[opendtv] Re: White paper from CEA
- From: Bob Miller <bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:06:17 -0400
John Willkie wrote:
>gee, these "channels" above 51. Will I be able to tune into one? In other
>words, will I be able to dial in 56 and get a programming service?
>
>No, just like I can't buy a receiver of any common type (DVB-T included) to
>tune into MediaFlo.
>
>The "channels" above 51 will be removed from broadcast service, but your fetid
>imagination still persists in thinking they will be providing broadcast
>services. This makes as much sense as XM an Sirrius using DVB-T for
>terrestrial transmission.
>
>These channels will be sliced and diced in many different ways, and there is
>more speculation going on (you included) than any communications activity that
>will ever go on on these frequency tranches.
>
>I note that you NEVER acknowledge your many mistakes. It makes it quite fun
>doing business to you.
>
>
I will put my record of admitting mistakes up against yours any day
John. We spent two days with UBS in Toronto while they were in the
process of making the COFDM modulators for XM. While I am not an
engineer I believed that their proprietary modulation was similar to
DVB-T as per discussion we were having with them on building an SFN. We
ended up using ITIS equipment (DVB-T). I would like to hear why it would
have been so nonsensical for XM to have used DVB-T terrestrially instead
of UBS's proprietary system since you are knowledgeable on the subject.
UBS does make DVB-T modulators.
I would have been closer to the mark if I had said they were using DAB
but the fact is they were using something close that doesn't seem to
have a name.
>Here's a prediction -- and I have a pretty good track record with mine, unlike
>you. There will be more NEW communications services 10 years from now on
>channels between 2 and 51 (including DVB transmissions) in the U.S. than all
>the public communications activities on channels above 51. And, the services
>on channels 1 through 51 will be real broadfcasting services, not
>"broaccasting services in the way that Bob Miller defines broadcasting
>services."
>
>
One thing you like to do John is insinuate that others hold a certain
position different from your own so you can debunk it. I have for years
said, and so far it has been one of my "mistaken" predictions, that
COFDM would reign supreme in channels from 2 to 51 in the near future.
Now you suggest that you hold the high ground in this predictive area. I
still am holding to my predictions that new services will be used in
those channels in what will appear to be in hindsight the not too
distant future. My prediction just yesterday that a court could overturn
all must carry and that this would cause a change in modulation is just
one. If this were to happen a lot of new services would be offered by
broadcasters on channels 2-51. Services that would already be big
business if COFDM had been allowed in 2000.
The other obvious use of spectrum in this area for other services using
COFDM would be the use of cognitive radios as proposed by the FCC.
Since you didn't like my sources for the definition of broadcasting here
are a few more. Non of which suggest that a broadcast service has to be
free to be "broadcasting".
Webster's
Main Entry: *^2 broadcast*
Function: /verb/
Inflected Form(s): *broadcast* /also/ *broad·cast·ed*; *broad·cast·ing*
/transitive senses/
*1* *:* to scatter or sow (as seed) broadcast
*2* *:* to make widely known
*3* *:* to transmit or make public by means of radio or television
/intransitive senses/
*1* *:* to transmit a broadcast
*2* *:* to speak or perform on a broadcast program
- *broad·cast·er* /noun
/Dictionary.com
1. To transmit (a radio or television program) for public or general use.
2. To send out or communicate, especially by radio or television: The
agency broadcast an urgent appeal for medical supplies.
3. To make known over a wide area: broadcast rumors. See Synonyms at
announce <http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=announce>.
4. To sow (seed) over a wide area, especially by hand.
/v./ /intr./
1.
1. To transmit a radio or television program for public or
general use.
2. To be on the air: The station begins broadcasting at 6 A.M.
2. To participate in a radio or television program.
3. To send a transmission or signal; transmit.
Could find NO legal term "broadcasting" at Find Law or Lawyers.com using
Lexis Nexis
http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/search.pl?s=broadcasting
http://www.lawyers.com/legal_topics/glossary/search/results.php?LDC_userId=138655734&LDC_sessionId=196997430&term=broadcasting&x=0&y=0
And this Engineering dictionary was no help at all.
http://www.stanford.edu/~plegresl/engineersdict.html
Or this one.
Maybe the term "broadcasting" used in broadcasting circles has taken on
a specific meaning understood by those who speak "broadcasting". Many of
us don't yet.
But as someone noted DBS includes broadcasting and although I am new to
the area I have seen the term used in many context where "free" was not
part of the definition and the user did not feel compelled to
differentiate. So using the term "broadcasting" to mean only free OTA
radio and TV is a limited use which should be the one that has to be
explained by the user when not in circles that understand its implied
meaning.
Maybe you could provide official sources for the term "broadcasting"
other than the FCC's version. And as I and others have pointed out as
Freeview becomes more successful the rebirth of OTA free TV is more
compelling. It could happen in the US on channels above 51 and if it
does, it is allowed after all even if it is in the Wireless branch not
Media, what would the FCC call it?
What will you call "broadcasting" after all current broadcasters on
channels 2-51 go multicast and use most of their spectrum for pay
services? When the ONE meager SD channel offered per station has the
lowest ratings of all the content on that channel, is it still
broadcasting by your terminology? What sets it apart from channel 52
where 5 programs in 480P are offered for free or pay?
Bob Miller
/
/
>John Willke
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bob Miller <bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Oct 27, 2005 7:06 AM
>To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [opendtv] Re: White paper from CEA
>
>Craig Birkmaier wrote:
>
>
>
>>And this time they will win, bringing at least a degree of
>>competition back into the television distribution marketplace.
>>
>>Regards
>>Craig
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Not only will they win but broadcasters will lose all must carry rights
>and be forced to focus more attention on their OTA spectrum just as new
>competition arrives from new broadcasters above channel 51 using COFDM
>and MPEG4 at which time 8-VSB and MPEG2's days will be numbered. And to
>be specific for John Willkie, not the transport stream.
>
>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: