[opendtv] Re: Kennard and Powell to the rescue
- From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:33:35 -0800
If, if, if, if. You continue to look backwards, and nobody else is -- in
the entire world, at least on this topic.
You are free to use any modulation scheme you want. Despite that, you are
worried about what broadcasters do. You must be really confused and
fearful.
You had the opportunity to use a different modulation scheme with LPTV, but
you wanted assurances from the FCC, who instead closed the door on you
orally, then in the LPTV/DTV order. Too bad; you probably would have been
grandfathered.
It comes down to the "public interest, convenience and necessity." Multiple
modulation schemes is inconvenient.
Which brings up if you have ever put an LPTV on the air.
I strongly doubt that any different modulation scheme will be permitted for
part 73 stations, and it's only slightly more possible with part 74.
The interference studies that would provide the engineering basis for your
intermixture idea have yet to be begun. So, let us know when you have
started them.
You need to focus: M/H use doesn't require any FCC approval, because it
doesn't change anything in A/53; it just uses the same physical/emission
layer. Compared to spending years on studies and FCC proceedings, it's a
"slam dunk."
Have you ever heard of the term "path of least resistance?" If you want to
ever be a player in real mobile DTV, it's time to consider how M/H might
help you in that regard.
There is more to full M/H than simple audio/video. To make any use of it,
it is best to use a "push here" form of channel selection, with icons and
even "preview clips" in the service guide. Once again, "something is
happening here" and that something has nothing to do with the modulation
layer, but has an awful lot to do with the service and application layers.
Which reminds me, after doing a bit more testing, I should do a big posting
on the differences between M/H and A/53. One major difference: M/H is
essentially an error-free transmission medium. Indeed, the receiver may in
some situations, detect errors where there are none; it tends to "false
negatives" rather than the "false positives" that crop up in A/53 service.
John Willkie
-----Mensaje original-----
De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
nombre de Bob Miller
Enviado el: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 1:15 PM
Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [opendtv] Re: Kennard and Powell to the rescue
Well now that the FCC is talking SFNs and if as you say there were few
legacy receivers and most receivers could decode MPEG4 and MPEG2 and
receive most modulations then they could, might allow for numerous
modulations and MPEG2/MPEG4. As long as a broadcasters using another
modulation didn't interfere with another broadcaster because of such
use. Onus being on the broadcaster. LPTV stations seem to do just fine
under such limitations.
It seems logical to me that all receivers in the not too distant
future will do all modulations and all major codecs. An maybe even be
upgradeable.
It seems this would be logical from an inventory position for a
manufacturer in say China.
Bob
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:49 PM, John Willkie <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> John;
>
> You seem to largely be arguing with positions I didn't take.
Specifically,
> I didn't suggest that people transmit MPEG-4 to meet the FCC requirement,
> but that I thought the language of the law (not the regulations) would
> permit it.
>
> You may be familiar with the general concept that it is easier to change
an
> FCC regulation than it is to change a section of the Communications Act.
>
> So, John, thank you for doing my research and making -- to the extent you
> have quoted the Code -- my point. There is nothing in the sections of the
> code that you have cites that mandates MPEG-2/A-53/A-52. Those are 'mere'
> FCC regulations.
>
> Also, I didn't even suggest that the FCC exceeded their mandate by
requiring
> a SDTV-equivalent stream in the clear; by trying to prove me wrong, you
> actually proved me right on the gist of my point.
>
> Also, I tell nobody what essence to broadcast or transmit. I stick to
what
> I know; broadcast metadata and how it is linked to essence. My first
> customer, for example, just stared airing Al Jazeera in English over the
> last weekend. I doubt that it will be a commercial success, but they
> present coverage in English that is not otherwise available, having 6
> staffers in Gaza right now.
>
> If somebody wants to transmit h.264/avc video, I can provide the bits to
> make that work with PSIP. Around the time that the candidate standard for
> A/153 is adopted (assuming such happens), if somebody wants to transmit
m/h
> essence, I can and will transmit the Transmission Parameter Channel, the
> Fast Information Channel-Chunk(s), the Service Map Table, the Guide Access
> Table, the Cell Information Table, Service Labeling Table(s), the Rating
> Region Table, XML fragments needed to create the OMA-BCAST Service Guide
for
> ATSC M/H and perhaps even the Short Term and Long Term Key Management
> elements. All with the same user interface, and probably even with the
same
> computer as is used for transmitting PSIP. Perhaps, based on Windows 7, I
> will even go beyond that and enable essence encoding, but I think it best
> that be done on a different box.
>
> That term "advanced television services" reads a lot different now than it
> did in 1996. It could be used by the FCC -- were there a overweening
number
> of m/h capable receivers in the marketplace and few legacy MPEG-2 devices
> there -- to mandate that the in the clear requirement be permissible via
> MPEG-4 or MPEG-2, as the station desires.
>
> Merely transmitting audio and video digitally just doesn't seem all that
> advanced these days. Transmitting audio, video, presentation data
> (interactive elements, graphics, maps, animations) and files suitable for
> downloading via FLUTE does seem quite advanced.
>
> John Willkie
>
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
> nombre de John Shutt
> Enviado el: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 12:09 PM
> Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Asunto: [opendtv] Re: Kennard and Powell to the rescue
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>> John;
>>
>> Could you show me the language in the United States Code (which is what I
>> so
>> badly alluded to) that mandates MPEG-2 transmissions of at least SDTV
>> quality?
>
> Come on, John, you know perfectly well that the Telecommunications Act of
> 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, grants the FCC the
> authority to regulate "advanced television services." Specifically:
>
> http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf
>
> 47 U.S.C. 336(b): "[The Commission shall] (4) adopt such technical and
other
>
> requirements as may be necessary or appropriate to assure the quality of
the
>
> signal used to provide advanced television services, and may adopt
> regulations that stipulate the minimum number of hours per day that such
> signal must be transmitted; and (5) prescribe such other regulations as
may
> be necessary for the protection of the public interest, convenience, and
> necessity."
>
> We already went through those regulations, so there is no need to repeat
> that particular exercise. If it is your contention that the FCC exceeded
> their congressional mandate by issuing those rules requiring a single SD
> program, and adopting certain ATSC standards by reference, then that is a
> matter for the courts to decide.
>
> As often as you caution your clients against being in violation of PSIP
> rules, I doubt you would recommend to your clients to broadcast a single
SD
> program using MPEG-4 video compression to satisfy 73.624(b).
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: