QAM Channels

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

The manual for the Sharp LCD HDTV Model LC37GD4U with NTSC/ASTC tuners
(a whopping $500 higher than the LC37G4U with only the NTSC tuner!)
states the following tuner specs:
VHF 2-13ch
UHF 14-69ch
CATV 1-125ch
Dig. Terr Brdcast 8VSB 2-69ch
Dig. Cable 64/256 QAM 1-135ch

The Comcast channel line up for my area list some "Digital Plus" HD and
"Premium" HD shows on channels 172 to 178 and 233 and 248. The "Big
Network" HD shows are on 181 to 183. I realize I need Comcast's
(unscrambling) STB and subscription to get the first group but will the
QAM tuner receive the three channels 181 to 183 without an STB if all I
want is FOX, NBC & CBS HD? The specs above say ch. 1 to 135 only. ???

Would a Samsung STB T-451 tuner ("QAM capable" ) for $249 be as good as,
or better than the QAM tuner in the Sharp GD4U model?
I'm looking for free HD reception without an antenna.

Thanks, Rich...

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

Wow, $500 more for an ATSC tuner? I thought the so called experts
here, like Mathew said it was going to be free?

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

trader4@optonline.net wrote:

> Wow, $500 more for an ATSC tuner?

That's pretty thick, isn't it. I mean, if the ATSC/QAM tuner in my set
cost $500, then the TV they threw in to go with the tuner must sell
separately for about $170. Minus a $50 rebate.

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

Bob Miller wrote:

> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
>> trader4@optonline.net wrote:
>>
>>> Wow, $500 more for an ATSC tuner? I thought the so called experts
>>> here, like Mathew said it was going to be free?
>>>
>>
>> The only person who talked about free tuners in this ng was bob
>> miller. The only problem was that they wouldn't be HD capable.
>>
>> BTW, take a look at the year over year prices of models with tuners
>> this year that didn't have tuners last. This years Toshiba 57HX94 with
>> ATSC tuner is hundreds less than last years 57HX93 that doesn't have
>> an ATSC tuner.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
> No the free COFDM tuners that we proposed in the summer of 2000 were HD
> COFDM tuners for the US market.

That's what I said. They weren't capable of receiving the US standard
modulation system for HD.

Matthew

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

trader4@optonline.net wrote:

> Well, whatever the cost, it's far from free or insignificant. Yet,
> guys like Martin think it's a great idea for the governement to force
> the majority of people to pay for something they will never use because
> they are receiving HD via cable or sat and the internal tuner is
> unused. Maybe Martin would like it for the govt to do this
> everywhere. Soon as the PC industry comes up with a new technology,
> the govt should require it to be included in every system and paid for
> whether a consumer needs it or not.

The FCC was charged by Congress with doing the task of converting the
nation's television system from analog to digital. If the very first
thing the FCC had done once the ATSC specified 8-VSB modulation was to
have mandated a Cable ready (already an analog mandate) CAM enabled
8-VSB receiver in every "digital" display/recorder then 100% of people
with DTVs would be using at least one of those features. Many would be
using all three.

Matthew

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

trader4@optonline.net wrote:
> Well, whatever the cost, it's far from free or insignificant. Yet,
> guys like Martin think it's a great idea for the governement to force
> the majority of people to pay for something they will never use because
> they are receiving HD via cable or sat and the internal tuner is
> unused. Maybe Martin would like it for the govt to do this
> everywhere. Soon as the PC industry comes up with a new technology,
> the govt should require it to be included in every system and paid for
> whether a consumer needs it or not.
>
The PC business never had their hands around the throat of Congress like
the CEA and the broadcast industry does. It never ceases to amaze me
that the public is so inured the the incredible amount of pocket picking
that their government is up to. Congress uses its power to pick your
pockets thru taxes but that is only half of it. They really pick your
pocket by doing the bidding of the various industry groups from the
sugar industry, farmers, drug companies, broadcasters, CEA, the list
goes on.

The only time Congress does something in the interest of the public
anymore is when two industries are in conflict as to what they want and
the compromise happens to be in the public interest.

If you add up all the things you buy that the government mandates, all
the price supports that jack up the prices from everything cotton,
sugar, steel, TV sets, catfish, shrimp and add to that the subsidies
such as the $150 billion added to the Farm bill last year to "buy" red
states votes and the incredible cost inflation that exist in out
military budget you get about 50% of what you pay in taxes that are
outright ripoffs. That is before we even get to the "PORK".

And a good part of those taxes you don't see on your pay stub because
you are paying them when you buy anything because of corporate taxes
that are a good part of every product you buy.

And now this government is going apes**t with speding and tax cuts and
paying for it with the biggest tax of all, the most regressive tax of
all, a declinig dollar. Who notices that the dollar has fallen 28% in
just the last two years or is on track for a meltdown any day if China
or Japan simple gets nervous.

A declining dollar doesn't just tax every dollar you make this year. It
taxes every dollar you have ever saved or invested.

Bob Miller

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

"Rich" <TheMagicSquare@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1102628733.362506.303260@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> The manual for the Sharp LCD HDTV Model LC37GD4U with NTSC/ASTC tuners
> (a whopping $500 higher than the LC37G4U with only the NTSC tuner!)
> states the following tuner specs:
> VHF 2-13ch
> UHF 14-69ch
> CATV 1-125ch
> Dig. Terr Brdcast 8VSB 2-69ch
> Dig. Cable 64/256 QAM 1-135ch
>
> The Comcast channel line up for my area list some "Digital Plus" HD and
> "Premium" HD shows on channels 172 to 178 and 233 and 248. The "Big
> Network" HD shows are on 181 to 183. I realize I need Comcast's
> (unscrambling) STB and subscription to get the first group but will the
> QAM tuner receive the three channels 181 to 183 without an STB if all I
> want is FOX, NBC & CBS HD? The specs above say ch. 1 to 135 only. ???
>
> Would a Samsung STB T-451 tuner ("QAM capable" ) for $249 be as good as,
> or better than the QAM tuner in the Sharp GD4U model?
> I'm looking for free HD reception without an antenna.
>
> Thanks, Rich...
>

The actual chanells which are blocks of 6 mhz can and are subdivided into up
to six subchannels. So potentially you have 750 channels. It's somewhat
less than that number as some are HD channels that take more of the channel
bandwidth.

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

trader4@optonline.net wrote:

> Well, whatever the cost, it's far from free or insignificant.

It won't stay far from free or insignificant for very long. In a few
years it will probably cost about $4.

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

In article <10rjb3sl9ki5a6d@corp.supernews.com> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> writes:

>The FCC was charged by Congress with doing the task of converting the
>nation's television system from analog to digital. If the very first
>thing the FCC had done once the ATSC specified 8-VSB modulation was to
>have mandated a Cable ready (already an analog mandate) CAM enabled
>8-VSB receiver in every "digital" display/recorder then 100% of people
>with DTVs would be using at least one of those features.

Or, they could have mandated a cable ready 8vsb/16vsb tuner...

Remember when the descriptions suggested that once NTSC was turned off,
16VSB would be good over the air. Just think what that extra bandwidth
could bring -- probably 1080p (if it had been included in the standard
so decoders could decode it).


Alan

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

trader4@optonline.net wrote:
> Wow, $500 more for an ATSC tuner? I thought the so called experts
> here, like Mathew said it was going to be free?
>

If you find the QAM tuner for HD cable reception useful, then the added
cost of the ATSC tuner is small. The tuner consists of two basic parts,
the RF tuner (either QAM or ATSC) and the MPRG-2 decoder. The built in
tuner is designed for both cable QAM reception as well as ATSC
reception. The HD MPEG-2 decoder is the most expensive part, which is
shared by both tuners. The actual cost for either the QAM or ATSC tuner
is small. In fact the QAM and ATSC tuner probably share the same chip. I
would also expect that the cost for just the cable card reader and card
to exceed the additional ATSC cost. Higher production volume obviously
will bring down the cost for both digital cable QAM and ATSC reception.