[opendtv] Re: White paper from CEA
- From: Bob Miller <bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 12:54:38 -0500
Tony Neece wrote:
>The simple fact is that the broadcasters did at first promote DTT. Then
>along came the controversy over changing to COFDM. That caused =
>everything
>to come to a halt. STB R & D stopped. Sony and others pulled back =
>product
>in the pipeline as well as support for HD broadcast production. It =
>looked
>like VHS vs Beta again. With almost no receivers out there it would have
>been asinine for the broadcasters to heavily promote their Digital =
>service.
>
>The next step came when the dust settled over the modulation standard, =
>and
>even Nat Osteroff, the most ardent supporter of COFDM, agreed that the
>improved equalizers for ATSC reception made COFDM a dead issue.=20
>
>
As far out as this sounds I just read an email to me from a broadcaster
telling me he thinks COFDM may be possible below channel 51. So there is
some thinking still going on about the subject.
>What then happened was that the big retailers told the manufacturers =
>that
>they would be wasting their time to expend R&D on STBs, because the
>retailers had decided it was not in their interest to advertise and sell =
>an
>item that reduced the incentive to buy new TV sets or sign for Cable or =
>DBS.
>It was the retailers that killed the market. I read of one retailer =
>that
>actually told a TV station to STOP advising their viewers to get =
>converters,
>because they weren't selling them and didn't want people coming in =
>looking
>for them!!! =20
>
>
Open box specials were all the rage at retailers for a while. One friend
took 9 Hisense receivers back to WalMart before finally giving up.
Reception problems and returns are one reason along with the ones you
enumerate.
>Oh but how much more fun it is to blame the big bad broadcasters for the
>sluggish transition, despite that for 7 years now they have been =
>spending
>millions upon millions for new transmitters, new STL's, new terminal and
>studio equipment, even new towers in some cases, and a double or triple
>power bill at the transmitter sites. The broadcasters did this =
>willingly,
>even eagerly in most cases. The station personnel dug in to learn
>completely new technology and measurement technique. No small task =
>that.
>
>
And one broadcaster told me that the cost of DTV and the electric bills
for broadcasting were "the dues we pay for must carry". Broadcasters are
still focused on multicast must carry. This broadcaster, a different one
than the one mentioned above, said that in many of his markets he would
turn off most of his transmitters to save money if he was still
guaranteed must carry. I know contrary evidence in Los Angeles and other
centers of high OTA viewership would keep the transmitters on. When we
were in Canada a few years ago a number of broadcasters we met said that
they say little future in OTA with 8-VSB but would be on the air
immediately if they could use COFDM.
>It is just too much to expect the broadcaster to carry all the load, =
>when
>even now, DTT receivers are few and far between in the hands of viewers.
>Now, really, does anyone truly think the retailers would be eagerly =
>pushing
>DVB-T STBs if we had somehow gone that route?=20
>
>
Yes! Retailers would be in the same situation with COFDM as they are
with satellite. They would be able to make a buck in the distribution of
DVB-T receivers for subscription services and there would be lots of
receivers for both mobile and fixed reception available for that market.
The mobile market would be a whole new ballgame.
Bob Miller
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] =
>On
>Behalf Of Manfredi, Albert E
>Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 4:29 PM
>To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [opendtv] Re: White paper from CEA
>
>Frank wrote:
>
>
>
>>Does anyone think there is any real chance that the
>>FCC could be convinced to reverse it's decision on
>>allowing COFDM? How many corporate executives are
>>foolish enough to bet their careers on a business
>>model that assumes such a change of heart will happen
>>at the FCC?
>>
>>
>
>I agree completely. So what's stopping these corporate
>executives from playing in the ATSC market?
>
>
>
>>That RFP is a joke.
>>
>>
>
>That RFP is only a joke if the NAB allows to become a
>joke. In my opinion, it's a good way to kick start the
>market, because it should convince the CE guys that
>*broadcasters* are actually interested in DTT now, as
>opposed to before. And by the way, if anything, the
>NAB ought to include recording devices as well as
>bargain basement simple STBs.
>
>
>
>>assuming anyone even responded to the RFP
>>
>>
>
>I don't understand this. Are you saying that the NAB
>was just making it all up?
>
>http://www.nab.org/newsroom/pressrel/Releases/100505_Thomson_LG_Converte
>rBox.htm
>
>I thought they selected LG and Thomson.
>
>
>
>>Most companies that are actually in the IC business
>>and highly capitalized have given up on that idea for
>>ATSC DTT. Good luck to any newcomers.
>>
>>
>
>But the 5th gen LG chips exist, in quantity production,
>do they not? I don't understand what you're saying here
>either. And it looked like Micronas is also getting
>into the chip market, and perhaps Samsung too.
>
>Leaving aside the conspiracy theory for why these DTT
>products aren't coming to market, the only rational
>explanation I can come up with is that the broadcasters
>have been so uninterested in pushing this transition
>that the CE guys saw no credible market out there. Maybe
>the CE guys are expecting OTA to die. (Or maybe Dale is
>correct, and the CE guys are *ensuring* that OTA will
>die.) I'll accept that poor performance was a good
>reason for broadcasters to be uininterested -- in the
>past!
>
>Now that decent and low cost receivers have been demoed
>and that some of these are being sold (in LG integrated
>sets, anyway), the best way to get DTT going is for the
>broadcasters to get in the thick of the action, JUST
>LIKE their cable and DBS counterparts do.
>
>Bert
>
>=20
>=20
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>
>- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
>FreeLists.org=20
>
>- 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: