Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

No indoor antennas, says Freeview (U.K.)

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
July 18, 2004 11:29:28 PM

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.
If possible we suggest you upgrade to
either a rooftop or loft aerial."

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

Wow. I'm guessing that those COFDM transmitter electric bills really
are an issue.

I suppose that using huge rooftops antennas in England tends to minimize the
ongoing, everyday impulse-noise interference problems, too.

Our long-distance 8VSB system seems much more efficient, and we have HDTV to
boot....

Sure hope they get it straightened out someday. ;-)
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 19, 2004 3:49:10 AM

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

David wrote:

> "Please note it is unlikely that you will be able to receive
> good quality digital reception through a set-top aerial.
> If possible we suggest you upgrade to
> either a rooftop or loft aerial."
>
> http://www.freeview.co.uk/whatdoineed/aerials.html
>
> Wow. I'm guessing that those COFDM transmitter electric bills really
> are an issue.
>
> I suppose that using huge rooftops antennas in England tends to minimize the
> ongoing, everyday impulse-noise interference problems, too.
>
> Our long-distance 8VSB system seems much more efficient, and we have HDTV to
> boot....
>
> Sure hope they get it straightened out someday. ;-)
>
>

This terrible mistake you talk of them fixing has attracted 6 million
people who have freely purchased COFDM receivers without a MANDATE that
would require them to purchase such receivers when they buy a TV set
like is the LAW in the US. They have made these purchases that would be
akin to 36 million OTA receivers in the US in just the last 2.5 years
unlike the couple of hundred thousand 8-VSB receivers sold in the US
over the last SEVEN YEARS.

As mentioned in earlier post most of the world is using a version of
COFDM called 8K that allows reception of DTV on ONE INCH OMNI CELL PHONE
antennas and internal antennas that are not even visible and work mobile
and portable as well as fixed at up to 200 mph.

England has an older version of COFDM that is less robust version of
COFDM call 2K. They are already talking of upgrading this to a 8K
version and also including HDTV.

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.

Sixth the UK digital transition while less than perfect, early version
of 2K COFDM, is light years ahead of the virtually dead US transition.
The US transition has been virtually dead now for four or five years.
Its tragic.

If you disagree with my wording I will suggest you turn into the Senate
Hearings on BERLIN on July 22nd next Wednesday where you will hear
Congress critters using the SAME WORDING.

http://commerce.senate.gov/live.ram
July 19, 2004 3:49:11 AM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:W%DKc.7692$Qu5.7000@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> David wrote:
>
> > "Please note it is unlikely that you will be able to receive
> > good quality digital reception through a set-top aerial.
> > If possible we suggest you upgrade to
> > either a rooftop or loft aerial."
> >
> > http://www.freeview.co.uk/whatdoineed/aerials.html
> >
> > Wow. I'm guessing that those COFDM transmitter electric bills really
> > are an issue.
> >
> > I suppose that using huge rooftops antennas in England tends to minimize
the
> > ongoing, everyday impulse-noise interference problems, too.
> >
> > Our long-distance 8VSB system seems much more efficient, and we have
HDTV to
> > boot....
> >
> > Sure hope they get it straightened out someday. ;-)
> >
> >
>
> This terrible mistake you talk of them fixing has attracted 6 million
> people who have freely purchased COFDM receivers without a MANDATE that
> would require them to purchase such receivers when they buy a TV set
> like is the LAW in the US. They have made these purchases that would be
> akin to 36 million OTA receivers in the US in just the last 2.5 years
> unlike the couple of hundred thousand 8-VSB receivers sold in the US
> over the last SEVEN YEARS.
>
> As mentioned in earlier post most of the world is using a version of
> COFDM called 8K that allows reception of DTV on ONE INCH OMNI CELL PHONE
> antennas and internal antennas that are not even visible and work mobile
> and portable as well as fixed at up to 200 mph.
>
> England has an older version of COFDM that is less robust version of
> COFDM call 2K. They are already talking of upgrading this to a 8K
> version and also including HDTV.
>
> 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.
>
> Sixth the UK digital transition while less than perfect, early version
> of 2K COFDM, is light years ahead of the virtually dead US transition.
> The US transition has been virtually dead now for four or five years.
> Its tragic.
>
> If you disagree with my wording I will suggest you turn into the Senate
> Hearings on BERLIN on July 22nd next Wednesday where you will hear
> Congress critters using the SAME WORDING.
>
> http://commerce.senate.gov/live.ram
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 19, 2004 4:17:05 AM

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

In article <W%DKc.7692$Qu5.7000@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
> David wrote:
>
>> "Please note it is unlikely that you will be able to receive
>> good quality digital reception through a set-top aerial.
>> If possible we suggest you upgrade to
>> either a rooftop or loft aerial."
>>
>> http://www.freeview.co.uk/whatdoineed/aerials.html
>>
>> Wow. I'm guessing that those COFDM transmitter electric bills really
>> are an issue.
>>
>> I suppose that using huge rooftops antennas in England tends to minimize the
>> ongoing, everyday impulse-noise interference problems, too.
>>
>> Our long-distance 8VSB system seems much more efficient, and we have HDTV to
>> boot....
>>
>> Sure hope they get it straightened out someday. ;-)
>>
>>
>
> This terrible mistake you talk of them fixing has attracted 6 million
> people who have freely purchased COFDM receivers without a MANDATE that
> would require them to purchase such receivers when they buy a TV set
> like is the LAW in the US.
>
Why shouldn't your TV SET be supplied with the necessary tuner? However,
if you are buying an HDTV monitor, then that doesn't have to have a
tuner, does it?


>
> As mentioned in earlier post most of the world is using a version of
> COFDM called 8K that allows reception of DTV
>
Who cares about DTV, we are interested only in HDTV.

>
> If you disagree with my wording I will suggest you turn into the Senate
> Hearings on BERLIN on July 22nd next Wednesday where you will hear
> Congress critters using the SAME WORDING.
>
HDTV is the only really interesting issue (unless you are trying to
use the spectrum for non-TV purposes...) Oh yeah, you are indeed
trying to use the spectrum for non-free HDTV, OTA purposes...

John
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 19, 2004 8:05:41 AM

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

John S. Dyson wrote:

> In article <W%DKc.7692$Qu5.7000@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>>David wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Please note it is unlikely that you will be able to receive
>>>good quality digital reception through a set-top aerial.
>>>If possible we suggest you upgrade to
>>>either a rooftop or loft aerial."
>>>
>>>http://www.freeview.co.uk/whatdoineed/aerials.html
>>>
>>>Wow. I'm guessing that those COFDM transmitter electric bills really
>>>are an issue.
>>>
>>>I suppose that using huge rooftops antennas in England tends to minimize the
>>>ongoing, everyday impulse-noise interference problems, too.
>>>
>>>Our long-distance 8VSB system seems much more efficient, and we have HDTV to
>>>boot....
>>>
>>>Sure hope they get it straightened out someday. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>This terrible mistake you talk of them fixing has attracted 6 million
>>people who have freely purchased COFDM receivers without a MANDATE that
>>would require them to purchase such receivers when they buy a TV set
>>like is the LAW in the US.
>>
>
> Why shouldn't your TV SET be supplied with the necessary tuner? However,
> if you are buying an HDTV monitor, then that doesn't have to have a
> tuner, does it?
>
>
>
>>As mentioned in earlier post most of the world is using a version of
>>COFDM called 8K that allows reception of DTV
>>
>
> Who cares about DTV, we are interested only in HDTV.

When I say DTV it includes HDTV. HDTV is a subset of DTV. DTV stands for
the all encompassing Digital TV. I would have thought you knew that.
>
>
>>If you disagree with my wording I will suggest you turn into the Senate
>>Hearings on BERLIN on July 22nd next Wednesday where you will hear
>>Congress critters using the SAME WORDING.
>>
>
> HDTV is the only really interesting issue (unless you are trying to
> use the spectrum for non-TV purposes...) Oh yeah, you are indeed
> trying to use the spectrum for non-free HDTV, OTA purposes...
>
I am not trying to use any spectrum between channels 2 and 51. That is
all that is left of OTA free TV/DTV. It will not last much longer as
long as the number of people who use it continues to decline.

I am not trying to use any spectrum between channels 2 and 51. This is
called the core and is where all full power broadcasting takes place. I
own none of it. I have leases on none of it. We have purchased spectrum
at auction that we intend to use. I have stated that many times. Is
there any reason that you insist on ignoring that?

In the meantime others using 8-VSB are doing just what you so fear. You
don't even talk about it because it must so rattle your thought
processes. USDTV and Emmis are going to turn most full power
broadcasting into subscription based SD broadcasting. Next month they
will begin selling receivers in Walmart that will allow this. They use
WM9, conditional access, may come with PVR and the public is going to
love it. I can see the same thing happening in the US that is happening
in Berlin and the UK.

They are doing it, I am not but I guess I am convenient.

> John
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 19, 2004 8:34:10 AM

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

David wrote:

> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote >
>
>>>England has an older version of COFDM that is less robust version .."
>
>
> This frail, expensive and inefficient COFDM "older version" was the _only
> alternative_ our country had to choose from in 1996-7.

COFDM is not frail, it is more robust than 8-VSB even while at a higher
datarate. It is not expensive, the IP royalty cost is only 10% of the IP
royalty cost of 8-VSB. It only needs 10% of the power needed to cover
the same coverage area also.

It is not inefficient since it delivers a higher datarate to far more
people in any coverage area. There are no areas of multipath where 8-VSB
is unworkable with COFDM. COFDM loves multipath and allows for the use
of simple $2 antennas or even antennas hidden in the receive device.
>
> What a great move it was, by our government, going with our 8VSB HDTV
> system.

Actually it was a major disaster sure to be part of the curriculum of
major business schools in the next few years. It has virtually stagnated
our DTV transition and forced a Republican administration to do
something Republicans are not supposed to do, MANDATE that all Americans
who buy a TV set have to buy something 85% (who use cable or satellite)
of them will never use.

If this is not a liberal thinking what is? For the benefit of the few
the many must pay. Even if these receivers only cost $150 in those DTV
sets the real cost of the 15% of receivers that will actually be used
will be more like $1000 each when you add in the cost of all those not used.
>
> I can't believe they did something right.

Don't worry they didn't. It will be seen in hindsight as one of a group
of decisions made under the influence of foreign special interest money
in our political process that cost our citizens and our economy dearly.
>
July 19, 2004 11:55:27 AM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote > >
>
> USDTV and Emmis are going to....
> Next month they will begin......
>I can see the same thing happening......

Haven't you been 100% wrong with every single one of your predictions so
far?
July 19, 2004 12:04:58 PM

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

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

> allows reception of DTV on ONE INCH OMNI CELL PHONE
> antennas and internal antennas that are not even visible and work mobile
> and portable as well as fixed at up to 200 mph.


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

And so you start spewing the same old vomitus again about one-inch antennas
at 200mph....

You really are your own worst enemy.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 19, 2004 6:34:25 PM

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

David wrote:
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote
>
>
>> allows reception of DTV on ONE INCH OMNI CELL PHONE
>>antennas and internal antennas that are not even visible and work mobile
>>and portable as well as fixed at up to 200 mph.
>
>
>
> LOL...
> A quick google search returned more than 50 references where you
> claimed (lied) that UK was plug and play and/or had no need for outdoor
> antennas.
>
> And so you start spewing the same old vomitus again about one-inch antennas
> at 200mph....
>
> You really are your own worst enemy.
>
>

The UK is approaching 6 million DTV receivers. The main reason that they
have been selling so well is that in any coverage area most people can
receive the broadcast with simple indoor antennas. The fact is that the
UK had a large % of households that relied on rooftop antennas for
analog reception at much higher broadcast power. The easiest PLUG AND
PLAY for them was to just plug in their existing rooftop antenna.

What is incredible is that in the UK they are using 1/1000 the power
that US 8-VSB broadcasters are using.

This makes the claims of US 8-VSB proponents that COFDM NEEDS more power
than 8-VSB all the more ridiculous. They endlessly claim that if only US
broadcasters would go to FULL POWER at like ONE MILLION WATTS reception
of 8-VSB would be "fixed".

In the UK ONE THOUSAND WATTS seem to be enough with COFDM. This is true
around the world where COFDM is being used very successfully at mini
fractions of the power that 8-VSB requires.
July 20, 2004 2:34:21 AM

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

> In the UK ONE THOUSAND WATTS seem to be enough with COFDM. This is true
> around the world where COFDM is being used very successfully at mini
> fractions of the power that 8-VSB requires.


Bob are you confused are just trying to be confusing?

The prime directive given in the States concerning digital TV was that it
provide at least the same fringe coverage as the current analog NTSC system.
Your reference to low power digital service for urban areas is not on point.
To obtain fringe coverage the digital transmission end must be at full
power! Theory and practice suggest that COFDM of equal bandwidth and bit
rate needs more power to provide that coverage. End of subject.

Richard.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 20, 2004 3:08:17 PM

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

Richard wrote:
>>In the UK ONE THOUSAND WATTS seem to be enough with COFDM. This is true
>>around the world where COFDM is being used very successfully at mini
>>fractions of the power that 8-VSB requires.
>
>
>
> Bob are you confused are just trying to be confusing?
>
> The prime directive given in the States concerning digital TV was that it
> provide at least the same fringe coverage as the current analog NTSC system.
> Your reference to low power digital service for urban areas is not on point.
> To obtain fringe coverage the digital transmission end must be at full
> power! Theory and practice suggest that COFDM of equal bandwidth and bit
> rate needs more power to provide that coverage. End of subject.
>
> Richard.
>
>

In neither the Fifth or Sixth Report and Orders of the FCC in 1997 there
is no mention of "fringe" but a lot about "replication" and coverage.
That means ALL the area that a TV station covers MUST replicate the NTSC
coverage area.

Not just the "fringe". In fact as I have stated many times the "fringe"
or far field is one where COFDM does just as well as 8-VSB. It is one
where we have a standing challenge to whomever fancies themselves a
proponent of 8-VSB to PICK ANY SPOT IN THE COVERAGE AREA where they can
receive 8-VSB and at the SAME POWER we will drive around that spot
receiving COFDM MOBILE.

And we will then pick 100 spots where 8-VSB cannot be received but COFDM
can be at equal or HIGHER bitrate and at EQUAL or LOWER power.

"Theory" suggested that COFDM needs more power but in the real world
that "theory" can't be found. Especially at high power levels where the
RF horizon becomes the primary limiting factor. At shorter ranges
COFDM's multipath acceptance allows it to outperform as well.

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Order...

In the Matter of Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the
Existing Television Broadcast Service

"This draft Table was based on the principles of full accommodation for
all eligible existing broadcasters, replication of
existing broadcast service areas,"

"12. In the Sixth Further Notice, we proposed to allot DTV channels
using a "service replication/maximization" concept suggested by a
variety of broadcast industry interests and representatives.24 Under
this approach, we would attempt to identify digital TV allotments that,
to the extent possible, will allow all existing broadcasters to provide
DTV service to a geographic area that is comparable to their existing
NTSC service area."

As we have seen at Mark Schubin's apartment 8-VSB has NOT till now come
close to replicating NTSC. Mark can receive most NTSC channels good to
excellent with rabbit ears on his TV. He cannot receive more than ONE
8-VSB channel from any antenna placement.

This has been true for the last 7 years. While many post here that they
can receive 8-VSB well and then suggest that their single experience
proves 8-VSB replicates NTSC which is logically and patently false, the
opposite is NOT false. If there is ONE location where 8-VSB cannot
replicate NTSC that IS a strong indication that the condition is
pervasive at some significant percentage of locations.

Zenith recognizes that fact as do other 8-VSB receiver manufacturers.
That is why they consider Mark Schubin's apartment so significant.

We shall see. I expect the 5th Generation receiver to work well at
Mark's place.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 20, 2004 3:16:25 PM

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

Richard wrote:

>>In the UK ONE THOUSAND WATTS seem to be enough with COFDM. This is true
>>around the world where COFDM is being used very successfully at mini
>>fractions of the power that 8-VSB requires.
>
>
>
> Bob are you confused are just trying to be confusing?
>
> The prime directive given in the States concerning digital TV was that it
> provide at least the same fringe coverage as the current analog NTSC system.
> Your reference to low power digital service for urban areas is not on point.
> To obtain fringe coverage the digital transmission end must be at full
> power! Theory and practice suggest that COFDM of equal bandwidth and bit
> rate needs more power to provide that coverage. End of subject.
>
> Richard.
>
>
I made no reference to "low power digital service for urban areas". I
only reference the UK and their national, urban/rural, COFDM coverage
that as of now covers 70% of the country from 80 transmitter sites with
an average of ONE kW of power per transmitter ERP.

Are you suggesting that the US land area is covered 70% yet even at our
much higher power levels? The UK is not even using SFN's since the older
COFDM version they are using, 2K, does not allow it. Many other
countries are using SFN's and will inexorbinately pass the US in
ubiquitous DTV coverage as they build out at MUCH LOWER POWER LEVELS.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 22, 2004 1:27:50 AM

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

David wrote:
> http://www.freeview.co.uk/whatdoineed/aerials.html
>
> Wow. I'm guessing that those COFDM transmitter electric bills really
> are an issue.
>
> I suppose that using huge rooftops antennas in England tends to minimize the
> ongoing, everyday impulse-noise interference problems, too.
>
> Our long-distance 8VSB system seems much more efficient, and we have HDTV to
> boot....
>
> Sure hope they get it straightened out someday. ;-)

They are just covering their arses. I get a perfect reception on a small
indoor aerial. And impulse noise is a non existant problem.
July 22, 2004 1:27:51 AM

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

"Ian Morris" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:40fed1c6$0$6444$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> David wrote:
> > http://www.freeview.co.uk/whatdoineed/aerials.html
> >
> > Wow. I'm guessing that those COFDM transmitter electric bills really
> > are an issue.
> > I suppose that using huge rooftops antennas in England tends to minimize
the
> > ongoing, everyday impulse-noise interference problems, too.
> > Our long-distance 8VSB system seems much more efficient, and we have
HDTV to
> > boot....
> > Sure hope they get it straightened out someday. ;-)

> They are just covering their arses. I get a perfect reception on a small
> indoor aerial. And impulse noise is a non existant problem.

I'm actually glad to hear that. No impulse interference troubles _at all_
in your location?
You must be in a pretty nice, strong signal location then.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 22, 2004 5:20:14 AM

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

David wrote:
> "Ian Morris" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> news:40fed1c6$0$6444$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>
>>David wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.freeview.co.uk/whatdoineed/aerials.html
>>>
>>>Wow. I'm guessing that those COFDM transmitter electric bills really
>>>are an issue.
>>>I suppose that using huge rooftops antennas in England tends to minimize
>
> the
>
>>>ongoing, everyday impulse-noise interference problems, too.
>
> > > Our long-distance 8VSB system seems much more efficient, and we have
> HDTV to
>
>>>boot....
>>>Sure hope they get it straightened out someday. ;-)
>
>
> > They are just covering their arses. I get a perfect reception on a small
>
>> indoor aerial. And impulse noise is a non existant problem.
>
>
> I'm actually glad to hear that. No impulse interference troubles _at all_
> in your location?
> You must be in a pretty nice, strong signal location then.
>
>
There is no such thing as a strong signal location in the UK by US
standards. They average only ONE kW of ERP broadcast power compared to
the US where the average is more like 1000 times higher.

If anyone complains about their reception in the US where the
broadcaster is at 30 kW or less the answer to their problem by 8-VSB
proponents is like "what do you expect from such low power". Another
common refrain is "all 8-VSB problems will go away when the broadcasters
go to full power" that being again 1000 times the power that is used on
average in the UK. The highest powered transmitter there is 20 kW.

transmitter info UK
http://www.wolfbane.com/ukdtt.htm
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 22, 2004 5:30:03 AM

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

In article <iDELc.9570$mL5.5789@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
> David wrote:
>> "Ian Morris" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>> news:40fed1c6$0$6444$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>>
>>>David wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://www.freeview.co.uk/whatdoineed/aerials.html
>>>>
>>>>Wow. I'm guessing that those COFDM transmitter electric bills really
>>>>are an issue.
>>>>I suppose that using huge rooftops antennas in England tends to minimize
>>
>> the
>>
>>>>ongoing, everyday impulse-noise interference problems, too.
>>
>> > > Our long-distance 8VSB system seems much more efficient, and we have
>> HDTV to
>>
>>>>boot....
>>>>Sure hope they get it straightened out someday. ;-)
>>
>>
>> > They are just covering their arses. I get a perfect reception on a small
>>
>>> indoor aerial. And impulse noise is a non existant problem.
>>
>>
>> I'm actually glad to hear that. No impulse interference troubles _at all_
>> in your location?
>> You must be in a pretty nice, strong signal location then.
>>
>>
> There is no such thing as a strong signal location in the UK by US
> standards. They average only ONE kW of ERP broadcast power compared to
> the US where the average is more like 1000 times higher.
>
> If anyone complains about their reception in the US where the
> broadcaster is at 30 kW or less the answer to their problem by 8-VSB
> proponents is like "what do you expect from such low power".
>
Note that the problem in America is often related to the disparity of
power levels and apparent poorly designed frontends. Any claims that
the problems are 'multipath' show that the person making that claim
has been listening to too much propaganda. (Multipath is an issue,
but in my own situation, the power level needed by my RCA DTC100
is fairly critical.) Using exactly the same equipment, presenting
almost exactly the same load to the antenna (using a pad to force
the impedance match), the needed range of power level is approx
+-10dB. This power level sensitivity can easily be mistaken for
multipath. Using one of my Samsung tuners, the signal is much
less fragile.

Actually, much of the problem is related to super high power NTSC
UHF stations being in the same direction as the DTV stations (often,
but not always, effectively lower power.)

Remember also, the US is HDTV land, and any discussions about SDTV
are really off topic.

John
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 22, 2004 5:49:43 AM

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

John S. Dyson wrote:
> In article <iDELc.9570$mL5.5789@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>>David wrote:
>>
>>>"Ian Morris" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>>>news:40fed1c6$0$6444$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>David wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.freeview.co.uk/whatdoineed/aerials.html
>>>>>
>>>>>Wow. I'm guessing that those COFDM transmitter electric bills really
>>>>>are an issue.
>>>>>I suppose that using huge rooftops antennas in England tends to minimize
>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>
>>>>>ongoing, everyday impulse-noise interference problems, too.
>>>
>>> > > Our long-distance 8VSB system seems much more efficient, and we have
>>>HDTV to
>>>
>>>
>>>>>boot....
>>>>>Sure hope they get it straightened out someday. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>> > They are just covering their arses. I get a perfect reception on a small
>>>
>>>
>>>> indoor aerial. And impulse noise is a non existant problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm actually glad to hear that. No impulse interference troubles _at all_
>>>in your location?
>>>You must be in a pretty nice, strong signal location then.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>There is no such thing as a strong signal location in the UK by US
>>standards. They average only ONE kW of ERP broadcast power compared to
>>the US where the average is more like 1000 times higher.
>>
>>If anyone complains about their reception in the US where the
>>broadcaster is at 30 kW or less the answer to their problem by 8-VSB
>>proponents is like "what do you expect from such low power".
>>
>
> Note that the problem in America is often related to the disparity of
> power levels and apparent poorly designed frontends. Any claims that
> the problems are 'multipath' show that the person making that claim
> has been listening to too much propaganda. (Multipath is an issue,
> but in my own situation, the power level needed by my RCA DTC100
> is fairly critical.) Using exactly the same equipment, presenting
> almost exactly the same load to the antenna (using a pad to force
> the impedance match), the needed range of power level is approx
> +-10dB. This power level sensitivity can easily be mistaken for
> multipath. Using one of my Samsung tuners, the signal is much
> less fragile.
>
> Actually, much of the problem is related to super high power NTSC
> UHF stations being in the same direction as the DTV stations (often,
> but not always, effectively lower power.)
>
> Remember also, the US is HDTV land, and any discussions about SDTV
> are really off topic.
>
> John
>
Who is talking about SD? We are talking about the basic digital
modulation you need to deliver bits of information to a consumer
receiver. If you can deliver enough bits reliably customers will buy
receivers and OTA Television will not die.

At the moment the rest of the world is using a modulation that delivers
more bits, 19.76 Mbps, than 8-VSB, 19.34 Mbps, and does it far more
reliably. So reliably that they can EVEN BE RECEIVED MOBILE.

This is a very ON TOPIC discussion since at the moment our digital
transition is STAGNANT. So stagnant that today the US Congress had
another hearing on the subject. This hearing was to examine why the
Berlin transition took all of NINE months while ours has now taken SEVEN
YEARS with the expectation that it will take between FIVE MORE YEARS
(fervent hopefull prayer of the FCC) and TWENTY MORE YEARS (laughing
suggestion of typical broadcaster)

Take the range of 12 years to 27 years and compare to NINE MONTHS.

27 yeaaaaaaaaars is more than half the TOTAL LIFE OF NTSC. 12 yeaaaars
is 25% of the total life of NTSC. Congress is holding hearings at the
rate of one a month now. They now have disavowed HDTV. They are talking
of allowing WiFi to use TV spectrum not in use with the average consumer
using WiFi to be respectfull of the TV spectrum and follow the rules.
Next they are going to OPENLY TALK OF TAKING BACK ALL THE SPECTRUM.

Check it out when it gets put up. Listen to the whole hearing.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/07212004he...
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 22, 2004 11:57:48 AM

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

In article <40ff6cab$0$6449$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>,
Ian Morris <none@none.com> writes:
> John S. Dyson wrote:
>
>> Remember also, the US is HDTV land, and any discussions about SDTV
>> are really off topic.
>
> True, but the transmission techniques are still relevant, and the
> discussion of the potential for HD is still valid.
>
It would be good to discuss the techniques for HDTV reception and the
improvements that are available to the consumer. Whining about alternative
transports is nothing but FUD.

For example, alot more can be done to help a potential HDTV viewer
by talking about better antenna matching and signal level management
(given the horrible front ends in some HDTV tuners) instead of talking
about COFDM (which actually has another set of problems.)

When talking about COFDM, that would assume that there is HDTV on COFDM
available in the region that is being discussed.

John
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 22, 2004 12:26:37 PM

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

David wrote:
> I'm actually glad to hear that. No impulse interference troubles _at all_
> in your location?
> You must be in a pretty nice, strong signal location then.

Yeah, there are quite a few people (especially in cities) using indoor
antennas. There are special 'digital' ready ones that are designed to
work, and they do. And this impulse noise thing isn't a problem since
16QAM was introduced. Even the 64QAM channels seem fine to me.

You also have to remember that people in this country mostly use outoor
or in loft antennas anyway, and always have done.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 22, 2004 12:28:44 PM

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

John S. Dyson wrote:

> Remember also, the US is HDTV land, and any discussions about SDTV
> are really off topic.

True, but the transmission techniques are still relevant, and the
discussion of the potential for HD is still valid.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 23, 2004 1:20:45 AM

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

>COFDM is not frail, it is more robust than 8-VSB even while at a higher
>datarate.

No it's not Booby. XM radio proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Thank God
our Govt. went with the right modulation scheme!
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 23, 2004 1:21:27 AM

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

>Haven't you been 100% wrong with every single one of your predictions so
>far

Yes he has Dave, EVERY ONE!!! It's hsyterical isn't it?
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 23, 2004 1:22:30 AM

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

>The UK is approaching 6 million DTV receivers.

How many of those are HD BOB? HOW MANY ARE HD BOOBY???? What an utter DOPE you
are. This is an HD ng, not a "digital ng".
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 23, 2004 1:24:22 AM

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

>There is no such thing as a strong signal location in the UK by US
>standards. They average only ONE kW of ERP broadcast power compared to
>the US where the average is more like 1000 times higher.

How many of those signals are HIGH DEFINITION signal BOOBY? HOW MANY?? Until
you can speak OUR language, which is HD, we have no interest in your bullshit.
!