[BC] What is "better?" HOW do we get there?

[Phil Alexander]

On 21 Jan 2006 at 18:54, Robert Orban wrote:

> At 04:15 PM 1/21/2006, Barry Mishkind wrote:
> >
> >          Whether you are supporting transmitters or receivers,
> >          cost is an issue, not just manufacturing, but
> >          on-going costs.  Just one mistake in programming
> >          a CMOS or Flash upgrade, and entire
> >          distribution systems will pull the product overnight.
> 
> Yep. Moreover, the upgrade process is not 100% foolproof, even if the 
> upgrade code itself is bug-free. Starting with the 8400, Optimods have been 
> field upgradeable via a PC download through the serial or Ethernet ports. 
> We get an occasional unit where the EEPROM runs into problems during the 
> upgrade and needs to get replaced at the factory to restore the processor's 
> functionality. Since we started doing upgrades this way, we've learned 
> quite a bit about how to do these upgrades reliably, including always 
> keeping a backup copy of our system executable on the EEPROM so that the 
> unit can recover as long as the BIOS is still intact. But in the case of 
> the 8500, storing a backup requires an extra 6 MB of non-volatile 
> memory,  which is not a problem in a product in that price range but 
> probably is a problem in the consumer electronics industry, where every 
> fraction of a penny in the bill of materials gets counted.

Thank you, Bob, for making my point. If the unit retains the old code as
a fall back until the new code is validated, a fail-safe system becomes
workable. You do it, the satellite TV broadcasters do it and our DAB
radio system could do with equal safety if there was a reason, such as
protecting future generations from the mess we have created in IBOC.

Thus, in essence, transparent OTA upgrades are a matter of manufacturing
cost. The flip side of significant cost in a market of hundreds of units
per year quickly becomes marginal cost in a market of millions per year.

The transparent OTA upgrade capability does not seem to be a significant 
cost factor for satellite TV where the complexity may, in fact, be greater 
than that required for DAB. Perhaps radios would need more memory than a 
satellite TV receiver for multi-mode reception (smart receiver) but, that 
is a commodity that ultimately has a cost per chip with little regard for 
capacity. Thus, the unit price of the DAB radio memory EEPROM becomes a 
function of volume. If the present model of sponsor supported broadcasting
that is free to the listener survives, the volume will be there. If we
move to the subscription model of broadcasting or niche market narrowcasting,
it is only a question of how many times we need to rearrange the deck chairs
before we turn out the lights and slip beneath the waves.

Make the receivers smart, make the upgrades transparent, establish BASIC
rules of modulation and let listeners vote with their dials. IMHO we are 
stupidly fighting the last war in a new landscape where we could as easily
have continuous democratic elections to settle the issue of leadership and
control. IOW today's technology does not demand the FCC decide a single mode 
as was the case with AM stereo. We now have the tools for using multiple 
modes (Ibiquity, DRM and others that would be developed in a free market)
and making their selection transparent to the listener. The costs to 
broadcasters and listeners alike will ultimately be lower than having a 
"sole owner" of the "only" American DAB system, especially one with little 
interest in the bedrock of our electronics industry - innovation. Let a free
market and free competition decide the issue. There is NOW no need for
giving Ibiquity a monopoly. 


Phil Alexander, CSRE, AMD
Broadcast Engineering Services and Technology 
(a Div. of Advanced Parts Corporation) 
Ph. (317) 335-2065   FAX (317) 335-9037





-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.21/236 - Release Date: 1/20/06