Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Bob Miller witnesses excellent ATSC reception at Mark Schu..

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
July 23, 2004 2:55:16 AM

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

Mark Schubin's favorable report about the 5th generation ATSC
receivers:

From http://www.digitaltelevision.com/mondaymemo/mlist/frm02...


From Mark Schubin <tvmark@earthlink.net>
Date Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:31:28 -0400
User-agent Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 (VAUSSU03)


SPECIAL! DTT in the U.S. Works!

Count me among the believers in the 5th-generation LG/Zenith ATSC
receiver!

We just did a test, this morning, in my apartment, and I thought the
news was too important not to release immediately. Present were two
senior research engineers from LG Electronics in Korea, Bob Miller
and an associate from Viacel, and Richard Bogner and an associate.
Miller had arranged for the test in my apartment. The receiver was
the LG LST-3100A.

With a simple loop antenna, with NO care in the positioning, we were
able to pull in seven DTT stations reliably. When I say "reliably,"
I mean not only that the pictures and sound were okay but that
people could move around the room and I could move the antenna
around without causing any breakup. It WAS possible for me to find
an orientation where I could make it fail, but I really had to try,
even on WNYW-DT, which could previously be received only with the
antenna on the floor. That's a big jump from previously trying to
find an orientation (and position) where I could make it work. For
the first time, I could receive signals (six channels) from an
antenna atop my TV, where I normally get analog channels. I received
three channels reliably from New Jersey. We got the same results
with the classic Radio Shack dual bow-tie with reflector, but other
(fancier) antennas did not work as well.

The only channel I have previously received that I could not get
this morning was (which we confirmed with a spectrum analyzer) off
the air. Two of the other channels I could not receive are operating
at very low power, and one has its transmissions beamed away from
me.

I now believe that any shmo with reception conditions similar to
mine can simply take the receiver out of the box, connect a cheap
loop antenna, stick it wherever it looks good, and start to receive
ATSC signals from all full-power, full-pattern stations.

There has been a breakthrough! YAY! Congratulations to LG/Zenith!
Let the transition move forward!

For the record, the channels I received were: WCBS-DT, WNBC-DT,
WNYW-DT (which carries WWOR as a subchannel), WABC-DT, WPXN-DT,
WNJN-DT, and WFME-DT.

TTFN,
Mark
Anonymous
July 23, 2004 2:55:17 AM

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

Booby..... BAD BOY, BAD BOY, what you going to do when they come for you?
How much $$$'s did you loose on this???? ROFLOL..... you go dude!

"Willy Liao" <ranger999OBSCURED@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:o BXLc.39256$KP6.2411987@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> Mark Schubin's favorable report about the 5th generation ATSC
> receivers:
>
> From http://www.digitaltelevision.com/mondaymemo/mlist/frm02...
>
Anonymous
July 23, 2004 5:37:06 AM

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

I think it's best to leave Bob Miller alone, he's been such a huge anti-8VSB
activist that this hands on research has to be very difficult for him to
accept, keep in mind it's been his passion and cause over the last three
years to push COFDM.

Now that his cause has been ripped out from under him, he may become
depressed an do harm to himself or others. I no saying Bob crazy, but I am
saying you never know how far a person will go.

Bob honestly felt (and may still) that COFDM is the best way to go, he's
been proven wrong time and time again. Recently even his strongest peers
(anyone who will look at COFDM vs the new generation of 8VSB tunners) have
completely changed their stance (as this post demonstrates), the fact that
Bob refuses has lead to my concern.

Anyway, I'd like to think he had the best interest for everyone involved (in
spite of one off topic post after another), sadly he most likely is just
another business man who bet against 8VSB and lost.





"Willy Liao" <ranger999OBSCURED@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:o BXLc.39256$KP6.2411987@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> Mark Schubin's favorable report about the 5th generation ATSC
> receivers:
>
> From http://www.digitaltelevision.com/mondaymemo/mlist/frm02...
>
>
> From Mark Schubin <tvmark@earthlink.net>
> Date Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:31:28 -0400
> User-agent Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
> rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 (VAUSSU03)
>
>
> SPECIAL! DTT in the U.S. Works!
>
> Count me among the believers in the 5th-generation LG/Zenith ATSC
> receiver!
>
> We just did a test, this morning, in my apartment, and I thought the
> news was too important not to release immediately. Present were two
> senior research engineers from LG Electronics in Korea, Bob Miller
> and an associate from Viacel, and Richard Bogner and an associate.
> Miller had arranged for the test in my apartment. The receiver was
> the LG LST-3100A.
>
> With a simple loop antenna, with NO care in the positioning, we were
> able to pull in seven DTT stations reliably. When I say "reliably,"
> I mean not only that the pictures and sound were okay but that
> people could move around the room and I could move the antenna
> around without causing any breakup. It WAS possible for me to find
> an orientation where I could make it fail, but I really had to try,
> even on WNYW-DT, which could previously be received only with the
> antenna on the floor. That's a big jump from previously trying to
> find an orientation (and position) where I could make it work. For
> the first time, I could receive signals (six channels) from an
> antenna atop my TV, where I normally get analog channels. I received
> three channels reliably from New Jersey. We got the same results
> with the classic Radio Shack dual bow-tie with reflector, but other
> (fancier) antennas did not work as well.
>
> The only channel I have previously received that I could not get
> this morning was (which we confirmed with a spectrum analyzer) off
> the air. Two of the other channels I could not receive are operating
> at very low power, and one has its transmissions beamed away from
> me.
>
> I now believe that any shmo with reception conditions similar to
> mine can simply take the receiver out of the box, connect a cheap
> loop antenna, stick it wherever it looks good, and start to receive
> ATSC signals from all full-power, full-pattern stations.
>
> There has been a breakthrough! YAY! Congratulations to LG/Zenith!
> Let the transition move forward!
>
> For the record, the channels I received were: WCBS-DT, WNBC-DT,
> WNYW-DT (which carries WWOR as a subchannel), WABC-DT, WPXN-DT,
> WNJN-DT, and WFME-DT.
>
> TTFN,
> Mark
>
>
>
July 23, 2004 5:37:07 AM

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

"William Tores" <427819@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:6ZZLc.18363$qa2.8983@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> I think it's best to leave Bob Miller alone, he's been such a huge
anti-8VSB
> activist that this hands on research has to be very difficult for him to
> accept, keep in mind it's been his passion and cause over the last three
> years to push COFDM.
>
> Now that his cause has been ripped out from under him, he may become
> depressed an do harm to himself or others. I no saying Bob crazy, but I am
> saying you never know how far a person will go.


Blob will now try to twist everything around, trying to make it look as
though it's all to his advantage.
Anonymous
July 23, 2004 5:47:51 AM

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

In article <6ZZLc.18363$qa2.8983@fe2.texas.rr.com>,
"William Tores" <427819@nospam.com> writes:
> I think it's best to leave Bob Miller alone, he's been such a huge anti-8VSB
> activist that this hands on research has to be very difficult for him to
> accept, keep in mind it's been his passion and cause over the last three
> years to push COFDM.
>
> Now that his cause has been ripped out from under him, he may become
> depressed an do harm to himself or others. I no saying Bob crazy, but I am
> saying you never know how far a person will go.
>
I VERY MUCH would like to see that Bob stop doing the tilting
at windmills and that everyone else treat him kindly. I'd like
for the animosity to cease.

>
> Bob honestly felt (and may still) that COFDM is the best way to go, he's
> been proven wrong time and time again. Recently even his strongest peers
> (anyone who will look at COFDM vs the new generation of 8VSB tunners) have
> completely changed their stance (as this post demonstrates), the fact that
> Bob refuses has lead to my concern.
>
If Bob stops the tilting at windmills, I suspect that most people
in this group would accept him to discuss other subjects. To me, as
a long term EE and Computer person, all along it has appeared that
the 8VSB technology was 'green' but eventually would flower into
its full capabilities. I have seen technological improvements happen
many times, over and over again. There has been very little in
8VSB to make it an intrinsic failure. Maybe Bob hasn't had the benefit
of the historical vision that some of us (including me) have.

Again, I STRONGLY suspect that people will treat him more kindly
when he quits his crusade. There are some individuals who are rightfully
very irritated with him, and it would be good if the healing would start
sooner rather than later.

But, if there are some permanently irritated people out there (who are
fundamentally quite irritated) because of the risk that Bob's FUD
had caused to HDTV, then I can understand their positions also. The
anti-HDTV FUD has been quite unkind to those who had been advocates of
HDTV since the middle 1980's (or before.) The spectrum was originally
allocated for HDTV, and I hope that no-one destroys it.

John
Anonymous
July 23, 2004 8:14:16 AM

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

If Willy is also Ranger999,

As posted on AVSForum today...

Ranger999 said....
"Bob Miller sponsored this test, eh? Funny that he didn't immediately
post its results to Usenet's alt.tech.hdtv, so I took the liberty of
doing so. We wouldn't want people to forget his...'advocacy'...on this
issue."

Bob Miller says...
Maybe it was because we were testing for the rest of the day after we
left Mr. Schubin's apartment. We started testing at 11 am at Mark's
apartment and he made his post at 12:31 pm on OPENDTV or about two
minutes after we left. Hard to beat that when you have more places to go.

I have been at Mark's apartment before during past testing. This is the
first test that I know of that did not require a non-disclosure on those
witnessing it. This is the first time that a manufacturer of 8-VSB
receivers was willing to do such a series of test without all present
wearing a muzzle.

No wonder Mark was so eager to post ASAP. I am glad he did. I have had
the receiver for a few days and have been using it in my apartment with
great success. This is indeed a plug and play fixed 8-VSB receiver and
should finally allow for a digital transition to occur. Since neither
the UK or Berlin were successful because of the ability of COFDM to do
mobile it is entirely possible that similar success can now occur in the
US.

Broadcasters can now have a business plan for DTV that can make sense.

Don't get me wrong however, neither I or Sinclair (including Nat Ostroff
and Mark Aitken) are saying that 8-VSB is better than COFDM. COFDM is
clearly far superior to 8-VSB. What we are all saying is that the Zenith
5th generation receiver now lives up to part of what has been claim for
some 8-VSB receivers since 1999. They do not do mobile as claimed in
1999 but they do indeed do fixed well.

I believe that will be enough for a successful transition and for some
time. Still think that long term terrestrial DTV has to do mobile to
stay alive.

Also I have always thought that Sinclair was a hero in the digital
modulation controversy. It is they after and COFDM that goaded LG into
developing this latest technology. If it had been up to CBS there would
have been little or no improvement.

If ever there was proof of how bad 8-VSB was and has been it was seeing
the striking difference between a 4th generation receiver and this
fifth. It was seeing the amazement in the eyes and voice of Richard
Bogner and Mark Schubin who have both struggled with every previous
generation of 8-VSB receivers.

This may or may not be an incremental technical improvement in 8-VSB but
the results are not incremental, they are a vast improvement in real
world reception capabilities.

I can truly say they were both blown away by the disparity between all
that has been and this new reality.

My reply to Mark's post on OpenDTV is at the bottom.


Willy Liao wrote:
> Mark Schubin's favorable report about the 5th generation ATSC
> receivers:
>
> From http://www.digitaltelevision.com/mondaymemo/mlist/frm02...
>
>
> From Mark Schubin <tvmark@earthlink.net>
> Date Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:31:28 -0400
> User-agent Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
> rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 (VAUSSU03)
>
>
> SPECIAL! DTT in the U.S. Works!
>
> Count me among the believers in the 5th-generation LG/Zenith ATSC
> receiver!
>
> We just did a test, this morning, in my apartment, and I thought the
> news was too important not to release immediately. Present were two
> senior research engineers from LG Electronics in Korea, Bob Miller
> and an associate from Viacel, and Richard Bogner and an associate.
> Miller had arranged for the test in my apartment. The receiver was
> the LG LST-3100A.
>
> With a simple loop antenna, with NO care in the positioning, we were
> able to pull in seven DTT stations reliably. When I say "reliably,"
> I mean not only that the pictures and sound were okay but that
> people could move around the room and I could move the antenna
> around without causing any breakup. It WAS possible for me to find
> an orientation where I could make it fail, but I really had to try,
> even on WNYW-DT, which could previously be received only with the
> antenna on the floor. That's a big jump from previously trying to
> find an orientation (and position) where I could make it work. For
> the first time, I could receive signals (six channels) from an
> antenna atop my TV, where I normally get analog channels. I received
> three channels reliably from New Jersey. We got the same results
> with the classic Radio Shack dual bow-tie with reflector, but other
> (fancier) antennas did not work as well.
>
> The only channel I have previously received that I could not get
> this morning was (which we confirmed with a spectrum analyzer) off
> the air. Two of the other channels I could not receive are operating
> at very low power, and one has its transmissions beamed away from
> me.
>
> I now believe that any shmo with reception conditions similar to
> mine can simply take the receiver out of the box, connect a cheap
> loop antenna, stick it wherever it looks good, and start to receive
> ATSC signals from all full-power, full-pattern stations.
>
> There has been a breakthrough! YAY! Congratulations to LG/Zenith!
> Let the transition move forward!
>
> For the record, the channels I received were: WCBS-DT, WNBC-DT,
> WNYW-DT (which carries WWOR as a subchannel), WABC-DT, WPXN-DT,
> WNJN-DT, and WFME-DT.
>
> TTFN,
> Mark
>

Can confirm Mark's enthusiastic post.

Richard Bogner is the Bogner of Bogner antenna. His broadcast antennas
account for a fair proportion of all full power antennas. He is one of
the RF pioneers of the TV age. My associate was Meric Adriansen who is
responsible computer technology behind the ABC sign in Times Square as
well as the new J.P. Morgan sign on the Rudin Reuters building at 3
Times square that is composed of the equivalent of three HDTV 1080i
signals horizontally. I think it is 125 by 25 ft. and wraps around the
NW corner of 42nd and 7th Ave. It has been lit only the last week or so.

Congratulations should go to Sung-Ryong Hong who arrived last night from
Seoul Korea and if I heard right is the engineer most responsible for
the 5th generation Zenith receiver. He was accompanied by Mr. Ja-Hyuk Koo.

Before testing at Mark's apartment I tested at my apartment on Roosevelt
Island in the East River and I can say that this is truly a receiver
that works plug and play right out of the box WITH NO INSTRUCTION MANUAL
since they didn't include one if they even have one yet. I will post the
details of each location tested later.

We also tested at 32 Ave. of Americas on the 25th floor which is the
former AT&T World HDQTs floor and one location from which we have been
broadcasting COFDM. I believe we received 11 channels there with a
random placement of a bow tie antenna. We also tested at Richard
Bogner's home in Roslyn Long Island. His home is secluded in high large
trees and there is a hill between him and Manhattan at around 20 miles.
He has had many multipath problems and a limited selection of channels
that he could receive at all. When it is windy he has atrocious reception.

He was very impressed with the new receiver and it picked up
successfully every channel he thought possible.

The clear winner in the antenna department were the simplest loop and
rectangle antennas both beating out the quad bow tie, a Weingard HDTV, a
Radio Shack powered antenna, another similar unpowered RS antenna. The
rectangular wire antenna (can't cost more than $5) tied with Richard
Bogner's monstrous rooftop Yagi antenna with rotor. The rooftop only
matched the wire antenna by using two different directions.

The wire antenna was taped to a bedroom window casually by Richard with
a piece of scotch tape.

The receiver could work portable if you do not mind using a directional
antenna. By portable in this case I mean take a portable DTV to another
fixed location and fiddle with a simple antenna for a moment.

This 5th generation receiver will not do true portable or mobile in any
way. COFDM still blows it away and Mr. Hong did not seem to have much
faith that such would be the case in any reasonable timeframe.

That being said this 5th generation receiver does replicate NTSC if you
leave out the mobile part. It will cause the transition to digital to
finally proceed IMO.

Two weeks ago I called Hisense and told them I would be interested in
their receiver if they could use Zenith 5th generation tech and WM9.
Seems that is in the cards now to. They said at the time that they could
do it. That and a rave review from Mark Aitken made me call LG who
promptly sent a 5th gen receiver DHL and two senior engineer designers.

The only thing that confuses me is why LG didn't drop 8-VSB in 2000 for
COFDM. They would have sold a ton more HDTV sets in the last four years.
Easy to see why S. Korean broadcasters caved on COFDM and why it was
easier for Mexico to get off the fence now.

BTW we still cannot broadcast a signal (COFDM) of any strength above
Midtown
because of interference issues.

Bob Miller
Viacel
Anonymous
July 23, 2004 3:45:50 PM

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

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:sg0Mc.12327$Qu5.6757@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> No wonder Mark was so eager to post ASAP. I am glad he did. I have
> had the receiver for a few days and have been using it in my
> apartment with great success. This is indeed a plug and play fixed
> 8-VSB receiver and should finally allow for a digital transition
> to occur. Since neither the UK or Berlin were successful because
> of the ability of COFDM to do mobile it is entirely possible that
> similar success can now occur in the US.
>
> Broadcasters can now have a business plan for DTV that can make
> sense.
>
> Don't get me wrong however, neither I or Sinclair (including Nat
> Ostroff and Mark Aitken) are saying that 8-VSB is better than
> COFDM. COFDM is clearly far superior to 8-VSB. What we are all
> saying is that the Zenith 5th generation receiver now lives up to
> part of what has been claim for some 8-VSB receivers since 1999.
> They do not do mobile as claimed in 1999 but they do indeed do
> fixed well.
>

Even if one believes that one standard is "the best", it is assuredly
not the case that this is sufficient. Sony Betamax may have been the
better consumer videotape, but we all know what happened to it. Oddly,
an entire new industry still developed around this despite VHS not
being the best--the rental industry, the consumer expectation that one
could record, the Supreme Court Decision on this matter, cultural
shifts in TV viewing, and the ultimate transition of most prerecorded
media to the DVD market.
Anonymous
July 23, 2004 6:13:55 PM

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

Willy Liao wrote:
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:sg0Mc.12327$Qu5.6757@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
>
>>No wonder Mark was so eager to post ASAP. I am glad he did. I have
>>had the receiver for a few days and have been using it in my
>>apartment with great success. This is indeed a plug and play fixed
>>8-VSB receiver and should finally allow for a digital transition
>>to occur. Since neither the UK or Berlin were successful because
>>of the ability of COFDM to do mobile it is entirely possible that
>>similar success can now occur in the US.
>>
>>Broadcasters can now have a business plan for DTV that can make
>>sense.
>>
>>Don't get me wrong however, neither I or Sinclair (including Nat
>>Ostroff and Mark Aitken) are saying that 8-VSB is better than
>>COFDM. COFDM is clearly far superior to 8-VSB. What we are all
>>saying is that the Zenith 5th generation receiver now lives up to
>>part of what has been claim for some 8-VSB receivers since 1999.
>>They do not do mobile as claimed in 1999 but they do indeed do
>>fixed well.
>>
>
>
> Even if one believes that one standard is "the best", it is assuredly
> not the case that this is sufficient. Sony Betamax may have been the
> better consumer videotape, but we all know what happened to it. Oddly,
> an entire new industry still developed around this despite VHS not
> being the best--the rental industry, the consumer expectation that one
> could record, the Supreme Court Decision on this matter, cultural
> shifts in TV viewing, and the ultimate transition of most prerecorded
> media to the DVD market.

The best is NOT sufficient. You also need, in the case of Sony, a bit of
enlightenment in the area of marketing.

In the case of COFDM and 8-VSB the only thing that is needed is a bit of
the enlightenment by those who are in control of the standard setting
process in the US.

In most of the rest of the world, a pretty good sized area, COFDM has
won. In fact in most cases there wasn't even a contest. The only places
where there was a contest was where the US made one.

And in any area where the market has been given a chance to buy COFDM
freely it has been a great success whereas in those areas where 8-VSB
has been offered it has been a failure. The reverse of the BetaMax vs.
VHS scenario.

8-VSB should now be successful in the US because of the new 5th
generation Zenith technology. I would suggest that if you are going to
buy an 8-VSB receiver wait till this one is available and equally
important it should support WM9 also or even better it should support a
number of advanced compression codecs. Now that 8-VSB is reasonably good
the next thing is getting a better compression codec than MPEG2 on most
of the bandwidth.
Anonymous
July 23, 2004 6:13:56 PM

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

In article <D29Mc.12597$Qu5.1154@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bob
Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:

<snip>

> 8-VSB should now be successful in the US because of the new 5th
> generation Zenith technology. I would suggest that if you are going to
> buy an 8-VSB receiver wait till this one is available and equally
> important it should support WM9 also or even better it should support a
> number of advanced compression codecs. Now that 8-VSB is reasonably good
> the next thing is getting a better compression codec than MPEG2 on most
> of the bandwidth.

When will it become available and how will we know if it is 5th
generation or not? I've been eyeing the LG LST 3100A for sometime now
and was thinking about getting one in August or September?

--
Deja Moo: I've seen this bullshit before.

My address has been anti-spammed.
Please reply to: scasse@invalid.net replacing invalid with sonic.
Anonymous
July 23, 2004 7:46:50 PM

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

Otto Pylot wrote:
> In article <D29Mc.12597$Qu5.1154@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bob
> Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>8-VSB should now be successful in the US because of the new 5th
>>generation Zenith technology. I would suggest that if you are going to
>>buy an 8-VSB receiver wait till this one is available and equally
>>important it should support WM9 also or even better it should support a
>>number of advanced compression codecs. Now that 8-VSB is reasonably good
>>the next thing is getting a better compression codec than MPEG2 on most
>>of the bandwidth.
>
>
> When will it become available and how will we know if it is 5th
> generation or not? I've been eyeing the LG LST 3100A for sometime now
> and was thinking about getting one in August or September?
>
Zenith told me fourth quarter. Hisense will also make a receiver using
Zenith 5th gen chips. The Hisense receiver should also support WM9. This
is going to be important because broadcasters will be following the
Emmis proposal or partnering with USDTV type ventures that will make any
receiver that does not support an advanced codec like WM9 obsolete.

Wait for the Hisense if you can.
Anonymous
July 23, 2004 7:46:51 PM

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

In article <KpaMc.12657$Qu5.4860@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bob
Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Otto Pylot wrote:
> > In article <D29Mc.12597$Qu5.1154@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bob
> > Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>8-VSB should now be successful in the US because of the new 5th
> >>generation Zenith technology. I would suggest that if you are going to
> >>buy an 8-VSB receiver wait till this one is available and equally
> >>important it should support WM9 also or even better it should support a
> >>number of advanced compression codecs. Now that 8-VSB is reasonably good
> >>the next thing is getting a better compression codec than MPEG2 on most
> >>of the bandwidth.
> >
> >
> > When will it become available and how will we know if it is 5th
> > generation or not? I've been eyeing the LG LST 3100A for sometime now
> > and was thinking about getting one in August or September?
> >
> Zenith told me fourth quarter. Hisense will also make a receiver using
> Zenith 5th gen chips. The Hisense receiver should also support WM9. This
> is going to be important because broadcasters will be following the
> Emmis proposal or partnering with USDTV type ventures that will make any
> receiver that does not support an advanced codec like WM9 obsolete.

What is so important about the WM9 codec that it will make all other
non-WM9 receivers obsolete? The receiver will be used for OTA only as I
don't have or plan to get cable or sat.

>
> Wait for the Hisense if you can.

I've never heard of that brand. Hmmm, who makes them and where can they
be found?

--
Deja Moo: I've seen this bullshit before.

My address has been anti-spammed.
Please reply to: scasse@invalid.net replacing invalid with sonic.
Anonymous
July 24, 2004 12:49:26 AM

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

Otto Pylot wrote:

> In article <KpaMc.12657$Qu5.4860@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bob
> Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Otto Pylot wrote:
>>
>>>In article <D29Mc.12597$Qu5.1154@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bob
>>>Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>8-VSB should now be successful in the US because of the new 5th
>>>>generation Zenith technology. I would suggest that if you are going to
>>>>buy an 8-VSB receiver wait till this one is available and equally
>>>>important it should support WM9 also or even better it should support a
>>>>number of advanced compression codecs. Now that 8-VSB is reasonably good
>>>>the next thing is getting a better compression codec than MPEG2 on most
>>>>of the bandwidth.
>>>
>>>
>>>When will it become available and how will we know if it is 5th
>>>generation or not? I've been eyeing the LG LST 3100A for sometime now
>>>and was thinking about getting one in August or September?
>>>
>>
>>Zenith told me fourth quarter. Hisense will also make a receiver using
>>Zenith 5th gen chips. The Hisense receiver should also support WM9. This
>>is going to be important because broadcasters will be following the
>>Emmis proposal or partnering with USDTV type ventures that will make any
>>receiver that does not support an advanced codec like WM9 obsolete.
>
>
> What is so important about the WM9 codec that it will make all other
> non-WM9 receivers obsolete? The receiver will be used for OTA only as I
> don't have or plan to get cable or sat.
>
>
>>Wait for the Hisense if you can.
>
>
> I've never heard of that brand. Hmmm, who makes them and where can they
> be found?
>
Sold at WalMart for $200. They are supposed to be upgradable to WM9 I
have been told but the models available now are not 5th generation.

Maybe fourth quarter this year.

The two watch words to keep in mind when buying an 8-VSB receiver are
WM9 and 5th generation.

WM9 is important because USDTV is planning on offering SD programming
using part of many stations spectrum and will use WM9 instead of MPEG2
to deliver it. Also a broadcaster, Emmis, is planning on organizing all
broadcasters to do the same thing and even has talked about buying USDTV.

If they do this it is possible that all, a lot or a significant number
of broadcast stations and their channels will be devoted to delivering a
large percentage of their programming both HD and SD with WM9.

All current receivers with the possible exception of the Hisense sold in
WalMart will not work with WM9. USDTV says they will be in 30 cities by
the end of the year.
Anonymous
July 24, 2004 12:49:27 AM

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

Booby.... Damn man you don't give up, do you? WM9 while works more or less
has more issues than one can shack a stick at, you really need to get some
kind of life out side of here or AVS, BTW how much money have you lost so
far on your lame business plans? Some how you never address this,
ROFLOL...... loser!

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:qReMc.12837$Qu5.12690@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> WM9 is important because USDTV is planning on offering SD programming
> using part of many stations spectrum and will use WM9 instead of MPEG2
> to deliver it. Also a broadcaster, Emmis, is planning on organizing all
> broadcasters to do the same thing and even has talked about buying USDTV.
>
Anonymous
July 24, 2004 2:16:58 AM

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

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:qReMc.12837$Qu5.12690@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> Sold at WalMart for $200. They are supposed to be upgradable to
> WM9 I have been told but the models available now are not 5th
> generation.
>

I have heard there is a daughtercard in the unit that contains the
actual tuner. In this price range I would not expect you could take
back a unit bought today at Walmart and demand an upgrade in 4th
quarter.

> Maybe fourth quarter this year.
>
> The two watch words to keep in mind when buying an 8-VSB receiver
> are WM9 and 5th generation.
>
> WM9 is important because USDTV is planning on offering SD
> programming using part of many stations spectrum and will use WM9
> instead of MPEG2 to deliver it. Also a broadcaster, Emmis, is
> planning on organizing all broadcasters to do the same thing and
> even has talked about buying USDTV.
>
> If they do this it is possible that all, a lot or a significant
> number of broadcast stations and their channels will be devoted to
> delivering a large percentage of their programming both HD and SD
> with WM9.
>
> All current receivers with the possible exception of the Hisense
> sold in WalMart will not work with WM9. USDTV says they will be in
> 30 cities by the end of the year.
>

WM9 is not part of the ATSC spec. USDTV is planning a pay service.
The receivers currently are sold in such a manner that they can be
used for plain old ATSC tuning, with no subscription fee. WM9
decoding capability in order to cram more channels into your
allotted terrestrial bandwidth will, as I understand it, be utilized
for a pay service, above and beyond free OTA tuning. The intent is
to sell a monthly subscription, allowing you not just the free OTA
channels but the pay channels, just like a cable service, except
it's all broadcast. I understand VOOM, the HD satellite provider, is
also planning to utilize new codecs at some point.

I would not worry about most tuners' inability to do WM9, any more
than I would be concerned that they don't do DirectTV's proprietary
system at this time.
Anonymous
July 24, 2004 3:37:56 AM

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

Vidguy7 wrote:
>>Bob Miller says...
>>Maybe it was because we were testing for the rest of the day after we
>>left Mr. Schubin's apartment.
>
>
> Hmm, but Mr. Schubin had the time to post the results. Interesting.
>
We tested at another site before we arrived at Mr. Schubin's apartment.
Mr Schubin sat down at his computer and posted his comments after we
left. Yes I guess he had the time. We proceeded on to other sites. Now
what is so interesting about that?

Mr. Schubin is in the business of informing the TV industry of his
findings.
Anonymous
July 24, 2004 3:48:01 AM

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

Willy Liao wrote:

> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:qReMc.12837$Qu5.12690@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
>
>>Sold at WalMart for $200. They are supposed to be upgradable to
>>WM9 I have been told but the models available now are not 5th
>>generation.
>>
>
>
> I have heard there is a daughtercard in the unit that contains the
> actual tuner. In this price range I would not expect you could take
> back a unit bought today at Walmart and demand an upgrade in 4th
> quarter.
>
>
>>Maybe fourth quarter this year.
>>
>>The two watch words to keep in mind when buying an 8-VSB receiver
>>are WM9 and 5th generation.
>>
>>WM9 is important because USDTV is planning on offering SD
>>programming using part of many stations spectrum and will use WM9
>>instead of MPEG2 to deliver it. Also a broadcaster, Emmis, is
>>planning on organizing all broadcasters to do the same thing and
>>even has talked about buying USDTV.
>>
>>If they do this it is possible that all, a lot or a significant
>>number of broadcast stations and their channels will be devoted to
>>delivering a large percentage of their programming both HD and SD
>>with WM9.
>>
>>All current receivers with the possible exception of the Hisense
>>sold in WalMart will not work with WM9. USDTV says they will be in
>>30 cities by the end of the year.
>>
>
>
> WM9 is not part of the ATSC spec. USDTV is planning a pay service.
> The receivers currently are sold in such a manner that they can be
> used for plain old ATSC tuning, with no subscription fee. WM9
> decoding capability in order to cram more channels into your
> allotted terrestrial bandwidth will, as I understand it, be utilized
> for a pay service, above and beyond free OTA tuning. The intent is
> to sell a monthly subscription, allowing you not just the free OTA
> channels but the pay channels, just like a cable service, except
> it's all broadcast. I understand VOOM, the HD satellite provider, is
> also planning to utilize new codecs at some point.
>
> I would not worry about most tuners' inability to do WM9, any more
> than I would be concerned that they don't do DirectTV's proprietary
> system at this time.

My caution is only for those folks who normally purchase TV equipment
with the expectation that it will work and be usefull for many years and
have never paid as much as $300 to $400 for a TV let alone a digital
receiver.

If you don't mind that the receiver you buy today will only pick up ONE
SD channel from some percentage of broadcasters in some percentage of
markets and that those percentages may grow to include all broadcasters
in all markets in a few years rendering your receiver obsolete,
disregard my warning.

If Emmis and USDTV type plans are successful, and I hear there are
already a few more, this will happen.

The timing is unknown but the 5th generation Zenith technology sure
should speed things up.

I sure would not buy a receiver that did not have 5th gen tech or was
not able to use WM9 or at least upgrade to it.
Anonymous
July 24, 2004 4:44:44 AM

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

In article <ojhMc.11269$mL5.1700@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
> Vidguy7 wrote:
>>>Bob Miller says...
>>>Maybe it was because we were testing for the rest of the day after we
>>>left Mr. Schubin's apartment.
>>
>>
>> Hmm, but Mr. Schubin had the time to post the results. Interesting.
>>
> We tested at another site before we arrived at Mr. Schubin's apartment.
> Mr Schubin sat down at his computer and posted his comments after we
> left.
>
Remember Bob, you would have much more credibility if you would
have been more transparent about the better developed 8VSB receiver
working so well. Such improvements in technology are to be
expected (considering the fact that 8VSB is relatively new when
compared to the historical COFDM techniques.)

It would truly be good for your soul to admit the fact that 8VSB
as it is TODAY is an excellent choice for HDTV applications. When
talking about 'mobile' reception, that goes FAR BEYOND any reasonably
sane mass HDTV delivery situation.

As an engineer with multiple decades of experience, the improvement in
8VSB receivers (without any protocol change needed) is exactly as
I expected. The technology is definitely incredible, considering that
my current robust 8VSB reception is superior to NTSC.

The new receiver will be helpful for me, but only in the most extreme
situation. My (almost daily) reception of an HDTV/DTV Ch32 from 40miles
away, with indoor antenna is good enough.

I'll probably get the new receiver, only to experiment with receiving
(indoor antenna) a 5kW transmitter at middle UHF (ch 53?) from 40-50miles away.
I JUST MIGHT get it to work.

So, please Bob, for ANY reasonable HDTV reception situation, the 8VSB scheme
is already certainly competitive. With the new receiver, it is just short
of amazing.

John
Anonymous
July 24, 2004 7:02:04 AM

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

>If you don't mind that the receiver you buy today will only pick up ONE
>SD channel from some percentage of broadcasters in some percentage of
>markets and that those percentages may grow to include all broadcasters
>in all markets in a few years rendering your receiver obsolete,
>disregard my warning.

And where is your substantiation for THIS gem BOB? No broadcaster has announced
any plans for abandoning HD. It would be suicide in the HD market which is
growing by leaps and bounds. As HD becomes more and more mainstream, why would
you think that a broadcaster would abandon this burgeoning market? I am so sick
of your scare tactics BOB. You've been using them for years and NONE of your
prediction ever ever comes true. Why do you feel the need at this late to scare
people away from HD? BOB, it's over for you. Why don't you simply start a new
career and leave the folks who love and are interested in HD alone? Hell, even
Sinclair abandoned you!!! You do a disservice to your fellow man. Have you no
morals whatsoever?
Anonymous
July 24, 2004 7:05:03 AM

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

>Mr. Schubin is in the business of informing the TV industry of his
>findings.
>

What's interesting about it BOB, is the fact that you have ALL THE TIME IN THE
WORLD for anything anti 8VSB. But isn't it fascinating when something so PRO
8VSB arises, you are suddenly "so busy". BOB, if you had been honest with this
group and people in general over the years, we could possibly have bought into
this story. But, as you know, your constant lies, embellishments and
distortions leave us no other choice but to file this one in the same category
with all your other unsubstantiated statements. BOB, didn't your parents ever
read to you about the boy who cried wolf?
Anonymous
July 24, 2004 7:09:35 AM

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

John S. Dyson wrote:

>
> So, please Bob, for ANY reasonable HDTV reception situation, the 8VSB scheme
> is already certainly competitive. With the new receiver, it is just short
> of amazing.
>
> John
>

The 5th generation Zenith technology is only amazing in relationship to
4th generation 8-VSB receivers and that is all that we were comparing
them to. Fourth generation receivers had failed miserably at my
apartment, Mark Schubin's apartment, Richard Bogner's home and 32 A of
A. Three of these are urban New York City and one is suburban forest and
hill country. The sites had been tested repeatedly except for 32 A of A.
They were tested by sophisticated engineers who are very well versed in
RF technology.

Everyone was very impressed with the new technology. Everyone thought
that with this technology the US transition would now be successful.
None of the participants thought that with 4th generation 8-VSB there
was any chance of a successful digital transition.

But the new receiver is very very short of amazing when compared to the
various COFDM modulations. COFDM was far far better than this "amazing"
5th generation 8-VSB in 1999. There literally is no comparison.

And before we get totally giddy about this 5th generation Zenith
receiver technology we were still able to induce loss of signal both
with static and dynamic multipath in a room which could represent your
living room on SuperBowl Sunday. At 32 A of A on the 25th floor with
clear line of sight to the Empire State Building only some 60 blocks
away with a quad bow tie Radio Shack antenna facing the ESB with one
outside wall between them four of us milling about between the antenna
and that outside wall and the ESB 60 blocks away we lost signal without
trying with natural movements.

Noticing this we then started moving with the intent to cause dynamic
multipath. This to lost the signal on some stations. I then was able to
lose the signal by standing in one location on a number of channels
which would be static multipath.

Was this a problem? Not in my opinion. Both of these were minor problems
that could be easily addressed by for example moving the antenna closer
to a window or placing it higher. I am convinced as was Bogner and Mark
Schubin that this receiver is totally acceptable.

Neither static or dynamic multipath was a problem at Mark's apartment or
Richard's home since the antenna was placed in a window in both cases.
Mark did induce loss of signal when he tried. Totally irrelevant in any
case.

As I have stated for the last four years 8-VSB has to work plug and play
with an indoor simple antenna if the US digital transition is going to
work. This receiver allows for the consumer to buy a receiver at
WalMart, take it home and plug it in to an HD or SD TV set and it will
work plug and play and receive most if not all the DTV stations they
could reasonably expect easily with the simplest of antennas.

This is truly revolutionary for over the air TV as it already was in the
UK and Berlin. It is possible now in the US. The only question left now
is price. If the Zenith technology is too expensive it slow down the
transition. However I think this new tech allows for business plans that
will allow for the subsidization of the receiver to close to ZERO like I
envisioned in 2000 for COFDM.

USDTV already subsidizes the Hisense receiver down from $200 at WalMart
to $96. With COFDM in 2000 we would have been able to subsidize to ZERO
then. I think that you will see close to ZERO cost on 5th gen receivers
within 12 months.

COFDM would still be far better but 5th generation Zenith receivers will
do the trick.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
July 24, 2004 7:22:03 AM

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

In article <PpkMc.13105$Qu5.2344@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
> John S. Dyson wrote:
>
>>
>> So, please Bob, for ANY reasonable HDTV reception situation, the 8VSB scheme
>> is already certainly competitive. With the new receiver, it is just short
>> of amazing.
>>
>> John
>>
>
> The 5th generation Zenith technology is only amazing in relationship to
> 4th generation 8-VSB receivers and that is all that we were comparing
> them to.
>
You are perverting what I accurately said: the 8VSB reception with
my FIRST (available) GENERATION RECEIVER is incredible when compared to
NTSC. The 5th generation receiver should be even more amazing.

Bob, your misleading rewrites of simple, accurate observations, while
injecting your obviously biased (and more and more apparently DISHONEST)
opinion is exactly what causes people to (appropriately) distrust you.

Geesh, you treat me so dishonestly, and I have been trying to advocate
that others treat you kindly (more than you deserve.)

You are bordering on making me angry, because you are CLEARLY trying
to mislead people by changing the implication of my simple, accurate
and honest statement.

John
Anonymous
July 24, 2004 7:24:08 AM

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

In article <20040723230503.15985.00001480@mb-m21.aol.com>,
vidguy7@aol.com (Vidguy7) writes:
>>Mr. Schubin is in the business of informing the TV industry of his
>>findings.
>>
>
> What's interesting about it BOB, is the fact that you have ALL THE TIME IN THE
> WORLD for anything anti 8VSB. But isn't it fascinating when something so PRO
> 8VSB arises, you are suddenly "so busy". BOB, if you had been honest with this
> group and people in general over the years, we could possibly have bought into
> this story. But, as you know, your constant lies, embellishments and
> distortions leave us no other choice but to file this one in the same category
> with all your other unsubstantiated statements. BOB, didn't your parents ever
> read to you about the boy who cried wolf?
>
Note that the (should I say it: Creep) had successfully irritated me by
misconstruing my simple, honest statement. As you know, I have been trying
to help people to treat him more kindly (than he deserves), but like
the weasel politicians that we have to listen to for the next few months,
he apparently has NO sense of integrity.

John
Anonymous
July 24, 2004 7:36:24 AM

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

Vidguy7 wrote:

>>Mr. Schubin is in the business of informing the TV industry of his
>>findings.
>>
>
>
> What's interesting about it BOB, is the fact that you have ALL THE TIME IN THE
> WORLD for anything anti 8VSB. But isn't it fascinating when something so PRO
> 8VSB arises, you are suddenly "so busy".

OK I will try one last time to explain what was happening. I organized
this event. I called Zenith and asked them to send a receiver to me in
New York for the purposes of testing it at some of the most challenging
sites and one with a known history, Mark Shubin's apartment. I only did
this because I thought that the test would show that this 5th generation
technology was as good as it turned out to be. Before calling Zenith I
made a last call to Sinclair to be reassured that indeed this receiver
would most likely work in all test I did in NYC.

I WAS ONLY BUSY BECAUSE WE WERE TESTING. I LEFT MARK SCHUBIN"S APARTMENT
HOPING HE WOULD POST. We had other test sites to visit. As soon as I was
done testing and got home I checked my email and was amazed and
delighted to find that Mark had posted as soon as he could after we
left. I then added my favorable comments to his.

You obviously need a bogeyman very bad. I am not that person. I look at
something like 8-VSB and I see it doesn't work and I say bad, I see a
new 8-VSB receiver that works and I say great.

How you can twist the simple fact that I was "BUSY" PROVING THAT A NEW
PRO 8-VSB "something" had arisen and therefore ignoring it at the same
time that I was the one doing it is truly amazing. (and very weird)
Anonymous
July 24, 2004 8:19:33 AM

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

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:RshMc.11274$mL5.3159@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> Willy Liao wrote:
>
>> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in
>> news:qReMc.12837$Qu5.12690@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>>
>>
>>>Sold at WalMart for $200. They are supposed to be upgradable to
>>>WM9 I have been told but the models available now are not 5th
>>>generation.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I have heard there is a daughtercard in the unit that contains
>> the actual tuner. In this price range I would not expect you
>> could take back a unit bought today at Walmart and demand an
>> upgrade in 4th quarter.
>>
>>
>>>Maybe fourth quarter this year.
>>>
>>>The two watch words to keep in mind when buying an 8-VSB receiver
>>>are WM9 and 5th generation.
>>>
>>>WM9 is important because USDTV is planning on offering SD
>>>programming using part of many stations spectrum and will use WM9
>>>instead of MPEG2 to deliver it. Also a broadcaster, Emmis, is
>>>planning on organizing all broadcasters to do the same thing and
>>>even has talked about buying USDTV.
>>>
>>>If they do this it is possible that all, a lot or a significant
>>>number of broadcast stations and their channels will be devoted
>>>to delivering a large percentage of their programming both HD and
>>>SD with WM9.
>>>
>>>All current receivers with the possible exception of the Hisense
>>>sold in WalMart will not work with WM9. USDTV says they will be
>>>in 30 cities by the end of the year.
>>>
>>
>>
>> WM9 is not part of the ATSC spec. USDTV is planning a pay
>> service. The receivers currently are sold in such a manner that
>> they can be used for plain old ATSC tuning, with no subscription
>> fee. WM9 decoding capability in order to cram more channels into
>> your allotted terrestrial bandwidth will, as I understand it, be
>> utilized for a pay service, above and beyond free OTA tuning. The
>> intent is to sell a monthly subscription, allowing you not just
>> the free OTA channels but the pay channels, just like a cable
>> service, except it's all broadcast. I understand VOOM, the HD
>> satellite provider, is also planning to utilize new codecs at
>> some point.
>>
>> I would not worry about most tuners' inability to do WM9, any
>> more than I would be concerned that they don't do DirectTV's
>> proprietary system at this time.
>
> My caution is only for those folks who normally purchase TV
> equipment with the expectation that it will work and be usefull
> for many years and have never paid as much as $300 to $400 for a
> TV let alone a digital receiver.
>
> If you don't mind that the receiver you buy today will only pick
> up ONE SD channel from some percentage of broadcasters in some
> percentage of markets and that those percentages may grow to
> include all broadcasters in all markets in a few years rendering
> your receiver obsolete, disregard my warning.
>
> If Emmis and USDTV type plans are successful, and I hear there are
> already a few more, this will happen.
>
> The timing is unknown but the 5th generation Zenith technology
> sure should speed things up.
>
> I sure would not buy a receiver that did not have 5th gen tech or
> was not able to use WM9 or at least upgrade to it.

Of course, the FCC tuner mandate has guaranteed an ever increasing
audience that demands ATSC, not some proprietary OTA scheme. WM9 is
too late to the party to be the universal HD standard. ATSC already
fulfills that role for OTA.

All this discussion about cheap tuners ignores the fact that the
base of integrated HDTVs will rapidly outnumber external tuners, and
these integrated HDTVs speak 8-VSB and QAM256. If people wanted to
PAY extra for a tuner, they can buy Voom HDTV right now, or DirectTV
or Dish. Or they can simply subscribe to cable, plug in a CableCard
per FCC mandates, and away they go. If people can't get HD from
their OTA stations in 2005, they'll go to cable first--way more
bandwidth and HDTV available, and you have the possibility of
recording--not some WM9 OTA scheme that doesn't even have any
possibility of recording announced. Where is the WM9 D-VHS recorder?
The WM9 PVR?
Anonymous
July 24, 2004 9:19:57 AM

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

Willy Liao wrote:

> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:RshMc.11274$mL5.3159@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
>
>>Willy Liao wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in
>>>news:qReMc.12837$Qu5.12690@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sold at WalMart for $200. They are supposed to be upgradable to
>>>>WM9 I have been told but the models available now are not 5th
>>>>generation.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I have heard there is a daughtercard in the unit that contains
>>>the actual tuner. In this price range I would not expect you
>>>could take back a unit bought today at Walmart and demand an
>>>upgrade in 4th quarter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Maybe fourth quarter this year.
>>>>
>>>>The two watch words to keep in mind when buying an 8-VSB receiver
>>>>are WM9 and 5th generation.
>>>>
>>>>WM9 is important because USDTV is planning on offering SD
>>>>programming using part of many stations spectrum and will use WM9
>>>>instead of MPEG2 to deliver it. Also a broadcaster, Emmis, is
>>>>planning on organizing all broadcasters to do the same thing and
>>>>even has talked about buying USDTV.
>>>>
>>>>If they do this it is possible that all, a lot or a significant
>>>>number of broadcast stations and their channels will be devoted
>>>>to delivering a large percentage of their programming both HD and
>>>>SD with WM9.
>>>>
>>>>All current receivers with the possible exception of the Hisense
>>>>sold in WalMart will not work with WM9. USDTV says they will be
>>>>in 30 cities by the end of the year.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>WM9 is not part of the ATSC spec. USDTV is planning a pay
>>>service. The receivers currently are sold in such a manner that
>>>they can be used for plain old ATSC tuning, with no subscription
>>>fee. WM9 decoding capability in order to cram more channels into
>>>your allotted terrestrial bandwidth will, as I understand it, be
>>>utilized for a pay service, above and beyond free OTA tuning. The
>>>intent is to sell a monthly subscription, allowing you not just
>>>the free OTA channels but the pay channels, just like a cable
>>>service, except it's all broadcast. I understand VOOM, the HD
>>>satellite provider, is also planning to utilize new codecs at
>>>some point.
>>>
>>>I would not worry about most tuners' inability to do WM9, any
>>>more than I would be concerned that they don't do DirectTV's
>>>proprietary system at this time.
>>
>>My caution is only for those folks who normally purchase TV
>>equipment with the expectation that it will work and be usefull
>>for many years and have never paid as much as $300 to $400 for a
>>TV let alone a digital receiver.
>>
>>If you don't mind that the receiver you buy today will only pick
>>up ONE SD channel from some percentage of broadcasters in some
>>percentage of markets and that those percentages may grow to
>>include all broadcasters in all markets in a few years rendering
>>your receiver obsolete, disregard my warning.
>>
>>If Emmis and USDTV type plans are successful, and I hear there are
>>already a few more, this will happen.
>>
>>The timing is unknown but the 5th generation Zenith technology
>>sure should speed things up.
>>
>>I sure would not buy a receiver that did not have 5th gen tech or
>>was not able to use WM9 or at least upgrade to it.
>
>
> Of course, the FCC tuner mandate has guaranteed an ever increasing
> audience that demands ATSC, not some proprietary OTA scheme. WM9 is
> too late to the party to be the universal HD standard. ATSC already
> fulfills that role for OTA.
>
> All this discussion about cheap tuners ignores the fact that the
> base of integrated HDTVs will rapidly outnumber external tuners, and
> these integrated HDTVs speak 8-VSB and QAM256. If people wanted to
> PAY extra for a tuner, they can buy Voom HDTV right now, or DirectTV
> or Dish. Or they can simply subscribe to cable, plug in a CableCard
> per FCC mandates, and away they go. If people can't get HD from
> their OTA stations in 2005, they'll go to cable first--way more
> bandwidth and HDTV available, and you have the possibility of
> recording--not some WM9 OTA scheme that doesn't even have any
> possibility of recording announced. Where is the WM9 D-VHS recorder?
> The WM9 PVR?

I don't understand most of what you are saying but from what I have
heard the USDTV receiver that WalMart will sell in August or soon there
after will be 8-VSB, MPEG2, WM9 and a model or the model will include a
PVR.

It is not certain yet that many integrated HDTV sets will be sold. The
mandate mandates that manufacturers offer them but it does not force
consumers to buy them. Something about the Constitution and some freedom
thing or something. Maybe they will just buy monitors with no tuners in
them.

No one is saying that HDTV will not be available OTA just that it might
be available only on the WM9 part of the spectrum and then only as a
subscription service. Obviously if the broadcaster does not provide a
decent offering people will choose cable or satellite. I believe the OTA
broadcasters can provide a more than competitive offering than cable and
satellite.

OTA is just another way of delivering content like cable and satellite.
Now broadcasters can charge for this delivery instead of relying on
cable or satellite to deliver their content. If broadcasters were to
withhold content from cable and satellite and only offer it OTA the
consumer could not just then " If people can't get HD from their OTA
stations in 2005, they'll go to cable first". There is no "going" if the
HDTV content that broadcasters deliver is not delivered to the cable
company but is only delivered OTA by subscription service.

Since the best content is still controlled by the broadcasters it would
seem they could be back in the drivers seat if they so choose. Now that
is that there is a decent 8-VSB receiver for OTA.
Anonymous
July 24, 2004 6:23:23 PM

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

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:1kmMc.11520$mL5.1041@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

<snip for clarity>

> I don't understand most of what you are saying but from what I
> have heard the USDTV receiver that WalMart will sell in August or
> soon there after will be 8-VSB, MPEG2, WM9 and a model or the
> model will include a PVR.
>
> It is not certain yet that many integrated HDTV sets will be sold.
> The mandate mandates that manufacturers offer them but it does not
> force consumers to buy them. Something about the Constitution and
> some freedom thing or something. Maybe they will just buy monitors
> with no tuners in them.
>

All TVs of any size will be required to have tuners by 2007, and all
large screen HDTVs will have to have them by July 2005. You won't be
able to buy a TV without ATSC within a few years. But let's look at
the transitional period for now.

Heck, it's hard to find NTSC monitors. What if you have satellite?
Why should you pay for NTSC decoding (with stereo even, which uses
dbx, a patented process)? You seem to argue that you should have the
freedom to buy a TV monitor, plug in your satellite tuner with S-
Video, and away you go. Would it be cheaper? Slightly. Yet none
exists in any mass market outlet I can find at sizes exceeding 5",
unless you think people actively seek out closed-circuit security
monitors for their home TV systems. It isn't advantageous to stuff
the retail channel with NTSC-only monitors competing with shelf
space with ordinary NTSC TVs, and soon it won't be advantageous for
HDTV-only monitors because of declining prices of integrated tuning
hardware.

ATSC tuner costs are declining, as are integrated HDTV costs. You
can already buy the $200 ATSC receiver now at some markets at
Walmart. You can already buy the $800 32" Samsung with 8-VSB and
QAM256 integrated tuner now all across the country. Note that this
is not $400 more than comparable 32" HDTV monitors; in fact it is
within $100-200 of the monitor price and in some cases is cheaper.
I expect the integrated HDTV in and below this price class will be
increasingly popular. Note that the FCC tuner mandate does not even
extend at this time to 32" TVs. Yet economically it is becoming
advantageous to offer integrated models at this price range, and
below it. People are going to favor the mode they can get right out
of the box. If they are cost sensitive, they are not going to buy a
HDTV monitor that costs more and requires ANOTHER $200 expenditure,
as long as they have a choice. (And by 2007 there will be no choice,
and no demand for tuner-less TVs, whether it be NTSC or ATSC.)


> No one is saying that HDTV will not be available OTA just that it
> might be available only on the WM9 part of the spectrum and then
> only as a subscription service. Obviously if the broadcaster does
> not provide a decent offering people will choose cable or
> satellite. I believe the OTA broadcasters can provide a more than
> competitive offering than cable and satellite.
>
> OTA is just another way of delivering content like cable and
> satellite. Now broadcasters can charge for this delivery instead
> of relying on cable or satellite to deliver their content. If
> broadcasters were to withhold content from cable and satellite and
> only offer it OTA the consumer could not just then " If people
> can't get HD from their OTA stations in 2005, they'll go to cable
> first". There is no "going" if the HDTV content that broadcasters
> deliver is not delivered to the cable company but is only
> delivered OTA by subscription service.
>
> Since the best content is still controlled by the broadcasters it
> would seem they could be back in the drivers seat if they so
> choose. Now that is that there is a decent 8-VSB receiver for OTA.
>
This raises the interesting question of must-carry principles. If a
network affiliate has a HDTV feed, and the station repackages it as
subscription only, will there be pressure on the FCC to force
retransmission of the HDTV feed on local cable systems, rather than
just the analog feed? I think there will be complaints about it if
stations attempt to force subscription, which may lead the FCC to
some clarification beyond the "gotta have one digital signal"
position. Much like the US's position on Taiwan, the FCC appears to
have maintained some strategic ambiguity about how much free HD they
actually expect versus multicasting with SDTV.
July 24, 2004 8:53:13 PM

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

In article <oBXLc.39256$KP6.2411987@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
Willy Liao <ranger999OBSCURED@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Mark Schubin's favorable report about the 5th generation ATSC
> receivers:
>
> From http://www.digitaltelevision.com/mondaymemo/mlist/frm02...
>
>
> From Mark Schubin <tvmark@earthlink.net>
> Date Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:31:28 -0400
> User-agent Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
> rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 (VAUSSU03)
>
>
> SPECIAL! DTT in the U.S. Works!
>
> Count me among the believers in the 5th-generation LG/Zenith ATSC
> receiver!

This is fantastic news. It's great for 8VSB. But, even better, it's
likely to make BOOBY (aka Gear on the AVSForum) commit suicide. Not so
much because 8VSB is so successful, but because now that he will have to
give up his never ending tirade against 8VSB, he will have absolutely
nothing left in his life. This is the problem when someone turns into a
fanatic and the subject of that fanaticism becomes irrelevant. BOOBY,
you never should have put all your cards into your anti 8VSB campaign.
You got nothing left in your life now. You're an empty shell. You're
irrelevant. But your still our dear BOOBY.
July 24, 2004 8:56:42 PM

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

In article <20040723230204.15985.00001479@mb-m21.aol.com>,
vidguy7@aol.com (Vidguy7) wrote:


>
> And where is your substantiation for THIS gem BOB? No broadcaster has
> announced any plans for abandoning HD. It would be suicide in the HD
> market which is growing by leaps and bounds. As HD becomes more and
> more mainstream, why would you think that a broadcaster would abandon
> this burgeoning market? I am so sick of your scare tactics BOB.
> You've been using them for years and NONE of your prediction ever
> ever comes true. Why do you feel the need at this late to scare
> people away from HD? BOB, it's over for you. Why don't you simply
> start a new career and leave the folks who love and are interested in
> HD alone? Hell, even Sinclair abandoned you!!! You do a disservice to
> your fellow man. Have you no morals whatsoever?


This is it for BOB. He has nothing left in his life. He has two
choices--keep up his hatred for 8VSB or give up his life. I just hope he
doesn't take someone else with him when he does you know what with his
brains.
Anonymous
July 24, 2004 9:20:07 PM

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

"One SD channel form some percentage"? Hmmm. My 6 month old Sony XBR with an
integrated ATSC tuner seems to have no problem pulling in 15 DTV stations
OTA where 90% of the transmitters are at least 45 miles away, the stations
are at 3 different points of the compass, and I live in a valley surrounded
by mountains (south of San Francisco). My point is that the current
generation of receivers, at least the ones used by Sony, seem to work just
fine in a rather difficult reception area, in fact much superior to the
analog NTSC reception that I experienced with the same antenna system. Bob,
you insist on unnecessarily spreading FUD on this issue, which only tends to
hinder the advance to universal HDTV availability. I took a chance on OTA
DTV when I plunked down eight grand on a TV that I wasn't sure would work,
but I knew that I had alternatives, and could fall back to cable or
satellite if I had to.

Folks, take what this guy says with a grain of salt, weigh all of the
factors, and when you feel that you can afford it, take the plunge. It was
worth it to me, and I have no regrets. HD rocks, and it is like watching TV
again for the first time, so if it is worth it to you, go for it. Things
always change over time, and if a superior tuner reaches the market, and I
find some need to acquire one, I will.

Phil

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:RshMc.11274$mL5.3159@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> If you don't mind that the receiver you buy today will only pick up ONE
> SD channel from some percentage of broadcasters in some percentage of
> markets and that those percentages may grow to include all broadcasters
> in all markets in a few years rendering your receiver obsolete,
> disregard my warning.
Anonymous
July 25, 2004 4:34:33 AM

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

Willy Liao wrote:
>
> This raises the interesting question of must-carry principles. If a
> network affiliate has a HDTV feed, and the station repackages it as
> subscription only, will there be pressure on the FCC to force
> retransmission of the HDTV feed on local cable systems, rather than
> just the analog feed?

In October 1994, the FCC gave stations a choice of being carried under
the must-carry rules or under a new regulation requiring cable companies
to obtain retransmission consent before carrying a broadcast signal.
Must carry laws have to do with forcing cable to carry local broadcast
stations. There is nothing in them that forces broadcasters to deliver
content to cable companies in either SD or HD form. Under what principle
would Congress presume to force broadcasters to deliver content to a
cable company and would they also dictate the price? They don't dictate
price on retransmission consent now.

If the broadcaster has the same or very similar coverage as the cable
company they will be very tempted to withdraw their best content for OTA
delivery with a subscription service. The required MPEG2 "primary" SD
channel will become not only the only channel current receivers can
physically receive but will also become the least interesting as to
content. The broadcasters best content, HD and SD, will be reserved for
higher compression better quality codecs like WM9, H264 or VP6 and
delivered in a subscription service. After all OTA is just another
delivery vehicle like cable and the rules allow it so how could a
commercial broadcaster not do this? How could they answer to their
shareholders that they are not maximizing profits? If they do it will
only be once.

No current receiver can handle these other codecs so no current receiver
will be able to receive anything but the ONE SD program on each channel.
No HD and nothing interesting IMO.

I think there will be complaints about it if stations attempt to
force subscription, which may lead the FCC to some clarification beyond
the "gotta have one digital signal"
> position. Much like the US's position on Taiwan, the FCC appears to have maintained some strategic ambiguity about how much free HD they
> actually expect versus multicasting with SDTV.

They will not force subscription. They will sell a subscription service
as USDTV is already doing, and if the customer doesn't like it they
won't buy it. USDTV is not forcing a subscription service. The FCC and
both Houses of Congress have been very UNAMBIGUOUS about HDTV lately.
They could care less. They want the transition done. They don't care and
the law does not require ANY HDTV.

The broadcasters could offer datacasting, two way Internet, a two way
radio service or any combination of services on all their access
spectrum after they deliver ONE SD program in the free and clear using
MPEG2. Don't be fooled by a single Senator or House member getting
attention by talking about HDTV. Read the laws they pass. We are a
nation of laws and the broadcasters, telecoms and CEA folks write the
laws. Congress just passes them.

How about a two tone talking head cartoon? That won't take up much MPEG2
bandwidth. About 300 kbps but it will be equal to a two tone talking
head NTSC quality cartoon and that is all that matters. That is what you
can expect from each broadcast stations required SD MPEG2 program.
Subtract 300 Kbps from 19.34 Mbps and you get 19.04 Mbps broadcasters
can make real money with. And they can deliver 2 to 3 times the content
with MPEG4, WM9, H264 or VP6.

I think it is a lot harder to explain why this won't happen than to
explain why it will.
Anonymous
July 25, 2004 4:44:14 AM

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

Willy Liao wrote:

> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:1kmMc.11520$mL5.1041@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> <snip for clarity>
>
>>I don't understand most of what you are saying but from what I
>>have heard the USDTV receiver that WalMart will sell in August or
>>soon there after will be 8-VSB, MPEG2, WM9 and a model or the
>>model will include a PVR.
>>
>>It is not certain yet that many integrated HDTV sets will be sold.
>>The mandate mandates that manufacturers offer them but it does not
>>force consumers to buy them. Something about the Constitution and
>>some freedom thing or something. Maybe they will just buy monitors
>>with no tuners in them.
>>
>
>
> All TVs of any size will be required to have tuners by 2007, and all
> large screen HDTVs will have to have them by July 2005. You won't be
> able to buy a TV without ATSC within a few years. But let's look at
> the transitional period for now.
>
> Heck, it's hard to find NTSC monitors. What if you have satellite?
> Why should you pay for NTSC decoding (with stereo even, which uses
> dbx, a patented process)? You seem to argue that you should have the
> freedom to buy a TV monitor, plug in your satellite tuner with S-
> Video, and away you go. Would it be cheaper? Slightly. Yet none
> exists in any mass market outlet I can find at sizes exceeding 5",
> unless you think people actively seek out closed-circuit security
> monitors for their home TV systems. It isn't advantageous to stuff
> the retail channel with NTSC-only monitors competing with shelf
> space with ordinary NTSC TVs, and soon it won't be advantageous for
> HDTV-only monitors because of declining prices of integrated tuning
> hardware.
>
> ATSC tuner costs are declining, as are integrated HDTV costs. You
> can already buy the $200 ATSC receiver now at some markets at
> Walmart. You can already buy the $800 32" Samsung with 8-VSB and
> QAM256 integrated tuner now all across the country. Note that this
> is not $400 more than comparable 32" HDTV monitors; in fact it is
> within $100-200 of the monitor price and in some cases is cheaper.
> I expect the integrated HDTV in and below this price class will be
> increasingly popular. Note that the FCC tuner mandate does not even
> extend at this time to 32" TVs. Yet economically it is becoming
> advantageous to offer integrated models at this price range, and
> below it. People are going to favor the mode they can get right out
> of the box. If they are cost sensitive, they are not going to buy a
> HDTV monitor that costs more and requires ANOTHER $200 expenditure,
> as long as they have a choice. (And by 2007 there will be no choice,
> and no demand for tuner-less TVs, whether it be NTSC or ATSC.)

You are probably right now that there is a decent 5th generation
receiver. WalMart sells the Hisense for $200 but if you subscribe to
USDTV you can get it for $96. Expect that they and others will be
offering free 5th generation receivers within 12 months with subscription.

We told Congress that we would offer free HDTV receivers by Christmas
2000 if COFDM had been allowed in the US in the summer of 2000. At that
time Pace was telling Congress that they would sell HDTV COFDM receivers
by Christmas of 2000 for $200. That would be the same price that Hisense
is offering them today. The cost to USDTV is $150 and they subsidize
them down to $96.

It is easy to see how competition will drive this from $96 to ZERO very
soon. Could have happened four years ago with COFDM. Of course it would
have been more difficult to use an advanced codec then. We were looking
at VP4 then from ON2, VP6 today.
Anonymous
July 25, 2004 7:31:29 AM

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

>Everyone thought
>that with this technology the US transition would now be successful.

No BOB, the transition will and has been proceeding succesfully as more and
more of the naysayers and OBSTRUCTIONISTS such as SINCLAIR have bitten the
bullet. When companies like Sinclair petition the FCC and try to challenge the
existing standard, THAT is what puts bumps in the road. Tell the DAMN TRUTH for
once in your life BOB. JUST ONCE!! The transition will be even more successful
as the public begins to UNDERSTAND what OTA HD reception is all about. More and
better advertising and educational campaigns will do FAR FAR more than any 5th
gen receiver. The public could care less whether they're using a 4th or 5th gen
receiver. For you to think that will have anything to do with anything either
shows your ignorance or some other "mission" you have.
Anonymous
July 25, 2004 7:36:14 AM

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

>Bob, you are bordering on making me angry, because you are CLEARLY trying
>to mislead people by changing the implication of my simple, accurate
>and honest statement.

And Toor, this is PRECISELY why it is virtually impossible to treat BOB with
any respect. You get respect by treating others with respect. BOB does nothing
of the kind. He lies, distorts, embellishes and uses fear tactics to further
his own business ends. This is NOT the kind of behavior that will ever garner
respect from me. That's for DAMN SURE!!
Anonymous
July 25, 2004 7:40:26 AM

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

>This is fantastic news. It's great for 8VSB. But, even better, it's
>likely to make BOOBY (aka Gear on the AVSForum) commit suicide.

Very interesting Sammy! I didn't realize that. I'll have to look for his
postings. Might be wise to alert the moderators.
Anonymous
July 25, 2004 7:40:27 AM

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

Vidguy7 (vidguy7@aol.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> >This is fantastic news. It's great for 8VSB. But, even better, it's
> >likely to make BOOBY (aka Gear on the AVSForum) commit suicide.
>
> Very interesting Sammy! I didn't realize that. I'll have to look for his
> postings. Might be wise to alert the moderators.

They all know, and they watch for new posts.

--
Jeff Rife | Sam: How's life treatin' you, Norm?
SPAM bait: |
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | Norm: Well, Sammy, it's not...so I sure
uce@ftc.gov | hope you are.
Anonymous
July 25, 2004 6:03:55 PM

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

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:ynDMc.12146$mL5.9122@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> Willy Liao wrote:
>
>> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in
>> news:1kmMc.11520$mL5.1041@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>>
>> <snip for clarity>
>>
>>>I don't understand most of what you are saying but from what I
>>>have heard the USDTV receiver that WalMart will sell in August or
>>>soon there after will be 8-VSB, MPEG2, WM9 and a model or the
>>>model will include a PVR.
>>>
>>>It is not certain yet that many integrated HDTV sets will be
>>>sold. The mandate mandates that manufacturers offer them but it
>>>does not force consumers to buy them. Something about the
>>>Constitution and some freedom thing or something. Maybe they will
>>>just buy monitors with no tuners in them.
>>>
>>
>>
>> All TVs of any size will be required to have tuners by 2007, and
>> all large screen HDTVs will have to have them by July 2005. You
>> won't be able to buy a TV without ATSC within a few years. But
>> let's look at the transitional period for now.
>>
>> Heck, it's hard to find NTSC monitors. What if you have
>> satellite? Why should you pay for NTSC decoding (with stereo
>> even, which uses dbx, a patented process)? You seem to argue that
>> you should have the freedom to buy a TV monitor, plug in your
>> satellite tuner with S- Video, and away you go. Would it be
>> cheaper? Slightly. Yet none exists in any mass market outlet I
>> can find at sizes exceeding 5", unless you think people actively
>> seek out closed-circuit security monitors for their home TV
>> systems. It isn't advantageous to stuff the retail channel with
>> NTSC-only monitors competing with shelf space with ordinary NTSC
>> TVs, and soon it won't be advantageous for HDTV-only monitors
>> because of declining prices of integrated tuning hardware.
>>
>> ATSC tuner costs are declining, as are integrated HDTV costs. You
>> can already buy the $200 ATSC receiver now at some markets at
>> Walmart. You can already buy the $800 32" Samsung with 8-VSB and
>> QAM256 integrated tuner now all across the country. Note that
>> this is not $400 more than comparable 32" HDTV monitors; in fact
>> it is within $100-200 of the monitor price and in some cases is
>> cheaper. I expect the integrated HDTV in and below this price
>> class will be increasingly popular. Note that the FCC tuner
>> mandate does not even extend at this time to 32" TVs. Yet
>> economically it is becoming advantageous to offer integrated
>> models at this price range, and below it. People are going to
>> favor the mode they can get right out of the box. If they are
>> cost sensitive, they are not going to buy a HDTV monitor that
>> costs more and requires ANOTHER $200 expenditure, as long as they
>> have a choice. (And by 2007 there will be no choice, and no
>> demand for tuner-less TVs, whether it be NTSC or ATSC.)
>
> You are probably right now that there is a decent 5th generation
> receiver. WalMart sells the Hisense for $200 but if you subscribe
> to USDTV you can get it for $96. Expect that they and others will
> be offering free 5th generation receivers within 12 months with
> subscription.
>
> We told Congress that we would offer free HDTV receivers by
> Christmas 2000 if COFDM had been allowed in the US in the summer
> of 2000. At that time Pace was telling Congress that they would
> sell HDTV COFDM receivers by Christmas of 2000 for $200. That
> would be the same price that Hisense is offering them today. The
> cost to USDTV is $150 and they subsidize them down to $96.
>
> It is easy to see how competition will drive this from $96 to ZERO
> very soon. Could have happened four years ago with COFDM. Of
> course it would have been more difficult to use an advanced codec
> then. We were looking at VP4 then from ON2, VP6 today.

Given the price of HD MPEG2 decoding in 2000 (compute-wise, not
patent-wise, which is fixed), I think it is difficult to prove this
price point in hindsight. If you believe it really wasn't that
expensive when ramped up, one could also argue that 8-VSB HDTV
receivers would also have cost $200 by Christmas 2000 in the absence
of the modulation wars.

Pace also several months ago touted a digital-to-analog RF converter
for cable systems that would spit out SD cable RF signals to allow
cable systems to cheaply convert to all digital without traditional
expensive set-top boxes. They claimed it would sell for under $70.
This product has not been seen anywhere yet (it was really more in
the 'proof of concept' stage). I am doubtful of any price claims
made in advance of the actual product. I have no doubt it will
eventually exist, but many months later in quantity at the same
price.

Let's not forget the influence of Chinese manufacturing. Much of the
downward price pressure is due to the increasing use of their
facilities. This was demonstrated very clearly with DVD players, and
will be similar for HD receivers. This pressure wasn't as strong
from 1998 (beginning of digital OTA) to 2000.
July 25, 2004 8:25:03 PM

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

In article <20040724234026.16456.00000364@mb-m14.aol.com>,
vidguy7@aol.com (Vidguy7) wrote:

> >This is fantastic news. It's great for 8VSB. But, even better, it's
> >likely to make BOOBY (aka Gear on the AVSForum) commit suicide.
>
> Very interesting Sammy! I didn't realize that. I'll have to look for his
> postings. Might be wise to alert the moderators.

They're aware of him. The AVS owners can tell when Booby has reappeared
under another name. The servers emit a distinctive stench. They dump
Booby and all is well again.
Anonymous
July 25, 2004 8:26:39 PM

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

Willy Liao (ranger999OBSCURED@hotmail.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Given the price of HD MPEG2 decoding in 2000 (compute-wise, not
> patent-wise, which is fixed), I think it is difficult to prove this
> price point in hindsight. If you believe it really wasn't that
> expensive when ramped up, one could also argue that 8-VSB HDTV
> receivers would also have cost $200 by Christmas 2000 in the absence
> of the modulation wars.

Having looked into it in 2002, hardware MP@HL decoding was over $100/chip.
I doubt that it could be had for less than $200/chip in 2000. Wrapping
the rest of a receiver around it would mean that $350 was an absolute
minimum "loss leader" price point.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/ArloNJanis/ClothesHorse.gi...
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov |
July 25, 2004 8:27:16 PM

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

In article <YOkMc.13149$Qu5.9837@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:

> You obviously need a bogeyman very bad. I am not that person. I look at
> something like 8-VSB and I see it doesn't work and I say bad, I see a
> new 8-VSB receiver that works and I say great.

Oh, Booby, you're such a great guy. You're my hero. Will you have my
baby?
Anonymous
July 25, 2004 11:07:11 PM

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

Willy Ciao wrote:

>
> Given the price of HD MPEG2 decoding in 2000 (compute-wise, not
> patent-wise, which is fixed), I think it is difficult to prove this
> price point in hindsight. If you believe it really wasn't that
> expensive when ramped up, one could also argue that 8-VSB HDTV
> receivers would also have cost $200 by Christmas 2000 in the absence
> of the modulation wars.

No they wouldn't have been anywhere near $200.

We knew we could have HDTV COFDM receivers by Christmas 2000 for $200
because we were in talks with Pace and Nokia at the time. We knew what
the cost of 8-VSB receivers were because they were on the market. They
were $400 plus antenna, rotor and installation. There was no business
plan with 8-VSB there was with COFDM.

The cost of the IP for COFDM is/was 1/10th the cost of IP for 8-VSB. The
cost of silicon for COFDM was falling below $6 while 8-VSB was over $20.
The cost of an 8-VSB receiver would not have included the cost of the
roof top antenna, rotor and installation. COFDM didn't need that then
8-VSB will not need that now in most cases with 5th gen receivers.

With COFDM in 2000 you would have had 50 companies competing for the
receiver market and a dozen companies like ours all over the
datacasting, multicasting and HD market. It would have been pretty
intense. If COFDM had been considered we would also have asked for more
advanced compression codecs. We wanted to use VP4 or 5 at the time.

As it was as soon as 8-VSB was re confirmed on January 19th 2001 the
whole industry went to sleep. Broadcasters went for low power STALL,
transmitter manufacturers like Harris fell into a stupor because they
had backed 8-VSB expecting super sales immediately and instead had only
low power sales, no one advertised, retailers didn't sell everything
just stopped while they waited for the receiver manufacturers to FIX 8-VSB.

Well it now is partially fixed. Enough to get things going. I would
expect a lot to happen as soon as these receivers start hitting the
stores. Expect a lot of new business plans like USDTV and Emmis.
>
> Pace also several months ago touted a digital-to-analog RF converter
> for cable systems that would spit out SD cable RF signals to allow
> cable systems to cheaply convert to all digital without traditional
> expensive set-top boxes. They claimed it would sell for under $70.
> This product has not been seen anywhere yet (it was really more in
> the 'proof of concept' stage). I am doubtful of any price claims
> made in advance of the actual product. I have no doubt it will
> eventually exist, but many months later in quantity at the same
> price.

I don't think the absence of this RF converter unit has anything to do
with Pace. It has to do with the customer. We know what COFDM receivers
would have cost because we were negotiating with two manufacturers,
talking to more and had units in hand.
>
> Let's not forget the influence of Chinese manufacturing. Much of the
> downward price pressure is due to the increasing use of their
> facilities. This was demonstrated very clearly with DVD players, and
> will be similar for HD receivers. This pressure wasn't as strong
> from 1998 (beginning of digital OTA) to 2000.

Where do you think COFDM receivers would have been made in 2000? Taiwan
and outsourced to China. That has been a fact all along. No different
now. The simple fact remains that COFDM was far better and less
expensive in 2000 and it remains so today.

The only difference is that under pressure LG Industries with a lot of
help from COFDM has been able to fix their 8-VSB modulation enough so
that it can reliably receive a signal in the pretense of static
multipath and seems to handle dynamic multipath better also.

I believe this means that 8-VSB now passes the first test of a
successful DTV receiver which is that it must, in todays world, work
plug and play with simple indoor antenna for most of the coverage area
of a DTV broadcast station.

It emphatically does that.

Is it as good as COFDM? Not even in the same league.

Will it be successful in the US with no competition from COFDM? Definitely.

Will it be a success in the US once COFDM is available? Probably not.

Is it be a fantastic revolution in the history of TV? Yes emphatically
if COFDM had not already taken those honors.

Think about it, for the first time in history you can receive a very
high studio quality TV image with no visible interference over a wide
area with multiple stations broadcasting.

It is just to bad that we can't do this mobile and portable with
invisible omni antennas and enjoy the economies of scale we would have
and would have had for the last five years if we had chosen COFDM.
Anonymous
July 25, 2004 11:07:12 PM

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

Bob Miller (robmx@earthlink.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> The cost of the IP for COFDM is/was 1/10th the cost of IP for 8-VSB. The
> cost of silicon for COFDM was falling below $6 while 8-VSB was over $20.

None of this addresses the $200/chip for MP@HL decoding. That is *why*
HD boxes were $400. When one chip costs $200, a difference of $14 somewhere
else is not important.

Those COFDM receivers would only handle SD at a $200 price point, because
the $50 MP@ML chip would allow that sort of pricing.

--
Jeff Rife | "Don't try this at home, kids. This should
SPAM bait: | be done only by trained professional idiots."
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov | -- Plucky Duck, "Hollywood Plucky"
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 12:03:08 AM

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

"Sammy" <sammy@xxx.invalid> wrote in message
news:10g8gag5vgfjeee@news.supernews.com...
> In article <20040724234026.16456.00000364@mb-m14.aol.com>,
> vidguy7@aol.com (Vidguy7) wrote:
>
> > >This is fantastic news. It's great for 8VSB. But, even better, it's
> > >likely to make BOOBY (aka Gear on the AVSForum) commit suicide.
> >
> > Very interesting Sammy! I didn't realize that. I'll have to look for his
> > postings. Might be wise to alert the moderators.
>
> They're aware of him. The AVS owners can tell when Booby has reappeared
> under another name. The servers emit a distinctive stench. They dump
> Booby and all is well again.

Ok, I have been reading the postings between Bob Miller and a number of
other
people for some time now. I seen that Zenith has new receiver technology
that will
greatly improve reception of DTV in the US. My results have been closer to
what
Bob Miller has been posting about than the "all works great" posting of the
other
side. Up to this point I have been very disappointed in the results I have
in DTV
reception. I had convinced myself that the problem was the antenna placement
and not the receiver, but now I'm not so sure.
I am currently using a Samsung SIR-T151 receiver with a large antenna in my
attic

http://www.radioshack.com/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=CT... .
I have a single story house with lot of large trees, > 40', with high power
lines about 1/4 mile away
directly between me and the stations with very flat ground (south
Louisiana). The stations are:
Station Compass degree Distance in miles
Fox 252 16.8
PBS 261 12.0
IND 289 11.6
CBS 286 11.1
ABC 237 13
NBC 257 5.6

Of these, ABC is by far the best, great for Monday Night Football, it can be
watched.
PBS is second best and is watchable for the most part, but I have little
interest.
The others are received too poorly to be of any use.

My question is how much will this new receiver help my reception with the
current
configuration? I was going to more the antenna to the roof but if the
problem is with the
receiver then this may not help.
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 2:37:27 AM

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

>We knew we could have HDTV COFDM receivers by Christmas 2000 for $200

No we didn't BOB.

>We knew what
>the cost of 8-VSB receivers were because they were on the market.

That's correct BOB, because they were addressing the CURRENT STANDARD. You know
BOB, the standard that IS and never WAS COFDM.
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 2:38:18 AM

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

>Those COFDM receivers would only handle SD at a $200 price point, because
>the $50 MP@ML chip would allow that sort of pricing.

Now now Jeff, let's not confuse BOB with facts!
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 3:04:06 AM

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

In article <20040725183727.05605.00002004@mb-m14.aol.com>,
vidguy7@aol.com (Vidguy7) writes:
>>We knew we could have HDTV COFDM receivers by Christmas 2000 for $200
>
> No we didn't BOB.
>
If we could have purchased such receivers, they wouldn't have received
the standardized transmissions available in the US. Perhaps, in a
closed system, we could 'spy' on the mass transit/saturation advertising
tampon commercials. Maybe, it could receive Bob's version of HDTV: 480i,
and perhaps 480p on special events.

In reality, Vidguy, I agree with you -- the economics of a Retail,
fully paid for by retail sales, $200 HDTV receiver (especially, that
is as flexible, fully able to recieve the ATSC standards) wouldn't
have been viable in yr2000. A full HDTV MPEG2 receiver would probably
just barely be possible at a $200 retail full cost today. (I don't
know the exact hardware costs for today, but nowadays, $50 for a full
MPEG2 HDTV ATSC decoder seems a little on the low side, but MIGHT
be possible.)

As usual, Bob's claims leave out important facts like his suggestion
about his idea of a yr2000 reality (to someone fully informed) results
from a subsidized cost. (Perhaps, part of the subsidy comes from his
pay per view sales and (ab)use of the spectrum that is essentially
free today.)

We need to keep on remembering that Bob's scheme is motivated by the
desire to redirect our spending money into his pockets. A set top box
could certainly be sold for less than cost IF there is some other
way to make money. It would be almost insane and provide almost no
marginal value to the populace by giving Bob his desired access to our
homes for delivery of substandard SDTV video.

Very sad for my 'investment' in my toys, but I have a WONDERFUL D9 system,
where it can do almost the very best SDTV video that is possible. However,
that VERY BEST SDTV quality is probably better quality than what Bob wants to
distribute, and BOTH are TOTALLY PATHETIC when compared to the NOW STANDARD
and NOW EXPECTED HDTV quality.

What the SDTV advocates are trying to do: convince the public that they
want lousy quality video in the guise of 'SDTV', when HDTV is NOW THE
STANDARD.

John
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 6:32:17 AM

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

In article <pJYMc.47195$ve2.21573@okepread05>,
"Mudd Bug" <muddbug@cox.net> writes:
>
> "Sammy" <sammy@xxx.invalid> wrote in message
> news:10g8gag5vgfjeee@news.supernews.com...
>> In article <20040724234026.16456.00000364@mb-m14.aol.com>,
>> vidguy7@aol.com (Vidguy7) wrote:
>>
>> > >This is fantastic news. It's great for 8VSB. But, even better, it's
>> > >likely to make BOOBY (aka Gear on the AVSForum) commit suicide.
>> >
>> > Very interesting Sammy! I didn't realize that. I'll have to look for his
>> > postings. Might be wise to alert the moderators.
>>
>> They're aware of him. The AVS owners can tell when Booby has reappeared
>> under another name. The servers emit a distinctive stench. They dump
>> Booby and all is well again.
>
> Ok, I have been reading the postings between Bob Miller and a number of
> other
> people for some time now. I seen that Zenith has new receiver technology
> that will
> greatly improve reception of DTV in the US. My results have been closer to
> what
> Bob Miller has been posting about than the "all works great" posting of the
> other
> side.
>
No RF communications system is perfect. It is EXACTLY the anecdotal
evidence that there will always be failures in certain conditions. Frankly,
I was initially successfully deceived by Bob, and after doing some research,
found that he was more 'incorrect' than 'correct.'

All modulation systems will be vulnerable to reception problems, but
not only because of the modulation systems themselves, but because of
RF propagation issues.


>
> Up to this point I have been very disappointed in the results I have
> in DTV
> reception.

> I had convinced myself that the problem was the antenna placement
> and not the receiver, but now I'm not so sure.


> I have a single story house with lot of large trees, > 40', with high power
> lines about 1/4 mile away
> directly between me and the stations with very flat ground (south
> Louisiana). The stations are:
> Station Compass degree Distance in miles
> Fox 252 16.8
> PBS 261 12.0
> IND 289 11.6
> CBS 286 11.1
> ABC 237 13
> NBC 257 5.6
>

The TV channel, the potential interfering NTSC/digital channels, and
the power used can be important considerations.

You seem to have a reasonably short distance, and the flat ground should
make your reception relatively trouble free. The other potential
problems MIGHT be interfering NTSC (or other) transmitters (often
more troublesome than multipath), and also there can be problems
with propagation over water. Even though one might think that propagation
over water is 'ideal', actually it can be incredibly troublesome at
VHF/UHF (AFAIR.)

I don't have an magical answers, but I wish that all of my channels were
as reasonably well laid out as yours. Superficially, my reception
environment appears to be much worse than yours, and my reception is
pretty good.

Let us know more about your setup, and SOMEONE might see your
problem!!!

John
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 6:43:07 AM

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

Jeff Rife wrote:

> Bob Miller (robmx@earthlink.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>The cost of the IP for COFDM is/was 1/10th the cost of IP for 8-VSB. The
>>cost of silicon for COFDM was falling below $6 while 8-VSB was over $20.
>
>
> None of this addresses the $200/chip for MP@HL decoding. That is *why*
> HD boxes were $400. When one chip costs $200, a difference of $14 somewhere
> else is not important.
>
> Those COFDM receivers would only handle SD at a $200 price point, because
> the $50 MP@ML chip would allow that sort of pricing.
>
Not the COFDM receivers we are talking about. The decoders including
tuners were under $100 in the quantities we were discussing and they
were HD.
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 6:43:08 AM

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

Bob Miller (robmx@earthlink.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > Those COFDM receivers would only handle SD at a $200 price point, because
> > the $50 MP@ML chip would allow that sort of pricing.
> >
> Not the COFDM receivers we are talking about. The decoders including
> tuners were under $100 in the quantities we were discussing and they
> were HD.

No, they were *not*. There was *no* company making MP@HL MPEG decoders
in 2000 and selling them for less than $200 in quantity. There are quite
a few references that show that MP@HL chips were at *least* $100 more
than MP@ML chips in 2000.

Besides, even if the MPEG decoder part *was* $100 in quantity, the final
product would be far more than $200 in 2000. *SD* (not HD) COFDM
receivers didn't drop below $100 until 2002. Any sane person would know
that a reciever with the same features *plus* HD *plus* being two years
earlier would cost more than that. Oh, I forgot, we're talking about Bob.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/Understaffed.gif
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 7:05:50 AM

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

In article <%c_Mc.14398$mL5.2215@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
> Jeff Rife wrote:
>
>> Bob Miller (robmx@earthlink.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>>
>>>The cost of the IP for COFDM is/was 1/10th the cost of IP for 8-VSB. The
>>>cost of silicon for COFDM was falling below $6 while 8-VSB was over $20.
>>
>>
>> None of this addresses the $200/chip for MP@HL decoding. That is *why*
>> HD boxes were $400. When one chip costs $200, a difference of $14 somewhere
>> else is not important.
>>
>> Those COFDM receivers would only handle SD at a $200 price point, because
>> the $50 MP@ML chip would allow that sort of pricing.
>>
> Not the COFDM receivers we are talking about.
>
We aren't 'talking' that much about COFDM... This group is mostly
related to HDTV, and generally HDTV with MPEG2 encoding (but MPEG2 not
100% necessary.)

>
> The decoders including
> tuners were under $100 in the quantities we were discussing and they
> were HD.
>
FOR THE Christmas yr2000 timeframe, please provide a reference to
a 1080i/720p HDTV MPEG2 decoder chip, with the full 30frames/s interlaced
for 1080 and 60frames/s noninterlaced for 720 WITH FULL SDTV
COMPATIBILITY. Note that your constraint would be a full decoder
cost of less than $200.00.

Bob, I doubt that you'll find a full HDTV MPEG2 chip slated for
Christmas 2000 consumer delivery (which would mean June 2000 at the
latest for manufacturing) that supports a full decoder for less than
$200.00.

(We are talking about REAL COSTS and not subsidized fake costing!!!)

John
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 7:21:06 AM

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

Mudd Bug wrote:
> "Sammy" <sammy@xxx.invalid> wrote in message
> news:10g8gag5vgfjeee@news.supernews.com...
>
>>In article <20040724234026.16456.00000364@mb-m14.aol.com>,
>> vidguy7@aol.com (Vidguy7) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>This is fantastic news. It's great for 8VSB. But, even better, it's
>>>>likely to make BOOBY (aka Gear on the AVSForum) commit suicide.
>>>
>>>Very interesting Sammy! I didn't realize that. I'll have to look for his
>>>postings. Might be wise to alert the moderators.
>>
>>They're aware of him. The AVS owners can tell when Booby has reappeared
>>under another name. The servers emit a distinctive stench. They dump
>>Booby and all is well again.
>
>
> Ok, I have been reading the postings between Bob Miller and a number of
> other
> people for some time now. I seen that Zenith has new receiver technology
> that will
> greatly improve reception of DTV in the US. My results have been closer to
> what
> Bob Miller has been posting about than the "all works great" posting of the
> other
> side. Up to this point I have been very disappointed in the results I have
> in DTV
> reception. I had convinced myself that the problem was the antenna placement
> and not the receiver, but now I'm not so sure.
> I am currently using a Samsung SIR-T151 receiver with a large antenna in my
> attic
>
> http://www.radioshack.com/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=CT... .
> I have a single story house with lot of large trees, > 40', with high power
> lines about 1/4 mile away
> directly between me and the stations with very flat ground (south
> Louisiana). The stations are:
> Station Compass degree Distance in miles
> Fox 252 16.8
> PBS 261 12.0
> IND 289 11.6
> CBS 286 11.1
> ABC 237 13
> NBC 257 5.6
>
> Of these, ABC is by far the best, great for Monday Night Football, it can be
> watched.
> PBS is second best and is watchable for the most part, but I have little
> interest.
> The others are received too poorly to be of any use.
>
> My question is how much will this new receiver help my reception with the
> current
> configuration? I was going to more the antenna to the roof but if the
> problem is with the
> receiver then this may not help.


Mudd Bug,

I have a Samsung T151. I have tested the new 5th Generation receiver and
it is like night and day.

Wait for the 5th gen this fall and sell the Samsung for whatever you can
get. Thats what I am going to do. Remember there is very big money in
this business. Don't take what you read on this or any other forum as
gospel. There are a lot of reasons why a lot of people don't want you to
know the truth.

I have no proof of why those who attack me do so here on this newsgroup
but I do know that when we were in Toronto testing COFDM against 8-VSB
on the CN Tower that CEA companies called daily trying to get the
program stopped. They would not show up as invited guest to test but did
their best to get us off the air.

They eventually did just that by threatening the University with loss of
funded support. A friend lost his job also.

Bob Miller
!