France and HDTV

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

Trees grow underground sometimes.



"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:T8tAc.4840$w07.1462@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> As I have predicted here recently France will have HDTV delivered via
> COFDM and MPEG4 next year. Most other countries in the world who have
> not already locked into digital transition standards will follow this
> model, MPEG4 or equivalent and a COFDM based modulation.
>
> If the US had led here instead of messing things up the whole world
> would be much farther along and there would be a lot more HDTV. Now
> Europe will have at least three satellite HD services and now one
> country with terrestrial HD.
>
> "TPS Star will be available in high definition via all platforms:
> satellite, cable, ADSL (on the TPS-L platform that TPS launched in a
> number of cities earlier this year) and DTT." DTT stands for Digital
> Terrestrial Television.
>
> TPS Star in High Def from 2005
> From Sotires Eleftheriou in Paris
>
> Emmanuel Florent, CEO of TPS, the number two DTH operator in France
> (with 1.3 million subscribers) announced that from next year the group’s
> premium channel, TPS Star, would be broadcast in high definition.
>
> Florent was speaking in Paris at the Les Echos European Forum on
> Telecommunications. TPS has already cleared the rights for all of the
> content on TPS Star, which specialises in movies and sport. The
> executive added that the MPGEG-4 standard, which enables an additional
> 40 per cent compression, would be used. "A launch within 12 months is a
> realistic possibility," he said.
>
> The DVB group is set to adopt MPEG-4 as a standard at the beginning of
> July and decoders will be available from the autumn from BT, Thomson and
> ST Microelectronics. TPS Star will be available in high definition via
> all platforms: satellite, cable, ADSL (on the TPS-L platform that TPS
> launched in a number of cities earlier this year) and DTT.
>
> Other channels on TPS will be available in HDTV.The national channels
> TF1 and M6 have already agreed to be broadcast in HDTV.
>
> On the costs for broadcasting in HDTV, Florent admitted that outside
> broadcasting units do currently charge a 30 per cent premium for
> shooting in HDTV, but explained that these ‘technical costs’ form a very
> small proportion of the budget of a channel. He expected these costs
> will come down and there will ultimately be little extra cost for the
> whole channel stream being in HDTV.

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

nixjunk wrote:
>>As I have predicted here recently France will have HDTV delivered via
>>COFDM and MPEG4 next year. Most other countries in the world who have
>>not already locked into digital transition standards will follow this
>>model, MPEG4 or equivalent and a COFDM based modulation.
>>
>>If the US had led here instead of messing things up the whole world
>>would be much farther along and there would be a lot more HDTV. Now
>>Europe will have at least three satellite HD services and now one
>>country with terrestrial HD.
>
>
>
> Who cares what Europe or the world has?? America has its HDTV standard and if
> other countries choose to have the same one then that's fine with them. If not,
> oh well. Since when did it become America's responsibility for the standards
> adopted elsewhere??
>
>
>
>
>

It is not a problem of responsibility. It is a problem of competitiveness.

For hundreds of years Rome was able to rule much of the known world and
send out ever more debased money to buy what it needed including foreign
mercenaries to do it fighting. It could depend on the fact that Rome's
debased currency spent abroad would not return and demand real products
of Rome itself but circulate among the provinces. Rome set the world
standards when the standards Rome set were no longer heeded no longer
was Rome needed or its money.

China now pursues its own standards, Europe takes OFDM from the US and
makes it the best modulation for DTV in the world while we grovel before
S. Korea paying 10 times the COFDM royalty to a Korean company for
8-VSB. And if that were not sick enough we get a turkey in the bargain.
Paying 10 times the going rate and getting a lemon is not good business.
We the US consumer have been sold out to foreign interest. The US
depends on IP royalties to stay competitive and we are letting our
corrupt political process destroy our competitiveness.

The US is in the business of setting standards, of cutting edge
technology but we are losing it. Other countries when they see the
actions of our tech ignorant Congress on something such as our stubborn
and corrupt choice of DTV modulation decide that we are not the leader
anymore.

I thought not caring what Europe or the world has or does went out with
the WW1 or was it the Great Depression of the 1930's and the
Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Now there was a real smart move predicated on
we don't give a damn about all those other countries.

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

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 03:17:07 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>As I have predicted here recently France will have HDTV delivered via
>COFDM and MPEG4 next year. Most other countries in the world who have
>not already locked into digital transition standards will follow this
>model, MPEG4 or equivalent and a COFDM based modulation.

Good for France, glad to see they're moving into the 20th century
finally. What does that mean for us here in the US? Oh, just that
they're going with COFDM and are a few years behind us.

>
>If the US had led here instead of messing things up the whole world
>would be much farther along and there would be a lot more HDTV. Now
>Europe will have at least three satellite HD services and now one
>country with terrestrial HD.

Let's see, how many HD satellite services does the US currenlty have?
How much of the US is covered with HD services? Sounds like we are
leading, so what's the problem here?

>
>"TPS Star will be available in high definition via all platforms:
>satellite, cable, ADSL (on the TPS-L platform that TPS launched in a
>number of cities earlier this year) and DTT." DTT stands for Digital
>Terrestrial Television.

Gee, and looking through I find this article:

http://www.dtg.org.uk/reference/dt [...] france.htm

Looks like France's digital rollout is the great success that Bob
says it is........... NOT.

A few quotes: "the Conseil Supérieur de l'Audiovisuel (CSA) having to
tread an extremely fine line to balance the demands of the country's
powerful public and commercial broadcasters and yet push the DTT
platform's rollout forward."

"Most of the country is to be covered by six multiplexes, providing a
total of 33 channels, although Paris may have a seventh multiplex for
additional local and community channels"

Hmm, really, all of SIX or SEVEN to cover the country. How many
would we need for that system here in the US? And all of 33 channels!
Such an aboundant choice.

"The DTT platform in France has undergone considerable study and
revision, with the aim of learning from mistakes made in the UK"

Really, and I thought Bob was saying that the UK system was so great,
guess de really doesn't read enough. And there's been considerable
study and revision? Just like what Bob wanted here in the US. And
what's is done for France? They're now years behind a real DTV
transition, and still working on setting up HD.

And the last paragraph of the article is really damning:

"According to a study in the autumn of 2003 by analysts IDATE, only 11
per cent of French homes will have subscribed to pay-DTT ... whilst
only 18 per cent will have taken up the free-to-air DTT offer, by
2010, making it nearly impossible for free-to-air DTT channel
operators to make a viable business case for their offerings."

Gee, sounds like they're being so much more successful than we are
here in the US.

Oh, and Bob, when you quote something t would be a good idea ot
provide references, rather than making it look like you're making it
up. I did finally find the information you quoted at
http://www.advanced-television.com [...] htm#tpsstr
so at least this time I can say that you're not lying, much. Just a
small white lie in that you really make it sound like such a great
thing. Perhaps you should read a little more.

Considering that the French ADSL product is going to be transmitting
HD at all of 512Kbits/sec, that's HD that I really want to see.....

Get a life Bob, you can't use France as an example of a good HD
implementation, from what I've read so far it looks like they're
copying the American implementation model.

And the articles I've seen tend to leave you out in the cold when it
comes to claiming the UK DTV is so great. If it was so great, why is
everyone trying to make sure they avoid their problems?

Never mind, you've gotten so you just ignore anyone with valid
responses to the garbage you post. I'm beginning to wonder if you
really read the newsgroup or just post. Either way, you ignore the
real issues and continue to spread FUD. If you're going to inform us
of how well everyone else is doing, make sure you include the while
information, not just some great sounding blurb.

Oh, and take me up on my offer. Move. Anywhere. You obviously
don't like the U.S. anymore and feel that the government is out to
destroy you, so perhaps you should be somewhere else where your
business plan has a chance.

I hear Outer Mongolia is considering their DTV transition, perhaps you
can get in on the ground floor there.






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

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

Jim wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 03:17:07 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>As I have predicted here recently France will have HDTV delivered via
>>COFDM and MPEG4 next year. Most other countries in the world who have
>>not already locked into digital transition standards will follow this
>>model, MPEG4 or equivalent and a COFDM based modulation.
>
>
> Good for France, glad to see they're moving into the 20th century
> finally. What does that mean for us here in the US? Oh, just that
> they're going with COFDM and are a few years behind us.
>
Starting "a few years behind us" they are going to be far ahead of us in
another few years in OTA DTV with HDTV.
>
>>If the US had led here instead of messing things up the whole world
>>would be much farther along and there would be a lot more HDTV. Now
>>Europe will have at least three satellite HD services and now one
>>country with terrestrial HD.
>
>
> Let's see, how many HD satellite services does the US currenlty have?
> How much of the US is covered with HD services? Sounds like we are
> leading, so what's the problem here?

The only problem here is our 8-VSB OTA DTV modulation and our MPEG2
compression scheme. We are locked into ancient technology while
countries like France are light years ahead at their starting point.
>
>
>>"TPS Star will be available in high definition via all platforms:
>>satellite, cable, ADSL (on the TPS-L platform that TPS launched in a
>>number of cities earlier this year) and DTT." DTT stands for Digital
>>Terrestrial Television.
>
>
> Gee, and looking through I find this article:
>
> http://www.dtg.org.uk/reference/dt [...] france.htm
>
> Looks like France's digital rollout is the great success that Bob
> says it is........... NOT.
>
> A few quotes: "the Conseil Supérieur de l'Audiovisuel (CSA) having to
> tread an extremely fine line to balance the demands of the country's
> powerful public and commercial broadcasters and yet push the DTT
> platform's rollout forward."
>
> "Most of the country is to be covered by six multiplexes, providing a
> total of 33 channels, although Paris may have a seventh multiplex for
> additional local and community channels"
>
> Hmm, really, all of SIX or SEVEN to cover the country. How many
> would we need for that system here in the US? And all of 33 channels!
> Such an aboundant choice.
>
> "The DTT platform in France has undergone considerable study and
> revision, with the aim of learning from mistakes made in the UK"
>
> Really, and I thought Bob was saying that the UK system was so great,
> guess de really doesn't read enough. And there's been considerable
> study and revision? Just like what Bob wanted here in the US. And
> what's is done for France? They're now years behind a real DTV
> transition, and still working on setting up HD.

I have always said that while the UK system is far superior to the 8-VSB
system in the US and the UK roll out of DTV is the most successful by
far they did start early and did make mistakes. They have gone with a 2K
COFDM system when anyone starting today would go with an 8K COFDM
system. Any country should look to profit by those who have gone before.

All countries in the world have profited by NOT following the US
example. Some who initially did were smart enough to change their minds
in time like Australia, Argentina, Taiwan and soon S. Korea. The only
country in the world to follow our example is Canada and they are just
pretending.

France has bided its time and now has a truly great system to deliver
HDTV using MPEG4 and COFDM. IMO they are not behind but far ahead.
>
> And the last paragraph of the article is really damning:
>
> "According to a study in the autumn of 2003 by analysts IDATE, only 11
> per cent of French homes will have subscribed to pay-DTT ... whilst
> only 18 per cent will have taken up the free-to-air DTT offer, by
> 2010, making it nearly impossible for free-to-air DTT channel
> operators to make a viable business case for their offerings."

Similar doom and gloom predictions were put forward before both the UK
and Berlin kickoffs in 12/2002. I argued that both would be phenomenal
successes. They have been.
>
> Gee, sounds like they're being so much more successful than we are
> here in the US.
>
A little early to judge since they haven't started yet.

> Oh, and Bob, when you quote something t would be a good idea ot
> provide references, rather than making it look like you're making it
> up. I did finally find the information you quoted at
> http://www.advanced-television.com [...] htm#tpsstr
> so at least this time I can say that you're not lying, much. Just a
> small white lie in that you really make it sound like such a great
> thing. Perhaps you should read a little more.
>
> Considering that the French ADSL product is going to be transmitting
> HD at all of 512Kbits/sec, that's HD that I really want to see.....

Maybe you could provide a reference for this. I know of no ADSL HDTV
offering at 512 Kbps.
>
> Get a life Bob, you can't use France as an example of a good HD
> implementation, from what I've read so far it looks like they're
> copying the American implementation model.

France is using SFN's, COFDM and MPEG4 for their OTA. All radically
different than the US.
>
> And the articles I've seen tend to leave you out in the cold when it
> comes to claiming the UK DTV is so great. If it was so great, why is
> everyone trying to make sure they avoid their problems?

Why wouldn't someone try to avoid problems that other trailblazers have
encountered? I think the term is learning. Learning from mistakes, your
own and others. The US and 8-VSB is a classic case of not learning from
our previous mistakes. NTSC was not easy to receive because of
multipath. Instead of setting a goal to solve that problem the FCC and
Congress only asked that the digital replacement do as well as NTSC. In
Europe the initial decision was to try to solve the multipath problem
and it did so with COFDM.

It was only the threat of COFDM that had 8-VSB proponents scrambling the
last 5 years to fix 8-VSB.
>

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

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in news:VHRAc.9989$Wr.2225
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> Blah, blah, blah...

Bob, you left out a disclaimer that should be included in all your
postings:

This is the opinion of Bob Miller and is driven by my desire to co-opt the
frequencies currently used by the successful implementation of HDTV OTA
broadcasting in the US to benefit my failed business plan. You can’t expect
a reasonable discussion with me, but you can expect multitudes of off-topic
postings and rantings on how much better the US would have been if the DTV
broadcasting standard would have used a modulation scheme that would have
supported my business plan, and how other countries will leap over the US
real soon now since they’re thinking of using my pet modulation scheme,
even though they’re just getting started and their landscape, population
concentration, and culture are entirely different. I don’t think you should
have free OTA unless the US switches to a different standard; instead you
should have to get your HDTV via cable or satellite so that the radio
frequencies currently wasted by free OTA HD can be sold off to the highest
bidder, except for those frequencies that are given to me so that I can
make a fortune broadcasting commercials to city buses, taxis, etc. Don’t
ever forget that the sole reason for DTV is to benefit me, and that you’re
too goofy to discern the difference between DTV and HDTV; even if you can
discern the difference, you really don’t need it and shouldn’t want it
unless you receive it via cable or satellite or by paying for encryped OTA;
that is unless we change the standard free OTA modulation scheme to my pet.
Don’t bother to tell me I’m wrong or tell me how well you can receive the
current standard free OTA HD or provide any links that disagree with me
because I will simply claim that it’s heresay or you’re in the minority or
it’s the result of a rigged test or, if any of those are too obviously not
the case, just ignore your post.

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

Phil Ross wrote:

> We haven't had the same standard as the rest of the world anyway with PAL
> vs. NTSC, so why would this suddenly be an issue now. Just more of Bob's
> same old BS.

It has nothing to do with what France has. France is just an example of
what a country does when it has its head on straight and takes a look at
its options in the real world of technology today and then does the
obvious thing. We still could do it right in the US. Our DTV transition
is still stalled at the gate. We could still fix it. We could have a
world class DTV system and save billions in unnecessary cost in the
bargain. We could have a better system than any in the world except what
France is about to deploy.
>
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:M3wAc.9131$Wr.3264@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>nixjunk wrote:
>>
>>>>As I have predicted here recently France will have HDTV delivered via
>>>>COFDM and MPEG4 next year. Most other countries in the world who have
>>>>not already locked into digital transition standards will follow this
>>>>model, MPEG4 or equivalent and a COFDM based modulation.
>>>>
>>>>If the US had led here instead of messing things up the whole world
>>>>would be much farther along and there would be a lot more HDTV. Now
>>>>Europe will have at least three satellite HD services and now one
>>>>country with terrestrial HD.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Who cares what Europe or the world has?? America has its HDTV standard
>
> and if
>
>>>other countries choose to have the same one then that's fine with them.
>
> If not,
>
>>>oh well. Since when did it become America's responsibility for the
>
> standards
>
>>>adopted elsewhere??
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>It is not a problem of responsibility. It is a problem of competitiveness.
>>
>>For hundreds of years Rome was able to rule much of the known world and
>>send out ever more debased money to buy what it needed including foreign
>>mercenaries to do it fighting. It could depend on the fact that Rome's
>>debased currency spent abroad would not return and demand real products
>>of Rome itself but circulate among the provinces. Rome set the world
>>standards when the standards Rome set were no longer heeded no longer
>>was Rome needed or its money.
>>
>>China now pursues its own standards, Europe takes OFDM from the US and
>>makes it the best modulation for DTV in the world while we grovel before
>>S. Korea paying 10 times the COFDM royalty to a Korean company for
>>8-VSB. And if that were not sick enough we get a turkey in the bargain.
>>Paying 10 times the going rate and getting a lemon is not good business.
>>We the US consumer have been sold out to foreign interest. The US
>>depends on IP royalties to stay competitive and we are letting our
>>corrupt political process destroy our competitiveness.
>>
>>The US is in the business of setting standards, of cutting edge
>>technology but we are losing it. Other countries when they see the
>>actions of our tech ignorant Congress on something such as our stubborn
>>and corrupt choice of DTV modulation decide that we are not the leader
>>anymore.
>>
>>I thought not caring what Europe or the world has or does went out with
>>the WW1 or was it the Great Depression of the 1930's and the
>>Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Now there was a real smart move predicated on
>>we don't give a damn about all those other countries.
>>
>
>
>

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

nixjunk wrote:
>>It has nothing to do with what France has. France is just an example of
>>what a country does when it has its head on straight and takes a look at
>>its options in the real world of technology today and then does the
>>obvious thing. We still could do it right in the US. Our DTV transition
>>is still stalled at the gate.
>
>
>
> How so??? The last I checked HDTV is available to 75-80% of all Americans. What
> exactly are you talking about???
>

A number of points. "Available" is a big word. A number of things limit
that availability. One is reception. Tell most people in a city like New
York that HDTV is available to them over "their" FREE TV spectrum and
you will get a laugh. IF they could put a large antenna on the roof of
their apartment building they MIGHT be able to get SOME of the channels
broadcasting in HDTV. That is not counting the fact that for a LONG time
they could not get channels that relied on the World Trade Center
because of the DISASTER that took place there.

With the system being deployed in France these points are all addressed.
New Yorkers could receive ALL the channels being broadcast in New York
City. The could do it with INDOOR antennas that cost $2.

France is deploying an SFN (Single Frequency Network) which means that
expensive TALL or the HIGHEST buildings are not needed since it is less
expensive to have a number of transmitters on lower building around the
city and in the suburbs. New Yorkers would NOT have lost ANY reception
capabilities because of 9/11 with the deployment of an SFN network since
each transmitters is totally redundant.

Another element of our DTV transition is that as we transition
everything to an HDTV capable network using 8-VSB every receiver has to
be able to decode HD even though 300 million TV sets in the US are
analog and not capable of HD while each year 25 million more analog TV
sets are being sold. Though promised many times US consumers still have
not seen a digital to analog converter that would work with their
current TV sets and was inexpensive.

That is in a REAL WORLD sense HDTV or DTV is NOT AVAILABLE as promised
to work with the vast majority of TV sets. This inordinately affects
those that RELY the most on OTA TV. That being the poor and a lot of
those live in cities.

COST affects the AVAILABILITY of DTV and HDTV. We all know that cost are
coming down but they are still high for HDTV. In France they will have
simulcast of both SD DTV and HD so that inexpensive SD receivers can be
sold for analog TV sets. Also since the COFDM modulation they are using
is the world standard and a manufacturer can expect that he can sell
units sold in France in many other countries the ECONOMY of SCALE kicks
in and cost of receivers will be far lower. Also the cost of antennas
will be far lower and in most cases antennas will be built right into
the TV sets and unseen.

The "AVAILABILITY" of DTV and HDTV will be greater in France. Since
COFDM works mobile and portable the value of OTA broadcasting and its
availability in mobile transportation and on the boat or backyard with
simple portable recieve devices will be far greater than in the US.

> We could still fix it. We could have a
>
>>world class DTV system and save billions in unnecessary cost in the
>>bargain. We could have a better system than any in the world except what
>>France is about to deploy.
>
>
>
> What is wrong with what we have now???

Just about everything. It is the worst of all worlds digital TV. If we
stick to it much longer it will become a textbook case of how bad
"INDUSTRIAL POLICY" as practiced by a corrupt political system in a
demoncracy can get.

As we see in the US when setting stupid standards doesn't work since
people are still FREE to NOT buy the unwanted, unneeded and poorly
designed product the government feels compelled to FORCE the issue with
a MANDATE.

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

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004, nixjunk wrote:
>> We could still fix it. We could have a
>> world class DTV system and save billions in unnecessary cost in the
>> bargain. We could have a better system than any in the world except what
>> France is about to deploy.
> What is wrong with what we have now???

It doesn't offer Bob the ability to piggy-back unicasts of tampon
advertisements onto city buses. More to the point: the equipment that Bob
purchased isn't useful with what we have now, and he's now stuck with a
white elephant that he can't unload.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

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

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
> What is about to happen however is that France will now leapfrog over us
> in DTV and HDTV OTA. Within two years France will have 50 times the
> number DTV OTA consumers percentage wise watching OTA DTV with the
> option of HDTV.

Note how Bob Miller prevaricates.

He uses phrases such as "precentage wise", which is a fancy way of saying
"I will have to juggle my presentation of the numbers to bolster my case."

He doesn't say "HDTV". He says "DTV with the option of HDTV".

The US is currently the only country in the world with nationwide HDTV.
Yet according to Bob Miller, countries which do not even have HDTV (such
as the UK and Germany) have "leapfrogged" over the US; as have countries
which only have HDTV in a few cities (such as Japan and Australia).

It does not take much analysis that this is the type of "leapfrog" he
envisions for France.

Bob knows that what he says is bullshit. Spreading (what he sees as) the
truth isn't his purpose. His purpose is to hurt the HDTV community as
much as he can through the spread of fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

Bob invested in the wrong technology, and apparently lost a good deal of
money. He still hasn't gotten over it.

The good thing about all of this is that Bob has so thoroughly discredited
himself in public that he will never recover. Plenty of people bet on the
wrong horse, and eventually accept and walk away from their loss with
their credibility intact. Bob did not.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

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

Trivia

France had an analog HDTV system in the 1950s-1960s. It was an 819-line
black and white broadcast system, before they went to color SECAM. I would
be interested to know if there are any video recordings from that period.

"SAC 441" <SAC441@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:20302-40D6115A-107@storefull-3254.bay.webtv.net...
> Mark Crispin writes:
> ----"What France does is extremely valuable for one very important
> reason: good engineering indicates that one carefully study what the
> French do,and then do the exact opposite."----
>
>
> Reply:
> I concur with that wholeheartedly.Their recent demonstration of
> engineering prowess with the collapse of the airport concourse tunnel at
> Charles De Gaulle airport recently is evidence of engineering techniques
> NOT TO FOLLOW.
>

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

SAC 441 wrote:
> Reply:
> I concur with that wholeheartedly.Their recent demonstration of
> engineering prowess with the collapse of the airport concourse tunnel at
> Charles De Gaulle airport recently is evidence of engineering techniques
> NOT TO FOLLOW.

That comment is totally out of order.

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

Bob Miller has been banned from every AV forum on internet. He is
mentally sick person, who should be put away.


--
CKNA

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:T8tAc.4840$w07.1462@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
: As I have predicted here recently France will have HDTV delivered via
: COFDM and MPEG4 next year.

===============
Come back when it actually happens...........