Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Looks like EDTV (480p) is now ackowledged by the CEA

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
June 12, 2004 11:02:26 AM

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

This document is a pretty good starting point for newcomers to HDTV.
http://www.ce.org/shared_files/resources/HDTV_Brochure_...

I was reading though at and noted how EDTV is used throughout as if it
were an official ATSC DTV standard, apparently EDTV is an offical CEA
standard.

-Jeremy
Anonymous
June 12, 2004 2:51:26 PM

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

Lots of good info there, Thanks


--
NEVER approach a PC thinking "This will only take 5 minutes"

"JDeats" <jeremy@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:b0738dc6.0406120602.6caebf8b@posting.google.com...
> This document is a pretty good starting point for newcomers to HDTV.
> http://www.ce.org/shared_files/resources/HDTV_Brochure_...
>
> I was reading though at and noted how EDTV is used throughout as if it
> were an official ATSC DTV standard, apparently EDTV is an offical CEA
> standard.
>
> -Jeremy
Anonymous
June 14, 2004 2:28:04 AM

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

"JDeats" <jeremy@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:b0738dc6.0406120602.6caebf8b@posting.google.com...
> This document is a pretty good starting point for newcomers to HDTV.
> http://www.ce.org/shared_files/resources/HDTV_Brochure_...

Except for this apparently false statement:

"The two most commonly used signals by local broadcast stations are EDTV and
HDTV."

In the Chicago area, eight stations broadcast either entirely or partly in
1080i or 720p (HDTV), three of them with an additional 480i subchannel.
Seven stations broadcast exclusively in 480i (SDTV). No stations broadcast
in 480p (EDTV) at all. Even Fox has converted from 480p to 720p.

Is there any significant number of stations throughout the country
broadcasting in 480p?
Related resources
Anonymous
June 14, 2004 2:53:54 PM

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

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, Lawrence G. Mayka wrote:
> In the Chicago area, eight stations broadcast either entirely or partly in
> 1080i or 720p (HDTV), three of them with an additional 480i subchannel.
> Seven stations broadcast exclusively in 480i (SDTV). No stations broadcast
> in 480p (EDTV) at all. Even Fox has converted from 480p to 720p.

In Seattle, all of the major channels are HDTV with the exception of FOX
which is still EDTV here. The SDTV channels are either PBS subchannels,
religious, or PAX.

Specifically:

Seven stations (seven channels) are HDTV:
4-1 (ABC), 5-1 (NBC), 7-1 (CBS), 9-5 (PBS),
11-1 (UPN), 16-1 (ind), 22-1 (WB)

Eight stations (three channels) are SDTV:
9-1 (PBS), 9-2 (PBS), 9-3 (PBS), 20-1 (TBN),
28-1 (PBS), 28-2 (PBS), 28-3 (PBS), 33-1 (PAX)

One station is EDTV:
13-1 (FOX)

I do not know the status of two home shopping channels (45-1, 51-1), but I
suspect that they are SDTV. One other religious channel, 56 (DAY) has not
yet come on the air in DTV, but I suspect that it will be SDTV.

DirecTV's program guide shows a 28-4 subchannel, but I have never found
any programming on it.

For a while, 13-2 had WB programming and 22-2 had FOX. That ended several
months ago "due to technical reasons". DirecTV's program guide still
shows these subchannels, but they are no longer active and do not show up
on a channel scan.

We can conclude that the mainstream is HDTV, and only the channels that
nobody cares about will be SDTV.

-- 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 5:32:23 AM

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

Mark Crispin wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, Lawrence G. Mayka wrote:
>
>> In the Chicago area, eight stations broadcast either entirely or
>> partly in
>> 1080i or 720p (HDTV), three of them with an additional 480i subchannel.
>> Seven stations broadcast exclusively in 480i (SDTV). No stations
>> broadcast
>> in 480p (EDTV) at all. Even Fox has converted from 480p to 720p.
>
>
> In Seattle, all of the major channels are HDTV with the exception of FOX
> which is still EDTV here. The SDTV channels are either PBS subchannels,
> religious, or PAX.
>
> Specifically:
>
> Seven stations (seven channels) are HDTV:
> 4-1 (ABC), 5-1 (NBC), 7-1 (CBS), 9-5 (PBS),
> 11-1 (UPN), 16-1 (ind), 22-1 (WB)
>
> Eight stations (three channels) are SDTV:
> 9-1 (PBS), 9-2 (PBS), 9-3 (PBS), 20-1 (TBN),
> 28-1 (PBS), 28-2 (PBS), 28-3 (PBS), 33-1 (PAX)
>
> One station is EDTV:
> 13-1 (FOX)
>
> I do not know the status of two home shopping channels (45-1, 51-1), but
> I suspect that they are SDTV. One other religious channel, 56 (DAY) has
> not yet come on the air in DTV, but I suspect that it will be SDTV.
>
> DirecTV's program guide shows a 28-4 subchannel, but I have never found
> any programming on it.
>
> For a while, 13-2 had WB programming and 22-2 had FOX. That ended
> several months ago "due to technical reasons". DirecTV's program guide
> still shows these subchannels, but they are no longer active and do not
> show up on a channel scan.
>
> We can conclude that the mainstream is HDTV, and only the channels that
> nobody cares about will be SDTV.
>
> -- Mark --

It is dangerous to conclude the future from the present. While many
broadcasters are doing HDTV now many came reluctantly to this position.
It was more like a holding action while they looked for a way to survive
the DTV transition. In a couple of words, A BUSINESS PLAN.

They have been much more enthusiastic about the USDTV and Emmis
proposals more recently however. The USDTV and Emmis proposals do not
necessarily eliminate HDTV they do move it to MPEG4 or similar codecs
received by proprietary receivers and most likely a subscription
service. Broadcasters are thinking that they could actually compete with
cable and satellite instead of just surviving.

If by mainstream it is meant the primary program in MPEG2 that can be
received by current receivers as is mandated by the FCC I don't think
so. This primary program will be just barley and by the letter of the
law, an SD program in MPEG2.
Anonymous
June 15, 2004 7:31:02 PM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Hkszc.5148$Wr.2137@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> They have been much more enthusiastic about the USDTV and Emmis
> proposals more recently however. The USDTV and Emmis proposals do not
> necessarily eliminate HDTV they do move it to MPEG4 or similar codecs
> received by proprietary receivers and most likely a subscription
> service. Broadcasters are thinking that they could actually compete with
> cable and satellite instead of just surviving.

Good another competitor for Cable and Sat .... Competition is a good thing.
Just a couple of thoughts:

Proprietary receivers with a subscription service ... Well thats not
FreeView TV and I guess they can do what they wish if you are paying for the
service, but then again why switch if you are are already a cable and/or Sat
Sub? . Are you saying that my local network affiliate will move to a
subscription service, that will only have 10% of the eyeballs. Well I guess
advertisers will love that .... no one watching their ads?

Are you saying that broadcasters will take their OTA channels off cable/sat?
Do think Americans would sit buy idly -- the see TV as an entitlement.

Why would OTA broadcasters want to compete with Cable and Sat? Don't they
view them as just another means to getting more eyes on their content,
higher ratings and therefore more ad revenue?

I am sure that the OTA broadcasters want to make sure that 100% o Americans
have to opportunity to view their content, just like the Cable/Sat - Nets
want more to make sure the D* /E* and the Cable operators carry their
channels.

USDTV is just like cable or sat, just another mechanism for retransimission
of content and ads. I have seen the post where XX% would switch if you
*could* get the channels you want cheaper. Ask properly almost everyone
would say they would want to get more for less (Why is Walmart so
successful?). The challenge will be surving up the diverse content people
want -- and paticularly in America where now you see Cable and SAT with
extensive multi-lingual / multi-national channel lineups. USDTV will surve
a niche (10-15%) of americans with cable or sat (and maybe they don't have
it because they can't afford it, so who is to say that will have the
economic ability even to pay for proprietary STBS and subscription sevice
for OTA)
Anonymous
June 16, 2004 1:41:05 AM

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

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in news:Hkszc.5148$Wr.2137
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> It is dangerous to conclude the future from the present. While many
> broadcasters are doing HDTV now many came reluctantly to this position.
> It was more like a holding action while they looked for a way to survive
> the DTV transition. In a couple of words, A BUSINESS PLAN.
>

If it's a holding action, why is Fox rolling out and installing HD
equipment to all of their owned-and-operated station, with plans in place
to have all of their o&o stations ready to broadcast by the time the NFL
season starts this year? Seems to me that if a network that was opposed to
HD in the beginning is now putting major bucks into buying hardware to
broadcast HD via 8VSB, then they're serious about broadcasting it - and
they've realized OTA HD in the USA is a success.
Anonymous
June 16, 2004 6:41:52 AM

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

Jeff Shoaf wrote:

> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in news:Hkszc.5148$Wr.2137
> @newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
>
>>It is dangerous to conclude the future from the present. While many
>>broadcasters are doing HDTV now many came reluctantly to this position.
>>It was more like a holding action while they looked for a way to survive
>>the DTV transition. In a couple of words, A BUSINESS PLAN.
>>
>
>
> If it's a holding action, why is Fox rolling out and installing HD
> equipment to all of their owned-and-operated station, with plans in place
> to have all of their o&o stations ready to broadcast by the time the NFL
> season starts this year? Seems to me that if a network that was opposed to
> HD in the beginning is now putting major bucks into buying hardware to
> broadcast HD via 8VSB, then they're serious about broadcasting it - and
> they've realized OTA HD in the USA is a success.
>

Well there is the little matter of must carry. If Fox has decided that
multicast must carry is not going to be granted by the FCC or will fail
before the Supreme Court (most likely) then they could easily decide
that they are better off delivering a full HDTV signal to the cable
company.

Also the news that the new Zenith receivers were better and with them
that an OTA DTV business plan now made some sense is also a factor.

I was saying that the "BUSINESS PLAN" for DTV OTA was missing BEFORE, it
may be arriving now and that in the past few years the broadcasters were
in a holding action. Keep Congress and the FCC happy while spending the
least amount of money.

FOX will join other broadcasters in forming a consortium that will offer
a compelling group of SD, ED and HD programming over the air some free
and some via subscription. This will come with a subsidized or free
receiver with PVR function that will multiply the real program channels
by automatically recording them. Broadcasters are now well aware of the
success of Freeview and its Berlin counterpart. They can come up with a
far more attractive product with far more channels than the 30 offered
in Europe and they have the best content. Unlike Europe they will use
codecs that double or triple the programming they can deliver per
channel. And in any given market there are more channels available for
this than in Europe.

This package will first take the lowest hanging fruit from the cable and
satellite companies but later it will take it ALL.

Unfortunately all current receivers will only receive one SD program
from each OTA channel. Hardly the reason that early adopters bought
these receivers. Of course early adopters are always eager to take the
pain and loss that being first means and will gladly accept this future
loss as part of the game.
Anonymous
June 17, 2004 1:52:34 AM

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

You just gotta twist and knot and tie everything until it meets your
viewpoint, don'tcha?

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:QrOzc.6047$Wr.1877@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> Well there is the little matter of must carry. If Fox has decided that
> multicast must carry is not going to be granted by the FCC or will
> fail before the Supreme Court (most likely) then they could easily
> decide that they are better off delivering a full HDTV signal to the
> cable company.

Much more likely, they realized that they can actually get more viewers
by upgrading from 480p widescreen, thus getting more advertising
dollars. Hmmm... But that doesn't agree with your assertion that 480 is
enough resolution, does it?

Oh, and why would they boosting their power if they were only concerned
with getting a signal to the cable head? And the local Fox station is
raising their antenna, too.


>
> Also the news that the new Zenith receivers were better and with them
> that an OTA DTV business plan now made some sense is also a factor.

But the Zenith's aren't on the market yet. As for an OTA DTV plan, how
'bout using HD to gain back market share from the cable channels that
they've been loosing viewers to? Have you noticed that their have been
frequent comments from folks just getting their OTA HD going about how
even the HD commercials are gorgeous?

>
> I was saying that the "BUSINESS PLAN" for DTV OTA was missing BEFORE,
> it may be arriving now and that in the past few years the broadcasters
> were in a holding action. Keep Congress and the FCC happy while
> spending the least amount of money.
>
> FOX will join other broadcasters in forming a consortium that will
> offer a compelling group of SD, ED and HD programming over the air
> some free and some via subscription. This will come with a subsidized
> or free receiver with PVR function that will multiply the real program
> channels by automatically recording them.

OK, Nostradamus, any proof of this other than your guessing? And do you
seriously think that any local broadcasters are willing to spend money
on subsidizing or providing free receivers? And do you really think that
the competitors will band together and standerdize on a single
modulation and/or encryption method? The stations with high viewership
don't have any motivation to do that and the stations with low
viewership can't afford to.

I'm afraid I'll have to consider all of this as more of your FUD
spreading in a failing attempt to keep folks from buying current HD
receivers.

>
> Unfortunately all current receivers will only receive one SD program
> from each OTA channel. Hardly the reason that early adopters bought
> these receivers. Of course early adopters are always eager to take the
> pain and loss that being first means and will gladly accept this
> future loss as part of the game.

Again, any links to indicate that this is even being considered? Mo'
FUD...
Anonymous
June 17, 2004 8:10:12 PM

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

"Jeff Shoaf" <jeffshoaf-@-alltel.net> wrote in message
news:Xns950AB574A2D38jeffshoafalltel.net@63.223.5.95...
> OK, Nostradamus, any proof of this other than your guessing? And do you
> seriously think that any local broadcasters are willing to spend money
> on subsidizing or providing free receivers? And do you really think that

The subsidization is already occurring, indirectly:

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=2...

This HDTV tuner, a brand-new model from USDTV, is being sold at a price far
below other models anywhere (except for closeouts and eBay)--even though
USDTV's tuner also supports USDTV's upcoming subscription-TV service and
hence presumably costs more to manufacture.

I must strongly suspect that USDTV is subsidizing this model in order to
seed the public with a model compatible with its new service.
Anonymous
June 18, 2004 2:13:43 AM

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

"Lawrence G. Mayka" <lgmayka000@ameritech.net> wrote in news:EnjAc.2185
$Pt.695@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com:

> I must strongly suspect that USDTV is subsidizing this model in order to
> seed the public with a model compatible with its new service.
>

USDTV isn't an existing local broadcaster - they're more like DirecTV or
Dish Network, only not broadcasting via satellite and at a smaller scale.
Both of those subsidize the cost of receivers with the intention of getting
a return on that investment via subscription costs.

Bob is claiming that existing local OTA broadcasters who get their income
from commercials will subsidize the cost or give away receivers and pay to
receive additional digital channels via OTA and/or cable, and he seems to
be insinuating that all the local broadcasters in an area would team up and
use the same modulation/encryption scheme and share in the subsidy costs.
If they didn't, each consumer would end up with 5 or 6 or 10 different
receivers hooked up to their DTV just so that they can pay for a few
additional DTV feeds from each broadcaster.

He fails to explain how this is different/better for the consumer than
digital cable or why any consumers would be willing to pay for it. It seems
to me that since he's lost his footing on claiming that 8VSB doesn't work,
so he's trying to find some new sources of FUD to discourage people from
getting TVs or set top boxes so they can enjoy gorgeous, easy to receive,
free OTA HDTV now.
Anonymous
June 18, 2004 6:43:32 AM

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

Jeff Shoaf wrote:

> "Lawrence G. Mayka" <lgmayka000@ameritech.net> wrote in news:EnjAc.2185
> $Pt.695@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com:
>
>
>>I must strongly suspect that USDTV is subsidizing this model in order to
>>seed the public with a model compatible with its new service.
>>
>
>
> USDTV isn't an existing local broadcaster - they're more like DirecTV or
> Dish Network, only not broadcasting via satellite and at a smaller scale.
> Both of those subsidize the cost of receivers with the intention of getting
> a return on that investment via subscription costs.
>
> Bob is claiming that existing local OTA broadcasters who get their income
> from commercials

Broadcasters NOW get their income from commercials. They are considering
putting together a package that would allow them to have a subscription
service OTA like cable and satellite. Then they to can get paid twice
for their programming, once by commercials and again by subscription.
Cable gets paid for programming once for content via commercials and
then paid again for the delivery service. Now that the FCC has OKed that
model for broadcasters once they have delivered one free NTSC quality
program they like the idea of double dipping. This model, like cable and
satellite, suggest subsidizing receivers. We proposed doing that with
our model in 2000. In my testimony before Congress I said that our model
using COFDM allowed for free OTA receivers. One reason that was/is
possible is that COFDM receivers were/are less expensive. The model to
the customer was also less expensive since you could use indoor
receivers with COFDM. The advent of such receivers for 8-VSB if true
would be a major positive. The USDTV model was/is flawed because their
current OTA 8-VSB receiver is not so good. That is why they have picked
cities with lots of mountains around them for better reception. Better
8-VSB receivers makes their plan possible.

will subsidize the cost or give away receivers and pay to
> receive additional digital channels via OTA and/or cable, and he seems to
> be insinuating that all the local broadcasters in an area would team up and
> use the same modulation/encryption scheme and share in the subsidy costs.
> If they didn't, each consumer would end up with 5 or 6 or 10 different
> receivers hooked up to their DTV just so that they can pay for a few
> additional DTV feeds from each broadcaster.
>
> He fails to explain how this is different/better for the consumer than
> digital cable or why any consumers would be willing to pay for it. It seems
> to me that since he's lost his footing on claiming that 8VSB doesn't work,
> so he's trying to find some new sources of FUD to discourage people from
> getting TVs or set top boxes so they can enjoy gorgeous, easy to receive,
> free OTA HDTV now.
>

USDTV is not a local broadcaster but Emmis is and Emmis suggest that
they want to buy USDTV because for one thing its business plan is very
close to what they propose to their fellow broadcasters.

And Emmis has signed up over 400 stations to this plan so far and expect
to add an additional 400 this summer. That is around 50% of all TV
stations in the US. They suggest that many if not most of the rest of
the stations will join them soon, the main reason they have not joined
yet is the need to consult with corporate boards etc. Considering that
this all really started at this years NAB in April this is an
astoundingly fast development.

I did not come up with my take on this recently. In advocating COFDM and
the predecessor of VP6 compression, VP4, back in 2000 I proposed that
all broadcasters pool their spectrum in any market, use COFDM in
co-located SFNs and using an advanced compression scheme like VP4
(then), VP6, WM9 or MPEG4 now. Before 2000 I took it for granted in late
1999 that this would happen with or without my participation or
suggestion. It was just too obvious and different parts of it are now
what is happening in most other countries.

My plan in 2000 proposed here and on AVSForum many times as it developed
would allow a package of services that included HD, SD, ED and
opportunistic data to be broadcast to both a fixed and mobile market.
The opportunistic data portion would not impact any of the time
sensitive HD, ED and SD programs by definition, being opportunistic.
Each broadcaster would supply whatever mix they wanted to the common
package and part or all of it could be a subscription service other than
the one SD NTSC quality FREE program that is required byt he FCC. The
advantage of doing this with an advanced codec then and now is that the
receiver would not have to do the single SD program in MPEG2. All the
programming would have been/ would be receivable by the COFDM receiver I
proposed then.

We always assumed that COFDM would be recognized as a superior
modulation and or initial paln would possibly allow us to be an
opportunistic datacaster using opportunistic null packets that for
example HD creates a lot of, with current broadcasters. Believing at the
time that broadcasters would do one HDTV program we believed that on
average using MPEG2 that opportunistically 12 Mbps could be delivered
without impacting the HD signal. This is not true of multicasting where
many argue the HD program is impacted severely in many cases. With
opportunistic datacasting this simply could not happen.

With the use of an advanced codec even more datacasting could be done
since one HD program with VP6, WM9 or MPEG4 would on average use as
little as 3 Mbps or even less. Remember that is on average not peak.
Many confused opportunistic broadcasting with multicasting when
attacking our proposal out of ignorance of the difference.

I argued at the time that we would, business wise, be opposed to
multicasting since statistically multiplexed multicasting would leave a
lot less null packets for datacasting use.

Other companies tried to do datacasting but were unsuccessful because as
we believed at the time 8-VSB did not offer any chance of success. We at
no time contemplated trying to do anything with 8-VSB.

Two things have happened recently, after waiting FOUR LONG YEARS. One in
other countries successful new OTA business plans have become very
successful using COFDM and without a mobile element. We always thought
that without mobile any OTA plan would fail. Second and only very
recently an 8-VSB receiver design, not yet on the market, has shown
promise for ease of reception with indoor antenna. These two NEW
developments suggest that in the US a venture like USDTV or the Emmis
proposal and like what we were proposing in 2000 could now be very
successful.

I would still argue that it would be even more successful with mobile
reception but if the FCC wants to leave mobile to other than current
broadcasters like ourselves that is fine with me. And I still think that
long term OTA broadcasters will fail without mobile because of the
dominance the Internet and what I would call megaband not broadband will
have over all delivery of entertainment to any receiver limited to
reception in a fixed non mobile site. This dominance will also destroy
all current cable and satellite business plans.

Other parts of the plan of 2000...
The SFN (Single Frequency Network) would allow the sculpting of the
coverage area so that more stations could be used in any market. For
example channel 4 could be used in both New York and Philadelphia and
the coverage would be more even and the signal strength stronger at any
point in the coverage while power consumed would decline significantly.
An added benefit of such distributed broadcasting other than power
savings, a more even signal strength over the coverage area and mobile
and portable reception is that in the case of the failure of any single
transmitter site (think World Trade Center, Moscow TV Tower fire
http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/08/27/moscow.fire/

and many other disasters that have taken place before and since, any
loss of a transmitter in an SFN would cause little or no loss of signal
for anyone and could be repaired quickly and at less expense. That is
not what happened, as we know, in Moscow or New York where single super
power broadcast sites were crippled causing massive loss of signal that
has taken a long time to recover from.

Sculpting of the broadcast coverage is achieved by directional low power
transmitters at the edge of the coverage area aimed toward the center of
coverage which allows for far less interference with the use of the same
frequency in adjacent areas.

In any market we have channels 2 thru 51 after the digital transition.
As I said above more of those could be used with SFN design but if we
allow for only 20 channels being used in a market and if they were
co-located in an SFN structure we would have ubiquitous reception of all
using COFDM mobile, portable and fixed.

Using an advanced codec like VP6 or others we could deliver in those 20
channels at LEAST 400 SD programs or 125 HD programs or 250 ED programs
in real time statistically multiplexed while delivering a lot of data
opportunistically. And broadcasters could also deliver a mix of the
above that varied by time of day etc. In a given market at any given
time you could have 50 HD, 100 SD and 45 ED programs plus tons of data
being delivered at any point in time.

But what is most interesting is that with PVR, DVR or whatever you call
it, we called it PVR in 2000, the number or real time channels becomes
much less important. What is more important is that you can deliver over
a 24 hour period via the channels you have not only to real time viewers
but also to storage devices. A viewer now and more so in the future
will not look at a menu of what is ON but what is AVAILABLE for viewing.

Very little of what we watch on TV today, though it is delivered in real
time (that is we watch it as they broadcast it), is being produced in
real time. Normally sports and the news and talk shows come to mind as
something we watch in real time. But the news is really only the talking
heads reporters in real time. The actual news and clips of events are
collected for broadcast in the newshour. You could be more real time if
news flashes were delivered during the day as they happened. Sports is
for real time watching but even a real time game could be recorded and
you could start watching after some time had elapsed and be able to fast
forward thru commercials and slow spots and still be real time at the
end of the game.

ALL OF THE ABOVE was discussed in 2000, 2001 ad nauseum. None of it came
up recently.

This was all lost. Since broadcasters were stuck with 8-VSB there was no
future for OTA until it was fixed or until COFDM was allowed or other
spectrum that allowed COFDM became available. 8-VSB is now being
PARTIALLY FIXED. Enough for Sinclair to breathe a sigh of relief. Don't
be fooled however, Sinclair and all other broadcasters would still
switch to COFDM in a heartbeat if allowed to.

COFDM is allowed on other spectrum but is stifled by broadcasters who
still squat on it waiting for the transition. Since 8-VSB's problems are
the reason for the digital transition being stalled you can see why we
can get very excited by any improvement in 8-VSB. It may allow for a
swifter transition and at the same time it locks current broadcasters
into 8-VSB harder and longer which means less competition for any mobile
service.

And as we see more and more talk about getting 8-VSB to do things that
COFDM did in 1995. Big talk now about the possibility of using SFN
technology with 8-VSB, (GOOD LUCK). Less talk about using 8-VSB with on
channel repeaters (also good luck) and no talk lately about the CRUDE
attempt to do mobile with E-VSB (all HDTV enthusiast should breathe a
sigh of relief).

All in all we have a big mess in the US but at least now broadcasters
can start to look at trying something. USDTV, Emmis, talk of SFN use,
actually forming a consortium of broadcasters, talk of putting together
a subscription OTA service are all messy and 8-VSB with MPEG2 and MPEG4
combo extremely messy but its something.

Allowing COFDM would solve all of these messy problems over night.

And for the record if you look at past post you will see that all I have
said above and more was posted here and on AVSForum from the beginning.
Anonymous
June 18, 2004 11:52:28 PM

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

USDTV comes at the cost of quantity. It's fits into a non-existant
market somewhere between FREE over the air boradcast and "costly"
cable/satellite service.

For your $19.99/month you get roughly 20 (unique) channels, only four
High Definition channels (and the HD channels are free Over The Air
networks, DiscoveryHD, ESPN HD, INHD, HDNet, etc... no cable based HD
channels are available)>

No where is the value, if you break it down by channel you're really
only getting 11 subscription based channels with USDTV. Cost per
channel could be calculated at about $1.81/month (19.99/11), by
comparison Digital Cable offers over 250 unique subscription only
channels including subscription HD channels. You also have on-demand
pay perview and optional DVR equipment to lease for a nominal fee.
Digital cable Basic (which again, includes over 250 channels on
TimeWarner) is offered in most markets at $39.99/month. If you want to
go with an HD box in some markets this is an additional $9.99 so that
would up the monthly service fee to $49.99 which is still much less
expensive than USDTV at about 20 cents per channel (49.99/250).

Grammer school math can help you figure out USDTV is a horrible deal
(at almost 9x the cost of Digital Cable) perhaps this is why their
target markets are places such as Los Vegas and Albuquerque (middle of
nowhere) where it just makes since to distribute content this way.

Do you really think the average US consumer is stupid enough to pay 9x
more for service -or- do you think they'll see the $10.00/month
savings as worth it to lose 200+ stations. Also consider the strong
hold cable and sat providers have and they are not becoming stale,
instead they continue to add value. For example TimeWarner Cable is
now offering Voice over IP (digital phone) and HD compatible DVR
boxes.

USDTV doesn't stand a chance. Even if it were a great deal, which as
I've pointed out, it isn't; it still would be a snow ball in hell.

















Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<Hkszc.5148 >
> It is dangerous to conclude the future from the present. While many
> broadcasters are doing HDTV now many came reluctantly to this position.
> It was more like a holding action while they looked for a way to survive
> the DTV transition. In a couple of words, A BUSINESS PLAN.
>
> They have been much more enthusiastic about the USDTV and Emmis
> proposals more recently however. The USDTV and Emmis proposals do not
> necessarily eliminate HDTV they do move it to MPEG4 or similar codecs
> received by proprietary receivers and most likely a subscription
> service. Broadcasters are thinking that they could actually compete with
> cable and satellite instead of just surviving.
>
> If by mainstream it is meant the primary program in MPEG2 that can be
> received by current receivers as is mandated by the FCC I don't think
> so. This primary program will be just barley and by the letter of the
> law, an SD program in MPEG2.
Anonymous
June 19, 2004 1:01:04 AM

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

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in news:o FsAc.4810$w07.4518
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> And for the record if you look at past post you will see that all I have
> said above and more was posted here and on AVSForum from the beginning.
>
>

Blah, blah, blah...

Do you seriously believe that any of us put enough faith in anything you
say when you always go into off-topic rantings bases on the false premise
that HDTV is a failure in the US? I, for one, have spent all the time I'm
going to spend trying to find anything to prove or disprove your comments
since the 5 or 6 times I have attempted to, I couldn't find anything but
your past comments that agreed with much of what you said. And when you
make tons of assertions, but provide little or no supporting evidence (like
a link) for most of 'em, I don't even care to wade through your long
disertions.

We all have freedom to post what we want here in an unmoderated group;
fortunately, we also have the freedom to skip over most of your tripe.
!