Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

It's 2005. Are 5th gen OTA tuners available yet?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 12:38:11 PM

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

Lately I've been reading a bit on this newsgroup and it seems that 5th
generation OTA tuners were going to be released by the 4th quarter of
2004. Are there any out yet? Could anybody list brands and models?
Thanks.
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 9:59:39 PM

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

igorcarajo@yahoo.com wrote:
> Lately I've been reading a bit on this newsgroup and it seems that 5th
> generation OTA tuners were going to be released by the 4th quarter of
> 2004. Are there any out yet? Could anybody list brands and models?
> Thanks.
>
Not out yet in fact Rich Peterson reports that LG has NO plans to
produce a stand alone STB of their own using 5th gen. Hisense and
Toshiba may still plan on using LG's chip to make 5th gen however.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 11:48:12 PM

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

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:59:39 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>igorcarajo@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Lately I've been reading a bit on this newsgroup and it seems that 5th
>> generation OTA tuners were going to be released by the 4th quarter of
>> 2004. Are there any out yet? Could anybody list brands and models?
>> Thanks.
>>
>Not out yet in fact Rich Peterson reports that LG has NO plans to
>produce a stand alone STB of their own using 5th gen. Hisense and
>Toshiba may still plan on using LG's chip to make 5th gen however.
>
>Bob Miller

You don't announce something like that until you sell off the 4th gen
boxes. marketing 101.

Otherwise, no one buys the old ones.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 12:03:05 AM

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

In article <1105378691.546477.121060@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
<igorcarajo@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Lately I've been reading a bit on this newsgroup and it seems that 5th
> generation OTA tuners were going to be released by the 4th quarter of
> 2004. Are there any out yet? Could anybody list brands and models?
> Thanks.
>
I've got a 4th gen LG LST-4200A that has worked flawlessly since day
one. What's wrong with a good 4th gen?

--
Deja Moo: I've seen this bullshit before.

My address has been anti-spammed.
Please reply to: scasse@invalid.net replacing invalid with sonic.
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 12:05:16 AM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vgAEd.3435$Ii4.1738@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> igorcarajo@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Lately I've been reading a bit on this newsgroup and it seems that 5th
>> generation OTA tuners were going to be released by the 4th quarter of
>> 2004. Are there any out yet? Could anybody list brands and models?
>> Thanks.
>>
> Not out yet in fact Rich Peterson reports that LG has NO plans to produce
> a stand alone STB of their own using 5th gen. Hisense and Toshiba may
> still plan on using LG's chip to make 5th gen however.
>
> Bob Miller

If the 5th gen is so much better why no STB from LG? Now it sounds
like Hisense may not. What's the problem? Does LG want too much?
Production problems? I'm will to try one.
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 7:20:10 AM

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

Otto Pylot wrote:
> In article <1105378691.546477.121060@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> <igorcarajo@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Lately I've been reading a bit on this newsgroup and it seems that 5th
>>generation OTA tuners were going to be released by the 4th quarter of
>>2004. Are there any out yet? Could anybody list brands and models?
>>Thanks.
>>
>
> I've got a 4th gen LG LST-4200A that has worked flawlessly since day
> one. What's wrong with a good 4th gen?
>
4th generation receivers work in some locations but not those which are
multipath challenged. That means in places with trees, wind, airplanes
and buildings. 4th generation especially has problems with reception
with indoor antenna because of multipath both static and dynamic. That
means that people walking around the room can cause loss of signal as
can static multipath from signals bouncing around the room.

The success of DTV OTA depends on having receivers that work for
everybody not just a few. Receivers that work in all conditions not just
when things are just right and you have the rooftop rotorized antenna
pointed the right way.

The ideal receiver would work with an antenna that could be included in
the HDTV set or simply placed on top and be a simple loop, rabbit ears
or monopole $2 antenna. It should work in New York City apartments and I
personally believe it should work in the back seat of your car, on a
train, on your boat or in a bus, in the back of our 16 wheeler or at the
beach. With COFDM antennas small enough to fit on cell phones work very
well. This video of three screens are receiving mobile in the worst RF
environment in the world, New York City from a 100 Watt transmitter. The
antennas range from a three inch omni monopole to a 15 inch monopole.

www.viacel.com/bob.wmv

For the life of me I can't imagine why you would want to leave any of
those scenarios out if you didn't have to. That is if you could have a
receiver that did all of the above and more why not? Why wouldn't you
want to receive OTA DTV on your boat? How about on a portable TV that
has a screen but also lets you plug in 1080P glasses? The antenna is
built into these portable DTVs. (COFDM)

http://www.i4u.com/article2231.html
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R1D7213F9
http://www.followmedia-tv.com/

and these phones with minuscule antennas. Wouldn't these antennas look
better on your roof?
http://www.itmedia.co.jp/mobile/0308/08/sanyo.html
Video demo
http://www.wirelesswatch.jp/modules.php?name=News&file=...

And in spite of the FCC the US, as this article notes, may actually be
getting back to the cutting edge with cell phone DTV (COFDM of course)
in Pittsburgh of all places.
http://cellphones.engadget.com/entry/1234000483023527/

This article says that DVB-H will clean the clock of DMB-T being offered
by S. Korean companies. Before this is over LG and friends are going to
be sorry they picked the 8-VSB modulation. It forced them to then find a
Mobile modulation (DMB-T) to satisfy their broadcasters. Now they are
riding two horses both of which are the wrong ones. DMB-T uses an old
form of COFDM so even the loser has the right modulation sort of.

How about combining a gizmo like this with 80 Gigs of video and music files
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/01/10/silverscreen/in...

with glasses like these with 1080P HDTV capability.
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/01/10/silverscreen/in...

COFDM and its DVB-T and DVB-H win in the end world-wide and that means
here in the US also. Just a matter of time.

So why did we give up all these possibilities? Channels 2 thru 51 can't
do any of this. They could do HDTV just like 8-VSB with COFDM and have
all these capabilities. Why don't we? Why are we one of the few
countries in the world that can't? Australia and Japan can and they also
can do HD. France will and they will have HD. We can't. Why? Did we get
something in return? We made a big sacrifice. We have to have rooftop
antennas (at least till later this year). We don't have mobile
reception, why not? What did we get for the sacrifice? DUH!!! NOTHING?
Wrong answer.

What we got was higher royalty payments, ten times higher. Nice trade,
lose a lot of functionality and get to pay more money for the
privilege. And while the royalty payments that we pay (remember 10 time
higher for 8-VSB than COFDM) go to a foreign corporation, LG, the
royalties that most other countries citizens pay (10% of our payments)
go to mostly US patent holders. Isn't that weird? IN an age when the US
exports IP. That is what we sell mostly. We have elected to send IP
royalty payments overseas to a foreign company while the rest of the
world thinks our IP (Intellectual property) is better. AND IT IS! COFDM
is American and it is far better.

And LG isn't shy about telling its shareholders how much, $100,000,000
per year it was worth once the FCC MANDATED receivers in every DTV set.

4th generation receivers do not work well in most apartments in
Manhattan. I know because I have tried four and OWN two. I have tried
over a number of years COFDM and 8-VSB in different cities and different
conditions.

5th generation LG receivers are the first 8-VSB receivers that work in
static multipath decent enough TO BE SOLD. In my opinion NO receiver
that has been sold to date should have been. We should not even have
started our digital transition in the US until we had a receiver that
worked at least as well as LG 5th generation receivers. The FCC has let
us down. They did not look out for the consumer which is their PRIMARY
job. They specifically looked out for LG Industries. Go figure.

You have to ask yourselves why the FCC first of all picked a modulation
that was so flawed and second why did they stick with it so long. Why
did they believe LG and others when they said that they would have fix
for 8-VSB that would make it work MOBILE and have no problem with
reception with simple indoor antennas IN SIX MONTHS starting January
11th 2001. We have to date only seen a 5th generation receiver. It is
not even on the market yet and it does not work MOBILE nor does the
E-VSB that was supposed to specifically work mobile.

The 5th gen receiver is 4 1/2 years LATE! And its getting later every
day. And now we hear that LG will not even make stand alone receivers.
They will only include them in their HDTV sets. That will give them a
MAJOR competitive advantage. And Hisense says they will not deploy 5th
generation receivers till their current stocks run out, six months, a
year?? I don't know.

In 2000 the FCC had a review of both COFDM and 8-VSB. They then had a
test (allowed by the FCC) that was conducted by the industry, that was
brazen in your face fraud. In the last hour of the last FCC
administration they re-affirmed 8-VSB on January 19th 2001.

And now we hear that our Chairman of the FCC Powell is frustrated at the
pace of the DTV OTA transition. He could have turned it around many
times. He could turn it around today. He won't because he does not have
the best interest of the public at heart.

I would like to think otherwise but it has been too long a wait for any
actions from the FCC that would suggest otherwise.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 11:22:07 AM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> Otto Pylot wrote:
> > In article <1105378691.546477.121060@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > <igorcarajo@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Lately I've been reading a bit on this newsgroup and it seems that
5th
> >>generation OTA tuners were going to be released by the 4th quarter
of
> >>2004. Are there any out yet? Could anybody list brands and models?
> >>Thanks.
> >>
> >
> > I've got a 4th gen LG LST-4200A that has worked flawlessly since
day
> > one. What's wrong with a good 4th gen?
> >
> 4th generation receivers work in some locations but not those which
are
> multipath challenged. That means in places with trees, wind,
airplanes
> and buildings. 4th generation especially has problems with reception
> with indoor antenna because of multipath both static and dynamic.
That
> means that people walking around the room can cause loss of signal as

> can static multipath from signals bouncing around the room.
>
> The success of DTV OTA depends on having receivers that work for
> everybody not just a few. Receivers that work in all conditions not
just
> when things are just right and you have the rooftop rotorized antenna

> pointed the right way.
>
> The ideal receiver would work with an antenna that could be included
in
> the HDTV set or simply placed on top and be a simple loop, rabbit
ears
> or monopole $2 antenna. It should work in New York City apartments
and I
> personally believe it should work in the back seat of your car, on a
> train, on your boat or in a bus, in the back of our 16 wheeler or at
the
> beach. With COFDM antennas small enough to fit on cell phones work
very
> well. This video of three screens are receiving mobile in the worst
RF
> environment in the world, New York City from a 100 Watt transmitter.
The
> antennas range from a three inch omni monopole to a 15 inch monopole.
>
> www.viacel.com/bob.wmv
>
> For the life of me I can't imagine why you would want to leave any of

> those scenarios out if you didn't have to. That is if you could have
a
> receiver that did all of the above and more why not? Why wouldn't you

> want to receive OTA DTV on your boat? How about on a portable TV that

> has a screen but also lets you plug in 1080P glasses? The antenna is
> built into these portable DTVs. (COFDM)
>
> http://www.i4u.com/article2231.html
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?R1D7213F9
> http://www.followmedia-tv.com/
>
> and these phones with minuscule antennas. Wouldn't these antennas
look
> better on your roof?
> http://www.itmedia.co.jp/mobile/0308/08/sanyo.html
> Video demo
>
http://www.wirelesswatch.jp/modules.php?name=News&file=...
>
> And in spite of the FCC the US, as this article notes, may actually
be
> getting back to the cutting edge with cell phone DTV (COFDM of
course)
> in Pittsburgh of all places.
> http://cellphones.engadget.com/entry/1234000483023527/
>
> This article says that DVB-H will clean the clock of DMB-T being
offered
> by S. Korean companies. Before this is over LG and friends are going
to
> be sorry they picked the 8-VSB modulation. It forced them to then
find a
> Mobile modulation (DMB-T) to satisfy their broadcasters. Now they are

> riding two horses both of which are the wrong ones. DMB-T uses an old

> form of COFDM so even the loser has the right modulation sort of.
>
> How about combining a gizmo like this with 80 Gigs of video and music
files
> http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/01/10/silverscreen/in...
>
> with glasses like these with 1080P HDTV capability.
> http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/01/10/silverscreen/in...
>
> COFDM and its DVB-T and DVB-H win in the end world-wide and that
means
> here in the US also. Just a matter of time.
>
> So why did we give up all these possibilities? Channels 2 thru 51
can't
> do any of this. They could do HDTV just like 8-VSB with COFDM and
have
> all these capabilities. Why don't we? Why are we one of the few
> countries in the world that can't? Australia and Japan can and they
also
> can do HD. France will and they will have HD. We can't. Why? Did we
get
> something in return? We made a big sacrifice. We have to have rooftop

> antennas (at least till later this year). We don't have mobile
> reception, why not? What did we get for the sacrifice? DUH!!!
NOTHING?
> Wrong answer.
>
> What we got was higher royalty payments, ten times higher. Nice
trade,
> lose a lot of functionality and get to pay more money for the
> privilege. And while the royalty payments that we pay (remember 10
time
> higher for 8-VSB than COFDM) go to a foreign corporation, LG, the
> royalties that most other countries citizens pay (10% of our
payments)
> go to mostly US patent holders. Isn't that weird? IN an age when the
US
> exports IP. That is what we sell mostly. We have elected to send IP
> royalty payments overseas to a foreign company while the rest of the
> world thinks our IP (Intellectual property) is better. AND IT IS!
COFDM
> is American and it is far better.
>
> And LG isn't shy about telling its shareholders how much,
$100,000,000
> per year it was worth once the FCC MANDATED receivers in every DTV
set.
>
> 4th generation receivers do not work well in most apartments in
> Manhattan. I know because I have tried four and OWN two. I have tried

> over a number of years COFDM and 8-VSB in different cities and
different
> conditions.
>
> 5th generation LG receivers are the first 8-VSB receivers that work
in
> static multipath decent enough TO BE SOLD. In my opinion NO receiver
> that has been sold to date should have been. We should not even have
> started our digital transition in the US until we had a receiver that

> worked at least as well as LG 5th generation receivers. The FCC has
let
> us down. They did not look out for the consumer which is their
PRIMARY
> job. They specifically looked out for LG Industries. Go figure.
>
> You have to ask yourselves why the FCC first of all picked a
modulation
> that was so flawed and second why did they stick with it so long. Why

> did they believe LG and others when they said that they would have
fix
> for 8-VSB that would make it work MOBILE and have no problem with
> reception with simple indoor antennas IN SIX MONTHS starting January
> 11th 2001. We have to date only seen a 5th generation receiver. It is

> not even on the market yet and it does not work MOBILE nor does the
> E-VSB that was supposed to specifically work mobile.
>
> The 5th gen receiver is 4 1/2 years LATE! And its getting later every

> day. And now we hear that LG will not even make stand alone
receivers.
> They will only include them in their HDTV sets. That will give them a

> MAJOR competitive advantage. And Hisense says they will not deploy
5th
> generation receivers till their current stocks run out, six months, a

> year?? I don't know.
>
> In 2000 the FCC had a review of both COFDM and 8-VSB. They then had a

> test (allowed by the FCC) that was conducted by the industry, that
was
> brazen in your face fraud. In the last hour of the last FCC
> administration they re-affirmed 8-VSB on January 19th 2001.
>
> And now we hear that our Chairman of the FCC Powell is frustrated at
the
> pace of the DTV OTA transition. He could have turned it around many
> times. He could turn it around today. He won't because he does not
have
> the best interest of the public at heart.
>
> I would like to think otherwise but it has been too long a wait for
any
> actions from the FCC that would suggest otherwise.
>
> Bob Miller

Thank you for the very informative review. This is a silly question,
but who is "LG"? Also, how can I find out which tuners belong to which
generation? I have a Motorola HDT100 and I'm very dissatisfied with it.
Should I wait until somebody releases a 5th generation tuner or is
there something already decisively better than what I have now?
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 9:28:15 PM

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

>4th generation receivers work in some locations but not those which are
>multipath challenged. That means in places with trees, wind, airplanes
>and buildings

When will you EVER stop lying BOB? I live in an area, like many here, that has
all of the above issues and I get wonderful 8VSB reception. Are there
exceptions? Of course there are. Hey, I get lousy COFDM reception in many areas
in the N.Y. Metro area. Your generalizations are inaccurate and are
deliberately meant to mislead. In other words BOB, you are a LIAR!


>The success of DTV OTA depends on having receivers that work for
>everybody not just a few.

There is NO modulation scheme that will "work for everybody". AM & FM radio
doesn't "work for everybody". Get real BOB. Folks, this is why we call BOB our
"Resident Snake Oil Salesman". He doesn't want you to get OTA HDTV. His
business schemes would rather steal that from you so he can make a profit in
his failed ventures.

>The ideal receiver would work with an antenna that could be included in
>the HDTV set or simply placed on top and be a simple loop, rabbit ears
>or monopole $2 antenna.

The ideal receiver wouldn't need an antenna. Next?

>It should work in New York City apartments and I
>personally believe it should work in the back seat of your car,

Of course BOB. Where you can enjoy all the resolution of HDTV on an 8" screen.
OY VEY!!!

>The antenna is
>built into these portable DTVs. (COFDM)

As in NON-HD portable DTVs.
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 9:28:16 PM

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

Vidguy7 (vidguy7@aol.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> >4th generation receivers work in some locations but not those which are
> >multipath challenged. That means in places with trees, wind, airplanes
> >and buildings
>
> When will you EVER stop lying BOB? I live in an area, like many here, that has
> all of the above issues and I get wonderful 8VSB reception.

I'm wondering exactly where there aren't trees, wind, and buildings in the
US where there is an HDTV display. Since *everyplace* has those, and
multipath is only a problem for a small percentage of installations, I'm
curious where Bob thinks people live in the US.

> >The ideal receiver would work with an antenna that could be included in
> >the HDTV set or simply placed on top and be a simple loop, rabbit ears
> >or monopole $2 antenna.
>
> The ideal receiver wouldn't need an antenna. Next?

Again, this makes me wonder if Bob has ever used an AM or FM radio or a
cell phone. The data carried on those is far less than HDTV, yet you
*have* to have antennas for all of them, and many times an "indoor" antenna
won't work at all.

> >It should work in New York City apartments and I
> >personally believe it should work in the back seat of your car,

There is no TV system that even close to as good as reception as cell phone
technology, so they are *all* useless for mobile *or* in New York City
apartments...without extra antennas that is.

Bob repeatedly thinks he can repeal the laws of physics. This is one of
the big signs of self-delusion.

--
Jeff Rife | "This? This is ice. This is what happens to
| water when it gets too cold. This? This is
| Kent. This is what happens to people when
| they get too sexually frustrated."
| -- Chris Knight, "Real Genius"
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 10:41:10 PM

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

igorcarajo@yahoo.com wrote:
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>>actions from the FCC that would suggest otherwise.
>>
>>Bob Miller
>
>
> Thank you for the very informative review. This is a silly question,
> but who is "LG"? Also, how can I find out which tuners belong to which
> generation? I have a Motorola HDT100 and I'm very dissatisfied with it.
> Should I wait until somebody releases a 5th generation tuner or is
> there something already decisively better than what I have now?
>

LG is a S. Korean company that bought Zenith a few years back. With the
purchase LG bought the IP royalty rights to 8-VSB the US, Canadian,
Mexican and S. Korean digital TV standard. The rest of the world went or
will go with COFDM.

Zenith as the last standing US TV manufacturer was promised in a
backroom deal, among many players, that they would get the monopoly on
the US DTV modulation. This has now been transferred to LG. Canada and
Mexico sort of have to go along with our poor decision because of border
issues. TV RF signals tend to disregard borders.

There are no 5th gen receivers yet. They were supposed to arrive last
quarter and this quarter but it doesn't seem likely now for whatever
reason. Hisense waiting for depletion of their inventories and LG
sensing that it may be best for them to only sell the receiver as an
integrated one. That way no one can buy an HD monitor from a competitor
and a reciever from them. I think this is a wise business decision short
term. Lousy for the US consumer though.

Hey our Congress gave them a corner on the market and they finally can
take advantage of it. There are much larger margins on the integrated HD
sets than the IP rights on the OTA stand alone receiver.

Toshiba also has rights to use LG's 5th gen technology. I expect that
they will come out with only integrated sets also.

You can only expect 5th gen receivers from such as USDTV where there is
a business model to sell stand alone 8-VSB OTA receivers to those who
already have analog and or digital TV sets.

Hisense should have 5th gen receivers by September.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 12:08:36 AM

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

Jeff Rife wrote:

(snipped)
>
> There is no TV system that even close to as good as reception as cell phone
> technology, so they are *all* useless for mobile *or* in New York City
> apartments...without extra antennas that is.
>
> Bob repeatedly thinks he can repeal the laws of physics. This is one of
> the big signs of self-delusion.
>

COFDM works FAR better than cell phone technology. When we were
initially testing COFDM in New York City years ago we were able to
receive a signal where NO cell phone would work in a canyon of building
at right angles to the signal while mobile. Our transmitter was 22 miles
away while the cell sites were many and within less than a couple of
miles at most. This was true for Verizon, AT&T and Sprint cell phone
reception.

In fact one of the powers in cell phone technology, Qualcomm is building
a COFDM national DTV broadcast network. Qualcomm owns around 25 pattens
on COFDM and has over 50 more in the works. It was recently suggested
that Qualcomm sees COFDM as the future replacement for their CDMA cell
technology.

COFDM in fact is used in almost all new RF technology.

If you have ever used a cell phone in Manhattan you should judge the
reception seen in this video of COFDM in Manhattan against your own
experience. This COFDM reception is coming from ONE 100 Watt
transmitter. Your cell phone relies on MANY cell transceivers in
Manhattan. Which one is best? You decide.

www.viacel.com/bob.wmv

Jeff there is a DTV modulation system that is far superior to anything
you have experienced and easily superior to any cell technology.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 10:25:46 AM

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

X-No-archive: yes

"Vidguy7" <vidguy7@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050111132815.29260.00000021@mb-m21.aol.com...
> >4th generation receivers work in some locations but not those which are
>>multipath challenged. That means in places with trees, wind, airplanes
>>and buildings
>
> When will you EVER stop lying BOB? I live in an area, like many here, that
> has
> all of the above issues and I get wonderful 8VSB reception. Are there
> exceptions? Of course there are. Hey, I get lousy COFDM reception in many
> areas
> in the N.Y. Metro area. Your generalizations are inaccurate and are
> deliberately meant to mislead. In other words BOB, you are a LIAR!
>
>
=====================================
I have to second that.
I am in Seattle and have trees, wind, airplanes and buildings.
BOTH of my HD receivers work excellently.
=====================================
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 8:32:38 PM

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

From the post below Quoting myself....

"The 5th gen receiver is 4 1/2 years LATE! And its getting later every
day. And now we hear that LG will not even make stand alone receivers.
They will only include them in their HDTV sets. That will give them a
MAJOR competitive advantage. And Hisense says they will not deploy 5th
generation receivers till their current stocks run out, six months, a
year?? I don't know. "

One of many post where I said that LG would deliver 5th gen receivers in
integrated sets.

Bob Miller wrote:
> Otto Pylot wrote:
>
>> In article <1105378691.546477.121060@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>> <igorcarajo@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Lately I've been reading a bit on this newsgroup and it seems that 5th
>>> generation OTA tuners were going to be released by the 4th quarter of
>>> 2004. Are there any out yet? Could anybody list brands and models?
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>
>> I've got a 4th gen LG LST-4200A that has worked flawlessly since day
>> one. What's wrong with a good 4th gen?
>>
> 4th generation receivers work in some locations but not those which are
> multipath challenged. That means in places with trees, wind, airplanes
> and buildings. 4th generation especially has problems with reception
> with indoor antenna because of multipath both static and dynamic. That
> means that people walking around the room can cause loss of signal as
> can static multipath from signals bouncing around the room.
>
> The success of DTV OTA depends on having receivers that work for
> everybody not just a few. Receivers that work in all conditions not just
> when things are just right and you have the rooftop rotorized antenna
> pointed the right way.
>
> The ideal receiver would work with an antenna that could be included in
> the HDTV set or simply placed on top and be a simple loop, rabbit ears
> or monopole $2 antenna. It should work in New York City apartments and I
> personally believe it should work in the back seat of your car, on a
> train, on your boat or in a bus, in the back of our 16 wheeler or at the
> beach. With COFDM antennas small enough to fit on cell phones work very
> well. This video of three screens are receiving mobile in the worst RF
> environment in the world, New York City from a 100 Watt transmitter. The
> antennas range from a three inch omni monopole to a 15 inch monopole.
>
> www.viacel.com/bob.wmv
>
> For the life of me I can't imagine why you would want to leave any of
> those scenarios out if you didn't have to. That is if you could have a
> receiver that did all of the above and more why not? Why wouldn't you
> want to receive OTA DTV on your boat? How about on a portable TV that
> has a screen but also lets you plug in 1080P glasses? The antenna is
> built into these portable DTVs. (COFDM)
>
> http://www.i4u.com/article2231.html
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?R1D7213F9
> http://www.followmedia-tv.com/
>
> and these phones with minuscule antennas. Wouldn't these antennas look
> better on your roof?
> http://www.itmedia.co.jp/mobile/0308/08/sanyo.html
> Video demo
> http://www.wirelesswatch.jp/modules.php?name=News&file=...
>
> And in spite of the FCC the US, as this article notes, may actually be
> getting back to the cutting edge with cell phone DTV (COFDM of course)
> in Pittsburgh of all places.
> http://cellphones.engadget.com/entry/1234000483023527/
>
> This article says that DVB-H will clean the clock of DMB-T being offered
> by S. Korean companies. Before this is over LG and friends are going to
> be sorry they picked the 8-VSB modulation. It forced them to then find a
> Mobile modulation (DMB-T) to satisfy their broadcasters. Now they are
> riding two horses both of which are the wrong ones. DMB-T uses an old
> form of COFDM so even the loser has the right modulation sort of.
>
> How about combining a gizmo like this with 80 Gigs of video and music files
> http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/01/10/silverscreen/in...
>
> with glasses like these with 1080P HDTV capability.
> http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/01/10/silverscreen/in...
>
> COFDM and its DVB-T and DVB-H win in the end world-wide and that means
> here in the US also. Just a matter of time.
>
> So why did we give up all these possibilities? Channels 2 thru 51 can't
> do any of this. They could do HDTV just like 8-VSB with COFDM and have
> all these capabilities. Why don't we? Why are we one of the few
> countries in the world that can't? Australia and Japan can and they also
> can do HD. France will and they will have HD. We can't. Why? Did we get
> something in return? We made a big sacrifice. We have to have rooftop
> antennas (at least till later this year). We don't have mobile
> reception, why not? What did we get for the sacrifice? DUH!!! NOTHING?
> Wrong answer.
>
> What we got was higher royalty payments, ten times higher. Nice trade,
> lose a lot of functionality and get to pay more money for the privilege.
> And while the royalty payments that we pay (remember 10 time higher for
> 8-VSB than COFDM) go to a foreign corporation, LG, the royalties that
> most other countries citizens pay (10% of our payments) go to mostly US
> patent holders. Isn't that weird? IN an age when the US exports IP. That
> is what we sell mostly. We have elected to send IP royalty payments
> overseas to a foreign company while the rest of the world thinks our IP
> (Intellectual property) is better. AND IT IS! COFDM is American and it
> is far better.
>
> And LG isn't shy about telling its shareholders how much, $100,000,000
> per year it was worth once the FCC MANDATED receivers in every DTV set.
>
> 4th generation receivers do not work well in most apartments in
> Manhattan. I know because I have tried four and OWN two. I have tried
> over a number of years COFDM and 8-VSB in different cities and different
> conditions.
>
> 5th generation LG receivers are the first 8-VSB receivers that work in
> static multipath decent enough TO BE SOLD. In my opinion NO receiver
> that has been sold to date should have been. We should not even have
> started our digital transition in the US until we had a receiver that
> worked at least as well as LG 5th generation receivers. The FCC has let
> us down. They did not look out for the consumer which is their PRIMARY
> job. They specifically looked out for LG Industries. Go figure.
>
> You have to ask yourselves why the FCC first of all picked a modulation
> that was so flawed and second why did they stick with it so long. Why
> did they believe LG and others when they said that they would have fix
> for 8-VSB that would make it work MOBILE and have no problem with
> reception with simple indoor antennas IN SIX MONTHS starting January
> 11th 2001. We have to date only seen a 5th generation receiver. It is
> not even on the market yet and it does not work MOBILE nor does the
> E-VSB that was supposed to specifically work mobile.
>
> The 5th gen receiver is 4 1/2 years LATE! And its getting later every
> day. And now we hear that LG will not even make stand alone receivers.
> They will only include them in their HDTV sets. That will give them a
> MAJOR competitive advantage. And Hisense says they will not deploy 5th
> generation receivers till their current stocks run out, six months, a
> year?? I don't know.
>
> In 2000 the FCC had a review of both COFDM and 8-VSB. They then had a
> test (allowed by the FCC) that was conducted by the industry, that was
> brazen in your face fraud. In the last hour of the last FCC
> administration they re-affirmed 8-VSB on January 19th 2001.
>
> And now we hear that our Chairman of the FCC Powell is frustrated at the
> pace of the DTV OTA transition. He could have turned it around many
> times. He could turn it around today. He won't because he does not have
> the best interest of the public at heart.
>
> I would like to think otherwise but it has been too long a wait for any
> actions from the FCC that would suggest otherwise.
>
> Bob Miller
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 8:33:33 PM

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

Bob Miller (robmx@earthlink.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> "The 5th gen receiver is 4 1/2 years LATE!

A 5th gneration ATSC receiver may be "4-1/2 years late", but it's *still*
here earlier than $100 HDTV-capable COFDM receivers. It's also here before
SD COFDM receivers that don't lose the signal when the washing machine turns
on.

--
Jeff Rife | "The Babylon Project was our last, best hope
| for peace.... It failed."
|
| -- Commander Susan Ivanova, 2260
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 10:43:14 PM

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

>"The 5th gen receiver is 4 1/2 years LATE! And its getting later every
>day.

Um, exuse me BOB, but where were the original timetables for a 5th gen
receiver? Without that you can not HONESTLY say (I know that's a word that
probably isn't in your vocabulary) they're 4 1/2 years late.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 12:20:18 AM

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

Vidguy7 wrote:

>>"The 5th gen receiver is 4 1/2 years LATE! And its getting later every
>>day.
>
>
> Um, exuse me BOB, but where were the original timetables for a 5th gen
> receiver? Without that you can not HONESTLY say (I know that's a word that
> probably isn't in your vocabulary) they're 4 1/2 years late.

I can say they are 4 1/2 years late because after the MSTV test when it
was determined that 8-VSB was " disappointing" and in need of a massive
"fix"l, LG and others said they would work on it round the clock and
have a receiver that worked with indoor antennas in multipath
environments in six months. That was January and February of 2001. They
said similar things in June of 2000 before Congressional hearings and
they said in 1999 that they had chips that SOLVED the mobile and indoor
antenna problems of 8-VSB.

Take your pick, all lies, 4, 4 1/2 or 5 years ago.

Bob Miller

BTW before the Congressional hearings they said that some tweaking was
needed before they could also walk around the hearing room floor with
their antenna as Sinclair did with COFDM. A matter of weeks or months
before 8-VSB would match COFDM. Never suggested it would be better.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 6:54:42 AM

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

>I can say they are 4 1/2 years late because after the MSTV test when it
>was determined that 8-VSB was " disappointing" and in need of a massive
>"fix"l, LG and others said they would work on it round the clock and
>have a receiver that worked with indoor antennas in multipath
>environments in six months. That was January and February of 2001. They
>said similar things in June of 2000 before Congressional hearings and
>they said in 1999 that they had chips that SOLVED the mobile and indoor
>antenna problems of 8-VSB.
>
>Take your pick, all lies, 4, 4 1/2 or 5 years ago.
>
>Bob Miller

Well considering that I and many had a first gen receiver that worked
beautifully and successive ones that worked equally well or better, I'd say
they met their "deadline" long long before the 4 1/2 years. You see BOB, you
will NEVER acknowledge that todays 8VSB receivers, or for that matter, other
earlier gen 8VSB receivers, worked very well for the majority of people using
them. You have constantly ignored the VAST majority of posters here that
expressed their pleasure with the reception they were obtaining with these
earlier gen receivers. But hey BOB, that's just the way you do things. Ignore
all the positives and spin, twist, distort and lie until it seems that 8VSB
simply doesn't work. The FACT is BOB, that your LIES don't work. Virtually
everyone here knows you for what you are, our resident Snake Oil Salesman.


>
>BTW before the Congressional hearings they said that some tweaking was
>needed before they could also walk around the hearing room floor with
>their antenna as Sinclair did with COFDM. A matter of weeks or months
>before 8-VSB would match COFDM. Never suggested it would be better.
>

Ah yes BOB, how I've missed our "walk around the floor of the Congressional
hearings". You haven't mentioned that one for at least a couple of weeks. You
had me worried. BOB, you are truly, honestly, without a doubt, pathetic.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 6:55:08 AM

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

Jeff Rife wrote:

> Bob Miller (robmx@earthlink.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>"The 5th gen receiver is 4 1/2 years LATE!
>
>
> A 5th gneration ATSC receiver may be "4-1/2 years late", but it's *still*
> here earlier than $100 HDTV-capable COFDM receivers. It's also here before
> SD COFDM receivers that don't lose the signal when the washing machine turns
> on.
>
How convenient. There is no market for COFDM HD receivers in the US so
there are no HD COFDM $100 receivers.

COFDM does not lose signal when you turn on a washing machine. How many
sources of impulse noise do you think there are in an hour drive thru
Manhattan? This video shows no impulse noise problems

www.viacel.com/bob.wmv

Current 8-VSB receivers have more problem with impulse noise than COFDM
receivers.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 6:55:09 AM

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

Bob Miller (robmx@earthlink.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > A 5th gneration ATSC receiver may be "4-1/2 years late", but it's *still*
> > here earlier than $100 HDTV-capable COFDM receivers. It's also here before
> > SD COFDM receivers that don't lose the signal when the washing machine turns
> > on.
> >
> How convenient. There is no market for COFDM HD receivers in the US so
> there are no HD COFDM $100 receivers.

Oh, so now Australia has no HDTV? I think *they* would like US$100
HDTV-capable COFDM receivers, instead of having to pay the US$471.92
they currently run.

Funny that you can buy an ATSC receiver (every one of which is HDTV-capable)
for less than US$200, even though sales are so dismal (according to Bob)
that volume prices have yet to kick in.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/RhymesWithOrange/NoWetFood...
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 6:56:42 AM

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

>A 5th gneration ATSC receiver may be "4-1/2 years late", but it's *still*
>here earlier than $100 HDTV-capable COFDM receivers. It's also here before
>SD COFDM receivers that don't lose the signal when the washing machine turns
>on.

Jeff, remember the days when BOB claimed those receivers would be FREE! And as
far as his wonderful COFDM reception is concerned, I once again invite anyone
with XM radio in the N.Y. area to discuss how 'wonderful' COFDM is. It's so
"wonderful" that I've gone back to FM radio. Unreal.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 5:23:28 PM

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

Jeff Rife wrote:
> Bob Miller (robmx@earthlink.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>>A 5th gneration ATSC receiver may be "4-1/2 years late", but it's *still*
>>>here earlier than $100 HDTV-capable COFDM receivers. It's also here before
>>>SD COFDM receivers that don't lose the signal when the washing machine turns
>>>on.
>>>
>>
>>How convenient. There is no market for COFDM HD receivers in the US so
>>there are no HD COFDM $100 receivers.
>
>
> Oh, so now Australia has no HDTV? I think *they* would like US$100
> HDTV-capable COFDM receivers, instead of having to pay the US$471.92
> they currently run.

Australia is a very small market with only around 4 million households.
There are no economies of scale that would cause prices to reach what
they are in the UK or what they would be in the US or China.
OZ receiver list
http://www.dba.org.au/index.asp?sectionID=18

Notice that the price of an SD COFDM receiver in OZ is $199 in Australia
dollars or $154 in US. In the UK you can buy an SD COFDM receiver for
$37 on sale.

The difference is mainly the market size. What is incredible is the wide
range of COFDM receivers that are available for such an incredibly small
market. And what is also enlightening is that they are buying these
receivers at 7 times the rate we are buying 8-VSB receivers.

Bob Miller


>
> Funny that you can buy an ATSC receiver (every one of which is HDTV-capable)
> for less than US$200, even though sales are so dismal (according to Bob)
> that volume prices have yet to kick in.
>
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 5:23:29 PM

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

Bob Miller (robmx@earthlink.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > Oh, so now Australia has no HDTV? I think *they* would like US$100
> > HDTV-capable COFDM receivers, instead of having to pay the US$471.92
> > they currently run.
>
> Australia is a very small market with only around 4 million households.
> There are no economies of scale

Guess what...less than 5 million households have ATSC receivers in the US,
and prices for ATSC HDTV receivers are *already* half that of Australian
COFDM HDTV receivers.

--
Jeff Rife | "The Babylon Project was our last, best hope
| for peace.... It failed."
|
| -- Commander Susan Ivanova, 2260
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 5:23:30 PM

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

Jeff Rife wrote:
> Bob Miller (robmx@earthlink.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>>Oh, so now Australia has no HDTV? I think *they* would like US$100
>>>HDTV-capable COFDM receivers, instead of having to pay the US$471.92
>>>they currently run.
>>
>>Australia is a very small market with only around 4 million households.
>>There are no economies of scale
>
>
> Guess what...less than 5 million households have ATSC receivers in the US,
> and prices for ATSC HDTV receivers are *already* half that of Australian
> COFDM HDTV receivers.
>

Once again, bob will ignore facts. You can bet on it.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 6:03:35 PM

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

>COFDM does not lose signal when you turn on a washing machine.

Funny BOB, neither do ANY of my 4 HD receivers, receiving 8VSB, lose their
signal when our washing machine is running. WHEN will you stop your chronic
lying BOB? Are you not bright enough to see you have utterly ZERO credibility
here? Somehow in your twisted mind you seem to think that coming up with a new
lie or distortion every day will enhance your credibility. Frankly BOB, you
insult the intelligence of each and every reader of this ng. Your desperation
is very clear to all.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 6:04:44 PM

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

>Funny that you can buy an ATSC receiver (every one of which is HDTV-capable)
>for less than US$200, even though sales are so dismal (according to Bob)
>that volume prices have yet to kick in.

Jeff, you're going to give this man a headache with facts. BOB does not like
facts and simply discards them as if they didn't exist.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 6:08:59 PM

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

>Australia is a very small market with only around 4 million households.
>There are no economies of scale that would cause prices to reach what
>they are in the UK or what they would be in the US or China.

So again BOB compares apples to oranges. His excuse for expensive COFDM
receivers where there IS HD, is 'economy of scale'. He then goes on to compare
prices in the U.K., where numbers are not a problem and where almost nobody has
an HD receiver. What a wonderful world BOB lives in. You can come up with an
excuse, even though it's absurd, for almost any scenerio. Yes indeedy Booby,
you are our resident Snake Oil Salesman!

>And what is also enlightening is that they are buying these
>receivers at 7 times the rate we are buying 8-VSB receivers.
>

Hey Mr. Distorter of the Truth, do your numbers take into account EACH AND
EVERY HD SATELLITE RECEIVER SOLD? No? I didn't think so.
!