Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Sounding the Alarm!

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 8:51:18 AM

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

In the mode of being helpful I am sounding the alarm that I don't think
anyone will be receiving much HDTV programming on current 8-VSB
receivers in the future. You have to admit that if I am right that might
be helpful.

Nitewatchman on AVSforum has picked up on this possibility. He post that
the FCC rules state that as USDTV proposes a broadcaster can use any
compression and do just about anything they want on their 6 MHz or
spectrum after they have delivered a single NTSC quality program in the
free and clear with MPEG2. He cuts and paste the relevant FCC script to
go with it.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q29763178

What is funny is that I dredged up the same stuff and was about to cut
and paste it there in answer to the same post that he answered when I
thought that, though a remote possibility, maybe someone else has done
the same thing so I went back and checked and there was Nitewatchnam's
post with the very FCC regs. He saved me time and possibly an alias.

So anyone can read the writing on the wall. Even broadcasters. If you
want to maximize your spectrum you statistically multiplex a talking
head with MPEG2 for your PRIMARY REQUIRED program. Only one head of
someone who doesn't move their lips much or blink often and then you use
the rest of the spectrum the most efficiently with WM9 or MPEG4 or VP6
to make money.

You want the talking head program because it will use the least amount
of spectrum (bits) on the wasted PRIMARY REQUIRED NTSC quality program.

In talking to broadcasters about this in light of USDTV and the Emmis
projects they are all but hyperventilating over the possibilities.

Now if YOU are going to help the next Newbie that ask on this Forum
about whether they should buy an OTA 8-VSB receiver NOW will you also
tell them of the new potential problem I have outlined and add it to the
other risk factors that come with such a purchase?

Just trying to be helpful with the hobby.

And Nitewatchman tell Erik Garci who answers your post with...

"OK, but it seems that the broadcaster must transmit at least one MPEG-2
stream."

That that stream could consist of a stick figure animation against black
giving local weather, traffic and other information with a bit rate of
100 Kbps unless he is privy to other FCC regulations that further define
an NTSC quality signal. The FCC does not specify how much action there
has to be, what the colors have to be or what the content has to be,
just an NTSC quality video.

And if you suggest that this would violate the spirit of the FCC rules I
would disagree. The spirit is to use the spectrum the most efficiently
and deliver the most programming to the public. Restricting the MPEG2
programming to the smallest bit rate possible would be the correct in
the spirit thing to do.

The number of current OTA 8-VSB receivers that would be only able to
receive this ridiculous single 100 Kbps program is unfortunate. The
price of being a pioneer.

The obviousness of this outcome is just another reason to revisit the
whole sorry mess sooner rather than later. They are doing it in S.
Korea, they did it in Taiwan and Australia, why can't we do it here?

Answer: We can and we will.

More about : sounding alarm

Anonymous
June 1, 2004 10:32:45 AM

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

OK, I have to ask. What the hell are you talking about? What does NTSC have
to do with HDTV and broadcasting ATSC? It's no wonder everyone thinks you
are a complete moron. You do not explain yourself and just sound like you
are re-spouting garbage that you know nothing about. Remember the saying:
Garbage in, garbage out.

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:aXTuc.17328$Tn6.12859@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> In the mode of being helpful I am sounding the alarm that I don't think
> anyone will be receiving much HDTV programming on current 8-VSB
> receivers in the future. You have to admit that if I am right that might
> be helpful.
>
> Nitewatchman on AVSforum has picked up on this possibility. He post that
> the FCC rules state that as USDTV proposes a broadcaster can use any
> compression and do just about anything they want on their 6 MHz or
> spectrum after they have delivered a single NTSC quality program in the
> free and clear with MPEG2. He cuts and paste the relevant FCC script to
> go with it.
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q29763178
>
> What is funny is that I dredged up the same stuff and was about to cut
> and paste it there in answer to the same post that he answered when I
> thought that, though a remote possibility, maybe someone else has done
> the same thing so I went back and checked and there was Nitewatchnam's
> post with the very FCC regs. He saved me time and possibly an alias.
>
> So anyone can read the writing on the wall. Even broadcasters. If you
> want to maximize your spectrum you statistically multiplex a talking
> head with MPEG2 for your PRIMARY REQUIRED program. Only one head of
> someone who doesn't move their lips much or blink often and then you use
> the rest of the spectrum the most efficiently with WM9 or MPEG4 or VP6
> to make money.
>
> You want the talking head program because it will use the least amount
> of spectrum (bits) on the wasted PRIMARY REQUIRED NTSC quality program.
>
> In talking to broadcasters about this in light of USDTV and the Emmis
> projects they are all but hyperventilating over the possibilities.
>
> Now if YOU are going to help the next Newbie that ask on this Forum
> about whether they should buy an OTA 8-VSB receiver NOW will you also
> tell them of the new potential problem I have outlined and add it to the
> other risk factors that come with such a purchase?
>
> Just trying to be helpful with the hobby.
>
> And Nitewatchman tell Erik Garci who answers your post with...
>
> "OK, but it seems that the broadcaster must transmit at least one MPEG-2
> stream."
>
> That that stream could consist of a stick figure animation against black
> giving local weather, traffic and other information with a bit rate of
> 100 Kbps unless he is privy to other FCC regulations that further define
> an NTSC quality signal. The FCC does not specify how much action there
> has to be, what the colors have to be or what the content has to be,
> just an NTSC quality video.
>
> And if you suggest that this would violate the spirit of the FCC rules I
> would disagree. The spirit is to use the spectrum the most efficiently
> and deliver the most programming to the public. Restricting the MPEG2
> programming to the smallest bit rate possible would be the correct in
> the spirit thing to do.
>
> The number of current OTA 8-VSB receivers that would be only able to
> receive this ridiculous single 100 Kbps program is unfortunate. The
> price of being a pioneer.
>
> The obviousness of this outcome is just another reason to revisit the
> whole sorry mess sooner rather than later. They are doing it in S.
> Korea, they did it in Taiwan and Australia, why can't we do it here?
>
> Answer: We can and we will.
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 11:31:12 AM

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

Buffoon #1 cries wolf, once again!

=========================================
"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:aXTuc.17328$Tn6.12859@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
: In the mode of being helpful I am sounding the alarm that I don't
think
: anyone will be receiving much HDTV programming on current 8-VSB
: receivers in the future. You have to admit that if I am right that
might
: be helpful.
:
<<<<<<<<<blah blah blah blah blah>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Related resources
June 1, 2004 3:02:31 PM

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

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 04:51:18 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
wrote:

<snip of a bunch of garbage that doesn't mean anything to anyone>

Bob, if your business sense is as seriously deficient as this post
would suggest, it's no wonder that your business ventures have been a
failure.

In order for this to be a problem to the current HDTV development
means that the bradcasters would switch over from their current HDTV
plans to broadcasting simple garbage to fulfill the FCC requirements,
then supplement with additional codecs to expand their capabilites.

Just wanting to make sure that I have this clear.

It would be a total failure. Broadcasters are too smart to even
consider something like this. The instant they switch on this low
quality garbage just so they can fulfill their requirements, the
viewers will switch them off. Since you obviously must have never
been involved in television broadcasting, let me explain something
simple too you. Viewers = money. No viewers = no money. No money =
bankruptcy. This should be clear to even the biggest moron.

Sure, they could try to make up the revenue by broadcasting with other
codecs and other technologies, but what does that require? Money.
Something they won't have because now they don't have viewers. Sure,
they might get some revenue from it, but people aren't going to accept
it because they will have broken the trust that they had established
of providing quality entertainment to the viewing public. Besides,
all of a sudden the public is going to have to spend more just to
receive the same thing that they currently are receiving. Not gonna
happen.

I don't care how stupid you are, and I don't care how much money
you've lost because of your moronic business decisions. What I really
care about are the multiple HDTV channels that I currently receive
using the modulation that has been established as the standard in this
contry. A modulation that has been accepted by the broadcasters and
is currently being top provide wonderful HDTV broadcasts to their
customers.

Face it Boob, you've lost money, time, and brains beating a dead
horse, you're now starting to show that you really are a moron and
we're really sick of listening to you.

Why don't you take your anti-8VSB garbage to some other newsgroup that
might care.

Here's one: alt.i.hate.8vsb

Works for me, in fact, I'll go to the trouble of creating it for you.
May take a while for it to propogate to your server. Of course, it's
probably pointless because you wouldn't know how to find it anyway.

Just go away.






----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 3:53:18 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
>
> You want the talking head program because it will use the least amount
> of spectrum (bits) on the wasted PRIMARY REQUIRED NTSC quality program.


Remember that whatever part of the digital spectrum the broadcaster
identifies as their primary "NTSC" compatible feed, will also be
transmitted over cable and satellite.
More viewers watch broadcast TV then any other media source and I don't
think the viewers will accept a low quality "NTSC" type feed. Congress
and many others have wondered if the public want HDTV. I think that the
strong sales of HDTV displays have clearly demonstrated that, yes we
want HDTV!
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 4:09:34 PM

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

GGA wrote:
> OK, I have to ask. What the hell are you talking about? What does NTSC have
> to do with HDTV and broadcasting ATSC? It's no wonder everyone thinks you
> are a complete moron. You do not explain yourself and just sound like you
> are re-spouting garbage that you know nothing about. Remember the saying:
> Garbage in, garbage out.

What does NTSC have to do with HDTV and broadcasting ATSC?

Many expect that broadcasters will use their spectrum to broadcast HDTV.
Many are doing so. None of them have to.

Many have bought ATSC 8-VSB receivers thinking that broadcasters MUST
deliver HDTV that these receivers can receive. These receivers cost
quite a bit more than they would cost if they only had the ability to
receive an SDTV signal for instance. Few of these receivers has been
sold. How many would have been sold if they only received SDTV?

Two new entities offer the broadcaster a new vision of how they can make
money off of their digital spectrum. One USDTV offers to rent spectrum
from broadcasters leaving the broadcaster with less spectrum than they
need to do HDTV. This broadcaster will then do SDTV. USDTV will do SDTV
on the spectrum they rent. The other proposal is by a broadcaster,
Emmis, that suggest that the broadcasters do not need to rent to USDTV
but can do it themselves. They can and are actively getting involved.
They are reaching out to USDTV to join them in some way.

The logical progression of such action by broadcasters is to MINIMIZE
the amount of spectrum that is used to satisfy the FCC requirement that
they must broadcast at least ONE NTSC quality program that is free to
the public, that is supported by advertising. This ONE NTSC program must
also be delivered using MPEG2 compression. The reason that they want to
minimize the amount of spectrum used for this ONE NTSC quality program
is that they can then use the rest of the spectrum with a more efficient
compression codec such as WM9, MPEG4 or VP6. This will allow them to
deliver twice as much programming or data in the remaining spectrum.
This increases the value of the spectrum and their ability to compete
better with competitors such as cable and satellite.

If broadcasters do follow this plan current ATSC 8-VSB receivers and all
such receivers sold to date will only be capable of receiving ONE SDTV
program per broadcaster and no HDTV programs.

Taken to its extreme this ONE SDTV program delivered to current and
older ATSC 8-VSB receivers would be reduced to the lowest bit rate that
it can possibly be reduced to by broadcasters and still meet the letter
of the FCC rules. New receivers would be needed to receive the rest of
the programming that broadcasters would now deliver with the rest of the
spectrum using advanced codecs and possibly a subscription service.

This is all possible and to me it seems inevitable. If some broadcasters
do it and are successfully then the market will demand that all
broadcasters do it.

The two problems remaining are 8-VSB's reception problems which are
being addressed by better receivers and 8-VSB's inability to work mobile
which eliminates a major part of the market and which is not being
addressed by new receivers. If new receivers are able to eliminate most
of 8-VSB's problems with reception in the home broadcasters can expect
to be as or more successful than similar ventures in countries such as
Germany and England.

As other countries deploy successful mobile/portable/fixed broadcast
models like is happening in Taiwan and Japan broadcasters in the US will
want to do the same.

The main argument for not switching to or allowing COFDM modulation in
the US which works mobile were the 8-VSB receivers that were already
sold. Since those receivers will all be made obsolete as to the
reception of HDTV anyway by the proposed new broadcast model and since I
cannot imagine anyone wanting to retain them to receive only ONE minimal
NTSC quality program it seems that the time has come to revisit the US
modulation scheme.

If we switched to or allowed COFDM now we would be able to use all the
spectrum with the new compression schemes (not wasting part of it on a
single SD program delivered with MPEG2) and broadcasters would be able
to offer mobile services which would give them a whole new market that
cable and satellite cannot reach. We like in Japan could receive both
HDTV and mobile DTV on cell phones or other handheld devices using the
same 6 MHz channel.

I expect that as broadcasters go further down this road this is what
they will start demanding. US broadcasters, seemingly protected by must
carry laws, have been the only broadcasters in the world who have not
DEMANDED COFDM modulation. Now that they see other broadcasters becoming
successful with COFDM and as Congress also actively investigates these
other countries successful DTV transitions pressure will build to
reconsider.

If there is any thing in the above that you don't understand this moron
is ready to further explain. It you don't agree or have better
information I would be glad to learn.
>
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:aXTuc.17328$Tn6.12859@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>In the mode of being helpful I am sounding the alarm that I don't think
>>anyone will be receiving much HDTV programming on current 8-VSB
>>receivers in the future. You have to admit that if I am right that might
>>be helpful.
>>
>>Nitewatchman on AVSforum has picked up on this possibility. He post that
>>the FCC rules state that as USDTV proposes a broadcaster can use any
>>compression and do just about anything they want on their 6 MHz or
>>spectrum after they have delivered a single NTSC quality program in the
>>free and clear with MPEG2. He cuts and paste the relevant FCC script to
>>go with it.
>>http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q29763178
>>
>>What is funny is that I dredged up the same stuff and was about to cut
>>and paste it there in answer to the same post that he answered when I
>>thought that, though a remote possibility, maybe someone else has done
>>the same thing so I went back and checked and there was Nitewatchnam's
>>post with the very FCC regs. He saved me time and possibly an alias.
>>
>>So anyone can read the writing on the wall. Even broadcasters. If you
>>want to maximize your spectrum you statistically multiplex a talking
>>head with MPEG2 for your PRIMARY REQUIRED program. Only one head of
>>someone who doesn't move their lips much or blink often and then you use
>>the rest of the spectrum the most efficiently with WM9 or MPEG4 or VP6
>>to make money.
>>
>>You want the talking head program because it will use the least amount
>>of spectrum (bits) on the wasted PRIMARY REQUIRED NTSC quality program.
>>
>>In talking to broadcasters about this in light of USDTV and the Emmis
>>projects they are all but hyperventilating over the possibilities.
>>
>>Now if YOU are going to help the next Newbie that ask on this Forum
>>about whether they should buy an OTA 8-VSB receiver NOW will you also
>>tell them of the new potential problem I have outlined and add it to the
>>other risk factors that come with such a purchase?
>>
>>Just trying to be helpful with the hobby.
>>
>>And Nitewatchman tell Erik Garci who answers your post with...
>>
>>"OK, but it seems that the broadcaster must transmit at least one MPEG-2
>>stream."
>>
>>That that stream could consist of a stick figure animation against black
>>giving local weather, traffic and other information with a bit rate of
>>100 Kbps unless he is privy to other FCC regulations that further define
>>an NTSC quality signal. The FCC does not specify how much action there
>>has to be, what the colors have to be or what the content has to be,
>>just an NTSC quality video.
>>
>>And if you suggest that this would violate the spirit of the FCC rules I
>>would disagree. The spirit is to use the spectrum the most efficiently
>>and deliver the most programming to the public. Restricting the MPEG2
>>programming to the smallest bit rate possible would be the correct in
>>the spirit thing to do.
>>
>>The number of current OTA 8-VSB receivers that would be only able to
>>receive this ridiculous single 100 Kbps program is unfortunate. The
>>price of being a pioneer.
>>
>>The obviousness of this outcome is just another reason to revisit the
>>whole sorry mess sooner rather than later. They are doing it in S.
>>Korea, they did it in Taiwan and Australia, why can't we do it here?
>>
>>Answer: We can and we will.
>
>
>
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 4:22:17 PM

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

numeric wrote:

>
>
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> You want the talking head program because it will use the least amount
>> of spectrum (bits) on the wasted PRIMARY REQUIRED NTSC quality program.
>
>
>
> Remember that whatever part of the digital spectrum the broadcaster
> identifies as their primary "NTSC" compatible feed, will also be
> transmitted over cable and satellite.
> More viewers watch broadcast TV then any other media source and I don't
> think the viewers will accept a low quality "NTSC" type feed. Congress
> and many others have wondered if the public want HDTV. I think that the
> strong sales of HDTV displays have clearly demonstrated that, yes we
> want HDTV!
>
If broadcasters as content providers have good HDTV content and are
delivering it in their NON primary program part of the spectrum using
advanced codecs to be more efficient then they can sell this content to
cable and satellite just as they do now. Most such content does not need
must carry to get sold to cable and satellite. In fact if OTA 8-VSB
worked like it should and was easily receivable with simple antennas and
if it were also receivable mobile broadcasters might decide to actually
compete with cable and satellite and withhold some or all the best
content from their distributative competitors.

Remember the days when OTA broadcasting was actually a distribution
service. People actually used it to receive programming. Why not
withhold the best and sell it via an OTA subscription service? If you
had a good modulation your coverage should be greater and less expensive
than any cable system and work better in the rain than any satellite system.

We might actually have a rebirth of OTA broadcasting in the US like
other countries are experiencing. That is what has gotten the attention
of broadcasters finally.
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 4:29:31 PM

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

numeric wrote:

>
>
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> You want the talking head program because it will use the least amount
>> of spectrum (bits) on the wasted PRIMARY REQUIRED NTSC quality program.
>
>
>
> Remember that whatever part of the digital spectrum the broadcaster
> identifies as their primary "NTSC" compatible feed, will also be
> transmitted over cable and satellite.
> More viewers watch broadcast TV then any other media source and I don't
> think the viewers will accept a low quality "NTSC" type feed. Congress
> and many others have wondered if the public want HDTV. I think that the
> strong sales of HDTV displays have clearly demonstrated that, yes we
> want HDTV!
>
I guess you are right also the broadcaster could demand carriage of
their minimal NTSC quality program over cable and satellite and then
negotiate the sale of the good HDTV, EDTV and SDTV stuff as well or deny
the good stuff to cable and satellite altogether and sell it on a
subscription service. This could get wicked.

Load up cable with junk using must carry and compete with the good stuff
OTA.

As I have said the last four years, if broadcasters start thinking as
broadcasters they can turn the tables big time. Of course it still
depends on a good modulation at least fixed and more better mobile.
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 8:11:47 PM

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

Jim <Jim@> wrote in message news:<4agpb0t8q9sa1r8aom0l5pbqcro8glv7i5@4ax.com>...
> On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 04:51:18 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> <snip of a bunch of garbage that doesn't mean anything to anyone>
>
> Bob, if your business sense is as seriously deficient as this post
> would suggest, it's no wonder that your business ventures have been a
> failure.
>
troo dat

> In order for this to be a problem to the current HDTV development
> means that the bradcasters would switch over from their current HDTV
> plans to broadcasting simple garbage to fulfill the FCC requirements,
> then supplement with additional codecs to expand their capabilites.
>
> Just wanting to make sure that I have this clear.
>
> It would be a total failure. Broadcasters are too smart to even
> consider something like this. The instant they switch on this low
> quality garbage just so they can fulfill their requirements, the
> viewers will switch them off. Since you obviously must have never
> been involved in television broadcasting, let me explain something
> simple too you. Viewers = money. No viewers = no money. No money =
> bankruptcy. This should be clear to even the biggest moron.
>
The question I have is, why have broadcasters at all? Why not just
become content providers and say that cable and satellite have won the
war? I pay (or used to pay) for so-called "local" channels. I still
see commercials on all of my satellite channels, and I pay for them --
not just "basic" channels, but so-called "premium" channels too!
Sure, they don't always interrupt the program, but I still see
commercials in between programs.

I can't receive OTA. I used analog reception as a little girl when
all my cool friends had one cable channel -- MTV. I've outgrown both
by 25 years. I say ballocks to broadcast. Make it die. Give us back
our spectrum or make the broadcasters pay for it and buy themselves
out of regulation.

F OTA!!!!

> Why don't you take your anti-8VSB garbage to some other newsgroup that
> might care.
>
> Here's one: alt.i.hate.8vsb
>
> Works for me, in fact, I'll go to the trouble of creating it for you.
> May take a while for it to propogate to your server. Of course, it's
> probably pointless because you wouldn't know how to find it anyway.
>
Actually, I vote for alt.modulation.8vsb.hate.hate.hate for proper
hierarchy. The "alt.i" hiearchy would be wasted space. What would
you post there? "All things ego related"? In my proposal, those who
only "hate" 8vsb could post at the first level. Those who "hate hate
hate" it could post at the bottom level. Pro-8vsb discussion would
occur at the a.m.8 level. There could be an a.m.COFDM group. &c.
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 11:36:09 PM

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

Jim wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 04:51:18 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> <snip of a bunch of garbage that doesn't mean anything to anyone>
>
> Bob, if your business sense is as seriously deficient as this post
> would suggest, it's no wonder that your business ventures have been a
> failure.
>
> In order for this to be a problem to the current HDTV development
> means that the bradcasters would switch over from their current HDTV
> plans to broadcasting simple garbage to fulfill the FCC requirements,
> then supplement with additional codecs to expand their capabilites.
>
> Just wanting to make sure that I have this clear.
>
> It would be a total failure. Broadcasters are too smart to even
> consider something like this.

They are considering it. In fact some are doing it with USDTV now. The
extreme example, broadcasting a low bit rate garbage but NTSC quality
program, is only the end stage of this process. As it is now
broadcasters would deliver their normal programming that they broadcast
analog now as their NTSC quality program to satisfy FCC rules. At the
same time they rent out the rest of their spectrum to an outfit like
USDTV or they might do it with a group of other broadcasters in a market
to pool their extra spectrum and offer a subscription based service that
could include HDTV, EDTV, SDTV and data. There is an infinite variety of
business models they can follow. They then would promote a receiver that
works with more advanced codecs for this freed up spectrum.

The viewer still will get his free OTA DTV MPEG2 programming as SDTV but
there would be no HDTV offered to current or past 8-VSB receivers. The
new 8-VSB receivers would work with the better compression codecs and
deliver more programming. If enough broadcasters pooled their spectrum
and used state of the art Tivo like recording equipment they could
present viewers with a competitive package at a lower price than cable.

Few viewers would buy the old 8-VSB receivers, few do now for that
matter, and as the new receivers would be promoted by broadcasters since
they have a good business plan (current OTA receivers are promoted by no
one) they would very quickly become the receiver of choice. At that
point broadcasters would scale back or change the type of programming
that was being used on the MPEG2 channel to lower the bit rate that was
required for it. This would make sense since very few people would still
be watching it. Broadcasters might even do a promotion and offer a trade
in deal that viewers couldn't refuse for their old receiver. BTW this
all happens with 8-VSB modulation.

At some point the SD OTA MPEG2 program would only exist to satisfy the
FCC rules and it would indeed be a garbage channel.

The process has started, USDTV is doing most of this now. The arrival of
USDTV has sparked the interest of most broadcasters and one, Emmis, is
promoting a nationwide co-op to do just what I propose. Obviously they
do not brag about obsoleting current receivers or having a garbage SD
MPEG2 channel at some time in the future and maybe that part will never
happen because it would be bad PR or politically impractical but the
rest is in the works and after a few years IMO the garbage channel will
make its appearance.

This all seems inevitable to me. And since the end result is so bad and
the prime reason for not allowing COFDM which was not making the legacy
8-VSB receivers obsolete would happen under this scenario anyway, it
would make sense to re-open the modulation decision one more time and do
it right. If we do we would find ourselves far ahead of most other
countries instead of far behind. The US could have a modern modulation
and a modern compression system both of which could be upgraded without
obsoleting viewers receivers in the future.


The instant they switch on this low
> quality garbage just so they can fulfill their requirements, the
> viewers will switch them off. Since you obviously must have never
> been involved in television broadcasting, let me explain something
> simple too you. Viewers = money. No viewers = no money. No money =
> bankruptcy. This should be clear to even the biggest moron.
>
> Sure, they could try to make up the revenue by broadcasting with other
> codecs and other technologies, but what does that require? Money.
> Something they won't have because now they don't have viewers. Sure,
> they might get some revenue from it, but people aren't going to accept
> it because they will have broken the trust that they had established
> of providing quality entertainment to the viewing public. Besides,
> all of a sudden the public is going to have to spend more just to
> receive the same thing that they currently are receiving. Not gonna
> happen.
>
> I don't care how stupid you are, and I don't care how much money
> you've lost because of your moronic business decisions. What I really
> care about are the multiple HDTV channels that I currently receive
> using the modulation that has been established as the standard in this
> contry. A modulation that has been accepted by the broadcasters and
> is currently being top provide wonderful HDTV broadcasts to their
> customers.
>
> Face it Boob, you've lost money, time, and brains beating a dead
> horse, you're now starting to show that you really are a moron and
> we're really sick of listening to you.
>
> Why don't you take your anti-8VSB garbage to some other newsgroup that
> might care.
>
> Here's one: alt.i.hate.8vsb
>
> Works for me, in fact, I'll go to the trouble of creating it for you.
> May take a while for it to propogate to your server. Of course, it's
> probably pointless because you wouldn't know how to find it anyway.
>
> Just go away.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Anonymous
June 2, 2004 5:00:35 AM

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

T. Pascal wrote:

> Jim <Jim@> wrote in message news:<4agpb0t8q9sa1r8aom0l5pbqcro8glv7i5@4ax.com>...
>
>>On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 04:51:18 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>><snip of a bunch of garbage that doesn't mean anything to anyone>
>>
>>Bob, if your business sense is as seriously deficient as this post
>>would suggest, it's no wonder that your business ventures have been a
>>failure.
>>
>
> troo dat
>
>
>>In order for this to be a problem to the current HDTV development
>>means that the bradcasters would switch over from their current HDTV
>>plans to broadcasting simple garbage to fulfill the FCC requirements,
>>then supplement with additional codecs to expand their capabilites.
>>
>>Just wanting to make sure that I have this clear.
>>
>>It would be a total failure. Broadcasters are too smart to even
>>consider something like this. The instant they switch on this low
>>quality garbage just so they can fulfill their requirements, the
>>viewers will switch them off. Since you obviously must have never
>>been involved in television broadcasting, let me explain something
>>simple too you. Viewers = money. No viewers = no money. No money =
>>bankruptcy. This should be clear to even the biggest moron.
>>
>
> The question I have is, why have broadcasters at all? Why not just
> become content providers and say that cable and satellite have won the
> war? I pay (or used to pay) for so-called "local" channels. I still
> see commercials on all of my satellite channels, and I pay for them --
> not just "basic" channels, but so-called "premium" channels too!
> Sure, they don't always interrupt the program, but I still see
> commercials in between programs.
>
> I can't receive OTA. I used analog reception as a little girl when
> all my cool friends had one cable channel -- MTV. I've outgrown both
> by 25 years. I say ballocks to broadcast. Make it die. Give us back
> our spectrum or make the broadcasters pay for it and buy themselves
> out of regulation.
>
> F OTA!!!!

That's the spirit and that is just what many think the FCC is doing.
Getting rid of OTA free TV. Some suggest that cable and satellite see
OTA free TV as an anachronism that must be stamped out. The masses must
be disabused of the notion that TV could be free as they continue to
raise their rates.
>
>
>>Why don't you take your anti-8VSB garbage to some other newsgroup that
>>might care.
>>
>>Here's one: alt.i.hate.8vsb
>>
>>Works for me, in fact, I'll go to the trouble of creating it for you.
>>May take a while for it to propogate to your server. Of course, it's
>>probably pointless because you wouldn't know how to find it anyway.
>>
>
> Actually, I vote for alt.modulation.8vsb.hate.hate.hate for proper
> hierarchy. The "alt.i" hiearchy would be wasted space. What would
> you post there? "All things ego related"? In my proposal, those who
> only "hate" 8vsb could post at the first level. Those who "hate hate
> hate" it could post at the bottom level. Pro-8vsb discussion would
> occur at the a.m.8 level. There could be an a.m.COFDM group. &c.
Anonymous
June 2, 2004 3:58:54 PM

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

>Why don't you take your anti-8VSB garbage to some other newsgroup that
>>>might care.
>>>
>>>Here's one: alt.i.hate.8vsb
>>>
>>>Works for me, in fact, I'll go to the trouble of creating it for you

Nah, not BOB. He has a history of only polluting true HD forums. He tried it on
AVS and was kicked off due to his chronic lying. He comes here and virtually
every lie he generates is refuted. Yet this liar comes back day after day, week
after week, year after year to absorb more abuse. He doesn't get it and most
here are convinced he never will. He wastes his time preaching anti HD
propoganda to an HD crowd. He tries (unsuccessfully) to generate fear and doubt
about the future of HD among those looking to purchase HD equipment. That's a
key point among the COFDM crowd. They've been using delaying tactics for years
in an attempt to stop OTA HD. In fact, if it werent for BOB and his Sinclair
buddies, this country woud be MUCH further along the HD curve. Thank you BOB!

However BOB continues to spout "facts" but never backs them up and when
challenged, he disappears. He speaks of how cheap his beloved COFDM receivers
are in other countries, yet none that he quotes for these receivers are HD! How
amazing is that? Talk about misleading!!! Of course that's a trick that the
COFDM crowd learned years ago. They just don't understand it doesn't work in a
group with an IQ higher than 50 which seems to be the average in the COFDM
sector.

But you can bet your last dollar BOB will be back with more stories, more lies,
more rants about the 'hearings' and "reception while walking around the hearing
room". Yes folks it's BOB, our Resident Snake Oil Salesman. Be warned that
virtually NOTHING this 'man' says has any relationship to fact.
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 3:15:39 AM

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

"Jim" <Jim@> wrote in message
news:4agpb0t8q9sa1r8aom0l5pbqcro8glv7i5@4ax.com...
> It would be a total failure. Broadcasters are too smart to even
> consider something like this. The instant they switch on this low
> quality garbage just so they can fulfill their requirements, the
> viewers will switch them off. Since you obviously must have never

The claim, I think, is that right now, HDTV still has a comparatively small
number of viewers, and a comparatively small number of programs actually
broadcast in true HD (as opposed to upconverted SD). At this time,
broadcasters might still reasonably be able to announce: "Market conditions
have changed, folks, and so our free-of-charge channel will only be
broadcast in 480i. But we'll have all kinds of neat HD stuff on our $$
channels." Only a small percentage of their total current viewers would
actually see an immediate quality difference and complain.

Keep in mind that at least one semi-major network, PAX, has reportedly
already announced that it will never move to HD, but will instead broadcast
multiple (currently six) 480i subchannels.

My own solution to this threat would be to remind the FCC that TV
broadcasters were *given* their spectrum for *free* on the condition that
they broadcast in the *public* interest. Any spectrum that a broadcaster
does not use for free-of-charge OTA programming should be repossessed by the
FCC and either given to someone else (who will broadcast for free) or sold
to the highest bidder.
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 3:42:21 AM

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

Lawrence G. Mayka (lgmayka000@ameritech.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Keep in mind that at least one semi-major network, PAX, has reportedly
> already announced that it will never move to HD, but will instead broadcast
> multiple (currently six) 480i subchannels.

Never say never. By the time the majority of other stations are HD (even
if is "Nick at Nite" showing old 4:3 shows with sidebars), even Joe Sixpack
will be aware of the difference in quality.

--
Jeff Rife | "Oooh, I love children...
SPAM bait: | they taste like chicken."
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov | -- Heddy Newman, "Herman's Head"
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 4:48:21 AM

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

"Lawrence G. Mayka" <lgmayka000@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:vctvc.18520$eH1.8325926@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> Keep in mind that at least one semi-major network, PAX, has reportedly
> already announced that it will never move to HD, but will instead
broadcast
> multiple (currently six) 480i subchannels.
I believe I picked up 4 PAX channels this afternoon when I had
my HDTV scan for stations. I deleted all of them because they
primarily carry shows that I have no interest in at all.
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 8:04:20 AM

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

Lawrence G. Mayka wrote:
> "Jim" <Jim@> wrote in message
> news:4agpb0t8q9sa1r8aom0l5pbqcro8glv7i5@4ax.com...
>
>>It would be a total failure. Broadcasters are too smart to even
>>consider something like this. The instant they switch on this low
>>quality garbage just so they can fulfill their requirements, the
>>viewers will switch them off. Since you obviously must have never
>
>
> The claim, I think, is that right now, HDTV still has a comparatively small
> number of viewers, and a comparatively small number of programs actually
> broadcast in true HD (as opposed to upconverted SD). At this time,
> broadcasters might still reasonably be able to announce: "Market conditions
> have changed, folks, and so our free-of-charge channel will only be
> broadcast in 480i. But we'll have all kinds of neat HD stuff on our $$
> channels." Only a small percentage of their total current viewers would
> actually see an immediate quality difference and complain.
>
> Keep in mind that at least one semi-major network, PAX, has reportedly
> already announced that it will never move to HD, but will instead broadcast
> multiple (currently six) 480i subchannels.
>
> My own solution to this threat would be to remind the FCC that TV
> broadcasters were *given* their spectrum for *free* on the condition that
> they broadcast in the *public* interest. Any spectrum that a broadcaster
> does not use for free-of-charge OTA programming should be repossessed by the
> FCC and either given to someone else (who will broadcast for free) or sold
> to the highest bidder.
>
I agree with you but we happen to live in a nation of laws and the law
says the CONDITIONS are that the PUBLIC INTEREST is not that
broadcasters use all their spectrum for free-of-charge OTA programming.
The LAW says that broadcasters must broadcast ONE free NTSC program with
the MPEG2 compression. These are ALL the conditions that apply to
broadcasters no matter what any politician may say about it. The law is
the law. Want to change it? You want to go up against the broadcast
lobby? You need a lot of money and you don't have what the politicians
crave and that is air time on the news. I don't think you are going to
change the law. Broadcasters spent a lot getting it written just the way
it is now.

All that is required of the rest of the spectrum is that if they make
money they pay the US Treasury 5% of gross and that anything they do
with this remaining spectrum does not diminish or detract from that ONE
NTSC quality program (from 2 to 4 Mbps out of 19.34 Mbps)

And it is not just PAX most PBS stations are planning on a lot of
multicasting and even more datacasting. And if you can get broadcasters
to level with you most are very excited about the possibilities opened
up by USDTV. I don't see how any broadcaster can resist the plan to only
broadcast one NTSC program free and use the rest with advanced codecs
and make some real money instead of losing their shirts with digital.
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 9:22:25 AM

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

Lawrence G. Mayka wrote:

>
> Keep in mind that at least one semi-major network, PAX, has reportedly
> already announced that it will never move to HD, but will instead broadcast
> multiple (currently six) 480i subchannels.
>

The PAX quality varies greatly. PAX from West Palm Beach, Fl provides
four multicast channels with fair picture quality. PAX quality from
Miami is poor, far less then NTSC quality. In fact ghosting can be
observed in the picture. I suspect that they are picking up their own
analog signal, using an OTA antenna, and retransmitting it for digital
TV. PAX from NYC has one channel and it too has poor video quality. They
have a long way to go before getting close to even NTSC quality.
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 6:07:36 PM

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

"Mark Jones" <noemail@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:p zuvc.19707$Tn6.17176@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> I believe I picked up 4 PAX channels this afternoon when I had
> my HDTV scan for stations. I deleted all of them because they

Yes, but those are 480i (Standard Definition). In the Chicago area, those
digital PAX programs often look *worse* than analog (NTSC) for some reason.
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 6:04:09 PM

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

....

> You want the talking head program because it will use the least amount
> of spectrum (bits) on the wasted PRIMARY REQUIRED NTSC quality program.
>
....

Sounds like it's custom made for that old cartoon "Clutch Cargo."
Anonymous
June 6, 2004 12:28:49 AM

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

"Vince Stone" <vstone@spamadelphia.net> wrote in message
news:V8GdneQgoMfWqF_dRVn-hQ@adelphia.com...
> ...
>
> > You want the talking head program because it will use the least amount
> > of spectrum (bits) on the wasted PRIMARY REQUIRED NTSC quality program.
> >
> ...
>
> Sounds like it's custom made for that old cartoon "Clutch Cargo."

maybe it will make a comeback on the overcompression network
!