[opendtv] Re: 20060901 Free Friday Fragments (Mark's Monday Memo)
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 13:14:41 -0400
Bob Miller wrote:
> Thats really impressive but the general rule still goes more
> like this report.
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_doc
ument=6518424024
Disagree completely about what you call "general rule."
This document, an EchoStar statement, is trying to make a case that
local OTA stations are more difficult, rather than easier, to receive.
Because this gives the DBS industry an "out" to transmit a distant
version of ABC/NBC/CBS/Fox programming.
And even then, FCC TR-05-1017, which your document uses as a basis for
its figures, makes it very clear that STBs available in 2005 were all
old and obsolete designs, as they continue to be today. It further makes
the point that price and performance are not correlated. The newer
receivers perform considerably better AND are cheaper than the older
ones. And the report only talks about receivers available on the market
last year, which includes designs from 2003 or earlier. They use a 2000
design as reference. We already know that virtually all of those older
receivers were essentially inadequate.
The main conclusion of TR-05-1017 seemed to be that new receivers
measure very well in terms of C/N margin and sensitivity (across the
board, the numbers were in the low 15 dB C/N and sensitivity in the -83
dBm region), and cost less than the old stuff. Noise figures varied
depending on receiver and frequency band. We already know that the
newest tuners measure around 5 dB or so. So it doesn't matter what this
old report says about older receivers, at this point. Can't keep harping
about old stuff.
Here's some words about performance under significant multipath, from
TR-05-1017:
"Given that both tiers of performance appeared in all three price ranges
of DTV receivers, there appears to be no inherent price dependence among
the DTVs; however, there was a complete absence of upper-tier performers
among the tested set-top boxes. This absence is attributed to the older
designs of the set-top box products-all of which were introduced in the
year 2004 or earlier. Among the tested receivers, none that were
introduced before March 2005 were found to exhibit upper-tier
performance, whereas 48 percent of those introduced in or after that
month performed at the upper tier level."
The report also mentions a ground plane problem with the ATI receiver
they had, and how dramatically multipath performance improved after that
was straightened out. Although they don't otherwise ever mention the
brand name of any receiver.
This should tell you that the Accurian and Digital Stream boxes, which
give the results I described, are nowhere close to state of the art.
Yet, they are very usable. In fact, I'd throw out all results in
TR-05-1017 given by anything older than a 5th gen LG, at this point,
which would skew the percentage of successful reception numbers way up.
Then you quote this from the EchoStar statement:
"The Commission effectively acknowledged this finding but said that
'[w]ith the exception of set-top boxes . . . it appears that there is
very little relationship between price and the minimum signal level
needed to provide service.'53 This is an important exception, however.
It is not appropriate to exclude the very class of receivers that
consumers are most likely to buy from the Commission's assessment of DTV
receiver performance, even if they are 'older designs.' EchoStar urges
the Commission not to base its conclusion on a sample that excludes
low-priced set top boxes but includes 9 out of 23 (39%) receivers priced
above $2000. Such high-end receivers are simply out of reach of many
households. The fact remains that the cheapest DTV receivers on the
market today (and the ones likely to be purchased by consumers) are set
top boxes that have poor multipath handling and signal sensitivities."
> And what kind of receivers do you think those converter boxes that
cost $50
> will be? From what I have seen they fall into the bottom half of the
bottom
> half.
This has been my pet peeve for a long time. The new receiver designs are
both lower cost and much better performing. There is absolutely no
reason to assume that LG and Thomson, who are supposed to sell the $50
STBs, would use a more expensive and lower performing old design for
this purpose. Samsung appears to have based their upcoming $168 STB on
the new Gemini chip, for example. Why would any CE manufacturer
deliberately try to lose money and market share?
Impending analog cutoff should create a strong market for STBs. Unless
there is unabashed collusion going on, CE vendors have no reason to cut
off their own noses by selling inferior product. So no, I do not assume,
as you seem to, that the $50 STBs, or any other, would continue to be
ridiculously obsolete equipment. There's no upside for a manufacturer to
behave that way.
Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts: