Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Will MPEG4 Make Your HD Receiver Obsolete?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 4:15:23 AM

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

Hey guys,

MPEG4 is out and it has the power to make the HD receivers we have today
obsolete. Great new technology, but it poses a serious risk as well...

Read the full story below...
http://www.avrev.com/news/0305/17.mpeg4.html

Keeping you in the loop,

Diane
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 4:15:24 AM

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

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 01:15:23 +0000, Diane Sherwin wrote:

> Hey guys,
>
> MPEG4 is out and it has the power to make the HD receivers we have today
> obsolete. Great new technology, but it poses a serious risk as well...
>
> Read the full story below...
> http://www.avrev.com/news/0305/17.mpeg4.html
>

Any company implementing MPEG4 does not have quality or your investment in
mind. Only THEIR wallets.

MPEG4 != quality
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 4:15:24 AM

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

Another doom and gloom article that only selectively applies. If you
happen to be in the market for a HD enabled satellite box or HD-DVR
satellite box then you may have good reason to hesitate before buying
and you should take to heart what this article is discussing.

With regard to cable television (HD cable, HD-DVR via cable, etc..)
this article is not relevant, unless you happen to have one of the few
cable providers that require to you to buy your equipment instead of
lease. Cable and satellite will probably embrace MPEG-4 at some point
in the future to battle it out. What this author (incorrectly) assumes
is that MPEG-4 is the end of the road. I pedict before this MPEG-2 and
MPEG-4 battle even gets underway, the format to come after MPEG-4 will
already be making waves and we'll see another cycle. Cable providers
probably have the best model to deal with all this change, because they
lease their boxes. They can make arrangements with vendors (e.g.
Scientific Atlanta) so that the older models can be refurbished with
the newer chips/boards as the new codecs become available and the
customer will not have to pay anything out of pocket.

Over the air television isn't threatened at all right now, the article
does inply that, but it stops well short of stating anything about Over
the air HD moving away from the current MPEG-2 standard. To say
otherwise would imply a change in the FCC mandate which is not likely
to happen. The author knows this, he can't make a case for it so he
just implies that you might should be concerned when buying an
integrated HDTV. I don't think there's anything to worry about.

-Jeremy
Related resources
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 4:15:24 AM

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

"...Yes all current 8-VSB receivers are obsolete TODAY in the minds of
broadcasters. Are they going to tell you that?. NO. Is the FCC going to
tell you that? No not anymore than they are going to tell the public
that they don't have to buy integrated DTV sets i"

All propaganda. Aside from your (highly) subjective opinion., can you
site specificly where the FCC has given any reason for us to believe
they are preparing to change the 8VSB modulation standard that exist as
part of their DTV mandate?

I don't want an opnion piece, just something factual that we can
reference.

The question again is: Can you point to something specific that the FCC
has released to indicate they are planing to change the exsiting DTV
mandate to abandon 8VSB modulation in favor of something else?
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 4:15:24 AM

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

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:
> All propaganda. Aside from your (highly) subjective opinion., can you
> site specificly where the FCC has given any reason for us to believe
> they are preparing to change the 8VSB modulation standard that exist as
> part of their DTV mandate?

Remember, whatever Psycho Bob Miller says, 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.
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 5:02:13 AM

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

I'll take your response as a "No" to my question, but thanks for
another lengthy opinion piece.
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 5:14:00 AM

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

Again, this is all your opinion, when I talk about OTA (over-the-air)
I'm speaking of the current system that exist today, not some vision of
what may be. Let's talk about the hear and now, not what may be, not
what's "brewing".

In context, today in the US we have 8VSB modulation which specifies
MPEG-2, it is alive in integrated HDTVs and probably to a larger degree
inside satellite reciever boxes. 8VSB/MPEG-2 is the standard
broadcasters are using today, it is part of the transition to DTV
mandate layed out by the FCC.

I ask you to specify a specifc example that would lead us to believe
the FCC would change this and you point to congress, which is fine.
Give us an example of something going on in congress there that would
lead to change. I'm giving you an opportunity to change my opinion.
Everything I've read in regard to the latest hearings would be more
supportive of the existing 8VSB-MPEG-2 system, it wouldn't change it.
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 6:15:17 AM

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

Diane Sherwin wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> MPEG4 is out and it has the power to make the HD receivers we have today
> obsolete. Great new technology, but it poses a serious risk as well...
>
> Read the full story below...
> http://www.avrev.com/news/0305/17.mpeg4.html
>
> Keeping you in the loop,
>
> Diane
>
That includes OTA receivers as well as has been discussed here over that
last year and back in 2000.

Basically our modulation was ancient and outdated on the day it was
chosen and MPEG2 was also.

The need to change to MPEG4 is now even more compelling than the
modulation issue.

Broadcasters will be COMPELLED by rational thought and market reality to
offer the most programming whether HD, ED, SD or a combination of such.
That means they will be COMPELLED to use as much of their bandwidth as
possible with MPEG4. This means that all current OTA receivers will be
rendered obsolete for all but the ONE SD program that the FCC requires
be broadcast in MPEG2.

Yes all current 8-VSB receivers are obsolete TODAY in the minds of
broadcasters. Are they going to tell you that?. NO. Is the FCC going to
tell you that? No not anymore than they are going to tell the public
that they don't have to buy integrated DTV sets if they are going to use
the display device with cable or satellite.

The choice of MPEG2 and the 8-VSB modulation was a gambit by politically
powerful IP royalty stream owners to rip the public off. When the public
didn't bite they passed a mandate. Now broadcasters are awakening to the
reality that with NO multicast must carry they have been had. They will
now demand MPEG4 and with it comes the possibility to upgrade to a
better modulation as well since as you say...

All current receivers are going to be obsolete anyway.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 6:17:41 AM

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

yea right wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 01:15:23 +0000, Diane Sherwin wrote:
>
>
>>Hey guys,
>>
>>MPEG4 is out and it has the power to make the HD receivers we have today
>>obsolete. Great new technology, but it poses a serious risk as well...
>>
>>Read the full story below...
>>http://www.avrev.com/news/0305/17.mpeg4.html
>>
>
>
> Any company implementing MPEG4 does not have quality or your investment in
> mind. Only THEIR wallets.
>
> MPEG4 != quality

Yes MPEG4 = quality. 1080i will actually fit in a 6 MHz channel using
MPEG4.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 6:17:42 AM

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

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 03:17:41 +0000, Bob Miller wrote:

> yea right wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 01:15:23 +0000, Diane Sherwin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hey guys,
>>>
>>>MPEG4 is out and it has the power to make the HD receivers we have today
>>>obsolete. Great new technology, but it poses a serious risk as well...
>>>
>>>Read the full story below...
>>>http://www.avrev.com/news/0305/17.mpeg4.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Any company implementing MPEG4 does not have quality or your investment
>> in mind. Only THEIR wallets.
>>
>> MPEG4 != quality
>
> Yes MPEG4 = quality. 1080i will actually fit in a 6 MHz channel using
> MPEG4.
>

However, nobody even talks about MPEG4 unless it's below 10Mbs.

AVC has several major problems....
*With multiple overlapping GOPs, channel surfing will be painfully slow.
*The streams are not splicable. Which means anyone wanting to add
commercials will have to decode and re-encode the stream. This also ends
the MPEG philosophy of "once encoded, always encoded"
*With a new set of compression tools, comes a whole new set of artifacts.
*Nobody will use the extra tools to increase quality as any quality gain
will be negated by bandwidth reductions because
"bandwidth = money".
*MPEG4 is based on a fee for each use. Somehow, the customer will pay.
*Market convolution. There will be a point where none of these boxes will
be compatible with scheme proposed. Customers will end up paying money
and be so frustrated with the technology in it's inability to
inter-operate that people will stop buying content.

The only winner here is the people pushing this tripe
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 7:35:52 AM

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

Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:
> Another doom and gloom article that only selectively applies. If you happen to be in the market for a HD enabled satellite box or HD-DVR
> satellite box then you may have good reason to hesitate before buying and you should take to heart what this article is discussing.
>
> With regard to cable television (HD cable, HD-DVR via cable, etc..) this article is not relevant, unless you happen to have one of the few
> cable providers that require to you to buy your equipment instead of lease. Cable and satellite will probably embrace MPEG-4 at some point
> in the future to battle it out. What this author (incorrectly) assumes is that MPEG-4 is the end of the road. I pedict before this MPEG-2 and
> MPEG-4 battle even gets underway, the format to come after MPEG-4 will already be making waves and we'll see another cycle. Cable providers
> probably have the best model to deal with all this change, because they lease their boxes. They can make arrangements with vendors (e.g.
> Scientific Atlanta) so that the older models can be refurbished with the newer chips/boards as the new codecs become available and the
> customer will not have to pay anything out of pocket.
>
> Over the air television isn't threatened at all right now, the article does inply that, but it stops well short of stating anything about Over
> the air HD moving away from the current MPEG-2 standard. To say otherwise would imply a change in the FCC mandate which is not likely
> to happen. The author knows this, he can't make a case for it so he just implies that you might should be concerned when buying an
> integrated HDTV. I don't think there's anything to worry about.
>
> -Jeremy
>
Simply not true. OTA is in a bind. It is saddled with MPEG2 and 8-VSB,
two cement blocks that drag it down just when it enters the last stage
of its life and death struggle with cable and satellite.

Broadcasters right now can limit their MPEG2 liability to ONE SD program
and then sell a subscription based service with MPEG4 on the rest of the
spectrum.

You may say that since your MPEG2 receiver is still able to receive that
ONE SD channel it is not obsolete but most people who bought OTA
receivers to date bought them to receive HDTV content. I suggest that if
those receivers cannot decode MPEG4 they are obsolete as far as HD is
concerned.

Now that broadcasters have lost the multicast must carry fight expect
them to do the above. HD will be offered in the subscription service
with MPEG4. It only makes sense.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 7:49:04 AM

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

Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:
> "...Yes all current 8-VSB receivers are obsolete TODAY in the minds of broadcasters. Are they going to tell you that?. NO. Is the FCC going to
> tell you that? No not anymore than they are going to tell the public that they don't have to buy integrated DTV sets i"
>
> All propaganda. Aside from your (highly) subjective opinion., can you site specificly where the FCC has given any reason for us to believe
> they are preparing to change the 8VSB modulation standard that exist as part of their DTV mandate?
>
> I don't want an opnion piece, just something factual that we can reference.
>
> The question again is: Can you point to something specific that the FCC has released to indicate they are planing to change the exsiting DTV
> mandate to abandon 8VSB modulation in favor of something else?
>
It is not up to the FCC. Their boss our Congress in just getting into
the nitty gritty of this.

First nothing has to change for all current receivers to become obsolete
as to HD. All that has to happen is for broadcasters to begin delivering
their HD content as part of a subscription service using MPEG4. No
current receiver will work with MPEG4.

As to switching modulations. Congress is being informed right now that
if they pass a bill that requires analog cut off without a converter
8-VSB box that works plug and play for grandma they are in big doo-doo.

Can you even imagine a multi-billion dollar program to get converter
boxes to all who qualify and then turning off analog TV? The howls that
would be raised as millions of American homes involuntarily were thrust
into the mess early adopters have been going through for the last seven
years would be incredible.

It is one thing for early adopters in small numbers who can afford to go
thru many OTA receivers and antenna configurations trying to get a
decent reception. It is quite another to contemplate millions of
families going thru this involuntarily with the looming threat of analog
turn off hanging over their heads.

Congress would be substituting the horror of analog turn off with NO
provision with analog turnoff with a disastrous multi billion $$$ one in
which million of howling people with no access to their roofs or any
skills or understanding of antenna use all screaming for the heads of
anyone connected to the fiasco.

Congress will have this coming disaster described in detail over the
coming weeks.

They have to start listening to reason sooner of later.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 8:07:41 AM

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

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in news:9PM_d.12315$oO4.3403
@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> Diane Sherwin wrote:
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> MPEG4 is out and it has the power to make the HD receivers we have
today
>> obsolete. Great new technology, but it poses a serious risk as
well...
>>
>> Read the full story below...
>> http://www.avrev.com/news/0305/17.mpeg4.html
>>
>> Keeping you in the loop,
>>
>> Diane
>>
> That includes OTA receivers as well as has been discussed here over
that
> last year and back in 2000.
>
> Basically our modulation was ancient and outdated on the day it was
> chosen and MPEG2 was also.
>
> The need to change to MPEG4 is now even more compelling than the
> modulation issue.
>
> Broadcasters will be COMPELLED by rational thought and market reality
to
> offer the most programming whether HD, ED, SD or a combination of such.
> That means they will be COMPELLED to use as much of their bandwidth as
> possible with MPEG4. This means that all current OTA receivers will be
> rendered obsolete for all but the ONE SD program that the FCC requires
> be broadcast in MPEG2.

Uh, MPEG4, like MPEG2 is a software protocol, not a hardware device. An
awful lot of the cable and satellite receivers on the market today are
reprogrammable at several levels, including over-the-air reprogramming of
certain parts of their memory. I'd say obsolescence is less likely than
some alarmists are claiming. At worst, you may have to send your
receiver in to have its internals changed a bit (probably receiving a
different one in exchange and dealers could be co-opted into such a
program). Heck, if the change allows me to view a few dozen extra HD
channels, I'll pay some money for it, no problem.

OTA TV will always be more expensive to provide on a per user basis than
good satellite channels (assuming the satellite has enough of a market
share in its coverage area). Think about it. One (admittedly very
expensive) transmitter 12,000 miles high covers a lot of users. And it
operates on frequencies that are relatively free from local interference
and completely free of secondary echoes.

Satellite is not a good mobile solution at video bandwidths largely
because of the air resistance of the requisite receive dishes. But if
one is willing to put up with the bandwidth of a single satellite and if
the satellites themselves become more powerful, I can see that objection
vanishing, just as it did for marine communications. You put the receive
dish in a housing and make it aerodynamic and auto-tracking. That's all
you need.

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 10:29:46 AM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> yea right wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Any company implementing MPEG4 does not have quality or your
>> investment in
>> mind. Only THEIR wallets.
>>
>> MPEG4 != quality
>
>
> Yes MPEG4 = quality. 1080i will actually fit in a 6 MHz channel using
> MPEG4.
>

So what, bob? MPEG-2 1080i fits in a 6 MHz channel using 8-VSB.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 2:21:02 PM

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

bOb said spazmodically:

>Are they going to tell you that?. NO. Is the FCC going to
tell you that?

Leave it to good 'ol bOb to give us the untruth, out of the goodness of
his heart noless.
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 3:05:14 PM

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

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:
> I ask you to specify a specifc example that would lead us to believe
> the FCC would change this and you point to congress, which is fine.
> Give us an example of something going on in congress there that would
> lead to change. I'm giving you an opportunity to change my opinion.
> Everything I've read in regard to the latest hearings would be more
> supportive of the existing 8VSB-MPEG-2 system, it wouldn't change it.

Psycho Bob Miller lives in a fantasy world. His business, such as it was,
is in shambles. His only remaining purpose in life is to dish out as much
hurt as he feels by spreading FUD about the North American DTV system.

Psycho Bob's is mentally incapable of accepting defeat, not to mention
admitting that he was wrong when presented with irrefutable evidence.

The good thing about all of this is that Psycho Bob is destroying any
chance for success in the future. Any due diligence done on Psycho Bob
will turn up his behavior.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 6:44:42 PM

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

Dave Oldridge wrote:
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in news:9PM_d.12315$oO4.3403
> @newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
>
>>Diane Sherwin wrote:
>>
>>>Hey guys,
>>>
>>>MPEG4 is out and it has the power to make the HD receivers we have
>
> today
>
>>>obsolete. Great new technology, but it poses a serious risk as
>
> well...
>
>>>Read the full story below...
>>>http://www.avrev.com/news/0305/17.mpeg4.html
>>>
>>>Keeping you in the loop,
>>>
>>>Diane
>>>
>>
>>That includes OTA receivers as well as has been discussed here over
>
> that
>
>>last year and back in 2000.
>>
>>Basically our modulation was ancient and outdated on the day it was
>>chosen and MPEG2 was also.
>>
>>The need to change to MPEG4 is now even more compelling than the
>>modulation issue.
>>
>>Broadcasters will be COMPELLED by rational thought and market reality
>
> to
>
>>offer the most programming whether HD, ED, SD or a combination of such.
>>That means they will be COMPELLED to use as much of their bandwidth as
>>possible with MPEG4. This means that all current OTA receivers will be
>>rendered obsolete for all but the ONE SD program that the FCC requires
>>be broadcast in MPEG2.
>
>
> Uh, MPEG4, like MPEG2 is a software protocol, not a hardware device. An
> awful lot of the cable and satellite receivers on the market today are
> reprogrammable at several levels, including over-the-air reprogramming of
> certain parts of their memory. I'd say obsolescence is less likely than
> some alarmists are claiming. At worst, you may have to send your
> receiver in to have its internals changed a bit (probably receiving a
> different one in exchange and dealers could be co-opted into such a
> program). Heck, if the change allows me to view a few dozen extra HD
> channels, I'll pay some money for it, no problem.
>
> OTA TV will always be more expensive to provide on a per user basis than
> good satellite channels (assuming the satellite has enough of a market
> share in its coverage area). Think about it. One (admittedly very
> expensive) transmitter 12,000 miles high covers a lot of users. And it
> operates on frequencies that are relatively free from local interference
> and completely free of secondary echoes.
>
> Satellite is not a good mobile solution at video bandwidths largely
> because of the air resistance of the requisite receive dishes. But if
> one is willing to put up with the bandwidth of a single satellite and if
> the satellites themselves become more powerful, I can see that objection
> vanishing, just as it did for marine communications. You put the receive
> dish in a housing and make it aerodynamic and auto-tracking. That's all
> you need.
>
I believe that has all been done. Doesn't make satellite acceptable
mobile however. Makes it OK on a boat if you maintain line of sight but
on land you will have many obstacles that get in the way. Look at Sirius
and XMRadio, they can't exist mobile without terrestrial repeaters.
Satellite works portable well if you want to take the dish along.

Terrestrial with COFDM allows for cell phone size antennas to work very
well for DTV.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 6:48:20 PM

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

Dave,

You're correct we're talking about two different standards, one of
modulation (8VSB) and other being a compression codec (MPEG-2), why is
8VSB is bound to MPEG-2? When you see people here saying 8VSB/MPEG-2,
the two are bound togeather in the context of what the FCC has in the
DTV transition mandate for US broadcasters.

The reason for this is because when television and STB (sit top box)
manufactuers build their HD tuners they have to agree on both a
modulation standard and a decompression codec. The compression codec
could be updated via software assuming the hardware is capable of
decompression the new codec in realtime and the hardware supports
"firmware" upgrades, Unfortunately decompression of MPEG-4 or WM9/AC3
requires much more processing power than real-time MPEG-2
decompression. Those formats are in-part possible because of processing
power enhancements, so 8VSB and MPEG-2 are currently bound togeather in
terms of US OTA DTV broadcasting












in under what the FCC has madiated for DTV.
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 9:02:17 PM

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

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:KNX_d.12624$oO4.10251@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> Dave Oldridge wrote:
>> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in news:9PM_d.12315$oO4.3403
>> @newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>>
>>
>>>Diane Sherwin wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hey guys,
>>>>
>>>>MPEG4 is out and it has the power to make the HD receivers we have
>>
>> today
>>
>>>>obsolete. Great new technology, but it poses a serious risk as
>>
>> well...
>>
>>>>Read the full story below...
>>>>http://www.avrev.com/news/0305/17.mpeg4.html
>>>>
>>>>Keeping you in the loop,
>>>>
>>>>Diane
>>>>
>>>
>>>That includes OTA receivers as well as has been discussed here over
>>
>> that
>>
>>>last year and back in 2000.
>>>
>>>Basically our modulation was ancient and outdated on the day it was
>>>chosen and MPEG2 was also.
>>>
>>>The need to change to MPEG4 is now even more compelling than the
>>>modulation issue.
>>>
>>>Broadcasters will be COMPELLED by rational thought and market reality
>>
>> to
>>
>>>offer the most programming whether HD, ED, SD or a combination of
>>>such. That means they will be COMPELLED to use as much of their
>>>bandwidth as possible with MPEG4. This means that all current OTA
>>>receivers will be rendered obsolete for all but the ONE SD program
>>>that the FCC requires be broadcast in MPEG2.
>>
>>
>> Uh, MPEG4, like MPEG2 is a software protocol, not a hardware device.
>> An awful lot of the cable and satellite receivers on the market today
>> are reprogrammable at several levels, including over-the-air
>> reprogramming of certain parts of their memory. I'd say obsolescence
>> is less likely than some alarmists are claiming. At worst, you may
>> have to send your receiver in to have its internals changed a bit
>> (probably receiving a different one in exchange and dealers could be
>> co-opted into such a program). Heck, if the change allows me to view
>> a few dozen extra HD channels, I'll pay some money for it, no
>> problem.
>>
>> OTA TV will always be more expensive to provide on a per user basis
>> than good satellite channels (assuming the satellite has enough of a
>> market share in its coverage area). Think about it. One (admittedly
>> very expensive) transmitter 12,000 miles high covers a lot of users.
>> And it operates on frequencies that are relatively free from local
>> interference and completely free of secondary echoes.
>>
>> Satellite is not a good mobile solution at video bandwidths largely
>> because of the air resistance of the requisite receive dishes. But
>> if one is willing to put up with the bandwidth of a single satellite
>> and if the satellites themselves become more powerful, I can see that
>> objection vanishing, just as it did for marine communications. You
>> put the receive dish in a housing and make it aerodynamic and
>> auto-tracking. That's all you need.
>>
> I believe that has all been done. Doesn't make satellite acceptable
> mobile however. Makes it OK on a boat if you maintain line of sight
> but on land you will have many obstacles that get in the way. Look at
> Sirius and XMRadio, they can't exist mobile without terrestrial
> repeaters. Satellite works portable well if you want to take the dish
> along.

Yes, mobile won't work among a bunch of buildings. But that's not a huge
problem on the open road, especially if you design protocols so that
short signal dropouts are covered by redundancy in the broadcast and FEC.

> Terrestrial with COFDM allows for cell phone size antennas to work
> very well for DTV.

But probably only on cell-phone type frequencies, at the high end of UHF
between 2 and 3 ghz. UHF does penetrate buildings well (though nothing
much works in deep tunnels).

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 9:07:18 PM

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

Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote in news:1111227240.841413.226800
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Again, this is all your opinion, when I talk about OTA (over-the-air)
> I'm speaking of the current system that exist today, not some vision of
> what may be. Let's talk about the hear and now, not what may be, not
> what's "brewing".
>
> In context, today in the US we have 8VSB modulation which specifies
> MPEG-2, it is alive in integrated HDTVs and probably to a larger degree
> inside satellite reciever boxes. 8VSB/MPEG-2 is the standard
> broadcasters are using today, it is part of the transition to DTV
> mandate layed out by the FCC.

I'm confused here. 8VSB and COFDM are modulation schemes for
transporting digital data by radio (only two of several that I'm aware
of). MPEG2 and MPEG4 are software protocols for encoding digital data.
They are totally independent of modulation schemes and will work over any
modulation scheme that transmits data, assuming the transmitted data is
received.

> I ask you to specify a specifc example that would lead us to believe
> the FCC would change this and you point to congress, which is fine.
> Give us an example of something going on in congress there that would
> lead to change. I'm giving you an opportunity to change my opinion.
> Everything I've read in regard to the latest hearings would be more
> supportive of the existing 8VSB-MPEG-2 system, it wouldn't change it.

I can see where the FCC might mandate MPEG2 as a standard for at least
one broadcast, simply because older equipment may not be able to deal
with MPEG4. But any equipment that uses a program in ROM to translate
MPEG2 into pixels is potentially upgradable to MPEG4 by the simple
expedient of changing the ROM. Some equipment can even be upgraded
without the customer even noticing (unless he's up at 2AM watching his
screen).

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 11:05:46 PM

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

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005, Bob Miller wrote:
> Now if I was a full power broadcaster I would deliver a static weather map
> updated every five minutes in black and white so as to reduce the amount of
> data I was sending via MPEG-2. Maybe reduce it to 64 Kbps or so.

Fortunately, you are not a full power broadcaster.

You are only Psycho Bob Miller, crackpot and newsgroup crank.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 1:01:11 AM

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

Perhaps that is the case (technically, acording to the mandate), but
fortunatly none of the major networks have taken the advise of Bob
Miller.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all major network (ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, PBS
and WB) affiliates that broadcast DTV are broadcasting not only
broadcasting SD but also HD using MPEG-2.
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 1:25:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:

> Again, this is all your opinion, when I talk about OTA (over-the-air) I'm speaking of the current system that exist today, not some vision of
> what may be. Let's talk about the hear and now, not what may be, not what's "brewing".
>
> In context, today in the US we have 8VSB modulation which specifies MPEG-2, it is alive in integrated HDTVs and probably to a larger degree
> inside satellite reciever boxes. 8VSB/MPEG-2 is the standard broadcasters are using today, it is part of the transition to DTV mandate layed out by the FCC.

>
Specifies MPEG-2 for the one SD required program in NTSC quality. That
is the system today. Broadcasters have been spending millions on
lobbying for multicast must carry for the last seven years. They do this
because they plan on doing a lot of multicasting and they want it
carried on cable by right of law.

Market realities dictate that managers of broadcasting companies
maximize profits for their shareholders. If one broadcaster makes more
money than others shareholders of those others will demand similar
performance. Broadcasters who only do one SD program on their 6 MHz
channels and offer a subscription based service using the rest of their
channel and MPEG-4 possibly in combination with other broadcasters in
any market will in my opinion make more money than those who don't.
Those who don't will be under pressure to do the same or find a better
solution.

Smart broadcasters who have compelling content including HD will
withhold that content from cable and satellite systems and offer it
exclusively on OTA MPEG-4 subscription based service. They can then
sell it to cable or satellite at a later date. This plan would increase
the value of the broadcasters OTA spectrum and create a new and
compelling interest in OTA.

The ONLY reason this did not happen over the last few years is that
broadcasters were not paying attention to OTA and preferred the known
must carry on cable business model and their 8-VSB modulation would not
support such a business model. Broadcasters may have lost the must carry
of multicasting battle. They therefore are open to the above model of
creating an alternative OTA cable and satellite competitor.

8-VSB severely limits this option and precludes the new mobile market at
the same time. But if a decent receiver ala 5th gen LG is available then
even without mobile broadcasters will build a cable and satellite
killing OTA subscription based service. It has already caught their
attention though the must carry issue keeps their attention wandering.
Emmis Broadcasting is working on a plan that would have all broadcasters
in a market team up to offer a common subscription based service.

This will obsolete all current receivers as broadcasters go to MPEG-4
and it will drive current owners of the now obsolete receivers to want a
new receiver that can handle PEG-4 and receive the expanded OTA offering.

The only current OTA receiver that might be upgradeable to MPEG-4 that I
know of would be the Hisense at Walmart.

Bob Miller

>
> I ask you to specify a specifc example that would lead us to believe the FCC would change this and you point to congress, which is fine.
> Give us an example of something going on in congress there that would lead to change. I'm giving you an opportunity to change my opinion.
> Everything I've read in regard to the latest hearings would be more supportive of the existing 8VSB-MPEG-2 system, it wouldn't change it.
>

Congress is being brought up to speed now and will be hearing from many
interested parties over the coming months as Chairman Barton tries to
pass a bill that would set a hard date and distribute millions of 8-VSB
receivers. The complete chaos that will result from the entire nation
coming face to face with the problems of 8-VSB in the face of a hard cut
off date will concentrate the attention of lawmakers like never before
on this problem.

At the moment they think that they will be delivering problem free cheap
converters to technically illiterate poor people. No one has even
brought up the need of antennas and installation, multipath and the
horrendous reception problems in the cities where most of these people live.

Politically this is about to become the PERFECT STORM.

And at the same time all this distribution of receivers is happening
Crown Castle and Qualcomm will be delivering cell phones that receive
DTV perfectly using COFDM.

Grandma Nelly will ask Chairman Barton why her subsidized receiver
doesn't work even with the $400 installed antenna on the roof while her
grandsons cell phone receives Survivor perfectly with a one inch antenna.

It will be great fun to watch if the Chairman does not get the message
and the US DTV careens off on another leg of this disasterous trip.

And then of course there will be elections coming up.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 6:03:22 AM

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

Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:

> Dave,
>
> You're correct we're talking about two different standards, one of
> modulation (8VSB) and other being a compression codec (MPEG-2), why is
> 8VSB is bound to MPEG-2? When you see people here saying 8VSB/MPEG-2,
> the two are bound togeather in the context of what the FCC has in the
> DTV transition mandate for US broadcasters.
>
> The reason for this is because when television and STB (sit top box)
> manufactuers build their HD tuners they have to agree on both a
> modulation standard and a decompression codec. The compression codec
> could be updated via software assuming the hardware is capable of
> decompression the new codec in realtime and the hardware supports
> "firmware" upgrades, Unfortunately decompression of MPEG-4 or WM9/AC3
> requires much more processing power than real-time MPEG-2
> decompression. Those formats are in-part possible because of processing
> power enhancements, so 8VSB and MPEG-2 are currently bound togeather in
> terms of US OTA DTV broadcasting in under what the FCC has madiated for DTV.
>
ONLY for the one SD program of NTSC quality required by the FCC that
must use MPEG-2. Say 3 to 4 Mbps. The rest can be used to deliver
whatever in MPEG-4.

Now if I was a full power broadcaster I would deliver a static weather
map updated every five minutes in black and white so as to reduce the
amount of data I was sending via MPEG-2. Maybe reduce it to 64 Kbps or so.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 6:03:23 AM

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

Bob Miller wrote:

> Now if I was a full power broadcaster I would deliver a static weather
> map updated every five minutes in black and white so as to reduce the
> amount of data I was sending via MPEG-2. Maybe reduce it to 64 Kbps or so.
>

Then you would lose your license under the "public service" clause, but
you wouldn't know anything about that.

Matthew (stations do lose their licenses for exactly that reason)

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 11:45:05 AM

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

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but all major network (ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, PBS
> and WB) affiliates that broadcast DTV are broadcasting not only
> broadcasting SD but also HD using MPEG-2.

PAX is SD only (and rather poor quality SD at that). Psycho Bob Miller
obviously sees PAX as being the Network Of The Future.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 9:10:20 PM

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

yea right wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 03:17:41 +0000, Bob Miller wrote:
>
>
>>yea right wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 01:15:23 +0000, Diane Sherwin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hey guys,
>>>>
>>>>MPEG4 is out and it has the power to make the HD receivers we have today
>>>>obsolete. Great new technology, but it poses a serious risk as well...
>>>>
>>>>Read the full story below...
>>>>http://www.avrev.com/news/0305/17.mpeg4.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Any company implementing MPEG4 does not have quality or your investment
>>>in mind. Only THEIR wallets.
>>>
>>>MPEG4 != quality
>>
>>Yes MPEG4 = quality. 1080i will actually fit in a 6 MHz channel using
>>MPEG4.
>>
>
>
> However, nobody even talks about MPEG4 unless it's below 10Mbs.
>
> AVC has several major problems....
> *With multiple overlapping GOPs, channel surfing will be painfully slow.
> *The streams are not splicable. Which means anyone wanting to add
> commercials will have to decode and re-encode the stream. This also ends
> the MPEG philosophy of "once encoded, always encoded"
> *With a new set of compression tools, comes a whole new set of artifacts.
> *Nobody will use the extra tools to increase quality as any quality gain
> will be negated by bandwidth reductions because
> "bandwidth = money".
> *MPEG4 is based on a fee for each use. Somehow, the customer will pay.
> *Market convolution. There will be a point where none of these boxes will
> be compatible with scheme proposed. Customers will end up paying money
> and be so frustrated with the technology in it's inability to
> inter-operate that people will stop buying content.
>
> The only winner here is the people pushing this tripe
>
>
>
Whatever the problems both cable and satellite are going to MPEG4.
Bob Miller
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 10:01:40 PM

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

Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote in news:1111298398.371619.236800
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

> Perhaps that is the case (technically, acording to the mandate), but
> fortunatly none of the major networks have taken the advise of Bob
> Miller.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but all major network (ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, PBS
> and WB) affiliates that broadcast DTV are broadcasting not only
> broadcasting SD but also HD using MPEG-2.

Yep...and being motivated by bucks more than by ideology, they will
continue to do so as long as there is an audience. When MPEG-4 capable
equipment starts to become so ubiquitous that it's economical to broadcast
to it, someone will do that.


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 10:21:26 AM

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

Dave Oldridge wrote:
> Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote in news:1111298398.371619.236800
> @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>>Perhaps that is the case (technically, acording to the mandate), but
>>fortunatly none of the major networks have taken the advise of Bob
>>Miller.
>>
>>Correct me if I'm wrong, but all major network (ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, PBS
>>and WB) affiliates that broadcast DTV are broadcasting not only
>>broadcasting SD but also HD using MPEG-2.
>
>
> Yep...and being motivated by bucks more than by ideology, they will
> continue to do so as long as there is an audience. When MPEG-4 capable
> equipment starts to become so ubiquitous that it's economical to broadcast
> to it, someone will do that.
>

They might, if they think that the costs providing and selling multiple
streams of content can be recovered by dividing their viewership over
those streams. If they can't convince themselves that such a business
model will work better, they have no reason to change.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 3:48:10 PM

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

I said major networks.

Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but all major network (ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC,
PBS
> > and WB) affiliates that broadcast DTV are broadcasting not only
> > broadcasting SD but also HD using MPEG-2.
>
> PAX is SD only (and rather poor quality SD at that). Psycho Bob
Miller
> obviously sees PAX as being the Network Of The Future.
>
> -- Mark --
>
> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public
debate.
> Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 6:48:02 PM

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

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in
news:113tf275qdg6ff6@corp.supernews.com:

> They might, if they think that the costs providing and selling
> multiple streams of content can be recovered by dividing their
> viewership over those streams. If they can't convince themselves that
> such a business model will work better, they have no reason to change.

Competition is a great leveller. If someone can deliver more and better
content using MPEG-4 at a lower cost than MPEG-2, they will do it, just to
get market share. This is especially true of satellite networks with spare
bandwidth.


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 6:48:03 PM

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

Dave Oldridge wrote:
> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in
> news:113tf275qdg6ff6@corp.supernews.com:
>
>
>>They might, if they think that the costs providing and selling
>>multiple streams of content can be recovered by dividing their
>>viewership over those streams. If they can't convince themselves that
>>such a business model will work better, they have no reason to change.
>
>
> Competition is a great leveller. If someone can deliver more and better
> content using MPEG-4 at a lower cost than MPEG-2, they will do it, just to
> get market share.

You seem to think that extra content is free. If it were, then you might
have a point. The extra content has to substantially increase
viewership. Unless that content is delivered by the network it will be
very expensive to implement. The costs in setting up multiple
independent delivery chains within a studio is not cheap. I don't think
that all of those factors are so easily balanced.

When you are talking about a small number of streams of content, which
is all any one station can have, the mix of content might not change
viewership. It does not mean that your market share won't decrease.
Depending on your content (religious programming, Spanish etc), the
market share could stay the same even though the amount of content had
increased. To make matters worse, you have now changed the marketing
dynamics of selling advertizing. The more channels you have, the fewer
eyeballs per channel you can deliver.

In any case, I can't see any affiliate of a major network striking out
on their own to become a mini cable provider in the sky. If delivering
multiple channels were, in and of itself, the panacea you seem to think
it is, cable channels shouldn't need to charge subscription fees for
"normal" cable channels. The advertizing revenues should be enough.

> This is especially true of satellite networks with spare
> bandwidth.
>

If they have spare bandwidth, it would cost them more money to convert
to MPEG-4 than to use that bandwidth with MPEG-2.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 8:22:10 PM

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

Indeed, you did, but Psycho Bob Miller would consider PAX to be a major
network because it's not going HD.

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:

> I said major networks.
>
> Mark Crispin wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but all major network (ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, PBS
>>> and WB) affiliates that broadcast DTV are broadcasting not only
>>> broadcasting SD but also HD using MPEG-2.
>> PAX is SD only (and rather poor quality SD at that). Psycho Bob Miller
>> obviously sees PAX as being the Network Of The Future.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
March 24, 2005 12:29:52 AM

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

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

>Dave Oldridge wrote:
>> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in
>> news:113tf275qdg6ff6@corp.supernews.com:
>>
>>
>>>They might, if they think that the costs providing and selling
>>>multiple streams of content can be recovered by dividing their
>>>viewership over those streams. If they can't convince themselves that
>>>such a business model will work better, they have no reason to change.
>>
>>
>> Competition is a great leveller. If someone can deliver more and better
>> content using MPEG-4 at a lower cost than MPEG-2, they will do it, just to
>> get market share.
>
>You seem to think that extra content is free. If it were, then you might
>have a point. The extra content has to substantially increase
>viewership. Unless that content is delivered by the network it will be
>very expensive to implement. The costs in setting up multiple
>independent delivery chains within a studio is not cheap. I don't think
>that all of those factors are so easily balanced.
>
>When you are talking about a small number of streams of content, which
>is all any one station can have, the mix of content might not change
>viewership. It does not mean that your market share won't decrease.
>Depending on your content (religious programming, Spanish etc), the
>market share could stay the same even though the amount of content had
>increased. To make matters worse, you have now changed the marketing
>dynamics of selling advertizing. The more channels you have, the fewer
>eyeballs per channel you can deliver.
>
>In any case, I can't see any affiliate of a major network striking out
>on their own to become a mini cable provider in the sky. If delivering
>multiple channels were, in and of itself, the panacea you seem to think
>it is, cable channels shouldn't need to charge subscription fees for
>"normal" cable channels. The advertizing revenues should be enough.
>
>> This is especially true of satellite networks with spare
>> bandwidth.
>>
>
>If they have spare bandwidth, it would cost them more money to convert
>to MPEG-4 than to use that bandwidth with MPEG-2.


Gentlemen, think outside the box!!

It seems very clear to me that the first adopters of MPEG-4 will be
the satellite providers and I predict that this very well could begin
within the next twelve months or so. Why? Even though NONE of the
current satellite receivers (at least form Dish) are upgradeable, they
will be forced to move HD to mpeg-4 if they want to add significant HD
content with any kind of quality because adequate satellite bandwidth
with the current system simply does not exist!

My guess is that both mpeg-2 and mpeg-4 will exist concurrently for
some time (including current HD offerings) simply because there are so
many subscribers that it would be too costly to totally abandon mpeg-2
and switch to mpeg-4. Having to replace 11 million customers (Dish
alone) receivers and/or DVRs all at once would be business suicide!

I believe that the Dish purchase of the ZOOM transponders at the 61.5
location may be, at least in part, for adding mpeg-4 content. Again,
I think this will take some time since A, There is not all that much
new HD content available and B, it will take some time to get new dual
mpeg-2 plus mpeg-4 capable receivers and DVRs to the marketplace. This
cannot happen overnight, but I am betting it WILL happen sooner than
later.

I also predict that when this happens, others will likely adopt some
kind of interim dual capability as well.
I believe that those of you thinking this will not happen are very
mistaken. This is the only way technology can logically advance,
i.e., a few steps at a time.
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 12:29:53 AM

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

Richard wrote:

> I also predict that when this happens, others will likely adopt some
> kind of interim dual capability as well.
> I believe that those of you thinking this will not happen are very
> mistaken. This is the only way technology can logically advance,
> i.e., a few steps at a time.
>

Why do you think that satellite delivery has _anything_ to do with OTA
delivery?

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 12:29:54 AM

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

Matthew L.Martin wrote in reply to a posting:
----"Why do you think that satellite delivery has
_anything_ to do with OTA delivery?"----


Reply:
My reading of his dissertation and conclusion is he did not....what he
was pointing out is that MPEG-4 delivery will occur FIRST with satellite
delivery (and it will!).OTA could and probably will come after that.As
far as I know NOW,no CURRENT plans by manufacturers to build an MPEG-4
capable STB has been announced yet.Therefore,the allusion to satellite
as the first platform for MPEG-4 based HD.
March 24, 2005 10:10:08 AM

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

In article <113tt94p3vjd908@corp.supernews.com>,
"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

> > This is especially true of satellite networks with spare
> > bandwidth.
> >
>
> If they have spare bandwidth, it would cost them more money to convert
> to MPEG-4 than to use that bandwidth with MPEG-2.

Direct TV is going to MPEG4 for their HD LIL channels.

They're about to launch Spaceway in about a month.
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 4:44:22 PM

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

poldy wrote:
> In article <113tt94p3vjd908@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
>
>
>>>This is especially true of satellite networks with spare
>>>bandwidth.
>>>
>>
>>If they have spare bandwidth, it would cost them more money to convert
>>to MPEG-4 than to use that bandwidth with MPEG-2.
>
>
> Direct TV is going to MPEG4 for their HD LIL channels.
>
> They're about to launch Spaceway in about a month.

The fact that they are launching satellites is pretty much proof that
they didn't have spare bandwidth.

Matthew
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 8:59:16 PM

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

"yea right" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:p an.2005.03.19.08.14.22.696562@spam.spam...
> AVC has several major problems....
> *With multiple overlapping GOPs, channel surfing will be painfully slow.

Does anybody really channel surf? I mean, with hundreds of channels to
chose from, there is no way I am just going to sit there and flip through
the channels hoping I see something I like. I use the guide to find
something I like.

--Dan
March 27, 2005 12:14:37 AM

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

In article <11462k4j0l1dv08@corp.supernews.com>,
"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

> > Direct TV is going to MPEG4 for their HD LIL channels.
> >
> > They're about to launch Spaceway in about a month.
>
> The fact that they are launching satellites is pretty much proof that
> they didn't have spare bandwidth.

Never said they had it.

They are adding bandwidth but also going to use higher compression on
top of it.

When Spaceway was first announced, some people estimated that the two
Spaceways alone could carry all the HDTV channels in the country with
room left over. That was way before D* even talked about using MPEG4.

But when D* finally unveiled their plans, they said they would launch 3
total satellites (with a fourth for a ground spare) and use MPEG4.

Now some speculation that D* may be trying to implement some form of VOD
from the bandwidth savings coming from MPEG4.
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 8:24:17 AM

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

poldy wrote:
> In article <11462k4j0l1dv08@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
>
>
>>>Direct TV is going to MPEG4 for their HD LIL channels.
>>>
>>>They're about to launch Spaceway in about a month.
>>
>>The fact that they are launching satellites is pretty much proof that
>>they didn't have spare bandwidth.
>
>
> Never said they had it.
>
> They are adding bandwidth but also going to use higher compression on
> top of it.
>
> When Spaceway was first announced, some people estimated that the two
> Spaceways alone could carry all the HDTV channels in the country with
> room left over. That was way before D* even talked about using MPEG4.
>
> But when D* finally unveiled their plans, they said they would launch 3
> total satellites (with a fourth for a ground spare) and use MPEG4.
>
> Now some speculation that D* may be trying to implement some form of VOD
> from the bandwidth savings coming from MPEG4.

VOD via satellite? that's the most retarded thing I've heard all year
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 8:50:52 PM

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

Bob Miller (robmx@earthlink.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Whatever the problems both cable and satellite are going to MPEG4.

Cable is not, at least not without major fines from the FCC.

MPEG-2 is the only approved compression for CableCard-compliant cable
systems, and all cable systems are required to support CableCard by the
middle of this year. So, MPEG-4 cannot be used on cable.

--
Jeff Rife | "Because he was human; because he had goodness;
| because he was moral they called him insane.
| Delusions of grandeur; visions of splendor;
| A manic-depressive, he walks in the rain."
| -- Rush, "Cinderella Man"
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 8:56:12 PM

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

Richard (rstaples312@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> It seems very clear to me that the first adopters of MPEG-4 will be
> the satellite providers and I predict that this very well could begin
> within the next twelve months or so. Why?

Because DirecTV has already announced that MPEG-4 streams will be live
before the end of this year?

Of course, Bob would have gotten even this "prediction" wrong.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/NoHelpDesk.jpg
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 8:59:33 PM

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

Alex Perez (aperez@gmailDAWT.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > Now some speculation that D* may be trying to implement some form of VOD
> > from the bandwidth savings coming from MPEG4.
>
> VOD via satellite? that's the most retarded thing I've heard all year

VOD by itself is pretty retarded when cable and satellite companies are
pushing DVRs for all their subscribers. A $200 DVR in every house gives
VOD-like features with no extra bandwidth requirements. Or, the provider
can take 1/4 of the bandwidth they have to set aside for VOD and just
broadcast all the "VOD programs" in loops and let the DVRs do all the work.

--
Jeff Rife | "What are you looking at? You're laborers; you
| should be laboring. That's what you get for
| not having an education."
| -- Professor Hathaway, "Real Genius"
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 8:12:49 AM

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

Jeff Rife wrote:
> Bob Miller (robmx@earthlink.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>Whatever the problems both cable and satellite are going to MPEG4.
>
>
> Cable is not, at least not without major fines from the FCC.
>
> MPEG-2 is the only approved compression for CableCard-compliant cable
> systems, and all cable systems are required to support CableCard by the
> middle of this year. So, MPEG-4 cannot be used on cable.
>


I believe the CableCard specs require MPEG-2 transport stream but says
nothing about the use of MPEG-4 for compression.

Bob Miller
!