TV cell phones in Japan
 

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, JamieS wrote:
http://www.dibeg.org/news/news-4/news-e4.htm#dn058e
"On September 27, the Association for the Promotion of Digital Broadcasting
(D-PA) formally announced the spring 2006 launch of a broadcasting service
targeting mobile phones and terminals."

Note that this is not the same as a cell phone digital TV. This is a
mobile phone service that "will generally offer the same programs offered
for conventional TV receivers" on one of the 13 segments of a broadcast
signal. As in, one sub-channel will "generally offer" the same programs
offered on the other 12 sub-channels.

Note too that dibeg.org is a web page to promote Japan's ISDB-T system
overseas. Their success is best shown by their map of different world
digital broadcasting systems:
http://www.dibeg.org/world/world.htm

If this goes as other such in Japan expect every cell phone in Japan to have
this in a few years.

"In a few years", maybe. That is quite a bit different than "flying off
the shelves" today.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

TV cell phones in Japan
 

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:21:07 -0500, JamieS
wrote:


They also seem to be doing pretty well in HDTV. They give a figure of
over 6 million OTA digital terrestrial not satellite receivers sold.

http://www.dibeg.org/news/news-4/news-e4.htm#dn059e

I read the link and don't see the phrase "not satellite" anywhere in
it. The truth is, just about all of these receivers, stand-alone or
integrated, are also satellite receivers. Are there any OTA receivers
that don't have satellite now? I couldn't find one when I last looked
about a year ago.

TV cell phones in Japan
 

Mark Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, JamieS wrote:

http://www.dibeg.org/news/news-4/news-e4.htm#dn058e
"On September 27, the Association for the Promotion of Digital
Broadcasting (D-PA) formally announced the spring 2006 launch of a
broadcasting service targeting mobile phones and terminals."


Note that this is not the same as a cell phone digital TV. This is a
mobile phone service that "will generally offer the same programs
offered for conventional TV receivers" on one of the 13 segments of a
broadcast signal. As in, one sub-channel will "generally offer" the
same programs offered on the other 12 sub-channels.

Could you explain why receiving digital TV on a cell phone with an
ISDB-T COFDM receiver is not "cell phone digital TV"? This has got to be
a semantic tortured answer if there ever was one. The parallel
transmission of digital TV programs so that cell phones can receive
"digital TV" programs being also broadcast in HD or SD is still "digital
TV" to me.

The simple fact is that most cell phones being sold in the world
including the US will soon allow the reception of COFDM digital TV.
ISDB-T will be used in Japan and maybe a few other countries. DVB-H and
MediaFlow will be used in other countries including the US. T-DMB is
being used in S. Korea.


Note too that dibeg.org is a web page to promote Japan's ISDB-T system
overseas. Their success is best shown by their map of different world
digital broadcasting systems:
http://www.dibeg.org/world/world.htm

The success of COFDM based ISDB-T is only limited by the success of
other COFDM modulations.

If this goes as other such in Japan expect every cell phone in Japan
to have this in a few years.


"In a few years", maybe. That is quite a bit different than "flying off
the shelves" today.

Did I say that? Could you show that post of mine.

Bob Miller

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

TV cell phones in Japan
 

Clyde Coffey wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:21:07 -0500, JamieS
wrote:



They also seem to be doing pretty well in HDTV. They give a figure of
over 6 million OTA digital terrestrial not satellite receivers sold.

http://www.dibeg.org/news/news-4/news-e4.htm#dn059e


I read the link and don't see the phrase "not satellite" anywhere in
it. The truth is, just about all of these receivers, stand-alone or
integrated, are also satellite receivers. Are there any OTA receivers
that don't have satellite now? I couldn't find one when I last looked
about a year ago.

How do you prove a negative? It doesn't say "not satellite" so they all
must include satellite?

All of the cell phone and mobile DTV receivers will NOT include
satellite receivers. Mobile HDTV receivers in buses and trains (and
cars) will NOT also include satellites receivers.

I don't know what percentage of the devices listed in this article ALSO
include satellite receivers but that is not the point. The point is that
there are now over 7 million terrestrial receivers sold in Japan.

Mark suggest that people in Japan are being forced to buy OTA digital
receivers because they are in ALL sets but the article suggest that is
not true. The percentage of digital CRTs with OTA DTV receivers is only
2.9% while the percentage of PDP OTA DTV integrated sets has grown each
month and a percentage does NOT include OTA. The customer has a choice.

The percentage of LCD OTA DTV integrated sets is much lower, 58%, and
has been growing steadily every month. This suggest that consumers again
have a choice. At least 42% of them buy NON OTA DTV sets.

That is to make it very clear, NOT ALL DIGITAL TV SETS SOLD IN JAPAN
INCLUDE OTA DTV RECEIVERS. THE MARKET SEEMS TO BE DETERMINING HOW MANY
IN FACT DO.

37.1% OF ALL COLOR TV SETS SOLD IN JAPAN ARE DIGITAL!!
OF THAT 37.1%, 2.9% OF CRT'S, 99.5% OF PDP'S AND 57.7% OF LCD'S INCLUDE
DIGITAL OTA RECEIVERS. ALL THESE NUMBERS ARE GROWING.

SALES OF OTA DIGITAL INTEGRATED SETS HAVE GROWN 94% OVER SAME SALES FOR
THE MONTH LAST YEAR. STB SALES HAVE GROWN 54%.

If some people are buying integrated OTA digital sets without knowing
it, not in anticipation of OTA reaching their neighborhood, so be it.
That is a failure of marketing which should be selling the advantage of
being prepared for OTA and what I think is happening.

I believe Japanese consumers are pretty savvy. I think they know what
they are buying. I don't think retailers in Japan would include things
that cost more that the consumer is unaware of and which would make that
dealer less competitive with another who would sell the same integrated
satellite set with no OTA receiver for less.

Of course I could be wrong and the Japanese consumer could be stupid.

Good site for information on broadcasting in Japan.

http://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/open2005/en/tenji/t10.html

Mobile HD reception
http://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/open2005/en/tenji/t20.html

Bob Miller



Bob Miller

TV cell phones in Japan
 

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
ink.net...
Clyde Coffey wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:21:07 -0500, JamieS
wrote:



They also seem to be doing pretty well in HDTV. They give a figure of
over 6 million OTA digital terrestrial not satellite receivers sold.

http://www.dibeg.org/news/news-4/news-e4.htm#dn059e


I read the link and don't see the phrase "not satellite" anywhere in
it. The truth is, just about all of these receivers, stand-alone or
integrated, are also satellite receivers. Are there any OTA receivers
that don't have satellite now? I couldn't find one when I last looked
about a year ago.

How do you prove a negative? It doesn't say "not satellite" so they all
must include satellite?

All of the cell phone and mobile DTV receivers will NOT include satellite
receivers. Mobile HDTV receivers in buses and trains (and cars) will NOT
also include satellites receivers.

I don't know what percentage of the devices listed in this article ALSO
include satellite receivers but that is not the point. The point is that
there are now over 7 million terrestrial receivers sold in Japan.

Mark suggest that people in Japan are being forced to buy OTA digital
receivers because they are in ALL sets but the article suggest that is not
true. The percentage of digital CRTs with OTA DTV receivers is only 2.9%
while the percentage of PDP OTA DTV integrated sets has grown each month
and a percentage does NOT include OTA. The customer has a choice.

The percentage of LCD OTA DTV integrated sets is much lower, 58%, and has
been growing steadily every month. This suggest that consumers again have
a choice. At least 42% of them buy NON OTA DTV sets.

That is to make it very clear, NOT ALL DIGITAL TV SETS SOLD IN JAPAN
INCLUDE OTA DTV RECEIVERS. THE MARKET SEEMS TO BE DETERMINING HOW MANY IN
FACT DO.

37.1% OF ALL COLOR TV SETS SOLD IN JAPAN ARE DIGITAL!!
OF THAT 37.1%, 2.9% OF CRT'S, 99.5% OF PDP'S AND 57.7% OF LCD'S INCLUDE
DIGITAL OTA RECEIVERS. ALL THESE NUMBERS ARE GROWING.

SALES OF OTA DIGITAL INTEGRATED SETS HAVE GROWN 94% OVER SAME SALES FOR
THE MONTH LAST YEAR. STB SALES HAVE GROWN 54%.

If some people are buying integrated OTA digital sets without knowing it,
not in anticipation of OTA reaching their neighborhood, so be it. That is
a failure of marketing which should be selling the advantage of being
prepared for OTA and what I think is happening.

I believe Japanese consumers are pretty savvy. I think they know what they
are buying. I don't think retailers in Japan would include things that
cost more that the consumer is unaware of and which would make that dealer
less competitive with another who would sell the same integrated satellite
set with no OTA receiver for less.

Of course I could be wrong and the Japanese consumer could be stupid.

Good site for information on broadcasting in Japan.

http://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/open2005/en/tenji/t10.html

Mobile HD reception
http://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/open2005/en/tenji/t20.html

Bob Miller



Bob Miller

Your mobile/datacasting business would be much more lucrative if you spent
more time cultivating it elsewhere...

TV cell phones in Japan
 

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Bob Miller wrote:
Could you explain why receiving digital TV on a cell phone with an ISDB-T
COFDM receiver is not "cell phone digital TV"? This has got to be a semantic
tortured answer if there ever was one.

Not at all.

These cell phones in Japan (*when* they appear in April 2006 or later)
will not have a television tuner that can receive arbitrary broadcast
television channels (which current model cell phones with analog tuners
can do).

Rather, they will receive a *dedicated* signal for mobile devices, much
like Muzak is carried on FM subcarriers. The dibeg.org web page indicates
that this content is on one of 13 segments in a 6MHz bandwidth, and that
the other 12 segments will offer programming for conventional TV
receivers.

That is a huge difference. The content received on the mobile device is
not the same as what is received on large screen televisions in living
rooms. At most, it is a subset.

Maybe Psycho Bob expects that all broadcasters will use just two segments:
one for conventional TV receivers and the other for mobile devices. We
all know what plans Psycho Bob has for the other 11 segments.

The other catch is that broadcasters have to decide to provide content for
mobile devices in that segment. There is a cost to doing that, and enough
advertiser revenue has to be generated for that purpose to support it.

A mobile device with an analog TV tuner does not require the broadcasters
to do anything; nor would a(n as-yet theoretical) mobile device with a
digital TV tuner that receives the conventional TV signal.

Given that, eventually, there will be mobile devices with digital TV
tuners that receive the conventional TV signal, it is necessary to
consider what the benefit would be in investing in technology that is
limited to mobile devices and might have a short technological lifetime.

I am skeptical. I saw numerous cell phones with analog TV tuners in
Japan, and hardly anyone was using them to watch TV. Most people were
emailing or playing games.

The parallel transmission of digital
TV programs so that cell phones can receive "digital TV" programs being also
broadcast in HD or SD is still "digital TV" to me.

Now you change the definition of "digital TV" to match the inconvenient
facts.

By that definition of "digital TV", then my current US cell phone is a
"digital TV"; it can receive video content, and that content may
correspond to something on one of the broadcast TV channels.

The simple fact is that most cell phones being sold in the world including
the US will soon allow the reception of COFDM digital TV.

There are many cell phones in the world (including the USA) which will
receive the same analog broadcasts that are received by TV sets in living
rooms. Such devices are both cell phones and televisions.

There are NO cell phones (real or announced) ANYWHERE in the world which
will receive the same digital broadcasts that are received by TV sets in
living rooms.

A device which does not receive conventional television broadcasts is not
a television. It is something else.

Note too that dibeg.org is a web page to promote Japan's ISDB-T system
overseas. Their success is best shown by their map of different world
digital broadcasting systems:
http://www.dibeg.org/world/world.htm
The success of COFDM based ISDB-T is only limited by the success of other
COFDM modulations.

Too bad that is only in Japan, as the dibeg.org web page makes clear.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

TV cell phones in Japan
 

Mark Crispin ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
The parallel transmission of digital
TV programs so that cell phones can receive "digital TV" programs being also
broadcast in HD or SD is still "digital TV" to me.

Now you change the definition of "digital TV" to match the inconvenient
facts.

And this sort of thing from Bob surprises you because...?

By that definition of "digital TV", then my current US cell phone is a
"digital TV"; it can receive video content, and that content may
correspond to something on one of the broadcast TV channels.

As you say, by Bob's definition, the ability to download TV shows that AOL
is offering to users would be "digital TV", and if you happened to download
it with a cell phone browser, that would be "digital TV on a cell phone".

--
Jeff Rife | "You keep using that word. I do not think it
| means what you think it means."
|
| -- Inigo Montoya, "The Princess Bride"

TV cell phones in Japan
 

Jeff Rife wrote:
Mark Crispin ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:

The parallel transmission of digital
TV programs so that cell phones can receive "digital TV" programs being also
broadcast in HD or SD is still "digital TV" to me.

Now you change the definition of "digital TV" to match the inconvenient
facts.

I have not changed my definition of digital TV at all. What definition
are you talking about? What is Mark's definition of digital TV? In
Australia they triple broadcast. Analog, a standard definition digital
and an HD all of the same program at the same time. They are all digital
TV. In Japan they broadcast an HD version and one for cell phones at the
same time. They are also both digital TV.


And this sort of thing from Bob surprises you because...?

What is your definition of digital TV Jeff? It seems that Mark's
definition would only allow for the broadcast of the same thing
broadcasters are already broadcasting in the exact same way. That is
ridiculous.

In Japan they are broadcasting the same content but with it directed at
cell phones and other mobile devices. As far as I can tell that is the
only difference. Why would it not be digital TV. Since cell phones and
other mobile devices have small screens they do not need HD bit rates.

My definition of OTA broadcast digital TV is broadcasting content that
is received by digital receivers over the air. I would love to hear your
definition. Digital TV is video content delivered OTA, over cable or
satellite. It is just that simple.

By that definition of "digital TV", then my current US cell phone is a
"digital TV"; it can receive video content, and that content may
correspond to something on one of the broadcast TV channels.

So your definition of digital TV is that it MUST correspond to current
broadcast TV stations and the content they are currently delivering or
it is NOT digital TV. Very strange and I think this definition qualifies
for the "tortured semantic" answer I expected from Mark.


As you say, by Bob's definition, the ability to download TV shows that AOL
is offering to users would be "digital TV", and if you happened to download
it with a cell phone browser, that would be "digital TV on a cell phone".

Could you post the definition you say I have of digital TV that you are
talking about?

Most content on TV/DTV today is not real time. It is recorded and
broadcast whenever. I have never suggested that downloading at the
customers request was the same as digital TV. It is not, it's a lot
better obviously than what is currently broadcast digital TV.

Joining a broadcast or downloading previous content stored on servers is
obviously the future of video content. It will not be and is not called
digital TV.

So torture your semantic BS some more. Love to hear it.

Bob Miller

TV cell phones in Japan
 

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Bob Miller wrote:
What is Mark's definition of digital TV?

In order for a mobile device to be considered a television, it must
receive and display the same broadcasts received and displayed by a full
sized TV set in a living room.

Mobile devices with analog receivers satisfy this requirement. There are
currently no mobile devices with a digital receiver which satisfies this
requirement.

In Japan they
broadcast an HD version and one for cell phones at the same time.

There are, according to the web page, 13 segments of a 6MHz signal in a
Japanese digital TV channel. The mobile device only receives one of those
segments.

The mobile device does not receive any of the other 12 segments. There is
nothing that requires that the other 12 segments contain an HDTV signal
that precisely duplicates the content on the mobile device segment. There
is nothing that requires that there be no other content on the other 12
segments other than an HDTV signal that precisely duplicates the content
on the mobile device segment.

In fact, the web page makes it clear that the content on the mobile device
segment will be different from the other 12 segments.

Therefore, this Japanese mobile device is not a digital television any
more than a Muzak receiver is an FM radio.

This begs the question of why, if COFDM is so great and wonderful, a
separate segment is needed for mobile devices. The mobile device should
receive and display the same signal used by the big screen TVs. We all
know the answer but Psycho Bob isn't willing to admit it.

What is your definition of digital TV Jeff? It seems that Mark's definition
would only allow for the broadcast of the same thing broadcasters are already
broadcasting in the exact same way. That is ridiculous.

No Bob; it is you, and your failed company Viacel, that are ridiculous.

If you tried to foist your idea of what constitutes a "TV" on a crowd of
Thanksgiving weekend Wal-Mart shoppers they would tear you to shreds.

My definition of OTA broadcast digital TV is broadcasting content that is
received by digital receivers over the air.

By that definition my US cell phone is an OTA broadcast digital TV.

So your definition of digital TV is that it MUST correspond to current
broadcast TV stations and the content they are currently delivering or it is
NOT digital TV. Very strange and I think this definition qualifies for the
"tortured semantic" answer I expected from Mark.

Only a Psycho Bob would claim that something is a "TV" when it does not
(can not) receive the same channels as their TV at home.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

TV cell phones in Japan
 

Mark Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Bob Miller wrote:

What is Mark's definition of digital TV?


In order for a mobile device to be considered a television, it must
receive and display the same broadcasts received and displayed by a full
sized TV set in a living room.

Mobile devices with analog receivers satisfy this requirement. There
are currently no mobile devices with a digital receiver which satisfies
this requirement.

There are lots of mobile devices with digital receivers which satisfy
this requirement. In fact in Japan they will be receiving the
terrestrial HD broadcast in trains and buses. In Germany they are
installing digital receivers in cars and it is expected that they will
be installed on trains and buses as well. Mobile digital receivers are
popping up all over and with DVB-T you can make your laptop a mobile HD
receiver no problem. Expect a lot of this in France when they start
broadcasting HD.

Here are a few items that were posted elsewhere...


http://www.globalsources.com/gsol/I/...1001342096.htm
http://www.globalsources.com/gsol/I/...1000597536.htm
http://www.3wisemonkeys.co.uk/proddet.jsp?id=1146&cat=1
http://www.3wisemonkeys.co.uk/proddet.jsp?id=1144&cat=1
http://www.maplin.co.uk/xmas_huge_sa...iew_TFT_TV.htm
http://www.sailgb.com/p/10_inch_12v_tv_unit/
http://www.sailgb.com/p/17inch_black..._freeview_dvd/
http://www.sailgb.com/p/17inch_silve..._freeview_dvd/
http://www.computex.com.tw/computex2...asp?index=8630
http://www.neckermann.de/shop/telestar_digiporty_7.asp
http://www.i4u.com/article2231.html
http://chelong.en.alibaba.com/produc...igital_TV.html
http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/review.php?reviewId=789
http://www.i4u.com/article2231.html
https://www.mycomputerbits.co.uk/aca...___Tuners.html


In Japan they broadcast an HD version and one for cell phones at the
same time.


There are, according to the web page, 13 segments of a 6MHz signal in a
Japanese digital TV channel. The mobile device only receives one of
those segments.

The web page says exactly this taken from the web page.

"One Seg" will generally offer the same programs offered for
conventional TV receivers through the 12 other segments, allowing
viewers to enjoy the popular TV programs they're accustomed to watch at
home even when they're out and about. At any time and place, subscribers
will have access to important news, weather reports, and disaster
information, as well as favorite dramas, variety shows, and sports
programming. In addition, interactive services are to be implemented via
mobile phone communication features.

Though they refer to "One Seg" this does not limit what they broadcast
there to one program. Nor does the fact that there are 12 other segments
mean that more than one program is being broadcast in those 12 segments.
It could be that those 12 segments will be all used for ONE HD program
while the "One Seg" will be a lower bitrate copy of the HD program and
have other programming as well plus data.

The mobile device does not receive any of the other 12 segments. There
is nothing that requires that the other 12 segments contain an HDTV
signal that precisely duplicates the content on the mobile device
segment. There is nothing that requires that there be no other content
on the other 12 segments other than an HDTV signal that precisely
duplicates the content on the mobile device segment.

And what does that have to do with anything. Now there has to be some
national law or maybe Mark wants a physical law of nature to make sure
that what is broadcast to cell phones is an exact copy of what is
broadcast on the other 12 segments or no matter if it is the same or not
it cannot be called digital tv. TORTURED to the LIMIT. How far can he go?


In fact, the web page makes it clear that the content on the mobile
device segment will be different from the other 12 segments.

Therefore, this Japanese mobile device is not a digital television any
more than a Muzak receiver is an FM radio.

A cell phone that receives digital TV whether it is a copy of what is
being broadcast on other spectrum or not is still digital TV. It could
be new content never broadcast on any other station it is still digital
TV. To take Mark's definition of digital TV at face value you could
never have any new content on any new or old spectrum which did not copy
what was already being broadcast and call it digital TV. Truly bizzaro.

This begs the question of why, if COFDM is so great and wonderful, a
separate segment is needed for mobile devices. The mobile device should
receive and display the same signal used by the big screen TVs. We all
know the answer but Psycho Bob isn't willing to admit it.

A new segment is not needed for mobile devices. Japan decided that for
cell phones which have small antennas they wanted a very robust segment
with fewer bits. But the main 12 segment signal can be received mobile,
though not as robust on buses and trains or portable TV sets and will
be. They could have decided to offer a more robust signal on all the
spectrum at an even different rate. In fact COFDM allows numerous rates
to be used.

At the hearings in DC in 2000 COFDM was used at a 19.76 Mbps rate and
was still mobile as the antenna was walked about the hearing room. 8-VSB
was not able to match that data rate, being stuck with 19.34 Mbps, and
could not even receive at that data rate while mobile. They didn't even
want to risk being able to receive 8-VSB at the witness table in a fixed
position.

What is your definition of digital TV Jeff? It seems that Mark's
definition would only allow for the broadcast of the same thing
broadcasters are already broadcasting in the exact same way. That is
ridiculous.


No Bob; it is you, and your failed company Viacel, that are ridiculous.

If you tried to foist your idea of what constitutes a "TV" on a crowd of
Thanksgiving weekend Wal-Mart shoppers they would tear you to shreds.

Wal Mart shoppers would and will go bananas over mobile DTV in coming
years as soon as the feeble 8-VSB transition is finally over and the
spectrum above channel 51 can be used by new age broadcasters with COFDM.

My definition of OTA broadcast digital TV is broadcasting content that
is received by digital receivers over the air.


By that definition my US cell phone is an OTA broadcast digital TV.

I don't know what service you have but if your cell phone can receive
digital TV broadcast OTA yes it is OTA digital TV BY DEFINITION. I don't
know that this is happening yet but maybe they are doing a special
broadcast just for you Mark. If you are getting broadcast digital TV
over the cell phone network, not downloaded clips viewed later but real
time broadcast video then I would say that is digital TV also. But what
we are really talking about here is the use of the OTA broadcast
spectrum to broadcast video that can be viewed in the same time as it is
being broadcast on any device that is mobile or portable. Any such
venture is digital TV no matter what the content, no matter if anyone
else is broadcasting it and no matter if that device can or cannot
receive other digital TV broadcast that are being aired.

So your definition of digital TV is that it MUST correspond to current
broadcast TV stations and the content they are currently delivering or
it is NOT digital TV. Very strange and I think this definition
qualifies for the "tortured semantic" answer I expected from Mark.


Only a Psycho Bob would claim that something is a "TV" when it does not
(can not) receive the same channels as their TV at home.


If you can receive in on your cell phone and you live in the same area
then you probably can receive it at home. I don't know of any definition
of digital TV that says that a receiver has to be able to receive all
stations being broadcast to qualify as a digital TV receiver or that
digital TV is only digital TV if the content is duplicated on some other
receive device.

Insane complicated BS definition and one that fully qualifies as TORTURED!!!

Bob Miller



-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.