Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (
More info?)
The problem Bob, is that WM9 is just the current format of the moment.
If you look into WM9, it's achievement over MPEG-2 relies heavily on
performance enhancements (i.e it requires a much more powerful
processor to decode in real-time than MPEG-2) it's also owned by
Microsoft, which is one of the most successful corporations in history
and one can attribute a large part of Microsoft's success to their
business model of reinventing their products in 2-3 year cycles.
Today we have WM9, WM10 is already in beta (no I'm not being
fecicious), to my knowledge there aren't any huge improvements in the
WM-HD codec, but the point is this gives Microsoft (or whatever
company that wants to follow) a model of creating a higher compression
rate as processors become more powerful. At some point you have to
lock-down, because in two-three years WM9 will be old technology in
the same since that you're looking at MPEG-2 now. I have nothing
against Microsoft, but I can see how it would be in their interest
(and to their gain) to get WM9 adopted and from there it will just be
another product for them to cycle and reinvent.
From my perspective, there's nothing wrong with MPEG-2, it delivers on
quality. It's very easy to look at technology such as WM9 and think
wow's that's what it's all about.. but establishing standards early on
is much more important. Thankfully that's what the FCC has done and as
a fruit of their efforts. Most OTA network affiliates now broadcast HD
feed and while not everyone is pulling that via 8VSB OTA tunner, a
good number of satellite owners are, and for those that aren't this
transition has forced local affilates to get invest in the HD
equipment, inspired them to film HD content and that feed is provided
to local cable companies for non OTA consumption. All of this has
added up to the US being #1 in accessiblity of HDTV programming. So
don't tell us about what's going on in Berlin or Australia because you
always have to take this back to Standard Definition Digital
Television discussion. Look at what those countries have for HDTV
programming and then if you're ready to have that discussion we can.
You should put more thought into your cause.
-Jeremy
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<hbvwc.2905$uX2.1226@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> Randy Sweeney wrote:
>
> > "Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:vqmdnab9BqX0kV_dRVn-sA@comcast.com...
> >
> >>"tcassette" <tcassette1@cox.net> wrote in message
> >>news
v9wc.46960$Yr.28127@okepread04...
> >>
> >>>The STB at my local Super-Wally is an over-the-air, no-namo tuner that
> >>>appears to be of Chinese origin. The best part is the $199 price.
> >>
> >>did you check out the US DTV website?
> >>
> >>In Los Vegas, these guys are compressing 12 "SD" cable channels into what
> >>appears to be ONE ATSC OTA channel... whoa.. must be an incredibly lovely
> >>image.
> >
> >
> > I had to do some more checking on this as it seemed very strange
> >
> > More details... USDTV is using WM9 compression to get the 12 channels and
> > the box is NOT a standard ATSC but something more powerful, a ATSC plus WM9
> > box made by Hisense Electric in China... supposedly 400,000 of them have
> > entered the country.
> > Also, the USDTV guys plan to ship a disk to go with the box to add PVR
> > services which will no doubt add additional non-realtime content.
> >
> > And it appears that the USDTV channels are not coming from a single 12:1
> > multiplexed OTA channel but instead are actually non-MPEG coded secondary
> > and opportunistic bitstreams from multiple existing ATSC OTA broadcasters in
> > the subs - the US stands not for United States but for United Stations.
> >
> > I wonder if the relative quality of the partner stations' ATSC HD streams
> > have decreased to make room for the USDTV WM9 bit streams.
> >
> > This is extremely interesting.
> >
> >
> Heh I think Randy is getting it, he is starting to get it. And
> broadcasters are to. This of course was suggested as far back as late
> 1999. The benefits of at that time VP4 compression and multiple program
> streams with various resolutions and the ability to auto record for
> later viewing pre Tivo.
>
> The idea of using all the channels in a market to build an OTA
> compelling alternative to cable and satellite that could include HD, SD
> and ED and data delivered opportunistically was argued by me and others
> on AVSForum, OpenDTV and here ever since.
>
> Now that decent 8-VSB receivers are finally on the horizon broadcasters
> are starting to pay attention. The problem is that with 8-VSB and
> current FCC regulations current receivers will be regulated to receiving
> ONE SD program while new receivers that can handle better codecs will
> receive the multiple HD, SD, ED and data streams and PROBABLY in the
> form of a subscription based service.
>
> Since doing this with 8-VSB, a real kludge even with better receivers,
> and since all current receivers will be rendered obsolete anyway, and
> since it would be a real waste to still do even one program stream in
> MPEG2, and since broadcasters now are finally becoming interested in OTA
> broadcasting again I will bring up another prediction from the past.
>
> Past prediction: if broadcasters ever get really interested in OTA
> broadcasting and understand that they can compete with cable and
> satellite doing OTA and come to understand how much value better codecs
> add to the value of their OTA spectrum (and I thought after a
> consolidation of stations by the big boys and a total failure of many
> small broadcasters) THAT BROADCASTERS WOULD RISE UP AND GET THE FCC TO
> ALLOW COFDM or some other more acceptable modulation. And I said the FCC
> would be apt to do that very quickly when and if the broadcasters asked.
>
> After hearing Congressman and Chairman of the House Commerce Committee
> Barton in the hearings the other day I think this is now VERY LIKELY.
>
> The plans that Emmis and USDTV propose have as their natural outcome the
> elimination of any HDTV with MPEG2 that could be received with current
> receivers. If a station has compelling content that they want carried on
> cable they will use retransmission consent and sell it. If they do not
> have compelling content they will use must carry and some HDTV may be
> delivered via MPEG2 that way, that is THE NON COMPELLING STUFF that they
> CANNOT SELL to cable.
>
> Anything else will be sold via re-transmission consent and as the OTA
> becomes more successful expect broadcasters to WITHHOLD their best
> content as competitive juices start flowing. If enough broadcasters with
> enough compelling content withhold that content and you can also get
> things like HBO or ESPN via ala carte OTA subscription I don't see how
> cable and satellite can survive. Who needs them?
>
> Now what if broadcasters had all that, say 20 stations in NYC each with
> a combination of HD, SD, ED and opportunistic data that would total out
> to anywhere from 240 SD program channels or less with a mix of HD, ED
> and SD. But broadcasters will want more than that. They will want to
> reach mobile and portable receivers. They will want to be able to do on
> channel repeaters and build their networks with SFN capability.
>
> You need COFDM or a better modulation for that no matter what 8-VSB
> proponents say. Countries like the Netherlands, Finland and Spain
> already have such national networks. Germany, Australia, Japan, Taiwan,
> Norway and others are not far behind.
>
> Either current broadcasters use their spectrum wisely or they lose it.
> If they lose it someone else will use it wisely. Congress has now put
> them on notice. They are going to take back channels 51 through 69 NOW.
> Others will use those channels wisely and be back to take the rest of
> the TV spectrum if broadcasters stay asleep.
/staff.washington.edu/mrc
/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/RhymesWithOrange/BigDogs.gif
Facebook
Twitter