Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

This months "Masked Engineer"

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
April 27, 2004 5:22:27 AM

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

The Masked Engineer: Mario Orazio
The Meaning of HDTV Ain't Very Clear

You might not have noticed that there's probably as much news on the
north side of a mountain as there is on the south side. Think about it.

Meanwhile, what I really want to rant about this month is good old high
definition. The problem is defining definition and figuring out how high
is high -- that and some other stuff.

Let me start with the good noncommercial folks at PBS. At CBS, the "S"
stands for system. At PBS, the "S" stands for service. I ain't exactly
sure what that's supposed to mean, but I know that "service" is what a
bull might provide to a cow, and methinks there's some bull in the
latest PBS HD.

At least they're upfront about it. Right in the headline of the press
release about the new PBS HD channel they wrote, "PBS to launch 'PBS HD
Channel' March 1, 2004, featuring state-of-the-art, award-winning
programming in high definition and widescreen."

Now, then, you might figure that the mention of "high definition" and
"widescreen" was to emphasize the two main features of HD pictures:
increased resolution and a wider aspect ratio. But, no, the reason PBS
mentioned widescreen separately from HD is that a good chunk of what
will be carried on the PBS HD Channel ain't going to be in HD, just
widescreen standard-def.

How good a chunk? A PBS executive speaking at a conference in February
said the ratio of programming coming in was then running around 5:1 for
non-HD widescreen to actual HD. Now there's a wide ratio for you.

ALL THE HD NEWS THAT FITS

But sometimes the problem is a strict adherence to HD being HD. For
instance, have you had a look at Voom, the satellite service offering
more HD than any other multichannel provider? Nah, you probably ain't.
They started up last October, but, even though they weren't charging a
penny for service through the end of February, as of Leap Year Day they
had barely more than 1,600 "subscribers."

Anyhow, they do offer more HD than anyone else. Most of it is movies,
which is A-OK in my book. Another channel, Moov (they prefer that the
"oo" in the middle be replaced by an infinity symbol, but I can't count
that high), is just funky patterns that must have traveled through a
time warp from a 1960s light show, which is also fine. But then there's
a channel called HDN.

HDN is High Definition News. Every single frame in it is HDTV, all
right, but this time that's the problem.

I can't remember who it was, but some newscaster who'd moved from CBS to
ABC once complained about how visual the latter network was. "If you
said, 'that's water under the bridge,'" he reported, "you'd better have
a picture of a bridge with water flowing under it."

TV news concentrates on stories that have pictures. Satellite-gathered
news ignores stories on the north sides of mountains (in the northern
hemisphere) on account of being unable to see the satellite from there.

Voom's HDN carries only stories shot in HD. So, on a day recently when
stories like the war in Iraq, the U.S. presidential election and the
conflict in Haiti were dominating other news sources, HDN's top story
was that non-Chinese businesses, like McDonald's, were showing up in New
York's Chinatown. Methinks it took up about half the newscast. The
weather reports for Africa and Central Asia took up another good chunk
(the maps were gloriously HD sharp). No Iraq. No Haiti. No election.

HDN is definitely HD. It just ain't particularly news.

Then there's the story of another recent HD-related start-up, USDTV. The
home page of its Web site says, "USDTV is simply the most affordable way
to view HDTV."

I'll sort of buy that (in a linguistic sense; I'm pretty tapped out
otherwise). To watch HDTV, you need an off-air receiver, an HD cable box
or an HD satellite box. Time Warner Cable charges zilch extra for its HD
cable boxes, but its monthly fee for service that includes HD ain't
lower than USDTV's $19.95, and the other cable ops charge even more.

Voom goes for twice as much per month as USDTV (now that it's charging),
and the other satellite folks can't beat them either. And USDTV charges
just $99.95 for it's off-air HD receiver-installed; methinks not even
the computer-card folks charge that little. So I'll sort of buy their
cheapness argument-for a few more months anyhow.

On July 1, the beginning of the digital "tuner" mandate kicks in. That's
supposed to mean that, when you buy an HDTV display, you get an off-air
digital receiver included free. Free is cheaper than $99.99. And free
offers exactly the same amount of HD as USDTV's $19.95 a month. But
there's more.

USDTV says its total first-year cost is $339.35-equipment and service.
That compares favorably on its Web site with what they say Comcast
($699.48), DirecTV ($866.88) and DISH ($769.80) would charge. They don't
figure on stuff like Gateway's free receiver offers, but methinks they
might still be cheaper.

But the monthly service (aside from helping to subsidize the cost of the
receiver) delivers zero HDTV. All the HD that USDTV "carries" is the HD
that's already available for free from broadcasters. This is listed by
USDTV as "All local HD channels, plus HDTV for all the best programs &
big TV events on the broadcast networks."

I like that "plus." It's not just broadcast HDTV but also broadcast
network HDTV shows. Uh-huh.

Anyhow, methinks you might be able to buy an off-air HD receiver
(definitely at least a computer card) for less than $339.35. And you get
exactly the same amount of HD.

The really scary thing is that USDTV might actually be preventing
viewers from getting all the HDTV they otherwise would. It all has to do
with what you do get for the $19.95 a month -- 10 standard-def cable-ish
channels: Discovery, Disney, ESPN and other stuff like that there. USDTV
gets local broadcasters to carry those channels as conditional-access
multicasts.

In USDTV's first market, Salt Lake City, the local UPN affiliate, KJZZ,
carries four of those cable-ish channels, including both ESPN and ESPN2.
That means USDTV has contracted for a big chunk of data rate on KJZZ.
That means KJZZ can't carry HDTV programming, which UPN started to offer
last season. So maybe you don't really get "all" the best programs on
the broadcast networks. Or maybe USDTV doesn't consider UPN's HD
offerings to be in the "best" category.

MAKING IT UP

Then there are our pals at the Consumer Electronics Association,
abbreviated CEA, and pronounced See-ya. Methinks I ranted a little about
this last month, but Nellie the Neuron can't remember it, so here I go
again.

In case your memory is even just twice as good as mine, I'd better
remind you that See-ya is the organization that defined "digital
television product" in such a way that there doesn't have to be anything
digital about it beyond the on/off switch. Oh yeah, and See-ya's
definition of "digital television product" doesn't necessarily have
anything to do with its own definition of "digital television." Is
America a great country or what?

Anyhow, CEA from time to time releases two different kinds of figures
about how things are going in its bailiwick. One set is of figures for
factory sales to dealers. It gathers those from reports from its
members. The other set is for household penetration. "Penetration," in
this case, ain't got anything to do with the bull's service; it's what
percent of homes have different consumer-electronics gadgets like TVs
and telephones.

They gather those household-penetration statistics from telephone
surveys -- except the figure for household penetration of HDTV. They
make that one up.

That last sentence is not meant to insult See-ya. As a matter of fact,
the reason they make the number up is that they recognize that the
phone-survey number is wrong. They recognize that the phone-survey
number is wrong on account of its being considerably higher than all the
HDTVs that have ever been sold to dealers.

So, to sum up, what's carried on an HD channel ain't necessarily HD, HD
News ain't necessarily news, a service that promotes broadcast HD helps
prevent broadcast HD, and folks without HD think they've got it anyway.
Have a nice day.

More about : months masked engineer

April 27, 2004 5:58:02 AM

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

"Billy" <fake@fake.net> wrote in message
news:nBijc.35407$t26.11690986@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> The Masked Engineer: Mario Orazio
> The Meaning of HDTV Ain't Very Clear

This "Masked" guy is a true word-smith with great insight into what is
really going on. A must read in my opinion.

Richard
Anonymous
April 27, 2004 7:30:26 PM

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

"Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:K6jjc.20470$X14.12708@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> "Billy" <fake@fake.net> wrote in message
> news:nBijc.35407$t26.11690986@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> > The Masked Engineer: Mario Orazio
> > The Meaning of HDTV Ain't Very Clear
>
> This "Masked" guy is a true word-smith with great insight into what is
> really going on. A must read in my opinion.
>
> Richard

Agreed. I just found his other stories here:

http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Masked-Engineer/in...
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 6:16:46 AM

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

this old user wrote:

> "Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:K6jjc.20470$X14.12708@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
>>"Billy" <fake@fake.net> wrote in message
>>news:nBijc.35407$t26.11690986@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>>
>>>The Masked Engineer: Mario Orazio
>>>The Meaning of HDTV Ain't Very Clear
>>
>>This "Masked" guy is a true word-smith with great insight into what is
>>really going on. A must read in my opinion.
>>
>>Richard
>
>
> Agreed. I just found his other stories here:
>
> http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Masked-Engineer/in...
>
>

Isn't Mario great? I look forward to every column. This is from his
column of 10/31/2000.
http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Masked-Engineer/mo...

The Sinclair petition was to ALLOW COFDM in ADDITION TO not to REPLACE
8-SVB. Mario makes the point that if 8-VSB was superior to COFDM then
the quickest way to dispose of the Sinclair petition was to approve it
since no broadcaster would use an obviously inferior modulation and
COFDM would just go away. It was as Mario points out the obvious
superiority of COFDM that caused all the fuss about it. Mario always
makes eminent sense.

This is from his column of 10/31/2000.
http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Masked-Engineer/mo...

"That brings me back to the opening line of this month's column. If
8-VSB is, in fact, better than COFDM, then all the acrimony and
confusion caused by the Sinclair petition could have easily been
eliminated by simply approving it. There would have been no more
debates. There would have been no threatened lawsuits. There would have
been no lobbying of congressional caucuses devoted to urban areas.

If 8-VSB is, in fact, better than COFDM, then the easiest way to put
this sordid period behind us would have been to approve the petition.
Sinclair would have then won a Pyrrhic victory. They could have enjoyed
winning the battle but losing the war.

Yes, if 8-VSB is the superior transmission system, there was absolutely
no reason not to approve the petition and get Sinclair out of our hair
once and for all. Of course, if I had a vested interest in 8-VSB and was
worried that it was not the better of the two, I'd fight the Sinclair
petition tooth and nail. I'd risk the Congressional lobbying, court
battles and bad publicity. I'd have to. The head start that 8-VSB has
could disappear once it was shown that COFDM was superior. Oh, yes, I
would definitely fight the Sinclair petition if I had a vested interest
in 8-VSB but knew or feared COFDM was superior.

Because everyone opposed to the Sinclair petition says 8-VSB is
superior, however, there's no reason to create a fuss. We all should
have welcomed the Sinclair petition with open arms (by which I do not
mean "brandishing an unconcealed weapon")."
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 6:32:12 AM

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

this old user wrote:

> "Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:K6jjc.20470$X14.12708@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
>>"Billy" <fake@fake.net> wrote in message
>>news:nBijc.35407$t26.11690986@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>>
>>>The Masked Engineer: Mario Orazio
>>>The Meaning of HDTV Ain't Very Clear
>>
>>This "Masked" guy is a true word-smith with great insight into what is
>>really going on. A must read in my opinion.
>>
>>Richard
>
>
> Agreed. I just found his other stories here:
>
> http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Masked-Engineer/in...
>
>
In 2001 he had this to say.
http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Masked-Engineer/f-...

"Okay, I'm done with the past. Time to go into coast mode for a while
and let some other folks do the writing. This is from the MSTV test
report executive summary:

- Baltimore/Washington outdoor antenna on a 6-foot mast - "Successful
reception of either system [COFDM or 8-VSB] was achieved at less than 50
percent of sites, which is disappointing." Merely disappointing?

- Baltimore/Washington indoor antenna - "Successful indoor reception was
achieved at only about 30 percent of sites, which is disappointing."
Still just disappointing?

- Cleveland outdoor antenna on a 6-foot mast - "8VSB achieved only a 28
percent success rate, which is disappointing." Methinks I detect a
pattern here.

- Cleveland indoor antenna - "However, even 8-VSB achieved only a 26
percent success rate, which is disappointing." My, my!

This is from an ATSC press release dated January 19, 2001, carrying the
comments of Robert Graves on the recent developments:

" ... further improvements are in the pipeline from a variety of
manufacturers. Moreover, work is under way within the ATSC to further
enhance the ATSC/VSB standard by adding more robust transmission modes
that address emerging DTV applications, and we expect to issue a Request
for Proposals for these enhancements shortly." Uh-huh. I wonder if
reception is considered an "emerging DTV application."


Well you have to admit that in the three years since the above rant by
Mario 8-VSB has improved. A recent MSTV test hit 65% with a state of the
are receiver compared to the 30, 28 and 26% reception rates of the 2000
test. 8-VSB is getting better and in 5 or 10 years may be as good as
COFDM was in 1999.

You should read the whole article it is really good. Remember the COFDM
receiver in the above test was not a receiver but a transmitter monitor
and it still was as good as or better than 8-VSB in many of the test.
With a correct COFDM receiver or even with a minimum of front end
filters on the transmitter monitor the COFDM receive rate would have
approached 100% in these test.
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 6:36:06 AM

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

this old user wrote:

> "Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:K6jjc.20470$X14.12708@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
>>"Billy" <fake@fake.net> wrote in message
>>news:nBijc.35407$t26.11690986@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>>
>>>The Masked Engineer: Mario Orazio
>>>The Meaning of HDTV Ain't Very Clear
>>
>>This "Masked" guy is a true word-smith with great insight into what is
>>really going on. A must read in my opinion.
>>
>>Richard
>
>
> Agreed. I just found his other stories here:
>
> http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Masked-Engineer/in...
>
>

From the same article MORE good stuff!!!!

Mario speaks....
"I'm going to take a giant leap here and say that it seems to me that
something ain't working. Now, then, once again, I ain't going to say
8-VSB is bad or COFDM is better, but it seems to me that Sinclair's
petition never called for junking 8-VSB, just for giving broadcasters
the option of COFDM.

DELAY, SHMAY

"But, Mario, what about the delay that would introduce? What about the
cost of adding COFDM reception capability?"

Delay that would introduce? The ATSC is just now planning to ask for
RFPs to make 8-VSB more robust, and you're asking about the delay the
addition of COFDM would introduce? Our Bountiful Commish is asking for
higher power levels at the end of 2004, and you're talking about delay
now? Sinclair made its proposal 2 years ago. No, I don't think I'm
capable of answering your question about delay – at least not civilly.

As for your second question, you might have noticed a paragraph at the
end of my history section about all the new 8-VSB set-top box receivers
out there. Matter of fact, I'd say you can't buy an 8-VSB STB receiver
without satellite-reception capability anymore.

"What's your point, Mario?"

My point is that it's one whole heck of a lot harder to add satellite
reception (dish aimed at the satellite with no obstructions, low-noise
amplifier, different RF bandwidth, QPSK demod, completely different data
package, different video coding) to an 8-VSB receiver than to add COFDM.
If there were only one 8-VSB/satellite receiver around, and if it cost
more than all the rest, then I'd say that the satellite reception
capability didn't mean anything. But when all the STB 8-VSB receivers
have satellite capability, including the least expensive of them, it's
kind of hard to complain with a straight face about the cost of adding
COFDM."
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 6:46:34 AM

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

In article <iuEjc.12544$eZ5.5830@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
> this old user wrote:
>
>> "Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:K6jjc.20470$X14.12708@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>>
>>>"Billy" <fake@fake.net> wrote in message
>>>news:nBijc.35407$t26.11690986@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>>>
>>>>The Masked Engineer: Mario Orazio
>>>>The Meaning of HDTV Ain't Very Clear
>>>
>>>This "Masked" guy is a true word-smith with great insight into what is
>>>really going on. A must read in my opinion.
>>>
>>>Richard
>>
>>
>> Agreed. I just found his other stories here:
>>
>> http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Masked-Engineer/in...
>>
>>
>
> Isn't Mario great? I look forward to every column. This is from his
> column of 10/31/2000.
> http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Masked-Engineer/mo...
>
> The Sinclair petition was to ALLOW COFDM in ADDITION TO not to REPLACE
> 8-SVB. Mario makes the point that if 8-VSB was superior to COFDM then
> the quickest way to dispose of the Sinclair petition was to approve it
> since no broadcaster would use an obviously inferior modulation and
>
Splitting the market would have caused a similar mess that happened
to AM stereo. Result: destroyed HDTV, and happy Bob filling the
spectrum with his spew advertisements on mass transit all over the
country. Even better, maybe Bob will be able to distribute
entertainment video directly to the commuters driver seat? Not!!!
(Entertainment video in the car is best provided by DVD, WRT
the parental control issues and the FACT that the US isn't practical
to fully support with OTA video signals -- not even cellular is
fully supported.)

Truly, the only apparent purpose for Bob's spectrum use is for
the further uglification of America. This opinion has nothing to
do with modulation scheme, and only with Bob's useless application.

John
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 6:46:35 AM

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

One point here John

Just because it would have caused problems with splitting the market does
not mean tht 8VSB was the superior choice.

From what I have read it appears the early choice of 8VSB was made based on
a misadjusted CODFM receiver and the fact that at the time CODFM was not
completely developed to handle the bandwidth for HDTV In addition the 8VSB
held an edge in the fringe reception areas. Since the US has a big stick
philosophy (One big antenna) it seemed to the FCC 8VSB was the way to go.

Sinclair group realized this and asked for reconsideration. Sincliar wanted
CODFM because they realized it did work better when your in the city close
to the transmitter and in mobile sites. The FCC did consider it but their
response was 8VSB was good enough and it was to late to change This is far
from saying that it was superior. Basically they said good enough for
governmment work and moved on to their next problem. I think even Bob would
have to admit 8VSB works. Techniclly Beta was superior to VHS, but VHS was
accepted by the market.

I will also note that most of the countries who use CODFM (most of the
world) place emphasis on smaller transmitters and repeaters to cover the
major population areas. In short they do not have the big stick frame of
mind. Also note that repeaters/translators are certainly used in the US.
especially to cover mountainous areas.

I hope I did not offend the MIGHTY PAGAN GOD 8-V-S-B to much. Some of
worshippers may try to mug us.


Richard R.



"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:c6n5ua$o9g$1@news.iquest.net...
> In article <iuEjc.12544$eZ5.5830@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
> > this old user wrote:
> >
> >> "Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> >> news:K6jjc.20470$X14.12708@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> >>
> >>>"Billy" <fake@fake.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:nBijc.35407$t26.11690986@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> >>>
> >>>>The Masked Engineer: Mario Orazio
> >>>>The Meaning of HDTV Ain't Very Clear
> >>>
> >>>This "Masked" guy is a true word-smith with great insight into what is
> >>>really going on. A must read in my opinion.
> >>>
> >>>Richard
> >>
> >>
> >> Agreed. I just found his other stories here:
> >>
> >> http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Masked-Engineer/in...
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Isn't Mario great? I look forward to every column. This is from his
> > column of 10/31/2000.
> >
http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Masked-Engineer/mo...
> >
> > The Sinclair petition was to ALLOW COFDM in ADDITION TO not to REPLACE
> > 8-SVB. Mario makes the point that if 8-VSB was superior to COFDM then
> > the quickest way to dispose of the Sinclair petition was to approve it
> > since no broadcaster would use an obviously inferior modulation and
> >
> Splitting the market would have caused a similar mess that happened
> to AM stereo. Result: destroyed HDTV, and happy Bob filling the
> spectrum with his spew advertisements on mass transit all over the
> country. Even better, maybe Bob will be able to distribute
> entertainment video directly to the commuters driver seat? Not!!!
> (Entertainment video in the car is best provided by DVD, WRT
> the parental control issues and the FACT that the US isn't practical
> to fully support with OTA video signals -- not even cellular is
> fully supported.)
>
> Truly, the only apparent purpose for Bob's spectrum use is for
> the further uglification of America. This opinion has nothing to
> do with modulation scheme, and only with Bob's useless application.
>
> John
>
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 8:13:45 AM

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

In article <QvCdndwPuphquBLdRVn-sw@wideopenwest.com>,
"Richard R" <jwerir@wideopenwest.com> writes:
> One point here John
>
> Just because it would have caused problems with splitting the market does
> not mean tht 8VSB was the superior choice.
>
Note that it is a false compromise for the anti-HDTV advocacy
to split the market into both COFDM and 8VSB transports. By
splitting the market, the probability of weakening HDTV OTA
is increased further, and the spectrum/payload is even more
likely to be temporarily used for the hair brained data and
advertizing schemes until their demise. Of course, OTA HDTV will
be long dead by then.

The relative merits of 8VSB vs. COFDM are unimportant now for HDTV
in the US (ignoring the negative effects of anti-HDTV FUD.) Splitting
the market is what Bob had suggested. Knowing that he couldn't
force the entire change in direction to COFDM, his data/non-HDTV
advocacy was trying to find another, perhaps superior way to
weaken HDTV (and leave the spectrum free for non-HDTV use.)
Splitting the market to weaken HDTV (make the payload available)
vs. using COFDM (which will also temporarily compete with HDTV,
until the silly data ventures die) are both destructive to HDTV
in the longer term.

>
> Sinclair group realized this and asked for reconsideration. Sincliar wanted
> CODFM because they realized it did work better when your in the city close
> to the transmitter and in mobile sites.
>
When looking at history, Sinclair had been quite slow in the deployment
of HDTV. Sinclair obviously wanted COFDM because of the non-TV
applications (mostly mobile) that would have been more profitable
for them. They apparently have had cash problems, and were apparently
trying to find new (non-HDTV) revenue streams. This is similar
to Bobs kind of application. (Some data applications will happen
for either 8VSB or COFDM, but the most lucrative but hair brained
schemes appear to be mobile/COFDM friendly.)

>
> This is far
> from saying that it was superior.
>
The pro-COFDM advocacy has been trying to create a situation
that forces HDTV advocates into one or the other modulation camp.
They wish that they were forcing the pro-HDTV advocates into
the COFDM camp, but the COFDM advocates THEMSELVES and their
non-HDTV APPLICATIONS cause that advocacy to effectively decrease
the desirability of COFDM.

Few HDTV advocates are pro-8VSB or pro-COFDM (I am neither.)
As soon as someone tries to describe an HDTV advocate as
an 8VSB advocate, this is meant to create a series of
straw arguments.

If you look at Bob, he is NOT an HDTV advocate, yet is also
a COFDM advocate with interest in using the payload for
primarily non-HDTV applications.


>
> I hope I did not offend the MIGHTY PAGAN GOD 8-V-S-B to much. Some of
> worshippers may try to mug us.
>
Aren't you creating a false argument as I alluded to above (and have
commented on in the past?) I doubt that you'll find ANY pro-8VSB
advocates in the newsgroup, but you'll find pro-COFDM advocates
who are CLEARLY trying to (ab)use the spectrum and payload for
PRIMARILY non-HDTV applications. The collateral damage for silly
saturation advertising scams will be the damage against HDTV,
and the silly snake oil COFDM advocates will eventually die
also. The net result will be the loss/weakening of HDTV, and
the scams will die...

In the US, given the US regulatory, propagation, snake oil and
geography situation, the COFDM package is almost definitely
inferior. The technical advantages/disadvantages of the
low level modulation scheme are only a PORTION of the decision
process. In a way, Bob and Sinclar are a large reason why
COFDM is wrong for the US. A real engineer (not just a techie)
understands that the tradeoffs are based upon numerous
external factors. Bob and his ilk contribute to the
disadvantages of COFDM. It is short-sighted to
select portions of the inputs and use them selectively
as the criteria (e.g. ignoring the planned abuse of the
HDTV spectrum for mobile applications is definitely short
sighted.)

John
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 8:13:46 AM

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

John,

This could happen any way. 8VSB can be split into multiple streams. So
indeed the stations could sell video stream for non-hdtv purposes such as
infomercials. Once you split the streams you do not have room for HDTV just
DTV. they do not need Bob or CODFM to do this.

Richard R.

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:c6nb1p$q4t$1@news.iquest.net...
> In article <QvCdndwPuphquBLdRVn-sw@wideopenwest.com>,
> "Richard R" <jwerir@wideopenwest.com> writes:

> If you look at Bob, he is NOT an HDTV advocate, yet is also
> a COFDM advocate with interest in using the payload for
> primarily non-HDTV applications.
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 9:26:21 AM

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

Richard R wrote:

> One point here John
>
> Just because it would have caused problems with splitting the market does
> not mean tht 8VSB was the superior choice.
>
> From what I have read it appears the early choice of 8VSB was made based on
> a misadjusted CODFM receiver and the fact that at the time CODFM was not
> completely developed to handle the bandwidth for HDTV In addition the 8VSB
> held an edge in the fringe reception areas. Since the US has a big stick
> philosophy (One big antenna) it seemed to the FCC 8VSB was the way to go.

The early choice of 8-VSB was made with only a minor and dismissive look
at COFDM. In most cases when given an opportunity to study, test or
evaluate COFDM all US parties ignored the subject.

Later after Sinclair separately had evaluated COFDM vs 8-VSB a
controversy flared, hearings were held and a test was conducted mostly
in 2000. The COFDM receiver was NOT in any way a receiver. It was
labeled and built for one purpose and that was to be connected via wire
to a transmitter as a MONITOR, a transmitter monitor. The testers
actively AVOIDED all other REAL and AVAILABLE COFDM receivers. I
personally had three different makes of COFDM 6 MHz receivers. I offered
to help obtain receivers for the testers and was firmly told they had
all the receivers they needed. Pace Ltd. offered to supply receivers. It
was not in the interest of the testers before, during or after the test
to use real COFDM receivers.

COFDM DVB-T was fully capable of doing HDTV 1080i in the summer of 2000
at the hearings in DC and did so in a large hearing room before the
press. This demonstration was MOBILE, and at a higher data rate than
8-VSB is capable of disproving two of the canards used by the 8-VSB
proponents. COFDM had been demonstrated earlier in 2000 at the NAB
Convention where it did HDTV 720p and an SD program at the same time in
one 6 MHz channel. These were receivable both mobile all over Las Vegas
but also in the convention center.

Just last week Zenith refused even when asked to show reception with a
fixed antenna in a convention center at the 2004 NAB at their booth even
though it was right next to a full floor to ceiling window.

8-VSB did not hold an edge in the fringe area. In the fake test in 2000
for example of seven "far field" (fringe) locations where the test
showed no COFDM reception and where 8-VSB had no reception in one of
those locations, Sinclair went back after the test was over with the
infamous "transmitter monitor" but with front end filters and found that
COFDM was able to easily receive a signal in ALL SEVEN locations
including the one 8-VSB could not receive at.

The US does not have a big stick philosophy. The US in the past has used
big sticks and high power transmitters and 5000 translator stations in
30% of our land mass. Most other countries did the same or similar IN
THE PAST. Now other countries have chosen COFDM DVB-T and have adopted a
new philosophy of broadcasting which is lower powered transmitters that
give a better and more even coverage. DVB-T COFDM facilitates this.
>
> Sinclair group realized this and asked for reconsideration. Sincliar wanted
> CODFM because they realized it did work better when your in the city close
> to the transmitter and in mobile sites.

Sinclair also realized that COFDM was better across the board in all
areas including rural.

The FCC did consider it but their
> response was 8VSB was good enough and it was to late to change This is far
> from saying that it was superior. Basically they said good enough for
> governmment work and moved on to their next problem. I think even Bob would
> have to admit 8VSB works. Techniclly Beta was superior to VHS, but VHS was
> accepted by the market.

I do not admit that 8-VSB works. Works means that a high enough
percentage of people can receive the signal easily and cheap enough so
that OTA can compete with satellite and cable for customers. If this is
not achieved then the number of viewers that use OTA will continue to
decline and OTA will die. The death of OTA or the continued decline in
viewers who use OTA says failure. Failure means it doesn't work.
>
> I will also note that most of the countries who use CODFM (most of the
> world) place emphasis on smaller transmitters and repeaters to cover the
> major population areas. In short they do not have the big stick frame of
> mind. Also note that repeaters/translators are certainly used in the US.
> especially to cover mountainous areas.
>
> I hope I did not offend the MIGHTY PAGAN GOD 8-V-S-B to much. Some of
> worshippers may try to mug us.
>
>
> Richard R.
>
>
>
> "John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
> news:c6n5ua$o9g$1@news.iquest.net...
>
>>In article <iuEjc.12544$eZ5.5830@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>>Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
>>
>>>this old user wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:K6jjc.20470$X14.12708@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Billy" <fake@fake.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:nBijc.35407$t26.11690986@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The Masked Engineer: Mario Orazio
>>>>>>The Meaning of HDTV Ain't Very Clear
>>>>>
>>>>>This "Masked" guy is a true word-smith with great insight into what is
>>>>>really going on. A must read in my opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>>Richard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Agreed. I just found his other stories here:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Masked-Engineer/in...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Isn't Mario great? I look forward to every column. This is from his
>>>column of 10/31/2000.
>>>
>
> http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Masked-Engineer/mo...
>
>>>The Sinclair petition was to ALLOW COFDM in ADDITION TO not to REPLACE
>>>8-SVB. Mario makes the point that if 8-VSB was superior to COFDM then
>>>the quickest way to dispose of the Sinclair petition was to approve it
>>>since no broadcaster would use an obviously inferior modulation and
>>>
>>
>>Splitting the market would have caused a similar mess that happened
>>to AM stereo. Result: destroyed HDTV, and happy Bob filling the
>>spectrum with his spew advertisements on mass transit all over the
>>country. Even better, maybe Bob will be able to distribute
>>entertainment video directly to the commuters driver seat? Not!!!
>>(Entertainment video in the car is best provided by DVD, WRT
>>the parental control issues and the FACT that the US isn't practical
>>to fully support with OTA video signals -- not even cellular is
>>fully supported.)
>>
>>Truly, the only apparent purpose for Bob's spectrum use is for
>>the further uglification of America. This opinion has nothing to
>>do with modulation scheme, and only with Bob's useless application.
>>
>>John
>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 10:03:59 AM

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

Bob,

What was your work in 2000 that had you involved in this ?

Richard R.

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1gHjc.12723$eZ5.8691@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Richard R wrote:
>
> > One point here John
> >
> > Just because it would have caused problems with splitting the market
does
> > not mean tht 8VSB was the superior choice.
> >
> > From what I have read it appears the early choice of 8VSB was made based
on
> > a misadjusted CODFM receiver and the fact that at the time CODFM was not
> > completely developed to handle the bandwidth for HDTV In addition the
8VSB
> > held an edge in the fringe reception areas. Since the US has a big
stick
> > philosophy (One big antenna) it seemed to the FCC 8VSB was the way to
go.
>
> The early choice of 8-VSB was made with only a minor and dismissive look
> at COFDM. In most cases when given an opportunity to study, test or
> evaluate COFDM all US parties ignored the subject.
>
> Later after Sinclair separately had evaluated COFDM vs 8-VSB a
> controversy flared, hearings were held and a test was conducted mostly
> in 2000. The COFDM receiver was NOT in any way a receiver. It was
> labeled and built for one purpose and that was to be connected via wire
> to a transmitter as a MONITOR, a transmitter monitor. The testers
> actively AVOIDED all other REAL and AVAILABLE COFDM receivers. I
> personally had three different makes of COFDM 6 MHz receivers. I offered
> to help obtain receivers for the testers and was firmly told they had
> all the receivers they needed. Pace Ltd. offered to supply receivers. It
> was not in the interest of the testers before, during or after the test
> to use real COFDM receivers.
>
> COFDM DVB-T was fully capable of doing HDTV 1080i in the summer of 2000
> at the hearings in DC and did so in a large hearing room before the
> press. This demonstration was MOBILE, and at a higher data rate than
> 8-VSB is capable of disproving two of the canards used by the 8-VSB
> proponents. COFDM had been demonstrated earlier in 2000 at the NAB
> Convention where it did HDTV 720p and an SD program at the same time in
> one 6 MHz channel. These were receivable both mobile all over Las Vegas
> but also in the convention center.
>
> Just last week Zenith refused even when asked to show reception with a
> fixed antenna in a convention center at the 2004 NAB at their booth even
> though it was right next to a full floor to ceiling window.
>
> 8-VSB did not hold an edge in the fringe area. In the fake test in 2000
> for example of seven "far field" (fringe) locations where the test
> showed no COFDM reception and where 8-VSB had no reception in one of
> those locations, Sinclair went back after the test was over with the
> infamous "transmitter monitor" but with front end filters and found that
> COFDM was able to easily receive a signal in ALL SEVEN locations
> including the one 8-VSB could not receive at.
>
> The US does not have a big stick philosophy. The US in the past has used
> big sticks and high power transmitters and 5000 translator stations in
> 30% of our land mass. Most other countries did the same or similar IN
> THE PAST. Now other countries have chosen COFDM DVB-T and have adopted a
> new philosophy of broadcasting which is lower powered transmitters that
> give a better and more even coverage. DVB-T COFDM facilitates this.
> >
> > Sinclair group realized this and asked for reconsideration. Sincliar
wanted
> > CODFM because they realized it did work better when your in the city
close
> > to the transmitter and in mobile sites.
>
> Sinclair also realized that COFDM was better across the board in all
> areas including rural.
>
> The FCC did consider it but their
> > response was 8VSB was good enough and it was to late to change This is
far
> > from saying that it was superior. Basically they said good enough for
> > governmment work and moved on to their next problem. I think even Bob
would
> > have to admit 8VSB works. Techniclly Beta was superior to VHS, but VHS
was
> > accepted by the market.
>
> I do not admit that 8-VSB works. Works means that a high enough
> percentage of people can receive the signal easily and cheap enough so
> that OTA can compete with satellite and cable for customers. If this is
> not achieved then the number of viewers that use OTA will continue to
> decline and OTA will die. The death of OTA or the continued decline in
> viewers who use OTA says failure. Failure means it doesn't work.
> >
> > I will also note that most of the countries who use CODFM (most of the
> > world) place emphasis on smaller transmitters and repeaters to cover
the
> > major population areas. In short they do not have the big stick frame
of
> > mind. Also note that repeaters/translators are certainly used in the
US.
> > especially to cover mountainous areas.
> >
> > I hope I did not offend the MIGHTY PAGAN GOD 8-V-S-B to much. Some of
> > worshippers may try to mug us.
> >
> >
> > Richard R.
> >
> >
> >
> > "John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
> > news:c6n5ua$o9g$1@news.iquest.net...
> >
> >>In article <iuEjc.12544$eZ5.5830@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> >>Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
> >>
> >>>this old user wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:K6jjc.20470$X14.12708@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Billy" <fake@fake.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:nBijc.35407$t26.11690986@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>The Masked Engineer: Mario Orazio
> >>>>>>The Meaning of HDTV Ain't Very Clear
> >>>>>
> >>>>>This "Masked" guy is a true word-smith with great insight into what
is
> >>>>>really going on. A must read in my opinion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Richard
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Agreed. I just found his other stories here:
> >>>>
> >>>>http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Masked-Engineer/in...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Isn't Mario great? I look forward to every column. This is from his
> >>>column of 10/31/2000.
> >>>
> >
> >
http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Masked-Engineer/mo...
> >
> >>>The Sinclair petition was to ALLOW COFDM in ADDITION TO not to REPLACE
> >>>8-SVB. Mario makes the point that if 8-VSB was superior to COFDM then
> >>>the quickest way to dispose of the Sinclair petition was to approve it
> >>>since no broadcaster would use an obviously inferior modulation and
> >>>
> >>
> >>Splitting the market would have caused a similar mess that happened
> >>to AM stereo. Result: destroyed HDTV, and happy Bob filling the
> >>spectrum with his spew advertisements on mass transit all over the
> >>country. Even better, maybe Bob will be able to distribute
> >>entertainment video directly to the commuters driver seat? Not!!!
> >>(Entertainment video in the car is best provided by DVD, WRT
> >>the parental control issues and the FACT that the US isn't practical
> >>to fully support with OTA video signals -- not even cellular is
> >>fully supported.)
> >>
> >>Truly, the only apparent purpose for Bob's spectrum use is for
> >>the further uglification of America. This opinion has nothing to
> >>do with modulation scheme, and only with Bob's useless application.
> >>
> >>John
> >>
> >
> >
> >
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 5:59:18 PM

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

Richard R wrote:

> Bob,
>
> What was your work in 2000 that had you involved in this ?
>
> Richard R.
>
I got involved with LMDS for two way Internet wireless back in 1997.
That was 28 GHz spectrum. It had problems. Got interested in MMDS
wireless for two way Internet in 1997 later at 2.4 GHz. Then discovered
spectrum that was really sweet in the 700 MHz region which was LPTV
stations and the FCC had recently allowed a Texas LPTV to be used for
two way wireless Internet.

In early 1999 was testing 8-VSB for use in one way datacasting on LPTV
stations and was a big fan of HDTV and the use of the unused null
packets that make up most of the datarate of HDTV in most programming.
That is opportunistic datacasting on regular DTV stations. This type of
datacasting would not impinge on the HDTV program even for one bit of
data. The HDTV stream has priority.

Many confuse this with multicasting or schemes like E-VSB which
channelize the spectrum and would impact an HDTV. What is now inevitable
IMO is multicasting on most regular full power DTV stations. The end
game will be a single NTSC quality program in MPEG2 and multiple SD
programs in MPEG4 in a subscription service. All you have to do is look
at the broadcasters obsession in DC since 2000. Everything they have
been doing there has been related to multicasting must carry. You will
also find HDTV in the subscription side of this model but how much
remains to be seen.

So in 1999 we were working on using LPTV stations for datacasting and
using the variable opportunistic part of full power stations for
datacasting. I was very into 8-VSB and very into HDTV and cheered when
there was good news on any such front.

The only problem was we could not get anything to work reliably in NYC.
So in looking around (I had been reading about COFDM) I latched onto a
news report about Nokia and their Mediascreen that was being
demonstrated in Germany. It seemed to good to be true as had what I had
been reading about COFDM in general since we know the best tech is
usually US stuff. And I might add no one in the US seemed to be paying
any attention to this COFDM.

One thing was different with Nokia they were actually demonstrating a
working mobile COFDM DTV system with a cellular return (interactive TV).
Which was close to what we wanted to do. Called them and they said yes
datacasting was possible come and see. We did and were blown away. They
said they would build receivers for us for 6 MHz they did. We tested in
NYC and were now totally convinced since we were able to receive mobile
in the canyons of Wall St. with little power mobile.

We thought we had a big secret and couldn't fathom why US broadcasters
were not rabid supporters of COFDM. Then our bubble burst. Sinclair did
test in Baltimore of COFDM and we thought that our game was up. Now
broadcasters would do COFDM and there would be no room for us.

I cannot tell you how surprised we were when the ensuing battle between
8-VSB and COFDM erupted. It was surreal and it was only then that I
studied the TV/DTV realities in the US and began to understand the
political insanity that was taking place.

If you read the above carefully you will understand that if current
broadcasters can do COFDM we do not have a business plan as I have
stated many times. I am all for 8-VSB as a business person. I am
extremely conflicted because as a US citizen I see the present situation
as an horrible example of our political process gone astray.

BTW if you read the above you also will see that even with datacasting
on full power stations using 8-VSB my interest would be for the main
program of the broadcaster to be HDTV. This would allow the highest
opportunistic data rate. Multicasting with statistical multiplexing
would cut the amount of opportunistic data possible by 90%.

So if what I say here is true and it is what I have been saying since
2000 then most of the attacks against me are misinformed. And I would
add stubbornly incapable or even addressing the possibility that what I
say is possible or true.

My predictions have been pretty accurate as to the stagnation of the US
transition since 2000. My predictions as to the success of Berlin and
the UK have been more than dead on. My predictions about OZ were wildly
optimistic and wrong so far but it is only in the last few months that
OZ has had a MANDATED amount of HDTV programming and there receiver
sales are now spiking up.

My predictions are that OTA is dead in the US even with the MANDATE and
even with the Linx chip based receivers. Until reasonable modulation is
used in the US we are wasting our time.
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 8:39:47 PM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1gHjc.12723$eZ5.8691@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> I do not admit that 8-VSB works. Works means that a high enough
> percentage of people can receive the signal easily and cheap enough so
> that OTA can compete with satellite and cable for customers. If this is
> not achieved then the number of viewers that use OTA will continue to
> decline and OTA will die. The death of OTA or the continued decline in
> viewers who use OTA says failure. Failure means it doesn't work.

Can we all agree that this is the bottom line?

I live 35 miles from downtown Chicago (where all the TV transmitters are).
About six months ago, I bought an HDTV card for my computer and was pleased
to find that my existing 20-year-old chimney-mounted antenna was quite able
to pull in most HDTV channels in my area. More recently, I bought an HDTV
tuner whose reception was somewhat more robust, and then finally a Zenith
C32V37 integrated HDTV whose superior reception circuitry pulls in all HDTV
channels without difficulty.

On the other hand, I have a friend who lives much closer to downtown Chicago
(perhaps 20 miles). His attic-mounted antenna has been good enough for
analog TV, but when I gave him my HDTV tuner, he found to his dismay that it
receives only a few channels well. More precise positioning of the antenna
has not helped much. We are both afraid that his real problem is not
received power but rather multipath ghosting. It is unclear how much more
effort he's going to put into this: A new antenna? A new cable from the
attic to the family room? Or just give up, because his wife does not
welcome change anyway? Note that even perfect reception does require a
change in human behavior, because the differing program aspect ratios demand
frequent picture adjustment (switching between 16:9, 4:3, and Zoom).
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 8:39:48 PM

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

Lawrence G. Mayka (lgmayka000@ameritech.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> On the other hand, I have a friend who lives much closer to downtown Chicago
> (perhaps 20 miles). His attic-mounted antenna has been good enough for
> analog TV, but when I gave him my HDTV tuner, he found to his dismay that it
> receives only a few channels well.

I find it very hard to believe that he is getting the 50dB C/N required
for clear NTSC reception yet can't get the less than 20dB C/N required for
ATSC. I suspect that he is really getting about 20-30dB C/N for NTSC and
just lives with the fact that it isn't all that great.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/RhymesWithOrange/BigDogs.g...
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 9:04:56 PM

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

In article <n7Rjc.13139$o25.7539@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,
"Lawrence G. Mayka" <lgmayka000@ameritech.net> writes:
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1gHjc.12723$eZ5.8691@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> I do not admit that 8-VSB works. Works means that a high enough
>> percentage of people can receive the signal easily and cheap enough so
>> that OTA can compete with satellite and cable for customers. If this is
>> not achieved then the number of viewers that use OTA will continue to
>> decline and OTA will die. The death of OTA or the continued decline in
>> viewers who use OTA says failure. Failure means it doesn't work.
>
> Can we all agree that this is the bottom line?
>
> I live 35 miles from downtown Chicago (where all the TV transmitters are).
> About six months ago, I bought an HDTV card for my computer and was pleased
> to find that my existing 20-year-old chimney-mounted antenna was quite able
> to pull in most HDTV channels in my area. More recently, I bought an HDTV
> tuner whose reception was somewhat more robust, and then finally a Zenith
> C32V37 integrated HDTV whose superior reception circuitry pulls in all HDTV
> channels without difficulty.
>
As expected.

>
> On the other hand, I have a friend who lives much closer to downtown Chicago
> (perhaps 20 miles). His attic-mounted antenna has been good enough for
> analog TV, but when I gave him my HDTV tuner, he found to his dismay that it
> receives only a few channels well. More precise positioning of the antenna
> has not helped much. We are both afraid that his real problem is not
> received power but rather multipath ghosting.
>
Is he having troubles with the CBS station in Chicago? If so, the problem
is low-VHF. (The ambient noise at low-VHF in combo with antenna size
issues at low-VHF make reception problematical.)

I find that the best frequency range for HDTV reception is high-VHF in
my situation, but UHF isn't too much trouble.

John
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 10:01:00 PM

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

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:c6oo7o$17bl$3@news.iquest.net...
> Is he having troubles with the CBS station in Chicago? If so, the problem
> is low-VHF. (The ambient noise at low-VHF in combo with antenna size
> issues at low-VHF make reception problematical.)

With his current antenna positioning, here is how his channels are doing
(expressed as actual channels rather than remapped):

Good: 3, 19, 21, 31, 36
Intermittent: 29
Bad or nonexistent: 27, 43, 45, 47, 51, 52, 53

With an earlier antenna position, 47 was perfect but 19 was intermittent.
Since 19 is WGN, which broadcasts sports games in HD, my friend considered
it to be the top-priority channel. ;-)
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 10:25:11 PM

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

In article <wjSjc.498$eH1.178916@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
"Lawrence G. Mayka" <lgmayka000@ameritech.net> writes:
> "John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
> news:c6oo7o$17bl$3@news.iquest.net...
>> Is he having troubles with the CBS station in Chicago? If so, the problem
>> is low-VHF. (The ambient noise at low-VHF in combo with antenna size
>> issues at low-VHF make reception problematical.)
>
> With his current antenna positioning, here is how his channels are doing
> (expressed as actual channels rather than remapped):
>
> Good: 3, 19, 21, 31, 36
> Intermittent: 29
> Bad or nonexistent: 27, 43, 45, 47, 51, 52, 53
>
> With an earlier antenna position, 47 was perfect but 19 was intermittent.
> Since 19 is WGN, which broadcasts sports games in HD, my friend considered
> it to be the top-priority channel. ;-)
>
That is odd. One of the other serious troubles with having lots
of channels (with varying power levels) is 'overload'. That is
specifically the problem that I have had.

Multipath does SOMETIMES cause trouble, but that is more of a very
transient problem. Static multipath isn't usually as much a problem
as dynamic multipath, and the consistent difficulties make overload
more likely as being trouble.

I am in the glide path of IND, and SOMETIMES (irregularly) a plane
can cause problems. My old reception troubles with old receivers
were due to using an indoor antenna in a premium construction building.
(My reception is obscured by trees and other 'premium' construction
buildings.) This means that my direct path isn't very good, and
I use an indoor 2bay antenna with a preamp. The preamp is meant
to provide a clean impedance match (not so much for gain.) It is
easy to overload the preamp (and the receiver frontend) because
of the extreme variation in signal power levels.

If you have bad impedance matching, then you can loose channels
or have poor reception over wide ranges. I have seen some
horrible DTV frontends.

John
Anonymous
April 29, 2004 3:40:16 AM

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

Bob,

I figured it was something like you mentioned. Your detractors are much to
shrill and quite frankly rabid.

I do not think what is said here is going to change anything.

The FCC will still go its way without having a real clue about anything
technical.

Good Luck

Richard R.

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:WMOjc.12946$eZ5.4429@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Richard R wrote:
>
> > Bob,
> >
> > What was your work in 2000 that had you involved in this ?
> >
> > Richard R.
> >
> I got involved with LMDS for two way Internet wireless back in 1997.
> That was 28 GHz spectrum. It had problems. Got interested in MMDS
> wireless for two way Internet in 1997 later at 2.4 GHz. Then discovered
> spectrum that was really sweet in the 700 MHz region which was LPTV
> stations and the FCC had recently allowed a Texas LPTV to be used for
> two way wireless Internet.
!