chipset, etc.
> The next fastest thing will be 64-bit processors, but that probably won't
> invade the embedded market for a very long time.
>
> Top of the line last year was just over 3.0GHz. Right now, it is 3.4GHz.
> But, a year before that, top of the line was down around 2.0GHz, and previous
> to that were chips that did far fewer instructions per clock cycle.
>
> This same effect probably won't hit the STB market for a *long* time, though,
> as they are always several generations in speed behind the bleeding edge.
>

Intel has announced that they are abandoning development of ever faster
CPU chips and focusing on dual core (two processors on a chip) instead.
Something about being unable to manage cooling faster processors without
resorting to liquid cooling.

Matthew

--
If the war in Iraq was over oil, we lost.
Anonymous
June 10, 2004 3:34:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Matthew L. Martin (mlmartin@me.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Intel has announced that they are abandoning development of ever faster
> CPU chips and focusing on dual core (two processors on a chip) instead.
> Something about being unable to manage cooling faster processors without
> resorting to liquid cooling.

This reminds me of the "uber-overclockers" who are running the Intel 3.4GHz
Pentium 4 chips at over 5GHz using liquid nitrogen for cooling.

I'd like to see real dual processing hit the mainstream cheaply. A dual
processor machine running a GUI is much more "apparently responsive" than
a single processor, even when the raw clock speed is much slower.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/ToDo.gif
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
June 10, 2004 3:34:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b317b4b4baa74409896c8@razor.nabs.net...
> This reminds me of the "uber-overclockers" who are running the Intel
> 3.4GHz
> Pentium 4 chips at over 5GHz using liquid nitrogen for cooling.
>
> I'd like to see real dual processing hit the mainstream cheaply. A dual
> processor machine running a GUI is much more "apparently responsive" than
> a single processor, even when the raw clock speed is much slower.

Was just in the process of helping a friend upgrade her dual Athlon MP video
editing computer and was surprised at how cheap the MP processors are
selling for now. She's got a pair of MP 2300's in there and the computer
really runs fast and smooth.