Putman tested Schubin's apartment with indoor antenna

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

Reviewer Peter Putman brought a bunch of different indoor antennas to Mark
Schubin's NYC apartment. In December of 2001.

From his article:

"I quickly detected and locked up a signal from WCBS-56 with just the bow
tie and no preamp".

"WNYW-44 was received with the UHF bowtie and the preamp by dangling the bow
tie about a foot off the floor."

Nice. Just a bowtie and no preamp. Bet dollars to donuts Bob knew about this
test all along...

Full article at:

http://www.hdtvexpert.com/Pages/8vsb.html


Putman's newest article about 8VSB is in the August issue of Home Theater
magazine.

From that article:
"to put it mildly, I was surprised at how easy it was to pick up not just
one, but multiple DTV signals indoors...".

Pete Putman is a respected electronics reviewer and consultant. He writes
for
Video Systems, Sound & Video Contractor, Millimeter, Entertainment Design,
eTown.com, The Perfect Vision, AV Video, Emedia, Electronic House, and Home
Theater magazines.

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

>Reviewer Peter Putman brought a bunch of different indoor antennas to Mark
>Schubin's NYC apartment. In December of 2001.
>
>From his article:
>
>"I quickly detected and locked up a signal from WCBS-56 with just the bow
>tie and no preamp".
>
>"WNYW-44 was received with the UHF bowtie and the preamp by dangling the bow
>tie about a foot off the floor."
>
>Nice. Just a bowtie and no preamp. Bet dollars to donuts Bob knew about this
>test all along...

Is that for real???? Hey, why should I be surpirsed. I guarantee that the LYING
BOB, new that all along. Just unreal. I swear I wish this ng was moderated so
that we could get his lying ass off this board. The time that is wasted
correcting his LIES, his EMBELLISHMENTS and his ignorance is just beyond
belief.

Thanks for enlightening us Dave!

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

David wrote:
> Reviewer Peter Putman brought a bunch of different indoor antennas to Mark
> Schubin's NYC apartment. In December of 2001.
>
> From his article:
>
> "I quickly detected and locked up a signal from WCBS-56 with just the bow
> tie and no preamp".
>
> "WNYW-44 was received with the UHF bowtie and the preamp by dangling the bow
> tie about a foot off the floor."
>
> Nice. Just a bowtie and no preamp. Bet dollars to donuts Bob knew about this
> test all along...
>
> Full article at:
>
> http://www.hdtvexpert.com/Pages/8vsb.html
>
>
> Putman's newest article about 8VSB is in the August issue of Home Theater
> magazine.
>
> From that article:
> "to put it mildly, I was surprised at how easy it was to pick up not just
> one, but multiple DTV signals indoors...".
>
> Pete Putman is a respected electronics reviewer and consultant. He writes> for
> Video Systems, Sound & Video Contractor, Millimeter, Entertainment Design,
> eTown.com, The Perfect Vision, AV Video, Emedia, Electronic House, and Home
> Theater magazines.
>

This article has been posted here many times. It is not new in fact I
have posted it or its URL. Peter has been an apologist for 8-SVB from
the beginning. His "surprise" at being able to receive a few 8-VSB
channels indoors is not a very good endorsement for 8-VSB. Put yourself
in the place of the average American reading that. It is this reporting
and post like yours that have done a good job of warning most folks to
stay way clear of OTA for the last 5 years.

In answer to a copy of your post at HDTVoice I posted the following...

[QUOTE=Freddy Basset]Many people are finding that indoor HDTV antennas
in large cities work just fine.

I hooked up mine in December of 1999, and it's worked flawlessly. The
very first HDTV receiver available [RCA DTC-100] is still working
perfectly for us.

On another forum, Robmx tried to convince me not to buy an OTA receiver,
but it appears he couldn't possibly have been more wrong.

Anyway, here's an independent test from 2 1/2 years ago:

http://www.hdtvexpert.com/Pages/8vsb.html

You might also look at the August issue of Home Theater Magazine.[/QUOTE]


I wrote (Bob Miller)...
I agree "many people are finding that indoor HDTV antennas in large
cities work just fine." As many as 20 to 30%.

That leaves a lot of people, 70 to 80% who find indoor HDTV antennas or
even rooftop antennas DON'T work or work for only a few channels.

Mr. Basset must think that most readers here will NOT go to his URL and
carefully read what is written there by Peter Puttman because it is very
destructive to his case.

But Mr. Basset is right the Peter is trying to put a good face on a
dismal subject. It is this kind of investigative writing that when read
by the general public will PUT THEM OFF OTA FOREVER.

Mr. Basset's post here and others like it on AVSForum and Peter's
writing all are trying to get people to OTA 8-VSB in a positive light
but DO THE OPPOSITE.

Mr. Schubin's apartment was picked by Peter not because it is some
UNIQUE black hole of bad reception. No, this apartment represents the
NORM in most of New York City and is inhabited by a VERY knowledgeable
EXPERT in all things digital, HDTV and RF. His apartment has been mapped
by the ATTC and the digital representation of his apartment is used by
ALL 8-SVB manufacturers to simulate reception of their prototype receivers.

Now the question always has been does ATSC 8-VSB DTV OTA reception equal
or exceed NTSC analog. That was the MINIMUM requirement of Congress in
picking 8-VSB as the US modulation.

Does it? If it does why would it not in a TYPICAL apartment like Mr.
Schubin's?

Here is what Mark says about NTSC reception in his apartment...

"I was asked by a New York television-broadcasting engineer
to check out reception of his NTSC station in my apartment. It was
quite good. So I checked ALL of the New York NTSC stations today, using
just the rabbit ears sticking out of the top of the set, unadjusted, for
both VHF and UHF stations. Reception has definitely improved since the
towers fell, even with many of the stations operating at low power from
temporary, distant, lower facilities. Here are the results (channel -
call - network - quality):
2 - WCBS-TV - CBS - fair
4 - WNBC-TV - NBC - unwatchable
5 - WNYW-TV - Fox - very good
7 - WABC-TV - ABC - good-to-very good
9 - WWOR-TV - UPN - fair
11 - WPIX-TV - WB - poor (barely watchable)
13 - WNET-TV - PBS - fair
25 - WNYE-TV - PBS - excellent
31 - WPXN-TV - Pax - unwatchable
41 - WXTV - Univision - very good-to-excellent
47 - WNJU - Telemundo - good
50 - WNJM - PBS - good
68 - WHSE - HSN - good "

Now Mark is very conservative in his statements so from what I have seen
in his apartment "good" is closer to very good.

Here is what he says about reception of 8-VSB THIS YEAR, 2004, in the
same apartment....

Mark wrote...
"Not exactly accurate. See below.

Albert Manfredi wrote:

> Take one really obvious set of evidence. The tests in the Schubin
apartment. First gen receivers all failed to receive anything.

The Panasonic TU-DST50 was the only one that could not get anything off
air reliably. It got 8-VSB via cable fine.

> 2nd gen receivers manages to pull in two stations, but never
reliably. Either traffic outside, or heaven knows what other factors,
would turn
> what used to be good reception in one session to something unreliable
or not there.


When there were only two DTT stations broadcasting from Manhattan, NO
receiver was able to get more than one reliably from a single antenna
location, and the RCA DTC100 was able to get either reliably as long as
the antenna was located (not merely pointed) correctly.


> A 3rd gen receiver managed to obtain stable reception of two
stations, with the antenna relocated.


That was also true of the DST100, once we discovered the on-the-floor
location necessary for WNYW-DT.


> Would have been nice to see a 4th gen receiver test, but the evidence
is still there for anyone with an open mind to see.


Things that people have been calling 4th-generation receivers have been
tested here. Now that there are many more DTT stations on the air, it is
possible to get two reliably from the same antenna location, but those
two can never be WCBS-DT and WNYW-DT, the two original stations tested
here. At the moment, WABC-DT seems most reliable.

There was certainly a significant improvement from the Panasonic
TU-DST50 to the RCA DTC100. The former couldn't get anything reliably;
the latter
could. After the DTC100, the only improvement I've noticed has been
somewhat less critical antenna orientation. As I noted above, no receiver
has yet been able to pick up both WCBS-DT and WNYW-DT (which transmit
from the same building) from a single antenna location.

I am, unfortunately, unable to reveal the latest receivers tested here.
But, as always, anyone who would like to run a test here is cordially
invited to do so.

TTFN,
Mark"

So since Peter Putnam's dismal test in 2001 nothing much has changed.
MINIMAL improvements through 3 generations of receives in "critical
placement of antennas". Able to receive only a couple of channels and
only then from different positions where position and orientation are
still critical.

UNUSABLE SERVICE under any definition. And NO receiver manufactuer
INCLUDING LINX willing to test without NON-DISCLOSURE!!!

ABOUT LINX AND IMPORTANCE OF DYNAMIC MULTIPATH

There is lots of dynamic multipath in a big city. Here is a post
response on the subject from Mark Schubin....

Al wrote....
"> > If the Linx works well with static multipath but not dynamic what
does that say about roof top antennas?
> > I wouldn't make a bigger deal about this than it deserves, unless
we're really interested in providing mobile reception, right now.


I reported recently about a recent test in my apartment. With a fixed
antenna and no one in the room moving, the "signal strength" indication
varied wildly on a number of channels.

I suspect dynamic multipath -- important even for a fixed location.

TTFN,
Mark "

And another...

Al wrote...
> Linx may just have the fix for the most serious problem facing 8VSB
-- multipath.


If you were at the Linx press conference, you saw the slide that said,
"Will Casper cure all? No!"

On one multipath ensemble, the Linx Casper performance was actually
better than Gaussian, but on another, it required considerably more
carrier-to-noise ratio.

Casper is certainly impressive. But Linx is not yet ready to test it in
my apartment, where my NTSC reception is currently very good with
set-top rabbit ears and where no one has yet been able to receive even
two DTV stations in the same antenna location (never mind orientation)
or even one DTV station with a set-top antenna.

TTFN,
Mark "

And a final statement from Mark as to the state of affairs in his
apartment...

"This is to confirm that I get good-to-excellent reception of UHF NTSC
stations on simple indoor antennas in my apartment (the "Schubin site,"
ATTC site NYC300).

I have now been able to get two ATSC (8-VSB) stations in my apartment
reliably, but doing so requires having the antenna on or near the floor
and moving it to different locations when tuning between stations. No
such odd locations or movements are required for indoor NTSC reception
in my apartment.

TTFN,
Mark"

His NTSC reception report is from the top of his analog TV set with a
rabbit ears antenna that does not have to be moved or re-orientated.

Now all that being said I have a 5th generation Zenith receiver that I
will test in Mark Schubin's apartment next week and it will be with NO
NON-DISCLOSURE. This means that Zenith has obviously tested this
receiver against the ATTC's RF database of Mark's apartment and are sure
that it will work there.

We will see.

Bob Miller

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

Within these hallowed halls, David of <davey3@home.com> added the
following to the collective conscience:
> Reviewer Peter Putman brought a bunch of different indoor antennas to
> Mark Schubin's NYC apartment. In December of 2001.
>
> From his article:
>
> "I quickly detected and locked up a signal from WCBS-56 with just the
> bow tie and no preamp".
>
> "WNYW-44 was received with the UHF bowtie and the preamp by dangling
> the bow tie about a foot off the floor."
>
> Nice. Just a bowtie and no preamp. Bet dollars to donuts Bob knew
> about this test all along...
>
> Full article at:
>
> http://www.hdtvexpert.com/Pages/8vsb.html
>
>
> Putman's newest article about 8VSB is in the August issue of Home
> Theater magazine.
>
> From that article:
> "to put it mildly, I was surprised at how easy it was to pick up not
> just one, but multiple DTV signals indoors...".
>
> Pete Putman is a respected electronics reviewer and consultant. He
> writes for
> Video Systems, Sound & Video Contractor, Millimeter, Entertainment
> Design, eTown.com, The Perfect Vision, AV Video, Emedia, Electronic
> House, and Home Theater magazines.

You left out the best part, must be repeated as many times as possible ...

<<As spring wound into summer, a full complement of DTV signals came on-air
from the World Trade Center, including WNBC-28, WPIX-33, WWOR-38, WABC-45,
and WNET-61. All of these signals, plus WNYW-44 and WCBS-56 from the Empire
State Building, were rock solid. Add to them the five *Philadelphia*
stations, two *Allentown* stations, and one Trenton, NJ station I already
received, and I could choose from 15 different DTV carriers for antenna
testing over a variety of terrain.>>

;-) Thank you!

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote > >
> This article has been posted here many times.

Why would anyone listen to you? You're an outcast and a laughing stock even
among your own peers.
Sorry, but it really is true.

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

>Peter has been an apologist for 8-SVB from
>the beginning.

And does that make his test any less valid BOOBY?? And why was HE able to get
reception without much trouble when YOU couldn't. Of course all YOU talk about
(1,000s of times) is that you could NOT get reception in the infamous Mark
Schubin apt. You never mention Peter's test. BOB, you are a disgusting little
weasel.

>His "surprise" at being able to receive a few 8-VSB
>channels indoors is not a very good endorsement for 8-VSB.

He was more surprised at how EASY he was able to get it.

>That leaves a lot of people, 70 to 80% who find indoor HDTV antennas or
>even rooftop antennas DON'T work or work for only a few channels.

And where are the FACTS to back this statement up? You don't have any? Gee,
BOB, what a surprise!!!

>But Mr. Basset is right the Peter is trying to put a good face on a
>dismal subject.

I have ONLY know Peter to be honest and forthright. I have NEVER EVER EVER
known Peter to lie. YOU on the other hand Mr. Snake Oil Salesman, are a known
liar. You have been caught here, you have been caught on the AVS forum and it
is ONLY the fact that this ng is unregulated that you continue to spew your
lies.

More importantly, only somebody like YOU would continue to harp on a subject
that is deader than dead. We HAVE our OTA HD modulation standard BOOBY. Only
you haven't caught on yet. You have been abandoned by Sinclair and you now
stand alone in your fight for God knows what. You surely aren't fighting for
the UNITED STATES' OTA HD standard, that was decided YEARS ago. You are a fool.

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

Bob Miller wrote:
>
> This article has been posted here many times. It is not new in fact I
> have posted it or its URL.

Google says you never posted the URL. It also says you never posted a
single article with Peter Putnam's name in it until 17 July, 2004 in in
this thread.

Care to prove that you have _EVER_ posted about this test in Mark
Schubin's apartment? I can google up many (hundreds) of posts you have
made since that articla was published in which you state that ATSC can't
be received in Mark's apartment.

Prove it, if you can.

Matthew

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

>Google says you never posted the URL. It also says you never posted a
>single article with Peter Putnam's name in it until 17 July, 2004 in in
>this thread.
>
>Care to prove that you have _EVER_ posted about this test in Mark
>Schubin's apartment? I can google up many (hundreds) of posts you have
>made since that articla was published in which you state that ATSC can't
>be received in Mark's apartment.
>
>Prove it, if you can.
>

He can't. Liars never can.

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

>You left out the best part, must be repeated as many times as possible ...
>
><<As spring wound into summer, a full complement of DTV signals came on-air
>from the World Trade Center, including WNBC-28, WPIX-33, WWOR-38, WABC-45,
>and WNET-61. All of these signals, plus WNYW-44 and WCBS-56 from the Empire
>State Building, were rock solid. Add to them the five *Philadelphia*
>stations, two *Allentown* stations, and one Trenton, NJ station I already
>received, and I could choose from 15 different DTV carriers for antenna
>testing over a variety of terrain.>>

Nope, you'll never see the DECEITFUL, LYING BOB post anything like that. How
could anyone lie so consistently and not be the least bit embarrassed by it?
This is why I'm honestly convinced that BOB is a pathological liar. I don't
think he can help himself. Maybe we shoud feel sorry for the creep.

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> >Peter has been an apologist for 8-SVB from
> >the beginning.

Sure... Pete took special "apologist" photographs of screen shots
of his "apologist" spectrum analyzer.

Bob, we're nowhere NEAR as stupid as you seem to hope.

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

Within these hallowed halls, John S. Dyson of <toor@iquest.net> added
the following to the collective conscience:
> In article <J%fKc.5997$W86.5175@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>,
> "21C BBS" <dontlook@here.net> writes:
>>
>> BOB!
>>
>> <<As spring wound into summer, a full complement of DTV signals came
>> on-air from the World Trade Center, including WNBC-28, WPIX-33,
>> WWOR-38, WABC-45, and WNET-61. All of these signals, plus WNYW-44
>> and WCBS-56 from the Empire State Building, were rock solid. Add to
>> them the five *Philadelphia* stations, two *Allentown* stations, and
>> one Trenton, NJ station I already received, and I could choose from
>> 15 different DTV carriers for antenna testing over a variety of
>> terrain.>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> We will see.
>>>
>> We *HAVE* seen, BOB!
>>
> It is very disgusting, but it is very clear that Bob has attempted
> to benefit from Usama's attack... (By showing that DTV didn't work
> very well after the attacks and loss of transmission capability,
> Bob had tried to hijack HDTV spectrum for his own selfish purposes.)
>
I'd put it to Bob that his defense was wrecked by UBL's attack on the twin
towers if New Yorkers could get HDTV from Philly as opposed to not having a
snowball's chance in hell had the US gone with COFDM. VSB was designed for
the long haul while COFDM isn't, and I don't see KYW putting on-channel
repeaters in northeast New Jersey (especially with WCBS watching).

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

And here's a webpage about ("plug -n- play" ) COFDM, where the main British
DTV broadcasting company
[Freeview] officially discourages indoor antenna use:

==========================================================
"Please note it is unlikely that you will be able to receive good quality
digital
reception through a set-top aerial and if possible we suggest you

upgrade to either a rooftop or loft aerial."

===========================================================

I guess those COFDM transmitter electric bills really ARE a bitch, huh?

http://www.freeview.co.uk/whatdoineed/aerials.html

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

David wrote:

> And here's a webpage about ("plug -n- play" ) COFDM, where the main British
> DTV broadcasting company
> [Freeview] officially discourages indoor antenna use:
>
> ==========================================================
> "Please note it is unlikely that you will be able to receive good quality
> digital
> reception through a set-top aerial and if possible we suggest you
>
> upgrade to either a rooftop or loft aerial."
>
> ===========================================================
>
> I guess those COFDM transmitter electric bills really ARE a bitch, huh?
>
> http://www.freeview.co.uk/whatdoineed/aerials.html

First of all the British are using an earlier less robust version of
COFDM call 2K.

Second this is a typical "Red Herring" type announcement to protect the
behind of those in this organization that is posting.

Third the AVERAGE power level in the UK is ONE kW or about 1/1000 of the
power level on many 8-VSB stations in the US. From post here a consensus
would suggest that at ONE kW almost no one would be able to receive
8-VSB. At ONE kW on average over 6 million in the UK will be able to
receive COFDM by years end. The entire electric usage for DTV in the UK
is on average about 10% of that in the US per x square coverage area.

Fourth only about 70% of the England is in the designated coverage area
of the 80 or so transmitter sites so many citizens will try to receive a
signal from these extremely week transmitters from outside the coverage
area and should be using high gain directional rooftop antennas.

Fifth the reality is that most people in the UK in the coverage areas
can receive a good signal with indoor antennas with ease.






>
>
>
>

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

cjdaytonjr@cox.net wrote:

> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>David wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And here's a webpage about ("plug -n- play" ) COFDM, where the main
>>>British DTV broadcasting company
>>>[Freeview] officially discourages indoor antenna use:
>>>
>>>==========================================================
>>>"Please note it is unlikely that you will be able to receive good
>>>quality digital
>>> reception through a set-top aerial and if possible we suggest you
>>>
>>> upgrade to either a rooftop or loft aerial."
>>>
>>>===========================================================
>>>
>>>I guess those COFDM transmitter electric bills really ARE a bitch, huh?
>>>
>>>http://www.freeview.co.uk/whatdoineed/aerials.html
>>
>>First of all the British are using an earlier less robust version of
>>COFDM call 2K.
>>
>>Second this is a typical "Red Herring" type announcement to protect the
>>behind of those in this organization that is posting.
>>
>>Third the AVERAGE power level in the UK is ONE kW or about 1/1000 of the
>>power level on many 8-VSB stations in the US. From post here a consensus
>>would suggest that at ONE kW almost no one would be able to receive
>>8-VSB. At ONE kW on average over 6 million in the UK will be able to
>>receive COFDM by years end.
>
>
> Is this HD or SD, Bob. If it is SD, WE DON'T CARE. THIS IS AN HD NG!
> Chip
>
>

I was responding to a post by someone giving false information about
COFDM reception in the UK. This is on topic because the modulation used
in the UK and an even better one used throughout the world are both
capable of delivering HD far better than what we are stuck with in the US.

If you care about the success of HD using OTA spectrum, free OTA
broadcasting, then the modulation is critical. Hearing next week in the
Senate will dwell on this.

YOU SHOULD CARE. Not caring has already cost a lot of early adopters a
lot of money and had delayed the adoption of HDTV in the US and around
the world. NOT CARING will allow Congress to sell off all OTA spectrum
and kill free OTA broadcasting. This spectrum is being attacked by the
FCC and many others for other uses. The number of people who rely on OTA
continues to fall and every so often Chairman Powell test the waters and
asked questions like "what are we protecting" in reference to the fact
that fewer people rely on OTA.

Of course why should you care if you can afford cable at ever escalating
rates?

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

John S. Dyson wrote:

> In article <fHDKc.7663$Qu5.1598@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>>David wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And here's a webpage about ("plug -n- play" ) COFDM, where the main British
>>>DTV broadcasting company
>>>[Freeview] officially discourages indoor antenna use:
>>>
>>>==========================================================
>>>"Please note it is unlikely that you will be able to receive good quality
>>>digital
>>> reception through a set-top aerial and if possible we suggest you
>>>
>>> upgrade to either a rooftop or loft aerial."
>>>
>>>===========================================================
>>>
>>>I guess those COFDM transmitter electric bills really ARE a bitch, huh?
>>>
>>>http://www.freeview.co.uk/whatdoineed/aerials.html
>>
>>First of all the British are using an earlier less robust version of
>>COFDM call 2K.
>>
>
> Note that in the US, we are using 8VSB, and have HDTV. You are talking
> about a situation where there is NO HDTV (which is the topic for
> this newsgroup.) Please -- don't try to dismiss the non-HDTV situation
> as being unimportant or off-subject, because HDTV is almost the entire
> original justification for DTV in the US. COFDM and 8VSB are both
> secondary aspects of DTV, and really off topic details (equivalent
> to discussing what kind of FET is being used in the frontend design.)
>
> John
>
But as you know by now John I totally disagree with you. I think the
heart of HDTV is the modulation that is used because without a
modulation that works you do not have HD OTA. It just will not happen.
OTA will just go away.

I think that OTA is important. I think free OTA is important. I think
everyone should benefit from HDTV and be able to use their free OTA
spectrum to receive it. Many as we see here do not think that OTA is
important, that it is not important if others cannot receive HDTV OTA as
long as they can.

While HDTV was the reason for DTV things do change. The justification
now is many more things. Congress wants the spectrum on loan for the DTV
transition back and wants to sell it. Congress wants all the spectrum
back if more people don't start using it. Broadcasters now want to use
the spectrum for other things and in fact they wrote all those things
into the original law that governs the DTV transition.

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote > > Chip

> I was responding to a post by someone giving false information about
> COFDM reception in the UK.

A quick google search returned more than 50 references where you
claimed UK was plug and play and/or had no need for outdoor antennas.

LOL...
Nothing but pure lies from you as usual, and they're so easy to refute.

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

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 23:27:07 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>
>First of all the British are using an earlier less robust version of
>COFDM call 2K.
>
>Second this is a typical "Red Herring" type announcement to protect the
>behind of those in this organization that is posting.
>
>Third the AVERAGE power level in the UK is ONE kW or about 1/1000 of the
>power level on many 8-VSB stations in the US. From post here a consensus
>would suggest that at ONE kW almost no one would be able to receive
>8-VSB. At ONE kW on average over 6 million in the UK will be able to
>receive COFDM by years end. The entire electric usage for DTV in the UK
>is on average about 10% of that in the US per x square coverage area.
>
>Fourth only about 70% of the England is in the designated coverage area
>of the 80 or so transmitter sites so many citizens will try to receive a
>signal from these extremely week transmitters from outside the coverage
>area and should be using high gain directional rooftop antennas.
>
>Fifth the reality is that most people in the UK in the coverage areas
>can receive a good signal with indoor antennas with ease.


Must be cool to live in England. I'm going to move there based on your
info. Thanks, my large outdoor antenna is starting to get annoying.

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

>"Please note it is unlikely that you will be able to receive good quality
>digital
> reception through a set-top aerial and if possible we suggest you
>
> upgrade to either a rooftop or loft aerial."

Please Dave, don't tell me BOB is actually LYING? Can't be!!! The man has such
integrity, he would never do anything like that!

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

>It just will not happen.
>OTA will just go away.

BOOBY, how can we make YOU go away. We know that HD OTA 8VSB will not go away,
but we can always hope that you will.

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

>No Bob - you're missing the point.

He always does!

It just doesn't matter whether COFDM
>mobile works or not or whether it's just as good or better than other
>modulation formats. What matters is that our current modulation
>_STANDARD_ 8-VSB works - it's the _STANDARD_ in the U.S. and there's
>lots of folks (including me) that have been and will continue to easily
>receive free OTA HDTV using the _STANDARD_.

This guy will refute the most obvious CONFIRMED issues.

>
>Personally, I think mobile TV reception of any kind is a bad idea - I
>see enough close calls already from people using cell phones while
>driving; I certainly don't want to see people driving around with live
>TV showing in their cars.

VERY very true!!!