Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Damn America

Tags:
  • HDTV
  • Broadband
  • TV
  • Internet
  • Home Theatre
Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 4:53:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Damn America is slow and expansive on lots of things. Cell phone
network and Broadband Internet are two of them.

Just a thought, can we get cheap HDTV set or HDTV tuner from another
country, China or maybe even England, but use them here in the States.

More about : damn america

Anonymous
April 21, 2004 4:53:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
> However a small US TV assembler which assembles TV's from parts from Korea
> and the only US "manufacturer" of TV sets petitioned the US to slap 45%
> tariffs on China claiming dumping.

Let's not forget a small company in New York City which wants to broadcast
advertisements to city buses, and has done its best to delay the
deployment of digital TV by making false claims (repeatedly debunked) that
8-VSB was inferior to COFDM for North American use.

This company's web site consists solely of a flash animation and a mailto
link to one Bob Miller.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
April 21, 2004 5:39:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

You can't help being stupid, but you don't need to parade it here.


"notlogin" <notlogin@times.com> wrote in message
news:8arc80ljmo19blkedlgb3do6s9rk9iuo7j@4ax.com...
> Damn America is slow and expansive on lots of things. Cell phone
> network and Broadband Internet are two of them.
>
> Just a thought, can we get cheap HDTV set or HDTV tuner from another
> country, China or maybe even England, but use them here in the States.
Related resources
April 21, 2004 11:10:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
news:p ine.LNX.4.60.0404211052110.18712@shiva1.cac.washington.edu...
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
> > However a small US TV assembler which assembles TV's from parts from
Korea
> > and the only US "manufacturer" of TV sets petitioned the US to slap 45%
> > tariffs on China claiming dumping.
> Let's not forget a small company in New York City which wants to
broadcast
> advertisements to city buses, and has done its best to delay the
> deployment of digital TV by making false claims (repeatedly debunked) that
> 8-VSB was inferior to COFDM for North American use.
> This company's web site consists solely of a flash animation and a mailto
> link to one Bob Miller.
> -- Mark --
> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
> Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Yeah, Miller was unceremoniously dumped from the AVS forum in 2000, shortly
after
everyone learned about his laughable agenda.
Anonymous
April 22, 2004 12:53:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"notlogin" <notlogin@times.com> wrote in message
news:8arc80ljmo19blkedlgb3do6s9rk9iuo7j@4ax.com...
> Damn America is slow and expansive on lots of things. Cell phone
> network and Broadband Internet are two of them.
>
> Just a thought, can we get cheap HDTV set or HDTV tuner from another
> country, China or maybe even England, but use them here in the States.

There is no HDTV in England and our HD STB's are already made in Asia.
Anonymous
April 22, 2004 2:31:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Randy Sweeney wrote:
> There is no HDTV in England

But Bob Miller says that England is a shining example of how COFDM is the
solution for HDTV!

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 12:30:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
> I talk to them. They are hyper-ventilating with excitement about what they
> will do. My best bet. Subscription services including multicasting and
> datacasting with a little HD thrown in during prime time. But the HD part
> won't last long unless it makes a lot of money.

We should also take note of this confession by Bob Miller. He has just
openly admitted that he wants to destroy HDTV in order to free up enough
bandwidth for multicasting and datacasting.

I propose that we lobby Congress to prohibit the use of television
frequencies for multicasting, datacasting, or any other transmission not
directly related to television service.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 12:52:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
news:p ine.LNX.4.60.0404221029340.8480@shiva1.cac.washington.edu...
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Randy Sweeney wrote:
> > There is no HDTV in England
>
> But Bob Miller says that England is a shining example of how COFDM is the
> solution for HDTV!


Notice carefully when Bob and indeed Sinclair and the whole COFDM ra-ra team
speak

They speak of DTV, not HDTV.
HDTV uses too many bits that they would like to resell for non-TV data
services.
April 23, 2004 2:06:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"The receivers being distributed free in the UK today do not have a problem
with impulse noise."

-Bob Miller, AVS Forum, "consumers, the only chance"



http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/showthread.php?s=&t...



http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/showthread.php?t=54...



"Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
news:p ine.LNX.4.60.0404221029340.8480@shiva1.cac.washington.edu...
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Randy Sweeney wrote:
> > There is no HDTV in England
>
> But Bob Miller says that England is a shining example of how COFDM is the
> solution for HDTV!
> -- Mark --
>
> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
> Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 5:17:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <veKdnU90399y9RXdRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
"Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> writes:
>
> "Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
> news:p ine.LNX.4.60.0404221029340.8480@shiva1.cac.washington.edu...
>> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Randy Sweeney wrote:
>> > There is no HDTV in England
>>
>> But Bob Miller says that England is a shining example of how COFDM is the
>> solution for HDTV!
>
>
> Notice carefully when Bob and indeed Sinclair and the whole COFDM ra-ra team
> speak
>
> They speak of DTV, not HDTV.
> HDTV uses too many bits that they would like to resell for non-TV data
> services.
>
Bingo!!! Bob has admitted to believing that 480 (i or p) is enough.
That sure ain't HDTV.

Note that I didn't look at his website before estimating (looking
at Bob's postings) that his interest was in advertising in mass
transit. That 'application' is only a logical extension of the
single generally beneficial use of COFDM (vs 8VSB) in the American
regulatory marketplace.

My own interest is in HDTV, and this is where people like Bob will
mistakenly claim that those who advocate HDTV are instead advocating
8VSB. The fact is that COFDM and HDTV (IN THE AMERICAN MARKETPLACE)
are opposing interests. Bob ESSENTIALLY opposes HDTV, mostly because
of his interests in misuse of the originally targted American HDTV
spectrum space.

People like Bob don't represent ALL of the woes of HDTV, but he does
more than his fair share of destructive behavior.

John
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 5:59:31 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Randy Sweeney wrote:

> "Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
> news:p ine.LNX.4.60.0404221029340.8480@shiva1.cac.washington.edu...
>
>>On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Randy Sweeney wrote:
>>
>>>There is no HDTV in England
>>
>>But Bob Miller says that England is a shining example of how COFDM is the
>>solution for HDTV!
>
>
>
> Notice carefully when Bob and indeed Sinclair and the whole COFDM ra-ra team
> speak
>
> They speak of DTV, not HDTV.
> HDTV uses too many bits that they would like to resell for non-TV data
> services.
>
>
If Sinclair wants to sell data services they would be better off with an
HDTV main signal than multiple SD programs. The statistical multiplexing
of multiple SD programs would leave less room for opportunistic data. An
HD program would leave a lot of room. But that is not what they are
going to do. Here is what they could do. I can't because I don't own any
broadcast full power TV spectrum.

Broadcasters could deliver ONE SD program in the free and clear using
MPEG2 and use the rest of the spectrum to deliver a subscription service
using MPEG4 or WM9. They could use the rest of the spectrum for IP
datacasting with 30 different low bit rate programs of various sizes A
lot of PBS station will do this. They could deliver HDTV as a
subscription service. They will start to band together in various
markets to deliver an OTA competitor to cable and satellite. They could
start withholding content from cable or satellite in a new competitive
spirit.

They could do a lot of things that I and others predicted back in 1999.
But once they get must carry of multicasting on cable the game is up.
Economics will dictate that they find the best use of the spectrum and
HDTV OTA isn't it.

What I am saying is that since 2000 the game has been must carry, must
carry, MUST CARRY!!! All you have to do is listen to the testimony in
DC. 8-VSB was foisted on the US because Congress, under the influence of
campaign finance requirements (money), threatened broadcasters that they
would not get this must carry of their full digital 6 MHz channel
whatever they put into it.

If what they want to put into it is HD there is not problem. Cable
understands and agrees that they must carry the full 6 MHz if it is an
HD signal. The whole dust up is over multicasting. Must carry of
multicasting.

WHEN THEY GET THAT LOOK OUT! No more Mr. Nice guy. It is only then that
you will start to see what broadcasters actually want to use their OTA
spectrum for. If any one thinks it is to deliver one HDTV signal for
free I have a lot of things I would like to sell you.

I talk to them. They are hyper-ventilating with excitement about what
they will do. My best bet. Subscription services including multicasting
and datacasting with a little HD thrown in during prime time. But the HD
part won't last long unless it makes a lot of money.
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 7:03:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

David wrote:

First Mark Crispin. At least you admit there is a problem in OTA
delivery of HDTV. Never said that England was a shining example of a
solution for HDTV. Always said that England had a far better modulation
than 8-VSB. Would never suggest that we use something as bad as what
England is using however.

The early receivers in the UK had a problem with impulse noise do to
inadequate design and the very low power of the broadcast. Recently they
increased power and changed to a different form of COFDM modulation that
uses 16 QAM and in conjunction with better receivers the impulse noise
problem is all but eradicated except for those early receivers.

UK DTV broadcasting is at all of around ONE kW on average. Highest
powered one is at 20 kW I believe. Most in the US would be complaining
bitterly if any broadcaster was as low as the UK's highest powered DTV.

And they are selling recievers as fast as they can. The lowest price is
now $49.47 or $28 Pounds.

> "The receivers being distributed free in the UK today do not have a problem
> with impulse noise."
>
> -Bob Miller, AVS Forum, "consumers, the only chance"
>
>
>
> http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/showthread.php?s=&t...
>
>
>
> http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/showthread.php?t=54...
>
>
>
> "Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
> news:p ine.LNX.4.60.0404221029340.8480@shiva1.cac.washington.edu...
>
>>On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Randy Sweeney wrote:
>>
>>>There is no HDTV in England
>>
>>But Bob Miller says that England is a shining example of how COFDM is the
>>solution for HDTV!
>> -- Mark --
>>
>>http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
>>Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
>>Si vis pacem, para bellum.
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 8:09:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <NH%hc.8105$e4.2587@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
> David wrote:
>
> First Mark Crispin. At least you admit there is a problem in OTA
> delivery of HDTV.
>
Everyone realizes that OTA delivery of HDTV is an "interesting" challenge
based upon numerous tradeoffs (except for you overly rosy evaluation of
COFDM -- benefiting mobile applications for NON-HDTV delivery),
especially in the environment where some people are trying to misuse
the originally intended free HDTV spectrum for their money making
schemes. (Nothing wrong with making money, but there is something wrong
with EFFECTIVELY trying to destroy HDTV.) Competing against the
available bandwidth does also make the technical quality of
the HDTV signal much more problematic.

>
> Never said that England was a shining example of a
> solution for HDTV. Always said that England had a far better modulation
> than 8-VSB. Would never suggest that we use something as bad as what
> England is using however.
>

Read your previously made statement below, and please demonstrate
that it is true... Hint: all information commonly available totally
refutes your dishonest (or incompetent) claim.

Many of your numerous claims against 8VSB have also been proven to
be overblown. It is YOU who try to make this a modulation method
issue, but I am just interested in HDTV. I am NOT interested in
your irritating commercials on mass-transit. Your 'errors' are
numerous, and your interests are proven to be unconnected to HDTV.

>
>> "The receivers being distributed free in the UK today do not have a problem
>> with impulse noise."
>>
>> -Bob Miller, AVS Forum, "consumers, the only chance"
>>
>>
>>
>> http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/showthread.php?s=&t...
>>

John
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 8:58:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Mark Crispin wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Bob Miller wrote:

>> Always said that England had a far better modulation than 8-VSB.
>
>
> Really? Then what are all these Brits complaining about with
> interference every time a motor is running with their "far better"
> COFDM? Why do I see no interference with 8-VSB?

Maybe you should try to read one of my post on the subject for a change.
In the UK they had early receivers that are still in use that were not
porperly designed that had problems with impulse noise. Couple that with
the very low power that is being broadcast and the particular kind of
early version COFDM they were using did cause a problem with impulse
noise. Later better desinged receivers, a doulbing of power levels to
around ONE kW and a chnage in the type of COFDM modulation from 64 QAM
to 16 QAm have all but eliminated any impulse noise problem except for
the old receivers.

But as I have also said and you continue to ignore, England has an old
version of COFDM. Most of Europe has a far more advanced version and it
is being improved all the time.
>
>> And they are selling recievers as fast as they can. The lowest price
>> is now $49.47 or $28 Pounds.
>
>
> How much of that is subsidized by the government through tax revenues?

No subsidies for these free market receivers. NO MANDATES either.
>
> Perhaps we should tax creeps living in New York City who want to steal
> television bandwidth to send advertisements to buses, and use the
> revenue to fund cheap 8-VSB receivers for consumers.

As I have asked many times before tell me please how do I steal
bandwidth? Maybe I would try if you would tell me. AFAIK broadcasters
would sell bandwidth for a very steep price or rent it even higher but
they watch it pretty close, it is hard to steal. The only bandwidth
available to me or others would be at auction where the market sets the
price. The current broadcasters are the only ones who have been given
free spectrum. We have had to buy it at auction or buy/rent it from
someone who has bought it.

There is no broadcast spectrum that current broadcasters have that can
use COFDM so I wouldn't want it anyway.
>
> -- Mark --
>
> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
> Si vis pacem, para bellum.
April 23, 2004 12:03:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:NH%hc.8105$e4.2587@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> David wrote:
>
> UK DTV broadcasting is at all

I've pointed this out three different times:

The brand new COFDM receivers in England are still plagued with interference
problems.

Why would anyone complain about bad reception and have an old receiver? New
receivers in England are practically free.

These complaints made in the last 6 months in England:

---------------------------------------------------------------
from freeview board [///www.radioandtelly.co.uk]


"Unless you happen to live within just a few miles of a transmitter, with no
tall obstructions around, you're very unlikely to get proper and consistent
reception."


"I'm sorry, but in 90% of cases, swapping to Freeview ISN'T just a matter of
buying a STB and plugging it in (despite what the BBC and other advertisers
would have you believe). "


"You don't mention what sort of aerial you're using, where it's sited, or
what transmitter you're receiving from and where you're situated with
respect to the transmitter. You need to get all of that right before you can
expect to get decent reception. "



"Like I keep saying in these forums, put the aerial OUTSIDE, at roof level.
It'll bump up the received signal level by about a factor of 10. Use a
lowloss downlead, as short as possible. DON'T have lots of
sockets/plugs/connections in the downlead. Try to keep the downlead as one
piece, right up to the STB."

"Stockland Hill doesn't deliver particularly strong levels of power on the
digital multiplexes (2.5KW each, according to the document I'm looking at)
and I've no idea how far away from the transmitter you're situated. If
you're more than about 10 miles, I'd make sure you're using an aerial of at
least 12dB gain."



----------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Thank God* you and your ilk have been so roundly ignored, or we'd have that
same horrendous COFDM system here.
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 1:37:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
> Maybe you should try to read one of my post on the subject for a change.

I read your posts, and you keep on puttin your fingers in your ears and
screaming the same things in spite of evidence to the contrary.

> In
> the UK they had early receivers that are still in use that were not porperly
> designed that had problems with impulse noise. Couple that with the very low
> power that is being broadcast and the particular kind of early version COFDM
> they were using did cause a problem with impulse noise. Later better desinged
> receivers, a doulbing of power levels to around ONE kW and a chnage in the
> type of COFDM modulation from 64 QAM to 16 QAm have all but eliminated any
> impulse noise problem except for the old receivers.

If that is the case, why are people in England still complaining about
impulse noise problems with the new receivers?

> But as I have also said and you continue to ignore, England has an old
> version of COFDM. Most of Europe has a far more advanced version and it is
> being improved all the time.

Then why do you keep on babbling about the "success" of COFDM in England?
Why don't you admit that COFDM has been a miserable failure in England?
Why don't you admit that the only way they can get people to accept COFDM
receivers is by practically giving them away?

>>> And they are selling recievers as fast as they can. The lowest price is
>>> now $49.47 or $28 Pounds.
>> How much of that is subsidized by the government through tax revenues?
> No subsidies for these free market receivers. NO MANDATES either.

Bullshit. There is no such thing as a "free market" in UK television.
Among other things, you have to have a license to own a TV receiver. I
doubt very much that the non-governmental broadcasters are at liberty to
broadcast in 8-VSB.

> As I have asked many times before tell me please how do I steal bandwidth?

Any and all use of television frequencies for non-television purposes is
theft from the television service. We, the public, licensed the use of
those frequences for television, not for bombarding bus riders with video
advertising (which, like telemarketing, should be banned).

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 9:03:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <En1ic.5887$eZ5.2761@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
> Mark Crispin wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
>
>>> Always said that England had a far better modulation than 8-VSB.
>>
>>
>> Really? Then what are all these Brits complaining about with
>> interference every time a motor is running with their "far better"
>> COFDM? Why do I see no interference with 8-VSB?
>
> Maybe you should try to read one of my post on the subject for a change.
>
Reading your propaganda shows your bias and lack of credibility. Remember,
you have an interest AGAINST HDTV. You are discussing with people
who have a pro-HDTV interest, and yet keep on trying to convince them
that your pro-SDTV stance is 'advantageous'. (Well, maybe advantageous
to your probably already failed business.)

John
April 24, 2004 1:30:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Would never suggest that we use something as bad as what
> England is using however.

That's yet another lie. It's exactly what you were trying to sell on AVS in
1999.
I saw your crazy/destructive behavior there everyday...

Too bad they deleted all your "posts" after asking you to leave. I thought
the whole thing was highly amusing.
Anonymous
April 24, 2004 7:40:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> Maybe you should try to read one of my post on the subject for a change.
>
>
> I read your posts, and you keep on puttin your fingers in your ears and
> screaming the same things in spite of evidence to the contrary.
>
>> In the UK they had early receivers that are still in use that were not
>> porperly designed that had problems with impulse noise. Couple that
>> with the very low power that is being broadcast and the particular
>> kind of early version COFDM they were using did cause a problem with
>> impulse noise. Later better desinged receivers, a doulbing of power
>> levels to around ONE kW and a chnage in the type of COFDM modulation
>> from 64 QAM to 16 QAm have all but eliminated any impulse noise
>> problem except for the old receivers.
>
>
> If that is the case, why are people in England still complaining about
> impulse noise problems with the new receivers?

There are close to 5 million receivers in the UK now. AFAIK there are
very few problems of any kind. Maybe a few receivers are defective. The
fact remains that they are selling like hell because the word of mouth
is so good about the product.
>
>> But as I have also said and you continue to ignore, England has an old
>> version of COFDM. Most of Europe has a far more advanced version and
>> it is being improved all the time.
>
>
> Then why do you keep on babbling about the "success" of COFDM in
> England? Why don't you admit that COFDM has been a miserable failure in
> England? Why don't you admit that the only way they can get people to
> accept COFDM receivers is by practically giving them away?

No one is giving away receivers in the UK. They are being sold by many
vendors to make a profit.
>
>>>> And they are selling recievers as fast as they can. The lowest price
>>>> is now $49.47 or $28 Pounds.
>>>
>>> How much of that is subsidized by the government through tax revenues?
>>
>> No subsidies for these free market receivers. NO MANDATES either.
>
>
> Bullshit. There is no such thing as a "free market" in UK television.
> Among other things, you have to have a license to own a TV receiver. I
> doubt very much that the non-governmental broadcasters are at liberty to
> broadcast in 8-VSB.

The fact that you have to buy a license for TV has no connection with
the reality that large numbers of viewers are converting to DTV from
analog or satellite because they are very happy with the product.
Freeview is free. The fact that UK citizens have decided to require a
license to support a public BBC TV Corp is completely a separate
reality. We also pay for PBS broadcasting in the US. We just pay it with
our taxes and those who watch no TV still have to pay. In the UK only
those who have a TV have to pay. Slightly more democratic.
>
>> As I have asked many times before tell me please how do I steal
>> bandwidth?
>
>
> Any and all use of television frequencies for non-television purposes is
> theft from the television service. We, the public, licensed the use of
> those frequences for television, not for bombarding bus riders with
> video advertising (which, like telemarketing, should be banned).

Try to follow this logic. I DON"T HAVE ANY OR ANY ACCESS TO BROADCAST TV
SPECTRUM. So how could I misuse it?

BTW we the people did not, in the case of DTV, license the spectrum just
for "television". The law that our representative and therefore WE the
people passed says that after delivering ONE NTSC quality program in the
free and clear, broadcasters (NOT ME) are free to deliver just about
anything they want and pay 5% of gross revenues in the bargain.

Those same representatives have decreed that they will and have
auctioned spectrum that is now broadcast spectrum, Channels 51 to 69, to
the highest bidder to again do a whole slew of non television type
things. It is therefor non TV spectrum after auction with the proviso
that the new owners have to wait for the digital transition or pay off
the broadcasters to move early. That is people that have bought spectrum
at auction can't use it until current broadcasts are ready to move or
until they get paid off. Those broadcasters who got their spectrum for
free now get to also pick the citizens pocket by demanding payment to
stop squatting on spectrum that is no longer theirs.

Understand that anyone who has purchased spectrum at auction has to
factor in and deduct from his highest bid that money they expect to have
to pay to the squatting broadcaster. That money deducted is money taken
from the taxpayer. And who facilitated this monstrous rip off? We the
peoples representatives in DC. The one descenting Senator as I remember
was Senator McCain. A real hero.

If you want to ban broadcasters from doing some things call up your
Senator or Congressperson and give them the list.

In the meantime I really would like to steal some of the spectrum the
the broadcasters got for free. Can you tell me how?

As a citizen I would like to get that money that was/is/will be stolen
from us as broadcasters make deals with spectrum winners.

As a spectrum winner I do not like the idea of paying again to a third
party and competitor money that by right should go to the treasury of
the US.

Bob Miller
>
> -- Mark --
>
> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
> Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
April 24, 2004 9:02:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <yklic.9649$e4.1605@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
> Mark Crispin wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe you should try to read one of my post on the subject for a change.
>>
>>
>> I read your posts, and you keep on puttin your fingers in your ears and
>> screaming the same things in spite of evidence to the contrary.
>>
>>> In the UK they had early receivers that are still in use that were not
>>> porperly designed that had problems with impulse noise. Couple that
>>> with the very low power that is being broadcast and the particular
>>> kind of early version COFDM they were using did cause a problem with
>>> impulse noise. Later better desinged receivers, a doulbing of power
>>> levels to around ONE kW and a chnage in the type of COFDM modulation
>>> from 64 QAM to 16 QAm have all but eliminated any impulse noise
>>> problem except for the old receivers.
>>
>>
>> If that is the case, why are people in England still complaining about
>> impulse noise problems with the new receivers?
>
> There are close to 5 million receivers in the UK now. AFAIK there are
> very few problems of any kind. Maybe a few receivers are defective.
>
Too many problems with the UK scheme are happening to 'blow off' by
your positive spin. Almost every day, I watch my US HDTV OTA signals,
with few problems... (My NTSC reception, on similar channels, is
quite ugly with lots of color shifting and multipath.)

If 8VSB was 'bad', I wouldn't be watching OTA HDTV. If you were
correct, I wouldn't be watching 'Enterprise' in HDTV (ch 32) from a station
that is 35+miles away with an (RS, two bay bowtie) indoor antenna. The
same antenna, provides me with the more local UHF stations. The only
major 'foobar' is the one local hi-VHF station, but it is also easy to
receive, but I use rabbit ears. (Yes, even rabbit ears can work with
8VSB reception, and damned stable.)

John
April 25, 2004 2:41:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote> >> kind of early version COFDM
they were using did cause a problem with
>
> There are close to 5 million receivers in the UK now. AFAIK there are
> very few problems of any kind.

Why are so many postings from England STILL complaining about
impulse noise problems with the new receivers?
Because England's COFDM system is frail and compromised?
Anonymous
April 25, 2004 8:17:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

David wrote:

> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote> >> kind of early version COFDM
> they were using did cause a problem with
>
>>There are close to 5 million receivers in the UK now. AFAIK there are
>>very few problems of any kind.
>
>
> Why are so many postings from England STILL complaining about
> impulse noise problems with the new receivers?
> Because England's COFDM system is frail and compromised?
>
>
Frail? Yes very frail. The average transmitter is at ONE kW ERP compared
to the MILLION Watt US transmitters.

Compromised? Yes they have only 80 transmitter sites whereas they have
more than a thousand analog sites at higher power. They are also using a
very early version of COFDM.

And still the viewer is buying all the receivers they can get, there are
a hundred different models and the lowest priced one is around $48.

It is the most successful electronic product in history. Similar story
in Berlin and now Italy.

Can't wait to see if France goes HDTV because that will be a major
success if they do it right.
!