Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Recent test

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 10:17:22 PM

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

Recent test of DMB-T, DVB-T, ATSC

S/N
18.5 db ATSC OQam Linx
16 db DVB-T
15 db DMB-T
and
12.5 db DMB-T using a similar scheme to DVB-S-2 with LDPC

How close is that to Shannon limit?

So the latest DVB-T compared to the latest 8-VSB gives DVB-T a 2.5 db
advantage. Better than I thought. I thought it was about even. Doug
don't jump. You can live with this.

Bob Miller

BTW the DMB-T is the Chinese standard. The Korean Standard has now been
changed from DMB-T to T-DMB to differentiate it from the Chinese
standard. Both radically different COFDM implementations.

More to come when they let me.

More about : recent test

Anonymous
January 24, 2005 10:17:23 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:

> Recent test of DMB-T, DVB-T, ATSC
>
> S/N
> 18.5 db ATSC OQam Linx
> 16 db DVB-T
> 15 db DMB-T
> and
> 12.5 db DMB-T using a similar scheme to DVB-S-2 with LDPC
>


Bob: what bitrate? WHAT BITRATE?? DVB-T ***CANNOT DO 16 dB at
19.3 Mb/sec***


WHAT BITRATES???


IT DOES NOT COUNT UNLESS THE BITRATES ARE THE SAME AND THE
BANDWIDTHS ARE THE SAME!


WHAT BITRATES????


No apology for shouting at Bob Miller.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 10:17:23 PM

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

Booby...... MORE POSTS, your slipping only 2 today, can't you do any better?


"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:6RbJd.4367$YD5.2089@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Recent test of DMB-T, DVB-T, ATSC
>
> S/N
> 18.5 db ATSC OQam Linx
> 16 db DVB-T
Related resources
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 10:17:23 PM

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

So does this mean that the Chinese system is the best in the world?
What about the British system?


IB
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 10:17:23 PM

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

http://english.sina.com/technology/1/2005/0123/18829.ht...

an old story I found:

SHANGHAI, Jan. 23(Xinhuanet)-- China's first ever home-made digital TV
chip"Zhongshi No. 1" Saturday passed technical appraisal by experts
from Chinese Academy of Sciences and Chinese Academy of Engineering.
The chip, which integrates more than 70 memory units, 2 millionlogic
gates and 20 million transistors, has outperformed European and
American products in term
s of sensitivity and anti-jamming capacities at far lower costs.

The chip was made by Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation and
Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation, according to
Zhou Dian, president of the School of Microelectronics of Fudan
University, independent designer of the product.
"Zhongshi No. 1" was based on China's DMB-T standard and has outdone
European and US standards for experimental broadcasts of digital TV,
respectively known as DVB-T and ATSC, in terms of definition, noted
Zhou.
He acknowledged that a dozen domestic electronics makers have
integrated the new chip technology into their products, including
Changhong, TCL, Skyworth and Haier. Central China's Henan Provincehas
applied the new technology to launch mobile TV programs, and at least
10 other localities-- including Beijing, Tianjin and Guangzhou-- have
reported success in trial operations.

Analysts say mass production of the cost-effective chip is for sure to
boost China's digital TV industry.
The chip embodies the core technology for the new generation high
definition television(HDTV) that has been the focus of research and
development for many countries since the early 1990s.

Official statistics say the world's most populous nation has more than
370 million TV sets and an average 40 million sets are being sold each
year. China plans to broadcast the 2008 Beijing Olympics with digital
TV and to popularize digital TV nationwide by 2015.
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 10:55:43 PM

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

It won't make any difference here in the USA because we already have a
system that will not be changed. The FCC is not going to switch over
to a Chinese system and make obsolete and useless all current
receivers. If you want to use DMB-T, you will have to move to China.
IB
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 4:08:51 AM

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

Doug McDonald wrote:
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> Recent test of DMB-T, DVB-T, ATSC
>>
>> S/N
>> 18.5 db ATSC OQam Linx
>> 16 db DVB-T
>> 15 db DMB-T
>> and
>> 12.5 db DMB-T using a similar scheme to DVB-S-2 with LDPC
>>
>
>
> Bob: what bitrate? WHAT BITRATE?? DVB-T ***CANNOT DO 16 dB at
> 19.3 Mb/sec***
>
>
> WHAT BITRATES???
>
>
> IT DOES NOT COUNT UNLESS THE BITRATES ARE THE SAME AND THE
> BANDWIDTHS ARE THE SAME!
>
>
> WHAT BITRATES????
>
>
> No apology for shouting at Bob Miller.
>
> Doug McDonald


BITRATES WERE THE SAME!!

The testers affirmed that they tested all modulations at as close to
19.34 Mbps as possible using latest tech from each modulation. 8-VSB was
with LG equipment provided by LG.

More later.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 5:12:15 AM

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

inkyblacks@yahoo.com wrote:
> So does this mean that the Chinese system is the best in the world?
> What about the British system?
>
>
> IB
>
According to those who made the test the Chinese system should be the
best. I haven't seen it. We will test it ourselves soon.

I recently posted a video of DVB-T mobile in NYC. DMB-T supposedly blows
DVB-T away mobile.

If these test are correct my ranking of modulation systems would be
DMB-T first, DVB-T and ISDB-T second, the older DVB-T that the British
are using third and ATSC 8-VSB a distant, not really in the running
fourth. 8-VSB should never have been deployed.

Deploying 8-VSB and locking it up with MPEG2 is a sin committed in the
belief that it would kill OTA in the US IMO by such as the CEA which now
ignores OTA.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 6:12:11 AM

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

inkyblacks@yahoo.com wrote:
> http://english.sina.com/technology/1/2005/0123/18829.ht...
>
> an old story I found:
>
> SHANGHAI, Jan. 23(Xinhuanet)-- China's first ever home-made digital TV
> chip"Zhongshi No. 1" Saturday passed technical appraisal by experts
> from Chinese Academy of Sciences and Chinese Academy of Engineering.
> The chip, which integrates more than 70 memory units, 2 millionlogic
> gates and 20 million transistors, has outperformed European and
> American products in term
> s of sensitivity and anti-jamming capacities at far lower costs.
>
> The chip was made by Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation and
> Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation, according to
> Zhou Dian, president of the School of Microelectronics of Fudan
> University, independent designer of the product.
> "Zhongshi No. 1" was based on China's DMB-T standard and has outdone
> European and US standards for experimental broadcasts of digital TV,
> respectively known as DVB-T and ATSC, in terms of definition, noted
> Zhou.
> He acknowledged that a dozen domestic electronics makers have
> integrated the new chip technology into their products, including
> Changhong, TCL, Skyworth and Haier. Central China's Henan Provincehas
> applied the new technology to launch mobile TV programs, and at least
> 10 other localities-- including Beijing, Tianjin and Guangzhou-- have
> reported success in trial operations.
>
> Analysts say mass production of the cost-effective chip is for sure to
> boost China's digital TV industry.
> The chip embodies the core technology for the new generation high
> definition television(HDTV) that has been the focus of research and
> development for many countries since the early 1990s.
>
> Official statistics say the world's most populous nation has more than
> 370 million TV sets and an average 40 million sets are being sold each
> year. China plans to broadcast the 2008 Beijing Olympics with digital
> TV and to popularize digital TV nationwide by 2015.
>
Expect ridiculously priced receivers with DMB-T by 2008 being made in
the millions if this is real.

We will test as soon as we get a modulator and receiver. Hint, most of
the IP in this chip is US unlike 8-VSB which is French and S. Korean.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 9:10:25 AM

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

inkyblacks@yahoo.com wrote:
> It won't make any difference here in the USA because we already have a
> system that will not be changed. The FCC is not going to switch over
> to a Chinese system and make obsolete and useless all current
> receivers. If you want to use DMB-T, you will have to move to China.
> IB
>
DVB-T will be used in the US, DMB-T could be used in the US.

The FCC has allowed the use of whatever modulation you want on spectrum
that has or will be auctioned on channels above 51.

Do you really think that a system as bad as 8-VSB coupled with an
outmoded MPEG2 will last for any significant period of time in this fast
changing world? The satellite and cable companies are already planning
on switching to MPEG4. Do you think that OTA broadcasting which is
already on the ropes having lost 89% of its viewers can go on with both
its arms tied behind its back crucified to a resolution called HDTV?

When will broadcasters be allowed to switch to MPEG4? That will outmode
all current receivers also. Are they going to wait for 30 years? Are you
insane? Cable and satellite switch when it makes sense. Broadcasters to
survive are going to have to switch when it makes sense also. If not
they will have ever fewer viewers. How long do we then waste the TV
spectrum if no one is watching? Do we wait till OTA viewership falls to
ONE%? Do we wait till the last person in the US decides to get cable?

Broadcasters have to switch to MPEG4 and when they do it only makes
sense to also switch our modulation. The Chinese DMB-T might be a good
candidate and would assure us the greatest economies of scale. Receivers
would indeed cost around $10 to $20 and integrated into a DTV as low as
$5. How low have DVD players from China gone?

Bob Miller
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 11:01:18 AM

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

Bob Miller wrote:

> inkyblacks@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> It won't make any difference here in the USA because we already have a
>> system that will not be changed. The FCC is not going to switch over
>> to a Chinese system and make obsolete and useless all current
>> receivers. If you want to use DMB-T, you will have to move to China.
>> IB
>>
> DVB-T will be used in the US, DMB-T could be used in the US.
>
> The FCC has allowed the use of whatever modulation you want on spectrum
> that has or will be auctioned on channels above 51.
>

Then buy some spectrum above 51, execute your business plan and STFU.

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
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 11:35:58 AM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> Doug McDonald wrote:
>
>> Bob Miller wrote:
>>
>>> Recent test of DMB-T, DVB-T, ATSC
>>>
>>> S/N
>>> 18.5 db ATSC OQam Linx
>>> 16 db DVB-T
>>> 15 db DMB-T
>>> and
>>> 12.5 db DMB-T using a similar scheme to DVB-S-2 with LDPC
>>>
>>
>>
>> Bob: what bitrate? WHAT BITRATE?? DVB-T ***CANNOT DO 16 dB at
>> 19.3 Mb/sec***
>>
>>
>> WHAT BITRATES???
>>

>
> BITRATES WERE THE SAME!!
>
> The testers affirmed that they tested all modulations at as close to
> 19.34 Mbps as possible using latest tech from each modulation. 8-VSB was
> with LG equipment provided by LG.


If that is what they said, then they are lying. Even early
8-VSB chips can do 16 dB, and the best ones do even 15.5 dB.
Even in theory DVB-T is quite incapable of 16 dB, even with
a perfect RF section and a perfect static signal with perfect
channel measurement.

Of course ... if they said that and they were using a 6 MHz
channel for ATSC and 8 MHz for COFDM, then yes, the COFDM
numbers are perhaps reasonable. But still it is a lie,
because the bandwidths are not equal.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 11:38:30 AM

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

Bob Miller wrote:


>
> When will broadcasters be allowed to switch to MPEG4? That will outmode
> all current receivers also. Are they going to wait for 30 years?

Yes. It is the law.


> Are you
> insane?

No Bob, your insane.


> Cable and satellite switch when it makes sense. Broadcasters to
> survive are going to have to switch when it makes sense also.
It does NOT make sense to require everybody to pay big bucks
to change modulation systems.

Doug McDonald
January 25, 2005 4:37:59 PM

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

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:

><snip>
> When will broadcasters be allowed to switch to MPEG4?

Supposedly, Broadcasters in cahoots with US Digital (OTA multichannel
pay service) will begin using MPEG4 or something similar this year.
<http://www.usdtv.com/&gt;

One of our local affilates is not broadcasting HDTV yet. When I asked
one of their engineers what they were waiting for, he said they were
waiting to enter a partnership with USDTV. He said the station will
continue broadcasting a single low bandwidth MPEG2 480i broadcast OTA
for free, but HDTV (and additional multicast channels) will be only be
available via US Digital OTA service using their MPEG4 box, when the
service becomes available here.
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 7:21:23 PM

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

none (not@home.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> One of our local affilates is not broadcasting HDTV yet. When I asked
> one of their engineers what they were waiting for, he said they were
> waiting to enter a partnership with USDTV. He said the station will
> continue broadcasting a single low bandwidth MPEG2 480i broadcast OTA
> for free, but HDTV (and additional multicast channels) will be only be
> available via US Digital OTA service using their MPEG4 box

Then, that station isn't an affiliate of a network that does HD. All
such networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, WB) are going to require that all
affiliates pass the HD feeds to allow the network to remain competetive.

So, a station that never was going to show HDTV not showing HDTV for free
isn't much of a loss.

Note, too, that USDTV will be surprised to learn that a 15Mbps channel
(which is all they will get after the 480i MPEG-2 stream is set up) will
only support *one* HD channel even when MPEG-4 is used.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/ArloNJanis/ClothesHorse.gi...
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 8:43:04 PM

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

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> Bob Miller wrote:

>> The FCC has allowed the use of whatever modulation you want on
>> spectrum that has or will be auctioned on channels above 51.
>>
We have bought spectrum above 51, we are ready to execute our business
plan but current broadcasters who were given this spectrum for a digital
transition are squatting on it and we can't use it till this transition
is over. The transition can't proceed because 8-VSB doesn't work and no
one is buying into it. At the present rate it will take 700 years to
transition. One% per 7 years = 700 years.

The whole reason for 8-VSB was delay and it has worked. The original
meeting where broadcasters came up with HD was to preserve spectrum not
HD. HD was the excuse. The digital transition is one big delaying tactic
by broadcasters, cable and satellite. Broadcasters want to get paid by
cable not rely on free OTA.

But if Congress, the FCC and the courts don't give broadcasters
multicast must carry watch out. Broadcasters will deny content to cable
and rethink OTA. As Sinclair is already doing. They will want to get
paid, $.50 now but that is just the beginning. They will want parity
with such as ESPN soon. Why not? They have the content most in demand.

I would like to see broadcasters allowed to use COFDM so that the
transition like in the UK gets over with. I would like to see working
8-VSB receivers so that the transition can get over with. Why did LG
first allow testing of a 5th gen receiver and then decide not to build
them stand alone? More delay.

Bob Miller
>
> Then buy some spectrum above 51, execute your business plan and STFU.
>
> Matthew
>
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 8:43:05 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:

> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
>> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>
>>> The FCC has allowed the use of whatever modulation you want on
>>> spectrum that has or will be auctioned on channels above 51.
>>>
> We have bought spectrum above 51, we are ready to execute our business
> plan but current broadcasters who were given this spectrum for a digital
> transition are squatting on it and we can't use it till this transition
> is over.

Alternatively you could buy them off that spectrum. That will get you
what you want about 50 years before the FCC changes to a new broadcast
modulation scheme.

Matthew
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 8:53:39 PM

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

none wrote:
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>><snip>
>>When will broadcasters be allowed to switch to MPEG4?
>
>
> Supposedly, Broadcasters in cahoots with US Digital (OTA multichannel
> pay service) will begin using MPEG4 or something similar this year.
> <http://www.usdtv.com/&gt;
>
> One of our local affilates is not broadcasting HDTV yet. When I asked
> one of their engineers what they were waiting for, he said they were
> waiting to enter a partnership with USDTV. He said the station will
> continue broadcasting a single low bandwidth MPEG2 480i broadcast OTA
> for free, but HDTV (and additional multicast channels) will be only be
> available via US Digital OTA service using their MPEG4 box, when the
> service becomes available here.

Well I have been predicting that. ONE low as possible bit rate SD with
MPEG2 while everything else as subscription service with MPEG4. ALL past
receivers will not work with that scenario.

So how do you like them apples. After seven years of going nowhere with
8-VSB while we talked about how we had to stay the course to protect
"legacy" receivers we now will see ALL current receivers make obsolete
accept for ONE low bit rate SD channel. Economics 101 dictates this. It
is just common sense.

FREE OTA reduced to what else ONE NTSC channel. Probably with cartoons
in black and white or a talking head that only moves their lips to
preserve as much bandwidth for the MPEG4 subscription programming.

Congress is going to love this. In fact it is the fear of Congress
BEFORE the must carry decision it FINAL that is the only thing holding
broadcasters back from doing this is spades.

Doesn't anyone else see this? This has been obvious from the beginning.
When everyone said that COFDM would allow multicasting I said that 8-VSB
would allow it too. It is just that 8-VSB didn't work well enough to
allow much of anything. Now we have the worst of all worlds. A lousy
modulation and multicasting with a lousy compression, MPEG2.

Can it get any worse? Yes the new Chairman of the FCC can announce that
they are going to sell off all TV spectrum since it is not being used.

Sooner or later that seems to be the plan. Unless of course broadcasters
turn 9/10 this of their spectrum into paid subscription based programming.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 8:53:56 PM

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

none wrote:
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>><snip>
>>When will broadcasters be allowed to switch to MPEG4?
>
>
> Supposedly, Broadcasters in cahoots with US Digital (OTA multichannel
> pay service) will begin using MPEG4 or something similar this year.
> <http://www.usdtv.com/&gt;
>
> One of our local affilates is not broadcasting HDTV yet. When I asked
> one of their engineers what they were waiting for, he said they were
> waiting to enter a partnership with USDTV. He said the station will
> continue broadcasting a single low bandwidth MPEG2 480i broadcast OTA
> for free, but HDTV (and additional multicast channels) will be only be
> available via US Digital OTA service using their MPEG4 box, when the
> service becomes available here.

Well I have been predicting that. ONE low as possible bit rate SD with
MPEG2 while everything else as subscription service with MPEG4. ALL past
receivers will not work with that scenario.

So how do you like them apples. After seven years of going nowhere with
8-VSB while we talked about how we had to stay the course to protect
"legacy" receivers we now will see ALL current receivers make obsolete
accept for ONE low bit rate SD channel. Economics 101 dictates this. It
is just common sense.

FREE OTA reduced to what else ONE NTSC channel. Probably with cartoons
in black and white or a talking head that only moves their lips to
preserve as much bandwidth for the MPEG4 subscription programming.

Congress is going to love this. In fact it is the fear of Congress
BEFORE the must carry decision it FINAL that is the only thing holding
broadcasters back from doing this is spades.

Doesn't anyone else see this? This has been obvious from the beginning.
When everyone said that COFDM would allow multicasting I said that 8-VSB
would allow it too. It is just that 8-VSB didn't work well enough to
allow much of anything. Now we have the worst of all worlds. A lousy
modulation and multicasting with a lousy compression, MPEG2.

Can it get any worse? Yes the new Chairman of the FCC can announce that
they are going to sell off all TV spectrum since it is not being used.

Sooner or later that seems to be the plan. Unless of course broadcasters
turn 9/10 of their spectrum into paid subscription based programming.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 9:00:10 PM

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

Doug McDonald wrote:
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>
>>
>> When will broadcasters be allowed to switch to MPEG4? That will
>> outmode all current receivers also. Are they going to wait for 30 years?
>
>
> Yes. It is the law.

Actually it is not. Only for ONE SD channel with NTSC quality is MPEG2
mandated. No bit rate mentioned so a very low bit rate subject would
leave most of the 6 MHz for MPEG4 subscription based services. As the
poster "none" says about his local affiliate. They are going to do
exactly as I said. ALL broadcasters would be fools not to do this.

You could do this MPEG2 program with 250 kbps leaving over 19 Mbps for
MPEG4.
>
>
>> Are you insane?
>
>
> No Bob, your insane.
>
>
>> Cable and satellite switch when it makes sense. Broadcasters to
>> survive are going to have to switch when it makes sense also.
>
> It does NOT make sense to require everybody to pay big bucks
> to change modulation systems.

There need be no requirement. If allowed ALL broadcasters would switch
in a heartbeat and will. No big bucks required. COFDM modulators are not
that expensive and surely the savings in power consumption would pay for
any changes in a few months. After all COFDM is 2.5 db below 8-VSB so it
would need only half the power.

Bob Miller


> Doug McDonald
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 9:00:11 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:

> Doug McDonald wrote:
>
>> Bob Miller wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> When will broadcasters be allowed to switch to MPEG4? That will
>>> outmode all current receivers also. Are they going to wait for 30 years?
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes. It is the law.
>
>
> Actually it is not. Only for ONE SD channel with NTSC quality is MPEG2
> mandated. No bit rate mentioned so a very low bit rate subject would
> leave most of the 6 MHz for MPEG4 subscription based services. As the
> poster "none" says about his local affiliate. They are going to do
> exactly as I said. ALL broadcasters would be fools not to do this.
>

Of course, you make the unfounded assumption that they will make more
money multicasting. That hasn't been shown to be the case. A few
stations in places under served by cable and satellite might find
multicasting attractive. That leaves out almost all stations in almost
all markets.

Matthew
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 9:00:11 PM

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

Bob Miller (robmx@earthlink.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> You could do this MPEG2 program with 250 kbps leaving over 19 Mbps for
> MPEG4.

No, that's illegal. The SD broadcast must be the same quality as the analog
broadcast, and the quality is measured using receivers next to the
transmitter. Analog looks quite good when you have enough power and no
ghosting, so you need at least 4Mbps to duplicate that using MPEG-2.

--
Jeff Rife | "As usual, a knife-wielding maniac
| has shown us the way."
|
| -- Bart Simpson
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 9:17:55 PM

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

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Miller wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> The FCC has allowed the use of whatever modulation you want on
>>>> spectrum that has or will be auctioned on channels above 51.
>>>>
>> We have bought spectrum above 51, we are ready to execute our business
>> plan but current broadcasters who were given this spectrum for a
>> digital transition are squatting on it and we can't use it till this
>> transition is over.
>
>
> Alternatively you could buy them off that spectrum. That will get you
> what you want about 50 years before the FCC changes to a new broadcast
> modulation scheme.
>
> Matthew

It is cheaper to let Congress do it. This is one of the main topics of
conversation this Congressional term.

And we are waiting for a workable 8-VSB receiver also. LG may be holding
back at the request of broadcasters. Until must carry of multicasting is
OKed broadcasters do NOT want a viable OTA. Remember a viable OTA
undercuts their argument that they need must carry at all. In Congress I
have watched witness after witness for the NAB, CEA, MSTV and individual
broadcasters tell how awful OTA is. How no one wants to put up an
antenna. This is crucial to must carry.

The backroom secret deal is what gave us 8-VSB. Who knows what is going
on there now. We do know that 5th gen receivers and Linx receiver
disappeared into a black hole. I think the last thing anyone wants is
for inexpensive receivers to be hooked up to analog TV sets. The horror
is a digital transition that works like the one in the UK. That would
mean that cable, satellite, the CEA and broadcasters have to make a deal
with must carry of multicasting the big cheese for broadcasters. Part of
the deal would then be to kill off anything like USDTV.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 9:17:56 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
>> Bob Miller wrote:
>>
>>> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bob Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> The FCC has allowed the use of whatever modulation you want on
>>>>> spectrum that has or will be auctioned on channels above 51.
>>>>>
>>> We have bought spectrum above 51, we are ready to execute our
>>> business plan but current broadcasters who were given this spectrum
>>> for a digital transition are squatting on it and we can't use it till
>>> this transition is over.
>>
>>
>>
>> Alternatively you could buy them off that spectrum. That will get you
>> what you want about 50 years before the FCC changes to a new broadcast
>> modulation scheme.
>>
>> Matthew
>
>
> It is cheaper to let Congress do it. This is one of the main topics of
> conversation this Congressional term.
>
> And we are waiting for a workable 8-VSB receiver also. LG may be holding
> back at the request of broadcasters. Until must carry of multicasting is
> OKed broadcasters do NOT want a viable OTA. Remember a viable OTA
> undercuts their argument that they need must carry at all. In Congress I
> have watched witness after witness for the NAB, CEA, MSTV and individual
> broadcasters tell how awful OTA is. How no one wants to put up an
> antenna. This is crucial to must carry.
>
> The backroom secret deal is what gave us 8-VSB. Who knows what is going
> on there now. We do know that 5th gen receivers and Linx receiver
> disappeared into a black hole. I think the last thing anyone wants is
> for inexpensive receivers to be hooked up to analog TV sets. The horror
> is a digital transition that works like the one in the UK. That would
> mean that cable, satellite, the CEA and broadcasters have to make a deal
> with must carry of multicasting the big cheese for broadcasters. Part of
> the deal would then be to kill off anything like USDTV.
>

The fatal flaw in the above "logic" (fantasy, more like it) is that must
carry is independent of ATSC or COFDM.

Matthew
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 9:25:23 PM

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

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> Doug McDonald wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> When will broadcasters be allowed to switch to MPEG4? That will
>>>> outmode all current receivers also. Are they going to wait for 30
>>>> years?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes. It is the law.
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually it is not. Only for ONE SD channel with NTSC quality is MPEG2
>> mandated. No bit rate mentioned so a very low bit rate subject would
>> leave most of the 6 MHz for MPEG4 subscription based services. As the
>> poster "none" says about his local affiliate. They are going to do
>> exactly as I said. ALL broadcasters would be fools not to do this.
>>
>
> Of course, you make the unfounded assumption that they will make more
> money multicasting. That hasn't been shown to be the case. A few
> stations in places under served by cable and satellite might find
> multicasting attractive. That leaves out almost all stations in almost
> all markets.
>
> Matthew

With MPEG4 in about 2 to 3 years you will be able to deliver 16 SD
programs in one 6 MHz channel. In any given market, the biggest and best
served by cable and satellite, there are lets say 30 OTA channels
possible with digital broadcasting. Each of those channels can deliver
16 programs or 480 program channels. Add in the DVR or PVR capability
and you have programs delivered at 3 am. The cost of this OTA broadcast
capability is LESS than the maintenance cost of cable and 10 times more
reliable than satellite.

Cable and satellite entities are massively in debt. USDTV entities with
receivers that work and MPEG4 with most broadcasters on board can
deliver a cable like experience for much less. The low hanging fruit
goes first, those who can barely afford cable now. Cable to compete has
to offer local channels free because USDTV does. Then they have to go
ala carte because USDTV will leave out ESPN. And then like the airlines
they will start falling one by one.

As soon as one falls the credit ratings of the rest go thru the floor.
Its over.

Paste this schedule on your refrigerator, it will happen like clockwork.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 9:25:24 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:

>
> Paste this schedule on your refrigerator, it will happen like clockwork.
>

As I said elsewere, your fantasy is showing.

Matthew
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 9:25:24 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:

> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
>> Bob Miller wrote:
>>
>>> Doug McDonald wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bob Miller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When will broadcasters be allowed to switch to MPEG4? That will
>>>>> outmode all current receivers also. Are they going to wait for 30
>>>>> years?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes. It is the law.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually it is not. Only for ONE SD channel with NTSC quality is
>>> MPEG2 mandated. No bit rate mentioned so a very low bit rate subject
>>> would leave most of the 6 MHz for MPEG4 subscription based services.
>>> As the poster "none" says about his local affiliate. They are going
>>> to do exactly as I said. ALL broadcasters would be fools not to do this.
>>>
>>
>> Of course, you make the unfounded assumption that they will make more
>> money multicasting. That hasn't been shown to be the case. A few
>> stations in places under served by cable and satellite might find
>> multicasting attractive. That leaves out almost all stations in almost
>> all markets.
>>
>> Matthew
>
>
> With MPEG4 in about 2 to 3 years you will be able to deliver 16 SD
> programs in one 6 MHz channel. In any given market, the biggest and best
> served by cable and satellite, there are lets say 30 OTA channels
> possible with digital broadcasting. Each of those channels can deliver
> 16 programs or 480 program channels. Add in the DVR or PVR capability
> and you have programs delivered at 3 am. The cost of this OTA broadcast
> capability is LESS than the maintenance cost of cable and 10 times more
> reliable than satellite.
>
> Cable and satellite entities are massively in debt. USDTV entities with
> receivers that work and MPEG4 with most broadcasters on board can
> deliver a cable like experience for much less. The low hanging fruit
> goes first, those who can barely afford cable now. Cable to compete has
> to offer local channels free because USDTV does. Then they have to go
> ala carte because USDTV will leave out ESPN. And then like the airlines
> they will start falling one by one.
>
> As soon as one falls the credit ratings of the rest go thru the floor.
> Its over.
>
> Paste this schedule on your refrigerator, it will happen like clockwork.
>

There you go, folks. We now have a clear indication that OTA HDTV in the
US via ATSC 8-VSB modulation will succeed (continue succeeding, more
like). Given the fact that bob has been wrong 100% of the time when he
has predicted the future, there can be no doubt!

Matthew
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 9:35:42 PM

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

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bob Miller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> The FCC has allowed the use of whatever modulation you want on
>>>>>> spectrum that has or will be auctioned on channels above 51.
>>>>>>
>>>> We have bought spectrum above 51, we are ready to execute our
>>>> business plan but current broadcasters who were given this spectrum
>>>> for a digital transition are squatting on it and we can't use it
>>>> till this transition is over.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Alternatively you could buy them off that spectrum. That will get you
>>> what you want about 50 years before the FCC changes to a new
>>> broadcast modulation scheme.
>>>
>>> Matthew
>>
>>
>>
>> It is cheaper to let Congress do it. This is one of the main topics of
>> conversation this Congressional term.
>>
>> And we are waiting for a workable 8-VSB receiver also. LG may be
>> holding back at the request of broadcasters. Until must carry of
>> multicasting is OKed broadcasters do NOT want a viable OTA. Remember a
>> viable OTA undercuts their argument that they need must carry at all.
>> In Congress I have watched witness after witness for the NAB, CEA,
>> MSTV and individual broadcasters tell how awful OTA is. How no one
>> wants to put up an antenna. This is crucial to must carry.
>>
>> The backroom secret deal is what gave us 8-VSB. Who knows what is
>> going on there now. We do know that 5th gen receivers and Linx
>> receiver disappeared into a black hole. I think the last thing anyone
>> wants is for inexpensive receivers to be hooked up to analog TV sets.
>> The horror is a digital transition that works like the one in the UK.
>> That would mean that cable, satellite, the CEA and broadcasters have
>> to make a deal with must carry of multicasting the big cheese for
>> broadcasters. Part of the deal would then be to kill off anything like
>> USDTV.
>>
>
> The fatal flaw in the above "logic" (fantasy, more like it) is that must
> carry is independent of ATSC or COFDM.
>
> Matthew

Must carry is independent of ATSC and COFDM. But to get it an OTA
crippled by 8-VSB is a potent argument for must carry. Why do you thing
must carry was invented in the first place? Would cable have even been
born if you could get good reception OTA? Would broadcasters EVER have
let cable carry their signal if if they could be received OTA easily?
Would broadcasters ever have asked for and used their considerable clout
to ram must carry though in the first case? More likely they would have
been demanding like some are now to be paid for their content.

With COFDM with inexpensive receivers that work plug and play Congress
says "What do you need must carry for? Your broadcasters, use your
spectrum to deliver your content. Why are you asking your competitors,
cable, for must carry?

Must carry was designed to make sure that one broadcaster would not be
left out by cable in a market which would doom that broadcaster when OTA
didn't work and everyone was migrating to cable. Today with receivers
that work the reverse will be true. Sinclair and others see that and are
demanding payment now for HD.

And they would be right. Why should cable have to carry any content they
don't want to carry if everyone in the coverage area can receive a good
signal with a $37 receiver they can buy at SevenEleven?
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 9:35:43 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:


> And they would be right. Why should cable have to carry any content they
> don't want to carry if everyone in the coverage area can receive a good
> signal with a $37 receiver they can buy at SevenEleven?

I'm sorry, bob, your fantasy is showing.

Matthew
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 1:16:50 AM

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

Jeff Rife wrote:
> Bob Miller (robmx@earthlink.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>You could do this MPEG2 program with 250 kbps leaving over 19 Mbps for
>>MPEG4.
>
>
> No, that's illegal. The SD broadcast must be the same quality as the analog
> broadcast, and the quality is measured using receivers next to the
> transmitter. Analog looks quite good when you have enough power and no
> ghosting, so you need at least 4Mbps to duplicate that using MPEG-2.
>
You may need 4 Mbps for the average program with NTSC in fact I am sure
it will handle a basketball game but if your content is hand picked and
doesn't need a lot of bits on the average or even at a peak then you
don't need 4 Mbps. but if your content is mostly static then if 250
isn't enough 500 Kbps sure is. How about a cartoon in the bottom quarter
left of the screen with a static weather info top quarter right, stocks
in the top quarter left and a clock in the bottom quarter right.

If that is all you can receive on your 8-VSB non MPEG4 receiver thats OK
with you right?

Bob Miller
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 1:16:51 AM

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

Bob Miller wrote:

> Jeff Rife wrote:
>
>> Bob Miller (robmx@earthlink.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>>
>>> You could do this MPEG2 program with 250 kbps leaving over 19 Mbps
>>> for MPEG4.
>>
>>
>>
>> No, that's illegal. The SD broadcast must be the same quality as the
>> analog
>> broadcast, and the quality is measured using receivers next to the
>> transmitter. Analog looks quite good when you have enough power and no
>> ghosting, so you need at least 4Mbps to duplicate that using MPEG-2.
>>
> You may need 4 Mbps for the average program with NTSC in fact I am sure
> it will handle a basketball game but if your content is hand picked and
> doesn't need a lot of bits on the average or even at a peak then you
> don't need 4 Mbps. but if your content is mostly static then if 250
> isn't enough 500 Kbps sure is. How about a cartoon in the bottom quarter
> left of the screen with a static weather info top quarter right, stocks
> in the top quarter left and a clock in the bottom quarter right.

Right. Keep concocting fantasies if that's what it takes to keep you
from becoming violent.

> If that is all you can receive on your 8-VSB non MPEG4 receiver thats OK
> with you right?
>

I'd like to see _any_ major network affiliate even suggest that. I doubt
that even the religious channels would be that stupid. Given the minimal
standards of community service, challenges to broadcast licenses would
amount a new type of class action suit.

Matthew
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 1:09:34 PM

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

Matthew L. Martin wrote:


>
> Alternatively you could buy them off that spectrum.

An excellent idea!!

Since Bob's idea is superior ... superior meaning
a bigger money maker ... this is the obvious answer!

If you business scheme is superior, Bob, then you have the
money to buy off your channel.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 1:13:45 PM

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

Bob:

what were the bitrates for those tests you mentioned?

You have not answered.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 2:46:06 PM

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

Doug McDonald wrote:
> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Alternatively you could buy them off that spectrum.
>
>
> An excellent idea!!
>
> Since Bob's idea is superior ... superior meaning
> a bigger money maker ... this is the obvious answer!
>
> If you business scheme is superior, Bob, then you have the
> money to buy off your channel.
>

That would depend on his scheme being more valuable to the market than a
station squatting on a frequency. I guess it isn't.

His argument that it is cheaper to let Congress deal with it is
specious. That assumes that there is no opportunity cost to the time it
will take (probably until 2008) for Congress to take definitive action.
Since the auction has taken place, Congress can't many any more money on
the spectrum until it gets returned to the public. You can bet that
removes the issue from Congress' most pressing issues.

Matthew
January 26, 2005 3:41:21 PM

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

Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

> none (not@home.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> One of our local affilates is not broadcasting HDTV yet. When I
>> asked one of their engineers what they were waiting for, he said
>> they were waiting to enter a partnership with USDTV. He said the
>> station will continue broadcasting a single low bandwidth MPEG2
>> 480i broadcast OTA for free, but HDTV (and additional multicast
>> channels) will be only be available via US Digital OTA service
>> using their MPEG4 box
>
> Then, that station isn't an affiliate of a network that does HD.
> All such networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, WB) are going to require
> that all affiliates pass the HD feeds...

Actually, the station *is* an affiliate of one of the networks you
named.

Where did you get your information? References please, so I can
forward this news to the station engineer.
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 4:02:21 PM

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

none (not@home.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > Then, that station isn't an affiliate of a network that does HD.
> > All such networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, WB) are going to require
> > that all affiliates pass the HD feeds...
>
> Actually, the station *is* an affiliate of one of the networks you
> named.

I note that you aren't naming names here, and that you have no history
with HDTV beyond this thread, so I suspect you are making this up.

>
> Where did you get your information?

Over at AVS Forum.

Fox has already done this in exchange for giving out lots of equipment.
Other networks have done so for more limited numbers of affiliates.

As time goes on, and affiliate contracts are renewed, HD will become more
important and will be a requirement for the contract. This will allow OTA
to better compete against "cable channels", since it is impossible for OTA
to compete in quantity.

--
Jeff Rife | "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going
| to take pan & scan anymore."
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 7:21:56 PM

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

Doug McDonald wrote:
> Bob:
>
> what were the bitrates for those tests you mentioned?
>
> You have not answered.
>
> Doug McDonald

I have answered but will do so again.

Those who were responsible for the test tell me that they worked with
bitrates as close to 19.34 Mbps for all modulations. They are Chinese
and are possibly biased toward DMB-T but do not have any bias as to
DVB-T or 8-VSB.

They claim that DMB-T blows away DVB-T mobile which is of interest to me
so that we will be testing their receiver and modulator. They dismiss
8-VSB as of no interest. They said though that they tested the latest LG
receiver but not a 5th generation. I don't think that LG's 5th gen
receiver is better as to S/N.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 7:21:57 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:

> Doug McDonald wrote:
>
>> Bob:
>>
>> what were the bitrates for those tests you mentioned?
>>
>> You have not answered.
>>
>> Doug McDonald
>
>
> I have answered but will do so again.
>
> Those who were responsible for the test tell me that they worked with
> bitrates as close to 19.34 Mbps for all modulations. They are Chinese
> and are possibly biased toward DMB-T but do not have any bias as to
> DVB-T or 8-VSB.
>
> They claim that DMB-T blows away DVB-T mobile which is of interest to me
> so that we will be testing their receiver and modulator. They dismiss
> 8-VSB as of no interest. They said though that they tested the latest LG
> receiver but not a 5th generation. I don't think that LG's 5th gen
> receiver is better as to S/N.


In other words, you know nothing real ... these so-called tests could
be complete lies. Real tests imply verifyability: you sullply the
bits at the input end, and verify them at the output, they supply
the pipe. And you verify that they are not cheating on pipes.

But at least we got the answer you got.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 9:09:21 PM

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

Doug McDonald wrote:

> In other words, you know nothing real ... these so-called tests could
> be complete lies. Real tests imply verifyability: you sullply the
> bits at the input end, and verify them at the output, they supply
> the pipe. And you verify that they are not cheating on pipes.

He didn't even state the channel widths. If they are different ...

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
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 1:00:35 AM

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

Doug McDonald wrote:
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> Doug McDonald wrote:
>>
>>> Bob:
>>>
>>> what were the bitrates for those tests you mentioned?
>>>
>>> You have not answered.
>>>
>>> Doug McDonald
>>
>>
>>
>> I have answered but will do so again.
>>
>> Those who were responsible for the test tell me that they worked with
>> bitrates as close to 19.34 Mbps for all modulations. They are Chinese
>> and are possibly biased toward DMB-T but do not have any bias as to
>> DVB-T or 8-VSB.
>>
>> They claim that DMB-T blows away DVB-T mobile which is of interest to
>> me so that we will be testing their receiver and modulator. They
>> dismiss 8-VSB as of no interest. They said though that they tested the
>> latest LG receiver but not a 5th generation. I don't think that LG's
>> 5th gen receiver is better as to S/N.
>
>
>
> In other words, you know nothing real ... these so-called tests could
> be complete lies. Real tests imply verifyability: you sullply the
> bits at the input end, and verify them at the output, they supply
> the pipe. And you verify that they are not cheating on pipes.
>
> But at least we got the answer you got.
>
> Doug McDonald

The only time I have something "real" that I know is when I have tested
it. We have tested COFDM and 8-VSB including the 5th gen LG receivers.
We know what works for us, COFDM for mobile and fixed and 8-VSB for
fixed with 5th gen receivers.

We will test DMB-T because they want us to and we want to also. Makes
sense that the latest attempt at a modulation would be the best, they do
have the benefit of all previous work done. But I will believe it when I
see it.

What is really interesting is the dynamic of the Chinese market for the
next few years. One, they want to impress the world with their 2008
Olympics and roll out as much HD by then as possible and two they are
NOT focused on export markets. They are focused on their own internal
market. This is a big difference than the Japan experience over the last
40 years or so where Japan's industrial policy was always directed at
world market share at any cost.

China is internally market driven IMO and that means OTA DMB-T receivers
have to come out of the box in quantity and at very low prices. The
story at the URL below talks about how fast things can happen in a

The US should seriously consider switching to DMB-T if it turns out to
be what they claim but this seems politically out of the question.

Bob Miller

Story on China
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/26/business/worldbusines...

"Liang Hong, a Goldman Sachs economist here, said the government had
expanded the capacity of many ports 30 percent to 60 percent within
months, a task that would take years in practically any other country."

After all this is still a "centrally planned regime" as the article
notes. You can expect a lot more action for DMB-T between now and the
Olympics than you get from the FCC mandate for 8-VSB. For one thing if
these test are right (and people I trust who tell me how good DMB-T is)
then DMB-T works far better than either DVB-T or 8-VSB. The Chinese
probably have a better mandating formula.
January 27, 2005 7:38:02 PM

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

Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

> none (not@home.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> > Then, that station isn't an affiliate of a network that does
>> > HD. All such networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, WB) are going to
>> > require that all affiliates pass the HD feeds...
>>
>> Actually, the station *is* an affiliate of one of the networks
>> you named.
>
> I note that you aren't naming names here, and that you have no
> history with HDTV beyond this thread, so I suspect you are making
> this up.

Nope. Not made up.

> Fox has already done this in exchange for giving out lots of
> equipment. Other networks have done so for more limited numbers of
> affiliates.

This is not a Fox affiliate. It is a Nexstar-owned NBC affiliate
http://nexstar.tv
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 7:38:03 PM

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

none (not@home.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > Fox has already done this in exchange for giving out lots of
> > equipment. Other networks have done so for more limited numbers of
> > affiliates.
>
> This is not a Fox affiliate. It is a Nexstar-owned NBC affiliate
> http://nexstar.tv

Since this station (KARK) isn't even up to full power yet, I don't think
there's much of a problem. Some of these owner groups that are holding
off their digital transition as long as possible to save money are going
to find out that it will bite them in the ass when:

- their ratings drop compared to other stations of the same network showing
the same show in HD
- the network re-negotiates the affiliate agreement with a "must pass HD"
clause

NBC is slower than CBS and Fox about this, but before the next Olympics,
they'll get tough.

--
Jeff Rife | "Hey, dogs guard.
| Cats watch...and judge."
|
| -- Salem the Cat
January 28, 2005 3:31:31 PM

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

Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

> Since this station (KARK) isn't even up to full power yet, I don't
> think there's much of a problem.


KARK is an NBC affiliate.
They don't do HD and don't plan do it MPEG2 when they do.
It is a problem if you want to watch HD.
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 4:06:53 PM

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

none (not@home.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
>
> > Since this station (KARK) isn't even up to full power yet, I don't
> > think there's much of a problem.
>
>
> KARK is an NBC affiliate.
> They don't do HD and don't plan do it MPEG2 when they do.
> It is a problem if you want to watch HD.

Since they aren't up to full power, their signal wouldn't reach anybody
anyway, so it's not much of a loss. They are attempting to delay their
purchase of high power equipment until the last minute (right before
analog cutoff).

At that point, they will find out that they won't be an NBC affiliate much
longer when nobody can receive the only signal they will be allowed to send
out, and when NBC enforces quality standards (which all the networks will
do, because they do it now for analog).

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/LostPassword.gif
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 11:15:14 PM

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

If I ever have to ride a dead horse, I'll seek your advice. You are quite
good at it!

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:IyvJd.5542$r27.487@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>>> The FCC has allowed the use of whatever modulation you want on spectrum
>>> that has or will be auctioned on channels above 51.
>>>
> We have bought spectrum above 51, we are ready to execute our business
> plan but current broadcasters who were given this spectrum for a digital
> transition are squatting on it and we can't use it till this transition is
> over. The transition can't proceed because 8-VSB doesn't work and no one
> is buying into it. At the present rate it will take 700 years to
> transition. One% per 7 years = 700 years.
>
> The whole reason for 8-VSB was delay and it has worked. The original
> meeting where broadcasters came up with HD was to preserve spectrum not
> HD. HD was the excuse. The digital transition is one big delaying tactic
> by broadcasters, cable and satellite. Broadcasters want to get paid by
> cable not rely on free OTA.
>
> But if Congress, the FCC and the courts don't give broadcasters multicast
> must carry watch out. Broadcasters will deny content to cable and rethink
> OTA. As Sinclair is already doing. They will want to get paid, $.50 now
> but that is just the beginning. They will want parity with such as ESPN
> soon. Why not? They have the content most in demand.
>
> I would like to see broadcasters allowed to use COFDM so that the
> transition like in the UK gets over with. I would like to see working
> 8-VSB receivers so that the transition can get over with. Why did LG first
> allow testing of a 5th gen receiver and then decide not to build them
> stand alone? More delay.
>
> Bob Miller
>>
!