Ask the FCC to define PQ? (1 Viewer)

Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

Dvlos

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jun 5, 2004
1,887
0
This is a good thread over at AVSForum I think it would be great for everyone to just define the standard, for different compressions schemes (MPG2/4/WM9/QAM) with defined resolutions and bitrate for telecine and true HD productions. If all providers were forced to stick to these specs PQ arguing would be a thing of the past, write a letter to the FCC, ask them to define HD so that a provider who is advertising 7mbps 1280x1000 as "HD CHANNEL" can get sued for false advertising. Unless they call it "HD-Lite"
 
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

vurbano

On Double Secret Probation
Supporting Founder
Apr 1, 2004
23,813
104
Newport News, VA
I suggested this at AVS long ago. a minimum bitrate for HD under mpeg2. The problem is it gets a cold response over there. Too many multicast happy network people in that forum etc. NAB would fight till the final drop of blood spilled over this. But if it makes ya feel any better, me and marc Cuban support it Im sure.:D
 

Dvlos

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jun 5, 2004
1,887
0
AVSForum has shocked me recently, instead of audio/videophiles forum it's really a Pro-D* or CableRoX Only club...In that same thread you can read people complaining about people complaining about D*, which is ironic since no one started complaining about D* just asking for a HD standard to be set.
 

GadgetRick

SatelliteGuys Pro
Apr 11, 2004
394
0
Near NYC
Just what we need...

...the government telling us what's good for us AGAIN. Please, let's keep the government out of this issue. How do you think they'll define this anyway? Whoever is the biggest company donating the most money to the right campaign will define the standard. We won't get the best standard, rather, we'll get what the FCC is told to give us...

This is something I DO NOT want!!

The Rickster
 

squicken

Member
Supporting Founder
Mar 24, 2004
1,046
0
I don't think we'll have any luck with this. I've sent numerous letters to the FTC about silicon implants, false advertisement, and strip bars for many years now with nary a response.
 

DarrellP

I Think, therefore, I am.
Supporting Founder
Nov 6, 2003
4,298
0
Salem, OR
squicken said:
I don't think we'll have any luck with this. I've sent numerous letters to the FTC about silicon implants, false advertisement, and strip bars for many years now with nary a response.
Same here, all my requests for mandatory implants at birth and a strip club on every corner has gone in one ear and out the other. :p
 

Dvlos

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jun 5, 2004
1,887
0
If written letters works better, fine, however in my complaint to the FCC I list specific HDTV specs that were listed on websites when I was going to purchase an HDTV. They list the resolutions of the modes, the bandwidth of HDTV.. now they want to throttle it back...it's not just D* it's all providers IMO.
 

DRAKO

SatelliteGuys Family
Mar 30, 2004
98
0
VA
yeah I agree, for me HDTV is defined as 1920x1080 @ 19Mbps, wish we were so lucky but i doubt anything is going to be done because to the average joe, HTDV is only as good as a DVD @ 480p
 

CWS_kahuna

SatelliteGuys Pro
Supporting Founder
Jul 21, 2004
513
0
California
Dvlos said:
They list the resolutions of the modes, the bandwidth of HDTV.. now they want to throttle it back...it's not just D* it's all providers IMO.

I agree, D* may have been the first to cut back a little but they probably won't be the last. I am sure the other providers will watch D* closely to see what happens. Customers demands for more channels seems to be the most important thing at this time. I am guilty of that myself, once you watch something in HD going back to the regular just is not what it use to be. So it only makes sense for people to want more. The downside to this is in order to do so at this time the providers have to turn down the juice.
 

vurbano

On Double Secret Probation
Supporting Founder
Apr 1, 2004
23,813
104
Newport News, VA
GadgetRick said:
...the government telling us what's good for us AGAIN. Please, let's keep the government out of this issue. How do you think they'll define this anyway? Whoever is the biggest company donating the most money to the right campaign will define the standard. We won't get the best standard, rather, we'll get what the FCC is told to give us...

This is something I DO NOT want!!

The Rickster
And let your local affiliate tell you? one thats multicasting? and when you complain about the PQ they tell you you have no right to it anyway? Or maybe D*? Ill take a government definition in this case.
 

Dvlos

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jun 5, 2004
1,887
0
According to the ATSC they laid out like 18 DTV formats, a part of those is HDTV, if I recall, isn't the ATSC a government committee? Isn't their original spec fo 1080i 1920x1080 at 19.5 mbps?

All this boils down to is greed. Like bars that water down their drinks, car salesmen that sell you a lemon, etc.. etc.. now there are fraud/false advertising laws out there, they have been enforced, companies have been sued. Why can't we use that to get the FTC or FCC to mandate or define HD?

If the public is demanding a definition of HD to be at what the ATSC specified, and they define it as 800x1000 @ 2 MBPS instead.. I seriously doubt it.
 

riffjim4069

SatelliteGuys Master
Supporting Founder
Apr 7, 2004
35,194
279
SatelliteGuystonfieldville, U.S.A.
FCC has established standards for cable, but what about sat?

According to the FCC rules that were adopted for digital "plug and play" cable compatibility, consumers can plug their cable directly into their digital TV set without the need of a set-top box. Just a couple of the important points:

High-definition set-top boxes - Starting April 1, 2004, cable operators must supply, upon request, high-definition set-top boxes with functional 1394 "firewire" connectors. By July 1, 2005, all high-definition set-top boxes would also require a digital visual interface ("DVI") or a high definition multimedia interface ("HDMI").

Down-resolution - Down-resolution (reducing the resolution of high-definition programming to standard-definition) is prohibited for broadcast programming by all MVPDs; the FCC said down-resolution of non-broadcast programming will be addressed in the Further Notice. In the interim, MVPDs intending to use down-resolution for non-broadcast programming are required to notify the FCC at least 30 days in advance.

Although the FCC did not define minimum bandwidth requirements for HD (it was not the purpose of this order), they appear to be serious about enforcing these rules that apply to 750 MHz cable systems who have not obtained a waiver.

Bottom Line: The FCC and CATV appear to have established some baseline operating requirements for HD. A Cable provider would get "slammed" by the FCC for downressing a local DTV (HD) broadcast whereas D* or D* can do whatever they please. Who regulates the Sat providers?
 

squicken

Member
Supporting Founder
Mar 24, 2004
1,046
0
CWS_kahuna said:
Umm still not legal age in the states, maybe in mexico though, lol.
Seventeen is actually legal in many states. As far as HD, I'd love a federal standard on what is and isn't, but I just don't see it happening.
 

GadgetRick

SatelliteGuys Pro
Apr 11, 2004
394
0
Near NYC
Hmm...

And let your local affiliate tell you? one thats multicasting? and when you complain about the PQ they tell you you have no right to it anyway? Or maybe D*? Ill take a government definition in this case.

So who defines what pq is then? What looks good to you may look horrible to me. What looks like good color to me may look like crap to you. You CANNOT define pq at all. PQ is a subjective thing, not something you can define with numbers.

Ok, so they give us HD at 19Mbps and at the highest resolution possible. But the color sucks. Then what? It's not an easy thing to do.

My background (don't do it any longer) is selling color printing equipment. I can tell you I worked with many color experts over the years. One thing I learned was they all look at things differently. Sure there are some basic things everyone seemed to agree on but it still comes down to the individual and what he or she finds pleasing to the eye.

No, I DO NOT want the government--or anyone else for that matter--telling me what good pq is. I can decide that for myself. You most certainly won't get a fair shake from the government.

As far as the local affiliates are concerned. Well, where is just about the only place you can get uncompressed HD right now? Not getting it from DTV, not getting it from Dish, not getting it from Voom, not getting it from cable. Ah, but I AM getting it OTA from the local affiliates. The problem isn't how they're broadcasting, rather, what they're broadcasting. They're not broadcasting enoungh uncompressed HD. Now THAT'S something the government could mandate but again, if the lobbying powers lobby for something else, that's what we'll get. We still may not get what we're after.

Oh, and if this were the case don't you think DTV and/or (even worse) the cable companies would be the ones defining this since they're the biggest dogs with the most money? If you think otherwise then you haven't watched how these things work for the last 200 years...

So to even remotely think the government would get this right is ludicrous. Hell, they can't even keep a mandate for everyone to go digital! What do you think it'll be like trying to mandate something so subjective???

The Rickster
 

Dvlos

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jun 5, 2004
1,887
0
You know what I used to work on color printing systems as well, I do not think your analogy is applicable here. A provider doesn't change the content, or it's looks, they just compress and filter it to squeeze it through the satellite how they want it. If a film crew decides to film everything in sepia that's them. For all other color and contrast controls, adjust your TV.

By the FCC mandating that the ATSC spec be used as intended no one would complain, as a matter of fact that's what drove HD this far I think, it was that WOW factor available on the early HD channels.
 
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

vurbano

On Double Secret Probation
Supporting Founder
Apr 1, 2004
23,813
104
Newport News, VA
GadgetRick said:
So who defines what pq is then? What looks good to you may look horrible to me. What looks like good color to me may look like crap to you. You CANNOT define pq at all. PQ is a subjective thing, not something you can define with numbers.

Ok, so they give us HD at 19Mbps and at the highest resolution possible. But the color sucks. Then what? It's not an easy thing to do.

My background (don't do it any longer) is selling color printing equipment. I can tell you I worked with many color experts over the years. One thing I learned was they all look at things differently. Sure there are some basic things everyone seemed to agree on but it still comes down to the individual and what he or she finds pleasing to the eye.

No, I DO NOT want the government--or anyone else for that matter--telling me what good pq is. I can decide that for myself. You most certainly won't get a fair shake from the government.

As far as the local affiliates are concerned. Well, where is just about the only place you can get uncompressed HD right now? Not getting it from DTV, not getting it from Dish, not getting it from Voom, not getting it from cable. Ah, but I AM getting it OTA from the local affiliates. The problem isn't how they're broadcasting, rather, what they're broadcasting. They're not broadcasting enoungh uncompressed HD. Now THAT'S something the government could mandate but again, if the lobbying powers lobby for something else, that's what we'll get. We still may not get what we're after.

Oh, and if this were the case don't you think DTV and/or (even worse) the cable companies would be the ones defining this since they're the biggest dogs with the most money? If you think otherwise then you haven't watched how these things work for the last 200 years...

So to even remotely think the government would get this right is ludicrous. Hell, they can't even keep a mandate for everyone to go digital! What do you think it'll be like trying to mandate something so subjective???

The Rickster
There is no 19mbps OTA here. And there wont be there either. mandate the 19mbps and let us work on the other issues. If the FCC doesnt you will be watching 14 mbps OTA very soon. And 10mbps on sat.
 

Dvlos

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jun 5, 2004
1,887
0
vurbano said:
There is no 19mbps OTA here. And there wont be there either. mandate the 19mbps and let us work on the other issues. If the FCC doesnt you will be watching 14 mbps OTA very soon. And 10mbps on sat.

They also have to mandate it for MPEG 4 and WM9, and QAM, seeing as those will probably be the only other codecs used in the next 5 years to deliver programming.
 
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

Users who are viewing this thread

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Latest posts

Top