Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

8-VSB : modestly more power efficient than CODFM, but not ..

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
November 4, 2004 12:38:43 AM

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

8-VSB : modestly more power efficient than CODFM, but not as robust ... and
still suffers from single carrier wave modulation problems.

I would expect North American broadcasters to settle for using 2/3 rds the
energy of NTSC-M system, not 1/3 the energy as the case may be in some parts
of Europe.
Anonymous
November 4, 2004 12:33:39 PM

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

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 21:38:43 -0800, "HireMe.geek.nz"
<mikehack@u.washington.edu> wrote:


another BM troll? Obviously one shouldn't hire

>8-VSB : modestly more power efficient than CODFM, but not as robust ... and
>still suffers from single carrier wave modulation problems.

wrong..

1st. Get your acronyms' right.. COFDM not CODFM..

2nd. COFDM can't fit into a standard 6 Mhz US channel without
significant cross channel interference problems. (Not enough guard
band + plus spectral energy distribution is poorer)

3rd. If you do manage to squeeze a COFDM HDTV broadcast into a 6
Mhz channel, you end up sacrificing even more of your data reliability
and S/N ratio.

4th. COFDM has major impulse noise problems beyond the well known
8db S/N problem which are still not solved to this day. COFDM's
window of sensitivity to impulse noise generated uncorrectable errors
is several orders of magnitude smaller !! I.E. COFDM transmissions
are susceptible to ~1000x shorter noise impulse noise events and is
thusly much less reliable in the real world.

5th. The effective range of a 8VSB signal is vastly superior to
both COFDM and NTSC. I have no problems using a modest UHF Yagi to
pick up 8VSB signals at ranges exceeding 100km.


>
>I would expect North American broadcasters to settle for using 2/3 rds the
>energy of NTSC-M system, not 1/3 the energy as the case may be in some parts
>of Europe.

Huh. 8VSB has 8dB S/N power advantage over COFDM and that makes a
huge difference in deployment. B.T.W. If your try to increase
power to compensate for the COFDM S/N disadvantage then you run into
the cross channel interference bug-a-boo.

Lastly NTSC broadcasts are rated in Effective radiated power. The
average power output is well under 15% that number. Digital
broadcasts run near 100% power all the time, and another reason why
the FCC choose a more efficient modulation scheme. (US TV stations
would go broke from the COFDM energy costs.)

In summary.. the FCC had no options.
COFDM didn't offer a workable solution for the US.
Anonymous
November 4, 2004 12:36:05 PM

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

HireMe.geek.nz wrote:

> 8-VSB : modestly more power efficient than CODFM, but not as robust ... and
> still suffers from single carrier wave modulation problems.
>
> I would expect North American broadcasters to settle for using 2/3 rds the
> energy of NTSC-M system, not 1/3 the energy as the case may be in some parts
> of Europe.
>
>

Bob?
Related resources
Anonymous
November 4, 2004 5:28:47 PM

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

HireMe.geek.nz wrote:
> 8-VSB : modestly more power efficient than CODFM, but not as robust ... and
> still suffers from single carrier wave modulation problems.
>
> I would expect North American broadcasters to settle for using 2/3 rds the
> energy of NTSC-M system, not 1/3 the energy as the case may be in some parts
> of Europe.
>
>
You say "North American broadcasters" as if it was a club that does not
allow new members. That has been true for many years and many
broadcasters act to maintain that position but it is NOT true anymore.
If "North American broadcasters" do not have the tools to compete they
will not be joined by new members, they will be replaced by them.

Cable and satellite have whittled broadcasters direct customer base
down. As little as 15% of US consumers rely on OTA for TV. Broadcasters
up till now have not paid attention to OTA and have concentrated on
maintaining their power though political means that is must carry on cable.

They will lose the battle for must carry of all their digital
programming either at the FCC or in the courts and if it happens in the
courts they may lose must carry totally. They should tread lightly here.

They lost a MAJOR battle to the CEA industry that successfully
suppressed OTA by saddling it with 8-VSB. The CEA did so in a bizarre
way of thinking that if OTA was saddled with the a crippled OTA
modulation, 8-VSB, it would be incapable of mobile and that would insure
that it would be used for HDTV and they would sell more of their big
ticket, high profit margin HDTV sets.

Broadcasters lost to the CEA because they were terrified that Congress
would diminish or not allow must carry of their entire 6 MHz of
programming. (think multicasting). They would not raise their voice
(except Sinclair) to object.

The CEA lost because the crippled 8-VSB didn't sell. NO one wanted an
expensive receiver that didn't work very well. IN FACT more people
bought HDTV sets to watch 480i DVDS. How ironic. The CEA industry would
have been better off to promote DVDs that didn't even have HD
information than to bother with OTA.

For six years now the US has been stagnant in our digital OTA transition.

Now you have new broadcasters who will use COFDM for broadcasting to
cell phones. Next new broadcasters will use COFDM to broadcast to larger
screen like laptops and portable DTV sets. The FCC is promoting the
incidental use of unoccupied OTA spectrum for WiFi which uses COFDM.
Spectrum held hostage by broadcasters for years, channels 52 to 69, will
be freed up by Congress as early as 2009.

The power levels that current broadcasters in N. America feel better
about using are of NO consequence in the coming revolution. Their
remaining 15% of viewers will be parsed out among an every increasing
list of competitors that include a new group of broadcasters. These
broadcasters will pay attention to OTA because they do not have must
carry. They will use COFDM exclusively.

Current full power broadcasters when they first address the new reality
will try to compete using 8-VSB and then will ask the FCC and Congress
for the right to use COFDM. It will be granted in a heartbeat with no
consideration to current 8-VSB STBs.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
November 4, 2004 6:15:09 PM

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

Michael J. Sherman (msherman@dsbox.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> HireMe.geek.nz wrote:
>
> > 8-VSB : modestly more power efficient than CODFM, but not as robust ... and
> > still suffers from single carrier wave modulation problems.
>
> Bob?

No, it looks like a kid who has gotten access to their parent's (or older
siblings) University of Washington account, and is connecting through
NetZero.

If you can't afford DSL or cable modem, you're probably not able to afford
HDTV, either, so it's hard to have any experience with the subject of this
newsgroup.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/FoxTrot/TransporterError.j...
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
November 4, 2004 9:50:11 PM

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

Tim Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 21:38:43 -0800, "HireMe.geek.nz"
> <mikehack@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
> another BM troll? Obviously one shouldn't hire
>
>
>>8-VSB : modestly more power efficient than CODFM, but not as robust ... and
>>still suffers from single carrier wave modulation problems.
>
>
> wrong..
>
> 1st. Get your acronyms' right.. COFDM not CODFM..
>
> 2nd. COFDM can't fit into a standard 6 Mhz US channel without
> significant cross channel interference problems. (Not enough guard
> band + plus spectral energy distribution is poorer)

>
> 3rd. If you do manage to squeeze a COFDM HDTV broadcast into a 6
> Mhz channel, you end up sacrificing even more of your data reliability
> and S/N ratio.

They don't seem to be having any problems in OZ with their 7 MHz
channel. They actually deliver an SD and HD signal at the same time. The
HD signal is at 1080i and is delivered in less than a 6 MHz space. From
this story, URL below page 13, you can see that even then HD 1080i can
be received MOBILE with simple omni antenna. They do NOT have any of the
problems you enumerate with COFDM.

http://www.dvb.org/documents/newsletters/DVB-SCENE-08.p...

Funny thing is that OZ actually tested COFDM against 8-VSB. NO contest
they switched to COFDM.

>
> 4th. COFDM has major impulse noise problems beyond the well known
> 8db S/N problem which are still not solved to this day. COFDM's
> window of sensitivity to impulse noise generated uncorrectable errors
> is several orders of magnitude smaller !! I.E. COFDM transmissions
> are susceptible to ~1000x shorter noise impulse noise events and is
> thusly much less reliable in the real world.
>
> 5th. The effective range of a 8VSB signal is vastly superior to
> both COFDM and NTSC. I have no problems using a modest UHF Yagi to
> pick up 8VSB signals at ranges exceeding 100km.
>
>
>
>>I would expect North American broadcasters to settle for using 2/3 rds the
>>energy of NTSC-M system, not 1/3 the energy as the case may be in some parts
>>of Europe.
>
>
> Huh. 8VSB has 8dB S/N power advantage over COFDM and that makes a
> huge difference in deployment. B.T.W. If your try to increase
> power to compensate for the COFDM S/N disadvantage then you run into
> the cross channel interference bug-a-boo.
>
> Lastly NTSC broadcasts are rated in Effective radiated power. The
> average power output is well under 15% that number. Digital
> broadcasts run near 100% power all the time, and another reason why
> the FCC choose a more efficient modulation scheme. (US TV stations
> would go broke from the COFDM energy costs.)
>
> In summary.. the FCC had no options.
> COFDM didn't offer a workable solution for the US.

Tim,

Maybe you can explain why no one is using 8-VSB in any of the new
ventures in the works. COFDM seems to be the rage and at much lower
power levels.

Maybe you can explain why I can drive all over Manhattan, a terrible RF
environment, receiving COFDM from a 100 Watt transmitter while mobile?

BTW since you are all for accuracy in spelling maybe you could try
accuracy in your RF BS. An NTSC station broadcasting at an ERP
(effective radiated power) of 1000 kWs is replaced by a digital
equivalent of 100 kWs ERP. Digital stations are being authorized at 10%
the ERP of their analog counterparts. That is true for COFDM or 8-VSB.
And both digital and analog stations are rated in ERP. Your post suggest
that only NTSC channels are rated ERP.

If you are talking about the power rating of the transmitter compared to
the ERP of the station then that is a function of the antenna being
used. How directional an antenna is could radically affect the
relationship of the transmitter power to the ERP. An antenna shapes and
directs the power of the transmitter in a direction. You don't want to
deliver as much power vertically as you do to the horizon for instance.
This again is true for COFDM or 8-VSB. Your statement that "Digital
broadcasts run "near 100% power all the time" is nonsensical in the
context or any context I can imagine.

You seem to be suggesting the insane notion that an analog station
broadcasting at 1000 kWs would only have to be powered by 150 kWs while
a digital equivalent would need to have a full 1000 kWs of transmitter
power. Neither is true. The analog station at 1000 kWs of ERP may only
need a 50 kW transmitter or even less depending on the rating of the
antenna being used while its digital equivalent will only need to
deliver 100 kWs of ERP for the same or better reception characteristics.
Unfortunately the digital transmitter does not drop to 10% like the ERP
number. It only drops to 50%. The digital equivalent of the analog 50 kW
transmitter would be 25 kWs.

Think of it this way the digital transmitter has to maintain a plateau
across the 6 MHz channel while the analog transmitter has to maintain a
spike 10 times higher than that digital plateau. The volumes below that
plateau and the spike are not equivalent to the height of the spike or
the width of the plateau. Digital is 50% more efficient power wise,
again true for COFDM or 8-VSB.

At the power levels used in the US COFDM and 8-VSB deliver enough power
at the radio horizon for reception. COFDM is easier to receive in that
coverage area at all points period. The new 5th generation LG receivers
are no exception. We were able to defeat a 5th generation 8-VSB receiver
only 40 blocks from the Empire State Building with clear line of sight
on the 25th floor of the old AT&T building by simply standing in one
location relative to the dual bow tie antenna or walking in front of the
antenna. And those 8-VSB stations are broadcasting at up to a MILLION
WATTS ERP. From that same location, broadcasting at ONLY 100 Watts or
1000 Watts ERP (that is COFDM at 1/1000th the power level of 8-vSB) we
are able to drive around the Empire State Building with a simple 3 inch
omni antenna receiving COFDM mobile in the clutter of building, traffic
and people at ground level.

The difference in COFDM and 8-VSB is astounding. In a rational universe
they would no be considered as equivalent in the same century.

Sirius and XMRadio don't seem to be going broke using COFDM for their
terrestrial networks. Crown Castle and Qualcomm both will build national
COFDM networks in 5 and 6 MHz channels respectively. Believe me they
never considered 8-SVB to save on power. Just the opposite, COFDM will
give them far better coverage and save them big time on power bills.

The rest of your points as to COFDM are just as bogus as your info on
power needs of digital and analog.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
November 5, 2004 3:46:09 AM

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

>unny thing is that OZ actually tested COFDM against 8-VSB. NO contest
>they switched to COFDM.

For those just tuning in, BOB is our resident Snake Oil Salesman. You see, we
have had 8VSB as our modulation standard for over the air HD for years now. But
BOB lives in the past and simply can not get over the fact that the standard
has been set and COFDM is dead. To help you better understand BOB's motivation,
he had a business model and a considerable investment in COFDM. That business
model has gone POOF and so has BOB's brains. He comes here almost every day
with lies, distortions and 1/2 truths. Understand his motivation and you will
understand his lunacies.
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 2:41:30 PM

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

In article <20041104194609.11588.00000088@mb-m29.aol.com>, Vidguy7
<vidguy7@aol.com> wrote:

> >unny thing is that OZ actually tested COFDM against 8-VSB. NO contest
> >they switched to COFDM.
>
> For those just tuning in, BOB is our resident Snake Oil Salesman. You see, we
> have had 8VSB as our modulation standard for over the air HD for years now.
> But
> BOB lives in the past and simply can not get over the fact that the standard
> has been set and COFDM is dead. To help you better understand BOB's
> motivation,
> he had a business model and a considerable investment in COFDM. That business
> model has gone POOF and so has BOB's brains. He comes here almost every day
> with lies, distortions and 1/2 truths. Understand his motivation and you will
> understand his lunacies.

Agreed. But he does make for some interesting reading. Kind of like
trying to keep a good dog off of your leg.

--
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
November 8, 2004 5:02:25 PM

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

In article <20041104194609.11588.00000088@mb-m29.aol.com>,
vidguy7@aol.com (Vidguy7) wrote:

> For those just tuning in, BOB is our resident Snake Oil Salesman. You see, we
> have had 8VSB as our modulation standard for over the air HD for years now.
> But
> BOB lives in the past and simply can not get over the fact that the standard
> has been set and COFDM is dead. To help you better understand BOB's
> motivation,
> he had a business model and a considerable investment in COFDM. That business
> model has gone POOF and so has BOB's brains. He comes here almost every day
> with lies, distortions and 1/2 truths. Understand his motivation and you will
> understand his lunacies.

I still haven't figured out why I would ever want to watch TV on a cell
phone.
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 11:16:13 PM

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

Bruce Tomlin wrote:
> In article <20041104194609.11588.00000088@mb-m29.aol.com>,
> vidguy7@aol.com (Vidguy7) wrote:
>
>
>>For those just tuning in, BOB is our resident Snake Oil Salesman. You see, we
>>have had 8VSB as our modulation standard for over the air HD for years now.
>>But
>>BOB lives in the past and simply can not get over the fact that the standard
>>has been set and COFDM is dead. To help you better understand BOB's
>>motivation,
>>he had a business model and a considerable investment in COFDM. That business
>>model has gone POOF and so has BOB's brains. He comes here almost every day
>>with lies, distortions and 1/2 truths. Understand his motivation and you will
>>understand his lunacies.
>
>
> I still haven't figured out why I would ever want to watch TV on a cell
> phone.

Or why you would want a camera capability, GPS, database or even full PC
capability, the ability to check your blood sugar or any of the other
things that are now or soon will be available on a cell phone.

The reason is because it will differentiate one carrier from the other
(at first) and the customer picking a phone will see no or little
difference in the cost or size who why not. And soon most people who say
"why I would ever want to watch TV on a cell phone." will be seen,
occasionally, watching TV on a cell phone.

Bob Miller

BTW there are actually five ventures using COFDM that plan on delivering
DTV to a national US base. XM and Sirius both talk of doing it, Qualcomm
has announced, Crown Castle has announced and there is another. Three of
them do not target cell phones in particular, at all or exclusively.
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 12:11:51 AM

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

On 2004-11-08, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Bruce Tomlin wrote:
>> In article <20041104194609.11588.00000088@mb-m29.aol.com>,
>> vidguy7@aol.com (Vidguy7) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>For those just tuning in, BOB is our resident Snake Oil Salesman. You see, we
>>>have had 8VSB as our modulation standard for over the air HD for years now.
>>>But
>>>BOB lives in the past and simply can not get over the fact that the standard
>>>has been set and COFDM is dead. To help you better understand BOB's
>>>motivation,
>>>he had a business model and a considerable investment in COFDM. That business
>>>model has gone POOF and so has BOB's brains. He comes here almost every day
>>>with lies, distortions and 1/2 truths. Understand his motivation and you will
>>>understand his lunacies.
>>
>>
>> I still haven't figured out why I would ever want to watch TV on a cell
>> phone.
>
> Or why you would want a camera capability, GPS, database or even full PC
> capability, the ability to check your blood sugar or any of the other
> things that are now or soon will be available on a cell phone.
>
> The reason is because it will differentiate one carrier from the other
> (at first) and the customer picking a phone will see no or little
> difference in the cost or size who why not. And soon most people who say
> "why I would ever want to watch TV on a cell phone." will be seen,
> occasionally, watching TV on a cell phone.
>

Probably while running a red light.
November 11, 2004 2:55:05 AM

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

Golly, I can't imagine anything more satisfying than watching TV on a 3"
> screen. Great idea BOB!
>
Stop being so down on Bob. Sony already has plans to market a 42 inch
cellphone to take advantage of this new feature. I can't wait.

Richard.
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 3:39:56 AM

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

>Stop being so down on Bob. Sony already has plans to market a 42 inch
>cellphone to take advantage of this new feature. I can't wait.

Damn Rich, why didn't I think of that!!!
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 3:44:38 AM

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

Richard wrote:
> Golly, I can't imagine anything more satisfying than watching TV on a 3"
>
>>screen. Great idea BOB!
>>
>
> Stop being so down on Bob. Sony already has plans to market a 42 inch
> cellphone to take advantage of this new feature. I can't wait.
>
> Richard.
>
>
Never have advocated cell phone reception of DTV. We address larger
screens though our market is mobile. Our broadcast would be receivable
on cell phones but the bit rate would allow much larger screens. The
reality is however that many larger firms are zeroing in on DTV to cell
phones. This is true in the US, Europe and Asia.

They expect it to be bigger than camera phones for instance.

Personally I would not like to watch much DTV on a cell phone size
screen but we all will.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 5:23:13 PM

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

>Personally I would not like to watch much DTV on a cell phone size
>screen but we all will.

Wanna bet? Do you really think 'everybody' will buy a phone with an extra cost
feature they won't use? And, contrary to what you think or imply, these tuners
will not be included for 'free'. I well remember your 'free' COFDM HD receivers
of several years back BOB. I'm still waiting for those.
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 6:08:03 PM

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

Vidguy7 (vidguy7@aol.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> >Personally I would not like to watch much DTV on a cell phone size
> >screen but we all will.
>
> Wanna bet? Do you really think 'everybody' will buy a phone with an extra cost
> feature they won't use?

The only way phones will be used to "watch TV" is if the "TV" isn't limited
to OTA, but has some of the most desired cable content, and sports would
be the #1 thing there. For a sports geek, being able to keep track of
your team would be a extra worth paying for, but nobody will use a phone
to watch a soap opera or even the news.

> And, contrary to what you think or imply, these tuners
> will not be included for 'free'.

Like satellite hardware, these TV tuners for phones *might* be free if
you were required to subscribe to a year of pay content. But, then we
aren't talking about OTA TV anymore.

--
Jeff Rife | "Because he was human; because he had goodness;
SPAM bait: | because he was moral they called him insane.
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | Delusions of grandeur; visions of splendor;
spam@ftc.gov | A manic-depressive, he walks in the rain."
| -- Rush, "Cinderella Man"
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 6:42:11 PM

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

Vidguy7 wrote:
>>Personally I would not like to watch much DTV on a cell phone size
>>screen but we all will.
>
>
> Wanna bet? Do you really think 'everybody' will buy a phone with an extra cost
> feature they won't use? And, contrary to what you think or imply, these tuners
> will not be included for 'free'. I well remember your 'free' COFDM HD receivers
> of several years back BOB. I'm still waiting for those.

Cell phones with DTV reception capability using COFDM will be marginally
more expensive. Carriers will use them to entice new customers just like
they now use camera phones. The difference in cost will be so small that
a very high percentage of cell phones will have DTV capability within a
few years.

The free COFDM receivers will appear as soon as the digital transition
in the US gets into gear. The spectrum for this is not yet available.

The free receiver concept is not limited to COFDM. It is part of a
business plan that REQUIRES receivers that work plug and play. Until now
8-VSB did not have such a receiver. 5th gen receivers due out soon are
plug and play 8-VSB receivers so business plans that offer free
receivers will proliferate. The first one, USDTV, is already in business
and offers receivers for $19.95. Next year that will be reduced to ZERO
by USDTV and others because of 5th gen receivers.

The Crown Castle and Qualcomm ventures will produce plans by cellular
companies that will also include free COFDM receivers. There will be
other ventures both COFDM and 8-VSB offering free receivers with
subscription services in the US for HD, SD and ED resolutions. As they
succeed you can expect current broadcasters to petition Congress for a
change in US modulation to a COFDM based one. When they do it will
happen almost immediately. There will be no discussion. It will happen
in the middle of the night quietly just like 8-VSB was picked because
all parties will understand that it is in their best interest.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
November 12, 2004 1:39:42 AM

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

Jeff Rife wrote:
> Vidguy7 (vidguy7@aol.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>>Personally I would not like to watch much DTV on a cell phone size
>>>screen but we all will.
>>
>>Wanna bet? Do you really think 'everybody' will buy a phone with an extra cost
>>feature they won't use?
>
>
> The only way phones will be used to "watch TV" is if the "TV" isn't limited
> to OTA, but has some of the most desired cable content, and sports would
> be the #1 thing there. For a sports geek, being able to keep track of
> your team would be a extra worth paying for, but nobody will use a phone
> to watch a soap opera or even the news.
>
>
>> And, contrary to what you think or imply, these tuners
>>will not be included for 'free'.
>
>
> Like satellite hardware, these TV tuners for phones *might* be free if
> you were required to subscribe to a year of pay content. But, then we
> aren't talking about OTA TV anymore.
>
Sorry it is still OTA TV even if you have to pay for it. Most OTA TV in
the future will be paid for. Broadcasters will surprise you with their
plans soon after the question of must carry is settled by the FCC. If it
is settled in their favor (all content they can fit into their 6 MHz
channel must be carried by cable) you can expect a flood of OTA SD
programming of which all but one channel will be part of a subscription
service. Broadcasters then can expect to lose ALL must carry rights in
the courts.

If they lose their fight at the FCC for must carry of all content then
expect more free OTA HD.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
November 12, 2004 2:21:13 AM

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

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bfd90aa35c6d3bd9898ea@news.nabs.net...
: Vidguy7 (vidguy7@aol.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
: > >Personally I would not like to watch much DTV on a cell phone
size
: > >screen but we all will.
: >
: > Wanna bet? Do you really think 'everybody' will buy a phone with
an extra cost
: > feature they won't use?
:
: The only way phones will be used to "watch TV" is if the "TV" isn't
limited
: to OTA, but has some of the most desired cable content, and sports
would
: be the #1 thing there. For a sports geek, being able to keep track
of
: your team would be a extra worth paying for, but nobody will use a
phone
: to watch a soap opera

You obviously don't know my wife... GH to the death. Lord Help ME!

or even the news.
:
: > And, contrary to what you think or imply,
these tuners
: > will not be included for 'free'.
:
: Like satellite hardware, these TV tuners for phones *might* be free
if
: you were required to subscribe to a year of pay content. But, then
we
: aren't talking about OTA TV anymore.
:
: --
: Jeff Rife | "Because he was human; because he had goodness;
: SPAM bait: | because he was moral they called him insane.
: AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | Delusions of grandeur; visions of splendor;
: spam@ftc.gov | A manic-depressive, he walks in the rain."
: | -- Rush, "Cinderella Man"
:
Anonymous
November 12, 2004 5:48:57 PM

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

> As they
>succeed you can expect current broadcasters to petition Congress for a
>change in US modulation to a COFDM based one. When they do it will
>happen almost immediately.

It never ends does it BOB? It just never ends. So now, as 8VSB becomes even
more entrenched than ever, you are still predicting this "almost immediate"
switch to COFDM? BOB, can you spell d-e-l-u-s-i-o-n-a-l?
!