Re: EBU Technical Review - More pro-DAB Bias
- From: Richard L <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 11:17:49 GMT
In message <43e1e057$0$11069$e4fe514c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
"hwh" <iimeeltje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> "Richard L" <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schreef in bericht
> news:afd88ef24d.usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > BTW, I wonder whether your economic analysis has taken into account
> > the cost of receivers, which account for the bulk of the investment in
> > a mature broadcasting system. In the past, the aim has always been to
> > concentrate the technical complexity and expense on the broadcasters'
> > side so as to keep the cost of receivers down. And from this point of
> > view, DAB seems to have an advantage over DVB-h.
>
> Even after DVB-H receivers go into (mass) production?
It hasn't happened yet, and DAB will be cheaper still by the time it
does.
--
Richard L.
.
- References:
- Re: EBU Technical Review - More pro-DAB Bias
- From: DAB sounds worse than FM
- Re: EBU Technical Review - More pro-DAB Bias
- From: Nicolas Croiset
- Re: EBU Technical Review - More pro-DAB Bias
- From: DAB sounds worse than FM
- Re: EBU Technical Review - More pro-DAB Bias
- From: Nicolas Croiset
- Re: EBU Technical Review - More pro-DAB Bias
- From: DAB sounds worse than FM
- Re: EBU Technical Review - More pro-DAB Bias
- From: Richard L
- Re: EBU Technical Review - More pro-DAB Bias
- From: hwh
- Re: EBU Technical Review - More pro-DAB Bias
- Prev by Date: Re: EBU Technical Review - More pro-DAB Bias
- Next by Date: Re: EBU Technical Review - More pro-DAB Bias
- Previous by thread: Re: EBU Technical Review - More pro-DAB Bias
- Next by thread: Re: EBU Technical Review - More pro-DAB Bias
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading