[opendtv] Re: Accurian DTV STB from Radio Shack
- From: Bob Miller <bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:21:34 -0400
Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>Bob Miller wrote:
>
>
>
>>And the difference in the business model has
>>everything to do with must carry. Without must
>>carry broadcasters would not have been as
>>complacent in the choice of modulation
>>
>>
>
>This sounds reasonable. Either that, or they
>believed that big improvements were right around
>the corner. If the latter, we seem to have
>rounded the corner.
>
>
>
>>Instead of 45% of SUVs with rear seat TV
>>screens it would be 95% of all vehicles, the
>>success of XM and Sirius would be non existent
>>or in serious trouble as the DTV broadcasters
>>would be delivering 20 or so channels of
>>digital radio mobile also.
>>
>>
>
>That's not so believable. First, because it's not clear why TV broadcasters
>would willingly reduce their TV spectrum to transmit robust radio streams.
>Secondly, the appeal of satellite radio is all about being able to receive
>zillions of the same channels *anywhere*, e.g. while traveling. What you
>describe would not provide that kind of continental coverage nor
>as many radio channels.
>
>Assume that robust radio requires 1 b/s/Hz. Each TV frequency allocation would
>support about 14 good quality and robust radio
>channels (each 384 Kb/s), but only if dedicated to radio. Not bad, actually,
>but not as much as XM Radio and no ubiquitous
>continental coverage. And no TV on that channel, either.
>
>
Without doing the research, I think that XM and Sirius have about 4 MBps
total capacity and fit 100 + radio channels in that.
>If you want a DTT system that hopes to compete with cable and DBS, at least
>somewhat successfully, I don't see that diluting the bandwidth for radio
>support is the right way to go. Some think that a radical rethink of the
>"business model" is the only salvation, som move away from regular TV delivery
>entirely, and change DTT into a mobile service only. To me, that requires a
>far greater leap of faith than what successful European DTT systems have
>worked with.
>
>
Both the German and UK models include radio channels. At least 12 each I
beleive.
>Whether you're talking about TV optimized for mobile platforms or TV optimized
>for hand-held devices, raging success stories that would eclipse DTT delivery
>to homes are not exactly commonplace, are they?
>
>Bert
>
>
Not yet. No one has done one yet. But a plan that includes delivery to
fixed, mobile and portable is the one that will be most profitable. That
is reach the most eyeballs the most consistantly. HD won't do it and
Qualcomm's venture won't do it either. From what we have seen you are
not sacrificing that much either. DVB-T at a high bit rate will work for
all three. DVB-H is a stop gap short term solution for the battery
problem. Long term I don't see it. Qualcomm's Media Flo will be the
same. I am more interested in battery and fuel cell solutions than
radically changing programming or settling for the cell phone market.
Long term, could be real wrong here, I don't think people will spend
enough time or money to make cell phone TV the BEST over all solution. A
combo is the best IMO.
A combo of mobile, portable and fixed reception where the image is good
on a larger screen but can be viewed on a cell phone also is the best
bet. And that does not mean doing both DVB-T and H, just DVB-T. That
means that the kitchen, bedroom, shower, car, backyard most of the time
and all those other places like work, the park etc. are ours. The living
room can have HDTV. And cell companies can try to make big bucks on $15
truncated content made for cell phones. We would want none of it. Some
of the history of ON2/Duck where they burned through their IPO money
trying to make new content for the Internet may have a bearing on our
ideas. They were a codec company and decided they were Hollywood. Now
Qualcomm which is a royalty company is deciding they are a production
and distribution company to a new unknown market. They will do great at
first and after the novelty wears off the DTV content on your cell phone
will be just another feature and its revenue stream will become just
another part of the basic service. An income stream hard to identify and
a service harder to discard.
On this subject I could be dead wrong and am very aware of it but after
looking at it carefully a couple of years ago we decided that DVB-T or
something like it, possibly DMB-T (China) are more viable options. Let
the receiver market sort out what the public wants just offer ubiquitous
coverage and delivery of the best content to the most people whereever
they are.
Bob Miller
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: