Datacasting is back

"robmx" wrote in message
m...
A new venture is promising what looks like datacasting using opportunistic
data not used by normal HD or SD broadcasting. Where have we heard of that
before?

Says they already have signed up broadcast partners across the country.

http://www.tvnewsday.com/articles/2008/06/24/daily.4/

This is going to turn into quite a competition for bits between mobile
DTV, HDTV and datacasting.

If they are not doing opportunistic datacasting then there is little hope
for HD via OTA. If they are then they might offer competition to mobile
use. Or they may be planning on mobile also, why not.

Bob Miller


With Comcast and other cable companies showing the greatest interest in
femtocell deployment, why would the networks struggle to compete for mobile
customers against a 8Mbits/s connection that will offer content to a cell
phone. As you have suggested many times the networks are forced to rely on
satellite and cable companies carriage of programming to reach a sufficient
market to survive. If Femtocell succeeds that will mean more income from
other sources for the networks from programming that has proven value to
consumers.

In other words why would the Networks undermine the usefulness of their
existing equipment doing away with or lessening HD quality to compete with
cable or cell phone companies, who broaden their viewership thus increasing
their income. They have little chance of competing well in the mobile market
regardless of how they deliver the signal and femtocell makes the prospect
of them being a serious contender even less likely.

wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:32:32 -0400 robmx wrote:

| changing multipath due to the lower symbol rate of each individual carrier.
| Mobile services in the 700 MHz band are free to use COFDM as far as I know,
| so I really don't see there being an issue. But Bob seems to think that all
| broadcasters want to get into the mobile services business and take bandwidth
| away from broadcasting HD into our homes to accomplish this.
|
| I seem to think this? It is pretty obvious in the broadcast press. Most
| people in broadcasting seem to think that they HAVE to have Mobile ATSC
| working and in place for the transition in February 2009.
|
| http://www.current.org/tech/tech0809mobile.shtml

How about quoting some actual broadcasters, instead of manufacturers with
an agenda.


| "But broadcasters, eager to dip into the booming mobile-content market,
| banded together to fast-track its development, establish a technical
| standard and put devices in the stores by mid-2009.

A statement pushed by manufacturers. It would be true if 2 broadcasters
did want this. I'm sure you could round up 2 that do want to. But it is
nowhere near a majority.


| There are several reasons for their enthusiasm. For one, consumers
| clearly crave mobile video. The coalition estimates that 200 million
| portable video devices will be sold worldwide in 2008 alone, as
| estimated by Forrester Research and others. McKinsey & Co. found last
| year that more than 44 percent of cell phone users are interested
| specifically in mobile TV.

This isn't portable TV. This is mobile services video. This will be
low resolution services you find in the 700/800/900 MHz or 1800/1900 MHz
bands.

It has no business being mixed in with fixed location broadcasting. Now if
the mobile business gets bigger than fixed location broadcasting, then it
should be OK to take more channel space from broadcasters below 700 MHz and
use it for mobile services. I don't think that will happen.

The spectrum has already been taken. Broadcasters only have to deliver
ONE SD program in the free and clear. The had the law written that way
for a reason. The rest of the spectrum they can use for almost anything
they want.

What they want is mobile DTV. You are dreaming when you talk of "take
more channel space from broadcasters below 700 MHz and use it for mobile
services".

No need to take. Broadcasters already have the spectrum and the legal
right to use it for mobile and they want to also.

Mobile does not have to get bigger first. How is that suppossed to
happen unless they actually do it anyway??

Mobile is only a subset of all TV. The future is ubiquitous DTV that you
can receive at many different resolutions anywhere you are and while moving.

It is NOT about fixed reception and mobile reception as if they were
different. RECEPTION is what we are talking about, easy reception
anywhere moving or standing still with simple antennas.

ALL the spectrum, 700 MHz and below will be used for mobile DTV. There
simply is no question about it any more.

Bob Miller

wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:44:46 -0400 robmx wrote:

| Already broadcasters 6 MHz is being carved up to do HDTV, SD subchannels
| and soon Mobile ATSC. Each of these needs a dedicated slice of the 6 MHz.
|
| Many have argued that true HDTV needs all of the 19.34 Mbps that a 6 MHz
| broadcast channel can deliver with 8-VSB. Some like myself think that
| you can't do justice to HD using all of the 19.34 Mbps especially if
| things move on your TV show.
|
| Lets say that on or two sub channel SD programs are added and then 5 or
| 6 Mbps are set aside for Mobile ATSC. Is there still room enough for
| TRUE HDTV in the remaining 9 Mbps using the outdated MPEG2?
|
| The answer is simple and the solution is simple. They will broadcast
| something like 480P and call it HD and no one will notice the
| difference. Few notice the difference now and most of what they call HD
| isn't.

Lots of people will notice the difference. When true HD is shown, then
people can see it. People in the stores are seeing it. People I meet
are seeing it.

I tell them about the future that in 20 years we'll have 5120x2160 and
they begin salivating.

But, if broadcasters want to recover spectrum, what they need to do us
GRADUALLY reduce the compression level. That will slowly fool viewers.

They already have an nobody is noticing.

That said, it is still my humble opinion that high definition and ultra
definition broadcasting show be migrated over to a net-neutral open-field
fully-competitive fiber-based infrastructure that delivers 10Gbps private
bandwidth to each home. Then we can use ALL of the RF spectrum for mobile
services that are unable to have a tether.

No one is using OTA now so why not do it now? That is the thinking of
broadcasters and that is the plan.

People want HD and they will want UD in the home. But they don't need either
in the car or on the beach or in the park. HD is useless on a mobile phone
because we can't squint enough to see the difference. SD and LD will be the
thing for mobile services video. And people will want lots of choices. And
the future will be as many choices of channels as there are web sites today.

HD is just as valid everywhere. Beach, park and car. On a mobile phone
you can use a pocket projector or an heads up display that you wear like
glasses and get 1080P or whatever resolution you want.

Bob Miller

wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:24:49 -0400 robmx wrote:

| I predicted in 2000 that keeping 8-VSB would delay OTA HDTV which it has
| and allow SD sub channels to flourish and that sooner or later 8-VSB
| would have to be made to work mobile also. All have come to pass in ways
| far worse than I ever imagined.

If they want to do mobile, they should switch to COFDM and not bother with
8-VSB at all. For now, that's allocated abouve 698 MHz. Eventually that
boundary will move downward. Anyone trying to do mobile services within a
limited "opportunistic" subchannel, and especially with 8-VSB, will be at
a major disadvantage compared to genuine mobile services providers that can
use their full 6 MHz with COFDM and who don't have to eat half of it with
HD broadcasts going to fixed location homes.

Opportunistic and sub-channel are mutually exclusive. Opportunistic is
in channel or the word has no meaning.

As I have said many many times using opportunistic data has no affect on
the data rate of HD. The HD program gets all of the 19.34 Mbps that it
can use. The datacasting only takes place opportunistically when the HD
program does not need the packets.

Bob Miller

jolt wrote:
"robmx" wrote in message
m...
A new venture is promising what looks like datacasting using opportunistic
data not used by normal HD or SD broadcasting. Where have we heard of that
before?

Says they already have signed up broadcast partners across the country.

http://www.tvnewsday.com/articles/2008/06/24/daily.4/

This is going to turn into quite a competition for bits between mobile
DTV, HDTV and datacasting.

If they are not doing opportunistic datacasting then there is little hope
for HD via OTA. If they are then they might offer competition to mobile
use. Or they may be planning on mobile also, why not.

Bob Miller


With Comcast and other cable companies showing the greatest interest in
femtocell deployment, why would the networks struggle to compete for mobile
customers against a 8Mbits/s connection that will offer content to a cell
phone. As you have suggested many times the networks are forced to rely on
satellite and cable companies carriage of programming to reach a sufficient
market to survive. If Femtocell succeeds that will mean more income from
other sources for the networks from programming that has proven value to
consumers.

In other words why would the Networks undermine the usefulness of their
existing equipment doing away with or lessening HD quality to compete with
cable or cell phone companies, who broaden their viewership thus increasing
their income. They have little chance of competing well in the mobile market
regardless of how they deliver the signal and femtocell makes the prospect
of them being a serious contender even less likely.



Networks, owners of content, also broadcasters, maybe they should be
stepping back from the growing list of delivery options and just
concentrate on their content.

I still think there is a place for broadcasting as long as it is
ubiquitous (including high speed mobile, easy and has a decent free
component. The network cost the least to reach the most with the simple
proven old fashion TV interface with the customer, just turn in on and
check the menu or flick thru channels.

Don't know much about Femtocells and would place my bets on LTE (Long
Term Evolution)4th gen networks that use TD-OFDM for two way high
bandwidth IP high speed, bandwidth and mph, mobile network of the
future. Already have data rates at 100-200 Mbps and on up to a Gbps. A
marriage between broadcast and such a network could be ideal.

Bob Miller

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:14:40 -0400 Bob Miller wrote:

| Mobile is only a subset of all TV. The future is ubiquitous DTV that you
| can receive at many different resolutions anywhere you are and while moving.
|
| It is NOT about fixed reception and mobile reception as if they were
| different. RECEPTION is what we are talking about, easy reception
| anywhere moving or standing still with simple antennas.
|
| ALL the spectrum, 700 MHz and below will be used for mobile DTV. There
| simply is no question about it any more.

There is a lot more to TV than just mobile. Well, you said that with your
statement "Mobile is only a subset of all TV".

OTA does not have the capacity for all of TV needs. It did at one time back
in the 1950s and 1960s. It was even adequate in the 1970s. The demands people
have for the wide diversity of programming available today requires more than
even a cable system can deliver in its 750 or so MHz of capacity on one coax
using QAM-256 across the whole system (roughly 5 Gbps total). Fiber, when
managed well, could multiply that by a few times. Cable systems are looking
more at switched programming systems for the future, anyway, where each home
can use some slice of bandwidth and they can potentially offer an unlimited
choice of channels, and are limited to only so many homes per segment of the
system (worst case being every home is active and has chosen a different
program). A single point where the signals are switched could have several
distince coaxes heading out from that point to serve specific areas of the
service system. So it is doable. Of course, their new service will SUCK in
terms of how fast one can surf channels (I frequently go flying around the
dial at 2-3 channels per second). But if cable systems get wise, they MAY
be able to do a "thumbnail" selection (like PIP on steroids) that looks more
like a 35mm negative contact sheet. People could preview channels that way,
and it doesn't even have to be at full frame speed (12 fps in preview mode
could be adequate).

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:23:29 -0400 Bob Miller wrote:
| wrote:
| On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:24:49 -0400 robmx wrote:
|
| | I predicted in 2000 that keeping 8-VSB would delay OTA HDTV which it has
| | and allow SD sub channels to flourish and that sooner or later 8-VSB
| | would have to be made to work mobile also. All have come to pass in ways
| | far worse than I ever imagined.
|
| If they want to do mobile, they should switch to COFDM and not bother with
| 8-VSB at all. For now, that's allocated abouve 698 MHz. Eventually that
| boundary will move downward. Anyone trying to do mobile services within a
| limited "opportunistic" subchannel, and especially with 8-VSB, will be at
| a major disadvantage compared to genuine mobile services providers that can
| use their full 6 MHz with COFDM and who don't have to eat half of it with
| HD broadcasts going to fixed location homes.
|
| Opportunistic and sub-channel are mutually exclusive. Opportunistic is
| in channel or the word has no meaning.

Channels can be given priority.


| As I have said many many times using opportunistic data has no affect on
| the data rate of HD. The HD program gets all of the 19.34 Mbps that it
| can use. The datacasting only takes place opportunistically when the HD
| program does not need the packets.

The datacasting can still be over a subchannel.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:23:29 -0400 Bob Miller wrote:
| wrote:
| On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:24:49 -0400 robmx wrote:
|
| | I predicted in 2000 that keeping 8-VSB would delay OTA HDTV which it has
| | and allow SD sub channels to flourish and that sooner or later 8-VSB
| | would have to be made to work mobile also. All have come to pass in ways
| | far worse than I ever imagined.
|
| If they want to do mobile, they should switch to COFDM and not bother with
| 8-VSB at all. For now, that's allocated abouve 698 MHz. Eventually that
| boundary will move downward. Anyone trying to do mobile services within a
| limited "opportunistic" subchannel, and especially with 8-VSB, will be at
| a major disadvantage compared to genuine mobile services providers that can
| use their full 6 MHz with COFDM and who don't have to eat half of it with
| HD broadcasts going to fixed location homes.
|
| Opportunistic and sub-channel are mutually exclusive. Opportunistic is
| in channel or the word has no meaning.

Channels can be given priority.

Opportunistic is NOT a channel, it can NOT be given priority. By
definition opportunistic is in the channel not a separate channel.
Opportunistic data is data that has NO priority. The broadcast program
takes as many or all of the bit buckets. The datacast take whatever is
left.

| As I have said many many times using opportunistic data has no affect on
| the data rate of HD. The HD program gets all of the 19.34 Mbps that it
| can use. The datacasting only takes place opportunistically when the HD
| program does not need the packets.

The datacasting can still be over a subchannel.

YES datacasting CAN be over a subchannel but then it is NOT
opportunistic. It is then a datacasting subchannel.

The opportunistic datacaster loves HD since HD requires the whole 19.34
Mbps of a 6 MHz broadcast channel sometimes but on average may only
require 3 or 4 Mbps. That means on average there is a lot of bit buckets
for datacasting.

The opportunistic datacaster does not like multicasting of SD programs
because they can be statistically multiplexed meaning on average they
will take more of the 19.34 Mbps leaving less bit buckets for datacasting.

If opportunistic datacasting had been viable in 2000 using a better
modulation and the ability to upgrade codecs in receivers it would have
been very successful and we would have very little SD multicasting today
and no talk of mobile 8-VSB because 8-VSB would not exist.

What we would have is a very viable OTA HD and datacast industry both of
which would be receivable mobile and VERY easy to receive fixed at home.

And we would be using all 19.34 Mbps all the time without compromising
the HD program at all. The most bits that could be delivered, with the
best reception both mobile, fixed and portable. No waste, HD gets all
the bits that are available and with DVB-T that could be MORE than is
available with 8-VSB.

If datacasting had taken hold it would have been an insurmountable
bulwark protecting the HD program from bit stealing schemes like
multicasting of SD, bit starving HD content and Mobile 8-VSB all of
which massively steal needed bits from the HD program especially since
it still depends on MPEG2.

And as the UK is showing you could upgrade to MPEG4 and DVB-T2 with
twice the bit rate if we had gone with DVB-T. That is what they are doing.

The US is going to look so completely backward in OTA DTV over the next
few years it will start Congressional hearings all over again.

Maybe that is good, maybe we will be like Germany after the war. OTA
will be completely destroyed and we will be able to build on the ruins
using the latest technology say in 2012 or so.

In the meantime and since 1998 the US OTA transition has been a waste.

Bob Miller