Re: Mobile TV that works

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
In article <hfGdnes0e4nuU_XUnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Bob Miller <bob@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Wouldn't it be nice if we could have mobile digital TV that worked just like mobile radio does. You know with small DTV sets or your laptop.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1290881098

for example:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/TV_theater/showArticle.
jhtml?articleID=212701642&subSection=All+Stories


http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6628157.html?desc=topstory


Bob, the only thing you have left to talk about is how maybe this could have been done sooner and/or cheaper under other circumstances.

But now you can stop talking about how it can't or won't happen. Mobile TV, the standard advertisement-based model, is here and is here to stay and grow.

You must not have read my post past the first line.

Yes broadcasters are going to do mobile as I have predicted since 1999.

The way they are doing it is a travesty.

They basically have introduced a new modulation that they will use with a new codec MPEG4 that will suck bits from the main program. At least what most think of as the main program, the supposed HD program that most thought broadcasters were promising.

Remember from day one we needed ALL the channel for HD. Well with MPEG2 and all current receivers I claim you do need ALL the channel for HD. But now that broadcasters want to do mobile, something they laughed at for years, they are willing to sacrifice HD to do it. Their M/H will suck a minimum of 5 Mbps from the total 19.34 Mbps available for HD. Remember when even a drop to 18.6 Mbps was TOTALLY unecceptable? Now a MINIMUM drop of 5 Mbps is in the works with the possibility of 10 Mbps if they want.

This was not what I proposed, still propose which is to allow the entire HD channel be receivable mobile, fixed or portable.

We now have the worst of all worlds. A fixed pretend HD program that is starved for bits and a minimal mobile program, probably the same content, that only works with MPEG4 and cannot be received by any current or legacy receiver.

You could not design it to be more inefficient or pathetic and it too will fail.

The powers that be now have broken every rule they said cannot be broken as to mobile, the bit rate needed, the need to be compatible with legacy receivers and the promise to deliver the best HD possible.

All thrown under the bus for a pathetic minimal mobile capability, something they derided for years.

Bob Miller
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OTA demos in stores
    ... Bob Miller wrote: ... generations of receivers and we still have customers waiting in eager ... multipath, static multipath, not even a prayer for dynamic multipath ... HDTV and portable mobile don't mix. ...
    (alt.tv.tech.hdtv)
  • Re: Death of OTA Broadcasting
    ... mobile and fixed. ... Now we are talking people buying simple technology ... 100 Mbps or more for less cost. ... There are people talking there about very low Gbps solutions. ...
    (alt.tv.tech.hdtv)
  • Re: Train driver silences a mobile phone user
    ... foreign students who had mobile phones. ... and one person I know had her landline disconnected. ... horrendously slow compared with a standard 8 Mbps ADSL connection. ... internet connection. ...
    (uk.railway)
  • Mobile broadband
    ... know that T Mobile coverage is crap on much of the routes that I ... I'm getting 3.6 mbps, as opposed to the 54 mbps I get with my Virgin ... Nokia mobile dial up connection, which is what I have used afloat up ...
    (uk.rec.caravanning)
  • Re: Mobile broadband
    ... know that T Mobile coverage is crap on much of the routes that I ... I'm getting 3.6 mbps, as opposed to the 54 mbps I get with my Virgin ... which is what I have used afloat up ... As for tarriffs, I've gone for pay as you go, which means I bought ...
    (uk.rec.caravanning)