Industry Analysts report critical of US DTV Transition
Last response: in Home Theatre
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C51821AB8
"Much of the report’s criticism centred on the US, which it claimed had
showed little leadership in terms of developing a global standard for
new technologies and business models for terrestrial television."
http://www.researchandmarkets.com/
Major mistake on our part. We are in the process of handing the baton to
China. Since the US has decided to let its corrupt political process
dictate industrial policy we will find that others will now make their
own standards.
Much of the world has stood in baffled surprise as the US has mangled
its digital transition. They expected leadership and watched as the US
mandated garbage with no regard to the best interest of its citizens.
Expect that this report is only early criticism, there will be a lot more.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C51821AB8
"Much of the report’s criticism centred on the US, which it claimed had
showed little leadership in terms of developing a global standard for
new technologies and business models for terrestrial television."
http://www.researchandmarkets.com/
Major mistake on our part. We are in the process of handing the baton to
China. Since the US has decided to let its corrupt political process
dictate industrial policy we will find that others will now make their
own standards.
Much of the world has stood in baffled surprise as the US has mangled
its digital transition. They expected leadership and watched as the US
mandated garbage with no regard to the best interest of its citizens.
Expect that this report is only early criticism, there will be a lot more.
More about : industry analysts report critical dtv transition
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
Bob Miller wrote:
>
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?C51821AB8
>
> "Much of the report’s criticism centred on the US, which it claimed had
> showed little leadership in terms of developing a global standard for
> new technologies and business models for terrestrial television."
>
> http://www.researchandmarkets.com/
How about a link to the report, instead of an opinion piece that may
have taken information out of context like you do all of the time.
> Major mistake on our part. We are in the process of handing the baton to
> China. Since the US has decided to let its corrupt political process
> dictate industrial policy we will find that others will now make their
> own standards.
I've told you before, if you have proof of illegal activities, you could
get the ATSC decision revisited on those grounds alone. Pony up that proof.
> Much of the world has stood in baffled surprise as the US has mangled
> its digital transition. They expected leadership and watched as the US
> mandated garbage with no regard to the best interest of its citizens.
All, of course, YNSHO.
> Expect that this report is only early criticism, there will be a lot more.
It's too late for early criticism.
Matthew
--
If the war in Iraq was over oil, we lost.
Bob Miller wrote:
>
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?C51821AB8
>
> "Much of the report’s criticism centred on the US, which it claimed had
> showed little leadership in terms of developing a global standard for
> new technologies and business models for terrestrial television."
>
> http://www.researchandmarkets.com/
How about a link to the report, instead of an opinion piece that may
have taken information out of context like you do all of the time.
> Major mistake on our part. We are in the process of handing the baton to
> China. Since the US has decided to let its corrupt political process
> dictate industrial policy we will find that others will now make their
> own standards.
I've told you before, if you have proof of illegal activities, you could
get the ATSC decision revisited on those grounds alone. Pony up that proof.
> Much of the world has stood in baffled surprise as the US has mangled
> its digital transition. They expected leadership and watched as the US
> mandated garbage with no regard to the best interest of its citizens.
All, of course, YNSHO.
> Expect that this report is only early criticism, there will be a lot more.
It's too late for early criticism.
Matthew
--
If the war in Iraq was over oil, we lost.
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
Remember, whatever Bob Miller says, the exact opposite is true!
That article is from a UK magazine, which claims that free OTA TV will die
by 2014 in favor of other forms of distribution.
The comment about the US has nothing to do with the choice of 8-VSB vs.
COFDM, nor about the speed of the DTV transition in the US.
Rather, it has to do with the fact that the US did not impose its will
upon the rest of the world. The authors are bemoaning that Europe won't
be able to leverage from the US experience.
So now the Europeans and the Japanese are using different TV standards,
and remain far behind the US on HDTV. Europe only has SD. Japan only has
HD in three cities.
Meanwhile, the US has nationwide HDTV.
And, best of all, Bob Miller's business plan is moribund.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Remember, whatever Bob Miller says, the exact opposite is true!
That article is from a UK magazine, which claims that free OTA TV will die
by 2014 in favor of other forms of distribution.
The comment about the US has nothing to do with the choice of 8-VSB vs.
COFDM, nor about the speed of the DTV transition in the US.
Rather, it has to do with the fact that the US did not impose its will
upon the rest of the world. The authors are bemoaning that Europe won't
be able to leverage from the US experience.
So now the Europeans and the Japanese are using different TV standards,
and remain far behind the US on HDTV. Europe only has SD. Japan only has
HD in three cities.
Meanwhile, the US has nationwide HDTV.
And, best of all, Bob Miller's business plan is moribund.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004, HDTV-slingr wrote:
> Why would the world stand by and expect the US to lead the way in the
> new broadcasting standards when the world stood by and watched the US
> totally botch, then give up totally on our so-called, "mandatory
> transition" to the metric system back in the '80's?
The US converted to the metric system in 1866. Ever since that time, the
convenient measure called the "inch" has been defined in statute as
exactly 2.54 centimeters, and similarly with other such measures.
Put another way, the US does *NOT* use the old pre-metric system. We use
metric, with certain useful measures of the old system redefined in
metric. There are differences; a land surveyor has to know the difference
between what people in the US today call a "foot" and the pre-metric foot!
What was proposed for the 1980s was forced abandonment of these convenient
measures in favor of pure metric measures. Instead of a 1/8" drill bit we
would have to buy 3.175mm drill bits. Fortunately, this ill-conceived
notion (signed by Ford, but put through by Carter) was thoroughly crushed.
We use metric measures metric makes sense; and non-metric measures when
those make sense. Although metric works quite well for many purposes, it
falters on repeated divisions by 2; and this is where the convenient
traditional units shine. Humanity would have been better off if we
counted in octal instead of decimal...
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004, HDTV-slingr wrote:
> Why would the world stand by and expect the US to lead the way in the
> new broadcasting standards when the world stood by and watched the US
> totally botch, then give up totally on our so-called, "mandatory
> transition" to the metric system back in the '80's?
The US converted to the metric system in 1866. Ever since that time, the
convenient measure called the "inch" has been defined in statute as
exactly 2.54 centimeters, and similarly with other such measures.
Put another way, the US does *NOT* use the old pre-metric system. We use
metric, with certain useful measures of the old system redefined in
metric. There are differences; a land surveyor has to know the difference
between what people in the US today call a "foot" and the pre-metric foot!
What was proposed for the 1980s was forced abandonment of these convenient
measures in favor of pure metric measures. Instead of a 1/8" drill bit we
would have to buy 3.175mm drill bits. Fortunately, this ill-conceived
notion (signed by Ford, but put through by Carter) was thoroughly crushed.
We use metric measures metric makes sense; and non-metric measures when
those make sense. Although metric works quite well for many purposes, it
falters on repeated divisions by 2; and this is where the convenient
traditional units shine. Humanity would have been better off if we
counted in octal instead of decimal...
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Related ressources
- The Pathetic State of the US DTV Transition - Forum
- The DTV Transition in the US is just SICK! - Forum
- Intel's Q4 report out - Forum
- DTV reception is much more difficult than analog - Forum
- report from Japan - Forum
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
Remember, anything that Bob Miller says, the exact opposite is the truth!
When Bob Miller says "fraudulent", "orchestrated", "heavily intimidated"
he means that his attempts at fraud, orchestration, and heavy intimidation
failed. Now Bob Miller's business plan, which depended upon COFDM, is in
shambles.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Remember, anything that Bob Miller says, the exact opposite is the truth!
When Bob Miller says "fraudulent", "orchestrated", "heavily intimidated"
he means that his attempts at fraud, orchestration, and heavy intimidation
failed. Now Bob Miller's business plan, which depended upon COFDM, is in
shambles.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 20:25:35 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>Much of the world has stood in baffled surprise as the US has mangled
>its digital transition. They expected leadership and watched as the US
>mandated garbage with no regard to the best interest of its citizens.
Why would the world stand by and expect the US to lead the way in the
new broadcasting standards when the world stood by and watched the US
totally botch, then give up totally on our so-called, "mandatory
transition" to the metric system back in the '80's?
On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 20:25:35 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>Much of the world has stood in baffled surprise as the US has mangled
>its digital transition. They expected leadership and watched as the US
>mandated garbage with no regard to the best interest of its citizens.
Why would the world stand by and expect the US to lead the way in the
new broadcasting standards when the world stood by and watched the US
totally botch, then give up totally on our so-called, "mandatory
transition" to the metric system back in the '80's?
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
HDTV-slingr wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 20:25:35 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Much of the world has stood in baffled surprise as the US has mangled
>>its digital transition. They expected leadership and watched as the US
>>mandated garbage with no regard to the best interest of its citizens.
>
>
> Why would the world stand by and expect the US to lead the way in the
> new broadcasting standards when the world stood by and watched the US
> totally botch, then give up totally on our so-called, "mandatory
> transition" to the metric system back in the '80's?
>
Good point.
I don't know but I was there when it happened in 2000. Companies like
Nokia, Tanberg and Pace fully expected that the US was going to correct
their 8-VSB mistake when hearings and new testing were announced.
Sinclair, NBC, ABC, Pappas, Granite and others including myself were
totally convinced that the test would confirm without any doubt how
superior COFDM was.
We were overconfident. The 8-VSB proponents also knew that they had an
inferior product and that they would lose any honest testing. Hence the
secret and fraudulent test with the orchestrated and heavily intimidated
NAB vote and last minute FCC re-affirmation of 8-VSB in the last hour of
Chairman Kennard's tenure at the FCC.
I know the shocked reaction from all parties on the COFDM side which
expected the US to lead the way. I have NO doubt that the Japanese and
the Chinese today would be using COFDM DVB-T instead of the other
versions ISDB-T and DMB-T. I am also positive that places like Taiwan
would be doing HDTV now and that many other countries would be
considering doing or adding HDTV to their DTV terrestrial transition.
HDTV-slingr wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 20:25:35 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Much of the world has stood in baffled surprise as the US has mangled
>>its digital transition. They expected leadership and watched as the US
>>mandated garbage with no regard to the best interest of its citizens.
>
>
> Why would the world stand by and expect the US to lead the way in the
> new broadcasting standards when the world stood by and watched the US
> totally botch, then give up totally on our so-called, "mandatory
> transition" to the metric system back in the '80's?
>
Good point.
I don't know but I was there when it happened in 2000. Companies like
Nokia, Tanberg and Pace fully expected that the US was going to correct
their 8-VSB mistake when hearings and new testing were announced.
Sinclair, NBC, ABC, Pappas, Granite and others including myself were
totally convinced that the test would confirm without any doubt how
superior COFDM was.
We were overconfident. The 8-VSB proponents also knew that they had an
inferior product and that they would lose any honest testing. Hence the
secret and fraudulent test with the orchestrated and heavily intimidated
NAB vote and last minute FCC re-affirmation of 8-VSB in the last hour of
Chairman Kennard's tenure at the FCC.
I know the shocked reaction from all parties on the COFDM side which
expected the US to lead the way. I have NO doubt that the Japanese and
the Chinese today would be using COFDM DVB-T instead of the other
versions ISDB-T and DMB-T. I am also positive that places like Taiwan
would be doing HDTV now and that many other countries would be
considering doing or adding HDTV to their DTV terrestrial transition.
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
Mark Crispin wrote:
> Remember, whatever Bob Miller says, the exact opposite is true!
>
> That article is from a UK magazine, which claims that free OTA TV will
> die by 2014 in favor of other forms of distribution.
>
> The comment about the US has nothing to do with the choice of 8-VSB vs.
> COFDM, nor about the speed of the DTV transition in the US.
>
> Rather, it has to do with the fact that the US did not impose its will
> upon the rest of the world. The authors are bemoaning that Europe won't
> be able to leverage from the US experience.
>
> So now the Europeans and the Japanese are using different TV standards,
> and remain far behind the US on HDTV. Europe only has SD. Japan only
> has HD in three cities.
>
> Meanwhile, the US has nationwide HDTV.
>
> And, best of all, Bob Miller's business plan is moribund.
What does it all matter anyways? Just wait until the average citizen
really finds out about the "broadcast flag". Average Joe is going out
one night and wants to record ER. Oh, wait, he cannot do that because
the industry has *already decided* that he is a criminal and will give
that digital copy of the show to everyone he knows.
The day I cannot use my PVR to time-shift and record is the day I'm
completely done with TV. There's not much on worth watching now anyways.
I'm amazed in this country of so-called freedom that we continually
have them stripped away. I really think it all comes down to the
average citizens not knowing much of anything. Companies have an
*easy* time lobbying legislation through because the voters have no
clue until it's too late.
So who cares anymore about COFDM, 8-VSB, etc? There's a bigger issue
at hand.
Mark Crispin wrote:
> Remember, whatever Bob Miller says, the exact opposite is true!
>
> That article is from a UK magazine, which claims that free OTA TV will
> die by 2014 in favor of other forms of distribution.
>
> The comment about the US has nothing to do with the choice of 8-VSB vs.
> COFDM, nor about the speed of the DTV transition in the US.
>
> Rather, it has to do with the fact that the US did not impose its will
> upon the rest of the world. The authors are bemoaning that Europe won't
> be able to leverage from the US experience.
>
> So now the Europeans and the Japanese are using different TV standards,
> and remain far behind the US on HDTV. Europe only has SD. Japan only
> has HD in three cities.
>
> Meanwhile, the US has nationwide HDTV.
>
> And, best of all, Bob Miller's business plan is moribund.
What does it all matter anyways? Just wait until the average citizen
really finds out about the "broadcast flag". Average Joe is going out
one night and wants to record ER. Oh, wait, he cannot do that because
the industry has *already decided* that he is a criminal and will give
that digital copy of the show to everyone he knows.
The day I cannot use my PVR to time-shift and record is the day I'm
completely done with TV. There's not much on worth watching now anyways.
I'm amazed in this country of so-called freedom that we continually
have them stripped away. I really think it all comes down to the
average citizens not knowing much of anything. Companies have an
*easy* time lobbying legislation through because the voters have no
clue until it's too late.
So who cares anymore about COFDM, 8-VSB, etc? There's a bigger issue
at hand.
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
>>There's not much on worth watching now anyways
Do you get History Channel, Science Channel, National Geographic Channel,
Wings Channel, International History Channel or Discovery Times Channel,
PBS? I ususally find more than one program I want to watch from among
these. Programming has never been better IMHO.
Mark Maupin
..
>>There's not much on worth watching now anyways
Do you get History Channel, Science Channel, National Geographic Channel,
Wings Channel, International History Channel or Discovery Times Channel,
PBS? I ususally find more than one program I want to watch from among
these. Programming has never been better IMHO.
Mark Maupin
..
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
Michael J. Sherman (msherman@dsbox.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> What does it all matter anyways? Just wait until the average citizen
> really finds out about the "broadcast flag". Average Joe is going out
> one night and wants to record ER. Oh, wait, he cannot do that
The broadcast flag can't do this. It *cannot* prevent recording. It can
merely prevent outputting the resultant recording over a non-secure
digital connection. It also cannot prevent output over *any* analog
connection.
The only devices that will truly be troubled by the broadcast flag are
computer add-in cards that can record HD. To be compliant and be allowed
for sale after June 2005, they must encrypt the recording on disk. Cards
sold before that time do *not* have to be retrofitted to encrypt the
recording.
--
Jeff Rife | "I feel an intense ambivalence, some of which
SPAM bait: | doesn't border entirely on the negative."
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov | -- Ned Dorsey, "Ned and Stacey"
Michael J. Sherman (msherman@dsbox.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> What does it all matter anyways? Just wait until the average citizen
> really finds out about the "broadcast flag". Average Joe is going out
> one night and wants to record ER. Oh, wait, he cannot do that
The broadcast flag can't do this. It *cannot* prevent recording. It can
merely prevent outputting the resultant recording over a non-secure
digital connection. It also cannot prevent output over *any* analog
connection.
The only devices that will truly be troubled by the broadcast flag are
computer add-in cards that can record HD. To be compliant and be allowed
for sale after June 2005, they must encrypt the recording on disk. Cards
sold before that time do *not* have to be retrofitted to encrypt the
recording.
--
Jeff Rife | "I feel an intense ambivalence, some of which
SPAM bait: | doesn't border entirely on the negative."
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov | -- Ned Dorsey, "Ned and Stacey"
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
Mark Crispin wrote
>The US converted to the metric system in 1866.
>Ever since that time, the convenient measure
>called the "inch" has been defined in statute as
>exactly 2.54 centimeters,
That US only adopted that value in 1959
http://geodesy.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/FedRegister/FRdoc59-54...
Mark Crispin wrote
>The US converted to the metric system in 1866.
>Ever since that time, the convenient measure
>called the "inch" has been defined in statute as
>exactly 2.54 centimeters,
That US only adopted that value in 1959
http://geodesy.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/FedRegister/FRdoc59-54...
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Pat Norton wrote:
> Mark Crispin wrote
>> The US converted to the metric system in 1866.
>> Ever since that time, the convenient measure
>> called the "inch" has been defined in statute as
>> exactly 2.54 centimeters,
> That US only adopted that value in 1959
> http://geodesy.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/FedRegister/FRdoc59-54...
The 2.54 cm/inch value predates this by many years. Maybe 1959 was when
it was made official, but 2.54 was used long before that. Engineers have
long used that value for at least 100 years.
For surveying and mapping, the inch is 100/3937 meters; however inch is
never actually used, the survey foot (1200/3937 meters) is used instead.
For small parcels of land, this doesn't matter since the difference is
about .061 mm per 1000 feet.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Pat Norton wrote:
> Mark Crispin wrote
>> The US converted to the metric system in 1866.
>> Ever since that time, the convenient measure
>> called the "inch" has been defined in statute as
>> exactly 2.54 centimeters,
> That US only adopted that value in 1959
> http://geodesy.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/FedRegister/FRdoc59-54...
The 2.54 cm/inch value predates this by many years. Maybe 1959 was when
it was made official, but 2.54 was used long before that. Engineers have
long used that value for at least 100 years.
For surveying and mapping, the inch is 100/3937 meters; however inch is
never actually used, the survey foot (1200/3937 meters) is used instead.
For small parcels of land, this doesn't matter since the difference is
about .061 mm per 1000 feet.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
"Pat Norton" <pat.norton@iname.com> wrote in message
news:4d4b14.0407070355.3f6961d2@posting.google.com...
> Mark Crispin wrote
>>The US converted to the metric system in 1866.
>>Ever since that time, the convenient measure
>>called the "inch" has been defined in statute as
>>exactly 2.54 centimeters,
>
> That US only adopted that value in 1959
> http://geodesy.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/FedRegister/FRdoc59-54...
As former counsel to NYS's Bureau of Weights and Measures much of what you
read is inaccurate. In NYS the Metric System is declared by its Weights and
Measures law to be the preferred system of weights and Measures. Our beloved
President Carter, after receiving less than 40 written complaints, by
executive direction stopped the funding of a change over to metric speed and
distance signs on our interstates. That stopped things cold in their tracks.
Ronald had the metric marking mandate removed from US Speedo devices on
cars. There was never a federal law that mandated pure metrics.
When the Bureau of Al, Tobacco and Firearms authorized liquor labels with
pure metric labels it was and is in direct conflict with other federal law
that mandates that English measures must be used and that metric measures
may be used secondarily. There is a total lack of national leadership on
this issue. Don't think in will be one of the questions asked at the debates
this time around unless someone wants to see B or K look dumb when they
stare at the camera.
Richard.
"Pat Norton" <pat.norton@iname.com> wrote in message
news:4d4b14.0407070355.3f6961d2@posting.google.com...
> Mark Crispin wrote
>>The US converted to the metric system in 1866.
>>Ever since that time, the convenient measure
>>called the "inch" has been defined in statute as
>>exactly 2.54 centimeters,
>
> That US only adopted that value in 1959
> http://geodesy.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/FedRegister/FRdoc59-54...
As former counsel to NYS's Bureau of Weights and Measures much of what you
read is inaccurate. In NYS the Metric System is declared by its Weights and
Measures law to be the preferred system of weights and Measures. Our beloved
President Carter, after receiving less than 40 written complaints, by
executive direction stopped the funding of a change over to metric speed and
distance signs on our interstates. That stopped things cold in their tracks.
Ronald had the metric marking mandate removed from US Speedo devices on
cars. There was never a federal law that mandated pure metrics.
When the Bureau of Al, Tobacco and Firearms authorized liquor labels with
pure metric labels it was and is in direct conflict with other federal law
that mandates that English measures must be used and that metric measures
may be used secondarily. There is a total lack of national leadership on
this issue. Don't think in will be one of the questions asked at the debates
this time around unless someone wants to see B or K look dumb when they
stare at the camera.
Richard.
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Jeff Rife wrote:
> Mark Crispin (mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> For surveying and mapping, the inch is 100/3937 meters; however inch is
>> never actually used, the survey foot (1200/3937 meters) is used instead.
>> For small parcels of land, this doesn't matter since the difference is
>> about .061 mm per 1000 feet.
> "For small parcels of land"?!?!? You'd only be off less than a meter over
> the entire width of the US. I think you must be pickier than I am. ;->
I was off by 10. It's .61mm per 1000 feet. 3.22mm per mile. About 8
meters for the width of the US.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Jeff Rife wrote:
> Mark Crispin (mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> For surveying and mapping, the inch is 100/3937 meters; however inch is
>> never actually used, the survey foot (1200/3937 meters) is used instead.
>> For small parcels of land, this doesn't matter since the difference is
>> about .061 mm per 1000 feet.
> "For small parcels of land"?!?!? You'd only be off less than a meter over
> the entire width of the US. I think you must be pickier than I am. ;->
I was off by 10. It's .61mm per 1000 feet. 3.22mm per mile. About 8
meters for the width of the US.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
Mark Crispin (mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> For surveying and mapping, the inch is 100/3937 meters; however inch is
> never actually used, the survey foot (1200/3937 meters) is used instead.
> For small parcels of land, this doesn't matter since the difference is
> about .061 mm per 1000 feet.
"For small parcels of land"?!?!? You'd only be off less than a meter over
the entire width of the US. I think you must be pickier than I am. ;->
--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | "He chose...poorly."
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov | -- Grail Knight, "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade"
Mark Crispin (mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> For surveying and mapping, the inch is 100/3937 meters; however inch is
> never actually used, the survey foot (1200/3937 meters) is used instead.
> For small parcels of land, this doesn't matter since the difference is
> about .061 mm per 1000 feet.
"For small parcels of land"?!?!? You'd only be off less than a meter over
the entire width of the US. I think you must be pickier than I am. ;->
--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | "He chose...poorly."
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov | -- Grail Knight, "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade"
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
Mark Crispin (mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> I was off by 10. It's .61mm per 1000 feet. 3.22mm per mile. About 8
> meters for the width of the US.
If I had a plot of land that was 9,000,000 square miles, I still don't
think I'd get in a border dispute over 26 feet. I know the US/Canadian
border is off by this much in many places, and nobody really cares.
So, basically, the US metric standard is quite reasonable.
--
Jeff Rife | "A rabbit's foot? You slaughtered an innocent
SPAM bait: | animal for some silly superstition?"
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | "I didn't personally slaughter the rabbit. I shot
uce@ftc.gov | a giant panda out of a tree, and he fell on it."
| -- "Cybill"
Mark Crispin (mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> I was off by 10. It's .61mm per 1000 feet. 3.22mm per mile. About 8
> meters for the width of the US.
If I had a plot of land that was 9,000,000 square miles, I still don't
think I'd get in a border dispute over 26 feet. I know the US/Canadian
border is off by this much in many places, and nobody really cares.
So, basically, the US metric standard is quite reasonable.
--
Jeff Rife | "A rabbit's foot? You slaughtered an innocent
SPAM bait: | animal for some silly superstition?"
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | "I didn't personally slaughter the rabbit. I shot
uce@ftc.gov | a giant panda out of a tree, and he fell on it."
| -- "Cybill"
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
Jeff Rife wrote:
> Michael J. Sherman (msherman@dsbox.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>What does it all matter anyways? Just wait until the average citizen
>>really finds out about the "broadcast flag". Average Joe is going out
>>one night and wants to record ER. Oh, wait, he cannot do that
>
>
> The broadcast flag can't do this. It *cannot* prevent recording. It can
> merely prevent outputting the resultant recording over a non-secure
> digital connection. It also cannot prevent output over *any* analog
> connection.
>
> The only devices that will truly be troubled by the broadcast flag are
> computer add-in cards that can record HD. To be compliant and be allowed
> for sale after June 2005, they must encrypt the recording on disk. Cards
> sold before that time do *not* have to be retrofitted to encrypt the
> recording.
>
Right! But who says what an official "secure digital connection" is?
I have a PVR that I built (Linux, MythTV, etc). Soon I won't be able
to record HDTV because the card is not an "official" card. And you
can bet the only "official" cards are only supported on Windoze
machines. No thanks!
There's the rub. It's going to be a bad scene for people like me who
like to program and experiment. Learn, even. Soon there will be no
room for that. And if I try to record an HDTV stream using a PC card
under Linux I'll be labeled as a criminal (see DVD CSS fiasco).
Jeff Rife wrote:
> Michael J. Sherman (msherman@dsbox.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>What does it all matter anyways? Just wait until the average citizen
>>really finds out about the "broadcast flag". Average Joe is going out
>>one night and wants to record ER. Oh, wait, he cannot do that
>
>
> The broadcast flag can't do this. It *cannot* prevent recording. It can
> merely prevent outputting the resultant recording over a non-secure
> digital connection. It also cannot prevent output over *any* analog
> connection.
>
> The only devices that will truly be troubled by the broadcast flag are
> computer add-in cards that can record HD. To be compliant and be allowed
> for sale after June 2005, they must encrypt the recording on disk. Cards
> sold before that time do *not* have to be retrofitted to encrypt the
> recording.
>
Right! But who says what an official "secure digital connection" is?
I have a PVR that I built (Linux, MythTV, etc). Soon I won't be able
to record HDTV because the card is not an "official" card. And you
can bet the only "official" cards are only supported on Windoze
machines. No thanks!
There's the rub. It's going to be a bad scene for people like me who
like to program and experiment. Learn, even. Soon there will be no
room for that. And if I try to record an HDTV stream using a PC card
under Linux I'll be labeled as a criminal (see DVD CSS fiasco).
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
Michael J. Sherman (msherman@dsbox.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Right! But who says what an official "secure digital connection" is?
HDCP, HDMI, etc., are all secure. Over IP, well, that's up to vendors to
decide, and content providers to object to after the fact.
> I have a PVR that I built (Linux, MythTV, etc). Soon I won't be able
> to record HDTV because the card is not an "official" card.
That's *wrong*. If you have a card that can record HDTV today (since the
broadcast flag only applies to digital TV, that's all that matters),
then it will still be able to record it *forever* with *no* restrictions.
It can ignore the broadcast flag completely.
> And you
> can bet the only "official" cards are only supported on Windoze
> machines. No thanks!
I have an HDTV card that has Windows software. It records fine, and the
recordings are unencrypted. There never has to be an update to the
software to enable encryption, since the card was sold before June 2005.
Even if there *were* such an update, nobody would force me to install it.
I'm not worried.
> There's the rub. It's going to be a bad scene for people like me who
> like to program and experiment. Learn, even. Soon there will be no
> room for that. And if I try to record an HDTV stream using a PC card
> under Linux I'll be labeled as a criminal (see DVD CSS fiasco).
No, you won't. If you have a card that works *today*, then it can work
forever. If the drivers are open source, then it *will* work forever and
even get better.
The thing that people who don't truly understand the broadcast flag don't
realize is that the spec for it was part of the ATSC standard from day one,
and any currently compliant HDTV receiver *must* be able to handle it
like it handles any other flag that it doesn't understand: it must ignore
it. Changing the value of a flag that is ignored isn't going to do
anything to the recording.
--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Goals.gif
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov |
Michael J. Sherman (msherman@dsbox.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Right! But who says what an official "secure digital connection" is?
HDCP, HDMI, etc., are all secure. Over IP, well, that's up to vendors to
decide, and content providers to object to after the fact.
> I have a PVR that I built (Linux, MythTV, etc). Soon I won't be able
> to record HDTV because the card is not an "official" card.
That's *wrong*. If you have a card that can record HDTV today (since the
broadcast flag only applies to digital TV, that's all that matters),
then it will still be able to record it *forever* with *no* restrictions.
It can ignore the broadcast flag completely.
> And you
> can bet the only "official" cards are only supported on Windoze
> machines. No thanks!
I have an HDTV card that has Windows software. It records fine, and the
recordings are unencrypted. There never has to be an update to the
software to enable encryption, since the card was sold before June 2005.
Even if there *were* such an update, nobody would force me to install it.
I'm not worried.
> There's the rub. It's going to be a bad scene for people like me who
> like to program and experiment. Learn, even. Soon there will be no
> room for that. And if I try to record an HDTV stream using a PC card
> under Linux I'll be labeled as a criminal (see DVD CSS fiasco).
No, you won't. If you have a card that works *today*, then it can work
forever. If the drivers are open source, then it *will* work forever and
even get better.
The thing that people who don't truly understand the broadcast flag don't
realize is that the spec for it was part of the ATSC standard from day one,
and any currently compliant HDTV receiver *must* be able to handle it
like it handles any other flag that it doesn't understand: it must ignore
it. Changing the value of a flag that is ignored isn't going to do
anything to the recording.
--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Goals.gif
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov |
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
>>I have a PVR that I built (Linux, MythTV, etc). Soon I won't be able
>>to record HDTV because the card is not an "official" card.
>
>
> That's *wrong*. If you have a card that can record HDTV today (since the
> broadcast flag only applies to digital TV, that's all that matters),
> then it will still be able to record it *forever* with *no* restrictions.
> It can ignore the broadcast flag completely.
>
I can use it *forever* until the card breaks or burns out or is struck
by lightning. Then what? Is that what you mean by forever?
>>There's the rub. It's going to be a bad scene for people like me who
>>like to program and experiment. Learn, even. Soon there will be no
>>room for that. And if I try to record an HDTV stream using a PC card
>>under Linux I'll be labeled as a criminal (see DVD CSS fiasco).
>
>
> No, you won't. If you have a card that works *today*, then it can work
> forever. If the drivers are open source, then it *will* work forever and
> even get better.
>
> The thing that people who don't truly understand the broadcast flag don't
> realize is that the spec for it was part of the ATSC standard from day one,
> and any currently compliant HDTV receiver *must* be able to handle it
> like it handles any other flag that it doesn't understand: it must ignore
> it. Changing the value of a flag that is ignored isn't going to do
> anything to the recording.
>
I just feel really sad that in a couple of years nobody will be able
to tinker with cool machines to do interesting things with HDTV
streams. It seems like this country is bent on *restricting*
technological progress, instead of its historical trend to want to
actually move forward. How else did I get involved in electronics and
computers other than taking stuff apart and building things as a kid?
Now days you try to take something apart to learn how it works and
you get sued under the DMCA.
It just frightens me that the direction of technology policy in this
country is so broken. Policy is made to protect broken and old
business models instead of doing the right thing for the good of
humanity and progress in science.
>>I have a PVR that I built (Linux, MythTV, etc). Soon I won't be able
>>to record HDTV because the card is not an "official" card.
>
>
> That's *wrong*. If you have a card that can record HDTV today (since the
> broadcast flag only applies to digital TV, that's all that matters),
> then it will still be able to record it *forever* with *no* restrictions.
> It can ignore the broadcast flag completely.
>
I can use it *forever* until the card breaks or burns out or is struck
by lightning. Then what? Is that what you mean by forever?
>>There's the rub. It's going to be a bad scene for people like me who
>>like to program and experiment. Learn, even. Soon there will be no
>>room for that. And if I try to record an HDTV stream using a PC card
>>under Linux I'll be labeled as a criminal (see DVD CSS fiasco).
>
>
> No, you won't. If you have a card that works *today*, then it can work
> forever. If the drivers are open source, then it *will* work forever and
> even get better.
>
> The thing that people who don't truly understand the broadcast flag don't
> realize is that the spec for it was part of the ATSC standard from day one,
> and any currently compliant HDTV receiver *must* be able to handle it
> like it handles any other flag that it doesn't understand: it must ignore
> it. Changing the value of a flag that is ignored isn't going to do
> anything to the recording.
>
I just feel really sad that in a couple of years nobody will be able
to tinker with cool machines to do interesting things with HDTV
streams. It seems like this country is bent on *restricting*
technological progress, instead of its historical trend to want to
actually move forward. How else did I get involved in electronics and
computers other than taking stuff apart and building things as a kid?
Now days you try to take something apart to learn how it works and
you get sued under the DMCA.
It just frightens me that the direction of technology policy in this
country is so broken. Policy is made to protect broken and old
business models instead of doing the right thing for the good of
humanity and progress in science.
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
Michael J. Sherman (msherman@dsbox.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > That's *wrong*. If you have a card that can record HDTV today (since the
> > broadcast flag only applies to digital TV, that's all that matters),
> > then it will still be able to record it *forever* with *no* restrictions.
> > It can ignore the broadcast flag completely.
> >
>
> I can use it *forever* until the card breaks or burns out or is struck
> by lightning. Then what? Is that what you mean by forever?
Right. What's your point?
> I just feel really sad that in a couple of years nobody will be able
> to tinker with cool machines to do interesting things with HDTV
> streams.
That's not at all true. Just because the files end up encrypted on disk
doesn't mean you won't be able to do cool stuff with them.
--
Jeff Rife | "One minute we were spanking each other with
SPAM bait: | meat, and the next minute it got weird."
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov | -- Joe Hackett, "Wings"
Michael J. Sherman (msherman@dsbox.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > That's *wrong*. If you have a card that can record HDTV today (since the
> > broadcast flag only applies to digital TV, that's all that matters),
> > then it will still be able to record it *forever* with *no* restrictions.
> > It can ignore the broadcast flag completely.
> >
>
> I can use it *forever* until the card breaks or burns out or is struck
> by lightning. Then what? Is that what you mean by forever?
Right. What's your point?
> I just feel really sad that in a couple of years nobody will be able
> to tinker with cool machines to do interesting things with HDTV
> streams.
That's not at all true. Just because the files end up encrypted on disk
doesn't mean you won't be able to do cool stuff with them.
--
Jeff Rife | "One minute we were spanking each other with
SPAM bait: | meat, and the next minute it got weird."
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov | -- Joe Hackett, "Wings"
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
Jeff Rife wrote:
> Michael J. Sherman (msherman@dsbox.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>>That's *wrong*. If you have a card that can record HDTV today (since the
>>>broadcast flag only applies to digital TV, that's all that matters),
>>>then it will still be able to record it *forever* with *no* restrictions.
>>>It can ignore the broadcast flag completely.
>>>
>>
>>I can use it *forever* until the card breaks or burns out or is struck
>>by lightning. Then what? Is that what you mean by forever?
>
>
> Right. What's your point?
My point is that's not forever. It's like stocking up on the old
coolant for the old A/C systems in cars. Sure, you can use it
forever! Just don't run out. Because then you cannot buy any more.
That's not a valid argument as to why I should feel okay with this
whole broadcast flag thing. The principle is that I am getting
restricted as to how I can record and later playback video streams
coming into my house. We've already been through this with the VCR
back in the 80's.
>
>>I just feel really sad that in a couple of years nobody will be able
>>to tinker with cool machines to do interesting things with HDTV
>>streams.
>
>
> That's not at all true. Just because the files end up encrypted on disk
> doesn't mean you won't be able to do cool stuff with them.
>
Sure it does! Look at the DeCSS case with DVDs. A guy in Europe
wanted to be able to play a DVD on his Linux machine. He legally
bought the DVD. No problem, right? Wrong! The encrypted DVD stream
could only be decoded by certain hardware/software, and that certain
software was only available on Windows. So the guy cracked the
encryption just to be able to watch the darn movie. But in the New
World Order, he was in a lot of trouble, because the MPAA had
successfully *bought* legislation not allowing you do do that.
It'll be the same with HDTV content. Sure, it's encrypted on disc.
But if I try to decrypt it to watch it and then all of the sudden I'm
a criminal.
Don't you see the danger here?
Jeff Rife wrote:
> Michael J. Sherman (msherman@dsbox.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>>That's *wrong*. If you have a card that can record HDTV today (since the
>>>broadcast flag only applies to digital TV, that's all that matters),
>>>then it will still be able to record it *forever* with *no* restrictions.
>>>It can ignore the broadcast flag completely.
>>>
>>
>>I can use it *forever* until the card breaks or burns out or is struck
>>by lightning. Then what? Is that what you mean by forever?
>
>
> Right. What's your point?
My point is that's not forever. It's like stocking up on the old
coolant for the old A/C systems in cars. Sure, you can use it
forever! Just don't run out. Because then you cannot buy any more.
That's not a valid argument as to why I should feel okay with this
whole broadcast flag thing. The principle is that I am getting
restricted as to how I can record and later playback video streams
coming into my house. We've already been through this with the VCR
back in the 80's.
>
>>I just feel really sad that in a couple of years nobody will be able
>>to tinker with cool machines to do interesting things with HDTV
>>streams.
>
>
> That's not at all true. Just because the files end up encrypted on disk
> doesn't mean you won't be able to do cool stuff with them.
>
Sure it does! Look at the DeCSS case with DVDs. A guy in Europe
wanted to be able to play a DVD on his Linux machine. He legally
bought the DVD. No problem, right? Wrong! The encrypted DVD stream
could only be decoded by certain hardware/software, and that certain
software was only available on Windows. So the guy cracked the
encryption just to be able to watch the darn movie. But in the New
World Order, he was in a lot of trouble, because the MPAA had
successfully *bought* legislation not allowing you do do that.
It'll be the same with HDTV content. Sure, it's encrypted on disc.
But if I try to decrypt it to watch it and then all of the sudden I'm
a criminal.
Don't you see the danger here?
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
Michael J. Sherman (msherman@dsbox.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> My point is that's not forever. It's like stocking up on the old
> coolant for the old A/C systems in cars. Sure, you can use it
> forever! Just don't run out. Because then you cannot buy any more.
As others have said, then build your own. The specs for ATSC are public
if you want to roll your own, but the chips that demodulate it are (and
will be) freely available. There are no restrictions on their sale.
> That's not a valid argument as to why I should feel okay with this
> whole broadcast flag thing. The principle is that I am getting
> restricted as to how I can record and later playback video streams
> coming into my house.
Except that you aren't. Again, the broadcast flag can *never* stop
recording. And, although you might not be able to use unsecured digital
connections (plain old DVI), you *will* be able to play back the recording
through a wide enough choice of connections (component video, HDMI, etc.)
that it won't be a problem.
> > That's not at all true. Just because the files end up encrypted on disk
> > doesn't mean you won't be able to do cool stuff with them.
> >
>
> Sure it does! Look at the DeCSS case with DVDs. A guy in Europe
> wanted to be able to play a DVD on his Linux machine.
There is no comparison. If you buy a PCI HDTV card after June 2005 and it
works with Linux, then it will work with Linux. If it doesn't work with
Linux, then there is no law that says you can't write software yourself
that *makes* it work with Linux.
> It'll be the same with HDTV content. Sure, it's encrypted on disc.
But *only* if the code is written to encrypt it when it hits the disc.
It is *not* encrypted when transmitted. So, grab it out of the air and
write it to disc unencrypted. Just don't sell a packaged solution that
does this. Tell other people how to do it, but don't sell it.
> But if I try to decrypt it to watch it and then all of the sudden I'm
> a criminal.
You just aren't thinking straight. If the software that comes with the
card encrypts the data when it records it, and if it couldn't *decrypt*
it, what use would it be? You don't *need* to decrypt the data just to
watch, because the packaged solution does it for you.
--
Jeff Rife | "Why the hell did you stuff yourself like that?"
SPAM bait: | "Hey, Lowell threw down the gauntlet...I just
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | poured gravy on it and ate it."
uce@ftc.gov | -- Joe and Brian Hackett, "Wings"
Michael J. Sherman (msherman@dsbox.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> My point is that's not forever. It's like stocking up on the old
> coolant for the old A/C systems in cars. Sure, you can use it
> forever! Just don't run out. Because then you cannot buy any more.
As others have said, then build your own. The specs for ATSC are public
if you want to roll your own, but the chips that demodulate it are (and
will be) freely available. There are no restrictions on their sale.
> That's not a valid argument as to why I should feel okay with this
> whole broadcast flag thing. The principle is that I am getting
> restricted as to how I can record and later playback video streams
> coming into my house.
Except that you aren't. Again, the broadcast flag can *never* stop
recording. And, although you might not be able to use unsecured digital
connections (plain old DVI), you *will* be able to play back the recording
through a wide enough choice of connections (component video, HDMI, etc.)
that it won't be a problem.
> > That's not at all true. Just because the files end up encrypted on disk
> > doesn't mean you won't be able to do cool stuff with them.
> >
>
> Sure it does! Look at the DeCSS case with DVDs. A guy in Europe
> wanted to be able to play a DVD on his Linux machine.
There is no comparison. If you buy a PCI HDTV card after June 2005 and it
works with Linux, then it will work with Linux. If it doesn't work with
Linux, then there is no law that says you can't write software yourself
that *makes* it work with Linux.
> It'll be the same with HDTV content. Sure, it's encrypted on disc.
But *only* if the code is written to encrypt it when it hits the disc.
It is *not* encrypted when transmitted. So, grab it out of the air and
write it to disc unencrypted. Just don't sell a packaged solution that
does this. Tell other people how to do it, but don't sell it.
> But if I try to decrypt it to watch it and then all of the sudden I'm
> a criminal.
You just aren't thinking straight. If the software that comes with the
card encrypts the data when it records it, and if it couldn't *decrypt*
it, what use would it be? You don't *need* to decrypt the data just to
watch, because the packaged solution does it for you.
--
Jeff Rife | "Why the hell did you stuff yourself like that?"
SPAM bait: | "Hey, Lowell threw down the gauntlet...I just
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | poured gravy on it and ate it."
uce@ftc.gov | -- Joe and Brian Hackett, "Wings"
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
>
> So now the Europeans and the Japanese are using different TV standards,
> and remain far behind the US on HDTV. Europe only has SD. Japan only has
> HD in three cities.
>
> Meanwhile, the US has nationwide HDTV.
>
> And, best of all, Bob Miller's business plan is moribund.
>
> -- Mark --
Thanks Mark,
Bob ignores the facts, back in 2000 he was in the middle of this he's
very passionate about his cause, but he's got tunnel vision and he's
traped inside the box. He's stuck in 2000. COFDM is not superior
technology to 8VSB. The test (conducted by a third-party for the FCC)
proved that COFDM was not without its share of problems in regard to
the US's rather unique geography. We have a lot of land here and our
communities are spaced far and wide (especially in the south and
mid-west). There wasn't enough signifigant evidence then to damn 8VSB
and since then Sinclare has even come out and now endorces 8VSB.
So now all Bob Miller has is these obsecure articles that try to paint
the US as a bad guy, when in fact because of the FCC manidate (or at
least in large part) broadcasters embraced HDTV, studios begain
filming for HD (in recording in HD to be technical in some cases) and
all of these trickle down has resulted in the current state of HDTV
for the US in Summer of 2004. We now have more available HD content
here than anywhere else in the world. We have more available FREE Over
The Air contnet, we have more available subscription content
available. Where is Japan at, where is Europe at? This question has
been ask over and over and the answers aren't pretty.
So I would argue that the US does lead the way in HDTV and 8VSB is
what we have for better or worse. It's not this horrible failure that
Bob has painted it to be. What kind of moron only counts the number of
HDTV tunners sold to consumers as a "success" or "failure" metric?
You have to look at the big picture, you have to consider how many
people are buying HDTV Monitors not just integrated HDTVs, because
most of us who would buy an HDTV are content paying for subscription
based TV service and if we can save some money on not buying an
integrated tunner we will.
Often you can look at statistics and pull whatever facts suit your
agenda best and that's exactly what Bob Miller does. I suppose the
same could be said about those of us on the other side of the fence,
and that's fine. But the fact that the US leads in available HDTV
content is not something that can be desputed and that's the only fact
that should matter.
Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
>
> So now the Europeans and the Japanese are using different TV standards,
> and remain far behind the US on HDTV. Europe only has SD. Japan only has
> HD in three cities.
>
> Meanwhile, the US has nationwide HDTV.
>
> And, best of all, Bob Miller's business plan is moribund.
>
> -- Mark --
Thanks Mark,
Bob ignores the facts, back in 2000 he was in the middle of this he's
very passionate about his cause, but he's got tunnel vision and he's
traped inside the box. He's stuck in 2000. COFDM is not superior
technology to 8VSB. The test (conducted by a third-party for the FCC)
proved that COFDM was not without its share of problems in regard to
the US's rather unique geography. We have a lot of land here and our
communities are spaced far and wide (especially in the south and
mid-west). There wasn't enough signifigant evidence then to damn 8VSB
and since then Sinclare has even come out and now endorces 8VSB.
So now all Bob Miller has is these obsecure articles that try to paint
the US as a bad guy, when in fact because of the FCC manidate (or at
least in large part) broadcasters embraced HDTV, studios begain
filming for HD (in recording in HD to be technical in some cases) and
all of these trickle down has resulted in the current state of HDTV
for the US in Summer of 2004. We now have more available HD content
here than anywhere else in the world. We have more available FREE Over
The Air contnet, we have more available subscription content
available. Where is Japan at, where is Europe at? This question has
been ask over and over and the answers aren't pretty.
So I would argue that the US does lead the way in HDTV and 8VSB is
what we have for better or worse. It's not this horrible failure that
Bob has painted it to be. What kind of moron only counts the number of
HDTV tunners sold to consumers as a "success" or "failure" metric?
You have to look at the big picture, you have to consider how many
people are buying HDTV Monitors not just integrated HDTVs, because
most of us who would buy an HDTV are content paying for subscription
based TV service and if we can save some money on not buying an
integrated tunner we will.
Often you can look at statistics and pull whatever facts suit your
agenda best and that's exactly what Bob Miller does. I suppose the
same could be said about those of us on the other side of the fence,
and that's fine. But the fact that the US leads in available HDTV
content is not something that can be desputed and that's the only fact
that should matter.
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
JDeats wrote:
> Thanks Mark,
>
> Bob ignores the facts,
"SNIPPED"
> So I would argue that the US does lead the way in HDTV and 8VSB is
> what we have for better or worse. It's not this horrible failure that
> Bob has painted it to be. What kind of moron only counts the number of
> HDTV tunners sold to consumers as a "success" or "failure" metric?
When you have to resort to a mandate because no one is buying into OTA
broadcasting after the standard was set 6 years almost 7 ago you have a
dismal horrible failure. If you measure what has happened against what
the proponents of 8-VSB said would happen back in 1999 and 2000, we have
a dismal horrible failure. Since I am only talking about OTA
broadcasting as a failure counting the sale of OTA receivers that are
actually in use is the RIGHT metric to use.
I do not ignore the facts and have never disputed that HDTV is and would
do well on cable and satellite. I used to start many post with that
statement "that HDTV would do well on cable and satellite" specifically
because most responders ignore my argument which is ONLY about OTA
broadcasting and its affect on HDTV.
OTA broadcasting was used as the big gun that was going to spur HDTV. It
was used because the FCC and Congress have more control over OTA than
cable or satellite. Therefore those special interest who stood to profit
or lose on 8-VSB used their money in Washington to control the
modulation debate. It didn't hurt that broadcasters had both asked for
spectrum to do HDTV and had then been absent during the modulation
consideration.
The point is that OTA has been a failure to date. HDTV has been whatever
success it has been without the support of OTA. In fact OTA has hindered
HDTV IMO. It has hindered it in the US and overseas. If the US had led
in the modulation debate instead of embarrassing itself with a show of
the worst kind of political graft
If OTA broadcasting had used a better modulation HDTV would be far
better off today, it is as simple as that.
Now that there is a reasonable 8-VSB receiver in the works OTA
broadcasting may actually start helping HDTV but till now it has not.
>
> You have to look at the big picture, you have to consider how many
> people are buying HDTV Monitors not just integrated HDTVs, because
> most of us who would buy an HDTV are content paying for subscription
> based TV service and if we can save some money on not buying an
> integrated tunner we will.
In fact you can go farther than that. It was/is common for early
adopters to say that they were only using OTA till more content was on
cable or satellite. They would drop OTA as soon as that was true.
>
> Often you can look at statistics and pull whatever facts suit your
> agenda best and that's exactly what Bob Miller does. I suppose the
> same could be said about those of us on the other side of the fence,
> and that's fine. But the fact that the US leads in available HDTV
> content is not something that can be desputed and that's the only fact
> that should matter.
That is not the only fact that should matter. How ridiculous. Lots of
content that no one can see is of little use. Lots of content by itself
is of no matter.
If you are a proponent of HDTV it makes sense that you would want the
best delivery systems so that the most viewers can receive HDTV the
easiest and the least expensive way. That would be OTA broadcasting
using the best modulation and the best compression. 8-VSB and MPEG2 are
both the worst of breed. They are not the best for TV let alone HDTV.
8-VSB has a lower data rate than COFDM that when coupled with MPEG2 is
at its LIMITS when trying to deliver ONE HDTV program. COFDM coupled
with a VP6, WM9 or MPEG4 could deliver multiple HD programs
statistically multiplexed so that each would be better than the one that
MPEG2 is capable of. COFDM can do this at a lower price, higher
datarate, simpler antenna and mobile so that this will work everywhere
and in all conditions.
So where are all the HDTV proponents who should be rooting for COFDM and
MPEG4? They are all waiting patiently for cable and satellite to add
more HDTV programs so they can drop OTA altogether.
I happen to believe in OTA broadcasting which most US broadcasters do
not. In most of the world there is a rebirth of OTA broadcasting taking
place or contemplated. To some extent this could happen in the US with
the new 5th gen Zenith receivers but channels 2-51 will still be
crippled to a major extent because of 8-VSB.
And there is no reason for taking second best (more like very last). We
could have COFDM and MPEG4 with only gain and no loss.
JDeats wrote:
> Thanks Mark,
>
> Bob ignores the facts,
"SNIPPED"
> So I would argue that the US does lead the way in HDTV and 8VSB is
> what we have for better or worse. It's not this horrible failure that
> Bob has painted it to be. What kind of moron only counts the number of
> HDTV tunners sold to consumers as a "success" or "failure" metric?
When you have to resort to a mandate because no one is buying into OTA
broadcasting after the standard was set 6 years almost 7 ago you have a
dismal horrible failure. If you measure what has happened against what
the proponents of 8-VSB said would happen back in 1999 and 2000, we have
a dismal horrible failure. Since I am only talking about OTA
broadcasting as a failure counting the sale of OTA receivers that are
actually in use is the RIGHT metric to use.
I do not ignore the facts and have never disputed that HDTV is and would
do well on cable and satellite. I used to start many post with that
statement "that HDTV would do well on cable and satellite" specifically
because most responders ignore my argument which is ONLY about OTA
broadcasting and its affect on HDTV.
OTA broadcasting was used as the big gun that was going to spur HDTV. It
was used because the FCC and Congress have more control over OTA than
cable or satellite. Therefore those special interest who stood to profit
or lose on 8-VSB used their money in Washington to control the
modulation debate. It didn't hurt that broadcasters had both asked for
spectrum to do HDTV and had then been absent during the modulation
consideration.
The point is that OTA has been a failure to date. HDTV has been whatever
success it has been without the support of OTA. In fact OTA has hindered
HDTV IMO. It has hindered it in the US and overseas. If the US had led
in the modulation debate instead of embarrassing itself with a show of
the worst kind of political graft
If OTA broadcasting had used a better modulation HDTV would be far
better off today, it is as simple as that.
Now that there is a reasonable 8-VSB receiver in the works OTA
broadcasting may actually start helping HDTV but till now it has not.
>
> You have to look at the big picture, you have to consider how many
> people are buying HDTV Monitors not just integrated HDTVs, because
> most of us who would buy an HDTV are content paying for subscription
> based TV service and if we can save some money on not buying an
> integrated tunner we will.
In fact you can go farther than that. It was/is common for early
adopters to say that they were only using OTA till more content was on
cable or satellite. They would drop OTA as soon as that was true.
>
> Often you can look at statistics and pull whatever facts suit your
> agenda best and that's exactly what Bob Miller does. I suppose the
> same could be said about those of us on the other side of the fence,
> and that's fine. But the fact that the US leads in available HDTV
> content is not something that can be desputed and that's the only fact
> that should matter.
That is not the only fact that should matter. How ridiculous. Lots of
content that no one can see is of little use. Lots of content by itself
is of no matter.
If you are a proponent of HDTV it makes sense that you would want the
best delivery systems so that the most viewers can receive HDTV the
easiest and the least expensive way. That would be OTA broadcasting
using the best modulation and the best compression. 8-VSB and MPEG2 are
both the worst of breed. They are not the best for TV let alone HDTV.
8-VSB has a lower data rate than COFDM that when coupled with MPEG2 is
at its LIMITS when trying to deliver ONE HDTV program. COFDM coupled
with a VP6, WM9 or MPEG4 could deliver multiple HD programs
statistically multiplexed so that each would be better than the one that
MPEG2 is capable of. COFDM can do this at a lower price, higher
datarate, simpler antenna and mobile so that this will work everywhere
and in all conditions.
So where are all the HDTV proponents who should be rooting for COFDM and
MPEG4? They are all waiting patiently for cable and satellite to add
more HDTV programs so they can drop OTA altogether.
I happen to believe in OTA broadcasting which most US broadcasters do
not. In most of the world there is a rebirth of OTA broadcasting taking
place or contemplated. To some extent this could happen in the US with
the new 5th gen Zenith receivers but channels 2-51 will still be
crippled to a major extent because of 8-VSB.
And there is no reason for taking second best (more like very last). We
could have COFDM and MPEG4 with only gain and no loss.
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
> Hey I will take credit for spreading as much FUD as I could, with reason. If
> I kept someone from buying an 8-VSB receiver I am proud.
Here we have it. Bob Miller admits to being a liar and a con artist. No
wonder his scam company Viacel is a failure.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
> Hey I will take credit for spreading as much FUD as I could, with reason. If
> I kept someone from buying an 8-VSB receiver I am proud.
Here we have it. Bob Miller admits to being a liar and a con artist. No
wonder his scam company Viacel is a failure.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
"Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
news![:p]( ":p")
ine.LNX.4.61.0407102120490.31704@shiva1.cac.washington.edu...
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
> > Hey I will take credit for spreading as much FUD as I could, with
reason. If
> > I kept someone from buying an 8-VSB receiver I am proud.
>
> Here we have it. Bob Miller admits to being a liar and a con artist. No
> wonder his scam company Viacel is a failure.
>
> -- Mark --
It's a shame that Miller can't be asked to leave this group, as he was at
AVS forum four years ago.
90% of what he posts are mostly distortions, often just being plain outright
lies.
"Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
news
ine.LNX.4.61.0407102120490.31704@shiva1.cac.washington.edu...> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
> > Hey I will take credit for spreading as much FUD as I could, with
reason. If
> > I kept someone from buying an 8-VSB receiver I am proud.
>
> Here we have it. Bob Miller admits to being a liar and a con artist. No
> wonder his scam company Viacel is a failure.
>
> -- Mark --
It's a shame that Miller can't be asked to leave this group, as he was at
AVS forum four years ago.
90% of what he posts are mostly distortions, often just being plain outright
lies.
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004, David wrote:
>> Here we have it. Bob Miller admits to being a liar and a con artist. No
>> wonder his scam company Viacel is a failure.
> It's a shame that Miller can't be asked to leave this group, as he was at
> AVS forum four years ago.
Actually, Miller serves a purpose -- whatever he says, the exact opposite
is true. What we need is an alt.tv.tech.hdtv group FAQ. To get the ball
rolling, I'll submit the initial first entry:
Q: Who is Bob Miller?
A: Bob Miller, the president of a failed company in NYC called Viacel, is
our resident clown and snake oil salesman. He serves a valuable
purpose in this newsgroup by reliably coming to an incorrect conclusion
from any news item or piece of data. He is so reliably wrong on all
matters that whenever he says anything, you can be confident that the
exact opposite is true.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004, David wrote:
>> Here we have it. Bob Miller admits to being a liar and a con artist. No
>> wonder his scam company Viacel is a failure.
> It's a shame that Miller can't be asked to leave this group, as he was at
> AVS forum four years ago.
Actually, Miller serves a purpose -- whatever he says, the exact opposite
is true. What we need is an alt.tv.tech.hdtv group FAQ. To get the ball
rolling, I'll submit the initial first entry:
Q: Who is Bob Miller?
A: Bob Miller, the president of a failed company in NYC called Viacel, is
our resident clown and snake oil salesman. He serves a valuable
purpose in this newsgroup by reliably coming to an incorrect conclusion
from any news item or piece of data. He is so reliably wrong on all
matters that whenever he says anything, you can be confident that the
exact opposite is true.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
FYI for Bob.....
http://www.tvtechnology.com/dailynews/one.php?id=2135
ATSC Gets International Takers
Mexico and Korea are really, really going to vse the ATSC standard for
digital broadcasting. Really.
On Wednesday, the ATSC again annovnced that Mexico has formally adopted the
ATSC standard for digital broadcasting. Once svch previovs annovncement was
retracted when the government of Mexico said it hadn't made a decision at
that point.
This time, the ATSC's release inclvded a qvote from Televisa's director of
High Technology Projects, Leonardo Ramos, who said, "With several
experimental ATSC DTV stations svccessfvlly on the air in Mexico, we are
pleased with the official annovncement that allows vs to move forward with
ovr fellow broadcasters to transition all of North America in the digital
age. By December 31, 2006, commercial DTV services will be in Mexico's three
largest cities: Mexico City, Gvadalajara and Monterrey, as well as in
certain cities along the Mexico-U.S. border."
ATSC President Mark Richer said that after working with Mexico for 15 years,
the ATSC was "extremely pleased" with the annovncement.
Korea also reiterated that ATSC wovld not be svpplanted as its national DTV
standard. The Korea Herald reported that the fovr-year debate over the
standard there had come to an end according to a joint release from the
Ministry of Information and Commvnications, the Korean Broadcasting
Commission, KBS (Korea Broadcasting System) and the National Union of Media
Workers.
"The agreement was aimed at speeding the digital-television transition with
the Athens Svmmer Olympic Games right at the door. We expect that 80 percent
of the covntry's hovseholds to have access to digital-television broadcasts
by the end of this year," Rha Bong-ha, director of the Commvnication
Ministry's broadcast satellite division, told the Herald. "By clearing the
vncertainties over standards, electronics manvfactvrers can invest
aggressively to develop digital-television prodvcts and also increase
consvmer demand."
FYI for Bob.....
http://www.tvtechnology.com/dailynews/one.php?id=2135
ATSC Gets International Takers
Mexico and Korea are really, really going to vse the ATSC standard for
digital broadcasting. Really.
On Wednesday, the ATSC again annovnced that Mexico has formally adopted the
ATSC standard for digital broadcasting. Once svch previovs annovncement was
retracted when the government of Mexico said it hadn't made a decision at
that point.
This time, the ATSC's release inclvded a qvote from Televisa's director of
High Technology Projects, Leonardo Ramos, who said, "With several
experimental ATSC DTV stations svccessfvlly on the air in Mexico, we are
pleased with the official annovncement that allows vs to move forward with
ovr fellow broadcasters to transition all of North America in the digital
age. By December 31, 2006, commercial DTV services will be in Mexico's three
largest cities: Mexico City, Gvadalajara and Monterrey, as well as in
certain cities along the Mexico-U.S. border."
ATSC President Mark Richer said that after working with Mexico for 15 years,
the ATSC was "extremely pleased" with the annovncement.
Korea also reiterated that ATSC wovld not be svpplanted as its national DTV
standard. The Korea Herald reported that the fovr-year debate over the
standard there had come to an end according to a joint release from the
Ministry of Information and Commvnications, the Korean Broadcasting
Commission, KBS (Korea Broadcasting System) and the National Union of Media
Workers.
"The agreement was aimed at speeding the digital-television transition with
the Athens Svmmer Olympic Games right at the door. We expect that 80 percent
of the covntry's hovseholds to have access to digital-television broadcasts
by the end of this year," Rha Bong-ha, director of the Commvnication
Ministry's broadcast satellite division, told the Herald. "By clearing the
vncertainties over standards, electronics manvfactvrers can invest
aggressively to develop digital-television prodvcts and also increase
consvmer demand."
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
Hey Bob, some more good (or bad?) news... I think that 8VSB will be with us
for a while.
http://www.nab.org/newsroom/issues/digitaltv/dtvstation...
DTV STATIONS IN OPERATION
1233 Stations in 207 Markets (that serve 99.69 percent of U.S. TV
Households) Delivering in Digital
(as of July 11, 2004)
Hey Bob, some more good (or bad?) news... I think that 8VSB will be with us
for a while.
http://www.nab.org/newsroom/issues/digitaltv/dtvstation...
DTV STATIONS IN OPERATION
1233 Stations in 207 Markets (that serve 99.69 percent of U.S. TV
Households) Delivering in Digital
(as of July 11, 2004)
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
More "good" news for Bob...
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/July2004/08/...
Tri-Vision congratulates Mexico on digital TV transition
TORONTO, July 8 /CNW/ - Tri-Vision International Ltd./Ltée (TSX:TVL) is
pleased by news from Mexico that the country will use the same digital
television system that is used in Canada and the United States.
The Communications and Transport Ministry in Mexico announced July 2,
2004 that the country was officially adopting the digital television
technological standard of the Advanced Television Systems Committee of the
United States. The ATSC system is also being used in Korea and Argentina. In
a
news release, ATSC said the Mexican decision will accelerate the digital
transition throughout the region and place the Americas in the vanguard of
digital television broadcasting.
ATSC Digital Television is expected to be the digital format for both
North and South America. ATSC is also negotiating with Brazil for acceptance
of the standard in that country.........
More "good" news for Bob...
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/July2004/08/...
Tri-Vision congratulates Mexico on digital TV transition
TORONTO, July 8 /CNW/ - Tri-Vision International Ltd./Ltée (TSX:TVL) is
pleased by news from Mexico that the country will use the same digital
television system that is used in Canada and the United States.
The Communications and Transport Ministry in Mexico announced July 2,
2004 that the country was officially adopting the digital television
technological standard of the Advanced Television Systems Committee of the
United States. The ATSC system is also being used in Korea and Argentina. In
a
news release, ATSC said the Mexican decision will accelerate the digital
transition throughout the region and place the Americas in the vanguard of
digital television broadcasting.
ATSC Digital Television is expected to be the digital format for both
North and South America. ATSC is also negotiating with Brazil for acceptance
of the standard in that country.........
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
Neutral news for me. Bad news for Mexican citizens unless the President
of Mexico extracted a stiff price from the US for going along with this
travesty. Little cost to Mexico in the short run since not much will
happen for a long time. It looks like the improved 8-VSB Zenith receiver
is having an affect on decisions that have been in limbo for many years.
S. Korea has made a deal that will allow DVB-H, (DVB-T COFDM subset), to
also be used in dual system. It remains to be seen what this will mean.
How much spectrum will be used with DVB-H etc.
Again the new receiver seems to have broken the impasse that had reigned
in Korea since 2000 with broadcasters refusing to go on the air with
8-VSB. What the real deal is will take some time to figure out. 8-VSB to
fixed receivers and DVB-H to mobile receivers. The question will be why.
Why have consumers required to purchase two different kinds of
receivers? Answer politics.
One of your articles suggest that Argentina is in the 8-VSB camp. AFAIK
not true. And Brazil which rejected 8-VSB in 2000 has not entertained
switching accept at a very steep price in trade and dollars. Again if
they switch to 8-VSB it will be a non event since they will do nothing
with it for years.
Having a better 5th gen receiver does change the equation however. Does
keep OTA broadcasting in the game for a few more years.
Doesn't change the reality that COFDM is still far superior and it or a
similar modulation is required to keep OTA broadcasting relevant long
term. Any country that choses 8-VSB today will have to switch to a
better modulation soon or watch their OTA broadcasting die a slow death
nibbled to bits by many other ways for the consumer to receive TV
services on fixed receivers.
Bob Miller
Phil Ross wrote:
> More "good" news for Bob...
>
> http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/July2004/08/...
>
> Tri-Vision congratulates Mexico on digital TV transition
>
> TORONTO, July 8 /CNW/ - Tri-Vision International Ltd./Ltée (TSX:TVL) is
> pleased by news from Mexico that the country will use the same digital
> television system that is used in Canada and the United States.
> The Communications and Transport Ministry in Mexico announced July 2,
> 2004 that the country was officially adopting the digital television
> technological standard of the Advanced Television Systems Committee of the
> United States. The ATSC system is also being used in Korea and Argentina. In
> a
> news release, ATSC said the Mexican decision will accelerate the digital
> transition throughout the region and place the Americas in the vanguard of
> digital television broadcasting.
> ATSC Digital Television is expected to be the digital format for both
> North and South America. ATSC is also negotiating with Brazil for acceptance
> of the standard in that country.........
>
>
Neutral news for me. Bad news for Mexican citizens unless the President
of Mexico extracted a stiff price from the US for going along with this
travesty. Little cost to Mexico in the short run since not much will
happen for a long time. It looks like the improved 8-VSB Zenith receiver
is having an affect on decisions that have been in limbo for many years.
S. Korea has made a deal that will allow DVB-H, (DVB-T COFDM subset), to
also be used in dual system. It remains to be seen what this will mean.
How much spectrum will be used with DVB-H etc.
Again the new receiver seems to have broken the impasse that had reigned
in Korea since 2000 with broadcasters refusing to go on the air with
8-VSB. What the real deal is will take some time to figure out. 8-VSB to
fixed receivers and DVB-H to mobile receivers. The question will be why.
Why have consumers required to purchase two different kinds of
receivers? Answer politics.
One of your articles suggest that Argentina is in the 8-VSB camp. AFAIK
not true. And Brazil which rejected 8-VSB in 2000 has not entertained
switching accept at a very steep price in trade and dollars. Again if
they switch to 8-VSB it will be a non event since they will do nothing
with it for years.
Having a better 5th gen receiver does change the equation however. Does
keep OTA broadcasting in the game for a few more years.
Doesn't change the reality that COFDM is still far superior and it or a
similar modulation is required to keep OTA broadcasting relevant long
term. Any country that choses 8-VSB today will have to switch to a
better modulation soon or watch their OTA broadcasting die a slow death
nibbled to bits by many other ways for the consumer to receive TV
services on fixed receivers.
Bob Miller
Phil Ross wrote:
> More "good" news for Bob...
>
> http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/July2004/08/...
>
> Tri-Vision congratulates Mexico on digital TV transition
>
> TORONTO, July 8 /CNW/ - Tri-Vision International Ltd./Ltée (TSX:TVL) is
> pleased by news from Mexico that the country will use the same digital
> television system that is used in Canada and the United States.
> The Communications and Transport Ministry in Mexico announced July 2,
> 2004 that the country was officially adopting the digital television
> technological standard of the Advanced Television Systems Committee of the
> United States. The ATSC system is also being used in Korea and Argentina. In
> a
> news release, ATSC said the Mexican decision will accelerate the digital
> transition throughout the region and place the Americas in the vanguard of
> digital television broadcasting.
> ATSC Digital Television is expected to be the digital format for both
> North and South America. ATSC is also negotiating with Brazil for acceptance
> of the standard in that country.........
>
>
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
Phil Ross wrote:
> More "good" news for Bob...
BTW you are right any news that solidifies 8-VSB as the modulation for
full power broadcasters in the US IS GOOD NEWS for me as I have said
many times.
>
> http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/July2004/08/...
>
> Tri-Vision congratulates Mexico on digital TV transition
>
> TORONTO, July 8 /CNW/ - Tri-Vision International Ltd./Ltée (TSX:TVL) is
> pleased by news from Mexico that the country will use the same digital
> television system that is used in Canada and the United States.
> The Communications and Transport Ministry in Mexico announced July 2,
> 2004 that the country was officially adopting the digital television
> technological standard of the Advanced Television Systems Committee of the
> United States. The ATSC system is also being used in Korea and Argentina. In
> a
> news release, ATSC said the Mexican decision will accelerate the digital
> transition throughout the region and place the Americas in the vanguard of
> digital television broadcasting.
> ATSC Digital Television is expected to be the digital format for both
> North and South America. ATSC is also negotiating with Brazil for acceptance
> of the standard in that country.........
>
>
Phil Ross wrote:
> More "good" news for Bob...
BTW you are right any news that solidifies 8-VSB as the modulation for
full power broadcasters in the US IS GOOD NEWS for me as I have said
many times.
>
> http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/July2004/08/...
>
> Tri-Vision congratulates Mexico on digital TV transition
>
> TORONTO, July 8 /CNW/ - Tri-Vision International Ltd./Ltée (TSX:TVL) is
> pleased by news from Mexico that the country will use the same digital
> television system that is used in Canada and the United States.
> The Communications and Transport Ministry in Mexico announced July 2,
> 2004 that the country was officially adopting the digital television
> technological standard of the Advanced Television Systems Committee of the
> United States. The ATSC system is also being used in Korea and Argentina. In
> a
> news release, ATSC said the Mexican decision will accelerate the digital
> transition throughout the region and place the Americas in the vanguard of
> digital television broadcasting.
> ATSC Digital Television is expected to be the digital format for both
> North and South America. ATSC is also negotiating with Brazil for acceptance
> of the standard in that country.........
>
>
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
Bob Miller wrote:
>
> As long as broadcasters are locked into
> competition with other means of delivery to fixed receivers and are
> denied their strong suite which is mobile they will be limited.
What? Sounds like you're confusing your business plan with OTA
broadcasters. Their strong suite isn't mobile - just name one local OTA
broadcaster who is currently broadcasting video for mobile reception in
the US!
As
> bandwidth on the Internet continues to increase more customers will be
> siphoned off from all those who deliver to fixed receivers.
Do you seriously believe that content providers want to make their
content available via the internet? Once it's on a computer, there's
just no way to prevent people from making copies of that content and
redistributing it.
Not only that, the infrastructure just doesn't exist in most parts of
the country; lots of cable-based ISPs are already throttling and/or
charging their customers for what the ISP considers excessive bandwidth
usage. High bandwidth internet access suitable for HD video won't be
widely available for quite a few more years, and then it's questionable
whether there will be any copy-protection schemes that the content
providers agree is secure enough for them to release content.
The one area
> that will show explosive growth will be mobile and portable. New devices
> for watching videos on the go are introduced daily. Broadcasters in the
> rest of the world can address that market.
What is the market for mobile and portable? Seriously, do you really
believe there's a market for movies or network-type shows that aren't
being met by portable DVD players? I'm sure there's a market for mobile
ads for mass transit, but that ain't driven by consumer demand...
In the US broadcasters are
> tied to fixed receivers by 8-VSB.
>
> Maybe my use of "soon" and "slow death" are too short term. With the
> better Zenith receivers this period could be 6 to 8 years. In the mean
> time this is GOOD news to me since our plan will have no competition
> from current broadcasters for the duration whatever it is. And who knows
> what will happen after the FCC throws in the towel and either changes
> the modulation or takes back the unused channels 2-51 spectrum for
> auction? Then we will have competition.
>
>>
>> I find it strange that you believe that 8VSB modulation needs to die a
>> slow
>> death, but that it is good news when it is more solidified.
>
>
> Doesn't have to die a slow death, it will cause a slow death of OTA
> broadcasting. At first the better receivers could cause a rebirth of OTA
> broadcasting and allow broadcasters to compete with cable and satellite.
> Longer term they all die as megaband Internet mesh networks connect us
> all to each other and there is no need for the middleman between the
> content provider and the viewer using fixed receivers. This is already
> happening but will accelerate faster than most believe IMO because of
> technology just now becoming available.
Again, broadband that's wide enough for video-on-demand type
applications just isn't widely and inexpensively available to enough
people for this to be more than a niche market. Even though DSL and
cable internet access is growing very rapidly, neither of those is
suited for video-on-demand and the infrastructure just isn't available
now. And DSL and cable providers are focusing on spreading to more
people, not increasing bandwidth to existing customers. Really high
bandwidth at reasonable costs won't be available for many more years.
And do you really believe the content providers want to make it easy for
end-users to copy and redistribute the content w/o a method for the
providers to get a cut?
>
> What is left for broadcasters? Mobile and portable. They can't do it so
> the field is open for those who can.
>
Again, just what is the market for mobile and portable? I mean that's
consumer driven...
Bob Miller wrote:
>
> As long as broadcasters are locked into
> competition with other means of delivery to fixed receivers and are
> denied their strong suite which is mobile they will be limited.
What? Sounds like you're confusing your business plan with OTA
broadcasters. Their strong suite isn't mobile - just name one local OTA
broadcaster who is currently broadcasting video for mobile reception in
the US!
As
> bandwidth on the Internet continues to increase more customers will be
> siphoned off from all those who deliver to fixed receivers.
Do you seriously believe that content providers want to make their
content available via the internet? Once it's on a computer, there's
just no way to prevent people from making copies of that content and
redistributing it.
Not only that, the infrastructure just doesn't exist in most parts of
the country; lots of cable-based ISPs are already throttling and/or
charging their customers for what the ISP considers excessive bandwidth
usage. High bandwidth internet access suitable for HD video won't be
widely available for quite a few more years, and then it's questionable
whether there will be any copy-protection schemes that the content
providers agree is secure enough for them to release content.
The one area
> that will show explosive growth will be mobile and portable. New devices
> for watching videos on the go are introduced daily. Broadcasters in the
> rest of the world can address that market.
What is the market for mobile and portable? Seriously, do you really
believe there's a market for movies or network-type shows that aren't
being met by portable DVD players? I'm sure there's a market for mobile
ads for mass transit, but that ain't driven by consumer demand...
In the US broadcasters are
> tied to fixed receivers by 8-VSB.
>
> Maybe my use of "soon" and "slow death" are too short term. With the
> better Zenith receivers this period could be 6 to 8 years. In the mean
> time this is GOOD news to me since our plan will have no competition
> from current broadcasters for the duration whatever it is. And who knows
> what will happen after the FCC throws in the towel and either changes
> the modulation or takes back the unused channels 2-51 spectrum for
> auction? Then we will have competition.
>
>>
>> I find it strange that you believe that 8VSB modulation needs to die a
>> slow
>> death, but that it is good news when it is more solidified.
>
>
> Doesn't have to die a slow death, it will cause a slow death of OTA
> broadcasting. At first the better receivers could cause a rebirth of OTA
> broadcasting and allow broadcasters to compete with cable and satellite.
> Longer term they all die as megaband Internet mesh networks connect us
> all to each other and there is no need for the middleman between the
> content provider and the viewer using fixed receivers. This is already
> happening but will accelerate faster than most believe IMO because of
> technology just now becoming available.
Again, broadband that's wide enough for video-on-demand type
applications just isn't widely and inexpensively available to enough
people for this to be more than a niche market. Even though DSL and
cable internet access is growing very rapidly, neither of those is
suited for video-on-demand and the infrastructure just isn't available
now. And DSL and cable providers are focusing on spreading to more
people, not increasing bandwidth to existing customers. Really high
bandwidth at reasonable costs won't be available for many more years.
And do you really believe the content providers want to make it easy for
end-users to copy and redistribute the content w/o a method for the
providers to get a cut?
>
> What is left for broadcasters? Mobile and portable. They can't do it so
> the field is open for those who can.
>
Again, just what is the market for mobile and portable? I mean that's
consumer driven...
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 12:52:57 -0400, Jeff Rife wrote:
> As others have said, then build your own. The specs for ATSC are public
> if you want to roll your own, but the chips that demodulate it are (and
> will be) freely available. There are no restrictions on their sale.
Well, less be serious here. I'm a EE, and that sounds like a very
daunting task.
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 12:52:57 -0400, Jeff Rife wrote:
> As others have said, then build your own. The specs for ATSC are public
> if you want to roll your own, but the chips that demodulate it are (and
> will be) freely available. There are no restrictions on their sale.
Well, less be serious here. I'm a EE, and that sounds like a very
daunting task.
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
dizzy (dizzy@nospam.invalid) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Well, less be serious here. I'm a EE, and that sounds like a very
> daunting task.
With one-chip solutions available, it's not really that big a deal.
Absolutely the hardest part is to actually save the data to the hard
drive, because that involves the variances of the PCI bus. The second
hardest part is adding the switch so that the chip can take input from
the hard drive as if it was actually the antenna, but you don't need to
do that if you do software MPEG decoding.
Just building an ATSC receiver isn't that hard compared to all the "extras"
that these PCI cards do.
--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/CloseToHome/PizzaDelivery....
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov |
dizzy (dizzy@nospam.invalid) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Well, less be serious here. I'm a EE, and that sounds like a very
> daunting task.
With one-chip solutions available, it's not really that big a deal.
Absolutely the hardest part is to actually save the data to the hard
drive, because that involves the variances of the PCI bus. The second
hardest part is adding the switch so that the chip can take input from
the hard drive as if it was actually the antenna, but you don't need to
do that if you do software MPEG decoding.
Just building an ATSC receiver isn't that hard compared to all the "extras"
that these PCI cards do.
--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/CloseToHome/PizzaDelivery....
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov |
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:38:31 -0400, Jeff Rife wrote:
> dizzy (dizzy@nospam.invalid) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> Well, less be serious here. I'm a EE, and that sounds like a very
>> daunting task.
>
> With one-chip solutions available, it's not really that big a deal.
What's the one chip? A 200-pin BGA? How many people even have
the skills to design a board to solder this thing onto? Much less the
things you mention below...
> Absolutely the hardest part is to actually save the data to the hard
> drive, because that involves the variances of the PCI bus. The second
> hardest part is adding the switch so that the chip can take input from
> the hard drive as if it was actually the antenna, but you don't need to
> do that if you do software MPEG decoding.
>
> Just building an ATSC receiver isn't that hard compared to all the "extras"
> that these PCI cards do.
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:38:31 -0400, Jeff Rife wrote:
> dizzy (dizzy@nospam.invalid) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> Well, less be serious here. I'm a EE, and that sounds like a very
>> daunting task.
>
> With one-chip solutions available, it's not really that big a deal.
What's the one chip? A 200-pin BGA? How many people even have
the skills to design a board to solder this thing onto? Much less the
things you mention below...
> Absolutely the hardest part is to actually save the data to the hard
> drive, because that involves the variances of the PCI bus. The second
> hardest part is adding the switch so that the chip can take input from
> the hard drive as if it was actually the antenna, but you don't need to
> do that if you do software MPEG decoding.
>
> Just building an ATSC receiver isn't that hard compared to all the "extras"
> that these PCI cards do.
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:16:28 -0500, Jeff Shoaf <jeffshoaf@alltel.net>
wrote:
>>
>> What is left for broadcasters? Mobile and portable. They can't do it so
>> the field is open for those who can.
>>
>
>Again, just what is the market for mobile and portable? I mean that's
>consumer driven...
But Bobbie's market isn't intended for direct consumer use. His
business plans are designed to provide direct video advertising to
mobile devices, such as in buses and trains. Almost sounds like a
good plan, except he never answered about the holes I pointed out
there were big enough to drive those trains through.
Such is the life of a failed business. You know, I'd actually like to
see Bobbie make a go of his mobile datacasting, so we can have a good
laugh after it's gone bankrupt.
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:16:28 -0500, Jeff Shoaf <jeffshoaf@alltel.net>
wrote:
>>
>> What is left for broadcasters? Mobile and portable. They can't do it so
>> the field is open for those who can.
>>
>
>Again, just what is the market for mobile and portable? I mean that's
>consumer driven...
But Bobbie's market isn't intended for direct consumer use. His
business plans are designed to provide direct video advertising to
mobile devices, such as in buses and trains. Almost sounds like a
good plan, except he never answered about the holes I pointed out
there were big enough to drive those trains through.
Such is the life of a failed business. You know, I'd actually like to
see Bobbie make a go of his mobile datacasting, so we can have a good
laugh after it's gone bankrupt.
Related ressources:
- ForumJapan and OZ HDTV compared to US
- ForumAn engineer witness reports on the crime
- Forumx86-64 Broad Industry Support for AMD Opteron
- ForumTiVo stock spikes upward as analyst give it a 'buy' rating.
- ForumTiVo stock spikes upward as analyst give it a 'buy' rating.
- ForumRecent test
- ForumI guess bob didn't want us to see this...
- ForumWhy not rake receivers for DTV ?
- ForumBreaking - AMD Warns!
- ForumMy thoughts why AMD is so quiet.
- Forum5th Generation ATSC Tuner Available in LG's LZ30 Series
- ForumNo indoor antennas, says Freeview (U.K.)
- ForumHDTV in Japan, the Europe and other parts of the world.
- ForumWhat's better, TV or Monitor?
- ForumClass Action lawsuit against Movie Industry
- More resources
Read discussions in other Home Theatre categories
!
