[opendtv] Re: White paper from CEA
- From: John Willkie <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:00:01 +0100 (GMT+01:00)
so, put up your largely non-existent record against mine.
XM and sirrius use proprietary takes on cofdm modulation. DVB-T is non-pro=
prietary.=20
Last time I checked the DVB-SI specification, it, unlike ATSC's PSIP, did n=
ot permit one to identify a radio service within the DVB-T/S/C specificatio=
n. If there is no metadata to describe a particular service, that service =
doesn't exist, and this is a rigid rule in DVB, due the spec-compliance nat=
ure of their system.
If your goal is to have COFDM on channels between 2 and 51, your goal is be=
lied by your lack of action when the FCC has asked you and others -- in sev=
eral proceedings -- to provide interference studies on cofdm into 8-vsb mod=
ulation. Without these studies, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell th=
at cofdm will be permitted on channels below 52.
It was about seven years from the first ACATS meeting to having an adopted =
us dtv standard. Most of the early work was specifically on "hdtv" into nts=
c interference. If you don't have the time or money now to perform these =
KEY studies, will you have more time or money later?
If you have completed studies by 2006, you could expect to have permissible=
use of DVB in some form before 2017.
And, just why don't cable companies use that magnificent DVB-C specificatio=
n?
John Willkie
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Miller <bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Oct 27, 2005 6:06 PM
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: White paper from CEA
John Willkie wrote:
>gee, these "channels" above 51. Will I be able to tune into one? In othe=
r 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) t=
o tune into MediaFlo. =20
>
>The "channels" above 51 will be removed from broadcast service, but your f=
etid imagination still persists in thinking they will be providing broadcas=
t services. This makes as much sense as XM an Sirrius using DVB-T for terr=
estrial transmission.
>
>These channels will be sliced and diced in many different ways, and there =
is more speculation going on (you included) than any communications activit=
y that will ever go on on these frequency tranches.
>
>I note that you NEVER acknowledge your many mistakes. It makes it quite f=
un doing business to you.
> =20
>
I will put my record of admitting mistakes up against yours any day=20
John. We spent two days with UBS in Toronto while they were in the=20
process of making the COFDM modulators for XM. While I am not an=20
engineer I believed that their proprietary modulation was similar to=20
DVB-T as per discussion we were having with them on building an SFN. We=20
ended up using ITIS equipment (DVB-T). I would like to hear why it would=20
have been so nonsensical for XM to have used DVB-T terrestrially instead=20
of UBS's proprietary system since you are knowledgeable on the subject.=20
UBS does make DVB-T modulators.
I would have been closer to the mark if I had said they were using DAB=20
but the fact is they were using something close that doesn't seem to=20
have a name.
>Here's a prediction -- and I have a pretty good track record with mine, un=
like 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. tha=
n 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 serv=
ices."
> =20
>
One thing you like to do John is insinuate that others hold a certain=20
position different from your own so you can debunk it. I have for years=20
said, and so far it has been one of my "mistaken" predictions, that=20
COFDM would reign supreme in channels from 2 to 51 in the near future.=20
Now you suggest that you hold the high ground in this predictive area. I=20
still am holding to my predictions that new services will be used in=20
those channels in what will appear to be in hindsight the not too=20
distant future. My prediction just yesterday that a court could overturn=20
all must carry and that this would cause a change in modulation is just=20
one. If this were to happen a lot of new services would be offered by=20
broadcasters on channels 2-51. Services that would already be big=20
business if COFDM had been allowed in 2000.
The other obvious use of spectrum in this area for other services using=20
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=20
are a few more. Non of which suggest that a broadcast service has to be=20
free to be "broadcasting".
Webster's
Main Entry: *^2 broadcast*
Function: /verb/
Inflected Form(s): *broadcast* /also/ *broad=B7cast=B7ed*; *broad=B7cast=B7=
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=B7cast=B7er* /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=3Dannounce>.
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=20
Lexis Nexis
http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/search.pl?s=3Dbroadcasting
http://www.lawyers.com/legal_topics/glossary/search/results.php?LDC_userId=
=3D138655734&LDC_sessionId=3D196997430&term=3Dbroadcasting&x=3D0&y=3D0
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=20
a specific meaning understood by those who speak "broadcasting". Many of=20
us don't yet.
But as someone noted DBS includes broadcasting and although I am new to=20
the area I have seen the term used in many context where "free" was not=20
part of the definition and the user did not feel compelled to=20
differentiate. So using the term "broadcasting" to mean only free OTA=20
radio and TV is a limited use which should be the one that has to be=20
explained by the user when not in circles that understand its implied=20
meaning.
Maybe you could provide official sources for the term "broadcasting"=20
other than the FCC's version. And as I and others have pointed out as=20
Freeview becomes more successful the rebirth of OTA free TV is more=20
compelling. It could happen in the US on channels above 51 and if it=20
does, it is allowed after all even if it is in the Wireless branch not=20
Media, what would the FCC call it?
What will you call "broadcasting" after all current broadcasters on=20
channels 2-51 go multicast and use most of their spectrum for pay=20
services? When the ONE meager SD channel offered per station has the=20
lowest ratings of all the content on that channel, is it still=20
broadcasting by your terminology? What sets it apart from channel 52=20
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:
>
> =20
>
>>And this time they will win, bringing at least a degree of=20
>>competition back into the television distribution marketplace.
>>
>>Regards
>>Craig
>>
>>
>> =20
>>
>Not only will they win but broadcasters will lose all must carry rights=20
>and be forced to focus more attention on their OTA spectrum just as new=20
>competition arrives from new broadcasters above channel 51 using COFDM=20
>and MPEG4 at which time 8-VSB and MPEG2's days will be numbered. And to=20
>be specific for John Willkie, not the transport stream.
>
>Bob Miller
>=20
>=20
>
=20
=20
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at Free=
Lists.org=20
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsu=
bscribe 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: