Nokia on Cell phone DTV

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

Nokia says 80% of cell users want DTV on their phones. They may pay $20
per month.

Huge expectations now drive the Crown Castle and Qualcomm ventures.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,210 [...] 26,00.html

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

drewdawg wrote:

> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>>Nokia says 80% of cell users want DTV on their phones. They may pay
>>$20 per month.
>>
>
> What are they paying $20 a month for if DTV is free OTA?
>
>
Sounds like Nokia is talking of a non free OTA subscription service to
me. They are working with Crown Castle in Pittsburg putting it together.
They own their own spectrum so they can do what they want with it.

Bob Miller

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

Jeff Rife wrote:

> Bob Miller (robmx@earthlink.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
>
>>Nokia says 80% of cell users want DTV on their phones.
>
>
> No, Nokia says 80% of cell users want *video* delivered to their phones
> via a non-continous streaming packet network system. This is *not* digital
> TV any more than viewing a video on your home PC from somewhere on the
> Internet is "digital TV".
>
NO Nokia said "Still, trials in Germany by Nokia and Vodafone showed 80
percent of consumers want TV services on their mobiles and are willing
to pay 12 euros ($NZ21.80) a month extra for it."

Now you can interpret "TV services" anyway you want but they are trying
to make it as much like TV as possible. This is DVB-H and its invention
was for one reason only, to get around the battery problem of a cell phone.

Whatever the cell phone user thinks of Nokia's and Qualcomm's ventures I
suggest that Nokia is right if they asked consumers if they wanted TV on
their cell phones and got a positive 80% response.

MY previous post suggested that Nokia had NOT ask the question right and
HAD suggested to cell users a diferent but TV like experience. I then
said that I thought that if asked the DIRECT question "would you like
real TV on you cell phone" the positive responce would go to 90+ %.

Using DVB-T and possible Qualcomm's Mediaflow you can get REAL DTV on
your cell phone but you will need a plug in for power or a fuel cell to
keep it going long enough for most people to put up with it. Fortunately
fuel cells for cell phones are on the way.

We think that a higher bit rate real DTV experience is the future. DVB-H
is a stop gap and will be quickly passed over by better technology.
Qualcomm's Mediaflow software and modulation may be another story.
Designed to solve the power problem they may also have real value in
Mediaflow software that I don't know of yet. We will see. They talk of
caching and a lot of neat stuff that will soon be part of our DTV
experience anyway above and apart from the battery life issue.

Bob Miller

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

K. B. (hotmail.com@lis2lis2) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> I would classify playback of synchronized digital video and
> digital audio as Digital TV (could be LDTV, SDTV, EDTV, HDTV
> or UDTV with mono to surround sound).
>
> DTV may be transmitted by BPL, Coax, DSL, Fiber or various
> wireless methods through a network with either constant or
> variable latency.

Nope, TV is a continuous signal. If there are breaks in the data stream,
then it is packetized streaming video.

> The digital video and digital audio may or may not be data
> reduced, may or may not be sent separately, may be sent
> faster than real time, slower than real time or live.

Name one OTA TV transmission where the carrier wave is slower or faster
than real time.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/ [...] mbine.html