Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

8-VSB experiences Vol 2.

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
June 6, 2004 9:13:51 PM

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

In light of all the crazy talk about 8vsb problems.... and home made
yagi's hanging out of windows and such.. here's a good one for ya!

In Rhode Island in the attic pointing out a window is a 30inch UHF antenna
from radio shack.. with that I get NBC, CBS, ABC all about 8 miles away
from my house... with 90% strength.. of course thats no big deal ok...

then from BOSTON MA, I get FOX, PBS, WB, UPN over 40 miles away.. through
houses, buildings, several major cities, all to my house with over 80%
signal strength......
and I don't even have to re-aim the antenna a total of 7 channels come in
NBC, ABC, CBS, WB, UPN, PBS, FOX.

I must go through so much terrain and through so many buildings and cities
its not even funny.

And most of these towers are NOT very high strength...

Seems to me that if anyone has any problems with 8-VSB.

THEY ARE MAKING THE WHOLE THING UP!

Nick D

More about : vsb experiences vol

Anonymous
June 6, 2004 9:22:28 PM

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

"Nick D" <n1hck@mail.uri.edu> wrote in message
news:p an.2004.06.06.21.13.51.131604@mail.uri.edu...
: In light of all the crazy talk about 8vsb problems.... and home made
: yagi's hanging out of windows and such.. here's a good one for ya!
:
: In Rhode Island in the attic pointing out a window is a 30inch UHF
antenna
: from radio shack.. with that I get NBC, CBS, ABC all about 8 miles
away
: from my house... with 90% strength.. of course thats no big deal ok...
:
: then from BOSTON MA, I get FOX, PBS, WB, UPN over 40 miles away..
through
: houses, buildings, several major cities, all to my house with over 80%
: signal strength......
: and I don't even have to re-aim the antenna a total of 7 channels come
in
: NBC, ABC, CBS, WB, UPN, PBS, FOX.
:
: I must go through so much terrain and through so many buildings and
cities
: its not even funny.
:
: And most of these towers are NOT very high strength...
:
: Seems to me that if anyone has any problems with 8-VSB.
:
: THEY ARE MAKING THE WHOLE THING UP!
:
: Nick D

===================
Ain't that the truth!
===================
Anonymous
June 6, 2004 10:46:28 PM

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

Nick,

Thanks for sharing your experience, it's similar to my own. Except I'm
able to pull all the local networks from tower(s) about 35 miles away
with a small in-door powered antenna. The only legitimate problem with
8VSB is it's ability to be incorporated into mobile devices. I don't
see this as an important factor others do (Bob- to drop a name).

People who blast 8VSB have agenda's, it's best to ignore them. They
are trying to strew up something to create fear to further help create
the demise of 8VSB tunners even though: many of us have invested in
these devices, the FCC has tested and retested 8VSB vs the alternative
COFDM technology (and found no strong reason to nix 8VSB).

The fact is that most people don't own 8VSB tunners because they
aren't easy to obtain. Retailers don't stock integrated HDTVs because
they resale satellite services that offers HD reception on a
monthly/lease-service fee basis. Stand alone 8SVB tunner sit top boxes
are still expensive because people are electing to buy HDTV monitors
(again, because so few integrated sets are available at retailers) and
because they can upgrade their existing cable service often for only
dollars more a month.

Some people here love the 8VSB/COFDM battle, it does matter to some
people in the industry, it doesn't matter to the average the consumer
and the word should be getting out that, for those interested 8VSB
works just fine!

Thanks,

-Jeremy


Nick D <n1hck@mail.uri.edu> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.06.06.21.13.51.131604@mail.uri.edu>...
> In light of all the crazy talk about 8vsb problems.... and home made
> yagi's hanging out of windows and such.. here's a good one for ya!
>
> In Rhode Island in the attic pointing out a window is a 30inch UHF antenna
> from radio shack.. with that I get NBC, CBS, ABC all about 8 miles away
> from my house... with 90% strength.. of course thats no big deal ok...
>
> then from BOSTON MA, I get FOX, PBS, WB, UPN over 40 miles away.. through
> houses, buildings, several major cities, all to my house with over 80%
> signal strength......
> and I don't even have to re-aim the antenna a total of 7 channels come in
> NBC, ABC, CBS, WB, UPN, PBS, FOX.
>
> I must go through so much terrain and through so many buildings and cities
> its not even funny.
>
> And most of these towers are NOT very high strength...
>
> Seems to me that if anyone has any problems with 8-VSB.
>
> THEY ARE MAKING THE WHOLE THING UP!
>
> Nick D
Related resources
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 2:27:24 AM

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

"JDeats" <jeremy@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:b0738dc6.0406061746.3a1720aa@posting.google.com...
> Nick,
>
> Thanks for sharing your experience, it's similar to my own. Except I'm
> able to pull all the local networks from tower(s) about 35 miles away
> with a small in-door powered antenna. The only legitimate problem with
> 8VSB is it's ability to be incorporated into mobile devices. I don't
> see this as an important factor others do (Bob- to drop a name).
>
> People who blast 8VSB have agenda's, it's best to ignore them. They
> are trying to strew up something to create fear to further help create
> the demise of 8VSB tunners even though: many of us have invested in
> these devices, the FCC has tested and retested 8VSB vs the alternative
> COFDM technology (and found no strong reason to nix 8VSB).
>
> The fact is that most people don't own 8VSB tunners because they
> aren't easy to obtain. Retailers don't stock integrated HDTVs because
> they resale satellite services that offers HD reception on a
> monthly/lease-service fee basis. Stand alone 8SVB tunner sit top boxes
> are still expensive because people are electing to buy HDTV monitors
> (again, because so few integrated sets are available at retailers) and
> because they can upgrade their existing cable service often for only
> dollars more a month.

Wal-Mart is offering ATSC STB's for $198 on their website... interestingly,
these STB's also have WM9 codecs for the USDTV service
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 4:30:07 AM

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

>And most of these towers are NOT very high strength...
>
>Seems to me that if anyone has any problems with 8-VSB.
>
>THEY ARE MAKING THE WHOLE THING UP!
>
>Nick D

Now Nick, do you 'really' think that BOB would make up stories?? YOU BET HE
WOULD!!! Your post of trouble free 8VSB reception will joint the countless
others that simply don't exist in the wonderful whacky lying world of BOB.

Thanks for sharing it with us.
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 5:06:40 AM

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

"Nick D" <n1hck@mail.uri.edu> wrote in message
news:p an.2004.06.06.21.13.51.131604@mail.uri.edu...
> Seems to me that if anyone has any problems with 8-VSB.
>
> THEY ARE MAKING THE WHOLE THING UP!

We are all very happy that you get good reception. But you then greatly
undermine your own credibility by slandering anyone else who has had a
different experience.
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 5:06:41 AM

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

My credibility.. what am I lieing here? lol...
seriously now... please let me post evidence..

Below is the exact output from my PCHDTV2000 card in Linux

CBS:
nicholas@skynet HDTV $ signal /dev/dtv 13
main: argc 3 argv[1] /dev/dtv
channel 13
freq*16 = 3380
main: ioctl 1 rtn 0
main: ioctl 2 rtn 0
signal ver 0.1 - by Jack Kelliher (c) 2002
channel = 13 freq*16 = 3380
Signal: | . : . | .____:____.____|
Signal: 088 (-26) #############################

PBS:
nicholas@skynet HDTV $ signal /dev/dtv 19
main: argc 3 argv[1] /dev/dtv
channel 19
freq*16 = 8020
main: ioctl 1 rtn 0
main: ioctl 2 rtn 0
signal ver 0.1 - by Jack Kelliher (c) 2002
channel = 19 freq*16 = 8020
Signal: | . : . | .____:____.____|
Signal: 091 (047) ##############################

FOX:
nicholas@skynet HDTV $ signal /dev/dtv 31
main: argc 3 argv[1] /dev/dtv
channel 31
freq*16 = 9172
main: ioctl 1 rtn 0
main: ioctl 2 rtn 0
signal ver 0.1 - by Jack Kelliher (c) 2002
channel = 31 freq*16 = 9172
Signal: | . : . | .____:____.____|
Signal: 083 (044) ###########################

UPN:
nicholas@skynet HDTV $ signal /dev/dtv 39
main: argc 3 argv[1] /dev/dtv
channel 39
freq*16 = 9940
main: ioctl 1 rtn 0
main: ioctl 2 rtn 0
signal ver 0.1 - by Jack Kelliher (c) 2002
channel = 39 freq*16 = 9940
Signal: | . : . | .____:____.____|
Signal: 071 (039) -----------------------

WB:
nicholas@skynet HDTV $ signal /dev/dtv 41
main: argc 3 argv[1] /dev/dtv
channel 41
freq*16 = 10132
main: ioctl 1 rtn 0
main: ioctl 2 rtn 0
signal ver 0.1 - by Jack Kelliher (c) 2002
channel = 41 freq*16 = 10132
Signal: | . : . | .____:____.____|
Signal: 071 (046) -----------------------

ABC:
nicholas@skynet HDTV $ signal /dev/dtv 49
main: argc 3 argv[1] /dev/dtv
channel 49
freq*16 = 10900
main: ioctl 1 rtn 0
main: ioctl 2 rtn 0
signal ver 0.1 - by Jack Kelliher (c) 2002
channel = 49 freq*16 = 10900
Signal: | . : . | .____:____.____|
Signal: 090 (035) ##############################

NBC:
nicholas@skynet HDTV $ signal /dev/dtv 51
main: argc 3 argv[1] /dev/dtv
channel 51
freq*16 = 11092
main: ioctl 1 rtn 0
main: ioctl 2 rtn 0
signal ver 0.1 - by Jack Kelliher (c) 2002
channel = 51 freq*16 = 11092
Signal: | . : . | .____:____.____|
Signal: 091 (051) ##############################


So.. I'm guessing this probably IS Bob miller.
In any case... I still can't believe I pull in the all these channels.
some of which are over 40 miles away!!

Thank you 8-VSB... thank you for working the way you should :) 

Nick D
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 8:32:01 AM

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

In article <AcPwc.20616$eH1.9289866@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
"Lawrence G. Mayka" <lgmayka000@ameritech.net> writes:
> "Nick D" <n1hck@mail.uri.edu> wrote in message
> news:p an.2004.06.06.21.13.51.131604@mail.uri.edu...
>> Seems to me that if anyone has any problems with 8-VSB.
>>
>> THEY ARE MAKING THE WHOLE THING UP!
>
> We are all very happy that you get good reception.
>
It seems like people do become polarized too easily when an
apparently dishonest person (like Bob) causes that manifestation
in normally more rational people.

It would be more accurate to claim that Bob's overly optimistic
claims about COFDM arent' best answered by overly optimistic
claims about 8VSB. However, Bob's anecdotal claims against
8VSB should be answerable by the instances of incredibly good 8VSB
reception when OTA NTSC looks so very bad (like in my own case.)

There are definitely cases where 8VSB doesnt' work well -- but
in some cases, the blame shouldn't be attributed to 8VSB, but
likely relatively poorly designed front-ends and inadequate dynamic
range.

For example, when overcoming my own reception problems, the
biggest issue was the wide power level differences and the
interfering sources. The front-end on my DTC100 isn't very good.
Even given the fact that the DTC100 front end and receiver could
be done better (even without improving the 8VSB decoding), alot
of people were pleasantly surprised about the ease of HDTV
reception.

John
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 9:55:21 AM

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

Randy Sweeney wrote:

> "JDeats" <jeremy@pdq.net> wrote in message
> news:b0738dc6.0406061746.3a1720aa@posting.google.com...
>
>>Nick,
>>
>>Thanks for sharing your experience, it's similar to my own. Except I'm
>>able to pull all the local networks from tower(s) about 35 miles away
>>with a small in-door powered antenna. The only legitimate problem with
>>8VSB is it's ability to be incorporated into mobile devices. I don't
>>see this as an important factor others do (Bob- to drop a name).

There are other legitimate problems with 8-VSB including the cost of
their receivers and their inability to handle dynamic multipath which is
why they do not work mobile. BUT you don't have to be mobile to have a
problem with dynamic multipath. Planes, people, dogs and waving leaves
can cause dynamic multipath.
>>
>>People who blast 8VSB have agenda's, it's best to ignore them. They
>>are trying to strew up something to create fear to further help create
>>the demise of 8VSB tunners even though: many of us have invested in
>>these devices, the FCC has tested and retested 8VSB vs the alternative
>>COFDM technology (and found no strong reason to nix 8VSB).

The FCC has not tested and retested. They depend on such organizations
as MSTV to do the testing. MSTV did a fraudulent test in 2000 that the
FCC relied on. And that same organization, MSTV, says that 60% of
locations 8-VSB works fine. 40% of locations it doesn't. Your luck in
being in the 60% says nothing about anyone else. OPEN BOX specials
attest to the 40%.
>>
>>The fact is that most people don't own 8VSB tunners because they
>>aren't easy to obtain. Retailers don't stock integrated HDTVs because
>>they resale satellite services that offers HD reception on a
>>monthly/lease-service fee basis. Stand alone 8SVB tunner sit top boxes
>>are still expensive because people are electing to buy HDTV monitors
>>(again, because so few integrated sets are available at retailers) and
>>because they can upgrade their existing cable service often for only
>>dollars more a month.

Why is none of these lame excuses happening in Japan or Australia? Both
countries started broadcasting HDTV via COFDM long after we did and are
far ahead of us already.
>
>
> Wal-Mart is offering ATSC STB's for $198 on their website... interestingly,
> these STB's also have WM9 codecs for the USDTV service
>
It will be even more interesting when broadcasters only deliver ONE SD
program via MPEG2 and everything else via WM9 and all current receivers
except one like this will not be able to receive the rest of the
programming whether it is HD, ED or SD because it will all be in WM9 and
probably a subscription service. CA card come with this receiver?
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 10:12:15 AM

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

John S. Dyson wrote:

The front-end on my DTC100 isn't very good.
> Even given the fact that the DTC100 front end and receiver could
> be done better (even without improving the 8VSB decoding), alot
> of people were pleasantly surprised about the ease of HDTV
> reception.
>
> John
>
I have to say I know of no one who was not pleasantly suprised by the
ease of HDTV reception when they were so lucky and part of the 60%.

I find it rather distressing though and short sighted when some them
express no interest in the 40% who are not so lucky or in the future for
OTA broadcasting for everyone including themselves if it doesn't get fixed.
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 10:04:21 PM

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

> However, Bob's anecdotal claims against
>8VSB should be answerable by the instances of incredibly good 8VSB
>reception when OTA NTSC looks so very bad (like in my own case.)
>
>

You don't exist in the world of BOB.

>There are definitely cases where 8VSB doesnt' work well -- but
>in some cases, the blame shouldn't be attributed to 8VSB, but
>likely relatively poorly designed front-ends and inadequate dynamic
>range.

As well as the TEMPORARY very low power output of many broadcasters. Of course
BOB will NEVER factor that into any of his claims. Why? Because he doesn't tell
the truth.
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 10:05:51 PM

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

>I find it rather distressing though and short sighted when some them
>express no interest in the 40% who are not so lucky or in the future for
>OTA broadcasting for everyone including themselves if it doesn't get fixed.

No BOB, it is YOU that we find distressing in your 1/2 truths, outright LIES
and deliberate attempts to make it seem as if 8VSB hardly works anywhere.
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 11:18:45 PM

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

On 2004-06-06 22:55:21 -0700, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> said:

> There are other legitimate problems with 8-VSB including the cost of
> their receivers and their inability to handle dynamic multipath which
> is why they do not work mobile. BUT you don't have to be mobile to have
> a problem with dynamic multipath. Planes, people, dogs and waving
> leaves can cause dynamic multipath.

Bob, can you explain to me how my 65 inch Mits is going to benefit from
in a mobile application?

--
There are no monkeys in my email.
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 11:35:01 PM

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

>Bob, can you explain to me how my 65 inch Mits is going to benefit from
>in a mobile application?
>

C'mon Seth, you put your Mits on wheels and roll it down the block. That's the
BOB argument!
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 11:35:02 PM

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

Vidguy7 wrote:
>>Bob, can you explain to me how my 65 inch Mits is going to benefit from
>>in a mobile application?
>>
>
>
> C'mon Seth, you put your Mits on wheels and roll it down the block. That's the
> BOB argument!

No, the *real* Bob response to that kind of logical question is to
totally avoid the issue and start talking about how COFDM is taking
off in Zimbabwe or something.... Oh, and there was a demonstration of
a mobile DTV device in some trade show.
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 12:21:05 AM

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

Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 2004-06-06 22:55:21 -0700, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> said:
>
>> There are other legitimate problems with 8-VSB including the cost of
>> their receivers and their inability to handle dynamic multipath which
>> is why they do not work mobile. BUT you don't have to be mobile to
>> have a problem with dynamic multipath. Planes, people, dogs and waving
>> leaves can cause dynamic multipath.
>
>
> Bob, can you explain to me how my 65 inch Mits is going to benefit from
> in a mobile application?
>
The fact that the OTA DTV signal can be received easily with simple
antennas and plug and play receivers that are being produced for most of
the world helps in many ways.

If the signal can be received while the receiver is mobile that means
that the receiver can handle dynamic multipath. If the receiver can do
that it will work in areas where there is a lot of dynamic multipath
like a major city or near an airport or heavy traffic. Branches on tress
waving can also cause dynamic multipath.

The large world market for COFDM DVB-T has lowered the price for COFDM
receivers because of economies of scale and this would benefit anyone in
the US who wanted to buy a OTA receiver, they would be less expensive.
Also it happens that the IP royalty cost of 8-VSB at $6 is far higher
than the IP cost of COFDM at 60 cents. This translates into 3 to 5 times
as much at retail as all cost get marked up. So an 8-VSB receivers is
already $18 to $30 more than a COFDM receiver before economies of scale
or the simple fact that COFDM needs less silicon to do its work. How
does this relate to mobile reception? Well every country that chose
COFDM over 8-VSB stated that its mobile reception capability was all
important to their decision. It was this unanimous choice of COFDM that
led to the economies of scale.

As you know the lower the price the higher the sales. Most people in the
US are shocked at the price of OTA receivers which is higher than their
TV sets in most cases. $40 and $85 receiver cost in the UK and Berlin
have spurred sales to record numbers. Ease of use and plug and play have
caused sales of HDTV integrated sets to go through the roof in Japan.

More sales and lower cost and plug and play with simple antennas like
you see on these cell phones and hand held devices would ensure the
success of OTA DTV in the US and make your investment more secure.

Unfortunately Congress and the FCC did everything to ensure the
INSECURITY of your investment in any 8-VSB receiver. All current and
past sales of 8-VSB receivers is under assault by a myriad of things
each of can and will if implemented destroy the prime reason you bought
an 8-VSB receiver and that is HDTV.

The USDTV and EMMIS models will both render your current receiver
incapable of HDTV reception. E-VSB will do the same if adopted. And
Hollywood would do the same if they can. We have had a bad modulation
and an inefficient compression codec foisted on us in the US.

Both will be reversed and the process is now taking on a life of its
own. Listen to the Chairman of the House Commerce Committee Barton. They
are not playing games anymore. They have had enough and they are now
going to get things done. Broadcasters will now start doing things you
don't like. Tauzin is not there demanding HDTV anymore. Specifically
HDTV is not on the agenda anymore it is digital transition however we
can get it done NOW.

Broadcasters, including CBS, are going to look for ways to make money
now. They will all do what EMMIS suggest. It is a no brainer.

Your Mits will still work with a new receiver whether it is COFDM or
8-VSB. It is your receiver that will be worthless. Maybe broadcasters
will feel sorry for you and do something in a promotion vein.
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 1:09:20 AM

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

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:3HTwc.24701$Tn6.22497@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> I have to say I know of no one who was not pleasantly suprised by the
> ease of HDTV reception when they were so lucky and part of the 60%.
>
> I find it rather distressing though and short sighted when some them
> express no interest in the 40% who are not so lucky or in the future
> for OTA broadcasting for everyone including themselves if it doesn't
> get fixed.
>

You still haven't published any source for this 40/60 split...

Of course, we can easily calculate the percentage of people getting free
OTA HDTV in the U.S. via COFDM - it's 00.00%!
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 1:47:45 AM

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

Jeff Shoaf wrote:

> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:3HTwc.24701$Tn6.22497@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
>
>>I have to say I know of no one who was not pleasantly suprised by the
>>ease of HDTV reception when they were so lucky and part of the 60%.
>>
>>I find it rather distressing though and short sighted when some them
>>express no interest in the 40% who are not so lucky or in the future
>>for OTA broadcasting for everyone including themselves if it doesn't
>>get fixed.
>>
>
>
> You still haven't published any source for this 40/60 split...
>
> Of course, we can easily calculate the percentage of people getting free
> OTA HDTV in the U.S. via COFDM - it's 00.00%!
>
Actually I did. I said call up MSTV. They did the test and Victor Tawil
presented their findings at NAB this year. Test of 5th generation Zenith
receivers. The best that 8-VSB has to date. As reported by Mark Schubin
below and witnessed by many. Can't find the report on the MSTV site
though, they are very shy about such info as is the CEA. Far too
embarrassing.

As I said this has to be a very high number. And ALL TEST WERE DONE
OUTSIDE. You have to love the way they test. Notice Mark's remark about
the test of COFDM. He could find NO points of failure and they WENT
INSIDE CONCRETE AND STEEL BUILDINGS NOT OUTSIDE.

The FCC's last test of 8-VSB was even more hilarious. If they could get
reception within a half a mile of a site OUTSIDE with a six foot antenna
they called that site GOOD reception for INSIDE.

OH and you caught me embellishing again. The number is 65% while I was
saying 60%. 65% is so much better. Though I like the 99% of Berlin a lot
better and that is true inside reception. Those Germans know how to
test. They also know how to pick a DTV modulation.

http://www.freelists.org/archives/opendtv/04-2004/msg00...

From: Mark Schubin <tvmark@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 17:24:45 -0400

>
>
>That's what I don't understand. Why keep pounding on results obtained
with 1st generation chips? Who cares?
>
Agreed. Let's not pound on the first-generation chips. Let's examine
the 5th generation.

Victor Tawil of the Association for Maximum Service Television (MSTV)
presented a paper today on tests MSTV conducted in the Washington, D.C.
area using the Zenith 5th-generation chip. The tests were conducted in
a portion of Virginia, right across the river from Washington, that has
tall buildings. The sites were selected because they were considered
tough, so the percentages of success don't reflect percentages of the
overall population. All of the tests were conducted outdoors.

In 14 of the 78 tests, the signals were considered below threshold. I
don't know whether that means below 15.5 dB C/N or below threshold for
the necessary equalization (the 5th-generation Zenith requires 24 dB C/N
for the Brazil-E ensemble). In any case, those 14 were deleted and did
not count against the percentages. Of the rest, there was a 65% success
rate (fewer than four hits in three minutes); measured the old way
(fewer than 50 hits in three minutes) there would have been an 86%
acceptable rate.

That's the fifth-generation, not the first. Those of us who
participated in the old Sinclair trials would be hard pressed to come up
with one site that failed. I had one: it was inside the shielded
transmitter building. At no other site -- and Sinclair gave me carte
blanche to choose -- was there a failure.

Oh, well.

The 5th generation is certainly better than the 4th, and Zenith is
working on a 6th.

TTFN,
Mark
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 3:19:59 AM

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

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in news:5o5xc.5901$uX2.2982
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> Actually I did. I said call up MSTV. They did the test and Victor Tawil
> presented their findings at NAB this year. Test of 5th generation Zenith
> receivers. The best that 8-VSB has to date. As reported by Mark Schubin
>

Which MSTV? I Googled 'em, and found links to several sites.

The "Association for Maximum TV Service" (http://www.mstv.org/) represents
> 500 local stations and is mostly for members, but their press release
section (http://www.mstv.org/press.php) describes the Court of Appeals
upholding of the FCC's DTV tuner rules as "This is a tremendous victory for
the American consumer." Their FCC filing of 5/6/04 mentions that as of
April 2004, there were 1,175 local stations were on the air in digital,
servicing 205 markets that reach 99.6% of the nation's TV households. It
goes on to say that 3/4's of America's tv households are in markets with at
least 6 operating over-the-air DTV stations - and these figures improve
every day. Note that they attribute their figures to other publications
(including the NAB).

Hardly a failure, huh?

Hold on a minute - one of the links Google came up with is discussing the
test you mentioned. Of course, it's dated 4/8/2002... In case you missed
it, the FCC filing mentioned above is dated _5/6/2004_, just a bit more
recent...

Hold on another minute... That 4/8/2002 document is talking about a LINX
Electronics ATSC-complient receiver... Here's the link:

www.linxelectronics.com/ uploads/files/04-08-NAB---MSTV-Testing-PR---
Final.pdf
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 3:43:49 AM

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

In article <20040607140421.16952.00000554@mb-m10.aol.com>,
vidguy7@aol.com (Vidguy7) writes:
>> However, Bob's anecdotal claims against
>>8VSB should be answerable by the instances of incredibly good 8VSB
>>reception when OTA NTSC looks so very bad (like in my own case.)
>>
>>
>
> You don't exist in the world of BOB.
>
>>There are definitely cases where 8VSB doesnt' work well -- but
>>in some cases, the blame shouldn't be attributed to 8VSB, but
>>likely relatively poorly designed front-ends and inadequate dynamic
>>range.
>
> As well as the TEMPORARY very low power output of many broadcasters. Of course
> BOB will NEVER factor that into any of his claims. Why? Because he doesn't tell
> the truth.
>
I agree with you about the numerous reasons for impeding the performance
of any kind of RF system. It appears that the only reason that Bob
would accept for 8VSB reception to fail would be due to a fault with
8VSB -- Bob wouldn't even accept being 100miles away from the transmitter
as a valid reason for 8VSB reception to fail.

Bob's hard-on against 8VSB and HDTV becomes quite tiresome. My irritation
isn't due at all to a risk of loss of 8VSB/HDTV, but simply I don't
like liars. As I have said before, I really try to give Bob some
excuse for his errant behavior, because a purposeful liar is a very
lowly and disgusting creature.

John
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 9:33:53 AM

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

Jeff Shoaf wrote:
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in news:5o5xc.5901$uX2.2982
> @newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
>
>>Actually I did. I said call up MSTV. They did the test and Victor Tawil
>>presented their findings at NAB this year. Test of 5th generation Zenith
>>receivers. The best that 8-VSB has to date. As reported by Mark Schubin
>>
>
>
> Which MSTV? I Googled 'em, and found links to several sites.
>
> The "Association for Maximum TV Service" (http://www.mstv.org/) represents
>
>>500 local stations and is mostly for members, but their press release
>
> section (http://www.mstv.org/press.php) describes the Court of Appeals
> upholding of the FCC's DTV tuner rules as "This is a tremendous victory for
> the American consumer." Their FCC filing of 5/6/04 mentions that as of
> April 2004, there were 1,175 local stations were on the air in digital,
> servicing 205 markets that reach 99.6% of the nation's TV households. It
> goes on to say that 3/4's of America's tv households are in markets with at
> least 6 operating over-the-air DTV stations - and these figures improve
> every day. Note that they attribute their figures to other publications
> (including the NAB).
>
> Hardly a failure, huh?
>
> Hold on a minute - one of the links Google came up with is discussing the
> test you mentioned. Of course, it's dated 4/8/2002... In case you missed
> it, the FCC filing mentioned above is dated _5/6/2004_, just a bit more
> recent...
>
> Hold on another minute... That 4/8/2002 document is talking about a LINX
> Electronics ATSC-complient receiver... Here's the link:
>
> www.linxelectronics.com/ uploads/files/04-08-NAB---MSTV-Testing-PR---
> Final.pdf
>
>
As you can see MSTV is biased toward 8-VSB. They carried out the
fraudulent testing in 2000. So my point is if they say that 8-VSB is
acceptable with 5th generation receivers in 65% of cases I believe that
is about as high a number as you will get from any test.

The results of the test I mentioned was presented in a paper by Vincent
Tawil at this years NAB and was in reference to the latest 5th
generation Zenith receivers. The report you are talking about was a
previous test of Linx prototype chips. Many were present at this
presentation by Tawil. I trust Mark Schubin's factual report on the
presentation.

As I said if you want the actual report you will have to talk to MSTV. I
can't find it on their web site.

The facts you present from the MSTV site are all on the broadcast side.
Broadcasters to date have been doing what they are told to do by the FCC
to avoid penalties. Is there no mention of fantastic sales of OTA
receivers at the MSTV site? I would expect them to steer clear of the
subject as the CEA does. The only numbers that mean anything as to the
success or failure of the digital transition are the sales and actual
use of OTA receivers. To date this is a total failure.

The FCC, Congress and the CEA are hoping that the MANDATE will bring
success. I believe that the MANDATE guarantees absolute failure. It will
be the last straw before everyone capitulates.

Walmart sells 19 HDTV monitors with no ATSC 8-VSB receivers. These
monitors do have NTSC tuners. The manufacturers will have a lot of
integrated sets for sale when the MANDATE kicks in. This will be for
show. The warehouses and pipeline will have few integrated sets. What
will then happen is that these 19 monitors that Walmart sells will have
their NTSC receivers ripped out and become TRUE monitors and only
monitors and the retailers will push such lower cost monitors.

In other words the sales of integrated sets are minuscule today. A lot
of people are thinking the MANDATE will all of a sudden increase their
sales. I think the opposite. I think the MANDATE will hi-lite the
difference and be used as part of the sales pitch for monitors.

I can see big ads that say "Avoid the MANDATE and save $200".
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 9:45:44 AM

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

John S. Dyson wrote:

> In article <20040607140421.16952.00000554@mb-m10.aol.com>,
> vidguy7@aol.com (Vidguy7) writes:
>
>>>However, Bob's anecdotal claims against
>>>8VSB should be answerable by the instances of incredibly good 8VSB
>>>reception when OTA NTSC looks so very bad (like in my own case.)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>You don't exist in the world of BOB.
>>
>>
>>>There are definitely cases where 8VSB doesnt' work well -- but
>>>in some cases, the blame shouldn't be attributed to 8VSB, but
>>>likely relatively poorly designed front-ends and inadequate dynamic
>>>range.
>>
>>As well as the TEMPORARY very low power output of many broadcasters. Of course
>>BOB will NEVER factor that into any of his claims. Why? Because he doesn't tell
>>the truth.
>>
>
> I agree with you about the numerous reasons for impeding the performance
> of any kind of RF system. It appears that the only reason that Bob
> would accept for 8VSB reception to fail would be due to a fault with
> 8VSB -- Bob wouldn't even accept being 100miles away from the transmitter
> as a valid reason for 8VSB reception to fail.
>
> Bob's hard-on against 8VSB and HDTV becomes quite tiresome. My irritation
> isn't due at all to a risk of loss of 8VSB/HDTV, but simply I don't
> like liars. As I have said before, I really try to give Bob some
> excuse for his errant behavior, because a purposeful liar is a very
> lowly and disgusting creature.
>
> John

The power levels used in the UK are on average ONE kW which is far below
many low power broadcasters in the US. The UK is extremely successful at
these power levels so I would not accept the low power being used by
8-VSB as a realistic excuse for bad reception. By the end of the year
they will have sold over 6 million COFDM receivers in the UK. I believe
people here have complained of broadcasters being at very low power even
when they are broadcasting at 30 to 100 kW. With COFDM I would be very
happy at from ONE to fifty kWs in the US. So much for the need for more
power by COFDM BS.

That would be 36 million in the US or about 1/3 of all households. They
have done it in 2 1/2 years while we are under ONE% after 6 years. At
some point they will be at 70% of households having DTV receivers and at
the present rate we will be at 3% by then.

Our OTA digital transition is such a total failure it is beyond absurd.
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 6:05:27 PM

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

>The UK is extremely successful at
>these power levels so I would not accept the low power being used by
>8-VSB as a realistic excuse for bad reception.

Is that right BOB? Then how do you explain that I used to pick up WNET and WPIX
OTA HD when they were broadcasting at full power here in N.Y.? Now that they
are both at low power levels, very few people can receive their signal. Sorry
BOB, you lose, cause and effect. But hey, you never let logic or facts get in
the way of YOUR arguments now do you?

Oh BOB, by the way, does the 'fabulous' COFDM reception explain why people all
over the country suffer dropouts from XM satellite reception AS THE RESULT of
COFDM repeaters? You see BOB, as more and more people venture into sateliite
radio (only non demanding radio folks, NOT very demanding HDTV) they will see
how your bullshit stinks to high heaven. This will be the public's first
exposure to COFDM (as it was mine) and the FALLACY of all of your B.S.
regarding COFDM will be immediately apparent. Everyone else will know you for
what you are, a LIAR.

>Our OTA digital transition is such a total failure it is beyond absurd.

No BOB, YOU are absurd and are getting more and more absurd with each and every
lying post.
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 1:36:16 AM

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

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in news:5dcxc.25638$Tn6.22728
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> As I said if you want the actual report you will have to talk to MSTV. I
> can't find it on their web site.
>

All I know is I tried to find reference to the report you talk about (over
and over and over again), but all I found on the website of the group you
mentioned are positive reviews of 8VSB equipment - and that group
represents over 500 broadcast stations, the very broadcast stations that
you repeatly claim don't want or like 8VSB and are clamoring to switch to
COFDM.

I made my attempt to verify your claims and failed. I'm not calling anyone
- you're the one trying to convince us so it's up to you to provide the
links to support your claims.
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 3:13:29 AM

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

>All I know is I tried to find reference to the report you talk about (over
>and over and over again), but all I found on the website of the group you
>mentioned are positive reviews of 8VSB equipment - and that group
>represents over 500 broadcast stations, the very broadcast stations that
>you repeatly claim don't want or like 8VSB and are clamoring to switch to
>COFDM.

Jeff, it's just more of BOB's lies and unsubstantiated claims. It goes with the
territory of a Snake Oil Salesman.
Anonymous
June 14, 2004 2:06:20 PM

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

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
> Also in Japan they are broadcasting 1080i HDTV

After 15 years, Japan only has HDTV in three cities. People are not
buying it because the equipment is expensive and everybody is waiting for
the price to come down.

> and a mobile DTV service to
> cell phones in a 6 MHz channel.

The cell phones do not do HDTV. They do 15fps video.

No matter how many times Bob Miller lies or makes misleading statements,
he will be refuted.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
June 14, 2004 2:28:46 PM

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

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, Ian Morris wrote:
> COFDM is also working extremly well here in the UK and in other parts of the
> world. Of course it doesn't look like we will be getting HDTV over the air,

HA HA HA!

Europe chose the cheap way out when it selected COFDM for digital TV.
Now, Europeans won't get free OTA HDTV; they have to pay for satellite
service to get HDTV. [Not that the UK ever had truly free television.]

I have no doubt that COFDM based DTV works better than PAL, especially in
small countries (such as the UK and Germany) whose capital city has fewer
OTA TV channels than a third-rate US city.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
June 14, 2004 9:26:06 PM

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

Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> Also in Japan they are broadcasting 1080i HDTV
>
>
> After 15 years, Japan only has HDTV in three cities. People are not
> buying it because the equipment is expensive and everybody is waiting
> for the price to come down.

For 10 years Japan has had satellite analog HDTV. The entire nation is
covered.

But it was just last December that Japan started digital terrestrial
HDTV broadcasting. In the last six months though they have coverage in
ONLY three cities they have sold over a million integrated HDTV sets.

This is an incredible feat that far exceeds any other country that has
introduced OTA HDTV.

They also broadcast a video signal in the same channel that can be
received by a cell phone that has a DTV receiver included.

>
>> and a mobile DTV service to cell phones in a 6 MHz channel.
>
>
> The cell phones do not do HDTV. They do 15fps video.

You can check out the quality for yourself at ....

http://www.wirelesswatch.jp/modules.php?name=News&file=...

>
> No matter how many times Bob Miller lies or makes misleading statements,
> he will be refuted.
>
> -- Mark --
>
> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
> Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 12:13:31 AM

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

In article <40cdff49$0$20509$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>,
Ian Morris <none@none.com> writes:
> Jeff Rife wrote:
>
>> This isn't 100% true.
>>
>> The various settings for the "carrier" determines the total number of bits
>> that are usable for picture and sound data. It has never been shown
>> whether the available bits that COFDM provides are capable of handling
>> full-quality HD in real world reception situations.
>>
>
> This isn't true. We can easily get HD into our OTA system, the reason we
> don't have is a policy decision. Analogue switch off might well bring HD
> to over the air.
>
The implied condition from Jeff has been the narrow 6MHz bandwidth
that is normally used in the US. As the number of bits is packed
into more and more narrow bandwidths, all else being equal, the amount
of signal robusness tends to decrease (due to less mathematical
redundancy.)

With the nice, big fat channel widths that are available in Europe
and elsewhere, the various tradeoffs of 8VSB vs. COFDM will be
different.

John
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 12:41:02 AM

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

Jeff Rife wrote:

> This isn't 100% true.
>
> The various settings for the "carrier" determines the total number of bits
> that are usable for picture and sound data. It has never been shown
> whether the available bits that COFDM provides are capable of handling
> full-quality HD in real world reception situations.
>

This isn't true. We can easily get HD into our OTA system, the reason we
don't have is a policy decision. Analogue switch off might well bring HD
to over the air.

And Australia are doing this anyway, and it works.
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 4:02:31 AM

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

Mark Crispin wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, Ian Morris wrote:
>
>> COFDM is also working extremly well here in the UK and in other parts
>> of the world. Of course it doesn't look like we will be getting HDTV
>> over the air,
>
>
> HA HA HA!
>
> Europe chose the cheap way out when it selected COFDM for digital TV.
> Now, Europeans won't get free OTA HDTV; they have to pay for satellite
> service to get HDTV. [Not that the UK ever had truly free television.]
>
> I have no doubt that COFDM based DTV works better than PAL, especially
> in small countries (such as the UK and Germany) whose capital city has
> fewer OTA TV channels than a third-rate US city.
>
> -- Mark --


Ian,

Have to apologize for Mark. He is not our best ambassador.

Mark thinks he is going to keep getting free OTA HDTV just as
broadcasters are conspiring to offer all their decent programming
including all HDTV over a subscription service.

Mark also is probably unaware that their is no such thing as "truly
free" TV anywhere in the world. I think the level of OTA free TV
advertising has reached such a level that the price you pay in time for
free US TV is a very high one.

He seems unaware of the 200 free channels that Murdock has been forced
to offer because of the competition from Freeview or the new free
satellite service in the offing by BBC and a consortium of broadcasters.
The UK could see HDTV for free on that platform.

As to COFDM working in small countries. It works just as well in
Australia and Russia and a version will work probably better in China.

All countries big or small chose COFDM because it was the best system by
far for their country.
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 4:16:51 AM

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

John S. Dyson (toor@iquest.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> The implied condition from Jeff has been the narrow 6MHz bandwidth
> that is normally used in the US. As the number of bits is packed
> into more and more narrow bandwidths, all else being equal, the amount
> of signal robusness tends to decrease (due to less mathematical
> redundancy.)
>
> With the nice, big fat channel widths that are available in Europe
> and elsewhere, the various tradeoffs of 8VSB vs. COFDM will be
> different.

Correct. And since we have had zero examples of real-world COFDM
transmissions in the US, while there are thousands of daily examples of
8-VSB, we pretty much know that the theoretical limitations of 8-VSB turn
out to be not important in most real-world situations.

On the other hand, COFDM shows impulse noise issues in the UK with SD. With
high-quality HD and the resulting lower error corrections being available,
it's likely that impulse noise issues would be even more of a problem.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Pickles/Adoration.gif
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 5:43:06 AM

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

John S. Dyson wrote:

> In article <40cdff49$0$20509$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>,
> Ian Morris <none@none.com> writes:
>
>>Jeff Rife wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This isn't 100% true.
>>>
>>>The various settings for the "carrier" determines the total number of bits
>>>that are usable for picture and sound data. It has never been shown
>>>whether the available bits that COFDM provides are capable of handling
>>>full-quality HD in real world reception situations.
>>>
>>
>>This isn't true. We can easily get HD into our OTA system, the reason we
>>don't have is a policy decision. Analogue switch off might well bring HD
>>to over the air.
>>
>
> The implied condition from Jeff has been the narrow 6MHz bandwidth
> that is normally used in the US. As the number of bits is packed
> into more and more narrow bandwidths, all else being equal, the amount
> of signal robusness tends to decrease (due to less mathematical
> redundancy.)
>
> With the nice, big fat channel widths that are available in Europe
> and elsewhere, the various tradeoffs of 8VSB vs. COFDM will be
> different.
>
> John
>
Simply put BS John.

You know full well that COFDM in Japan is doing HDTV 1080i just fine in
6 MHz. You should know that in 2000 in Congressional Hearings COFDM was
able to do 1080i at 19.76 Mbps in a 6 MHz channel WHILE MOBILE while
8-VSB was limited to only 19.34 Mbps with a fixed and much more
expensive antenna. COFDM in Australia is delivering 1080i HDTV in less
than 6 MHz of spectrum since they are simulcasting a PAL 576 video in
the same 7 MHz channel as well. Also Sinclair delivered a 720p program
while simulcasting an SD program at the 2000 NAB show in a 6 MHz channel.

That is that COFDM is more robust at a higher datarate and therefore
does a better job of delivering 1080i HDTV than 8-VSB ever can.

The various tradoffs between COFDM and 8-VSB do not exist. 8-VSB has
nothing to trade with. With 8-VSB is all about catch-up and they are
many years behind.

And channel size as it goes lower does not give any advantage to 8-VSB
anymore than increasing channel size help COFDM. The attributes of both
ascend and decline together with COFDM always dominate.
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 9:36:58 AM

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

In article <Kuszc.5153$Wr.3893@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
> John S. Dyson wrote:
>
>> In article <40cdff49$0$20509$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>,
>> Ian Morris <none@none.com> writes:
>>
>>>Jeff Rife wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>This isn't 100% true.
>>>>
>>>>The various settings for the "carrier" determines the total number of bits
>>>>that are usable for picture and sound data. It has never been shown
>>>>whether the available bits that COFDM provides are capable of handling
>>>>full-quality HD in real world reception situations.
>>>>
>>>
>>>This isn't true. We can easily get HD into our OTA system, the reason we
>>>don't have is a policy decision. Analogue switch off might well bring HD
>>>to over the air.
>>>
>>
>> The implied condition from Jeff has been the narrow 6MHz bandwidth
>> that is normally used in the US. As the number of bits is packed
>> into more and more narrow bandwidths, all else being equal, the amount
>> of signal robusness tends to decrease (due to less mathematical
>> redundancy.)
>>
>> With the nice, big fat channel widths that are available in Europe
>> and elsewhere, the various tradeoffs of 8VSB vs. COFDM will be
>> different.
>>
>> John
>>
> Simply put BS John.
>
For your BS see below:

>
> You know full well that COFDM in Japan is doing HDTV 1080i just fine in
> 6 MHz.
>
Firstly, the nice, fat channels in UK (8MHz), yet still having
problems with signal reliability show that even in the best
case (Lots of bandwidth), COFDM isn't perfect. You are trying
to change the discussion from fully deployed COFDM situations (with
their terrible problems), to what would be deemed a 'beta site'
by US standards... How many TV stations are providing HDTV
in Japan? How widely deployed is this network (perhaps to
the level of a medium/small city in the US?) By US standards,
deployments with 10-100 TV stations which still have horrible
problems (e.g. even in UK with their reception difficulties)
shows that the COFDM deployments aren't well debugged yet.

Please show where over 1000 TV stations capable of independent
material and capable of HDTV exist in
Japan (with the very wide, varying environment?) By US deployment
standards, COFDM HDTV doesn't exist even in Japan. By your
previous errant claims, HDTV is a failure in the US, yet had
100's of TV stations capable of HDTV (provenly able to supply
HDTV in areas where NTSC doesn't work well) -- while your Japan example
probably results from SEVERAL COFDM HDTV capable stations (perhaps
with the largest cities in Japan having the number of stations that
exist in US towns like Lafayette Indiana.)

You contine to mix the micro environments where HDTV exists on a
small scale (outside of the US), with the fully deployed and extremely
varied environments in the US. The US environment has been subjected
to the acid test of 100's and 1000's of TV stations, while any
claim that discusses a micro-enviroment of 10-100 TV stations is
talking about a beta site by US standards.

The environments where COFDM is indeed fully deployed (with numerous
impulse noise dropouts) would be UK and/or Germany -- yet they
dont' do HDTV, and generally have the nice, fat channels. Those
nice, fat channels certainly help to make COFDM work better (given
everything else being equal), but the darned impulse (and other
non-gaussian) noise problems for COFDM persist.

John
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 12:43:08 PM

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

> Firstly, the nice, fat channels in UK (8MHz), yet still having
> problems with signal reliability show that even in the best
> case (Lots of bandwidth), COFDM isn't perfect.

There are _NO_ problems. How many more times.

>
> The environments where COFDM is indeed fully deployed (with numerous
> impulse noise dropouts) would be UK and/or Germany -- yet they
> dont' do HDTV.

Yes, but we easily could do. So this argument is null and void.
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 12:44:35 PM

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

Jeff Rife wrote:

> On the other hand, COFDM shows impulse noise issues in the UK with SD.

No it doesn't. This is simply not true. I have it, my housemate has it
on a small indoor ariel. Neither of us have any problems at all.
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 3:15:27 PM

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

Ian Morris wrote:
>
>> Firstly, the nice, fat channels in UK (8MHz), yet still having
>> problems with signal reliability show that even in the best
>> case (Lots of bandwidth), COFDM isn't perfect.
>
>
> There are _NO_ problems. How many more times.
>
>>
>> The environments where COFDM is indeed fully deployed (with numerous
>> impulse noise dropouts) would be UK and/or Germany -- yet they
>> dont' do HDTV.
>
>
> Yes, but we easily could do. So this argument is null and void.

Ian,

Please tell him you have some problem because otherwise he will have a
mental breakdown. With the sale this year alone of over 2 1/2 million
receivers you must have some problems in the UK. 2 1/2 million in the UK
would be 15 million in the US.

If you want to have fewer problems you have to keep your sales down like
we are.

Of course if you have REAL problems that alone will keep sales to a
minimum and keep your problems to a minimum. We are perfecting this.

Also you could up your average transmitters power from ONE kW by at
least 30 times. 30 kWs in the US is still considered pipsqueak power
level in UHF.
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 3:22:17 PM

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

Ian Morris wrote:

>
>> Firstly, the nice, fat channels in UK (8MHz), yet still having
>> problems with signal reliability show that even in the best
>> case (Lots of bandwidth), COFDM isn't perfect.
>
>
> There are _NO_ problems. How many more times.
>
>>
>> The environments where COFDM is indeed fully deployed (with numerous
>> impulse noise dropouts) would be UK and/or Germany -- yet they
>> dont' do HDTV.
>
>
> Yes, but we easily could do. So this argument is null and void.

Ian,

Again you don't understand. Policy and science is the same to some
posters here. If a country doesn't opt for HDTV it means that their DTV
modulation is incapable of doing it.

Notice that he also suggest that bandwidth has something to do with
signal reliability.
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 7:10:28 PM

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

>All countries big or small chose COFDM because it was the best system by
>far for their country.

And 8VSB was the best system, by far, for OUR country.
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 7:10:34 PM

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

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, Ian Morris wrote:
>> The environments where COFDM is indeed fully deployed (with numerous
>> impulse noise dropouts) would be UK and/or Germany -- yet they
>> dont' do HDTV.
> Yes, but we easily could do. So this argument is null and void.

So why don't you do HDTV?

Looks like the argument is quite valid.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 7:11:38 PM

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

>And channel size as it goes lower does not give any advantage to 8-VSB
>anymore than increasing channel size help COFDM. The attributes of both
>ascend and decline together with COFDM always dominate.
>
>

BOB, who cares??? It's over BOB, it's over. The fat lady (Sinclair) has already
sung. It's over BOB, get over it. It's OVER.
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 7:13:43 PM

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

>Correct. And since we have had zero examples of real-world COFDM
>transmissions in the US, while there are thousands of daily examples of
>8-VSB, we pretty much know that the theoretical limitations of 8-VSB

Actually Jeff, we do. With XM radio I'm now able to experience first hand the
B.S. that BOB has been giving us over the years. There are plenty of dropout
with XM here in N.Y. and elsewhere. Its apparent that COFDM can't even handle
simple radio transmissions, can you imagine what a disaster it would have been
with HDTV? WOW! Thankfully the govt. saved us from that disaster.
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 7:16:22 PM

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

>Please tell him you have some problem because otherwise he will have a
>mental breakdown.

Isn't it interesting BOB how you get ONE person, ONE, with a positive COFDM
experience and you play it day and night. YET, with the myriad of reports of
perfect 8VSB reception in the U.S. (right here on this ng), you simply ignore
them. Nothing like consistency BOB. Hell, even Sinclair had to admit that 8VSB
was pretty good. But not BOB, never.
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 7:20:40 PM

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

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, Ian Morris wrote:
>> On the other hand, COFDM shows impulse noise issues in the UK with SD.
> No it doesn't. This is simply not true. I have it, my housemate has it on a
> small indoor ariel. Neither of us have any problems at all.

So, we should now post on all the UK DTV newsgroups that the people who
complain about impulse noise problems are lying, because a Pipex user
named Ian Morris says that there is no such thing.

As Bob Miller unhesitatingly points out, the fact that one person does not
have a problem does not mean that there are no problems. However, certain
conclusions can be gained from the general flow of comments.

Empirical observation shows that few 8-VSB users in the US complain about
reception problems, whereas quite a few COFDM users in the UK complain
about reception problems, even after installing a rooftop antenna.

Now, we could advance some alternative hypotheses to the one of 8-VSB in
the US working better than COFDM in the UK:

Americans don't complain, whereas Brits due, due to a cultural difference
which makes Americans more tolerant and less aggressive.

A sinister plot by Korean manufacturers is underway to post false
compliments about 8-VSB and false complaints about COFDM.

Americans are smarter than Brits when it comes to electronics, and the
problems in the UK are solely due to user error.

The CIA, MI-5, KGB, and Mossad have formed a cartel to get both 8-VSB and
COFDM abolished in favor of implanting chips in everybody's head.

A group of Brits hate COFDM because the continent uses it, and are
plotting to have 8-VSB installed in the UK.

I think that the primary hypothesis seems more likely.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 7:25:19 PM

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

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
> broadcasters are conspiring

Does Bob ever take off his tin-foil hat?

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 7:27:40 PM

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

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Ian Morris wrote:
> We can easily get HD into our OTA system, the reason we
> don't have is a policy decision.

Kindly explain what "policy", and the reasons for this "policy."

I doubt that the UK is likely to have OTA HDTV for a very long time.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 7:33:42 PM

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

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
> For 10 years Japan has had satellite analog HDTV. The entire nation is
> covered.

It was expensive and unpopular, and is not OTA.

> But it was just last December that Japan started digital terrestrial HDTV
> broadcasting. In the last six months though they have coverage in ONLY three
> cities they have sold over a million integrated HDTV sets.

The fact that you consider this remarkable indicates your overwhelming
ignorance of the Japanese market.

>> The cell phones do not do HDTV. They do 15fps video.
> You can check out the quality for yourself at ....
> http://www.wirelesswatch.jp/modules.php?name=News&file=...

Once again: this is not broadcast television. It is a specific service
for those mobile phones.

Even if it was a handheld television, it isn't particularly remarkable.
I've owned handheld TVs since the 1980s.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 9:26:35 PM

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

In article <40cea88c$0$25324$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>,
Ian Morris <none@none.com> writes:
>
>> Firstly, the nice, fat channels in UK (8MHz), yet still having
>> problems with signal reliability show that even in the best
>> case (Lots of bandwidth), COFDM isn't perfect.
>
> There are _NO_ problems. How many more times.
>
Don't you know about the numerous complaints? In UK, don't
they specify outdoor antennas even for the so-called 'wonderful'
COFDM? Of course, 8VSB works great where I cannot even get a
reasonable NTSC signal (it doesn't even work well on a 13" TV
that hides lots of evils.)

The NULL and VOID arguments are those that compare 8VSB substantially
negatively when compared with COFDM (esp in the 6MHz world in the US.)

John
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 9:31:05 PM

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

In article <20040615111343.19503.00000033@mb-m17.aol.com>,
vidguy7@aol.com (Vidguy7) writes:
>>Correct. And since we have had zero examples of real-world COFDM
>>transmissions in the US, while there are thousands of daily examples of
>>8-VSB, we pretty much know that the theoretical limitations of 8-VSB
>
> Actually Jeff, we do. With XM radio I'm now able to experience first hand the
> B.S. that BOB has been giving us over the years. There are plenty of dropout
> with XM here in N.Y. and elsewhere. Its apparent that COFDM can't even handle
> simple radio transmissions, can you imagine what a disaster it would have been
> with HDTV? WOW! Thankfully the govt. saved us from that disaster.
>
Alot of the TV chopper video is sent by COFDM, and I have also seen
LOTS Of dropouts on those also.

John
Anonymous
June 16, 2004 2:52:30 AM

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

Vidguy7 wrote:
> Actually Jeff, we do. With XM radio I'm now able to experience first hand the
> B.S. that BOB has been giving us over the years. There are plenty of dropout
> with XM here in N.Y. and elsewhere. Its apparent that COFDM can't even handle
> simple radio transmissions, can you imagine what a disaster it would have been
> with HDTV? WOW! Thankfully the govt. saved us from that disaster.

This is absurd, you aren't even taking into account the various factors
involved. Sadly, I don't know anything about XM Radio, so I can't answer
your comments. I'll look into it and get back to you.
!