Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

LG chooses COFDM

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 9:06:13 PM

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

http://www.physorg.com/news1999.html

If 8-VSB is so good why did LG, the owners of most of the IP royalty
rights to 8-VSB choose COFDM for their DMB mobile video broadcasting to
cell phones?

Qualcomm didn't choose 8-VSB either for their mobile US DTV plans, they
choose DVB-H COFDM.
Japan choose ISDB-T COFDM for both mobile and fixed delivery of HDTV and
DTV to cell phones.
Australia picked DVB-T COFDM after dropping 8-VSB like a rotten egg.
Taiwan had a riot in their Congress where broadcasters demanded that
they reverse their decision for 8-VSB and choose COFDM.

WiMax is COFDM
WiFi is COFDM for 802.11 a and g

DAB worldwide including the US and Korea is COFDM
iBiquity (another digital on channel radio system) is COFDM

China will go with either DVB-T and H or their own modulation called
DMB-T (not the same as the Korean system) all COFDM.

ENG (Electronic News Gathering) uses COFDM that means most news in real
time from remote locations is brought to you with COFDM

Wireless DTV studio cameras use COFDM

The only place that the ancient and problem riddled technology called
8-VSB still exist is in the US, Canadian, S. Korea and possibly Mexican
DTV broadcasting.

Bob Miller

More about : chooses cofdm

Anonymous
November 17, 2004 9:06:14 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:

> http://www.physorg.com/news1999.html
>
> If 8-VSB is so good why did LG, the owners of most of the IP royalty
> rights to 8-VSB choose COFDM for their DMB mobile video broadcasting to
> cell phones?
>

It's because 8-VSB isn't optimized for mobile reception. I thought that
you knew that?

Matthew
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 9:06:14 PM

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

X-No-archive: yes

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:p qMmd.1379$Tq6.844@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> http://www.physorg.com/news1999.html
>
> If 8-VSB is so good why did LG, the owners of most of the IP royalty
> rights to 8-VSB choose COFDM for their DMB mobile video broadcasting to
> cell phones?
>
=============================
Because it is for mobile use.
Related resources
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 10:16:08 PM

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

>> If 8-VSB is so good why did LG, the owners of most of the IP royalty
>> rights to 8-VSB choose COFDM for their DMB mobile video broadcasting to
>> cell phones?
>
>It's because 8-VSB isn't optimized for mobile reception. I thought that
>you knew that?

How not-optimized for mobile reception is 8-VSB? Is it a serious
problem for pedestrians walking or jogging? Just how big a screen
can pedestrians carry, anyway?

It's bad enough that there are pedestrians talking on cellphones
who walk straight into moving DART trains, drop the cellphone, then
almost lose their hand reaching under the train to get the cellphone
(I've seen this happen twice). I hope we're not going to have
drivers watching television while they are driving.

Gordon L. Burditt
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 10:51:02 PM

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

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote :


>DAB worldwide including the US and Korea is COFDM
>iBiquity (another digital on channel radio system) is COFDM
>
>China will go with either DVB-T and H or their own modulation called
>DMB-T (not the same as the Korean system) all COFDM.

Hello,

As I know China choose DMB-T like South Korea and not DVB-H for their
mobile system. They just installed 12 new band III transmitters around
Beijing and Guangdong. cf :
http://www.wohnort.demon.co.uk/DAB/a-f.html#China

DAB Eureka 147 and DMB are fully compatible, an old DAB receiver is able
to decode a multiplex with DMB services in it.

Bye.
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 11:08:36 PM

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

Nicolas Croiset wrote:
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote :
>
>
>
>>DAB worldwide including the US and Korea is COFDM
>>iBiquity (another digital on channel radio system) is COFDM
>>
>>China will go with either DVB-T and H or their own modulation called
>>DMB-T (not the same as the Korean system) all COFDM.
>
>
> Hello,
>
> As I know China choose DMB-T like South Korea and not DVB-H for their
> mobile system. They just installed 12 new band III transmitters around
> Beijing and Guangdong. cf :
> http://www.wohnort.demon.co.uk/DAB/a-f.html#China
>
> DAB Eureka 147 and DMB are fully compatible, an old DAB receiver is able
> to decode a multiplex with DMB services in it.
>
> Bye.
>
I think you have to be carefully here. DMB using DAB spectrum is
different from the proposed Chinese DMB-T modulation.

It is interesting that the Chinese are using DMB on DAB frequencies
while testing their own DMB-T for use in DTV OTA. Both are COFDM based
however.
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 11:21:44 PM

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

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> http://www.physorg.com/news1999.html
>>
>> If 8-VSB is so good why did LG, the owners of most of the IP royalty
>> rights to 8-VSB choose COFDM for their DMB mobile video broadcasting
>> to cell phones?
>>
>
> It's because 8-VSB isn't optimized for mobile reception. I thought that
> you knew that?
>
> Matthew

What I know is that 8-VSB isn't optimized period. COFDM was not
developed for mobile reception but for BETTER reception. The fact that
it can be used for mobile reception is a testimony to how well it works
period.

The fact that 8-VSB cannot be received mobile is a testimony to how bad
it was designed.

The first principle that guided the development of COFDM was how do we
solve the problem of TV broadcasting called multipath both dynamic and
static. This problem has plagued analog TV broadcasting since its
inception. In going to a digital mode those developing COFDM for use in
DTV broadcasting thought that since with digital you don't have a grace
period with multipath where you can still see some of the game though
distorted or snowy, with digital you would experience total loss of all
video. This was deemed unacceptable. Multipath HAD to be solved.

COFDM was designed to solve multipath and it does.

8-VSB was designed to just mimic, do as well as or duplicate NTSC
analog. That was the directive and that is what they did. They then
tried to COMPARE the effects of multipath on the analog signal to the
affects of multipath on the digital 8-VSB received signal. IT IS
IMPOSSIBLE!!!!

How can you say that a certain amount of snow or distortion is the
equivalent of a certain period of time with NO signal.

The basic tenet of the design of 8-VSB was and is flawed.

COFDM was designed by those interested in improving TV with digital and
they succeeded. 8-VSB designers tried to just duplicate NTSC and they
failed.

That is until the 5th gen receivers which will do better than NTSC. But
we have waited for seven years for no reason and even 5th gen receivers
come nowhere near where COFDM was in 1999.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 11:21:45 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:

> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
>> Bob Miller wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.physorg.com/news1999.html
>>>
>>> If 8-VSB is so good why did LG, the owners of most of the IP royalty
>>> rights to 8-VSB choose COFDM for their DMB mobile video broadcasting
>>> to cell phones?
>>>
>>
>> It's because 8-VSB isn't optimized for mobile reception. I thought
>> that you knew that?
>>
>> Matthew
>
>
> What I know is that 8-VSB isn't optimized period.

Then why do so many people report such good success in using ATSC
receivers from any generation?

Matthew
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 11:21:45 PM

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

X-No-archive: yes

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:spOmd.1537$Tq6.1058@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> The fact that 8-VSB cannot be received mobile is a testimony to how bad it
> was designed.
>
==============================
Why?
Do you watch HDTV in your car?
November 17, 2004 11:21:46 PM

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

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:10pndllepb8n28d@corp.supernews.com...
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.physorg.com/news1999.html
>>>>
>>>> If 8-VSB is so good why did LG, the owners of most of the IP royalty
>>>> rights to 8-VSB choose COFDM for their DMB mobile video broadcasting to
>>>> cell phones?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's because 8-VSB isn't optimized for mobile reception. I thought that
>>> you knew that?
>>>
>>> Matthew
>>
>>
>> What I know is that 8-VSB isn't optimized period.
>
> Then why do so many people report such good success in using ATSC
> receivers from any generation?
>
> Matthew

And I wonder how I just googled up more that 200 complaints about COFDM
"impulse interference picture freezing" from aus.tv.digital?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?L2EE12EC9
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 12:05:25 AM

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

Matthew L. Martin wrote:

>
> Then why do so many people report such good success in using ATSC
> receivers from any generation?
>
> Matthew

Because as the MSTV test showed 8-VSB works well in a percentage of
receive locations. In cities I think as high as 30% in places like
Dallas Texas as high as 80% with a range of percentages in between.
Little improvement has occurred over the years. The problem is that
those % are disastrous as the MSTV test concluded. Isolated instances
prove nothing even when there are a lot of them. Even if you have
100,000 report from the plains that 8-VSB works fine it doesn't help the
70% in cities like New York where reception is so bad that very few even
try.

Everyone involved with 8-VSB agreed after the MSTV test that 8-VSB was
not good enough by far for the US DTV transition. It was promised that
it could be fixed so that it would be good enough. The promise was that
a fix would be found in six months to a year. It has taken five years so
far and while there is a minimally acceptable receiver in the works it
is not here yet.

In Australia there is a saying, "I'm fine Jack", which is said about
someone who if they got theirs could care less about anyone else.

Well we have a stagnate DTV transition in the US. It would be far better
if all of us could use our DTV spectrum.

It could be said about a lot of early adopters that they are "I'm fine
Jack".

Bob Miller
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 12:05:26 AM

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

Bob Miller wrote:

> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
>>
>> Then why do so many people report such good success in using ATSC
>> receivers from any generation?
>>
>
> It could be said about a lot of early adopters that they are "I'm fine
> Jack".
>
>

Given that people with problems typically post a lot more about getting
solutions than people who are having no problems and need no solutions
one would expect, given your claim, that this ng would be flooded with
complaints.

Guess what?

It isn't.

Matthew
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 12:32:45 AM

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

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote :

>Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote :
>>
>>
>>
>>>DAB worldwide including the US and Korea is COFDM
>>>iBiquity (another digital on channel radio system) is COFDM
>>>
>>>China will go with either DVB-T and H or their own modulation called
>>>DMB-T (not the same as the Korean system) all COFDM.
>>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> As I know China choose DMB-T like South Korea and not DVB-H for their
>> mobile system. They just installed 12 new band III transmitters around
>> Beijing and Guangdong. cf :
>> http://www.wohnort.demon.co.uk/DAB/a-f.html#China
>>
>> DAB Eureka 147 and DMB are fully compatible, an old DAB receiver is able
>> to decode a multiplex with DMB services in it.
>>
>> Bye.
>>
>I think you have to be carefully here. DMB using DAB spectrum is
>different from the proposed Chinese DMB-T modulation.
>
>It is interesting that the Chinese are using DMB on DAB frequencies
>while testing their own DMB-T for use in DTV OTA. Both are COFDM based
>however.

China use DAB Eureka 147 modulation for their DMB-T transmission like
south Korea.
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 12:32:46 AM

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

Nicolas Croiset wrote:
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote :
>
>
>>Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>>
>>>Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>DAB worldwide including the US and Korea is COFDM
>>>>iBiquity (another digital on channel radio system) is COFDM
>>>>
>>>>China will go with either DVB-T and H or their own modulation called
>>>>DMB-T (not the same as the Korean system) all COFDM.
>>>
>>>
>>>Hello,
>>>
>>>As I know China choose DMB-T like South Korea and not DVB-H for their
>>>mobile system. They just installed 12 new band III transmitters around
>>>Beijing and Guangdong. cf :
>>>http://www.wohnort.demon.co.uk/DAB/a-f.html#China
>>>
>>>DAB Eureka 147 and DMB are fully compatible, an old DAB receiver is able
>>>to decode a multiplex with DMB services in it.
>>>
>>>Bye.
>>>
>>
>>I think you have to be carefully here. DMB using DAB spectrum is
>>different from the proposed Chinese DMB-T modulation.
>>
>>It is interesting that the Chinese are using DMB on DAB frequencies
>>while testing their own DMB-T for use in DTV OTA. Both are COFDM based
>>however.
>
>
> China use DAB Eureka 147 modulation for their DMB-T transmission like
> south Korea.
>
>

DAB Eureka 147 is COFDM based.
http://www.worlddab.org/eureka.aspx

Again you have to be careful. China is developing their own modulation
system for DTV broadcasting, DMB-T, which is also COFDM based, but which
is a different animal from the DMB COFDM modulation being used by S.
Korea and as you say China for broadcasting in the DAB spectrum.

China's DMB-T (COFDM)
http://neasia.nikkeibp.com/nea/200402/conele_288146.htm...
"DMB-T uses the same orthogonal frequency division multiplex (OFDM)
modulation scheme as used in Europe and Japan. There are 4k carriers
(more precisely, 3,780), modulated with quadrature phase shift keying
(QPSK) or quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM). A pseudo-noise (PN)
sequence is inserted into the guard interval, however, for
synchronization and other purposes. The ADTB-T standard proposal, on the
other hand, uses a single carrier wave instead of OFDM. The modulation
may be 4- or 16-level QAM, or offset QAM."

Korea's DMB (COFDM) for use in DAB
http://www.worlddab.org/images/WorldDAB-398.pdf
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 1:14:20 AM

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

>Then why do so many people report such good success in using ATSC
>receivers from any generation?
>

C'mon now Matt, you know BOB doesn't want to hear that. He effectively filters
out all the myriad of posts over the years about how successful 8VSB really is.
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 1:24:31 AM

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

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
> If 8-VSB is so good why did LG, the owners of most of the IP royalty rights
> to 8-VSB choose COFDM for their DMB mobile video broadcasting to cell phones?

The same reason that LG chose CDMA for the phones that they produce for
Verizon and SPRINT, and choose GSM for the phones that they produce for
Cingular and T-Mobile.

Note, by the way, that what is being discussed is not broadcast
television, much less HDTV. It is 18fps video content provided by the
mobile phone providers.

Consequently, it is off-topic for alt.tv.tech.hdtv. Bob Miller knows
this, but being a psychotic crackpot, continues to interject into a forum
where he isn't wanted.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 1:53:21 AM

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

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote :

>Nicolas Croiset wrote:

>>>It is interesting that the Chinese are using DMB on DAB frequencies
>>>while testing their own DMB-T for use in DTV OTA. Both are COFDM based
>>>however.
>>
>>
>> China use DAB Eureka 147 modulation for their DMB-T transmission like
>> south Korea.
>>
>>
>
>DAB Eureka 147 is COFDM based.
>http://www.worlddab.org/eureka.aspx
>
>Again you have to be careful. China is developing their own modulation
>system for DTV broadcasting, DMB-T, which is also COFDM based, but which
>is a different animal from the DMB COFDM modulation being used by S.
>Korea and as you say China for broadcasting in the DAB spectrum.
>
>China's DMB-T (COFDM)
>http://neasia.nikkeibp.com/nea/200402/conele_288146.htm...
>"DMB-T uses the same orthogonal frequency division multiplex (OFDM)
>modulation scheme as used in Europe and Japan. There are 4k carriers
>(more precisely, 3,780), modulated with quadrature phase shift keying
>(QPSK) or quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM). A pseudo-noise (PN)
>sequence is inserted into the guard interval, however, for
>synchronization and other purposes. The ADTB-T standard proposal, on the
>other hand, uses a single carrier wave instead of OFDM. The modulation
>may be 4- or 16-level QAM, or offset QAM."
>

You have different trials in China, the one you speak and now China had
chosen the DMB-T Korean system.

http://www.proaudioasia.com/paa/article.asp?cid=328
http://neasia.nikkeibp.com/nea/200404/techana_298749.ht...

If you type in google these terms "dmb china dab" you will see a lot of
results.
Bye.
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 2:40:43 AM

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

>And I wonder how I just googled up more that 200 complaints about COFDM
>"impulse interference picture freezing" from aus.tv.digital?

I bet BOB has more than 200 excuses for those! :) 
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 8:03:54 AM

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

Bob Miller wrote:

>
> How can you say that a certain amount of snow or distortion is the
> equivalent of a certain period of time with NO signal.
>

What happens to a COFDM signal at the threshold? Does it have the cliff
edge effect like 8VSB, or is it more like analog?
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 8:33:16 AM

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

Nicolas Croiset wrote:
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote :
>
>
>>Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>
>
>>>>It is interesting that the Chinese are using DMB on DAB frequencies
>>>>while testing their own DMB-T for use in DTV OTA. Both are COFDM based
>>>>however.
>>>
>>>
>>>China use DAB Eureka 147 modulation for their DMB-T transmission like
>>>south Korea.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>DAB Eureka 147 is COFDM based.
>>http://www.worlddab.org/eureka.aspx
>>
>>Again you have to be careful. China is developing their own modulation
>>system for DTV broadcasting, DMB-T, which is also COFDM based, but which
>>is a different animal from the DMB COFDM modulation being used by S.
>>Korea and as you say China for broadcasting in the DAB spectrum.
>>
>>China's DMB-T (COFDM)
>>http://neasia.nikkeibp.com/nea/200402/conele_288146.htm...
>>"DMB-T uses the same orthogonal frequency division multiplex (OFDM)
>>modulation scheme as used in Europe and Japan. There are 4k carriers
>>(more precisely, 3,780), modulated with quadrature phase shift keying
>>(QPSK) or quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM). A pseudo-noise (PN)
>>sequence is inserted into the guard interval, however, for
>>synchronization and other purposes. The ADTB-T standard proposal, on the
>>other hand, uses a single carrier wave instead of OFDM. The modulation
>>may be 4- or 16-level QAM, or offset QAM."
>>
>
>
> You have different trials in China, the one you speak and now China had
> chosen the DMB-T Korean system.
>
> http://www.proaudioasia.com/paa/article.asp?cid=328
> http://neasia.nikkeibp.com/nea/200404/techana_298749.ht...
>
> If you type in google these terms "dmb china dab" you will see a lot of
> results.
> Bye.

Sorry again, if you do a google on "dmb-t china dtv" you will see a lot
of results also. China is developing its OWN modulation based on COFDM
called DMB-T and it has nothing to do with what Korea or China is doing
with the Korean DMB modulation used on the DAB spectrum.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/CAS-e/6942.htm
Digital Multimedia Broadcast-Terrestrial(DMB-T) in China is being
developed by Tsinghua University in Shenzhen.

"Tsinghua University has also developed a DTV protocol, Digital
Multimedia Broadcast-Terrestrial(DMB-T), that could allow an 8-MHz DTV
channel to be reused for cellular network applications.

"We have 10 million people living in Beijing alone,” Yang said. "If all
these people wanted data services and video-on-demand services at the
same time, we’d have a problem. We need a technology that supports
multiple RF, signal RF and cellular networks."

Developing its own intellectual property is another goal of China's DTV
effort. Yang described Tsinghua’s DMB-T approach as "a lot of public
domain technologies combined together." But Key Lab has filed for a
patent covering the entire system. Seven others have been filed for
individual transmission technologies."

Your second url,
http://neasia.nikkeibp.com/nea/200404/techana_298749.ht...
talks of the DMB-T modulation being developed in China which is NOT
based on Eureka 147 COFDM but is based on COFDM. Eureka 147 is an early
version of COFDM that was developed for the DAB (Digital Audio
Broadcasting) spectrum and this is what is being used in Korea. They are
using it however to broadcast both audio and video. That is what they
are doing in Guangdong.

The DMB being used in Guangdong on the DAB spectrum to deliver audio and
video is NOT the same DMB-T being developed by Tsinghua University in
Shenzhen.

Both use COFDM but one uses an older version Eureka 147. One is in
development for use in regular TV spectrum with 8 MHz channels the other
for use in DAB spectrum with 1.25 MHz channels.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 8:45:27 AM

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

Richard C. wrote:
> X-No-archive: yes
>
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:spOmd.1537$Tq6.1058@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>The fact that 8-VSB cannot be received mobile is a testimony to how bad it
>>was designed.
>>
>
> ==============================
> Why?
> Do you watch HDTV in your car?
>
>
Most vehicles will have TV capability in the back seat soon. That could
be HD if you could receive it. Since you can't with 8-VSB I guess you
won't be able to watch it in the US. In Japan and Australia you will be
able to watch HD in your car. Their will be a number of ways you can do
that. With a normal seat back display, with a pair of glasses that
deliver 1080p to an individual or with a dlp projector. MIT has one the
size of a credit card one inch thick based on LED technology.

In Japan I expect you will see portable HD receivers with projection
capability that can be used anywhere since the diversity antennas are
built in to the receive device which can be the size of a cell phone.
The MIT projector is meant to attach to a cell phone, lap top or PDA for
projecting a screen size of up to 30 inches or so.

Cars are not the only portable/mobile use. There are a thousand
different scenarios where mobile reception would be great. On your boat
to watch the game while cruising etc.

The "Do you watch HDTV in your car?" BS is getting a little old don't
you think? We all know that people will take whatever device they want
to where ever they want and use it. People do all kinds of dangerous
things while driving.

The temptation to watch video while driving has been available for years
now it is not knew. The fact that a broadcast can now be received while
mobile changes nothing. It is pretty obvious that you should not drive
while watching a video whether broadcast or not.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 9:10:24 AM

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

numeric wrote:
>
>
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> How can you say that a certain amount of snow or distortion is the
>> equivalent of a certain period of time with NO signal.
>>
>
> What happens to a COFDM signal at the threshold? Does it have the cliff
> edge effect like 8VSB, or is it more like analog?
>
Digital is digital. COFDM has the same cliff effect that any digital
modulation would have. The difference is that the cliff affect only
happens with COFDM when you have too little signal. That is a given with
any broadcast technology. But with COFDM you do not have loss of signal
because of interference from multipath either static or dynamic in most
cases. You only have loss of signal when you are too far from the source
or there is too much clutter between you and the source. And with COFDM
you can have many transmitters in a SFN (Single Frequency Network) so
that the chance of being without a signal is greatly diminished.

So that we could drive over most of Manhattan at speeds ranging up to 80
mph (West Side Highway at 3 am) with no loss of signal, no cliff affect
while receiving from a 100 Watt transmitter.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 9:54:07 AM

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

Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> If 8-VSB is so good why did LG, the owners of most of the IP royalty
>> rights to 8-VSB choose COFDM for their DMB mobile video broadcasting
>> to cell phones?
>
>
> The same reason that LG chose CDMA for the phones that they produce for
> Verizon and SPRINT, and choose GSM for the phones that they produce for
> Cingular and T-Mobile.
>
> Note, by the way, that what is being discussed is not broadcast
> television, much less HDTV. It is 18fps video content provided by the
> mobile phone providers.
>
> Consequently, it is off-topic for alt.tv.tech.hdtv. Bob Miller knows
> this, but being a psychotic crackpot, continues to interject into a
> forum where he isn't wanted.
>
> -- Mark --
>
It is not 18fps and not provided by the mobile phone provicers. Qualcomm
will build their own overlay COFDM network and use QVGA video at up to
30 frames per second and high-quality stereo audio. They did this
because they are addressing small screens on cell phones. They could
have increased the bit rate to HD if they wanted to and decreased the
number of video programs.

In the question of why did LG chose COFDM for their DMB network it is
not analogous to suggest it is for the same reason as they build CDMA
phones or GSM phones for different customers. They build those phones
because that is what the customer ordered.

In the case of the DAB spectrum in Korea using COFDM LG was in the
decision making process. There was not a customer dictating. LG chose
COFDM because 8-VSB would't work period.

HD is just a resolution. How we receive it and whether the modulation
works in on topic. An example of LG choosing COFDM over 8-VSB is
germain. The modulation does not know what resolution it is delivering
nor does it matter. The only questions are can the modulation deliver
enough bits to support the resolution desired and how easy is it to
receive. Any example of good reception and high bit rate and what
modulation others chose and why is on target.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 10:49:41 AM

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

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote :


>Your second url,
>http://neasia.nikkeibp.com/nea/200404/techana_298749.ht...
>talks of the DMB-T modulation being developed in China which is NOT
>based on Eureka 147 COFDM but is based on COFDM. Eureka 147 is an early
>version of COFDM that was developed for the DAB (Digital Audio
>Broadcasting) spectrum and this is what is being used in Korea. They are
>using it however to broadcast both audio and video. That is what they
>are doing in Guangdong.
>
>The DMB being used in Guangdong on the DAB spectrum to deliver audio and
>video is NOT the same DMB-T being developed by Tsinghua University in
>Shenzhen.

Yes I know, but Radio Foshan use DAB Eureka 147 (DMB) for their tests
also. As I know the chinese government had chosen DAB Eureka 147 for a
problem of cost. I will search this document with the english
translation. Radio Foshan had ordered recently 12 DAB eureka 147 with
the multiblock mode to Itelco China to provide 4 DAB Eureka 147
ensemble.
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 10:49:42 AM

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

Nicolas Croiset wrote:
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote :
>
>
>
>>Your second url,
>>http://neasia.nikkeibp.com/nea/200404/techana_298749.ht...
>>talks of the DMB-T modulation being developed in China which is NOT
>>based on Eureka 147 COFDM but is based on COFDM. Eureka 147 is an early
>>version of COFDM that was developed for the DAB (Digital Audio
>>Broadcasting) spectrum and this is what is being used in Korea. They are
>>using it however to broadcast both audio and video. That is what they
>>are doing in Guangdong.
>>
>>The DMB being used in Guangdong on the DAB spectrum to deliver audio and
>>video is NOT the same DMB-T being developed by Tsinghua University in
>>Shenzhen.
>
>
> Yes I know, but Radio Foshan use DAB Eureka 147 (DMB) for their tests
> also. As I know the chinese government had chosen DAB Eureka 147 for a
> problem of cost. I will search this document with the english
> translation. Radio Foshan had ordered recently 12 DAB eureka 147 with
> the multiblock mode to Itelco China to provide 4 DAB Eureka 147
> ensemble.
>
You are right they have chosen to use DAB Eureka 147 called DMB for
audio and video in 1.25 MHz DAB channels in China. But that has nothing
to do with the fact that China is also developing another modulation
that happens to be called the same thing which is unfortunate. They are
two completely different things however.

In choosing DAB Eureka 147 DMB for problems of cost has nothing to do
with the fact that they are working on an national DTV broadcast
modulation to work on 8 MHz channels that uses a completely different
modulation called DMB-T and that this modulation uses an advanced
version of COFDM not the Eureka 147 version.

http://www.reed-electronics.com/eb-mag/index.asp?layout...
"U.S. companies are also working with China to develop digital TV
technology. China sees an opportunity to jump in because the DTV market
has been so slow to develop in the United States and Europe. The
government is expected to choose by year's end between proposals from
two universities: Tsinghua and Jiaotong. Beijing-based Tsinghua is
developing Digital Multimedia Broadcasting-Terrestrial (DMB-T) chips
with U.S.-based Legend Silicon, one of whose investors is Intel Capital,
the venture capital arm of Intel."

Bob Miller
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 3:45:04 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:

> that the chance of being without a signal is greatly diminished.
>
> So that we could drive over most of Manhattan at speeds ranging up to 80
> mph (West Side Highway at 3 am) with no loss of signal, no cliff affect
> while receiving from a 100 Watt transmitter.

Manhattan NY is not the same as MAnhattan KS.

Try your 100 watt transmitter on a 200 foot tower there and see how many
people you get.

Repeat with COFDM at 19.3 Mb/sec at 1 MW on a 2000 foot tower.

Repeat with 8-VSB at 19.3 Mb/sec at 1 MW on a 2000 foot tower.

You will find that the last one will get you the biggest audience
by far.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 4:55:07 PM

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

> But with COFDM you do not have loss of signal
>because of interference from multipath either static or dynamic in most
>cases.

Golly BOB, did you forget to mention that ACCORDING TO YOU this is no longer a
significant issue with the latest gen of 8VSB receivers?
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 5:04:26 PM

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

>Most vehicles will have TV capability in the back seat soon. That could
>be HD if you could receive it.

Golly BOB, high definition on a 7" screen in the back seat? You see BOB, this
alone shows your total ignorance of high definition and what it is. You are
beyond belief. There is NOBODY that could benefit, let alone SEE, the benefits
of high definition on a flip down screen in the back seat of a car. UNREAL.

>Since you can't with 8-VSB I guess you
>won't be able to watch it in the US.

Your innane argument is totally destroyed by my first comment above. But since
you obviously no nothing about HD, I'm sure this will elude you too. You are
indeed the Minister of Misinformation

>The "Do you watch HDTV in your car?" BS is getting a little old don't
>you think?

No BOB, your ignorance of HD is getting MORE than a 'little old'.

>People do all kinds of dangerous
>things while driving.

And you and your buddies have been the most 'dangerous' thing in the
development and transition of HD in this country. Your greed at the potential
expense of everyone else is personally revulting.
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 5:07:17 PM

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

>Consequently, it is off-topic for alt.tv.tech.hdtv. Bob Miller knows
>this, but being a psychotic crackpot, continues to interject into a forum
>where he isn't wanted.

BINGO! It's absolutely staggering how this dope continues to discuss broadcast
schemes in OTHER countries with NO HD, changes in broadcast schemes in THIS
country that have already been decided, but yet, virtually NEVER discusses high
definition. Hey BOB, why don't you go on to an audiophile forum and discuss
medicine?
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 5:08:46 PM

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

>LG chose
>COFDM because 8-VSB would't work period.

Funny BOB, it works damn well in THIS country.
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 9:39:21 PM

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

Vidguy7 wrote:
>>But with COFDM you do not have loss of signal
>>because of interference from multipath either static or dynamic in most
>>cases.
>
>
> Golly BOB, did you forget to mention that ACCORDING TO YOU this is no longer a
> significant issue with the latest gen of 8VSB receivers?

According to me the latest 5th gen receivers is not out yet, is easily
defeated by both dynamic and static multipath but works in a minimally
acceptable way to provide a plug and play experience.

It is far inferior to any COFDM being used.

The US is now rapidly becoming a third world country whose government is
for sale to the highest bidder. It is becoming a dumping ground for cast
off technology by others. 8-VSB is a good example. If you want to see
the cutting edge in consumer technology you have to go to other countries.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 11:07:09 PM

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

>The US is now rapidly becoming a third world country whose government is
>for sale to the highest bidder.

Don't give us your political bullshit. We see through it BOB.

It is becoming a dumping ground for cast
>off technology by others. 8-VSB is a good example. If you want to see
>the cutting edge in consumer technology you have to go to other countries.

You mean the same GLORIOUS 8VSB technology that brings me FREE OTA HD from CBS,
ABC, NBC, FOX etc? That 'cast off technology'. BOB you are a bullshit artist
'supreme'.
November 19, 2004 5:31:06 AM

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

In article <XFWmd.1919$Tq6.1821@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Richard C. wrote:
>> X-No-archive: yes
>>
>> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:spOmd.1537$Tq6.1058@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>The fact that 8-VSB cannot be received mobile is a testimony to how bad it
>>>was designed.
>>>
>>
>> ==============================
>> Why?
>> Do you watch HDTV in your car?
>>
>>
>Most vehicles will have TV capability in the back seat soon. That could
>be HD if you could receive it. Since you can't with 8-VSB I guess you
>won't be able to watch it in the US. In Japan and Australia you will be
>able to watch HD in your car. Their will be a number of ways you can do
>that. With a normal seat back display, with a pair of glasses that
>deliver 1080p to an individual or with a dlp projector. MIT has one the
>size of a credit card one inch thick based on LED technology.

Almost half the states in the USA have either made it illegal or are making it
illegal to have a tv playing while a vehicle is in motion at the same time. So
basically youd have to park and watch. GIVE IT UP BOB!!!


>
>In Japan I expect you will see portable HD receivers with projection
>capability that can be used anywhere since the diversity antennas are
>built in to the receive device which can be the size of a cell phone.
>The MIT projector is meant to attach to a cell phone, lap top or PDA for
>projecting a screen size of up to 30 inches or so.
>
>Cars are not the only portable/mobile use. There are a thousand
>different scenarios where mobile reception would be great. On your boat
>to watch the game while cruising etc.
>
>The "Do you watch HDTV in your car?" BS is getting a little old don't
>you think? We all know that people will take whatever device they want
>to where ever they want and use it. People do all kinds of dangerous
>things while driving.
>
>The temptation to watch video while driving has been available for years
>now it is not knew. The fact that a broadcast can now be received while
>mobile changes nothing. It is pretty obvious that you should not drive
>while watching a video whether broadcast or not.
>
>Bob Miller
>
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 9:20:58 AM

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

GMAN wrote:

>
> Almost half the states in the USA have either made it illegal or are making it
> illegal to have a tv playing while a vehicle is in motion at the same time. So
> basically youd have to park and watch. GIVE IT UP BOB!!!
>

Again the reality is more like this....

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/199985_celltech17.h...

"At last count, 38 states, including Washington, prohibit TVs that are
viewable by drivers. Many of these laws are two decades old, and specify
a device that receives a signal -- which exempts DVD players, gaming
units and more. So far, only Louisiana and California have made it
illegal for the driver to watch DVDs or videos unless the car is in park
or the emergency brake is on -- the way manufacturers recommend they be
installed before they can be used.

About 176,000 in-dash DVD players are expected to be sold this year, up
from 120,000 last year, according to the Consumer Electronics Association.

But some drivers are dismantling the systems that prevent them from
playing while the car is moving. Others have installed them in
dashboards, passenger visors and rearview mirrors.

The laws simply aren't keeping up with new technology.

"I don't think even five years ago that legislators contemplated the
idea of being able to receive a fax in your car or watch a DVD," said
Matt Sundeen of the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Presently, Washington doesn't prohibit the use of DVD players,
electronic games, computers, or personal digital assistants (PDAs) while
driving. Since the state doesn't restrict the use of hand-held phones,
it's not illegal to drive while text messaging, e-mailing, taking
pictures, surfing the Web, etc., on your phone.

There is a $101 fine for driving with a television in view, but that's it."

In view of the driver that is.

Even if your vehicle doesn't have a TV screen installed in the back seat
as the article mentions what is to stop you from bringing in any of
thousands of devices that have video screens on them including cell
phones, laptops, PDA's, portable DVD players, portable DTV's, portable
video players or just a mirror so you can comb your hair while driving?

And as the article states your "more than half of the states" is in fact
only two, Louisiana and California so maybe I shouldn't give it up
according to your theory. Of couse we are not targeting vehicles and
especially not drivers. We are targeting mobile reception of TV signals.
In the end a vehicles driver has always had a lot of things they could
do while driving like changing clothes or putting on makeup. It is up to
the common sense of the driver and that little voice called self
preservation to save the day.

No law is going to stop mobile reception of DTV signals. Satellite TV
can be received mobile right now.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 1:09:57 PM

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

X-No-archive: yes

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:k1Xmd.29252$KJ6.15179@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> So that we could drive over most of Manhattan at speeds ranging up to 80
> mph (West Side Highway at 3 am) with no loss of signal, no cliff affect
> while receiving from a 100 Watt transmitter.
>
==============================
I am sure glad that I do not live anywhere that YOU drive.
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 1:40:49 PM

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

In article <ehgnd.2607$Tq6.169@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bob Miller
wrote:
> "At last count, 38 states, including Washington, prohibit TVs that are
> viewable by drivers. Many of these laws are two decades old, and specify
> a device that receives a signal -- which exempts DVD players, gaming
> units and more. So far, only Louisiana and California have made it
> illegal for the driver to watch DVDs or videos unless the car is in park
> or the emergency brake is on -- the way manufacturers recommend they be
> installed before they can be used.
>
> About 176,000 in-dash DVD players are expected to be sold this year, up
> from 120,000 last year, according to the Consumer Electronics Association.
>
> But some drivers are dismantling the systems that prevent them from
> playing while the car is moving. Others have installed them in
> dashboards, passenger visors and rearview mirrors.
>
> The laws simply aren't keeping up with new technology.

In the UK it's illegal to use a TV screen where it is visible by the driver,
but I don't know exactly how this is specified, i.e. whether the law refers
to a TV receiver, or a display screen, and I don't know if there are legal
restrictions in the way the equipment is wired, or simply that it mustn't be
used while driving. And for legal purposes it's also necessary to specify
what's meant by "driving", i.e. moving/not moving, engine running or not,
handbrake on/off, key in ignition, or simply being in posession of the key.
Whatever the specification is, it must exclude information screens, some of
which use the same kind of display as a TV set or DVD player, but show
different information. My satellite navigation system for instance has a
little screen that shows a map, but was factory fitted to presumably legal.

In the UK it was recently made illegal to use a hand held mobile phone while
driving. According to the leaflet that my phone network sent out to all
users, it is illegal to hold the phone while the engine is running. As far as
I know, there are no specific restrictions for any other hand held devices
such as cameras, electric shavers etc.

There is, however, the offence of "Driving without due care and attention",
which you would think would be all that was necessary to control any kind of
stupid behaviour while driving a vehicle, if only they'd apply it more often.
Trying to update the law to take account of specific items of new technology
is, as you point out, a race that the law is bound to lose.

Rod.
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 4:14:55 PM

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

>No law is going to stop mobile reception of DTV signals. Satellite TV
>can be received mobile right now.

BOB, the laws are ON THE BOOKS. What part of that don't you understand? Are you
now advocating that people break the law just so YOU can profit from your
mobile COFDM schemes. Are you not only selfish but are now encouraging people
to break the law. My God BOB, you really ARE a slime.

The FACT is it is UNSAFE to watch TV and drive at the same time. It is
distracting for the driver to have the thing even playing in the back seat.
With the direction the laws are going in with cellphones across the country, do
you 'really' think that the same trend won't apply to the rest of the states
where there is currently no law? Are you that naive? Nah, you're just
desperate. Why don't you do something else for a living rather than trying to
stop the FREE high definition that is available via our glorious 8VSB system?
BOB, you are indeed our resident Snake Oil Salesman.
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 6:33:22 PM

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

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Bob Miller wrote:
> The US is now rapidly becoming a third world country whose government is for
> sale to the highest bidder. It is becoming a dumping ground for cast off
> technology by others. 8-VSB is a good example. If you want to see the cutting
> edge in consumer technology you have to go to other countries.

Then why don't *you* leave, Psycho Bob?

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 9:44:30 PM

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

>Even if your vehicle doesn't have a TV screen installed in the back seat
>as the article mentions what is to stop you from bringing in any of

I question whether more than half of the vehicles in the USA even HAVE
a back-seat passenger even once in any given week.

>No law is going to stop mobile reception of DTV signals.

But 8-VSB can! Which is why it's a great idea!

Incidentally, does 8-VSB have reception problems for mobile
*PEDESTRIANS*? (walking or jogging)?

Gordon L. Burditt
November 19, 2004 9:57:52 PM

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

In article <jGXmd.29271$KJ6.12456@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:

> It is not 18fps and not provided by the mobile phone provicers. Qualcomm
> will build their own overlay COFDM network and use QVGA video at up to
> 30 frames per second and high-quality stereo audio. They did this
> because they are addressing small screens on cell phones. They could
> have increased the bit rate to HD if they wanted to and decreased the
> number of video programs.

Nobody wants to watch video on cell phones.

You are the weak link. Goodbye!
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 10:58:26 PM

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

Gordon Burditt wrote:
>>Even if your vehicle doesn't have a TV screen installed in the back seat
>>as the article mentions what is to stop you from bringing in any of
>
>
> I question whether more than half of the vehicles in the USA even HAVE
> a back-seat passenger even once in any given week.
>
>
>>No law is going to stop mobile reception of DTV signals.
>
>
> But 8-VSB can! Which is why it's a great idea!
>
> Incidentally, does 8-VSB have reception problems for mobile
> *PEDESTRIANS*? (walking or jogging)?
>
> Gordon L. Burditt

Yes 8-VSB has problems with pedestrian reception among many other problems.

There is a lot of spectrum that does not require 8-VSB. Channels 51 thru
69 for instance.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 10:59:27 PM

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

poldy wrote:
> In article <jGXmd.29271$KJ6.12456@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>It is not 18fps and not provided by the mobile phone provicers. Qualcomm
>>will build their own overlay COFDM network and use QVGA video at up to
>>30 frames per second and high-quality stereo audio. They did this
>>because they are addressing small screens on cell phones. They could
>>have increased the bit rate to HD if they wanted to and decreased the
>>number of video programs.
>
>
> Nobody wants to watch video on cell phones.
>
> You are the weak link. Goodbye!

I don't, you don't, most people I talk to don't, we all will.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
November 20, 2004 12:27:08 AM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:zgsnd.2917> I
don't, you don't, most people I talk to don't, we all will.
>
> Bob Miller

Now that I do somewhat agree with. Its like text messaging, I NEVER would
have thought people would do this. It is a huge money maker now, even
though I still have never text messaged anybody. People use it.

--Dan
Anonymous
November 20, 2004 6:45:51 AM

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

>I don't, you don't, most people I talk to don't, we all will.
>

Interesting. So now BOB is telling you that we have no choice, we MUST buy
these cellphones and we MUST watch them. This man has some real issues.
Anonymous
November 20, 2004 6:46:54 AM

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

>Yes 8-VSB has problems with pedestrian reception among many other problems.
>

As does COFDM, as does COFDM. BOB simply chooses not to tell you about that.
Anonymous
November 20, 2004 8:19:20 AM

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

Vidguy7 wrote:
>>I don't, you don't, most people I talk to don't, we all will.
>>
>
>
> Interesting. So now BOB is telling you that we have no choice, we MUST buy
> these cellphones and we MUST watch them. This man has some real issues.

You must have a very low regard for other posters here Vidguy7 if you
think you can constantly twist what someone says and it won't reflect on
you.

I said people WILL watch DTV on cell phones. I did not say they Must
watch nor did I say they Must buy I just said they will.

People said that there was no reason for a GUI on your computer, real
men didn't need and wouldn't use a GUI, we all do. People said you
didn't need automatic transmissions and real men drove a stick, we all
use automatic transmissions. A lot of people did not see any reason for
a cell phone, most of us have them. The list goes on in fact it covers
almost every modern convenience we have.
Anonymous
November 20, 2004 7:07:11 PM

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

>You must have a very low regard for other posters here Vidguy7 if you
>think you can constantly twist what someone says and it won't reflect on
>you.

No BOB, it is YOU that has an exceedingly low regard for people here. Your
lies, distortions and embellishments over the years to further your failed
business propositions are testimony to that. Your ongoing pursuit to slow the
digital transition, dismantle 8VSB, instill fear in those shopping for 8VSB
receivers are further testimony to how unsavory your tactics are. No BOB, it is
YOU that should be ashamed and I have said that often. SHAME ON YOU BOB!!!

>I don't, you don't, most people I talk to don't, we all will.

Well gee BOB, let's look at the above quote. I think it's pretty fair to imply
that everyone WILL watch (according to you) our teeny weeny HD cellphones. If I
choose not to and (according to you) most people you talk to don't, then I
guess you are TOTALLY inaccurate to characterize the future as "WE ALL WILL".
Why would I do something that I don't want to, makes no sense for me, is
ILLEGAL in a moving car etc. etc. What part of THAT don't you understand BOB?
It appears that many OR most WON'T watch on these cellphones. So once again
BOB, we have your very typical EMBELLISHMENT.
You've been doing it for years.

>People said you
>didn't need automatic transmissions and real men drove a stick, we all
>use automatic transmissions.

No BOB, we all DON'T use automatic transmissions. Man, it's a good thing you're
not an attorney. Talk about being free and loose with the English language!
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 4:13:10 AM

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

magnulus wrote:

> [snip]



You are a ridiculous troll.













C.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 12:50:26 PM

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

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, manitou910 wrote:
> You are a ridiculous troll.

Please, let's get our definitions straight! There's a difference between
trolls and one of Psycho Bob's sock puppets!

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 5:27:22 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:

>
> In five to ten years (if 8-VSB survives that long) the average household
> in the US will have 10 plus digital TV receive devices. All but one or
> two will be COFDM based and mobile.

Given your track record on predictions (zero for all) I guess we don't
have to worry about that.

> If 8-VSB survives this it will be
> relegated to the HD set in the living room (maybe another somewhere else).
>

Which, oddly enough, is what we want.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
!