[opendtv] Re: Technology years
- From: "Dale Kelly" <dalekelly@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 13:15:04 -0800
Bert wrote:
> Sorry, Craig, I have been listening. And what I heard is that while
> E-VSB or A-VSB might be or soon be incorporated in ATSC, the doubt was
> that any hardware that uses these would become available.
>
> This is very different from the ATSC refusing to write updated
> standards.
True, other than the final product is sometimes (sometimes not) watered down
to a point that has lost much of it's intended value.
There was a rumor floated at the time EVSB was under consideration, that it
would extend the Zenith/LG 8VSB patent if adopted and used. I don't know
anything about patent law but that seemed implausible to me at the time.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Manfredi, Albert E
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 9:01 AM
> To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [opendtv] Re: Technology years
>
>
> Craig Birkmaier wrote:
>
> >> From my outsider's point of view, if broadcasters want
> >> E-VSB or A-VSB to be implemented in hardware, it is
> >> *entirely* up to them (cum their NAB) to make it happen.
> >> I really am puzzled to see the finger pointing from
> >> them. Hardware vendors react to demand for products.
> >> Service providers create that demand.
> >
> > Have you been listening Bert?
> >
> > The ATSC is largely run by CE companies, and a handful of
> > broadcasters who really don't care if it is a success. I
> > could have said something more pointed, but I'm trying to
> > be polite...
>
> Sorry, Craig, I have been listening. And what I heard is that while
> E-VSB or A-VSB might be or soon be incorporated in ATSC, the doubt was
> that any hardware that uses these would become available.
>
> This is very different from the ATSC refusing to write updated
> standards.
>
> So let's compare the ATSC with the IETF. The IETF is run by vendors and
> service providers, and also academia. If a vendor or a service provider
> comes up with a new scheme they want or need to implement, the
> interested party or parties write an Internet Draft. This document is
> reviewed by the applicable IETF working group(s), and if interest
> exists, after a lot of back and forth and wordsmithing, it is published
> as an RFC. Some RFCs are standards track and eventually become
> standards. Others are classified informational or experimental.
>
> In what way is the ATSC different? If it takes more broadcaster support
> to make the ATSC approve good ideas, then that's what it takes. Are
> broadcasters who care about DTT expelled from the ATSC?
>
> E-VSB, for example, *is* now included in A/53. It's not like this hasn't
> happened. As far as I can tell, the ATSC *did* its job to the extent it
> should. I expect the same to happen with A-VSB. This is exactly the way
> the IETF operates.
>
> Now it is up to the broadcasters to implement the new protocols. Of
> course, they depend on the vendors to supply the hardware, but the two
> go hand in hand.
>
> A perfect analogy in the Internet is IP Multicast. It has stagnated
> forever. Not because RFCs aren't available, but because the SERVICE
> PROVIDERS are not particularly keen on it.
>
> 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.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: