<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Cats, karakuls and communications scenarios</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/guyberger/2010/04/24/cats-karakuls-and-communications-scenarios/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/guyberger/2010/04/24/cats-karakuls-and-communications-scenarios/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:41:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: reslfj</title>
		<link>http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/guyberger/2010/04/24/cats-karakuls-and-communications-scenarios/comment-page-1/#comment-121761</link>
		<dc:creator>reslfj</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 May 2010 14:41:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/guyberger/2010/04/24/cats-karakuls-and-communications-scenarios/#comment-121761</guid>
		<description>Please note that DVB-T2 in the UK is transmittet with a net bit-rate of 40.2 Mbit/sec, while DVB-T has a bit-rate of 24.13 Mbit/sec using the same TX powerlevel (ERP).  

This is an increase in capacity of 66.6% at same or better robustness.

If the DTT is using SFN - singel frequency networks - the extra SFN overhead will be significantly reduced with DVB-T2. 
The figures could be DVB-T2 37 Mbit/sec vs DVB-T 19.91 Mbit/sec = 81% more capacity (at same TX-ERP)

The 30% figure was the lowest design requirement - but DVB-T2 turned out much, much better.

Lars :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Please note that DVB-T2 in the UK is transmittet with a net bit-rate of 40.2 Mbit/sec, while DVB-T has a bit-rate of 24.13 Mbit/sec using the same TX powerlevel (ERP).  </p>
<p>This is an increase in capacity of 66.6% at same or better robustness.</p>
<p>If the DTT is using SFN &#8211; singel frequency networks &#8211; the extra SFN overhead will be significantly reduced with DVB-T2.<br />
The figures could be DVB-T2 37 Mbit/sec vs DVB-T 19.91 Mbit/sec = 81% more capacity (at same TX-ERP)</p>
<p>The 30% figure was the lowest design requirement &#8211; but DVB-T2 turned out much, much better.</p>
<p>Lars <img src='http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Iain</title>
		<link>http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/guyberger/2010/04/24/cats-karakuls-and-communications-scenarios/comment-page-1/#comment-121407</link>
		<dc:creator>Iain</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:09:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/guyberger/2010/04/24/cats-karakuls-and-communications-scenarios/#comment-121407</guid>
		<description>@Kanthan, you have hit the nail on the head.  

TV licences are purely a purchase tax on whatever the lawmakers consider to be a TV.  It is entirely possible to have a fully functional setup to watch TV without any device that requires purchase of a TV set.  For example, Multichoice have been broadcasting TV content to cellphones for two or three years.  Should we need a TV licence to buy a cellphone capable of receiving 3G traffic ?

Asking the 6.5 Million or so PAYE taxpayers to stump up 1% of their income to allow the rest of the population to watch ANC sorry SABC TV for free is a candid admission that TV licences are an anachronism and should be done away with.

@Guy - one more use for the STB.  Take the multi-choice model.  Encode the digital signal and decode it at the STB box.  No pay, no watch.  A much fairer way of doing it, using well-proven technologies and business models.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Kanthan, you have hit the nail on the head.  </p>
<p>TV licences are purely a purchase tax on whatever the lawmakers consider to be a TV.  It is entirely possible to have a fully functional setup to watch TV without any device that requires purchase of a TV set.  For example, Multichoice have been broadcasting TV content to cellphones for two or three years.  Should we need a TV licence to buy a cellphone capable of receiving 3G traffic ?</p>
<p>Asking the 6.5 Million or so PAYE taxpayers to stump up 1% of their income to allow the rest of the population to watch ANC sorry SABC TV for free is a candid admission that TV licences are an anachronism and should be done away with.</p>
<p>@Guy &#8211; one more use for the STB.  Take the multi-choice model.  Encode the digital signal and decode it at the STB box.  No pay, no watch.  A much fairer way of doing it, using well-proven technologies and business models.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kanthan Pillay</title>
		<link>http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/guyberger/2010/04/24/cats-karakuls-and-communications-scenarios/comment-page-1/#comment-121319</link>
		<dc:creator>Kanthan Pillay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2010 15:26:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/guyberger/2010/04/24/cats-karakuls-and-communications-scenarios/#comment-121319</guid>
		<description>Guy: This is precisely the argument that will have Multichoice laughing all the way to the bank, allowing them to retain exclusivity in the high tech space while the masses make do with 40 year old technology.

Here are some very basic things made possible by digital terrestrial for the masses:
-Multiple audio channels
-Selectable mother-tongue subtitling
-Broadcast to hand-held devices
-regional community TV programming
-National educational programming

What we desperately need to do is get rid of TV licences. Right now, we can buy a black and white TV set for R125 but need a licence costing R225 per year. What does that do for getting access to TV to the masses?

-Kanthan</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Guy: This is precisely the argument that will have Multichoice laughing all the way to the bank, allowing them to retain exclusivity in the high tech space while the masses make do with 40 year old technology.</p>
<p>Here are some very basic things made possible by digital terrestrial for the masses:<br />
-Multiple audio channels<br />
-Selectable mother-tongue subtitling<br />
-Broadcast to hand-held devices<br />
-regional community TV programming<br />
-National educational programming</p>
<p>What we desperately need to do is get rid of TV licences. Right now, we can buy a black and white TV set for R125 but need a licence costing R225 per year. What does that do for getting access to TV to the masses?</p>
<p>-Kanthan</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: fred</title>
		<link>http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/guyberger/2010/04/24/cats-karakuls-and-communications-scenarios/comment-page-1/#comment-121258</link>
		<dc:creator>fred</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2010 08:21:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/guyberger/2010/04/24/cats-karakuls-and-communications-scenarios/#comment-121258</guid>
		<description>I regret that the immense amount of jargon lacing this blog is incomprehensible.
It seems though that you oppose modernising Afrika&#039;s telecommunications into the new digital thing because Afrika is backward and can&#039;t pipe water to its people. 

Further you seem to suggest for jargon loaded reasons that the entire [digital] idea is basically a marketer&#039;s confidence trick to bankrupt people, by forcing them to change from one technology to another...??

I&#039;m sure that if we dig back into the Star newspaper records of the period before the railways came to Johannesburg we&#039;ll find the same arguments presented by, for instance, the [late] Schneeburger [sic] Stagecoach Company, that used to take a leisurely day to get from Jozi to the old Boer Capital.

Every time i go online i am potentially regaled by podcasts and youTube &#039;stuff&#039; that someone is &quot;broadcasting&quot; or perhaps more appropriately &quot;narrowcasting&quot;. I do not understand why you believe Afrika should stay on the farm and not take part in this.

Then you seem somehow to imply that the SABC represents the whole of Afrika when most rational citizens know that the SABC is quite probably the worst example possible of a broadcast model... It is bankrupt.

On my odd forays into the continent over the past four decades it seems that radio in particular is wonderfully well served, by a vibrant and enthusiastic broadcast fraternity... The future lies in small not big... surely that is the message of the micro[processor</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I regret that the immense amount of jargon lacing this blog is incomprehensible.<br />
It seems though that you oppose modernising Afrika&#8217;s telecommunications into the new digital thing because Afrika is backward and can&#8217;t pipe water to its people. </p>
<p>Further you seem to suggest for jargon loaded reasons that the entire [digital] idea is basically a marketer&#8217;s confidence trick to bankrupt people, by forcing them to change from one technology to another&#8230;??</p>
<p>I&#8217;m sure that if we dig back into the Star newspaper records of the period before the railways came to Johannesburg we&#8217;ll find the same arguments presented by, for instance, the [late] Schneeburger [sic] Stagecoach Company, that used to take a leisurely day to get from Jozi to the old Boer Capital.</p>
<p>Every time i go online i am potentially regaled by podcasts and youTube &#8216;stuff&#8217; that someone is &#8220;broadcasting&#8221; or perhaps more appropriately &#8220;narrowcasting&#8221;. I do not understand why you believe Afrika should stay on the farm and not take part in this.</p>
<p>Then you seem somehow to imply that the SABC represents the whole of Afrika when most rational citizens know that the SABC is quite probably the worst example possible of a broadcast model&#8230; It is bankrupt.</p>
<p>On my odd forays into the continent over the past four decades it seems that radio in particular is wonderfully well served, by a vibrant and enthusiastic broadcast fraternity&#8230; The future lies in small not big&#8230; surely that is the message of the micro[processor</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robin</title>
		<link>http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/guyberger/2010/04/24/cats-karakuls-and-communications-scenarios/comment-page-1/#comment-121109</link>
		<dc:creator>Robin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Apr 2010 08:36:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/guyberger/2010/04/24/cats-karakuls-and-communications-scenarios/#comment-121109</guid>
		<description>Good article, but let&#039;s face it, logic and practically in the larger sense will never win out in this situation. The reason for this is both simple and obvious. A free market economy requires a constant supply of new products, new markets and new customers. As we have just recently become so painfully aware, this is in reality a frighteningly unstable system. 

What it boils down to is this. Currently, the analogue TV/radio/bandwidth market has been around for quite a while. A vast portion of the hardware market for this technology already own functional devices that will probably not need to be replaced for a number of years. 
Additionally, on the other hand, the technology companies have been spending/investing billions of whatever currency is convenient to them in research of new technologies on the grounds that &quot;if we provide it - they will buy&quot;.

The only way that this scenario differs from any other in our economic system is that this time, these companies, and their paid representatives (mostly government or quasi-government), must first create an entirely new playing field on which the new toys can be used.

Is this wildly expensive? Is this completely illogical, not to mention scandalous, particularly in developing countries? Of course! 

Will it happen none-the-less? Will we as consumers &amp; tax payers, who have to foot the bill from both sides go along with it? Of course!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good article, but let&#8217;s face it, logic and practically in the larger sense will never win out in this situation. The reason for this is both simple and obvious. A free market economy requires a constant supply of new products, new markets and new customers. As we have just recently become so painfully aware, this is in reality a frighteningly unstable system. </p>
<p>What it boils down to is this. Currently, the analogue TV/radio/bandwidth market has been around for quite a while. A vast portion of the hardware market for this technology already own functional devices that will probably not need to be replaced for a number of years.<br />
Additionally, on the other hand, the technology companies have been spending/investing billions of whatever currency is convenient to them in research of new technologies on the grounds that &#8220;if we provide it &#8211; they will buy&#8221;.</p>
<p>The only way that this scenario differs from any other in our economic system is that this time, these companies, and their paid representatives (mostly government or quasi-government), must first create an entirely new playing field on which the new toys can be used.</p>
<p>Is this wildly expensive? Is this completely illogical, not to mention scandalous, particularly in developing countries? Of course! </p>
<p>Will it happen none-the-less? Will we as consumers &amp; tax payers, who have to foot the bill from both sides go along with it? Of course!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: uberVU - social comments</title>
		<link>http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/guyberger/2010/04/24/cats-karakuls-and-communications-scenarios/comment-page-1/#comment-121050</link>
		<dc:creator>uberVU - social comments</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:14:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/guyberger/2010/04/24/cats-karakuls-and-communications-scenarios/#comment-121050</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Social comments and analytics for this post...&lt;/strong&gt;

This post was mentioned on Twitter by GilbertBogle: Cats, karakuls and communications scenarios http://bit.ly/bjjTJC...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Social comments and analytics for this post&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>This post was mentioned on Twitter by GilbertBogle: Cats, karakuls and communications scenarios <a href="http://bit.ly/bjjTJC.." rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/bjjTJC..</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

