[IP] more on : Digital Signals Rule for New TVs Upheld
Delivered-To: dfarber+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 03:01:02 -0500
From: Peter Bachman <peterb@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: More 2007 nonsense: Digital Signals Rule for New TVs Upheld
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Dave,
Actually it makes a great deal of sense. Cable boxes are a pain.
Pretty funny that when everything is currently going "wireless", using
an antenna to get a digital ATSC signal seems so 1950's? It's far more
than a mere veneer, yet still just another way to get a bit stream. Plus
when they dump all those analog stations, that frees up a lot of
bandwidth to use for other things.
ATSC is a good alternative to other modes of delivery. Local stations
here in Philly look incredible on HDTV, and it's a better signal than
what is delivered via compressed cable via QAM.
Ordinary "digital" cable looks mediocre on
most large sets, while the HDTV cable signal looks great.
I sell up to 83" 1080p sets, and don't really mind that an internal tuner
will be required, adding a minor cost to prices that are always dropping
for plasma, DLP, LCD, and LCOS monitors. Until the Cable Labs open
architecture is adopted where you can buy your box retail, and schlep it
around to any cable system, it's a rather large pain, for the consumer
and the cable companies. People don't always give them back.
I think the real revolution comes when
MPEG 21 concepts begin to gel, (no producers, no consumers, everyone is a user)
and the data just goes where it needs to go. Conceptually, that's a lot
closer to the Internet, than the current situation of large aggregators of
content.
You will see regular "analog" cable going away also...according to the
cable wags.
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:44:26 -0500
Dave Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>Delivered-To: dfarber+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 22:37:12 -0500
>From: Bob Frankston <rmfxixB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: More 2007 nonsense: Digital Signals Rule for New TVs Upheld
>To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
>
><http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DIGITAL_TV?SITE=MAFRA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DIGITAL_TV?SITE=MAFRA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
>
>Basically the courts upheld the requirement that TVs have 1950_s style
>tuners (spiffed up with a digital veneer_ in 2007 so they can so they can
>go home just watch TV as it was broadcast in the 1950_s _ over the air.
>
>I recently bought a new TV _ a HDTV capable one. Actually, it_s a Sony
>computer monitor with 9:6 (more precisely 1280:768) and there is no tuner
>because I realize that there was no reason to have it since I get a signal
>from the cable box and the computer. In the future it will be even simpler
>_ just a digital stream without futzing with the wires.
>
>That the FCC and Congress can_t understand this is bad enough. But it also
>means that they cannot conceptualize the Internet. Already the CableCos are
>offering video on demand _ a private stream for each viewer. This means
>they can deliver an IP stream and that that stream can carry the HDTV
>signal. Most important, that approach is far simpler then a return to
>rabbit ears (for those who remember those old antennae).
>
>The ROI on all this is negative compared with the value of building on IP
>connectivity.
>
>-------------------------------------
>You are subscribed as peterb@xxxxxxxxx
>To manage your subscription, go to
> http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
>Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
>
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/