[opendtv] Re: Interesting Point
- From: Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:39:50 -0400
I would accept that the legal term
> "broadcasting" created by the FCC if used in the industry such as here
> could mean only in the free and clear but it does not mean that in a
> general sense and the public sure would not understand that meaning IMO.
I generally understand "broadcasting" to mean casting in a broad
fashion, contrasted I guess by narrow casting or, maybe in Hollywood, as
couch casting which usually involves the casting of a single broad. ;-)
(with or without payment)
- Tom
Bob Miller wrote:
> John Willkie wrote:
>
>
>>dream on. XM and sirius and Media Flo have no content that I'm interested in
>>paying for.
>>
>>
>
> It does seem like dreaming. By your definition a DVB service does not
> exist in your area within 1000 miles if you are not interested in it or
> at least not interested in paying for it.
>
>
>>As for your non-definition of broadcasting: mine is slightly paraphrased from
>>FCC rulings. Yours comes from third-hand sources. Why didn't you offer an
>>engineering definition? (mine is paraphrased from a legal definition, but
>>suffices as an engineering definition.
>>
>>
>
> Strange that an engineering definition would be qualified by whether
> someone pays for a service or not. To me, having come to the party late,
> broadcasting includes satellite, radio, TV or even a ham radio operator
> and is not conditioned by the FCC. I would accept that the legal term
> "broadcasting" created by the FCC if used in the industry such as here
> could mean only in the free and clear but it does not mean that in a
> general sense and the public sure would not understand that meaning IMO.
> A couple of us here did not take it to mean that anyway.
>
> Bob Miller
>
>
>>Once again, I'm not interested in transmission: only metadata, transport
>>streams, and content. I have no cross to bear, unlike ...
>>
>>John Willkie
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Bob Miller <bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>Sent: Oct 26, 2005 2:51 AM
>>To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: [opendtv] Re: Interesting Point
>>
>>John Willkie wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>he delusion continues.
>>>
>>>ATSC's legal position is as the adopted standard for the United States. Do
>>>you disagree or just don't understand what that means? (It's like selling
>>>PAL sets in Maine.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I agree that ATSC is the standard that broadcasters must use on channels
>>below 52 period now and for some time in the future period.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>If DVB-H includes DVB-T, I don't really care, since nobody with any content
>>>that I am interested in, at least within 1000 miles of my home, is now, or
>>>will in the forseable future, offers a usable DVB service.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Whatever your definition of a usable service is. You being the keeper of
>>definitions. I believe that a DVB service is being offered in your area
>>at the moment however. The vast majority of satellite customers in the
>>US are using DVB-S even in San Diego. The broadcasters XMRadio and
>>Sirius are both using DVB-T within "1000 miles" of where you live I
>>believe. And within MY foreseeable future Crown Castle will offer
>>DVB-T/H services in the same area.
>>
>>And others will be offered in the "foreseeable" future though that
>>depends on how far you can foresee and that would influence your
>>definition of "foreseeable" I am sure.
>>
>>What I should have said as to DVB-T/H is that where there is DVB-H there
>>also is first DVB-T.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>I say this despite the fact that as of a few days ago, Qualcomm's Media Flo
>>>was available in San Diego, on Channel 53 (we have a DTV station on channeol
>>>55 for the moment.)
>>>
>>>Media flo IS NOT BROADCASTING. I have yet to hear of a single proposal to
>>>offer broadcasting services on any channel above 51, and I doubt that you
>>>have heard such things in reality./
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I don't know what your definition of broadcasting is buy mine includes
>>Media Flo.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Since you are sub-par as to terminology (MPEG-2 technology going down the
>>>tubes?), let me provide you with the definition of broadcasting: a point to
>>>multipoint one-way wireless transmission system, providing unencrypted
>>>signals designed for reception by the general public.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I don't agree with your definition of broadcasting. I would accept these
>>
>>"broadcasting, transmission of sound or images to a large number of
>>receivers by radio or television."
>>http://www.answers.com/broadcasting&r=67
>>
>>"To transmit (a radio or television program) for public or general use."
>>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=broadcasting
>>
>>Nothing in either about it having to be free or unencrypted. I think
>>broadcasting is a more general term than your definition allows, too
>>restrictive. I like these better
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Media flo is not one way, provides encrypted communications, which are not
>>>designed for reception by the general public, but the people who have paid a
>>>fee to somebody for access.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>The broadcast part of Media Flo is one way. The back channel for when
>>someone wants to participate, not required, is the cell phone data
>>connection. Channel 55 is being used one way in a broadcast mode.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>So, your prediction is a non-starter. Nobody interested in transmitting for
>>>free in the clear has even thought of using channels above 51, nor has any
>>>such entity or person given much of a thought of using DVB, given ATSC's
>>>legal position.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>No one would give a thought to using DVB-T below channel 52 for obvious
>>reasons, its illegal. Anyone contemplating using any channel from 52 to
>>59 will use a version of COFDM no matter what they contemplate on doing
>>including transmitting in the free and clear. Which I believe could
>>happen seeing the success of Freeview and envisioning the added appeal
>>it would have if a mobile service were added to it.
>>
>>Bob Miller
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>John Willkie
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Bob Miller <bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>Sent: Oct 25, 2005 8:32 PM
>>>To: JohnWillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>Subject: Re: [OpenDTV] Interesting Point
>>>
>>>Inclusion of DVB-H by definition includes DVB-T.
>>>
>>>What legal position of ATSC? They have none on channels above 51 as
>>>Qualcomm is proving by deployment of COFDM on 55. As I have been
>>>predicting for many years ALL channels from 51 through 59 will be used
>>>for broadcasting even if some of the current owners of this spectrum do
>>>not know it yet. And they will ALL use a version of COFDM.
>>>
>>>And as channels 52 and below realize what the competition is doing with
>>>DVB-T and H they will clamor for the ability to compete.
>>>
>>>Maybe that clamoring will come as the last moments of NTSC approach and
>>>the broadcasters employ their last tool of delay, the poor reception of
>>>mandated receivers, to hold off the inevitable. Congress could throw
>>>them the bone of allowing COFDM if they just shut up. The evidence
>>>worldwide of the superiority of COFDM will be very apparent by then as
>>>it well may be right here in the US. The scramble to buy the remaining
>>>channels in the lower 700 MHz spectrum and the plans of the would be
>>>winners will also stimulate interest by broadcasters in actually being
>>>able to use their OTA spectrum to compete in this new market.
>>>
>>>Having every laptop capable of receiving DVB-T/H will be just another
>>>incentive. Unless of course 8-VSB improves so much that manufacturers
>>>also include ATSC receivers in every laptop. LOL falling on the floor
>>>LOL, having a spasm, someone call 911!!!
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: