"Doublecast" - my NTSC shutoff proposal

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

"K. B." <hotmail.com@lis2lis2> wrote in message
news:412c1351.1123561@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> Inspired by the "Triplecast" idea from Australia.
>
> All OTA ATSC broadcasts would be required to transmit the "main"
> program (if it is HDTV or EDTV) as SDTV also.
>
> Extensive video pre-processing could be used to to keep the SDTV
> video data rate as low as possible and mono Dolby Digital would
> keep the audio data rate low also.
>
> ATSC STBs that processed SDTV only would cost less than ATSC STBs
> that processed HDTV, EDTV and SDTV, also ATSC SDTV only receivers
> could be built into DVD players.

Erm, isn't that just triplecasting?

Ultimately it's wasteful, in the long-term it's cheaper to produce boxes that
can downscale HD material than waste precious spectrum for a secondary
transitional period that could last decades, I doubt many people would be
pleased find out their wonderful new 'digital' box will only work for a limited
period of time.

Once things ship in volume the complexity isn't the factor that determines the
price, you can have much more complex silicon that's cheaper than simpler
designs just because of volume (DVB chipsets are still cheaper than DAB). In the
US the mandate will now try to attempt what the market failed at.

Regardless if a box has silicon capable of downscaling there's overheads that
are fixed, like providing an enclosure, PSU, packaging and manuals, support,
logistics, reasonable retail markups.

It should be noted that Australia were forced into triplecasting, they only
intended to run a HD system and PAL in parallel, so even if limited material was
initially broadcast in HD and most screens remained SD the boxes were still
capable of post-processing from a single stream.

Az.

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

Within these hallowed halls, Aztech of <az@tech.com> added the
following to the collective conscience:
> "K. B." <hotmail.com@lis2lis2> wrote in message
> news:412c1351.1123561@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
>> Inspired by the "Triplecast" idea from Australia.
>>
>> All OTA ATSC broadcasts would be required to transmit the "main"
>> program (if it is HDTV or EDTV) as SDTV also.
>>
>> Extensive video pre-processing could be used to keep the SDTV
>> video data rate as low as possible and mono Dolby Digital would
>> keep the audio data rate low also.
>>
>> ATSC STBs that processed SDTV only would cost less than ATSC STBs
>> that processed HDTV, EDTV and SDTV, also ATSC SDTV only receivers
>> could be built into DVD players.
>
> Erm, isn't that just triplecasting?
>
> Ultimately it's wasteful, in the long-term it's cheaper to produce
> boxes that can downscale HD material than waste precious spectrum for
> a secondary transitional period that could last decades, I doubt many
> people would be pleased find out their wonderful new 'digital' box
> will only work for a limited period of time.
>
Agreed, especially since the cheaper HD boxes from USDTV are under $200.
This was the price point that when DVD crossed it pushed DVD from "mini
laserdisk" to movie player for the masses. I predict by this Christmas
there will be many set-top boxes in that sub-$200 category, especially with
generation 5 making all receivers out there "last year's model."

Even if they put "SD ATSC reception" into other products for free it would
be a stupid bell and/or whistle.

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

Jeff Rife wrote:
> K. B. (hotmail.com@lis2lis2) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
>
>>ATSC STBs that processed SDTV only would cost less than ATSC STBs
>>that processed HDTV, EDTV and SDTV, also ATSC SDTV only receivers
>>could be built into DVD players.
>
>
> With full-capability HDTV STBs available *today* for $200, I don't see
> that price is much of an issue anymore. This time next year, there will
> be a $100 HDTV STB.
>
> In the US, it's not about digital...it's about HDTV.
>

I doubt it. Next year the lowest priced 8-VSB receiver might be $170 or
so. But they will be available free from a number of subscription based
services.

To the extent that in the US "it's about HDTV" has been the problem. It
should be about digital first. Trying to subvert the market and force
feed HDTV has delayed the digital transition in the US and has delayed
HDTV with it. There is no other way to describe the NON EVENT that the
digital OTA transition has been for the last five years.

Special interest related to 8-VSB and MPEG2 saw the handwriting on the
wall and did everything in their power to entrench their outdated
technology into a monopoly position in the US and other countries before
rational debate and honest testing could be done. Because the US has the
most corrupt political process of any advanced country at the moment it
was possible for these special interest to ram through these outdated
standards with no thought about the best interest of the public.

And as you will see over the next few years it is NOT about HDTV in the
US it is indeed about digital and HDTV will finally benefit from that
realization. If we had gone with a decent DTV modulation back in 2000 we
would have had decent receivers then and OTA DTV including HDTV would
have taken off. Now we have a minimally decent 8-VSB receiver and DTV
will now take off but it will be led by receivers that will be in the
majority of cases attached to non HDTV TV sets and monitors. The good
news is that the number of receivers that will be used with HDTV sets
while in the minority will also skyrocket.

This all could have, would have happened in 2001. What a waste. All
because of a successful campaign of lies and smear tactics by special
interest.

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

nonex wrote:

> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>This all could have, would have happened in 2001.
>
>
>
> The problem wasn't 8VSB - it was receivers that weren't ready for prime
> time. Now that reception problems have been solved, the US has a
> superior HDTV system with much further reach than ineffecient COFDM.

Simply not true. The US system with 5th generation is workable not better.

Cuba has a workable fleet of 1950's cars. They work but they are far
from the best automobile technology.

Inefficient COFDM? COFDM can deliver more bits while mobile at 120 kph
than 5th gen 8-VSB can deliver fixed NO MOVEMENT.

In any real world environment COFDM will match 8-VSB reception at any
distance to a fixed receiver. I say match with 5th generation in mind
nothing before. A soon as motion is involved COFDM wins.

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

"Stereophile22" <stereophile22@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040829041646.23811.00004664@mb-m28.aol.com...
> >Inefficient COFDM? COFDM can deliver more bits while mobile at 120 kph
> >than 5th gen 8-VSB can deliver fixed NO MOVEMENT.
>
> In most states, if not all, it's illegal to watch tv while you're driving.
>
> After all, doing so could make you crash and get a head injury.
>
Most interestingly would be the liability suit against those silly enough
to watch TV while driving when killing people in other cars.

The HDTV in moving vehicle idea is one of the most silly, wasteful ideas
that I have recently heard. It is mostly a misapplication of the wrong
technology to solve the wrong problem.

John

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:G3L6d.2509$Yr.851@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

< snip >

> If COFDM had been adopted in 2000 and we had the same success rate as
> the UK will have had as of Christmas this year, close to six million
> receivers sold in two years, the US which is six times the size of
> England would have bought 54 million receivers in the last three years.
> That is almost exactly 50% of US homes.
>
> And you would be able to buy a COFDM HDTV receiver in the US today for
> around $100 if there wasn't already 10 USDTV's giving them away for
> nothing if you subscribed. As we said we would do by Christmas of 2000
> if COFDM had been allowed.
>
> And I would not be talking to a cable operator from the MidWest who is
> asking me how to get a 5th gen receiver so that he can receive digital
> channel for rebroadcast on his cable network.

.... and I will also ask that question, but posed a different way: When they
are
offered for sale, how will I know that I'm gazing upon a 5th gen receiver???

I ask, specifically and directly, since about 30 minutes of searching on the
Internet got me *no* information associating the generations of receivers
with any brand or model numbers. I think the next generation of receivers
will only be accurately ID'ed by the industry insiders who populate these
groups.
Any dope could read "latest and greatest" in a product brochure and NOT
be really buying 5th gen.

TIA

Sal-who-prefers-not-to-be-that-dope

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

Jeff Rife wrote:

> K. B. (hotmail.com@lis2lis2) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
>
>>ATSC STBs that processed SDTV only would cost less than ATSC STBs
>>that processed HDTV, EDTV and SDTV, also ATSC SDTV only receivers
>>could be built into DVD players.
>
>
> With full-capability HDTV STBs available *today* for $200, I don't see
> that price is much of an issue anymore. This time next year, there will
> be a $100 HDTV STB.
>
> In the US, it's not about digital...it's about HDTV.
>

That has been one of the problems. That some think it is about HDTV when
it should be about digital. HDTV is a resolution. I will be delivered in
many ways. The first thing we should be concentrating on is getting the
digital transition going. The fifth gen receivers will do that by
refocusing on the business model and the digital part not the HD part.
5th gen receivers will kick start USDTV business models which will
concentrate on SD.

Most of the delay in the digital transition and by the way in HD has
been the mistaken belief that by putting obstacle in the way of all
things less than HD, that HD would benefit. Like picking a modulation,
8-VSB, that was impaired. This impairment had the side affect of making
8-VSB incapable of mobile reception. So many thought picking 8-VSB would
help insulate the spectrum from mobile use and hence be good for HDTV.

What 8-VSB was good for was to delay HDTV and the digital transition in
general. In fact more people bought HDTV sets to watch DVDs than to
receive HD OTA.

HD world wide, those who make HD equipment and consumer products and the
American consumer would all be much better off if COFDM had been allowed
in 2000.