US ATSC conversion: with 700 some odd days until NTSC is turned off, you would think that US TV stations would run a dayly counter...

David wrote:
"davmel" wrote in message
Technically the digital TV system is great in Australia, but some of the
existing broadcasters pressured the government to impose ridiculous
limitations on the what channels and content can be broadcast with the
digital TV services.
The requirement for simulcasting what is on the analogue channels as both
an SD AND a HD digital channel has only been lifted this year, but the
broadcasters still haven't made any changes to reflect this.
Most of the regulatory restrictions will only be removed in 2009. Until
then most viewers have little incentive to change to digital TV other than
improved picture and sound quality, there is no significant additional
content to warrant changing over until their old equipment breaks down.

In the USA there is much greater incentive to move to high quality HDTV
over the awful NTSC 480 line analogue services, but most people have opted
for sat or cable based systems instead.

Yes, certain people here use that observation as an argument that we should
switch to a more profitable mobile-advertising cofdm-type system.

And who exactly would watch such a system? Who in their right mind would
watch a constant stream of mobile phone ring tone ads and other such
garbage. The vast majority of people find watching tiny screens when out
and about to be very painful at the best of times even if there is
something useful to view, but to spend that time watching a constant
stream of ads would turn any reasonable person off that idea.

BTW, wasn't there an Australian DTV system that was overhauled once before
or was it some British DTV system that had to be completely scrapped?

I don't know about the Brits, but in oz we've had DVB-T with HDTV since
Jan 1, 2001 and nothing has changed much since.

"davmel" wrote in message

We do set standards but ONLY after we have collaborated with other
countries as part of international standards organisations. We're not
arrogant enough to think that we're more important than everyone else and
as soon as we set a standard everyone else will follow.
Even after Vietnam and Iraq the USA still thinks it can rule the world on
it's own.... Some hard lessons still need to be learned.

Excuse me. When exactly did the US set the digital TV standard for the
world? I missed that.

And what is the "world" (everywhere else but the USA) standard that emerged
from the ISO?

I think I missed that too.

Mark Crispin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, davmel wrote:
Which is why there are far more HDTV broadcasters using ATSC than any
COFDM modulation.
That will change dramatically when Europe and Asia provide more HD
programming using DVB-T.

Want to make a wager about that?

Europe and Asia never surpassed the US on analog, and the same thing has
now happened in digital. The only serious challenge to the US's
domination of HDTV is Japan, but Japan has only about 1/10 the number of
broadcasters for a population that is about 1/2 the US.

In the language of COFDM, "inferior" means "better".
If most of the world's population has an "inferior" standard that
provides lower cost equipment through greater unit volumes then I
suspect most end users would prefer that system.

Exactly. That's why VHS beat Betamax. And that is why Australia is
stuck with COFDM.

Too bad the Australian consumers will never see the price savings. You
pay more, and will always pay more. The price savings is taken the
manufacturers.

Yeah, but since you can't have single frequency networks you need to
waste an enormous number of TV channel spectrum to avoid interference.

I don't see where you get this. Most digital TV broadcasters in the US
are in UHF, and are using adjacent channels. US channels are 6MHz,
which can contain 1 HD channel and 1 SD channel without picture quality
loss, or as many as 5 SD channels. The major stations are all doing the
former.

Japan, which also uses 6MHz channels but is using COFDM, can only have a
single HD channel and 1seg (low-res), or 3 SD channels and 1seg.

If you check the scale on that map the coverage area extends out close
to 200km (hardly underwhelming)

With "adequate", not "primary" coverage.

And what the hell is "adequate" supposed to mean? Digital either
works or it doesn't. There's no such thing as being "a little bit
pregnant".
It means a typical house with an external medium gain antenna pointed
in the right direction will pick up the signal reliably. The signal
can be picked up much further than those maps show by using a tall
mast and high gain antenna.

How much do you want to stake on that statement?

My personal experience for a start. Many people in aus are spread out
beyond the designed coverage areas and now enjoy crystal clear TV over
the horrible noisy and ghosting images they had in the past.

I already debunked claims about COFDM based TV mobile performance with
direct tests. I'm about to debunk the claim that "ATSC doesn't work
when mobile" (I just need a few more tests).

ATSC should work fine when mobile unless there are a large number of
destructive multi-path signals in a particular environment.

How much do you pay me when I debunk your claim that "a typical house
with an external medium gain antenna pointed in the right direction will
pick up the signal reliably" from a transmitter that is, say, 150km away
(since you say "close to 200km")?

You're more than welcome to come down under and find out.

Pretty much the only gripe we have is that one of our broadcasters (Ch
7) considers 576p to be HD as a pathetic attempt to circumvent the
government requirement for all digital licence holders to broadcast in
HD.

So you have a sleazy broadcaster that is the Australian equivalent of
Sinclair in the US. Remember that if you consider using Sinclair's
behavior as typical of the US.

Broadcasters that claim HD and don't broadcast in 720p or 1080i are the
exception in all HD markets and deserve to burn in hell for the
confusion and devaluing of what true HD actually is.

Seattle, a third-rate US city, has 14 (or 16, depending upon you
count) digital broadcasters, offering 8 HDTV channels and 26 SD
channels of programming. Tokyo, a first-rate Japanese city, has only
7 (or 8). How many digital broadcasters do you have in Australia, eh?
A grand total of 5 but given that our population of 20million is
spread out over an area the size of the U.S. the market can't sustain
more tv networks with the available advertising revenue.

5 digital broadcasters for 20 million people. Pathetic.

Best to have 5 (a 6th broadcaster hasn't gone digital yet due to lack of
funding) it's a better option than having 10 broadcasters that are on
the verge of bankruptcy and have a limited amount of decent programming
spread out amongst them all.
It's a shame that the USA doesn't have a government funded national
broadcaster that produces decent content like the BBC and the ABC. It
would only take a tiny fraction of the money spent on building munitions
to blow people up in Iraq to make it happen, but I guess your awful
public healthcare system should probably be a priority. You can't have
people watching TV if they're dead or in a coma.

I for one would prefer quality over quantity.

"Those Amazing Kangaroos!"

The kangaroos have much better things to do than watch TV.

It's preferable to having 500 channels of crap like in the U.S.

Oh, so you don't have cable and satellite yet.

Yes, we have 200+ channels (if you count time shifted variants and every
PPV channel) on sat and cable, but the uptake is MUCH lower than the
U.S. since everyone knows there is very little exclusive content that
isn't shown on FTA. Less than 30% have pay tv via sat or cable here (the
rest exclusively use terrestrial FTA). The opposite is true in the USA
with less than 10% watching TV exclusively through terrestrial FTA.

NTSC has better color (particularly green) than PAL. PAL was a
clever workaround for the inferior vacuum tube tuners prior to the
mid 1970s. With modern electronics, that phase change just steals
bandwidth. Then there's that flickery 50Hz, which is a lot more
noticable than the extra 100 lines.
Interesting that you point out a better particular colour for NTSC
which stands for Never Twice the Same Colour.

NTSC stands for "National Television System Committee".

"Never twice same color" was a silly joke that ceased being valid about
30 years ago when the old single-tube front ends got replaced with
modern tuners.

PAL is essentially the *same* as NTSC with an added phase-shift at each
line; it's a trivial analog conversion from PAL to 50Hz NTSC.

For the past 30 years, NTSC color performance has been *superior* to
that of PAL and SECAM.

It's strange that whenever we visit the USA we always find viewing
analoge NTSC TV to be noticeably inferior to what we view at home. I
guess those extra 96 lines (20%) of picture detail do make a difference.

If the US had chosen DVB-T, Australia would have chosen ATSC. It's
all about protectionism.
Rubbish. The only highly protected market left is the USA. The US
government is a proxy for the wealthy lobby groups that line the
pockets of senators with cash so that their particular standard or
technology it adopted rather than what is best for the population.

And that's why you pay so much more in Australia than we do in the US?

We pay more because we're a resource rich country and more affluent with
greater disposable income so anyone in marketing knows they can get away
with charging more.

Australia would never have gone with ATSC, we just followed what the
Europeans did just like almost every other standard. That's just a
result of having a history as a British colony WITHOUT a revolution!

Actually, Australia didn't follow that the Europeans did. Australia
actually tries to do HDTV.

We adopted the DVB-T as per the Europeans to tap into the existing 50Hz
PAL based SD equipment market that was building up in Europe with the
bonus of additional HDTV transmissions with dolby digital audio to allow
consumers to choose cheaper SD hardware initially to ease the migration.
Hence the reason we have had simulcasting for such a long time.

The US market is the largest market in the world and is price-sensitive.
ROTFL. Is that what they're teaching you in Geography these days? You
might want to check on the population of China and India which are
certainly NOT adopting ATSC.

Silly boy. Population does not equate to market size.

It is very important when you consider the rapidly changing demographic
in China with increasing affluence levels and spending power for
entertainment equipment. The Chinese wouldn't have forged ahead with
their own HD video disc format if they didn't have a large enough market.
If you've been to India recently you'll appreciate how big Bollywood has
become and that it will have a significant market when it moves to HD.

The market size is dictated by how many buyers, and how many units each
buyer purchases.

Buyers are a much smaller percentage of the population of China or
India; and those who are buyers buy fewer units.

Yes, but the market in the USA has already reached saturation point. The
emerging market in India and China has massive double digit growth in
recent years in consumer electronic equipment whereas the USA is stagnant.

Every manufacturer sells cheaper in the US than in their home country.
You'll find hardware in China/Japan/Taiwan (where almost all
electronic hardware is now built) to be MUCH cheaper than in the U.S.
thanks to protectionist import tariffs.

Silly boy. You forget that I spend time in Asia and do a fair amount of
shopping there.
Prices are, on average, about 50-100% higher in Japan than in the US for
the same gizmo. Typically, an identical gizmo is 50% more, and the 100%
more is for a localized version (e.g., Japanese display instead of
English display). Mind you, these are *Japanese* company products.

You're shopping at the wrong places then or you don't know hot to haggle
in Japanese.

As a general rule I would much prefer a 576 line PAL region 2 or 4 DVD
to a 480 line NTSC version, but the exact choice would come down to
which version was mastered better.

So sorry. Your information is woefully out of date.

Even a $25 DVD player sold here knows how to handle PAL DVDs. If you
have a 50/625 line monitor you can set the player to output PAL to it.

I was referring to the disc format of preferring a 720x576 res disc over
a region 1 720x480 disc which is more often than not inferior in visual
quality unless the idiots that mastered the region 2 or 4 disc did a
sloppy job in mastering.

There's actually no such thing as a "PAL DVD". It's all MPEG files, and
how much effort they put into generating the files. Things like color
system or TV system are dealt with by the DVD player.

When I refer to a PAL DVD I'm referring to 720x576 res 25fps encoded
discs as opposed to a 720x480 res 30fps NTSC based resolution format.

Now there are DVD players that will output 720p or 1080i and upscale the
576 line content instead of downscaling to 480p.

Upscaling is a joke. If you get **** in you'll get **** out.

R Sweeney wrote:
"davmel" wrote in message

We do set standards but ONLY after we have collaborated with other
countries as part of international standards organisations. We're not
arrogant enough to think that we're more important than everyone else and
as soon as we set a standard everyone else will follow.
Even after Vietnam and Iraq the USA still thinks it can rule the world on
it's own.... Some hard lessons still need to be learned.

Excuse me. When exactly did the US set the digital TV standard for the
world? I missed that.

It never did and never will (thankfully), but it wouldn't stop them from
trying by arrogantly ignoring the efforts of more internatinal
developments like the DVB group and adopting their own unique formats.

And what is the "world" (everywhere else but the USA) standard that emerged
from the ISO?

I think I missed that too.

That's because I never mentioned the ISO.

"davmel" wrote in message
...
Mark Crispin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, davmel wrote:
Which is why there are far more HDTV broadcasters using ATSC than any
COFDM modulation.
That will change dramatically when Europe and Asia provide more HD
programming using DVB-T.

Want to make a wager about that?

Europe and Asia never surpassed the US on analog, and the same thing has
now happened in digital. The only serious challenge to the US's
domination of HDTV is Japan, but Japan has only about 1/10 the number of
broadcasters for a population that is about 1/2 the US.

In the language of COFDM, "inferior" means "better".
If most of the world's population has an "inferior" standard that
provides lower cost equipment through greater unit volumes then I
suspect most end users would prefer that system.

Exactly. That's why VHS beat Betamax. And that is why Australia is
stuck with COFDM.

Too bad the Australian consumers will never see the price savings. You
pay more, and will always pay more. The price savings is taken the
manufacturers.

Yeah, but since you can't have single frequency networks you need to
waste an enormous number of TV channel spectrum to avoid interference.

I don't see where you get this. Most digital TV broadcasters in the US
are in UHF, and are using adjacent channels. US channels are 6MHz, which
can contain 1 HD channel and 1 SD channel without picture quality loss,
or as many as 5 SD channels. The major stations are all doing the
former.

Japan, which also uses 6MHz channels but is using COFDM, can only have a
single HD channel and 1seg (low-res), or 3 SD channels and 1seg.

If you check the scale on that map the coverage area extends out close
to 200km (hardly underwhelming)

With "adequate", not "primary" coverage.

And what the hell is "adequate" supposed to mean? Digital either works
or it doesn't. There's no such thing as being "a little bit pregnant".
It means a typical house with an external medium gain antenna pointed in
the right direction will pick up the signal reliably. The signal can be
picked up much further than those maps show by using a tall mast and
high gain antenna.

How much do you want to stake on that statement?

My personal experience for a start. Many people in aus are spread out
beyond the designed coverage areas and now enjoy crystal clear TV over the
horrible noisy and ghosting images they had in the past.

I already debunked claims about COFDM based TV mobile performance with
direct tests. I'm about to debunk the claim that "ATSC doesn't work when
mobile" (I just need a few more tests).

ATSC should work fine when mobile unless there are a large number of
destructive multi-path signals in a particular environment.

How much do you pay me when I debunk your claim that "a typical house
with an external medium gain antenna pointed in the right direction will
pick up the signal reliably" from a transmitter that is, say, 150km away
(since you say "close to 200km")?

You're more than welcome to come down under and find out.

Pretty much the only gripe we have is that one of our broadcasters (Ch
7) considers 576p to be HD as a pathetic attempt to circumvent the
government requirement for all digital licence holders to broadcast in
HD.

So you have a sleazy broadcaster that is the Australian equivalent of
Sinclair in the US. Remember that if you consider using Sinclair's
behavior as typical of the US.

Broadcasters that claim HD and don't broadcast in 720p or 1080i are the
exception in all HD markets and deserve to burn in hell for the confusion
and devaluing of what true HD actually is.

Seattle, a third-rate US city, has 14 (or 16, depending upon you count)
digital broadcasters, offering 8 HDTV channels and 26 SD channels of
programming. Tokyo, a first-rate Japanese city, has only 7 (or 8).
How many digital broadcasters do you have in Australia, eh?
A grand total of 5 but given that our population of 20million is spread
out over an area the size of the U.S. the market can't sustain more tv
networks with the available advertising revenue.

5 digital broadcasters for 20 million people. Pathetic.

Best to have 5 (a 6th broadcaster hasn't gone digital yet due to lack of
funding) it's a better option than having 10 broadcasters that are on the
verge of bankruptcy and have a limited amount of decent programming spread
out amongst them all.
It's a shame that the USA doesn't have a government funded national
broadcaster that produces decent content like the BBC and the ABC. It
would only take a tiny fraction of the money spent on building munitions
to blow people up in Iraq to make it happen, but I guess your awful public
healthcare system should probably be a priority. You can't have people
watching TV if they're dead or in a coma.

I for one would prefer quality over quantity.

"Those Amazing Kangaroos!"

The kangaroos have much better things to do than watch TV.

It's preferable to having 500 channels of crap like in the U.S.

Oh, so you don't have cable and satellite yet.

Yes, we have 200+ channels (if you count time shifted variants and every
PPV channel) on sat and cable, but the uptake is MUCH lower than the U.S.
since everyone knows there is very little exclusive content that isn't
shown on FTA. Less than 30% have pay tv via sat or cable here (the rest
exclusively use terrestrial FTA). The opposite is true in the USA with
less than 10% watching TV exclusively through terrestrial FTA.

NTSC has better color (particularly green) than PAL. PAL was a clever
workaround for the inferior vacuum tube tuners prior to the mid 1970s.
With modern electronics, that phase change just steals bandwidth. Then
there's that flickery 50Hz, which is a lot more noticable than the
extra 100 lines.
Interesting that you point out a better particular colour for NTSC which
stands for Never Twice the Same Colour.

NTSC stands for "National Television System Committee".

"Never twice same color" was a silly joke that ceased being valid about
30 years ago when the old single-tube front ends got replaced with modern
tuners.

PAL is essentially the *same* as NTSC with an added phase-shift at each
line; it's a trivial analog conversion from PAL to 50Hz NTSC.

For the past 30 years, NTSC color performance has been *superior* to that
of PAL and SECAM.

It's strange that whenever we visit the USA we always find viewing analoge
NTSC TV to be noticeably inferior to what we view at home. I guess those
extra 96 lines (20%) of picture detail do make a difference.

If the US had chosen DVB-T, Australia would have chosen ATSC. It's all
about protectionism.
Rubbish. The only highly protected market left is the USA. The US
government is a proxy for the wealthy lobby groups that line the pockets
of senators with cash so that their particular standard or technology it
adopted rather than what is best for the population.

And that's why you pay so much more in Australia than we do in the US?

We pay more because we're a resource rich country and more affluent with
greater disposable income so anyone in marketing knows they can get away
with charging more.

Australia would never have gone with ATSC, we just followed what the
Europeans did just like almost every other standard. That's just a
result of having a history as a British colony WITHOUT a revolution!

Actually, Australia didn't follow that the Europeans did. Australia
actually tries to do HDTV.

We adopted the DVB-T as per the Europeans to tap into the existing 50Hz
PAL based SD equipment market that was building up in Europe with the
bonus of additional HDTV transmissions with dolby digital audio to allow
consumers to choose cheaper SD hardware initially to ease the migration.
Hence the reason we have had simulcasting for such a long time.

The US market is the largest market in the world and is
price-sensitive.
ROTFL. Is that what they're teaching you in Geography these days? You
might want to check on the population of China and India which are
certainly NOT adopting ATSC.

Silly boy. Population does not equate to market size.

It is very important when you consider the rapidly changing demographic in
China with increasing affluence levels and spending power for
entertainment equipment. The Chinese wouldn't have forged ahead with their
own HD video disc format if they didn't have a large enough market.
If you've been to India recently you'll appreciate how big Bollywood has
become and that it will have a significant market when it moves to HD.

The market size is dictated by how many buyers, and how many units each
buyer purchases.

Buyers are a much smaller percentage of the population of China or India;
and those who are buyers buy fewer units.

Yes, but the market in the USA has already reached saturation point. The
emerging market in India and China has massive double digit growth in
recent years in consumer electronic equipment whereas the USA is stagnant.

Every manufacturer sells cheaper in the US than in their home country.
You'll find hardware in China/Japan/Taiwan (where almost all electronic
hardware is now built) to be MUCH cheaper than in the U.S. thanks to
protectionist import tariffs.

Silly boy. You forget that I spend time in Asia and do a fair amount of
shopping there.
Prices are, on average, about 50-100% higher in Japan than in the US for
the same gizmo. Typically, an identical gizmo is 50% more, and the 100%
more is for a localized version (e.g., Japanese display instead of
English display). Mind you, these are *Japanese* company products.

You're shopping at the wrong places then or you don't know hot to haggle
in Japanese.

As a general rule I would much prefer a 576 line PAL region 2 or 4 DVD
to a 480 line NTSC version, but the exact choice would come down to
which version was mastered better.

So sorry. Your information is woefully out of date.

Even a $25 DVD player sold here knows how to handle PAL DVDs. If you
have a 50/625 line monitor you can set the player to output PAL to it.

I was referring to the disc format of preferring a 720x576 res disc over a
region 1 720x480 disc which is more often than not inferior in visual
quality unless the idiots that mastered the region 2 or 4 disc did a
sloppy job in mastering.

There's actually no such thing as a "PAL DVD". It's all MPEG files, and
how much effort they put into generating the files. Things like color
system or TV system are dealt with by the DVD player.

When I refer to a PAL DVD I'm referring to 720x576 res 25fps encoded discs
as opposed to a 720x480 res 30fps NTSC based resolution format.

Now there are DVD players that will output 720p or 1080i and upscale the
576 line content instead of downscaling to 480p.

Upscaling is a joke. If you get **** in you'll get **** out.


Besides USA bashing, exactly WTF is your overall point supposed to be?

"davmel" kirjoitti
...
P.V. wrote:
"davmel" kirjoitti
...
I would hardly call it bit starved. With a 23Mbps transport stream
you won't get more than a 13-15Mbps HD video channel plus a 6-7Mbps
SD video channel plus a 1.5Mbps video programme guide plus multiple
dolby digital and MPEG audio streams.

whining

I envy you Australians. In Finland we have in each DVB-T multiplex
(or transport stream) five or six SD channels, 2-3 Mbps each

What resolution and aspect ratio are the SD channels?
If they're full D1 720x576 res then the images would be very blurred.
Do the streams have a typically GOP of 15 frames (i.e. I frame every
15 frames) or are there more than 15 frames in a GOP to optimise
bandwidth?

The resolution is full 720x576 (at least on most of channels), and when
there's lots of movement in show the picture looks awful, depending
slightly on channel (apparently some channels have bought more bandwidth
than others). I suppose the GOP is 15. Aspect ratio varies from show to
show, and during commercials it changes even from ad to ad.

The bitrate seems to vary, someone once measured the bitrate to vary
between 2 - 4.5 Mbps during a movie. Possibly bitrate is shared flexibly
between channels to optimize bandwidth, so that the picture is worst
when there's a lot movement on every channel in a multiplex same time.

There are three multiplexes, of which two are nation-wide (should reach
99.9 % of population) and the third covers larger cities (should cover
80 % of population). First one, "Mux A" has five TV channels (some have
multiple audio and subtitle options) and five radio channels. Mux B has
six tv channels. The Mux C seems to have EIGHT tv channels (of which
some MUST use lower resolutions) and three radio channels. You can check
http://www.digitv.fi/sivu.asp?path=9;1235 if you don't believe.

There's no dolby on any channel, probably because the only carrier
company in Finland charges so much for bandwidth, and I haven't seen
even plans on starting HDTV.

With the limited bandwidth I can understand why, but at least you have
some decent choice in HDTV via various sats. Currently we have HDTV
via terrestrial and that's it until the next pay tv sat is launched.

Yes, there are several HDTV channels in English and other major
languages but as far as I know, only one channel in Finnish (another one
coming soon), and I don't know which resolutions and codecs they use. My
pessimistic guess is that both would need different kinds of
set-top-boxes. Besides, I don't like the 'pay' part in pay-tv...

Well, analog broadcasts will be ended early in the fall, leaving
frequencies free (and some technologically impaired without TV). I hope
those frequencies will be used for HDTV instead of more low-quality
channels.

P.V.

"davmel" wrote

I don't know anyone that wouldn't prefer some decent programming from the
likes of the ABC, BBC or the CBC over the garbage that comes out of the
USA that is only designed as a distraction to the advertising stream and
made for people with the attention span of a goldfish.

What rot. If you want to watch crappy American shows that's your choice but
there's also lots of good documentaries, drama, comedy etc from the likes of
PBS, Discovery, History and even the main networks. Up here in Canada the
CBC you're referring to does some good stuff but also produces a lot of
total tripe. So does the BBC in Britain. Your ego is showing.

In article , davmel wrote:
GMAN wrote:
In article , davmel
wrote:
The light years you speak of are an indication of how old and already
obsolete the ATSC system is. But don't worry it will only be a matter of
time before the standard is just a foot note in history just like the
long list of USA centric communications standards.
At least the USA was out there seting standards, unlike Australia.

We do set standards but ONLY after we have collaborated with other
countries as part of international standards organisations. We're not
arrogant enough to think that we're more important than everyone else
and as soon as we set a standard everyone else will follow.
Even after Vietnam and Iraq the USA still thinks it can rule the world
on it's own.... Some hard lessons still need to be learned.
I agree, we need to stay home and let the rest of the world GO TO HELL!!!!

What the hell was up with your country allowing Nazi's to keep US and
allied prisoners of war on your Aussie soil in WWII?

"davmel" wrote in message
...
R Sweeney wrote:
"davmel" wrote in message

We do set standards but ONLY after we have collaborated with other
countries as part of international standards organisations. We're not
arrogant enough to think that we're more important than everyone else
and as soon as we set a standard everyone else will follow.
Even after Vietnam and Iraq the USA still thinks it can rule the world
on it's own.... Some hard lessons still need to be learned.

Excuse me. When exactly did the US set the digital TV standard for the
world? I missed that.

It never did and never will (thankfully), but it wouldn't stop them from
trying by arrogantly ignoring the efforts of more internatinal
developments like the DVB group and adopting their own unique formats.

And what is the "world" (everywhere else but the USA) standard that
emerged from the ISO?

I think I missed that too.

That's because I never mentioned the ISO.

Well... that's interesting since the ISO IS the international standards
organization.

The ITU is also an international standards organization.

But... the DVB was just a commercial consortium of European companies and
European standards groups.

Just like the ATSC was North American-centric.

Interestingly, the DVB organization is run exclusively by the European
Broadcast Union and DVB standards can only be approved by the European
technology agencies to become "world" standards.

This would seem to be a bit Euro-centric and not global at all... but then
again, we all know Europeans can't be imperialists can they?

R Sweeney wrote:

Interestingly, the DVB organization is run exclusively by the European
Broadcast Union and DVB standards can only be approved by the European
technology agencies to become "world" standards.

This would seem to be a bit Euro-centric and not global at all... but
then again, we all know Europeans can't be imperialists can they?

http://www.ebu.ch/members/members_associate.php
http://www.ebu.ch/members/members_active.php (Israel, Egypt, Jordan,
Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, ...)

--
znark