Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)
K. B. wrote:
> <http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20050926005549&newsLang=en>
>
> Kirk Bayne
> alt.video.digital-tv Home Page
> <http://www.geocities.com/lislislislis/avdtv.htm>
"U.S. Digital Television, LLC (USDTV) today announced that it signed a
$25.75 million funding agreement with an investment group that includes ...
The usual cast of characters. I see that they don't want to risk very
much to see this deal roll out. I'd bet that FOX is putting out less
than it received from DIVX.
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
Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)
Matthew L. Martin (nothere@notnow.never) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> The usual cast of characters. I see that they don't want to risk very
> much to see this deal roll out. I'd bet that FOX is putting out less
> than it received from DIVX.
This actually makes sense for Fox.
They only provide 15Mbps or so from the satellite, so the remaining 4Mbps
is completely available on all their O&O stations. It won't affect
picture quality in any significant way, but will give them some money.
But, Fox owns a *lot* of UPN stations, and they have a full feed from
the satellite (they have basically the same infrastructure as CBS, since
they are owned by the same company). If they take bits from those HD
shows, it could be bad, although there's nothing left on UPN that benefits
from HD.
Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)
Jeff Rife wrote:
>
> Matthew L. Martin (nothere@notnow.never) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> > The usual cast of characters. I see that they don't want to risk very
> > much to see this deal roll out. I'd bet that FOX is putting out less
> > than it received from DIVX.
>
> This actually makes sense for Fox.
>
> They only provide 15Mbps or so from the satellite, so the remaining 4Mbps
> is completely available on all their O&O stations. It won't affect
> picture quality in any significant way, but will give them some money.
Here in GBay, WI the ABC-DT uses 15Mbps for 720p HD OTA and
2.5 Mbps for SD 480i weather sub channel.. from 19.3 avail...
I've been told by the techies that 720p uses less bandwidth than
1080i...
for OTA HD signal.. It sounds like 720p HD has more bandwidth
to offer up for more/other uses??
>
> But, Fox owns a *lot* of UPN stations, and they have a full feed from
> the satellite (they have basically the same infrastructure as CBS, since
> they are owned by the same company). If they take bits from those HD
> shows, it could be bad, although there's nothing left on UPN that benefits
> from HD.
>
> --
> Jeff Rife |
> | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbe [...] ssword.gif
Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)
Dennis Mayer (Polaris1@execpc.com) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> I've been told by the techies that 720p uses less bandwidth than
> 1080i...
> for OTA HD signal.. It sounds like 720p HD has more bandwidth
> to offer up for more/other uses??
Well, you can use all 19.3Mbps for 720p, but the Fox network infrastructure
is designed to have the stations pass the raw satellite signal with no
change (it is ATSC-ready...it just needs to be 8VSB modulated and fed to
the transmitter), and they chose to limit the bitrate to allow stations
some freedom to do other things.
For example, one city has the UPN as an SD sub-channel on the Fox station
so that it can benefit from the higher transmitter power.
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.