Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (
More info?)
Jeff Shoaf wrote:
> "Lawrence G. Mayka" <lgmayka000@ameritech.net> wrote in news:EnjAc.2185
> $Pt.695@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com:
>
>
>>I must strongly suspect that USDTV is subsidizing this model in order to
>>seed the public with a model compatible with its new service.
>>
>
>
> USDTV isn't an existing local broadcaster - they're more like DirecTV or
> Dish Network, only not broadcasting via satellite and at a smaller scale.
> Both of those subsidize the cost of receivers with the intention of getting
> a return on that investment via subscription costs.
>
> Bob is claiming that existing local OTA broadcasters who get their income
> from commercials
Broadcasters NOW get their income from commercials. They are considering
putting together a package that would allow them to have a subscription
service OTA like cable and satellite. Then they to can get paid twice
for their programming, once by commercials and again by subscription.
Cable gets paid for programming once for content via commercials and
then paid again for the delivery service. Now that the FCC has OKed that
model for broadcasters once they have delivered one free NTSC quality
program they like the idea of double dipping. This model, like cable and
satellite, suggest subsidizing receivers. We proposed doing that with
our model in 2000. In my testimony before Congress I said that our model
using COFDM allowed for free OTA receivers. One reason that was/is
possible is that COFDM receivers were/are less expensive. The model to
the customer was also less expensive since you could use indoor
receivers with COFDM. The advent of such receivers for 8-VSB if true
would be a major positive. The USDTV model was/is flawed because their
current OTA 8-VSB receiver is not so good. That is why they have picked
cities with lots of mountains around them for better reception. Better
8-VSB receivers makes their plan possible.
will subsidize the cost or give away receivers and pay to
> receive additional digital channels via OTA and/or cable, and he seems to
> be insinuating that all the local broadcasters in an area would team up and
> use the same modulation/encryption scheme and share in the subsidy costs.
> If they didn't, each consumer would end up with 5 or 6 or 10 different
> receivers hooked up to their DTV just so that they can pay for a few
> additional DTV feeds from each broadcaster.
>
> He fails to explain how this is different/better for the consumer than
> digital cable or why any consumers would be willing to pay for it. It seems
> to me that since he's lost his footing on claiming that 8VSB doesn't work,
> so he's trying to find some new sources of FUD to discourage people from
> getting TVs or set top boxes so they can enjoy gorgeous, easy to receive,
> free OTA HDTV now.
>
USDTV is not a local broadcaster but Emmis is and Emmis suggest that
they want to buy USDTV because for one thing its business plan is very
close to what they propose to their fellow broadcasters.
And Emmis has signed up over 400 stations to this plan so far and expect
to add an additional 400 this summer. That is around 50% of all TV
stations in the US. They suggest that many if not most of the rest of
the stations will join them soon, the main reason they have not joined
yet is the need to consult with corporate boards etc. Considering that
this all really started at this years NAB in April this is an
astoundingly fast development.
I did not come up with my take on this recently. In advocating COFDM and
the predecessor of VP6 compression, VP4, back in 2000 I proposed that
all broadcasters pool their spectrum in any market, use COFDM in
co-located SFNs and using an advanced compression scheme like VP4
(then), VP6, WM9 or MPEG4 now. Before 2000 I took it for granted in late
1999 that this would happen with or without my participation or
suggestion. It was just too obvious and different parts of it are now
what is happening in most other countries.
My plan in 2000 proposed here and on AVSForum many times as it developed
would allow a package of services that included HD, SD, ED and
opportunistic data to be broadcast to both a fixed and mobile market.
The opportunistic data portion would not impact any of the time
sensitive HD, ED and SD programs by definition, being opportunistic.
Each broadcaster would supply whatever mix they wanted to the common
package and part or all of it could be a subscription service other than
the one SD NTSC quality FREE program that is required byt he FCC. The
advantage of doing this with an advanced codec then and now is that the
receiver would not have to do the single SD program in MPEG2. All the
programming would have been/ would be receivable by the COFDM receiver I
proposed then.
We always assumed that COFDM would be recognized as a superior
modulation and or initial paln would possibly allow us to be an
opportunistic datacaster using opportunistic null packets that for
example HD creates a lot of, with current broadcasters. Believing at the
time that broadcasters would do one HDTV program we believed that on
average using MPEG2 that opportunistically 12 Mbps could be delivered
without impacting the HD signal. This is not true of multicasting where
many argue the HD program is impacted severely in many cases. With
opportunistic datacasting this simply could not happen.
With the use of an advanced codec even more datacasting could be done
since one HD program with VP6, WM9 or MPEG4 would on average use as
little as 3 Mbps or even less. Remember that is on average not peak.
Many confused opportunistic broadcasting with multicasting when
attacking our proposal out of ignorance of the difference.
I argued at the time that we would, business wise, be opposed to
multicasting since statistically multiplexed multicasting would leave a
lot less null packets for datacasting use.
Other companies tried to do datacasting but were unsuccessful because as
we believed at the time 8-VSB did not offer any chance of success. We at
no time contemplated trying to do anything with 8-VSB.
Two things have happened recently, after waiting FOUR LONG YEARS. One in
other countries successful new OTA business plans have become very
successful using COFDM and without a mobile element. We always thought
that without mobile any OTA plan would fail. Second and only very
recently an 8-VSB receiver design, not yet on the market, has shown
promise for ease of reception with indoor antenna. These two NEW
developments suggest that in the US a venture like USDTV or the Emmis
proposal and like what we were proposing in 2000 could now be very
successful.
I would still argue that it would be even more successful with mobile
reception but if the FCC wants to leave mobile to other than current
broadcasters like ourselves that is fine with me. And I still think that
long term OTA broadcasters will fail without mobile because of the
dominance the Internet and what I would call megaband not broadband will
have over all delivery of entertainment to any receiver limited to
reception in a fixed non mobile site. This dominance will also destroy
all current cable and satellite business plans.
Other parts of the plan of 2000...
The SFN (Single Frequency Network) would allow the sculpting of the
coverage area so that more stations could be used in any market. For
example channel 4 could be used in both New York and Philadelphia and
the coverage would be more even and the signal strength stronger at any
point in the coverage while power consumed would decline significantly.
An added benefit of such distributed broadcasting other than power
savings, a more even signal strength over the coverage area and mobile
and portable reception is that in the case of the failure of any single
transmitter site (think World Trade Center, Moscow TV Tower fire
http
/www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/08/27/moscow.fire/
and many other disasters that have taken place before and since, any
loss of a transmitter in an SFN would cause little or no loss of signal
for anyone and could be repaired quickly and at less expense. That is
not what happened, as we know, in Moscow or New York where single super
power broadcast sites were crippled causing massive loss of signal that
has taken a long time to recover from.
Sculpting of the broadcast coverage is achieved by directional low power
transmitters at the edge of the coverage area aimed toward the center of
coverage which allows for far less interference with the use of the same
frequency in adjacent areas.
In any market we have channels 2 thru 51 after the digital transition.
As I said above more of those could be used with SFN design but if we
allow for only 20 channels being used in a market and if they were
co-located in an SFN structure we would have ubiquitous reception of all
using COFDM mobile, portable and fixed.
Using an advanced codec like VP6 or others we could deliver in those 20
channels at LEAST 400 SD programs or 125 HD programs or 250 ED programs
in real time statistically multiplexed while delivering a lot of data
opportunistically. And broadcasters could also deliver a mix of the
above that varied by time of day etc. In a given market at any given
time you could have 50 HD, 100 SD and 45 ED programs plus tons of data
being delivered at any point in time.
But what is most interesting is that with PVR, DVR or whatever you call
it, we called it PVR in 2000, the number or real time channels becomes
much less important. What is more important is that you can deliver over
a 24 hour period via the channels you have not only to real time viewers
but also to storage devices. A viewer now and more so in the future
will not look at a menu of what is ON but what is AVAILABLE for viewing.
Very little of what we watch on TV today, though it is delivered in real
time (that is we watch it as they broadcast it), is being produced in
real time. Normally sports and the news and talk shows come to mind as
something we watch in real time. But the news is really only the talking
heads reporters in real time. The actual news and clips of events are
collected for broadcast in the newshour. You could be more real time if
news flashes were delivered during the day as they happened. Sports is
for real time watching but even a real time game could be recorded and
you could start watching after some time had elapsed and be able to fast
forward thru commercials and slow spots and still be real time at the
end of the game.
ALL OF THE ABOVE was discussed in 2000, 2001 ad nauseum. None of it came
up recently.
This was all lost. Since broadcasters were stuck with 8-VSB there was no
future for OTA until it was fixed or until COFDM was allowed or other
spectrum that allowed COFDM became available. 8-VSB is now being
PARTIALLY FIXED. Enough for Sinclair to breathe a sigh of relief. Don't
be fooled however, Sinclair and all other broadcasters would still
switch to COFDM in a heartbeat if allowed to.
COFDM is allowed on other spectrum but is stifled by broadcasters who
still squat on it waiting for the transition. Since 8-VSB's problems are
the reason for the digital transition being stalled you can see why we
can get very excited by any improvement in 8-VSB. It may allow for a
swifter transition and at the same time it locks current broadcasters
into 8-VSB harder and longer which means less competition for any mobile
service.
And as we see more and more talk about getting 8-VSB to do things that
COFDM did in 1995. Big talk now about the possibility of using SFN
technology with 8-VSB, (GOOD LUCK). Less talk about using 8-VSB with on
channel repeaters (also good luck) and no talk lately about the CRUDE
attempt to do mobile with E-VSB (all HDTV enthusiast should breathe a
sigh of relief).
All in all we have a big mess in the US but at least now broadcasters
can start to look at trying something. USDTV, Emmis, talk of SFN use,
actually forming a consortium of broadcasters, talk of putting together
a subscription OTA service are all messy and 8-VSB with MPEG2 and MPEG4
combo extremely messy but its something.
Allowing COFDM would solve all of these messy problems over night.
And for the record if you look at past post you will see that all I have
said above and more was posted here and on AVSForum from the beginning.
Facebook
Twitter