Re: ATSC Radio
- From: user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:14:48 -0500
thagor2008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 1 Jul, 14:18, u...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:ATSC is "superior" to DVB-T only in that it needs less than half the powerAlso, DVB-T is an obsolete standard ... any reasonable "new"
deployment would not use it, rather the Japanese, Chinese, or Brazilian
standards, all of which are superior to DVB-T.
From what I've read the US digital system is pretty poor at handling
reflected signals and requires a shed load of post processing to
produce a watchable picture. Bit of a bugger in a built up area I
would have thought and not much good for power consumption so I'm
wondering in what way its "superior" to DVB-T other than it was made
in the good old US of A so it must be better (a bit like NTSC *cough*)
B2003
for the same range. But in a country like the US, that is **THE** major
factor. People who attack ATSC are usually not Americans. They don't understand the
way the TV system works here commercially.
Basically ... TV stations are independent concerns (though there are
several large chains). They are NOT government owned or controlled.
Each station covers a certain area. The people who sell the stations
programming give the station exclusive rights to the programming
over that area, except for overlap (where two or more stations
can be received in one place.)
Now here is the kicker you have to understand: this exclusivity carries
over to that same programming even if it is delivered by cable or
satellite! The cable or satellite people have to pay money ... real
actual money! ... to the broadcast TV station for programming
with good ratings.
Now you get the idea: a bigger area translated to more money.
Of course, you can say "just raise the power". The problem with that
is threefold:
1) every station would have to increase power the same ratio to
keep from changing where the "crossovers" occur.
2) increasing power costs money for power bills. These are not
negligible, especially for the vast majority of stations which are
not in huge cities.
3) increasing power for stations with transmitters in populated
areas causes overload problems.
People in built up areas can always subscribe to basic cable for
a very low cost (e.g., where I live, $13 per month ... many people
get it free in their rent) and get all the local broadcast channels
plus a few more. At least for the company I use, HDTV is free if
your set supports cablecard and you subscribe to basic.
DVB-T would upset all this ... either double the average transmitted power
(and triple the power bills since the peak power is three times higher)
or cut the bitrate ... which means cutting picture quality and/or
cutting the number of subchannels.
ATSC actually works perfectly well and is well suited for the US.
Note that one satellite provider DOES use DVB-S. Note also that
the patent for the core of DVB-T, COFDM, is owned by US interests.
Finally, all our terrestrial digital radio systems (HD, Sirius, and
XM, use COFDM). (Sirius and XM also have satellites, of course, but in
cities they use COFDM SFNs just like DVB-T (not like DAB)).
Doug McDonald
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: ATSC Radio
- From: Richard Evans
- Re: ATSC Radio
- From: Kristoff Bonne
- Re: ATSC Radio
- References:
- Re: ATSC Radio
- From: user
- Re: ATSC Radio
- From: thagor2008
- Re: ATSC Radio
- Prev by Date: Re: ATSC Radio
- Next by Date: Re: ATSC Radio
- Previous by thread: Re: ATSC Radio
- Next by thread: Re: ATSC Radio
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|