WRAL Launches First Mobile DTV Broadcast

Raleigh, N.C. — Capitol Broadcasting’s WRAL became the first TV station to
launch a publicly deployed broadcast DTV signal to mobile devices, the Open
Mobile Video Coalition (OMVC) said Tuesday.


Although no receiving devices are commercially available yet in the consumer
market to take advantage of the broadcast, Capitol, a founding OMVC member, is
using the signal as a demonstration of “the vast capabilities and commercial
appeal of this emerging technology,” the coalition said.

http://www.twice.com/article/CA6651576.html

--
Certified SPAM-free sig

"UCLAN" wrote in message
...
Raleigh, N.C. — Capitol Broadcasting’s WRAL became the first TV station to
launch a publicly deployed broadcast DTV signal to mobile devices, the
Open Mobile Video Coalition (OMVC) said Tuesday.

Although no receiving devices are commercially available yet in the
consumer market to take advantage of the broadcast, Capitol, a founding
OMVC member, is using the signal as a demonstration of “the vast
capabilities and commercial appeal of this emerging technology,” the
coalition said.

http://www.twice.com/article/CA6651576.html


Wow, they're on the cutting-edge again . . . . WRAL was the first station
to broadcast digital HDTV. (and pushing for it even before there were any
HDTV's even on the market, even...)

Then, they were the first TV station in the world to produce and air an
all-HD newscast, including graphics, live shots, and news stories.

"On July 23, 1996, the new channel 32 became the first station to transmit
the newly proposed HDTV signals.

James F. Goodmon, President and Chief Executive Officer of WRAL's parent
company, Capitol Broadcasting Co., Inc., said today's demonstration of
WRAL-HD is proof that private industry is ready to move forward with the
proposed FCC standard for digital television. "HDTV," he said,"is critical
to the future of free, over-the-air television in America. Consumers demand
the best possible product and anyone who sees HDTV will agree this is the
wave of the future. The Grand Alliance standard is a viable system and
superior to anything offered abroad."

http://www.cbc-raleigh.com/inside_cb.../960806hd.html

http://www.wral.com/wral-tv/story/1069461/

(long–time lurker here in this ng,
and long–time UseNet patron since the ’80s)


This seems to be a good time to bring this up —

What the OTA stations ought to do:
Instead of slicing their already–thin bandwidth for HD+SD
(y’know many do that on a single transmitter / stream),
rather they should use (what will be) their abandoned /
temporary gear for their “Mobile� transmissions and non-HD
material.

I hope to write more later: I am developing a very intricate
FCC report on our local broadcasters, how they are abusing DTV
technology, and many more concerns. Yes I have tried
corresponding with the staff at each station here, if they do
read their webmail (gawd I hate those). Am feeling totally
ignored by some, and already seem to be considered a “spammer�
by a few. Would really appreciate any help, not sure how to
write this report so the politicians will seriously deal with
the problems we’re seeing, but let’s wait ’til I get a draft
published.

(…will be expecting tpka Bob to chime–in about this, heh…)

On Apr 15, 6:42*am, SciFi wrote:
(long–time lurker here in this ng,
*and long–time UseNet patron since the ’80s)

This seems to be a good time to bring this up —

What the OTA stations ought to do:
Instead of slicing their already–thin bandwidth for HD+SD
(y’know many do that on a single transmitter / stream),
rather they should use (what will be) their abandoned /
temporary gear for their “Mobile” transmissions and non-HD
material.

I hope to write more later: *I am developing a very intricate
FCC report on our local broadcasters, how they are abusing DTV
technology, and many more concerns. *Yes I have tried
corresponding with the staff at each station here, if they do
read their webmail (gawd I hate those). *Am feeling totally
ignored by some, and already seem to be considered a “spammer”
by a few. *Would really appreciate any help, not sure how to
write this report so the politicians will seriously deal with
the problems we’re seeing, but let’s wait ’til I get a draft
published.

(…will be expecting tpka Bob to chime–in about this, heh…)

Well, you either have something the FCC needs to consider, or, you do
not. The problem is going to be separating what one believes to be
correct usages from what the FCC allows as proper usages; I do not
know of any stations at variance with FCC rules as to usage. The only
thing I know of that could help better serve the public is allowing
broadcasters a second channel for sevices other than their main
program, which, if in full HD, will use most of a channel. The FCC
and Congress has only allowed full HD, not mandated it, and, allowed
many permutations.. I think you might be able to demonstrate that the
full potential of DTV won't be realized by limiting an ambitious
broadcaster to a single channel.

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:07:40 -0700, robinlos wrote:

On Apr 15, 6:42Â*am, SciFi wrote:
(long–time lurker here in this ng,
Â*and long–time UseNet patron since the ’80s)

This seems to be a good time to bring this up —

What the OTA stations ought to do:
Instead of slicing their already–thin bandwidth for HD+SD (y’know many
do that on a single transmitter / stream), rather they should use (what
will be) their abandoned / temporary gear for their “Mobile�
transmissions and non-HD material.

I hope to write more later: Â*I am developing a very intricate FCC
report on our local broadcasters, how they are abusing DTV technology,
and many more concerns. Â*Yes I have tried corresponding with the staff
at each station here, if they do read their webmail (gawd I hate
those). Â*Am feeling totally ignored by some, and already seem to be
considered a “spammerâ€� by a few. Â*Would really appreciate any help, not
sure how to write this report so the politicians will seriously deal
with the problems we’re seeing, but let’s wait ’til I get a draft
published.

(…will be expecting tpka Bob to chime–in about this, heh…)

Well, you either have something the FCC needs to consider, or, you do
not. The problem is going to be separating what one believes to be
correct usages from what the FCC allows as proper usages; I do not know
of any stations at variance with FCC rules as to usage. The only thing I
know of that could help better serve the public is allowing broadcasters
a second channel for sevices other than their main program, which, if in
full HD, will use most of a channel. The FCC and Congress has only
allowed full HD, not mandated it, and, allowed many permutations.. I
think you might be able to demonstrate that the full potential of DTV
won't be realized by limiting an ambitious broadcaster to a single
channel.

We have so many /specific/ complaints with /existing/
broadcasts, that is /our/ main problem. I have been purposely
nebulous here for the time being on those.

But now this OMVC stuff seems to be needing rather more urgent
discussion before it, too, gets out of hand. So I wrote a
quick blurb describing what we would like to see the FCC do
about it.

I only wanted to briefly mention what–else we are trying to
accomplish, not meaning to get all this mixed-up in one post.
I see I need to make a separate post later for this other
stuff.

Let’s relegate this thread to the problems that OMVC will
introduce to our existing OTA broadcasts.

I will restate things for this specific OMVC topic now:

Others have already said what I initially mentioned:
Adding more substreams will make HD quality worse on those
stations that have it.

Others also have already mentioned that /any–and–all/
substreams on OTA signals allocated for public use are to be
directly usable by the public with no further conflagrations
involved — i.e. not scrambled / encrypted, but using publicly
available standards, etc.
That right there currently forbids OMVC using e.g. H.264(MPEG4)
since we know of no manufacturers who will provide it in our
existing equipment (most cheap DTV sets are unable to easily do
flash–upgrades of their internal EEPROMs aka “firmware�,
indeed AFAIK most consumer ATSC gear have no H.264 capability
at all period usually requiring additional dedicated silicon,
etc. etc. etc.).

Ergo our suggestion to have stations use their abandoned /
temporary gear for OMVC and other such non–publicly–standard
transmissions on re-tuned frequencies for these purposes.

Either that, and/or:
Mobile gear ought to be designed to handle /current/ ATSC
standards.
And yes I am fully aware of what tpka ‘bob’ will say:
ATSC sux for mobile gear, the U.S. should have already
accepted better broadcasting standards all around.
So this suggestion will probably be ditched quickly.

Which leaves us to our first suggestion:
use the abandoned / temporary transmitters for OMVC etc.

So, how ’bout /them/ apples?