Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Perfume on the PIG

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
June 2, 2004 8:14:38 PM

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

PhilJSmith67 on AVSForum post this while genuflecting before the 8-VSB
gods...

OTA DTV Progress

"There are several different criteria that make reception in the U.K.
and Europe much different, and generally more reliable for the mass
populous than here.

The U.K. uses far more transmitters, at generally lower power. The U.S.
has high-power transmitters spaced farther apart.

The U.K. has completely relinquished use of VHF. One UHF antenna in many
cases can bring in all your signals. Likewise, if you solve a reception
challenge of one U.K. station, there is a stronger chance that you've
solved them for the remainder of stations than here, where you might
have great VHF reception but horrible UHF, or vica-versa.

TV stations in the U.K. and Europe are mostly programmed on a regional
or national basis. If you can't get a good signal from one "Channel 4"
transmitter, turn the antenna toward another city's "Channel 4" since
they're usually identical from a programming perspective. That's just
not the case here, where for instance you might only have one NBC
affiliate in your reach. If by chance you have two or three of them,
chances are you'll only consider one of them "local" from a programming
perspective. You might also have ABC and Fox coming from one direction,
CBS coming from another, NBC and PBS coming from 45 miles beyond a hill,
and no WB or UPN at all. A similar situation rarely exists in the U.K.
or Europe.

I'm not going to delve into the pseudo-religious 8VSB-vs-COFDM argument
here. I have my doubts about 8VSB being all it's cracked up to be,
especially after witnessing how simply existing receivers can pluck
COFDM signals out of the air in the U.K. However, both systems *do* work.

Fortunately, for those of us in North America with 8VSB, the analogy
holds true that if you put enough perfume on the pig, it will eventually
smell good. Likewise, if we wrap this 8VSB specification with strong
enough RF reception technology and the absolute best algorithms possible
for cancelling multipath, we have a shot at getting a reliable picture
in most people's homes.

Hopefully, that will happen before the "Day After Analog.""

Comments on his post.

The UK has 80 transmit sites for DTV. This covers about 75% of the
country. The low power he mentions in the UK is on average ONE kW with
20 kWs the max. The US has over a thousand DTV transmitters on air.

If we compare analog the UK has 1100 transmitters on air while the US
has 1700 full power and around 5000 translators.

As he says the perfume on the 8-VSB pig is starting to show results.
Better receivers yes. Good enough for fixed maybe but still lacking for
mobile and portable. IMO if free OTA is to survive they will need mobile
and portable reception. However if 8-VSB receivers can do almost as well
as COFDM does for fixed receivers the success that COFDM is having in
the UK and Germany could happen here. The only thing standing in the way
is the price of receivers.

COFDM receivers have sold as low as $40 in the UK on sale with a normal
price of as little as $65 and for as little normally as $85 in Berlin.
When 8-VSB receivers can match those prices and the ease of fixed
reception that COFDM enjoys in Europe then we could have even more
success in the US.

While Phil Smith was impressed with the ease of reception in the UK from
personally experience he would be much more impressed about current
reception characteristics with 4th generation COFDM receivers that are
light years better than the UK version.

And when and if 8-VSB receivers are almost as good at receiving as COFDM
receivers in a fixed location that will not mitigate the waste of time
that has past since 2000. Remember that the biggest argument against
COFDM at the time was that it might delay the transition as much as a
year or two if allowed because of confusion in the marketplace. I think
that even if new 8-VSB are as good as they claim the time for them to
enter the market and the time it will take for their price to come down
will add at least 2 to 3 more years to the already 4 years that 8-VSB
has already delayed the digital transition since 2000.

More about : perfume pig

Anonymous
June 2, 2004 8:14:39 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
>
> [a lot of garbage]
>

Make it stop! Please! What will it take for you to go away?
Anonymous
June 2, 2004 9:40:12 PM

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

Within these hallowed halls, Bob Miller of <robmx@earthlink.net> added
the following to the collective conscience:
<snip>

No one needs to know how you get your wife ready for an evening out.
Related resources
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 12:18:50 AM

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

Michael J. Sherman wrote:

> Bob Miller wrote:
> >
> > [a lot of garbage]
> >
>
> Make it stop! Please! What will it take for you to go away?

That is too easy, get broadcasters off channels 51 through 69.
June 3, 2004 12:18:51 AM

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

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 20:18:50 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>Michael J. Sherman wrote:
>
>> Bob Miller wrote:
>> >
>> > [a lot of garbage]
>> >
>>
>> Make it stop! Please! What will it take for you to go away?
>
>That is too easy, get broadcasters off channels 51 through 69.

Give it up Bob, you've lost.

After backstabbing the ATSC group with the Sinclair proposal, the FCC
blew you off and you can't get ver it.

It's not going to happen. Get over it. You lost. I hate people
who can't accept a loss and move on. Shows a serious mental defect
that requires treatment.

All tests show that 8VSB and COFDM basically perform the same
function. Just because you saw a business opportunity because a
different modulation would allow some mobile services wasn't enough to
convince anyone to go through the time, trouble, and expense of making
a change to benefit you. Why should HDTV implementation be put off
for years simply so you could have a chance to make some money.

And providing video advertising to buses, trains, and so forth. I
frankly don't see that as a viable business model anyway. With the
state of society today, a video receiver in a bus will be broken 90%
of time, because people will get fed up with seeing them and bash them
in. Sounds good on paper, until you look at the realites.

You know, the more you spout here, the less credible you get, perhaps
you should give it a break and move on.

A lot of you probably know this, but here's a link I found today that
really lays it out for those who aren't aware of what Bob Miller and
Sinclair attempted to do to. It's buried in the middle, but
interesting reading.

http://www.tvhandbook.com/news/history_dtv.htm

Probably useful for those who don't know the history.





----== 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 3, 2004 2:54:02 AM

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

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in news:KCqvc.20830$be.8426
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> Michael J. Sherman wrote:
>
>> Bob Miller wrote:
>> >
>> > [a lot of garbage]
>> >
>>
>> Make it stop! Please! What will it take for you to go away?
>
> That is too easy, get broadcasters off channels 51 through 69.
>

And what does that have to do with HDTV?

This is an HDTV newsgroup, not a "Help Bob make his business work"
newsgroup...

You know, I'm all for free enterprise, but with your constant off-topic
spamming of this newsgroup, I'm about to decide against it - at least for
you!
June 3, 2004 1:40:16 PM

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

I think that even if new 8-VSB are as good as they claim the time for them
to enter the market and the time it will take for their price to come down
will add at least 2 to 3 more years to the already 4 years that 8-VSB has
already delayed the digital transition since 2000.

Kind of horse before the cart; don't you think?

1. 4 years ago there was little HDTV programing. (O'h, I forgot, Europe did
not start with HDTV just conventional digital, much like our dish system
already well establishd).

2. 4 years ago there were few if any display devices that were capable of
displaying anything near full HDTV resolution, and even now only a few are
on the market. Black levels and shadow detail are still lacking in most HDTV
displays. This is just now getting out of the beta stage of development.

3. HDTV display technology was (and still is) quite costly, although this is
now being addressed.

4. Most people in the States and Canada get their TV through dish systems
and cable and those systems took time to build up their HDTV services (still
in the developmental stage).

None of these significant issues have anything to do with 8-VSB. This year
Dish, Cable and OTA will offer significant HDTV programming into the home.
This year fully integrated HDTV's will be available to offer plug and play
integration with Cable and OTA. Within a few years display devices will
offer affordable displays with true blacks, vastly improved shadow detail,
wider viewing angles and full HDTV resolution for both 1080i and 720p
programming; all at significantly lower prices. This and not 8-VSB v COFDM
is the significant issue that will provide the huge numbers you and the
industry are looking for.

Richard.
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 6:41:40 PM

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

>
> The major networks business model isn't one of pay to view, it's based upon
> advertising gernerated revenue.

Most people pay twice to watch TV, by watching advertising and by paying
for cable delivery. If the broadcaster can deliver as well as provide
the content why should they let the cable company have a payday. The
broadcaster can either deliver the content directly to the customer for
free and not let it be carried by the cable company or he can charge for
the programming, presumably something less than the cable company charges.

They know that if they did go to a
> pay-to-view model they would end up losing even more eyeballs and therefore
> more revenue, I can't imagine a scenario where they could realize as much
> revenue charging people to watch "Fear Factor". I think you are missing one
> important factor here .. convenience, I think people like the cable coming
> into their house

What could possibly be more convenient than receiving all your DTV by
broadcast OTA to whatever device you want and where ever you are whether
fixed portable or mobile. And if the cost is also lower than cable or
even free how can cable compete? Since broadcasters still control most
of the must see content if they pull if from cable what does cable do?

-- now with broadband (I know WiMax and 802.16a and 802.20
> are direct competitors to IP part of cable) and the possibility of 10 Mbs or
> greater speeds -- people aren't going to disconnect their cables and go back
> to what many consider "old" technology -- namely OTA.

WiMax etc. and what will follow are more than competition for the
broadband part of cable they are competition for all the offerings of
cable and the phone company including cellular. With the coming of dual
cell phones that work with Wi-Fi and cell the cell user will migrate
most of their minutes to the Internet. All of their minutes when at home
or in any hot spot. This application will drive the creation o
Metro-hotspots over the coming few years.
>
>
>

> Take a look at broadcasting what we have 4 Major broadcasting networks, 2
> Minor Networks and PBS. If OTA was more viable and a better platform then
> wouldn't one expect to see more companies jumping into OTA broadcasting. OTA
> is dead -- If I am correct with the channel alloments for OTA could never
> compete with what a cable plant could deliver. And what about OTA VOD,
> their are just too many conveniences with cable.
>
>
But OTA is not a better platform with 8-VSB. It cannot compete with the
hassle factor and non mobility and high cost of receivers that currently
exist. With the coming of better 8-VSB receivers next year more is
possible and broadcasters are starting to plan on new models of
co-operation and pooling of spectrum that would allow them to compete
with cable.

They can do OTA VOD by taking advantage of the storage capacity of
digital recorders just like cable and satellite can do. They can
increase the content delivery of one channel from one analog to 10
digital SD programs. They can deliver to mobile and portable devices. If
20 channels in a market like NYC each delivered 10 programs that would
be 200 programs or it could be a combination of HD, SD and ED
programming delivered in real time and non real time like at 3 am to a
hard drive.

This is being done in the UK and Berlin very successfully. 30 free
channels in each case and in the case of Berlin cable is crying in pain.
With more channels and a mix of an ala carte subscription service with
free channels, VOD and all of this a mix of HD, SD and ED I think OTA
rules.

This can happen with decent 8-VSB receivers we know that because there
is no mobile component to the COFDM offerings in the UK or Berlin so if
the 8-vSB receivers are better this could happen. Broadcasters seem to
think so since they are joining Emmis.

If they had COFDM however and added mobility to the mix it would just be
that much better. And waiting from 2000 till now or more like another
few years for the better receivers to actually arrive and their price to
come down is a crime. Broadcasters could have been doing this and much
more in 2000.

>
> So to sum it up your problem is with Modulation -- You are PRO HDTV as along
> as it is delivered via COFDM

More like since I am pro HDTV I want to see it and other things that can
be delivered via OTA broadcasting succeed and for that we need the best
modulation which at the moment is COFDM in one form or another.
>
> I guess by reading some links the FCC has reaffirmed 8-VSB 3 times now, so I
> don't think that will change -- So isn't the effort a bit futile? If you
> are so into mobile datacasting why not find a partner that has spectrum that
> would make this a reality and stop with it here? I don't see the FCC,
> especially with the lobbying strength of the broadcaster, chaning their
> minds now, or giving up their specturm.back.
>
In 2000 a survey of broadcasters had 67% pro COFDM to some degree with
most of the rest fence sitters who did not want to rile Congress and
endanger their must carry rights or their spectrum. The ignorance of
Congress on the subject (you only had to watch the hearings yesterday to
see the depth of the ignorance) and their need for funds to campaign
with had them putting the screws to broadcasters to toe the line and
vote for 8-VSB. It was a big mistake that most admit off the record.

Broadcasters who supported COFDM in 2000 included ABC, NBC, Sinclair,
Pappas, Granite, and many others. Most of them caved to Congressional
pressure almost immediately. Broadcasters are NOT the supporters of
8-VSB that you suggest now. They are resigned to 8-VSB and hopeful that
new receivers will be adequate, hence the "Perfume on the Pig" subject.

If COFDM were allowed to broadcasters today at noon. All broadcasters
would sign-up for COFDM by the end of the day.
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 7:00:36 PM

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

Richard wrote:

> I think that even if new 8-VSB are as good as they claim the time for them
> to enter the market and the time it will take for their price to come down
> will add at least 2 to 3 more years to the already 4 years that 8-VSB has
> already delayed the digital transition since 2000.
>
> Kind of horse before the cart; don't you think?

No I don't think so. The correct modulation in 2000 would have
stimulated all the facts you list below.

For one thing we could have had $200 COFDM receivers by spring 2001
(suggested by Pace at July 2000 hearings) that did not need expensive
rotorized antennas on your roof. We could have had integrated HDTV sets
by the summer of 2001 with antennas built in that were not even visible.
By now we would have sub $100 receivers that you could connect to your
analog TV sets and we would have the extra cost of an integrated HDTV
set only $50 or so more than one that was not integrated.

Statements by Fern of Pace...

" So if you stick with 8-VSB, I think you will become an island of VSB.
I think we have heard that expression before. The rest of the world is
clearly moving toward COFDM and America is clinging on to a sadly flawed
standard."

This will become very true when S. Korea switches to COFDM.
>
> 1. 4 years ago there was little HDTV programing. (O'h, I forgot, Europe did
> not start with HDTV just conventional digital, much like our dish system
> already well establishd).
>
> 2. 4 years ago there were few if any display devices that were capable of
> displaying anything near full HDTV resolution, and even now only a few are
> on the market. Black levels and shadow detail are still lacking in most HDTV
> displays. This is just now getting out of the beta stage of development.
>
> 3. HDTV display technology was (and still is) quite costly, although this is
> now being addressed.
>
> 4. Most people in the States and Canada get their TV through dish systems
> and cable and those systems took time to build up their HDTV services (still
> in the developmental stage).
>
> None of these significant issues have anything to do with 8-VSB. This year
> Dish, Cable and OTA will offer significant HDTV programming into the home.
> This year fully integrated HDTV's will be available to offer plug and play
> integration with Cable and OTA. Within a few years display devices will
> offer affordable displays with true blacks, vastly improved shadow detail,
> wider viewing angles and full HDTV resolution for both 1080i and 720p
> programming; all at significantly lower prices. This and not 8-VSB v COFDM
> is the significant issue that will provide the huge numbers you and the
> industry are looking for.
>
> Richard.
>
>
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 8:29:05 PM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:EMGvc.20306$Tn6.18916@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > The major networks business model isn't one of pay to view, it's based
upon
> > advertising gernerated revenue.
>
> Most people pay twice to watch TV, by watching advertising and by paying
> for cable delivery. If the broadcaster can deliver as well as provide
> the content why should they let the cable company have a payday. The
> broadcaster can either deliver the content directly to the customer for
> free and not let it be carried by the cable company or he can charge for
> the programming, presumably something less than the cable company charges.
>
> They know that if they did go to a
> > pay-to-view model they would end up losing even more eyeballs and
therefore
> > more revenue, I can't imagine a scenario where they could realize as
much
> > revenue charging people to watch "Fear Factor". I think you are missing
one
> > important factor here .. convenience, I think people like the cable
coming
> > into their house
>
> What could possibly be more convenient than receiving all your DTV by
> broadcast OTA to whatever device you want and where ever you are whether
> fixed portable or mobile. And if the cost is also lower than cable or
> even free how can cable compete? Since broadcasters still control most
> of the must see content if they pull if from cable what does cable do?


Here in lies a probablem. I want to watch Deadwood on HBO. I want to watch
SportsCenter and I want to watch American Chopper. Non of this content is
OTA and I don't see them building an infrastructure to support that when the
Sat and Cable have already built it for them. OTA is free today it is just
the selection limited. Well don't they have the option to pull their
content today? Once they invoke must carry that can't charge for their
content or alternatively negotiate retransmission consent. Either way this
benefits the broadcaster, more distribution of their content to more
eyeballs or the ability to negotiate a fee for retransmission of content
that makes getting cable more marketable.




>
> -- now with broadband (I know WiMax and 802.16a and 802.20
> > are direct competitors to IP part of cable) and the possibility of 10
Mbs or
> > greater speeds -- people aren't going to disconnect their cables and go
back
> > to what many consider "old" technology -- namely OTA.
>
> WiMax etc. and what will follow are more than competition for the
> broadband part of cable they are competition for all the offerings of
> cable and the phone company including cellular. With the coming of dual
> cell phones that work with Wi-Fi and cell the cell user will migrate
> most of their minutes to the Internet. All of their minutes when at home
> or in any hot spot. This application will drive the creation o
> Metro-hotspots over the coming few years.
> >
> >
> >
>
> > Take a look at broadcasting what we have 4 Major broadcasting networks,
2
> > Minor Networks and PBS. If OTA was more viable and a better platform
then
> > wouldn't one expect to see more companies jumping into OTA broadcasting.
OTA
> > is dead -- If I am correct with the channel alloments for OTA could
never
> > compete with what a cable plant could deliver. And what about OTA VOD,
> > their are just too many conveniences with cable.
> >
> >
> But OTA is not a better platform with 8-VSB. It cannot compete with the
> hassle factor and non mobility and high cost of receivers that currently
> exist. With the coming of better 8-VSB receivers next year more is
> possible and broadcasters are starting to plan on new models of
> co-operation and pooling of spectrum that would allow them to compete
> with cable.

I still have problems with your mobility factor. I just don't see folks
watching Oprah on their cell phones, PDAs, etc .. Still yet I don't see OTA
increasing market penetration, cable in particular will continue to deliver
STBs that give you your HDTV, VOD and DigitalRecording capabilities.


> They can do OTA VOD by taking advantage of the storage capacity of
> digital recorders just like cable and satellite can do. They can
> increase the content delivery of one channel from one analog to 10
> digital SD programs. They can deliver to mobile and portable devices. If
> 20 channels in a market like NYC each delivered 10 programs that would
> be 200 programs or it could be a combination of HD, SD and ED
> programming delivered in real time and non real time like at 3 am to a
> hard drive.

Unlikely if one of those stations was HDTV .. which this forum is about.
You speak of multicasting, which I yet to see the stations in my area use.
Stored programs on a hard disk ... not matter the size still isn't VOD. VOD
means on demand and something the American consumer has come to expect --
immediate fulfillment of their wants, not I am antcipating watching the
program and so I might have it recorded. Tivos etal serve this purpose
today



> This is being done in the UK and Berlin very successfully. 30 free
> channels in each case and in the case of Berlin cable is crying in pain.
> With more channels and a mix of an ala carte subscription service with
> free channels, VOD and all of this a mix of HD, SD and ED I think OTA
> rules.
>
> This can happen with decent 8-VSB receivers we know that because there
> is no mobile component to the COFDM offerings in the UK or Berlin so if
> the 8-vSB receivers are better this could happen. Broadcasters seem to
> think so since they are joining Emmis.
>
> If they had COFDM however and added mobility to the mix it would just be
> that much better. And waiting from 2000 till now or more like another
> few years for the better receivers to actually arrive and their price to
> come down is a crime. Broadcasters could have been doing this and much
> more in 2000.
>
> >
> > So to sum it up your problem is with Modulation -- You are PRO HDTV as
along
> > as it is delivered via COFDM
>
> More like since I am pro HDTV I want to see it and other things that can
> be delivered via OTA broadcasting succeed and for that we need the best
> modulation which at the moment is COFDM in one form or another.
> >
> > I guess by reading some links the FCC has reaffirmed 8-VSB 3 times now,
so I
> > don't think that will change -- So isn't the effort a bit futile? If
you
> > are so into mobile datacasting why not find a partner that has spectrum
that
> > would make this a reality and stop with it here? I don't see the FCC,
> > especially with the lobbying strength of the broadcaster, chaning their
> > minds now, or giving up their specturm.back.
> >
> In 2000 a survey of broadcasters had 67% pro COFDM to some degree with
> most of the rest fence sitters who did not want to rile Congress and
> endanger their must carry rights or their spectrum. The ignorance of
> Congress on the subject (you only had to watch the hearings yesterday to
> see the depth of the ignorance) and their need for funds to campaign
> with had them putting the screws to broadcasters to toe the line and
> vote for 8-VSB. It was a big mistake that most admit off the record.

It's 2004 and the investments have been made and whether the COFDM advocates
like it or not. I also read that on September 2 of 2003 The number of
stations broadcasting a digital signal broke 1,000 bringing the total number
of DTV stations on air to 1,011 in 201 markets serving 99% of U.S. TV
households. What would be the impact now to tell them to change their
modulation scheme?



>
> Broadcasters who supported COFDM in 2000 included ABC, NBC, Sinclair,
> Pappas, Granite, and many others. Most of them caved to Congressional
> pressure almost immediately. Broadcasters are NOT the supporters of
> 8-VSB that you suggest now. They are resigned to 8-VSB and hopeful that
> new receivers will be adequate, hence the "Perfume on the Pig" subject.
>
> If COFDM were allowed to broadcasters today at noon. All broadcasters
> would sign-up for COFDM by the end of the day.
>
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 9:18:00 PM

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

Gomer Jones wrote:


> Here in lies a probablem. I want to watch Deadwood on HBO. I want to watch
> SportsCenter and I want to watch American Chopper. Non of this content is
> OTA and I don't see them building an infrastructure to support that when the
> Sat and Cable have already built it for them. OTA is free today it is just
> the selection limited. Well don't they have the option to pull their
> content today? Once they invoke must carry that can't charge for their
> content or alternatively negotiate retransmission consent. Either way this
> benefits the broadcaster, more distribution of their content to more
> eyeballs or the ability to negotiate a fee for retransmission of content
> that makes getting cable more marketable.

Yes they do have the option to pull their content today but people will
scream bloody murder because they do not see OTA as an option to receive
it. IF OTA is plug and play with receivers whose antennas are minimal or
invisible and you can receive the signal on many devices at home or away
then the option to pull content and go back to distributing your content
yourself (broadcaster) becomes very desirable.

The cable and satellite companies are major competitors of the
broadcaster now and especially in the future when more competitors will
emerge to deliver to fixed receivers like the Internet. If the
broadcaster pulls his desirable content he can then charge for
delivering it himself. He does not have to settle for must carry or
retransmission payments. He now competes with cable instead of being a
beggar who depends on must carry.

If the modulation is good they could have more coverage than the cable
company. First you have the 15% who do not buy cable and satellite then
you have those whose homes cable does not go by and they you have a lot
of new customers who drop cable and satellite because your broadcast
distribution system is cheaper, free or both and you have the best
content cable or satellite do not anymore. Consider if all broadcasters
in a market pull their content from cable and satellite and offer the
basics channels free. There is no reason that HBO and other such content
cannot be offered as a subscription service in conjunction with a set of
free channels. In fact such programming could be offered ala carte.

Again I can't see how cable or satellite can survive an OTA revival. The
only thing that OTA needs is a good modulation, inexpensive receivers
that work out of the box and content. They already have all the best
content.

I have been preaching this since 1999 and it has started to happen in
the UK, Berlin, Japan, OZ, Italy and will happen in many other countries
soon.

It could have already happened in the US starting in 2000 but we took a
major detour delay with 8-VSB.


>>But OTA is not a better platform with 8-VSB. It cannot compete with the
>>hassle factor and non mobility and high cost of receivers that currently
>>exist. With the coming of better 8-VSB receivers next year more is
>>possible and broadcasters are starting to plan on new models of
>>co-operation and pooling of spectrum that would allow them to compete
>>with cable.
>
>
> I still have problems with your mobility factor. I just don't see folks
> watching Oprah on their cell phones, PDAs, etc .. Still yet I don't see OTA
> increasing market penetration, cable in particular will continue to deliver
> STBs that give you your HDTV, VOD and DigitalRecording capabilities.
>
OTA can do the same thing. The OTA receivers with the VOD, conditional
access and DVR are already plentiful.
>
>
>>They can do OTA VOD by taking advantage of the storage capacity of
>>digital recorders just like cable and satellite can do. They can
>>increase the content delivery of one channel from one analog to 10
>>digital SD programs. They can deliver to mobile and portable devices. If
>>20 channels in a market like NYC each delivered 10 programs that would
>>be 200 programs or it could be a combination of HD, SD and ED
>>programming delivered in real time and non real time like at 3 am to a
>>hard drive.
>
>
> Unlikely if one of those stations was HDTV .. which this forum is about.
> You speak of multicasting, which I yet to see the stations in my area use.
> Stored programs on a hard disk ... not matter the size still isn't VOD. VOD
> means on demand and something the American consumer has come to expect --
> immediate fulfillment of their wants, not I am antcipating watching the
> program and so I might have it recorded. Tivos etal serve this purpose
> today
>
95% of what consumers want can be satisfied with 5% of the content at
anytime. The broadcaster can pre-deliver content that is most in demand
and it is then VOD when the customer wants it. Broadcasters will also
use other wireless networks (IP Wi-Fi WiMax) to deliver content that is
not so much in demand and for other interactivity. Notice that the FCC
is working on allowing unused TV spectrum to be used license free for
WiMax and Wi-Fi. The FCC even suggest that broadcasters could take
advantage of this.
>
>

>>
>>In 2000 a survey of broadcasters had 67% pro COFDM to some degree with
>>most of the rest fence sitters who did not want to rile Congress and
>>endanger their must carry rights or their spectrum. The ignorance of
>>Congress on the subject (you only had to watch the hearings yesterday to
>>see the depth of the ignorance) and their need for funds to campaign
>>with had them putting the screws to broadcasters to toe the line and
>>vote for 8-VSB. It was a big mistake that most admit off the record.
>
>
> It's 2004 and the investments have been made and whether the COFDM advocates
> like it or not. I also read that on September 2 of 2003 The number of
> stations broadcasting a digital signal broke 1,000 bringing the total number
> of DTV stations on air to 1,011 in 201 markets serving 99% of U.S. TV
> households. What would be the impact now to tell them to change their
> modulation scheme?
>

The impact would be that all broadcasters would switch to COFDM ASAP.
The cost to a broadcaster is minimal. $100,000.
>
>
>
>>Broadcasters who supported COFDM in 2000 included ABC, NBC, Sinclair,
>>Pappas, Granite, and many others. Most of them caved to Congressional
>>pressure almost immediately. Broadcasters are NOT the supporters of
>>8-VSB that you suggest now. They are resigned to 8-VSB and hopeful that
>>new receivers will be adequate, hence the "Perfume on the Pig" subject.
>>
>>If COFDM were allowed to broadcasters today at noon. All broadcasters
>>would sign-up for COFDM by the end of the day.
>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 10:27:58 PM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:o 1nvc.20621$be.12721@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
: IMO if free OTA is to survive they will need mobile
: and portable reception.

============================
Whatever for?
Anonymous
June 4, 2004 3:02:34 AM

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

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Richard C. wrote:
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:o 1nvc.20621$be.12721@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> : IMO if free OTA is to survive they will need mobile
> : and portable reception.
> Whatever for?

Because in Bob Miller's psychotic world view, free OTA can not survive
unless they sell him bandwidth to broadcast tampon advertisements to city
buses.

Current Seattle DTV report, showing how the USA is far ahead of any other
country in both DTV and HDTV, thanks to the correct decision to use 8VSB:

I currently receive 10 DTV channels; including PBS subchannels that makes
16 distinct programs: 5-1 (NBC), 7-1 (CBS), 9-1,2,3,5 (PBS), 11-1 (UPN),
13-1 (FOX), 16-1 (IND), 20-1 (TBN), 22-1 (WB), 28-1,2,3,4 (PBS), 33-1
(PAX).

Note that Seattle is a second-rate US city, yet has superior HDTV
programming to any foreign city *and* superior DTV programming to any
foreign city.

The local FOX and WB affilates used to broadcast each other's programming
on the -2 subchannel; they are no longer doing that. Perhaps this is
because WB is in HDTV and FOX is in the process of transitioning to HDTV.

1) The good:

The NBC affiliate, formerly weak and intermittant, is now a strong signal.

NBC, CBS, PBS, UPN, and WB regularly broadcast HDTV programming. All
local-origin programming, including the news, on the NBC channel is in
HDTV.

FOX is not HD, but regularly broadcasts widescreen programming.

2) The Bad:

I can not receive the DTV broadcast from two low-power shop-at-home UHF
channels; their analog signals are also pretty weak. No loss. One of
these may be off the air.

I still can not receive the local ABC affiliate, which is reported to have
a directional antenna that sends no signal west.

3) The Ugly:

FOX's widescreen picture quality is noticably inferior to the HDTV
programming on the other channels.

PAX broadcasts a horrible quality picture, what appears to be analog very
sloppily converted to digital. Nobody watches PAX anyway.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
June 4, 2004 6:32:01 AM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:o 2Hvc.20313$Tn6.15042@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Richard wrote:
>
>> I think that even if new 8-VSB are as good as they claim the time for
>> them
>> to enter the market and the time it will take for their price to come
>> down
>> will add at least 2 to 3 more years to the already 4 years that 8-VSB has
>> already delayed the digital transition since 2000.
>>
>> Kind of horse before the cart; don't you think?
>
> No I don't think so. The correct modulation in 2000 would have stimulated
> all the facts you list below.
>
> For one thing we could have had $200 COFDM receivers by spring 2001
> (suggested by Pace at July 2000 hearings) that did not need expensive
> rotorized antennas on your roof. We could have had integrated HDTV sets by
> the summer of 2001 with antennas built in that were not even visible. By
> now we would have sub $100 receivers that you could connect to your analog
> TV sets and we would have the extra cost of an integrated HDTV set only
> $50 or so more than one that was not integrated.

Your logic is wrong. The holdup on integrated digital TV's was due to the
need to set standards. Even today the standard is in beta since interactive
services are not yet part of the package so far. Modulation had nothing to
do with this. The cost you hold up for an example is for DTV external tuners
that are not HDTV compliant. Within a year or two fully interactive
integrated OTA/Cable HDTV tuners will add less than $100 to a 8-VSB
compliant set. External HDTV compliant boxes will always cost more but the
Feds may offer a program to soften the cost when the analog plug is pulled.

Richard.
Anonymous
June 4, 2004 7:52:27 AM

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

Richard wrote:

> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:o 2Hvc.20313$Tn6.15042@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Richard wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I think that even if new 8-VSB are as good as they claim the time for
>>>them
>>>to enter the market and the time it will take for their price to come
>>>down
>>>will add at least 2 to 3 more years to the already 4 years that 8-VSB has
>>>already delayed the digital transition since 2000.
>>>
>>>Kind of horse before the cart; don't you think?
>>
>>No I don't think so. The correct modulation in 2000 would have stimulated
>>all the facts you list below.
>>
>>For one thing we could have had $200 COFDM receivers by spring 2001
>>(suggested by Pace at July 2000 hearings) that did not need expensive
>>rotorized antennas on your roof. We could have had integrated HDTV sets by
>>the summer of 2001 with antennas built in that were not even visible. By
>>now we would have sub $100 receivers that you could connect to your analog
>>TV sets and we would have the extra cost of an integrated HDTV set only
>>$50 or so more than one that was not integrated.
>
>
> Your logic is wrong. The holdup on integrated digital TV's was due to the
> need to set standards. Even today the standard is in beta since interactive
> services are not yet part of the package so far. Modulation had nothing to
> do with this. The cost you hold up for an example is for DTV external tuners
> that are not HDTV compliant.

Pace was talking about HDTV COFDM receivers. All the cost I mentioned
were for HDTV COFDM receivers. If COFDM had been allowed in 2000 we now
would have COFDM HDTV integrated sets that would cost an extra $50 not
in 2 or three years and we would have mobile reception which we will
still not have in 2 or 3 years with 8-VSB.

Within a year or two fully interactive
> integrated OTA/Cable HDTV tuners will add less than $100 to a 8-VSB
> compliant set. External HDTV compliant boxes will always cost more but the
> Feds may offer a program to soften the cost when the analog plug is pulled.
>
> Richard.
>
>
Anonymous
June 4, 2004 8:48:00 AM

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

Richard C. wrote:

> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:o 1nvc.20621$be.12721@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> : IMO if free OTA is to survive they will need mobile
> : and portable reception.
>
> ============================
> Whatever for?
>
>
To survive! As it is OTA is down to 15% of viewers who depend on it. But
some figures put that at 10% including some Congressmen at the hearings
yesterday. Then you could subtract about 9% of either of those numbers
since it is the figure that cable and satellite give for pirates. And
what about those who just don't watch TV at all? What is that figure? I
say 3% once.

OTA is very close to dead as it is. The FCC is looking for information
on the subject right now. It will be interesting to see what they come
up with. If broadcasters did not have must carry on cable laws how many
would even be still broadcasting. They have to broadcast to qualify for
must carry. There are a lot of broadcasters who will tell you that less
than five percent of their viewers depend on OTA now.

And if that were not enough to claim the imminent death of OTA there are
new competitors who will deliver ala carte programming over broadband
that will increase in bandwidth especially in cities to 100 Mbps over
the next few years.

And if that were not enough the spectrum that has been auctioned and
will be auctioned (channels 51 through 69) will spawn competitors to OTA
broadcasters and all of this bandwidth will be used for mobile but guess
what if it works mobile it will definitely work fixed.

The one thing that broadcasters can do that cable and satellite cannot
do is mobile and portable. Unfortunately they can't do it with 8-VSB.

One other advantage broadcasters have is that their cost of delivery OTA
is less than cable. If the new 8-VSB receivers are as good as they say
broadcasters may be able to compete with cable and satellite to fixed
receivers as is being done very successfully in the UK and Germany and
now Italy. But I am afraid that in the near future broadband will steal
broadcasters advantage there as well and they will be back to needing
mobile to survive.
Anonymous
June 4, 2004 1:02:35 PM

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

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
> DTV OTA is virtually dead in the US. To say that it is far ahead of such
> countries as the UK, Italy, Japan or Germany where the public is going wild
> for DTV is ludicrous.

I wonder what drugs Bob Miller is taking to have such hallucinations.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
June 4, 2004 1:56:57 PM

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

> 3) The Ugly:
>
> FOX's widescreen picture quality is noticably inferior to the HDTV
> programming on the other channels.

That is because FOX is not broadcasting in HDTV. They are using EDTV
(480p). They will be transitioning to 720p this fall.
Anonymous
June 4, 2004 6:50:57 PM

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

Mark Crispin wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Richard C. wrote:
>
>> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:o 1nvc.20621$be.12721@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> : IMO if free OTA is to survive they will need mobile
>> : and portable reception.
>> Whatever for?
>
>
> Because in Bob Miller's psychotic world view, free OTA can not survive
> unless they sell him bandwidth to broadcast tampon advertisements to
> city buses.

They have already sold the bandwidth. Some are already useing it. One
venture will start with DVB-H COFDM broadcasting to cell phones and
other hand-held devices after test now taking place in Pittsburg. If you
watched the House Hearings this week they were all about how to get
access to the rest of the spectrum to sell ASAP.
>
> Current Seattle DTV report, showing how the USA is far ahead of any
> other country in both DTV and HDTV, thanks to the correct decision to
> use 8VSB:

The Congressional Hearings this week were all about the DTV transition
and blew off HDTV totally. HDTV will do well on cable and satellite and
IP networks in the near future. However well HDTV is doing has nothing
to do with OTA and HDTV on OTA is doing miserable. Ken Ferree the FCC
Media Dept. Head stated in the hearings that NO-ONE was buying OTA
receivers and that the transition would take till 2050 at the current
rate. HDTV is being impeded by the failure of the OTA transition.

DTV OTA is virtually dead in the US. To say that it is far ahead of such
countries as the UK, Italy, Japan or Germany where the public is going
wild for DTV is ludicrous. You can't get a receiver in Italy because of
incredible demand much the same as happened in both Berlin and the UK
when they first started broadcasting DTV.

The US has less than ONE% penetration of OTA DTV receivers and less than
THREE % of viewers who can receive an HDTV signal and display it. OTA
DTV in England is at 15% with 500,000 receivers sold in the first
quarter (the slowest quarter of the year) alone and well above SKY's
(satellite) 68,000. OTA DTV has cable running scared in Berlin. I don't
see cable or satellite being worried about anything OTA is doing. All
OTA does in the US is beg for more goverment intervention to prop up
their business plan with must carry on cable.

OTA both digital or analog does not even exist in the US without must
carry. HDTV via OTA DTV does not even exist in the US without the hope
of must carry.

All your stuff on broadcasting of DTV and HDTV snipped as irrelevant.
All broadcasters can be broadcasting at infinite power with lots of HDTV
but if no one is buying OTA receivers it means NADA.

The mandate will not help if it doesn't come with a truck roll to
install a mandated antenna with it. As Ken Ferree said in the hearing
and the NAB has said since 2000 consumers will not in most cases put up
a rooftop antenna for OTA reception. They don't do it for the mandated
NTSC receiver in every TV they buy and they won't do it for ATSC.

Bob Miller

Berlin hearing in July will be very interesting.
>
> -- Mark --
>
> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
> Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 3:27:17 AM

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

Bob Miller wrote:

> Michael J. Sherman wrote:
>
>> Bob Miller wrote:
>> >
>> > [a lot of garbage]
>> >
>>
>> Make it stop! Please! What will it take for you to go away?
>
>
> That is too easy, get broadcasters off channels 51 through 69.

Why don't you take some of the money the venture capitalists invested in
your firm and buy the broadcasters off those frequencies?

Matthew (heh heh!)

--
If the war in Iraq was over oil, we lost.
Anonymous
June 6, 2004 9:41:34 PM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:KCqvc.20830$be.8426@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
: Michael J. Sherman wrote:
:
: > Bob Miller wrote:
: > >
: > > [a lot of garbage]
: > >
: >
: > Make it stop! Please! What will it take for you to go away?
:
: That is too easy, get broadcasters off channels 51 through 69.

===================
Huh?
Is that all you want?

Then why all this FUD about 8-VSB?
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 9:38:06 AM

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

Richard C. wrote:

> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:KCqvc.20830$be.8426@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> : Michael J. Sherman wrote:
> :
> : > Bob Miller wrote:
> : > >
> : > > [a lot of garbage]
> : > >
> : >
> : > Make it stop! Please! What will it take for you to go away?
> :
> : That is too easy, get broadcasters off channels 51 through 69.
>
> ===================
> Huh?
> Is that all you want?
>
> Then why all this FUD about 8-VSB?
>
>
I think history will bear out that not an iota of what I have posted
here will be found to be FUD.

8-VSB NOT working and nobody buying has held up the digital transition
for donkeys years. In classic fashion the broadcasters turned the tables
and accused Sinclair for attempting to delay the transition by
introducing COFDM. Just the opposite is true. 8-VSB is the one causing
delay. Finally we have a Congressman Barton the new head of the House
Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Telecommunications that says music
to my ears.

Ken Ferree head of the FCC's Media department (all TV and radio) comes
up with a plan that counts all cable customers that receive an analog
version of the digital version that the station gets from the
broadcaster as part of the 85%. With that ruling we are go in most of
the country now for turning off analog and kicking the broadcasters
downstairs to channels 2-51.. Ken Ferree floats 2009 and Barton comes
back WHY NOT NOW or at the latest 2006. Who knew that this was going to
happen. The long lead-up to these hearings suggested nothing but more BS.

The NAB witness almost fell over backwards with his mouth open. And the
camera went right to him. We and others want to use spectrum that is
bought and paid for above 51 with COFDM to kick some ass. Broadcasters
don't want to broadcast we will.

I always said that sooner or later Berlin and their 9 month transition
would wake somebody political up. They can make hay with this and
Chairman Tauzin sent the GAO to Berlin. Well they are back and the next
hearing in late July will be all about BERLIN! 4 or 5 Congresspersons
brought Berlin up in their questions at the hearings. No witness knew
anything about it. They will.

The amount of ignorance on both sides of this hearing and others before
this continues to astound me.

If you look at the history of my post (much on AVSForum has been deleted
you will find that I have been fairly consistent and on the mark.

I have suggested from the beginning that 8-VSB receivers would no be
purchased by the public. They have not been and the government has now
had to MANDATE their sale.

I have said that the transition would be a failure until either COFDM or
similar modulation was allowed or 8-VSB was fixed good enough for indoor
fixed reception. I said in 2000 that would take 5 or 6 years. I have
said that even then OTA broadcasting would fail in the US without mobile
reception. I have recently changed my mind on that and say now that for
some medium term 8-VSB might be successful if it had good fixed
reception indoors and an inexpensive receiver. Five years from now or
less than that will not hold though. 8-VSB will have to be recieved
mobile with very inexpensive receivers by then for OTA DTV to survive.
By then new broadband wireless will be competing with cable, satellite
and OTA and eating their lunch in big cities and their suburbs.

And in the meantime new broadcasting services using COFDM type
modulations to mobile and fixed devices will be growing and competing
with OTA broadcasting with stations that were and will be auctioned
above 51 and on 1670-75 MHz. However I expect that as soon as this
starts to happen the FCC will allow COFDM type modulations to current
broadcasters. As soon as successful OTA broadcasting like that promised
by the Emmis and USDTV ventures start succeeding in the US broadcasters
will demand decent mobile capable modulation just like broadcasters in
Australia, Taiwan and now S. Korea did and are doing.

I predicted that all broadcasters would do as much datacasting and
multicasting as they could whichever modulation was chosen. The only
difference would be that since 8-VSB would be unsuccessful at anything
that broadcasters would not pay much attention to anything at all to do
with broadcasting OTA and they haven't UNTIL recently with the fact that
better 8-VSB receivers may be coming. Now they have started to pay
attention.
Anonymous
June 19, 2004 7:23:26 PM

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

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 14:50:57 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>Mark Crispin wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Richard C. wrote:
>>
>>> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:o 1nvc.20621$be.12721@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>> : IMO if free OTA is to survive they will need mobile
>>> : and portable reception.
>>> Whatever for?
>>
>> -snip-
>They have already sold the bandwidth. Some are already useing it. One
>venture will start with DVB-H COFDM broadcasting to cell phones and
>other hand-held devices after test now taking place in Pittsburg. If you
>watched the House Hearings this week they were all about how to get
>access to the rest of the spectrum to sell ASAP.
>> -snip
>Bob Miller
>
>Berlin hearing in July will be very interesting.
>>
>> -- Mark --
>>
>> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
>> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
>> Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Bob, you miss two important points in the COFDM argument...

1) OTA Really SHOULDNT EXIST.

It is history. Over. Done with. No one cares. Heck, even one of your
earlier posts claimed that :"The broadcaster owns spectrum which he is
licensed to use to broadcast over the air to customers who receive..."


Well, the broadcaster doesnt own a damn thing. He is licensed to use
the spectrum which is owned by the American people to provide a local
public service. In addition he may entertain and make a profit. Well,
if you've seen more than blood and guts local "news" on a local
channel, congratulations! If you have seen local high school football
games and county commissioner election debates you live in a great
place. Fact is, with Sinclair and others nationalcasting news local
public service is not being served. Period. Cancel all the licenses,
do away with must carry farce. If I never see another garbage network
reality show in my life, it will make zero that I have seen in total.

2) COFDM is UNPATRIOTIC at this time in history.

Is that why Sinclair is pushing it? I dont know. But I do know that
VHF NTSC stations had 10 kw transmitters with an 80 % power amp
efficiency rate... a relatively minor use of oil. Heck, even UHFs at
a megawatt have a 50 or 55 kw transmittwe with an antenna gain of 20.
Some combine two and even though the power at peak is 110 kw into the
antenna for 2.5 or 5 megawatt ERP the average power is much lower and
oil consumption was tolerable.

Now we have OTA UHF ATSC which has what, twice the transmitter power
at 100% peak power continuously ? For what purpose? Certainly not
local public service. Just to send the same crummy network reality
shows to every city that has their own power guzzling OTA ATSC. This
can all be done with a 100 watt satellite transponder, dude. So we
circle back to argument #1 again before we even talk of the COFDM
transmitters which want to double the power input again. So, like, how
many heads must roll in Saudi Arabia before you get off the COFDM and
even the OTA kick COMPLETELY?????


Dave
Anonymous
June 20, 2004 8:13:44 AM

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

da3vidremovethis@peoplepc.com wrote:

> On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 14:50:57 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Mark Crispin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Richard C. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:o 1nvc.20621$be.12721@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>: IMO if free OTA is to survive they will need mobile
>>>>: and portable reception.
>>>>Whatever for?
>>>
>>>-snip-
>>
>>They have already sold the bandwidth. Some are already useing it. One
>>venture will start with DVB-H COFDM broadcasting to cell phones and
>>other hand-held devices after test now taking place in Pittsburg. If you
>>watched the House Hearings this week they were all about how to get
>>access to the rest of the spectrum to sell ASAP.
>>
>>>-snip
>>
>>Bob Miller
>>
>>Berlin hearing in July will be very interesting.
>>
>>>-- Mark --
>>>
>>>http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
>>>Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
>>>Si vis pacem, para bellum.
>
>
> Bob, you miss two important points in the COFDM argument...
>
> 1) OTA Really SHOULDNT EXIST.
>
> It is history. Over. Done with. No one cares. Heck, even one of your
> earlier posts claimed that :"The broadcaster owns spectrum which he is
> licensed to use to broadcast over the air to customers who receive..."
>

> Well, the broadcaster doesnt own a damn thing. He is licensed to use
> the spectrum which is owned by the American people to provide a local
> public service. In addition he may entertain and make a profit. Well,
> if you've seen more than blood and guts local "news" on a local
> channel, congratulations! If you have seen local high school football
> games and county commissioner election debates you live in a great
> place. Fact is, with Sinclair and others nationalcasting news local
> public service is not being served. Period. Cancel all the licenses,
> do away with must carry farce. If I never see another garbage network
> reality show in my life, it will make zero that I have seen in total.

Yes broadcasters rent the spectrum. The problem is that this renter (the
broadcaster) like many renters in NYC where you have rent control, has
political power such that they control the landlord (Congress). No
Congressman in his right mind would consider crossing broadcasters and
in affect current broadcasters "own" the spectrum they rent. How else do
you explain the fact that Congress proposed that winners of Auctions 44
and 49 of UHF stations 54, 55 and 59 should pay the squatting
broadcasters cash to move off the spectrum they had won and paid for at
auction?
>
>
> 2) COFDM is UNPATRIOTIC at this time in history.

IP royalty rights to COFDM are owned by American and Canadians and cost
around 60 Cents a receiver. 8-VSB IP royalty rights are owned by S.
Korean company and the charge $6.00

Hell 8-VSB is unpatriotic both economically and emotionally.
>
> Is that why Sinclair is pushing it? I dont know. But I do know that
> VHF NTSC stations had 10 kw transmitters with an 80 % power amp
> efficiency rate... a relatively minor use of oil. Heck, even UHFs at
> a megawatt have a 50 or 55 kw transmittwe with an antenna gain of 20.
> Some combine two and even though the power at peak is 110 kw into the
> antenna for 2.5 or 5 megawatt ERP the average power is much lower and
> oil consumption was tolerable.


> Now we have OTA UHF ATSC which has what, twice the transmitter power
> at 100% peak power continuously ? For what purpose? Certainly not
> local public service. Just to send the same crummy network reality
> shows to every city that has their own power guzzling OTA ATSC. This
> can all be done with a 100 watt satellite transponder, dude. So we
> circle back to argument #1 again before we even talk of the COFDM
> transmitters which want to double the power input again. So, like, how
> many heads must roll in Saudi Arabia before you get off the COFDM and
> even the OTA kick COMPLETELY?????

COFDM as used in all countries and as would be used in the US would cut
power cost by 75 to 90% using SFN's. In the UK the average power level
is ONE kW ERP. Their highest ERP is 20 kW. Small simple solid state
transmitters on lower buildings or shorter towers make for a far more
reliable, redundant and low cost broadcast network.
>
>
> Dave
>
Anonymous
June 20, 2004 5:49:32 PM

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

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 04:13:44 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>-snip-
>>
>> 2) COFDM is UNPATRIOTIC at this time in history.
>
>IP royalty rights to COFDM are owned by American and Canadians and cost
>around 60 Cents a receiver. 8-VSB IP royalty rights are owned by S.
>Korean company and the charge $6.00
>
>Hell 8-VSB is unpatriotic both economically and emotionally.
>>
You didnt answer the question. When every bit of oil counts, how many
heads have to roll in Saudi Arabia to feed your power guzzling COFDM
transmitters? Answer please, just the quantity of heads you feel are
enough. And then answer the 100 watt transponder national delivery.


I-snip-


>COFDM as used in all countries and as would be used in the US would cut
>power cost by 75 to 90% using SFN's. In the UK the average power level
>is ONE kW ERP. Their highest ERP is 20 kW. Small simple solid state
>transmitters on lower buildings or shorter towers make for a far more
>reliable, redundant and low cost broadcast network.
>>
>>
>> Dave
>>
I see. You are going to cover Wyoming with a number of 1 kw
transmitters. You a real estate magnate?

And of course, your comparisons to England are not justifiable. The
country is what- 10 x 20 miles in size - now that Blair is done with
it?

Dave
!