Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Assuming that you have the same MPEG material being transm..

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
September 21, 2004 6:04:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

Assuming that you have the same MPEG stream material being transmitted, does
ASTC or DVB-T (Australia/Europe) use less energy? (Assuming a typical set,
whatever that is!)

[Same material meaning the same DTV/HDTV streams encoded in the same
bundle.]
September 21, 2004 12:58:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

who cares!?

"http://HireMe.geek.nz/" <mikehack@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:cioqma$4u6$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
> Assuming that you have the same MPEG stream material being transmitted,
does
> ASTC or DVB-T (Australia/Europe) use less energy? (Assuming a typical set,
> whatever that is!)
>
> [Same material meaning the same DTV/HDTV streams encoded in the same
> bundle.]
>
>
>
>
September 21, 2004 8:26:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

Hi,

It's not like analogue systems where there's a relationship between the nominal
power and the content at any given point. It doesn't matter if you're
transmitting 10 complex MPEG2 streams they'd use the same energy as an empty
null carrier.


Az.
Anonymous
September 21, 2004 8:26:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

Aztech wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It's not like analogue systems where there's a relationship between the nominal
> power and the content at any given point. It doesn't matter if you're
> transmitting 10 complex MPEG2 streams they'd use the same energy as an empty
> null carrier.
>
>
> Az.
>
>

But there is a certain bitrate transmitted, always, in both
systems, even if it is unused.

The US system uses a fixed power and a fixed maximum bitrate,
at which some bits are always transmitted. That rate is
19.3 Mb/sec. If you set the European system to transmit
a minimum of 19.3 Mb/sec in a 6 MHz channel (as in the US),
it requires twice the average power and three times the peak
power.

This is firmly rooted in the laws of physics and cannot be
changed without completely changing the systems. You may
hear other numbers from European shills for their system.
If they claim their system needs less power than this,
they are either using a lower bitrate for their system or outright
lying.

You will find much of both on the Internet.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
September 21, 2004 9:23:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

I am sure the broadcasters care, try calculating electrical costs for
running a 100kw transmitter 24hrs a day compared to running a 60kw
transmitter. That is some serious change!

--Dan

"curmudgeon" <curmudgeon@buzzoff.net> wrote in message
news:TyV3d.20299$as2.5869@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> who cares!?
Anonymous
September 21, 2004 9:23:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

In article <ZrZ3d.465$nj.55@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
dan_gus@hotmail.com says...
> I am sure the broadcasters care, try calculating electrical costs for
> running a 100kw transmitter 24hrs a day compared to running a 60kw
> transmitter. That is some serious change!

The cost of electricity IS significant. However, it may be be as bad
as it seems. The published transmitter rating is ERP (effective
radiated power), which is the power that the station would have to
run to produce the same signal strength using a non-directional
transmitting antenna. Because of antenna gain (transmitting a
focused beam), the actual transmitter power is much less than the
ERP. At UHF, it can be on the order of 1/20 the ERP or even less.
This is offset somewhat by the fact that the transmitter is not 100%
efficient, and there is some loss in the transmission line. But a
100KW ERP UHF station is typically running < 10KW transmitter power.
It's cheaper to buy a big antenna once than pay the power company
each month.

/Chris, AA6SQ
Anonymous
September 22, 2004 3:28:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 02:04:55 -0700, "http://HireMe.geek.nz/"
<mikehack@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>Assuming that you have the same MPEG stream material being transmitted, does
>ASTC or DVB-T (Australia/Europe) use less energy? (Assuming a typical set,
>whatever that is!)

At least in Europe, the signal level requirements for DVB-T are well
below the analog requirements, so the transmitter power is much less
than on the analog side.

In a recent STB test all tested units produced a quasi error free
(less than one uncorrected error/hour) signal at 27 dBuV (-82 dBm),
which is apparently measured with 64QAM and 8 MHz channel width. This
was tested in a lab, so there was no fading.

In the NorDig recommendation the minimum received signal level for
64QAM, 7/8 code rate with a Rayleigh fading path and 8 dB receiver
noise figure would be -64 dBm. With other code rates, modulations and
fading mechanisms, the requirement is lower.

For analog signals, the recommended level is more than 1 mV (+60 dBuV,
-49 dBm).

While the ERP can be at least 10 dB lower than analog, the question of
power consumption is more complicated, since COFDM with 64QAM carriers
require a quite good linearity, which may affect the efficiency and
hence power consumption.

I hope some can make a similar comparison between the US analog and
digital system.

Paul
Anonymous
September 22, 2004 3:28:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

Paul Keinanen wrote:

> At least in Europe, the signal level requirements for DVB-T are well
> below the analog requirements, so the transmitter power is much less
> than on the analog side.
>

Well, it depends on what you mean! What you are saying is that the
bureaucrats have ordered such and such power ratios. This says
nothing about what happens in the real world.

>
> I hope some can make a similar comparison between the US analog and
> digital system.

In the US the original RATED ERP for digital (for adjacent channels,
analog and digital, colocated antenna) has been about 10 dB less
than analog. However, the actual output average power is
a 5 dB difference compared to the rated power for analog, so
the real average power difference is 5 dB, digital being less.
I do not know the difference in the "wall plug power" requirement.

This is the number you want, 5 dB (average power). If we had
used COFDM instead of 8-VSB, for the same coverage the number would
change from 5 dB to 2 dB.

This number has proven to be a good choice. It means that
digital will be received in the far field anywhere that a
watchable but very snowy analog picture exists. This is
well proven in the real world.

Note that many stations have been authorized to use
several times that much power, in some cases as much as
5 dB more. This was done if they requested it and
if it would not cause interference. This will result in
a substantial increase in coverage area. There is now
enough experience in the US in rural areas to show that
more power really does increase the coverage area. Our
digital system works ... and works very well indeed ...
at far, far beyond the horizon, given enough power. For example,
I live 68 miles from a station transmitting at the "typical"
power ratio. This is UHF channel 44. I am 18 miles beyond the
horizon as seen from the tower, and use a large but indoor antenna,
25 feet above ground level. It is very reliable. This station
will eventually increase their power 5 dB. This means that a
small indoor antenna will work well for me at that time, or
I could do away with my 0.6 dB NF preamp and use a regular
3 dB one.

If this station were to go to DVB-T today, at the same average
power, I would still get it, but it would not be all that
reliable, and would not work AT ALL with a cheapie preamp, though it
would be at the increased power and the expensive preamp.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
September 22, 2004 6:18:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

Paul Keinanen wrote:
> I hope some can make a similar comparison between the US analog and
> digital system.

There is a HIGHLY UNSCIENTIFIC comparison on
http://www.w9wi.com/articles/atsc-vs-ntsc.html .

(highly unscientific = I connected an analog receiver and a digital
receiver to the same antenna, then snapped screen shots of the same
station's analog and digital signals. The analog signal has an
effective radiated power of roughly 2000kw in my direction; the digital
ERP is roughly 14kw.

Reliable reception of ATSC digital stations of 5-50kw ERP is common here
at roughly 40km from the transmitters, using a small corner-reflector
antenna. Actually, reliable reception of analog stations of similar
power is also common but nobody would dream of watching the snowy pictures!)
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com
Anonymous
September 23, 2004 3:01:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

Sorry to say it but it sounds very much like you do not know what you
are talking about, Doug.

The only effective difference between the two digital TV systems is the
sensitivity of each to noise during post receive processing.

And, how much more power do you think 5 dB is?


Doug McDonald wrote:
> Paul Keinanen wrote:
>
>> At least in Europe, the signal level requirements for DVB-T are well
>> below the analog requirements, so the transmitter power is much less
>> than on the analog side.
>
>
> Well, it depends on what you mean! What you are saying is that the
> bureaucrats have ordered such and such power ratios. This says
> nothing about what happens in the real world.
>
>>
>> I hope some can make a similar comparison between the US analog and
>> digital system.
>
>
> In the US the original RATED ERP for digital (for adjacent channels,
> analog and digital, colocated antenna) has been about 10 dB less than
> analog. However, the actual output average power is
> a 5 dB difference compared to the rated power for analog, so
> the real average power difference is 5 dB, digital being less.
> I do not know the difference in the "wall plug power" requirement.
>
> This is the number you want, 5 dB (average power). If we had
> used COFDM instead of 8-VSB, for the same coverage the number would
> change from 5 dB to 2 dB.
>
> This number has proven to be a good choice. It means that
> digital will be received in the far field anywhere that a
> watchable but very snowy analog picture exists. This is
> well proven in the real world.
>
> Note that many stations have been authorized to use
> several times that much power, in some cases as much as
> 5 dB more. This was done if they requested it and
> if it would not cause interference. This will result in
> a substantial increase in coverage area. There is now
> enough experience in the US in rural areas to show that
> more power really does increase the coverage area. Our
> digital system works ... and works very well indeed ...
> at far, far beyond the horizon, given enough power. For example,
> I live 68 miles from a station transmitting at the "typical"
> power ratio. This is UHF channel 44. I am 18 miles beyond the
> horizon as seen from the tower, and use a large but indoor antenna, 25
> feet above ground level. It is very reliable. This station
> will eventually increase their power 5 dB. This means that a
> small indoor antenna will work well for me at that time, or
> I could do away with my 0.6 dB NF preamp and use a regular
> 3 dB one.
>
> If this station were to go to DVB-T today, at the same average
> power, I would still get it, but it would not be all that
> reliable, and would not work AT ALL with a cheapie preamp, though it
> would be at the increased power and the expensive preamp.
>
> Doug McDonald
>
Anonymous
September 23, 2004 3:01:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

WDino wrote:
> Sorry to say it but it sounds very much like you do not know what you
> are talking about, Doug.

I most certainly DO know what I am talking about.

>
> The only effective difference between the two digital TV systems is the
> sensitivity of each to noise during post receive processing.

The two systems differ substantially in their intrinsic
required singan to noise ratio. To do a proper comparison,
of course, you have to either pick the DVB-T mode that
is the closest to and just higher in bitrate than ATSC, or
normalize. When you do that, you find that DVB-T needs 3 dB more
power, average. This has never changed from day one, since we are
comparing theoretical mumbers. Both systems come very close to
theory these days. This is of course for Gaussian random noise. For
modern receivers, the noise performance (using this DVB-T mode)
is very similar for all Ricean and reasonable Rayleigh channels,
on average, though special cases can vary.


>
> And, how much more power do you think 5 dB is?
>

5 dB is a factor of THREE in power. sqrt(10) to be exact.

A factor of three in power is of couse a factor of three
in money also for the power bills, not to mention the
transmitter componenets.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
September 23, 2004 2:18:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 18:12:00 -0500, Doug McDonald
<mcdonald@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:


>The two systems differ substantially in their intrinsic
>required singan to noise ratio. To do a proper comparison,
>of course, you have to either pick the DVB-T mode that
>is the closest to and just higher in bitrate than ATSC, or
>normalize. When you do that, you find that DVB-T needs 3 dB more
>power, average. This has never changed from day one, since we are
>comparing theoretical mumbers. Both systems come very close to
>theory these days. This is of course for Gaussian random noise. For
>modern receivers, the noise performance (using this DVB-T mode)
>is very similar for all Ricean and reasonable Rayleigh channels,
>on average, though special cases can vary.


Measuring the power for complex waveforms such as analog or digital TV
is quite complicated. For analog systems with negative video
modulation, the peak (rated) power is at the synch pulse, while the
active video part is well below this and thus the average power with
live program is quite a few dB below the rated power. On DVB-T COFDM
the spectral density for each of the 2000+ or 6000+ carriers only vary
due to the 16QAM or 64QAM amplitude variation, however, the combined
envelope waveform can have quite huge peaks.

First you have to decide if you are interested in the peak or average
power, since average power is usually a better indication for
co-channel interference, while peak power is usually more interesting
from transmitter design point of view, but this also depends of the
transmitter type.

If you are mostly interested in the transmitter electric bill, you
also have to consider the transmitter efficiency at peak and average
loads etc.

To get meaningful results you would have to operate both digital
systems from the same site for at least a year (to include the
variations in vegetation) with equal service area and then compare the
electric bills.

You also have to ask, does it really make sense to greatly increase
the main transmitter power to serve some problematic receiver
locations or is it better install a small transmitter near these sites
e.g. in a cellular phone tower. At least DVB-T allows placing these
transmitters at the same frequency as the main transmitter and operate
all the transmitters as a single frequency network (SFN). Since no
additional TV channels are required for these additional transmitters,
this simplifies the frequency allocations for a large area.

Paul
Anonymous
September 23, 2004 2:18:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

Paul Keinanen wrote:



> You also have to ask, does it really make sense to greatly increase
> the main transmitter power to serve some problematic receiver
> locations or is it better install a small transmitter near these sites
> e.g. in a cellular phone tower.

The answer to this is CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL: it's better to
use a bigger tower and more powerful transmitter.

This because typically you pick up people by getting rural
and very small town people. The way the US is structured, if
you try increasing audience by translators or lots of
small SFN transmitters, you'd by talking maybe 30 people
per transmitter. You get far more bang for the buck with
a bigger stick and more power. AND ... the absolute cheapest
way to increase converage is to simply use a system that
needs only 1/2 the average power and 1/3 the peak power!

*****************************************************************

Just imagine .... you can get coverage equivalent to
TRIPLING the peak power just by switching from DVB-T
to ATSC!!!!

That's the bottom line ... you have to think about that for
a while: no significant change in the transmitter or tower
or antenna ... just switch to a more efficient system.

That's how you have to think about it.

Doug McDonald
September 23, 2004 8:31:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:ciumt3$65m$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
> Paul Keinanen wrote:
>
>
>
> > You also have to ask, does it really make sense to greatly increase
> > the main transmitter power to serve some problematic receiver
> > locations or is it better install a small transmitter near these sites
> > e.g. in a cellular phone tower.
>
> The answer to this is CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL: it's better to
> use a bigger tower and more powerful transmitter.
>
> This because typically you pick up people by getting rural
> and very small town people. The way the US is structured, if
> you try increasing audience by translators or lots of
> small SFN transmitters, you'd by talking maybe 30 people
> per transmitter. You get far more bang for the buck with
> a bigger stick and more power. AND ... the absolute cheapest
> way to increase converage is to simply use a system that
> needs only 1/2 the average power and 1/3 the peak power!
>
> *****************************************************************
>
> Just imagine .... you can get coverage equivalent to
> TRIPLING the peak power just by switching from DVB-T
> to ATSC!!!!
>
In the area of the UK were I live, there are many thousands of people
receiving reliable reception from a couple of local transmitters pushing out
20w of DVB-T.






> That's the bottom line ... you have to think about that for
> a while: no significant change in the transmitter or tower
> or antenna ... just switch to a more efficient system.
>
> That's how you have to think about it.
>
> Doug McDonald
Anonymous
September 23, 2004 9:31:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

Doug McDonald wrote:
> Paul Keinanen wrote:
>
>
>
>> You also have to ask, does it really make sense to greatly increase
>> the main transmitter power to serve some problematic receiver
>> locations or is it better install a small transmitter near these sites
>> e.g. in a cellular phone tower.
>
>
> The answer to this is CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL: it's better to
> use a bigger tower and more powerful transmitter.
>
> This because typically you pick up people by getting rural
> and very small town people. The way the US is structured, if
> you try increasing audience by translators or lots of
> small SFN transmitters, you'd by talking maybe 30 people
> per transmitter. You get far more bang for the buck with
> a bigger stick and more power. AND ... the absolute cheapest
> way to increase converage is to simply use a system that
> needs only 1/2 the average power and 1/3 the peak power!
>
> *****************************************************************
>
> Just imagine .... you can get coverage equivalent to
> TRIPLING the peak power just by switching from DVB-T
> to ATSC!!!!
>
> That's the bottom line ... you have to think about that for
> a while: no significant change in the transmitter or tower
> or antenna ... just switch to a more efficient system.
>
> That's how you have to think about it.
>
> Doug McDonald

That however is not how most countries in the world thought about it.
The only countries using 8-VSB are doing so for political purposes. No
country has chosen 8-VSB for technical reasons.
Anonymous
September 23, 2004 9:31:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

Bob Miller wrote:

>
> That however is not how most countries in the world thought about it.
> The only countries using 8-VSB are doing so for political purposes. No
> country has chosen 8-VSB for technical reasons.
>

According to two people ON THE ATSC COMMITTEE, they discarded
COFDM from consideration for just this technical reason. It was NOT
politics. The politics was within the single carrier systems.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
September 23, 2004 9:39:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

ivan wrote:
> "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
> news:ciumt3$65m$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>
>>Paul Keinanen wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>You also have to ask, does it really make sense to greatly increase
>>>the main transmitter power to serve some problematic receiver
>>>locations or is it better install a small transmitter near these sites
>>>e.g. in a cellular phone tower.
>>
>>The answer to this is CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL: it's better to
>>use a bigger tower and more powerful transmitter.
>>
>>This because typically you pick up people by getting rural
>>and very small town people. The way the US is structured, if
>>you try increasing audience by translators or lots of
>>small SFN transmitters, you'd by talking maybe 30 people
>>per transmitter. You get far more bang for the buck with
>>a bigger stick and more power. AND ... the absolute cheapest
>>way to increase converage is to simply use a system that
>>needs only 1/2 the average power and 1/3 the peak power!
>>
>>*****************************************************************
>>
>>Just imagine .... you can get coverage equivalent to
>>TRIPLING the peak power just by switching from DVB-T
>>to ATSC!!!!
>>
>
> In the area of the UK were I live, there are many thousands of people
> receiving reliable reception from a couple of local transmitters pushing out
> 20w of DVB-T.

The highest power in the UK is 20 kW AFAIK and that on only a few
transmitters. Most are using infinitesimal power levels.

Here is a list of all stations in the UK and their power levels.

http://www.wolfbane.com/ukdtt.htm

The UK is also not able to and is not using any SFN these are all
single stick transmitters. Other countries are using or plan on using
country wide SFN's with much lower power levels than the US.

This includes such large countries as Australia and Russia.

Even in the US such entities as Sirius and XMRadio are using COFDM as
will Crown Castle for their mobile 5MHz DTV venture.

NO one even considers 8-VSB except when pressured and bribed by the US.
Thats the reality.
Anonymous
September 23, 2004 10:33:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

"Bob Miller" wrote:

> NO one even considers 8-VSB except when pressured and bribed by the
> US. Thats the reality.

As you very well know, Bob, realities change as technology and know-how
changes.

The debates about whether to go single-carrier or multi-carrier schemes
(e.g. n-VSB or n-QAM or even CDMA vs COFDM) have raged for a long time,
and in many different venues. This includes xDSL techniques used by the
telephone companies, ultrawide band (UWB) used for PANs, not to mention
wireless LAN standards. So it's not *just* about TV standards. TV
standards are simply one manifestation of the same debate.

If there is any "reality," it is that single carrier schemes have gained
some ground, thanks in part to the improvement in the state of the art
of equalizer designs.

You don't get anything for nothing. The gains in inherent multipath
tolerance you get with multicarrier schemes carry a price tag of greater
power required for the same range of coverage, and a higher
peak-to-average power ratio in the spectrum of the multicarrier system.
The power issue is of course dependent on the spectral efficiency you're
shooting for. So you have to compare apples with apples.

If ways can be found to achieve good multipath tolerance with single
carrier schemes, you can only come out ahead using single carrier
schemes. You'll get more range for the same power and/or more
bits/second for the same RF bandwidth.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. The decision to stick with 8-VSB
can only prove to be more and more advantageous, as time goes by.
Unfortunately, it took a long time to get to where it's really a
feasible scheme.

Bert
September 23, 2004 11:37:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:KTD4d.1229$zG1.1226@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> ivan wrote:
> > "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
> > news:ciumt3$65m$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
> >
> >>Paul Keinanen wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>You also have to ask, does it really make sense to greatly increase
> >>>the main transmitter power to serve some problematic receiver
> >>>locations or is it better install a small transmitter near these sites
> >>>e.g. in a cellular phone tower.
> >>
> >>The answer to this is CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL: it's better to
> >>use a bigger tower and more powerful transmitter.
> >>
> >>This because typically you pick up people by getting rural
> >>and very small town people. The way the US is structured, if
> >>you try increasing audience by translators or lots of
> >>small SFN transmitters, you'd by talking maybe 30 people
> >>per transmitter. You get far more bang for the buck with
> >>a bigger stick and more power. AND ... the absolute cheapest
> >>way to increase converage is to simply use a system that
> >>needs only 1/2 the average power and 1/3 the peak power!
> >>
> >>*****************************************************************
> >>
> >>Just imagine .... you can get coverage equivalent to
> >>TRIPLING the peak power just by switching from DVB-T
> >>to ATSC!!!!
> >>
> >
> > In the area of the UK were I live, there are many thousands of people
> > receiving reliable reception from a couple of local transmitters pushing
out
> > 20w of DVB-T.
>
> The highest power in the UK is 20 kW AFAIK and that on only a few
> transmitters. Most are using infinitesimal power levels.
>
> Here is a list of all stations in the UK and their power levels.
>
> http://www.wolfbane.com/ukdtt.htm
>
> The UK is also not able to and is not using any SFN these are all
> single stick transmitters. Other countries are using or plan on using
> country wide SFN's with much lower power levels than the US.
>
A couple of weeks ago I installed a DTT receiver at around 12 kilometres
distance from one of the aforementioned 20w UHF transmitters (Bristol Kings
Weston Hill) and despite the customer having an ancient out of band antenna,
all of his 30 plus digital channels were spot-on.

Apparently the UK now has over 4.5 million DTT viewers, not bad for two
years since the launch of Freeview, and the numbers keep growing apace,
especially with some receivers now costing as little as £35 if one is
prepared to shop around.


> This includes such large countries as Australia and Russia.
>
> Even in the US such entities as Sirius and XMRadio are using COFDM as
> will Crown Castle for their mobile 5MHz DTV venture.
>
> NO one even considers 8-VSB except when pressured and bribed by the US.
> Thats the reality.
Anonymous
September 23, 2004 11:56:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

Albert Manfredi wrote:
> "Bob Miller" wrote:
>
>> NO one even considers 8-VSB except when pressured and bribed by the
>> US. Thats the reality.
>
>
> As you very well know, Bob, realities change as technology and know-how
> changes.
>
> The debates about whether to go single-carrier or multi-carrier schemes
> (e.g. n-VSB or n-QAM or even CDMA vs COFDM) have raged for a long time,
> and in many different venues. This includes xDSL techniques used by the
> telephone companies, ultrawide band (UWB) used for PANs, not to mention
> wireless LAN standards. So it's not *just* about TV standards. TV
> standards are simply one manifestation of the same debate.
>
> If there is any "reality," it is that single carrier schemes have gained
> some ground, thanks in part to the improvement in the state of the art
> of equalizer designs.
>
> You don't get anything for nothing. The gains in inherent multipath
> tolerance you get with multicarrier schemes carry a price tag of greater
> power required for the same range of coverage, and a higher
> peak-to-average power ratio in the spectrum of the multicarrier system.
> The power issue is of course dependent on the spectral efficiency you're
> shooting for. So you have to compare apples with apples.
>
> If ways can be found to achieve good multipath tolerance with single
> carrier schemes, you can only come out ahead using single carrier
> schemes. You'll get more range for the same power and/or more
> bits/second for the same RF bandwidth.
>
> There is no such thing as a free lunch. The decision to stick with 8-VSB
> can only prove to be more and more advantageous, as time goes by.
> Unfortunately, it took a long time to get to where it's really a
> feasible scheme.
>
> Bert
>
Barely feasible.

I was on the DMT side of the DSL controversy also. We had the first ADSL
pipes in the country using prototype Amati ADSL modems in 1996.

Where pray tell do you think single carrier is ahead in any of the
venues you mention? All I see is COFDM everywhere even UWB which I might
disagree with.

Certainly not with 5th gen LG receivers where, while they are light
years better than 4th gen, they cannot hold a candle to 1999 COFDM.

Been there done that in both cases.

In the case of 8-VSB it is a game of catch up. The game should not even
be played. COFDM is and will be so far superior at any given price point
as to be ridiculous. We have wasted 5 years or better and billions of
dollars not to mention the hassle factor and waste of consumers time and
patience in the US to what purpose
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 12:02:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

ivan wrote:
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:KTD4d.1229$zG1.1226@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>ivan wrote:
>>
>>>"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
>>>news:ciumt3$65m$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Paul Keinanen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You also have to ask, does it really make sense to greatly increase
>>>>>the main transmitter power to serve some problematic receiver
>>>>>locations or is it better install a small transmitter near these sites
>>>>>e.g. in a cellular phone tower.
>>>>
>>>>The answer to this is CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL: it's better to
>>>>use a bigger tower and more powerful transmitter.
>>>>
>>>>This because typically you pick up people by getting rural
>>>>and very small town people. The way the US is structured, if
>>>>you try increasing audience by translators or lots of
>>>>small SFN transmitters, you'd by talking maybe 30 people
>>>>per transmitter. You get far more bang for the buck with
>>>>a bigger stick and more power. AND ... the absolute cheapest
>>>>way to increase converage is to simply use a system that
>>>>needs only 1/2 the average power and 1/3 the peak power!
>>>>
>>>>*****************************************************************
>>>>
>>>>Just imagine .... you can get coverage equivalent to
>>>>TRIPLING the peak power just by switching from DVB-T
>>>>to ATSC!!!!
>>>>
>>>
>>>In the area of the UK were I live, there are many thousands of people
>>>receiving reliable reception from a couple of local transmitters pushing
>
> out
>
>>>20w of DVB-T.
>>
>>The highest power in the UK is 20 kW AFAIK and that on only a few
>>transmitters. Most are using infinitesimal power levels.
>>
>>Here is a list of all stations in the UK and their power levels.
>>
>>http://www.wolfbane.com/ukdtt.htm
>>
>>The UK is also not able to and is not using any SFN these are all
>>single stick transmitters. Other countries are using or plan on using
>>country wide SFN's with much lower power levels than the US.
>>
>
> A couple of weeks ago I installed a DTT receiver at around 12 kilometres
> distance from one of the aforementioned 20w UHF transmitters (Bristol Kings
> Weston Hill) and despite the customer having an ancient out of band antenna,
> all of his 30 plus digital channels were spot-on.
>
> Apparently the UK now has over 4.5 million DTT viewers, not bad for two
> years since the launch of Freeview, and the numbers keep growing apace,
> especially with some receivers now costing as little as £35 if one is
> prepared to shop around.
>
>
>
>>This includes such large countries as Australia and Russia.
>>
>>Even in the US such entities as Sirius and XMRadio are using COFDM as
>>will Crown Castle for their mobile 5MHz DTV venture.
>>
>>NO one even considers 8-VSB except when pressured and bribed by the US.
>>Thats the reality.
>
>
>
That was 4.5 million at the end of June, it is now over 5 million and
this quarter will see as many as a million COFDM receivers sold in the UK.

The US will see similar numbers starting with 2005 (times six) now that
5th gen receivers will start showing up.

Why we had to wait 5 years when COFDM could have done the same or even
better in the US over the last 5 years is I supposed CLEAR AND
UNEQUIVOCAL to Doug.
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 12:21:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

Doug McDonald wrote:
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> That however is not how most countries in the world thought about it.
>> The only countries using 8-VSB are doing so for political purposes. No
>> country has chosen 8-VSB for technical reasons.
>>
>
> According to two people ON THE ATSC COMMITTEE, they discarded
> COFDM from consideration for just this technical reason. It was NOT
> politics. The politics was within the single carrier systems.
>
> Doug McDonald

BS!!

The ATSC was following the back room deal made early in the history of
the DTV transition that gave the modulation to Zenith. No one wanted to
give COFDM any hearing. COFDM had to be ignored at all cost and it was
right from the beginning.

In fact when Professor (Emeritus) of MIT's Advanced TV Lab William
Schreiber held a seminar on COFDM in 1992 this is what happened.

"The group I was then working with at MIT decided that it would be
useful to have a meeting of all those working on the subject as a means
of informing the FCC and the various DTV system proponents of this new
technology, then relatively unknown in the US. We had the assistance of
Ken Davies of the Canadian Broadcasting Corp and Gary Tonge of the
Independent Broadcast Authority in the UK in organizing the meeting and
inducing the Europeans to come. All the American system proponents were
invited as well as the FCC. The meeting was held at MIT in October
1992. Every lab in the world working on COFDM was represented, but
almost no system proponents or FCC people came. I still have a number of
the refusal letters; they were all “too busy.”"

THEY DIDN'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IT. IT WASN"T INVENTED HERE!! (actually
it was by AT&T Bell Labs)

Here is the full letter from Scheiber to Senator Markey after the
hearings on COFDM vs. 8-VSB in June 2000.

BTW Professor William F. Schreiber was in the thick of the entire DTV
process from beginning to end.

31 July 2000

Hon. Edward J. Markey
2108 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington DC 20515
The recent hearing re COFDM vs “8-VSB”
Dear Congressman Markey:

You may recall that I appeared before your subcommittee at the start of
the HDTV Inquiry. At that time, I was director of the MIT Advanced
Television Research Program. Of the various things that I said, the one
that got the most attention was “HDTV is not about pretty pictures; it
is about jobs and money.” Although we are much less worried today about
jobs or money, the shift that is underway in terrestrial TV broadcasting
from analog to digital is still very important for the future health of
our economy as the importance of information technologies grows.

The FCC was quite correct in deciding that over-the-air (OTA)
broadcasting must shift from analog to digital. In my opinion, there is
no other way to provide the spectrum that is needed for all the
wealth-creating wireless services that we hear so much about. The
current NTSC system, using 50-year old technology, is simply too
wasteful of spectrum, requiring an allocation of 67 6-MHz channels to
provide no more than 20 programs of mediocre technical quality to each
viewer. By using digital transmission and the best current technology,
it would be possible to provide 20 HDTV programs to each viewer in the
country with an overall allocation of only 20 6-MHz channels.
Alternatively, for lower technical quality, but still higher than that
of NTSC, we could allocate even a smaller amount of spectrum.

Although the FCC deserves a lot of credit for understanding this aspect
of OTA broadcasting, it made a serious blunder (no kinder word suffices
here) in accepting the “8-VSB” modulation method that was proposed by
ACATS. This error was partly technical and partly political. Reed
Hundt placed much too much faith in the “free” market’s ability to
design TV standards that would properly serve the public interest,
convenience, and necessity. The design of the system was left entirely
to the industry, without adequate supervision by the Commission. In
particular, the Commission failed to insist on realistic testing. As a
result, we have a system that is too unreliable to be used. While this
is not the only reason for the failure, so far, of the transition to
digital broadcasting, it is a problem that absolutely must be solved for
the transition to be successful enough so that analog broadcasting can
be turned off without a public outcry.

I was most interested in what transpired at the recent hearing. While
one demonstration surely is not sufficient to conclude anything, there
have now been many demonstrations of the ease of reception of COFDM (the
system demonstrated by Sinclair) under many different kinds of
conditions. There have been many other examples that clearly indicate
the difficulty of receiving the 8-VSB transmissions on simple antennas,
especially in downtown areas. A number of those testifying in favor of
8-VSB gave false and misleading statements on these matters that were,
unfortunately, not challenged by members of the Subcommittee. It should
be borne in mind that the system approved by the FCC was submitted by
ACATS in 1995 -- more than five years ago. One would think that any
problems in receiver design would long since have been found and fixed
if possible. In my opinion, the 8-VSB scheme will never work well
enough, no matter how much time is allowed.

Digital OTA broadcasting using COFDM started in Britain in November
1998, the same time as in the US. Nearly one million subscribers now
use the service and there have been few complaints. That penetration,
taking account of the different populations, is 100 times greater than
in the US.

It is not as if COFDM was unknown to the American system proponents.
The FCC as well as the system proponents in the Grand Alliance were
fully informed about the advantages of COFDM -- about its much better
performance in the presence of multipath (ghosts), its ability to
support single-frequency networks that would completely solve the
problem of finding spectrum for LPTV stations, and its ability to
provide more service in a given spectrum allocation than single-carrier
systems such as 8-VSB. For a variety of reasons, all specious, ACATS
turned down COFDM.

In order not to make this letter too long, I have placed in an appendix
some material relating to the history of COFDM and my own involvement in
it. For the sake of full disclosure, I should say that I have some
patents in the field, assigned to MIT, but I do not expect to make any
money from them, no matter what happens to digital broadcasting in the US.

I would like to get the substance of this letter into the hands of Mr.
Tauzin and whoever on his staff is following this matter, and I solicit
your suggestions as to how to do this.

Sincerely


Appendix: Some OFDM History

I first heard about OFDM on a trip to Europe in the late 80s, and called
it to the attention of the chief engineer of the FCC on my return. OFDM
was invented at Bell Labs in 1965, and the “C” (coded) was added, by
CCETT (a French government lab.) in the middle 80s. By that time, it
had been tested for audio in Europe and Canada with good results.
Virtually all the labs then working on it had come to the conclusion
that it was the right system for DTV broadcasting because of its good
multipath performance. When I first described it to the FCC point man,
he said that such a system could not possibly work. (A famous
mathematician once “proved” that FM was impossible because it has an
infinite spectrum.) Eventually, however, the FCC changed its mind and
directed ACATS to investigate COFDM, which it reluctantly did.

I was sufficiently impressed by the possibilities of COFDM that I
decided to take two more PhD students after my formal retirement from
MIT in 1990. The project was funded partly by Scitex, an Israeli
company for which I had been a consultant, and partly out of patent
royalties due me at MIT, i.e., out of my own pocket. Eventually, the
two students, Mike Polley, now at TI, and Susie Wee, now at HP,
simulated a complete system. It was a multiresolution system with three
levels of quality, using both OFDM and spread spectrum. The base-level
signal -- about NTSC resolution -- had a 6-dB threshold. It worked with
0-dB echoes, and is described in my paper “Advanced Television Systems
for Terrestrial Broadcasting,” Proc. IEEE, 82, 6, June 1995, pp 958-981.
I have a few copies of a complete report, including this paper and the
two theses, for anyone who is seriously interested.

The group I was then working with at MIT decided that it would be useful
to have a meeting of all those working on the subject as a means of
informing the FCC and the various DTV system proponents of this new
technology, then relatively unknown in the US. We had the assistance of
Ken Davies of the Canadian Broadcasting Corp and Gary Tonge of the
Independent Broadcast Authority in the UK in organizing the meeting and
inducing the Europeans to come. All the American system proponents were
invited as well as the FCC. The meeting was held at MIT in October
1992. Every lab in the world working on COFDM was represented, but
almost no system proponents or FCC people came. I still have a number of
the refusal letters; they were all “too busy.”

The next year, a committee representing ACATS did go to Europe in
accordance with the FCC directive. My opinion is that they were simply
going through the motions and were fully determined to find nothing that
would change their development plans. One of the stated reasons for the
turn-down was that their own system had already been fully developed,
and COFDM was in its infancy, to the extent that no equipment could be
purchased to be tested under US conditions. Now, seven years later,
some of the VSB proponents are asking us to wait while it is further
developed. VSB was approved by ACATS in 1995, so one would think that
in the ensuing four years, whatever work needed to be done to eliminate
its problems would have been done by now.

William F. Schreiber, 13 July 1999

Here are his patents.

http://www.wfschreiber.org/expert/wfs%20patents.html

and his web site

http://www.wfschreiber.org/pageone.html
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 1:09:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

Bob Miller wrote:

> Albert Manfredi wrote:

[ ... ]

>> There is no such thing as a free lunch. The decision to stick with
>> 8-VSB can only prove to be more and more advantageous, as time goes
>> by. Unfortunately, it took a long time to get to where it's really a
>> feasible scheme.
>
> Barely feasible.
>
> I was on the DMT side of the DSL controversy also. We had the first
> ADSL pipes in the country using prototype Amati ADSL modems in 1996.
>
> Where pray tell do you think single carrier is ahead in any of the
> venues you mention? All I see is COFDM everywhere even UWB which I
> might disagree with.

UWB is a good example, since the MBOA scheme might suffer from the peak
to average power problem, creating a potential for interference that the
CDMA variant wouldn't create. But that's not the drop-dead obvious
example.

The drop-dead obvious example is, of course, satellite communications.
Not many people in their right minds would suggest use of COFDM from
satellites, because what they need is the maximum possible spectral
efficiency at the lowest possible power. COFDM has its advantages, but
those two are not among them.

As I see it, with DTT, we are between two extremes.

In cellular communications, including wireless LAN hot spots, you are
creating very small cells. You want to maximize frequency reuse. You are
certainly not after long range, because that works against high
frequency reuse.

So in these cases, power is not a problem. You have plenty of power for
the distance you need to cover, and what you really need is to combat
multipath.

With satellite communications, it's the opposite. The receiver antenna
is typically a high gain design, which combats multipath by being aimed
straight to the source. The source must be line of sight.

DTT requires a bit of both. It requires the efficiency of the single
carrier options, and the multipath tolerance of the multicarrier option.
Because to achieve the wide area coverage required for DTT, especially
in large markets, you just can't beat the economics of installing a
small number of relatively large sticks. So you need good range. And you
need a lot of spectral efficiency too, because terrestrial spectrum is
in very high demand.

> Certainly not with 5th gen LG receivers where, while they are light
> years better than 4th gen, they cannot hold a candle to 1999 COFDM.

This is at least partially false.

According to the Canadian Research Council tests done in 2002, COFDM
required 31 dB of C/N to receive signals with a Brazil E profile (a
scenario where 3 equally loud echoes were present), at a spectral
efficiency of 3.3 b/s/Hz. According to the same CRC, the Linx and the LG
receivers both managed this with only 24.8 to 25 dB of C/N. And that's
for solid reception, where the signal could be dropped and reacquired.
That is a *substantial* improvement.

Now, dynamic multipath might be a different matter, but we simply don't
know yet. I'll grant you the possibility that, for now, the 1999 COFDM
receiver was better at dynamic multipath.

> We have wasted 5 years or better and billions of dollars not to
> mention the hassle factor and waste of consumers time and patience in
> the US to what purpose

Well, I won't argue against that point. I'll only suggest that given
where we are, we can and should now take advantage of the strengths of
this scheme.

Bert
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 1:18:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

Bob Miller wrote:

> BS!!
>
> The ATSC was following the back room deal made early in the history of
> the DTV transition that gave the modulation to Zenith. No one wanted
> to give COFDM any hearing. COFDM had to be ignored at all cost and it
> was right from the beginning.

Hey, perhaps so.

However, this doesn't say that the politics don't play a part in each
camp. You will note that all those who favored COFDM were also
personally and professionally involved in COFDM, in one way or another.
Not to say they were lying. Just to say that there were agendas on both
sides, *and* that we are now 8 years or so down the road.

You will also note that a lot of inflexible pronouncements about how
8-VSB will "never" achieve this or that goal have been proven
resoundingly wrong. Things change.

Time wasted? Yeah, probably. But that's past tense.

Bert
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 1:32:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

Bob Miller wrote:


Blather. Power still matters. Once can see from their
blurbs that the Europens do not try to serve a large
area. Stations in the US most certainly do!

Bob Miller is just one of these people who gets
a "bee in the bonnet" over some sort of "elegant" thing
and can't see why a less elegant solution is better in
a certain case.

Let me state again: power matters. In the final analysis
of coverage area, power (and tower height) and the laws
of physics are all that matter. The laws of physics tell
us how many bit/second/Hz can be received. If, as
DVB-T does, you THROW AWAY BITS, you need more power,
period, end of discussion (except for a better coding
scheme that gets closer to theory, of course, which would
be eaually applicable to COFDM and a single carrier system.)

Let me say again: in the real world of the United States
of America, power matters. With COFDM either my Fox station
would have to double their power or I would have to
build a big tower in order to install an antenna with
higher gain ... my current antenna is indoors and
getting all the signal that comes through the window,
and I am using a 0.6 dB preamp. Without more power,
COFDM would be highly UNreliable. ATSC is reliable.

That's the bottom line, and it is true all over our
town, except the far eastern edge, where you now need
a tall tower to get the station. With twice the power,
you would not need the tall tower. They would get
perhaps 30,000 more potential viewers. True, in this
case they will be installing a second satellite
station, at GREAT COST (a moderately full power station that covers
another city too).

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 8:48:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

Doug McDonald wrote:
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>
> Blather. Power still matters. Once can see from their
> blurbs that the Europens do not try to serve a large
> area. Stations in the US most certainly do!

The UK is covering the entire country. Germany will cover the entire
country. Most European countries are building country wide SFNs.
Australia and Russia have adopted COFDM with the intention of using is
in very big spaces. The best modulation for such large coverage areas is
obviously COFDM.
>
> Bob Miller is just one of these people who gets
> a "bee in the bonnet" over some sort of "elegant" thing
> and can't see why a less elegant solution is better in
> a certain case.

I do agree the 8-VSB is a LESS elegant solution. Uopps! Drop the
"solution" part.
>
> Let me state again: power matters. In the final analysis
> of coverage area, power (and tower height) and the laws
> of physics are all that matter. The laws of physics tell
> us how many bit/second/Hz can be received. If, as
> DVB-T does, you THROW AWAY BITS, you need more power,
> period, end of discussion (except for a better coding
> scheme that gets closer to theory, of course, which would
> be eaually applicable to COFDM and a single carrier system.)

Power does matter and it cost a lot too. Most countries have opted for
the low power cost of COFDM using SFNs. In the US we seem to have a
predilection for BIG powerful expensive and inefficient "solutions" that
don't work that well. We are rapidly falling behind other countries.
Maybe we could just buy back our government from the broadcasters and
other special interest.

Just yesterday we had the spectacal of NAB President and CEO Edward O.
Fritts sitting in the audience as the Senate Commerce Committee voted 13
to 9 to eviscerate Sen McCain's bill that would have set a fixed date of
2009 for the DTV transition. You could almost see the strings being
pulled. It is getting very transparent.
>
> Let me say again: in the real world of the United States
> of America, power matters. With COFDM either my Fox station
> would have to double their power or I would have to
> build a big tower in order to install an antenna with
> higher gain ... my current antenna is indoors and
> getting all the signal that comes through the window,
> and I am using a 0.6 dB preamp. Without more power,
> COFDM would be highly UNreliable. ATSC is reliable.

You keep saying "would be" when all the real world evidence around the
world says the opposite. COFDM IS reliable in very low power situations
in many countries while 8-VSB is NOTORIOUSLY UNRELIABLE in the few
countries that are using it at MONUMENTAL BIRD FRYING POWER.

Or don't you notice the inconsistency?

Lets say it another way. All countries using COFDM do so at much lower
power levels than the US uses with 8-VSB. In most of those countries the
ENTIRE country is the coverage area. It would seem they would like 8-VSB
even more than the US if what you say is true. But they don't use 8-VSB.
In fact they all use COFDM and a number of them actually switched TO
COFDM after initially picking 8-VSB after their broadcasters complained
about the poor reception and need for massive power with 8-VSB.

It is easy to look at the countries that have stuck with or chose 8-VSB
in the first place and in most of them there has been a big controversy
in which many, most or all broadcasters did oppose 8-VSB. This happened
in Canada, Mexico, Korea and the US. No such controversy or rethinking
has occurred in ANY country that has picked a COFDM system.

Bob Miller
>
> Doug McDonald
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 8:48:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

Bob Miller wrote:

>> blurbs that the Europens do not try to serve a large
>> area. Stations in the US most certainly do!
>
>
> The UK is covering the entire country.

The UK is the size of ONE US state.



> Germany will cover the entire
> country.

ditto.



> Most European countries are building country wide SFNs.
> Australia and Russia have adopted COFDM with the intention of using is
> in very big spaces. The best modulation for such large coverage areas is
> obviously COFDM.
>
No, it is 8-VSB. Australia and Russia went COFDM because
of politics. Note that Australia, when they tested,
intentionally did NOT test the far field well, and
kept their selection criteria secret. Russia went
European for obvious political reasons.

Doug





> Power does matter and it cost a lot too. Most countries have opted for
> the low power cost of COFDM using SFNs.

Yes, indeed. This is a viable method if you want
coverage of very dense populations in cities with
deep urban canyons, AND, have the cash to do it,
because of the dense population.



> In the US we seem to have a
> predilection for BIG powerful expensive and inefficient "solutions" that
> don't work that well.

Read "inefficient" as "efficient". And it works BETTER for our
purposes than COFDM.


>
>
> You keep saying "would be" when all the real world evidence around the
> world says the opposite.

Folks out there .... Miller is a partisan who says wrong things.

The real world evidence is that the power advantage of
ATSC in the far field is real.



> COFDM IS reliable in very low power situations
> in many countries while 8-VSB is NOTORIOUSLY UNRELIABLE in the few
> countries that are using it at MONUMENTAL BIRD FRYING POWER.
>
> Or don't you notice the inconsistency?

No, I do not. You are talking apples to my oranges. 8-VSB has
in fact been shown to work very well in the US. In England
it is simply ASSUMNED that you need a rooftop antenna
for DVB-T ... because of the too-low powers. In the US
we see people with antennas in the basement ... because
they get enough power there.



>
> Lets say it another way. All countries using COFDM do so at much lower
> power levels than the US uses with 8-VSB.

Correct ... and therefore their stations cannot and do no
cover the same large area that ours do.




> In most of those countries the
> ENTIRE country is the coverage area.

Well, yes .... if the USA were the size of Ohio and the
population density of New Jersey, you would have made
your point, ann IN FACT, the USA would have chosen COFDM!!!!

It's all a matter of population density.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 9:39:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

Doug McDonald wrote:
> Bob Miller wrote:

>> The UK is covering the entire country.
>
>
> The UK is the size of ONE US state.

So do you have a big stick solution that covers more than ONE state?

Only 11 states are larger than the UK while the UK is larger than the 11
smallest states in total. Not quite as simple as "ONE US state".

Do you have a single big stick solution for the combined area of CT, DE,
HI, MY, MA, NH, NJ, RI, VT, WV and SC?
>
>
>
>> Germany will cover the entire country.
>
>
> ditto.

And ditto for Germany, add 47,000 more miles or the state or Mississippi
to the above list. That makes 12 states to equal Germany.
>
>
>
>> Most European countries are building country wide SFNs. Australia and
>> Russia have adopted COFDM with the intention of using is in very big
>> spaces. The best modulation for such large coverage areas is obviously
>> COFDM.
>>
> No, it is 8-VSB. Australia and Russia went COFDM because
> of politics. Note that Australia, when they tested,
> intentionally did NOT test the far field well, and
> kept their selection criteria secret. Russia went
> European for obvious political reasons.

Australia went with 8-VSB initially BECAUSE OF POLITICS. It reversed its
position after TESTING because of the results of testing. It REVERSED
its position IN THE FACE OF INCREDIBLE POLITICAL PRESSURE FROM THE US.

Australia reversed its position from 8-VSB to COFDM because of the
technology AND IN SPITE of politics.

In this case you could not have gotten it more wrong.

Russia followed the lead of Europe. Russia did not even consider 8-VSB.
There is no reason other than politics to consider it and they was no
pressure from the US. So 8-VSB never was considered.
>
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>> Power does matter and it cost a lot too. Most countries have opted for
>> the low power cost of COFDM using SFNs.
>
>
> Yes, indeed. This is a viable method if you want
> coverage of very dense populations in cities with
> deep urban canyons, AND, have the cash to do it,
> because of the dense population.
>
>
>
>> In the US we seem to have a predilection for BIG powerful expensive
>> and inefficient "solutions" that don't work that well.
>
>
> Read "inefficient" as "efficient". And it works BETTER for our
> purposes than COFDM.
>
>
>>
>>
>> You keep saying "would be" when all the real world evidence around the
>> world says the opposite.
>
>
> Folks out there .... Miller is a partisan who says wrong things.
>
> The real world evidence is that the power advantage of
> ATSC in the far field is real.
>
>
>
>> COFDM IS reliable in very low power situations in many countries while
>> 8-VSB is NOTORIOUSLY UNRELIABLE in the few countries that are using it
>> at MONUMENTAL BIRD FRYING POWER.
>>
>> Or don't you notice the inconsistency?
>
>
> No, I do not. You are talking apples to my oranges. 8-VSB has
> in fact been shown to work very well in the US. In England
> it is simply ASSUMNED that you need a rooftop antenna
> for DVB-T ... because of the too-low powers. In the US
> we see people with antennas in the basement ... because
> they get enough power there.
>
>
>
>>
>> Lets say it another way. All countries using COFDM do so at much lower
>> power levels than the US uses with 8-VSB.
>
>
> Correct ... and therefore their stations cannot and do no
> cover the same large area that ours do.
>
>
>
>
>> In most of those countries the ENTIRE country is the coverage area.
>
>
> Well, yes .... if the USA were the size of Ohio and the
> population density of New Jersey, you would have made
> your point, ann IN FACT, the USA would have chosen COFDM!!!!
>
> It's all a matter of population density.
>
> Doug McDonald
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 10:19:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

>
>> In most of those countries the ENTIRE country is the coverage area.
>
>
> Well, yes .... if the USA were the size of Ohio and the
> population density of New Jersey, you would have made
> your point, ann IN FACT, the USA would have chosen COFDM!!!!
>
> It's all a matter of population density.

Like in Australia and Russia? How about Finland? Finland has 101,500 sq
miles, 5.2 million people. Ohio has 41,000 sq miles and 11.5 million
people. Finland has a COFDM SFN country wide. Ohio has a Bunch of big
sticks with MEGAWATTS of power.

Finland has a population density of 51.23 per sq mile. Ohio has a
density of 280 per sq mile. Ohio is 5.47 times as dense as Finland. Why
did Finland chose COFDM, and very enthusiastically I might add, if it is
all a matter of "population density" as you say?

Of course I could have used Australia as an example but you think there
is a conspiracy against 8-VSB in OZ. Would you mind filling me in on why
Australia has a conspiracy against 8-VSB?

BTW Australia the most sparsely populated continent after Antarctica. It
has a population density of 6.4 per sq mile. Ohio is 43.7 times more
DENSE than OZ. And OZ went WAY out of its way to SWITCH to COFDM FROM 8-VSB.

Your OZ conspiracy theory better be pretty good or your "It's all a
matter of population density" looks pretty weak.

Bob Miller

>
> Doug McDonald
Anonymous
September 25, 2004 12:02:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

"Bob Miller" wrote:

> So do you have a big stick solution that covers more than ONE state?
>
> Only 11 states are larger than the UK while the UK is larger than the
> 11 smallest states in total. Not quite as simple as "ONE US state".

You are getting ever more absurd, Bob.

Countries can be covered with COFDM or with 8-VSB. Statements like:

"Most European countries are building country wide SFNs. Australia and
Russia have adopted COFDM with the intention of using is in very big
spaces. The best modulation for such large coverage areas is obviously
COFDM."

are pretty nonsensical.

Either system can be used, even for nationwide SFNs, if you care to. And
the way this is done, in a practical implementation, is exactly the same
for either system.

The only advantage COFDM would have in terms of implementing an SFN
would be where the SFN is dense enough that adjacent towers are within
the guard interval (i.e. the round trip delay of the signal has to be
within the GI). In this case, COFDM has an advantage, due to its use of
a guard interval (GI) which can provide more echo tolerance range than
any current 8-VSB receiver has. But it seems highly unlikely that a
nationwide SFN would be built that way.

When covering large land areas, you will in practice use low-power
on-channel repeaters for difficult terrain, synchronized transmitters
for true wide area SFNs, or transmitters on the same frequency will be
far apart enough that there's a relatively dead zone between them (where
only directional antennas would be used by receivers, and would thereby
prevent interference).

In such cases, either system can work just fine. Both systems can be set
up for any of these scenarios.

Of course, more coverage for the same amount of ERP always helps, and
this favors 8-VSB. On the COFDM side, those localized dense SFNs within
an urban center might come in handy. COFDM can implement these without
having to synchronize transmitters.

Bert
Anonymous
September 25, 2004 2:00:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

Albert Manfredi wrote:
> "Bob Miller" wrote:
>
>> So do you have a big stick solution that covers more than ONE state?
>>
>> Only 11 states are larger than the UK while the UK is larger than the
>> 11 smallest states in total. Not quite as simple as "ONE US state".
>
>
> You are getting ever more absurd, Bob.
>
> Countries can be covered with COFDM or with 8-VSB. Statements like:
>
> "Most European countries are building country wide SFNs. Australia and
> Russia have adopted COFDM with the intention of using is in very big
> spaces. The best modulation for such large coverage areas is obviously
> COFDM."
>
> are pretty nonsensical.
>
> Either system can be used, even for nationwide SFNs, if you care to. And
> the way this is done, in a practical implementation, is exactly the same
> for either system.
>
> The only advantage COFDM would have in terms of implementing an SFN
> would be where the SFN is dense enough that adjacent towers are within
> the guard interval (i.e. the round trip delay of the signal has to be
> within the GI). In this case, COFDM has an advantage, due to its use of
> a guard interval (GI) which can provide more echo tolerance range than
> any current 8-VSB receiver has. But it seems highly unlikely that a
> nationwide SFN would be built that way.
>
> When covering large land areas, you will in practice use low-power
> on-channel repeaters for difficult terrain, synchronized transmitters
> for true wide area SFNs, or transmitters on the same frequency will be
> far apart enough that there's a relatively dead zone between them (where
> only directional antennas would be used by receivers, and would thereby
> prevent interference).
>
> In such cases, either system can work just fine. Both systems can be set
> up for any of these scenarios.
>
> Of course, more coverage for the same amount of ERP always helps, and
> this favors 8-VSB. On the COFDM side, those localized dense SFNs within
> an urban center might come in handy. COFDM can implement these without
> having to synchronize transmitters.
>
> Bert
>
You live in a strange world of make believe. Unreal!

Nobody is doing any of this with 8-VSB. Only four countries are even
theoretically committed to it.

No SFNs, no on channel repeaters and very little 8-VSB except where
MANDATED like in the US. Canada sits on its hands doing nothing. Mexico
pays lip service and S. Korea finally gets its broadcasters to start
using 8-VSB only because of the 5th gen receivers and the promise they
can use COFDM for mobile.

You can theoretically use 8-VSB but no country in its right mind is
doing so. (that leaves us the US)

You can use a shoe for a hammer, you can use a dead cat for a pillow I
can go on. As you say you can use 8-VSB for broadcasting.

8-VSB will be used by those who are forced, bribed or otherwise
manipulated to do so, no one else.

Its life span so far has been one of stagnation. Its future looks
limited. I give it a few more years before direct comparison to COFDM
will kill it outright.
That is as soon as broadcasters have to compete with multiple mobile
COFDM deliver services they will petition the FCC for a change and it
will happen without regard to the fact that even millions of 8-VSB
receivers are deployed.

All you have to do is witness our NAB CEO setting at the Senate Commerce
Committee hearings with his thumbs down on the McCain bill. Dutifully
the committee did the NABs bidding as they will as soon as COFDM becomes
competitive.
!