Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Haste makes waste

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 11:55:35 PM

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

Now that the US is seven years into the transition from analog TV to DTV
I would like to ask the question, what did we gain by being in a hurry
to chose 8-VSB and what did we gain by locking in MPEG2 as the standard
compression?

Back in 2000 when it was evident that 8-VSB had problems and COFDM was
suggested as a possible option one of the main reasons given why the US
could not switch to or also allow COFDM was the delay that would be
caused. This argument did not deter Taiwan or Australia from switching
to COFDM but the US did not.

We now see that Australia, which is the only country to mandate HDTV, is
at least seven times farther ahead of the US in terms of the sale of
digital receivers even though they started many years later. The delay
argument seems to have been wrong.

In Europe we see that the UK is far ahead of us with 25% of households
with an OTA digital receiver compared to our 1%. Italy which just
started six months ago will pass the US in % of households with OTA DTV
by the end of their first year. These countries do not do HDTV which was
their conscious choice but now France is about to broadcast HDTV and I
expect that they will do almost as well as Japan where in just one year
with only 3 cities broadcasting they have had sales of over 1.6 million
receivers and 97% of those are in integrated sets.

By 2008 all these countries and more including China will be far ahead
of the US in OTA DTV whether they are doing HD or SD.

And any country coming on line with OTA DTV now will also have the
benefit of a far better compression standard like MPEG4 AVC. China and
France will.

So what did we gain by being in a rush back in 1998? What was the hurry?
I suggest that if we had done nothing till now and started now with
MPEG4 and COFDM we would be far better off for the indefinite future. Of
course we would be even better off if we had done it in 2003, 2002, 2001
or 2000. But even if we had delayed till today we would still be far
better off if we had waited till now and then chosen COFDM and MPEG4,
VC1 or VP6.

Bob Miller

More about : haste makes waste

Anonymous
November 8, 2004 11:55:36 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:

> Now that the US is seven years into the transition from analog TV to DTV
> I would like to ask the question, what did we gain by being in a hurry
> to chose 8-VSB and what did we gain by locking in MPEG2 as the standard
> compression?
>

An opportunity to get harangued endlessly by a monomaniacal, failed
business owner.

Other than that, we got a perfectly workable HDTV system.

Matthew
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 11:55:36 PM

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

The lobbyists for the 8-VSB group spent more money, gave away more and
better gifts, trips and bribes, and provided higher quality hookers.



"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:b3Rjd.21322$KJ6.12890@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Now that the US is seven years into the transition from analog TV to DTV
> I would like to ask the question, what did we gain by being in a hurry
> to chose 8-VSB and what did we gain by locking in MPEG2 as the standard
> compression?
>
> Back in 2000 when it was evident that 8-VSB had problems and COFDM was
> suggested as a possible option one of the main reasons given why the US
> could not switch to or also allow COFDM was the delay that would be
> caused. This argument did not deter Taiwan or Australia from switching
> to COFDM but the US did not.
>
> We now see that Australia, which is the only country to mandate HDTV, is
> at least seven times farther ahead of the US in terms of the sale of
> digital receivers even though they started many years later. The delay
> argument seems to have been wrong.
>
> In Europe we see that the UK is far ahead of us with 25% of households
> with an OTA digital receiver compared to our 1%. Italy which just
> started six months ago will pass the US in % of households with OTA DTV
> by the end of their first year. These countries do not do HDTV which was
> their conscious choice but now France is about to broadcast HDTV and I
> expect that they will do almost as well as Japan where in just one year
> with only 3 cities broadcasting they have had sales of over 1.6 million
> receivers and 97% of those are in integrated sets.
>
> By 2008 all these countries and more including China will be far ahead
> of the US in OTA DTV whether they are doing HD or SD.
>
> And any country coming on line with OTA DTV now will also have the
> benefit of a far better compression standard like MPEG4 AVC. China and
> France will.
>
> So what did we gain by being in a rush back in 1998? What was the hurry?
> I suggest that if we had done nothing till now and started now with
> MPEG4 and COFDM we would be far better off for the indefinite future. Of
> course we would be even better off if we had done it in 2003, 2002, 2001
> or 2000. But even if we had delayed till today we would still be far
> better off if we had waited till now and then chosen COFDM and MPEG4,
> VC1 or VP6.
>
> Bob Miller
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 11:55:36 PM

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

I got it Booby, you get paid to post this BS, but only if folks comment, so
if we stop commenting will you stop getting paid and just go away? Your
almost funny.


"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:b3Rjd.21322$KJ6.12890@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Now that the US is seven years into the transition from analog TV to DTV
> .....
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 11:55:36 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:

> Now that the US is seven years into the transition from analog TV to DTV
> I would like to ask the question, what did we gain by being in a hurry
> to chose 8-VSB

a reduction by a factor of two in needed transmitter average power,
and a corresponding increase in coverage area.


>and what did we gain by locking in MPEG2 as the standard
> compression?

Well, since it was the only game in town and nobody
in their right mind would have accepted a "variable"
compression system, since it could obsolete old decoders
with less than enough memory, there was no choice.


And we, even with Japan have some HDTV, are the only
country with a country wide almost fully functional
HDTV system with several channels. Australia lags
badly with HDTV programming.

Basically, we are the HDTV leader by far.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 12:50:31 AM

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

Henry Cabot Henhouse III wrote:
> The lobbyists for the 8-VSB group spent more money, gave away more and
> better gifts, trips and bribes, and provided higher quality hookers.

You are absolutely right. I remember a number of major parties by CEA
companies for such as Congressman Billy Tauzin in 2000.

The COFDM side did none of those things. They were politically neutered.
Most of the members of the DVB-T COFDM Group were also members of the
CEA so the COFDM side had no one to defend it but Sinclair and a couple
of other broadcasters brave enough to speak up. The DVB-T COFDM group
said nothing at all. They were instructed by the CEA companies to stay
out of it. Didn't even send a letter to the Congressional hearings.
Nokia sent a letter and Pace showed up for the hearings. Suppliers to
the TV broadcasters also were mum on the subject since to speak up was
to possibly lose a customer. What they did not factor in that to not
speak up was to have a stagnate business for many years.

One set of companies that got caught in the "don't delay, it will cost
us money" were the transmitter companies. They thought that as soon as
they could get rid of the COFDM dispute that they would sell a lot of
full power transmitters like immediately. Surprise, surprise were they
when the broadcasters had the FCC allow them to do low power
broadcasting indefinitely. No sale!!!

If COFDM had been allowed broadcasters would have gone full power ASAP
and Harris and others would have been far better off. In fact LG would
have been far better off since they would have sold far more profit rich
HDTV sets over the last five years for actual HD instead of only for
those who wanted to watch DVDs. How much in profits has LG made of the
non-existent 8-VSB receiver sales?

Bob Miller
>
>
>
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:b3Rjd.21322$KJ6.12890@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Now that the US is seven years into the transition from analog TV to DTV
>>I would like to ask the question, what did we gain by being in a hurry
>>to chose 8-VSB and what did we gain by locking in MPEG2 as the standard
>>compression?
>>
>>Back in 2000 when it was evident that 8-VSB had problems and COFDM was
>>suggested as a possible option one of the main reasons given why the US
>>could not switch to or also allow COFDM was the delay that would be
>>caused. This argument did not deter Taiwan or Australia from switching
>>to COFDM but the US did not.
>>
>>We now see that Australia, which is the only country to mandate HDTV, is
>>at least seven times farther ahead of the US in terms of the sale of
>>digital receivers even though they started many years later. The delay
>>argument seems to have been wrong.
>>
>>In Europe we see that the UK is far ahead of us with 25% of households
>>with an OTA digital receiver compared to our 1%. Italy which just
>>started six months ago will pass the US in % of households with OTA DTV
>>by the end of their first year. These countries do not do HDTV which was
>>their conscious choice but now France is about to broadcast HDTV and I
>>expect that they will do almost as well as Japan where in just one year
>>with only 3 cities broadcasting they have had sales of over 1.6 million
>>receivers and 97% of those are in integrated sets.
>>
>>By 2008 all these countries and more including China will be far ahead
>>of the US in OTA DTV whether they are doing HD or SD.
>>
>>And any country coming on line with OTA DTV now will also have the
>>benefit of a far better compression standard like MPEG4 AVC. China and
>>France will.
>>
>>So what did we gain by being in a rush back in 1998? What was the hurry?
>>I suggest that if we had done nothing till now and started now with
>>MPEG4 and COFDM we would be far better off for the indefinite future. Of
>>course we would be even better off if we had done it in 2003, 2002, 2001
>>or 2000. But even if we had delayed till today we would still be far
>>better off if we had waited till now and then chosen COFDM and MPEG4,
>>VC1 or VP6.
>>
>>Bob Miller
>
>
>
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 12:50:32 AM

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

Bob Miller wrote:


>
> If COFDM had been allowed broadcasters would have gone full power ASAP
> and Harris and others would have been far better off. In fact LG would
> have been far better off since they would have sold far more profit rich
> HDTV sets over the last five years for actual HD instead of only for
> those who wanted to watch DVDs. How much in profits has LG made of the
> non-existent 8-VSB receiver sales?


No Bob, we would not be as far along, because COFDM would have
cut the service area of transmitters which could not double their
power because of interference, and because a "maximization"
process could not go as far because COFDM takes twice the power.

The reason we are not farther along is because the FCC has
not been stern enough demanding full power and HDTV.

That is the only reason.

8-VSB works great ... I see this out here in the
real world all the time. It is no problem at all. However,
POWER MATTERS A LOT.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 4:55:35 AM

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

In article <cmp18l$g9l$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>,
Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> writes:
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>
>>
>> If COFDM had been allowed broadcasters would have gone full power ASAP
>> and Harris and others would have been far better off. In fact LG would
>> have been far better off since they would have sold far more profit rich
>> HDTV sets over the last five years for actual HD instead of only for
>> those who wanted to watch DVDs. How much in profits has LG made of the
>> non-existent 8-VSB receiver sales?
>
>
> No Bob, we would not be as far along, because COFDM would have
> cut the service area of transmitters which could not double their
> power because of interference, and because a "maximization"
> process could not go as far because COFDM takes twice the power.
>
As you know (and perhaps others don't), alot of the problems
with receiving HDTV OTA are related to the very wide power level
differences between HDTV and NTSC, and also impulse noise is
a serious problem. COFDM doesn't address those issues, but actually
is generally worse.

John
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 11:40:50 PM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:b3Rjd.21322$KJ6.12890@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> These countries do not do HDTV which was their conscious choice but now
France is about to broadcast HDTV .../... And any country coming on line
with OTA DTV now will also have the benefit of a far better compression
standard like > MPEG4 AVC. China and France will.
>
Bob,
FYI, the french government just decided not to use MPEG-4 AVC nor HD for the
FTA part of digital terrestrial due to start in March 2005 (15 channels, out
of which 10 new ones), but just plain old DVB-T / MPEG-2, and I think it was
a wise decision. The main reasons of this choice reasons were:
1/ Not to delay the project, which aim is to offer more channels to 70% of
the population which does not have cable nor satellite with avery cheap
adapter (cost today is in the order of 75 Euros). MPEG-4 in HD would have at
least halved the number of possible new channels before analog switch-off,
which is not planned before 2010.
2/ MPEG-4 AVC, especially in HD, has never been tested in real conditions of
terrestrial transmission, but it's certain that it will be more sensitive to
transmission problems (due to its lower redundancy than MPEG-2), so it would
certainly require to use more robust parameters of DVB-T than those retained
for the current plan (8K, 64QAM, FEC=2/3, GI = 1/32 which correspond to 24
Mb/s in our 8 MHz channels) in order to keep the same coverage.
In addition, the goal of the DVB-T deployment is as far as possible to use
the existing antennas (digital channels are adjacent to analog channels
wherever possible) or indoor antennas in strong field areas.
So MPEG-4 AVC will possibly be used for the second phase of the DVB-T
deployment, which is pay TV and is due to start later than FTA (to be
decided in one or two months).
It will certainly be used for other forms of DTV (satellite, cable and
ADSL), which are much less difficult in term of transmission than
terrestrial.
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 11:40:51 PM

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

Hervé Benoit wrote:

> 2/ MPEG-4 AVC, especially in HD, has never been tested in real conditions of
> terrestrial transmission, but it's certain that it will be more sensitive to
> transmission problems (due to its lower redundancy than MPEG-2),

This is not true. MPEG itself has no redundancy at all: it basically
requires a perfect transmission. It's the job of the pre-MPEG
error correction to achieve this.



Doug McDonald
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 1:10:56 AM

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

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> a écrit dans le message de
news:cmtske$vkj$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
> Hervé Benoit wrote:
>
> > 2/ MPEG-4 AVC, especially in HD, has never been tested in real
conditions of
> > terrestrial transmission, but it's certain that it will be more
sensitive to
> > transmission problems (due to its lower redundancy than MPEG-2),
>
> This is not true. MPEG itself has no redundancy at all: it basically
> requires a perfect transmission. It's the job of the pre-MPEG
> error correction to achieve this.
>
A non compressed video signal has a lot of intrinsic redundancy : adjacent
pixels are most of the time identical and two consecutive pictures are very
similar, and all compression systems take advantage of this intrinsic
"redundancy"(or repetition if you prefer) in order not to repeat things that
don't change or change in a "predictable" manner (movement vectors etc).
Therefore after compression the video signal is much more sensitive to
errors : in a non compressed picture, a byte in error would most probably
affect only one pixel and you would hardly see it.
In a compressed picture, depending where this error occurs in the stream, it
could affect one macroblock or one or more frames.
MPEG-4 AVC is worse than MPEG-2 from this point of view because there are
more frames depending on each other, therefore the "remaining redundancy" is
much less than in MPEG-2 (that's why it's more effective).
Forward Error Correction (FEC) algorithms are used on transmission side
(Reed Solomon and Viterbi coding) which add a calculated redundancy which
allows to correct (hopefully) most errors due to transmission and aim in
resulting in a "quasi error free transmission channel" (BER between 10E-10
and 10E-11, about one error per hour) between the output of the MPEG encoder
and the input of the MPEG decoder.
If this process works fine in satellite and cable, it's different in
terrestrial because this channel is much more variable and affected by
disturbances like impulse noise or others, especially if the antenna is not
optimal.
Therefore, in terrestrial transmission, MPEG-4 AVC will probably require
either a stronger Forward Error Correction (more redundancy, for example
FEC=1/2 instead of 2/3) or a lower order of modulation (less modulation
states, for example 16 QAM instead of 64 QAM) to achieve an equivalent
global robustness than MPEG-2.
All these parameters are adjustable in DVB-T, so it's not a problem for the
system, but if you increase robustness, you decrease the bitrate, so there
is always a tradeoff and you have to make a choice.
Hervé
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 1:10:57 AM

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

Hervé Benoit wrote:


> Therefore, in terrestrial transmission, MPEG-4 AVC will probably require
> either a stronger Forward Error Correction

No. It is well known that even a one byte error .. sometimes
a one bit error ... is visible in MPEG2. This is frequent enough,
and the steepness of the error rate versus signal level so steep,
that basically you already need an essentially zero rate at the
output of Reed Solomon. Hence MPEG4 is no more sensitive.

More error correcting within DVB-T per se will likely not help
much, as it is so sensitive to things like impulse noise. You
would need a better system entirely, with less impulse sensitivity and
a better (longer) interleaving system.

Such systems are of course already available, in ATSC or
ISDB.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 1:42:58 AM

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

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> a écrit dans le message de
news:cmu0n8$1bt$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
> Hervé Benoit wrote:
>
>
> > Therefore, in terrestrial transmission, MPEG-4 AVC will probably require
> > either a stronger Forward Error Correction
>
> No. It is well known that even a one byte error .. sometimes
> a one bit error ... is visible in MPEG2. This is frequent enough,
> and the steepness of the error rate versus signal level so steep,
> that basically you already need an essentially zero rate at the
> output of Reed Solomon. Hence MPEG4 is no more sensitive.
>
> More error correcting within DVB-T per se will likely not help
> much, as it is so sensitive to things like impulse noise. You
> would need a better system entirely, with less impulse sensitivity and
> a better (longer) interleaving system.
>
> Such systems are of course already available, in ATSC or
> ISDB.
>
Its's really nice to see that there are a few people who know everything !
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 2:01:57 AM

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

Doug McDonald wrote:
> Hervé Benoit wrote:
>
>> 2/ MPEG-4 AVC, especially in HD, has never been tested in real
>> conditions of
>> terrestrial transmission, but it's certain that it will be more
>> sensitive to
>> transmission problems (due to its lower redundancy than MPEG-2),
>
>
> This is not true. MPEG itself has no redundancy at all: it basically
> requires a perfect transmission. It's the job of the pre-MPEG
> error correction to achieve this.
>
>
>
> Doug McDonald

Again I find myself agreeing with Doug. Strange. I think France made a
bad choice. I thought it was decided. Too bad.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 2:12:38 AM

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

Honestly, I don't give a Rat$a$$ which the government chooses, as long
as I, as a consumer, get a reliable picture at a reasonable price.

The choice has been made, and I'm very happy with the result. It
works for me as a consumer.

It looks like you didn't work hard enuf 7 or 8 years ago, and now you
can't get over it. You lost just like Beta lost to VHS. "Sorry
Charlie"... err.. Bob.

Russ




"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:b3Rjd.21322$KJ6.12890@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
: Now that the US is seven years into the transition from analog TV to
DTV
: I would like to ask the question, what did we gain by being in a
hurry
: to chose 8-VSB and what did we gain by locking in MPEG2 as the
standard
: compression?
:
: Back in 2000 when it was evident that 8-VSB had problems and COFDM
was
: suggested as a possible option one of the main reasons given why the
US
: could not switch to or also allow COFDM was the delay that would be
: caused. This argument did not deter Taiwan or Australia from
switching
: to COFDM but the US did not.
:
: We now see that Australia, which is the only country to mandate
HDTV, is
: at least seven times farther ahead of the US in terms of the sale of
: digital receivers even though they started many years later. The
delay
: argument seems to have been wrong.
:
: In Europe we see that the UK is far ahead of us with 25% of
households
: with an OTA digital receiver compared to our 1%. Italy which just
: started six months ago will pass the US in % of households with OTA
DTV
: by the end of their first year. These countries do not do HDTV which
was
: their conscious choice but now France is about to broadcast HDTV and
I
: expect that they will do almost as well as Japan where in just one
year
: with only 3 cities broadcasting they have had sales of over 1.6
million
: receivers and 97% of those are in integrated sets.
:
: By 2008 all these countries and more including China will be far
ahead
: of the US in OTA DTV whether they are doing HD or SD.
:
: And any country coming on line with OTA DTV now will also have the
: benefit of a far better compression standard like MPEG4 AVC. China
and
: France will.
:
: So what did we gain by being in a rush back in 1998? What was the
hurry?
: I suggest that if we had done nothing till now and started now with
: MPEG4 and COFDM we would be far better off for the indefinite
future. Of
: course we would be even better off if we had done it in 2003, 2002,
2001
: or 2000. But even if we had delayed till today we would still be far
: better off if we had waited till now and then chosen COFDM and
MPEG4,
: VC1 or VP6.
:
: Bob Miller
:
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 3:20:18 AM

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

Hervé Benoit wrote:
> "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> a écrit dans le message de
> news:cmtske$vkj$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>
>>Hervé Benoit wrote:
>>
>>
>>>2/ MPEG-4 AVC, especially in HD, has never been tested in real
>
> conditions of
>
>>>terrestrial transmission, but it's certain that it will be more
>
> sensitive to
>
>>>transmission problems (due to its lower redundancy than MPEG-2),
>>
>>This is not true. MPEG itself has no redundancy at all: it basically
>>requires a perfect transmission. It's the job of the pre-MPEG
>>error correction to achieve this.
>>
>
> A non compressed video signal has a lot of intrinsic redundancy : adjacent
> pixels are most of the time identical and two consecutive pictures are very
> similar, and all compression systems take advantage of this intrinsic
> "redundancy"(or repetition if you prefer) in order not to repeat things that
> don't change or change in a "predictable" manner (movement vectors etc).
> Therefore after compression the video signal is much more sensitive to
> errors : in a non compressed picture, a byte in error would most probably
> affect only one pixel and you would hardly see it.
> In a compressed picture, depending where this error occurs in the stream, it
> could affect one macroblock or one or more frames.
> MPEG-4 AVC is worse than MPEG-2 from this point of view because there are
> more frames depending on each other, therefore the "remaining redundancy" is
> much less than in MPEG-2 (that's why it's more effective).
> Forward Error Correction (FEC) algorithms are used on transmission side
> (Reed Solomon and Viterbi coding) which add a calculated redundancy which
> allows to correct (hopefully) most errors due to transmission and aim in
> resulting in a "quasi error free transmission channel" (BER between 10E-10
> and 10E-11, about one error per hour) between the output of the MPEG encoder
> and the input of the MPEG decoder.
> If this process works fine in satellite and cable, it's different in
> terrestrial because this channel is much more variable and affected by
> disturbances like impulse noise or others, especially if the antenna is not
> optimal.
> Therefore, in terrestrial transmission, MPEG-4 AVC will probably require
> either a stronger Forward Error Correction (more redundancy, for example
> FEC=1/2 instead of 2/3) or a lower order of modulation (less modulation
> states, for example 16 QAM instead of 64 QAM) to achieve an equivalent
> global robustness than MPEG-2.
> All these parameters are adjustable in DVB-T, so it's not a problem for the
> system, but if you increase robustness, you decrease the bitrate, so there
> is always a tradeoff and you have to make a choice.
> Hervé
>
>

A glitch can be more visible in MPEG4 (last longer depending on encoding
profiles) however the amount of extra error correction required to
counteract this is very very small fraction of the efficiency gain of
AVC over MPEG2. In other words why are you worried about aproximately 5%
extra forward error correction when you just cut the required bit rate
to 50%. And as I understand it MPEG4 will evolve to much higher
efficeincies than even 50%.

France just stuck itself with MPEG2 for a long time.

Assume that the MPEG4 glitch is always larger. Would you rather see one
bigger glitch on one of two HD programs every three hours or two smaller
glitches every hour with MPEG2 on one HD program?

Obviously subjective but in the longer term France loses with this decision.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 3:22:02 AM

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

Hervé Benoit wrote:
> "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> a écrit dans le message de
> news:cmu0n8$1bt$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>
>>Hervé Benoit wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Therefore, in terrestrial transmission, MPEG-4 AVC will probably require
>>>either a stronger Forward Error Correction
>>
>>No. It is well known that even a one byte error .. sometimes
>>a one bit error ... is visible in MPEG2. This is frequent enough,
>>and the steepness of the error rate versus signal level so steep,
>>that basically you already need an essentially zero rate at the
>>output of Reed Solomon. Hence MPEG4 is no more sensitive.
>>
>>More error correcting within DVB-T per se will likely not help
>>much, as it is so sensitive to things like impulse noise. You
>>would need a better system entirely, with less impulse sensitivity and
>>a better (longer) interleaving system.
>>
>>Such systems are of course already available, in ATSC or
>>ISDB.
>>
>
> Its's really nice to see that there are a few people who know everything !
>
>
BTW I disagree with Doug on the impulse noise issue. It is not an issue.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 3:35:28 AM

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

kw5kw wrote:
> Honestly, I don't give a Rat$a$$ which the government chooses, as long
> as I, as a consumer, get a reliable picture at a reasonable price.
>
> The choice has been made, and I'm very happy with the result. It
> works for me as a consumer.
>
> It looks like you didn't work hard enuf 7 or 8 years ago, and now you
> can't get over it. You lost just like Beta lost to VHS. "Sorry
> Charlie"... err.. Bob.
>
> Russ

No wrong, the US consumer lost. We won. We can do a mobile COFDM based
network in the US precisely because 8-SVB was chosen. If COFDM had been
chosen as the US modulation for all full power broadcasters we would not
be able to compete with them using COFDM. It would be insane. As it is
there are five new broadcasters thinking of or in the process of
delivering mobile DTV in the US using COFDM.

I worked very hard to get a decent modulation in the US. The only reason
we can't use the spectrum (channels 52 to 60) for COFDM that we plan to
is that current broadcasters are squatting on those channels using 8-VSB
in a transition that will take forever because 8-VSB doesn't work (till
5th gen).

When it is over there will be no 8-VSB. Broadcasters when actually
competing with new COFDM broadcasters will get their modulation changed
to COFDM in a heartbeat. In the meantime we have the edge. That is why
it is exciting that there is finally an 8-VSB receiver that works
minimally well (5th gen). It means that maybe the digital transition
will finally transition.

BTW the fact that it works for you didn't help much did it. Most US
consumers have not bought receivers. In fact 9 out of 10 buyers of HDTV
sets specifically did not buy an OTA 8-VSB receiver. That is amazing!!!
Why then pray tell did they buy an HDTV set? To watch 480i DVDs.

Makes eminent sense in this mixed up America. BTW in Japan 98% of COFDM
HD receivers come in the form of integrated sets and even though they
only have THREE CITIES with COFDM DTV broadcasting they have sold 1.6
million HDTV receivers in just the last 10 months. NOBODY in Japan is
buying an HDTV to watch 480i DVDs.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 11:07:20 AM

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

Bob Miller wrote:

>> everything !
>>
>>
> BTW I disagree with Doug on the impulse noise issue. It is not an issue.


It may not be an issue where you live ... it certainly
is here in Middle America.

Most of America is not Manhattan, NY. It is more like
Manhattan KS. It does not have underground
power distribution. It has aboveground power lines
that radiate vast amounts of impulse noise.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 4:40:21 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:

> BTW I disagree with Doug on the impulse noise issue. It is not an issue.
>

A study of the Fourier transform clearly shows that an impulse in the
time domain yields a broad spectrum in the frequency domain. If the
impulse to signal ratio is high enough, the COFDM carriers could be
wiped out. So, why isn't impulse noise an issue? Do the receivers
utilize blankers, clippers or some other technique to remove impulse noise?
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 6:29:40 PM

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

Doug McDonald wrote:
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>>> everything !
>>>
>>>
>> BTW I disagree with Doug on the impulse noise issue. It is not an issue.
>
>
>
> It may not be an issue where you live ... it certainly
> is here in Middle America.
>
> Most of America is not Manhattan, NY. It is more like
> Manhattan KS. It does not have underground
> power distribution. It has aboveground power lines
> that radiate vast amounts of impulse noise.
>
> Doug McDonald

What I mean that it is not an issue is that if you call XM or Sirius who
depend on COFDM across the country you get a "what" for an answer to the
question, How big a problem is impulse noise?

If you check with user groups in OZ like aus.tv.digital you find no
subject with impulse noise in it and they are buying receivers at over
seven times the rate they are being sold in the US. And they are the
slowest selling DTV receiver country in the COFDM world.

Same with the UK. Searching digital spy at
http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=... I can't find a
topic on impulse noise and they are approaching 6 million receivers
sold. They initially had problems with the design of their receivers but
I think that has been taken care of. You suggest that having high power
transmitters will help solve the problem. The UK is doing very well with
transmitters below 1 kW. Such low power may have contributed to their
initial problems. Shouldn't be and isn't with transmitters at higher
power levels if you are right and in the US we are using 100 kW and
higher for 8-VSB. Funny thing is that when I turn on or off a
fluorescent light within two feet of my Samsung 8-VSB receiver the
picture is affected by impulse noise. Who woulda thought?? And that is
with the Empire State Building only thirty blocks away.

Italy has sold 3 million COFDM receivers in its first year and no talk
of impulse noise problems.

No other country has decided for 8-VSB because of impulse noise problems
that are greater for COFDM that I know of. Japan chose ISDB-T which is
inherently better at impulse noise but they chose it for other reasons.
The impulse problem was addressed because of the initial problems in the
UK I believe.

I am sure that Qualcomm has vetted COFDM since they have 25 patents on
COFDM with 50 more in the works. I don't hear of them shifting their
research to 8-VSB in frustration over the impulse noise problems of
COFDM. Same with Motorola. Qualcomm will build an $800 million COFDM
national network for mobile cell DTV. They know a thing or two about
impulse noise and modulation.

Driving all over Manhattan where impulse noise from cars starting alone
should cause lots of impulse noise interference causes no decernable
problem from impulse noise. We had no impulse noise problems in Toronto
two years ago.

Impulse noise is a non issue period. It is only dragged up by those who
would try to explain the ridiculous choice of 8-VSB for the US.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 7:10:55 PM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ktykd.10744$O11.9676@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...


<snip>

:
: No wrong, the US consumer lost. We won. We can do a mobile COFDM
based
: network in the US precisely because 8-SVB was chosen. If COFDM had
been
: chosen as the US modulation for all full power broadcasters we would
not
: be able to compete with them using COFDM. It would be insane. As it
is
: there are five new broadcasters

Will you drop some names, so we'll know who you're talking about?



If you're talking about Sprint or ATT and Cingular or any other
national wireless phone provider, do you really want people watching
Television on their Cell phones while driving? I don't!



Same goes for XM and Sirius. Satellite radio is absolutely great, as
a matter of fact I was one of the first 50,000 subscribers to XM in
their first year of service (they now have over 3 million and
growing). But, that service should be reserved for radio that you
listen to, and not for mobile television. In the future, 10 to 20
years or longer, when we have cars that are capable of navigating
their selves on interstate highways, then maybe we could have TV
viewable from the drivers' seat. Or, your chairs swivel around to a
center position and there is a 3d projector that projects holographic
images that everyone can see perfectly from their location.



I know that just talking on the cell phone is causing so many
accidents that many states have banned their use while driving.
Television on cell phone may be only acceptable while using public
transportation, such as in NYC or San Francisco, but in the rest of
America where most people drive, not a good idea from the drivers
seat.



Cell phone TV might be ok in an airport waiting area, but these could
be very low power covering only the airport terminal, or even lower
power that could only be received on the commuter train, or subway,
now that would be 'cool'. Wall Street types could then keep track of
the markets while riding the subway to work at the markets. Stores
could put in very low power transmitters to inform customers about
sales, you could even departmentalize these. "Women's wear now 10%
off." Or "Save 15% on all TV's in our Electronics Dept. Thank you for
shopping Sears." Offices could put in systems to inform employees
about meetings, or hold meetings via cell phone video conferencing.
Yes, the possibilities are endless for low power.



Remember you heard it from me first. I want my royalties.



: thinking of or in the process of delivering mobile DTV in the US
using COFDM.
: I worked very hard to get a decent modulation in the US. The only
reason
: we can't use the spectrum (channels 52 to 60) for COFDM that we plan
to
: is that current broadcasters are squatting on those channels using
8-VSB
: in a transition that will take forever because 8-VSB doesn't work
(till
: 5th gen).
:
: When it is over there will be no 8-VSB.



I think both can live together if you consider the above argument.



: Broadcasters when actually competing with new COFDM broadcasters
will get their

: modulation changed
: to COFDM in a heartbeat. In the meantime we have the edge. That is
why
: it is exciting that there is finally an 8-VSB receiver that works
: minimally well (5th gen). It means that maybe the digital transition
: will finally transition.
:
: BTW the fact that it works for you didn't help much did it. Most US
: consumers have not bought receivers.

Could it be that most American customers are so un-informed about HDTV
when they purchase a set? I know I was, and I'm the IT Manager at my
job an I'm also an Advanced class Amateur Radio operator, so I'm not
ignorant about new technologies. I just hadn't done my homework prior
to going to the store.



Then.



Stores either won't or don't educate their sales staff enough about
the local situations. What applies to NYC doesn't apply in Dallas,
TX which doesn't apply to Casper, WY, which doesn't apply to . well
you get the idea.



Cable tells you they have a digital tier. They do. But, it's not HD,
it's jacked up SD so that they can send the consumer more channels by
compressing them. But, it's digital, so the customer is brainwashed
into thinking that they don't need anything else at the time. Only
after they get the set home, do they realize differently.



Same with Dish and DirecTv. Users are thinking that they are getting
a digital satellite signal then they are already getting HD, they aren
't.



: In fact 9 out of 10 buyers of HDTV sets specifically did not buy an
OTA 8-VSB receiver. That is amazing!!!

After they purchase, they go home and say wow, "I can't get this.", or
"I can't get that.", so they call their cable company and subscribe to
the HD service. Or, the call DirecTv / Dish and get their HD box
which includes OTA the receiver. Or, they call Voom, and still have
to use the OTA to get locals.



: Why then pray tell did they buy an HDTV set? To watch 480i DVDs.

In a word, YES! Initially, at the store, that is exactly why most
people purchase. Televisions are still an "IMPULSE" purchase. An
expensive impulse purchase, but still an they are an impulse purchase.
The store displays have Shreck, or Star Wars Eposide II playing and
the quality of the pictures are so, so much better that what we've
been used to on our old televisions. We know that they are playing
DVD's and they DO looks so much better than what I've been used to on
my old TV that we start talking to the sales guy at Sears, or Best Buy
or Circuit City. The average consumer, and I was one when I bought my
set just last month, knows absolutely NOTHING about 480i, or 480p, not
to mention 720p or 1080i. nor do they care. All they care about is
the picture and how it looks to them, compared to what they are used
to at home. As a matter of fact, the sales person who sold me my
little set, never mentioned resolution, not once! All we talked about
is price, and how this one looked. (silver set vs. black trim) . and
the fact that it did have the DVI connection that I might need in the
future. I didn't know about 480i vs. 480p / 720p / 1080i until I
purchased my OTA - STB and tried to set it up. I found it worked
best. for me at my house. if it was set on 1080i.



If the sales person sees that the sale would be lost, because the
prices of these HD sets are actually so expensive, that another
$400.00 and up for an OTA receiver might just nix the sale then they
allow the receiver, and other accessories to slide. Yeah, for the
person who's making $100,000.00 / year and up that might not be a
problem, but for the person who's making $40,000.00/ year it is a
stumbling block, a major one. Yes, I can afford one, but not both,
not at the same time. I didn't purchase a huge 50+" set, I purchased
a 26" for the bedroom. I have a 52" 4:3 Sony that I've had for years
in the living room, hooked up to a digital tier cable box. I'll
likely have it for years to come. But, I do have my $1,200.00 LCD
with my $400.00 LG LST3510 set top box for over-the-air reception all
hooked up with a DVI interface, that I can go and watch my Monday
Night Football, or CSI, or Law and Order in my bedroom. Yes, it's my
house, and I'm so much more comfortable in my bedroom.



I got the TV first, then the OTA receiver a couple of weeks later. I
had to do a lot of talking to the wife to get the OTA receiver.
(Now, that is another story, for another group.) But, even she, who
knows next to nothing about anything electronical, likes the picture.





:
: Makes eminent sense in this mixed up America. BTW in Japan 98% of
COFDM
: HD receivers come in the form of integrated sets and even though
they
: only have THREE CITIES with COFDM DTV broadcasting they have sold
1.6
: million HDTV receivers in just the last 10 months. NOBODY in Japan
is
: buying an HDTV to watch 480i DVDs.



Just look at the physical difference in land area between Japan and
the US. Smaller land area to cover with a signal, from tall mountains
to transmit from. Now don't bring in Australia, with their large land
area. Most is totally un-inhabited, even less than the large deserts
in the Southwest states of New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, with
parts of California and Texas thrown in also have many, many more
inhabitants than the deserts of Australia. 95% of the population in
Australia is in the large cities on the coastline of Eastern or
Northwestern Australia. The interior residents will continue, just as
they are now, to receive their programming by satellite. Hence
nothing will change there.



Not knowing about Japan's commitment either, they could have mandated
that by law, just as the FCC is mandating such conversion here in the
United States. Although, here the progression is much slower,
allowing the technology to develop and therefore become cheaper. By
the time that analog goes 'black' all sets sold will have ATSC tuners.
Gee, I guess they would have to wouldn't they? After that, what is
going to happen to all those NTSC televisions sold? Well, I hope that
they have some sort of Video/Audio in jack to continue to be of
service to the people who purchased them.
:
: Bob Miller
:

Russ
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 8:40:26 PM

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

kw5kw wrote:
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:ktykd.10744$O11.9676@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
> <snip>
>
> :
> : No wrong, the US consumer lost. We won. We can do a mobile COFDM based network in the US precisely because 8-SVB was chosen. If COFDM had
> been chosen as the US modulation for all full power broadcasters we would not be able to compete with them using COFDM. It would be insane. As it
> is there are five new broadcasters
>
> Will you drop some names, so we'll know who you're talking about?

Qualcomm, Crown Castle, Sirius, XMradio and one other all plan on
offering DTV OTA with COFDM.
>
>
>
> If you're talking about Sprint or ATT and Cingular or any other
> national wireless phone provider, do you really want people watching
> Television on their Cell phones while driving? I don't!

How do we get in a car from what we were discussing? I don't want people
talking on a cell phone while driving period. Because I say that most
cell phones will have DTV capability you take it to the car scenario.
What a stretch. People eat pizza and talk and change clothes while
driving. Should we not have pizza and clothing because of that?
Hairbrained thinking.
>
>
>
> Same goes for XM and Sirius. Satellite radio is absolutely great, as
> a matter of fact I was one of the first 50,000 subscribers to XM in
> their first year of service (they now have over 3 million and
> growing). But, that service should be reserved for radio that you
> listen to, and not for mobile television. In the future, 10 to 20
> years or longer, when we have cars that are capable of navigating
> their selves on interstate highways, then maybe we could have TV
> viewable from the drivers' seat. Or, your chairs swivel around to a
> center position and there is a 3d projector that projects holographic
> images that everyone can see perfectly from their location.

I beleive Sirius and XM and the other one will all relegate their video
viewing to the back seat. As of right now more than 60% of SUVs leave
the factory with rear seat video installed. It is not a matter of when
this will happen, it already has happened. Someone broadcasting to the
vehicle changes nothing.
>
>
>
> I know that just talking on the cell phone is causing so many
> accidents that many states have banned their use while driving.
> Television on cell phone may be only acceptable while using public
> transportation, such as in NYC or San Francisco, but in the rest of
> America where most people drive, not a good idea from the drivers
> seat.

Obviously but mobile and portable DTV is not just about watching TV
while in a vehicle. It is about easy reception anywhere.
>
>
>
> Cell phone TV might be ok in an airport waiting area, but these could
> be very low power covering only the airport terminal, or even lower
> power that could only be received on the commuter train, or subway,
> now that would be 'cool'. Wall Street types could then keep track of
> the markets while riding the subway to work at the markets. Stores
> could put in very low power transmitters to inform customers about
> sales, you could even departmentalize these. "Women's wear now 10%
> off." Or "Save 15% on all TV's in our Electronics Dept. Thank you for
> shopping Sears." Offices could put in systems to inform employees
> about meetings, or hold meetings via cell phone video conferencing.
> Yes, the possibilities are endless for low power.
>
>
>
> Remember you heard it from me first. I want my royalties.

This has been in the works since 1998.
>
>
>
> : thinking of or in the process of delivering mobile DTV in the US
> using COFDM. I worked very hard to get a decent modulation in the US. The only reason we can't use the spectrum (channels 52 to 60) for COFDM that we plan
> to is that current broadcasters are squatting on those channels using 8-VSB in a transition that will take forever because 8-VSB doesn't work
> (till 5th gen).
> :
> : When it is over there will be no 8-VSB.
>
> I think both can live together if you consider the above argument.

Not really. Consider if you have a choice of a receiver that cost less
and works anywhere or one that cost more and only works from a fixed
position. No brainer, you buy the most versatile receiver. The fixed
receivers OTA will have to continue competing with cable, satellite and
now broadand. In the end those broadcasters will demand a better
modulation. The ONLY reason they didn't do so with 8-VSB was that at the
time and still now they were focused on must carry laws that give them
access to cable.

Broadcasters in other countries who do not have must carry did
everything but riot to force their governments to go with COFDM.
>
> Broadcasters when actually competing with new COFDM broadcasters
> will get their modulation changed to COFDM in a heartbeat. In the meantime we have the edge. That is why it is exciting that there is finally an 8-VSB receiver that works
> : minimally well (5th gen). It means that maybe the digital transition will finally transition.
> :
> : BTW the fact that it works for you didn't help much did it. Most US
> : consumers have not bought receivers.
>
> Could it be that most American customers are so un-informed about HDTV
> when they purchase a set? I know I was, and I'm the IT Manager at my
> job an I'm also an Advanced class Amateur Radio operator, so I'm not
> ignorant about new technologies. I just hadn't done my homework prior
> to going to the store.

And the retailer has not helped since they have not been interested in
OTA DTV either. Not so in countries where COFDM is being sold. Retailers
are heavily involved there. If you are an IT guy you know that COFDM is
used in 802.11 a and g and most new wireless ventures.
>
>
>
> Then.
>
>
>
> Stores either won't or don't educate their sales staff enough about
> the local situations. What applies to NYC doesn't apply in Dallas,
> TX which doesn't apply to Casper, WY, which doesn't apply to . well
> you get the idea.
>
>
>
> Cable tells you they have a digital tier. They do. But, it's not HD,
> it's jacked up SD so that they can send the consumer more channels by
> compressing them. But, it's digital, so the customer is brainwashed
> into thinking that they don't need anything else at the time. Only
> after they get the set home, do they realize differently.
>
>
>
> Same with Dish and DirecTv. Users are thinking that they are getting
> a digital satellite signal then they are already getting HD, they aren
> 't.
>
>
>
> : In fact 9 out of 10 buyers of HDTV sets specifically did not buy an
> OTA 8-VSB receiver. That is amazing!!!
>
> After they purchase, they go home and say wow, "I can't get this.", or
> "I can't get that.", so they call their cable company and subscribe to
> the HD service. Or, the call DirecTv / Dish and get their HD box
> which includes OTA the receiver. Or, they call Voom, and still have
> to use the OTA to get locals.
>
>
>
> : Why then pray tell did they buy an HDTV set? To watch 480i DVDs.
>
> In a word, YES! Initially, at the store, that is exactly why most
> people purchase. Televisions are still an "IMPULSE" purchase. An
> expensive impulse purchase, but still an they are an impulse purchase.
> The store displays have Shreck, or Star Wars Eposide II playing and
> the quality of the pictures are so, so much better that what we've
> been used to on our old televisions. We know that they are playing
> DVD's and they DO looks so much better than what I've been used to on
> my old TV that we start talking to the sales guy at Sears, or Best Buy
> or Circuit City. The average consumer, and I was one when I bought my
> set just last month, knows absolutely NOTHING about 480i, or 480p, not
> to mention 720p or 1080i. nor do they care. All they care about is
> the picture and how it looks to them, compared to what they are used
> to at home. As a matter of fact, the sales person who sold me my
> little set, never mentioned resolution, not once! All we talked about
> is price, and how this one looked. (silver set vs. black trim) . and
> the fact that it did have the DVI connection that I might need in the
> future. I didn't know about 480i vs. 480p / 720p / 1080i until I
> purchased my OTA - STB and tried to set it up. I found it worked
> best. for me at my house. if it was set on 1080i.
>
>
>
> If the sales person sees that the sale would be lost, because the
> prices of these HD sets are actually so expensive, that another
> $400.00 and up for an OTA receiver might just nix the sale then they
> allow the receiver, and other accessories to slide. Yeah, for the
> person who's making $100,000.00 / year and up that might not be a
> problem, but for the person who's making $40,000.00/ year it is a
> stumbling block, a major one. Yes, I can afford one, but not both,
> not at the same time. I didn't purchase a huge 50+" set, I purchased
> a 26" for the bedroom. I have a 52" 4:3 Sony that I've had for years
> in the living room, hooked up to a digital tier cable box. I'll
> likely have it for years to come. But, I do have my $1,200.00 LCD
> with my $400.00 LG LST3510 set top box for over-the-air reception all
> hooked up with a DVI interface, that I can go and watch my Monday
> Night Football, or CSI, or Law and Order in my bedroom. Yes, it's my
> house, and I'm so much more comfortable in my bedroom.
>
>
>
> I got the TV first, then the OTA receiver a couple of weeks later. I
> had to do a lot of talking to the wife to get the OTA receiver.
> (Now, that is another story, for another group.) But, even she, who
> knows next to nothing about anything electronical, likes the picture.
>
>
> : Makes eminent sense in this mixed up America. BTW in Japan 98% of COFDM HD receivers come in the form of integrated sets and even though
> they only have THREE CITIES with COFDM DTV broadcasting they have sold 1.6 million HDTV receivers in just the last 10 months. NOBODY in Japan
> is buying an HDTV to watch 480i DVDs.
>
> Just look at the physical difference in land area between Japan and
> the US. Smaller land area to cover with a signal, from tall mountains
> to transmit from. Now don't bring in Australia, with their large land
> area. Most is totally un-inhabited, even less than the large deserts
> in the Southwest states of New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, with
> parts of California and Texas thrown in also have many, many more
> inhabitants than the deserts of Australia. 95% of the population in
> Australia is in the large cities on the coastline of Eastern or
> Northwestern Australia. The interior residents will continue, just as
> they are now, to receive their programming by satellite. Hence
> nothing will change there.

If Japan and Australia are not enough then consider Russia, China and
all the other countries that have chosen COFDM. Sorry but the US is not
that different and all new broadcasters in the US are chosing COFDM. The
only time 8-VSB was chosen was in a back room between a bunch of guys
trying to divide up the pie between them without any regard to what was
best for the US consumer. The fix was in and it is just that simple.
Everything else is BS.
>
>
>
> Not knowing about Japan's commitment either, they could have mandated
> that by law, just as the FCC is mandating such conversion here in the
> United States. Although, here the progression is much slower,
> allowing the technology to develop and therefore become cheaper. By
> the time that analog goes 'black' all sets sold will have ATSC tuners.
> Gee, I guess they would have to wouldn't they? After that, what is
> going to happen to all those NTSC televisions sold? Well, I hope that
> they have some sort of Video/Audio in jack to continue to be of
> service to the people who purchased them.

They can be used with cable or satellite. They can be used with stand
alone COFDM or 8-VSB receivers. They can be used with games or VCR or
DVD players.
Bob Miller
>
> Russ
>
>
>
Anonymous
November 12, 2004 12:30:55 AM

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

"numeric" <numeric@att.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:9ZJkd.7171$7i4.3370@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> why isn't impulse noise an issue? Do the receivers
> utilize blankers, clippers or some other technique to remove impulse
noise?
>
Impulse noise has been a serious issue in the UK at the beginning of digital
terrestrial, because the transmitters were not powerful enough (taking into
account the parameters used), customers of On Digital were told that their
existing antenna or even an indoor antenna was OK (as opposed to satellite
competitor BSkyB) and the first COFDM ICs were not so good.
In addition, the 2k COFDM mode used in UK has proven to be more sensitive to
impulse noise than 8k (both are allowed by DVB-T) . 2k DVB-T was chosen in
the UK because at that time (in 1996) the cost difference between a 2k and a
8k demodulator IC was very important : the first DVB-T circuit available in
1998 -from Motorola- was only capable of 2k and costed 50 USD ! The
following year, the 2k/8k IC from LSI costed only 20 USD, and now the price
of a DVB-T demodulator is less than 5 USD in volume.
All other DVB-T countries use 8k COFDM, which tolerates 4x longer echoes and
is less sensitive to impulse noise.
In addition, some recent COFDM ICs include impulse noise reduction circuitry
(such as the TDA10046 from Philips which incorporates a so-called "pulse
killer").
Regarding relative sensitivity of COFDM and 8-VSB, I have no idea (but
anyway it depends of the mode and other parameters of DVB-T you compare
8-VSB and the practical result will also depend on the demodulation
circuitry used on both sides).
Anonymous
November 12, 2004 12:30:56 AM

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

Hervé Benoit wrote:

> Regarding relative sensitivity of COFDM and 8-VSB, I have no idea (but
> anyway it depends of the mode and other parameters of DVB-T you compare
> 8-VSB



Yes, that last statement is true. To compare them correctly
you must use the same bandwidth and the same bitrate. Shoosing
the lowest bitrate DVB-T mode to get 19.3 Mb/sec in 6 MHz,
DVB-T requires 3 dB more average power than 8-VSB and 5 dB more
peak power( for 8K, less than 5 dB for 2K).

The need for three times (5 dB) the power from teh power
company is why the USA chose 8-VSB.

These days the receiver is unimportant in this comparison:
both systems approach ideality.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
January 17, 2005 3:51:57 AM

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

Can you even quanitfy that statement? Who lobbied for what? We have a
system, we are stuck with it and the
FCC made up thier minds.

Phil

"Henry Cabot Henhouse III" <sooper_chicken@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Y-ydne16PbM5fBLcRVn-gg@mpowercom.net...
> The lobbyists for the 8-VSB group spent more money, gave away more and
> better gifts, trips and bribes, and provided higher quality hookers.
>
>
>
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:b3Rjd.21322$KJ6.12890@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Now that the US is seven years into the transition from analog TV to DTV
>> I would like to ask the question, what did we gain by being in a hurry
>> to chose 8-VSB and what did we gain by locking in MPEG2 as the standard
>> compression?
>>
>> Back in 2000 when it was evident that 8-VSB had problems and COFDM was
>> suggested as a possible option one of the main reasons given why the US
>> could not switch to or also allow COFDM was the delay that would be
>> caused. This argument did not deter Taiwan or Australia from switching
>> to COFDM but the US did not.
>>
>> We now see that Australia, which is the only country to mandate HDTV, is
>> at least seven times farther ahead of the US in terms of the sale of
>> digital receivers even though they started many years later. The delay
>> argument seems to have been wrong.
>>
>> In Europe we see that the UK is far ahead of us with 25% of households
>> with an OTA digital receiver compared to our 1%. Italy which just
>> started six months ago will pass the US in % of households with OTA DTV
>> by the end of their first year. These countries do not do HDTV which was
>> their conscious choice but now France is about to broadcast HDTV and I
>> expect that they will do almost as well as Japan where in just one year
>> with only 3 cities broadcasting they have had sales of over 1.6 million
>> receivers and 97% of those are in integrated sets.
>>
>> By 2008 all these countries and more including China will be far ahead
>> of the US in OTA DTV whether they are doing HD or SD.
>>
>> And any country coming on line with OTA DTV now will also have the
>> benefit of a far better compression standard like MPEG4 AVC. China and
>> France will.
>>
>> So what did we gain by being in a rush back in 1998? What was the hurry?
>> I suggest that if we had done nothing till now and started now with
>> MPEG4 and COFDM we would be far better off for the indefinite future. Of
>> course we would be even better off if we had done it in 2003, 2002, 2001
>> or 2000. But even if we had delayed till today we would still be far
>> better off if we had waited till now and then chosen COFDM and MPEG4,
>> VC1 or VP6.
>>
>> Bob Miller
>
>
!