Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

5th Generation ATSC Tuner Available in LG's LZ30 Series

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 7:16:55 PM

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

Ok,
Just checking with this group that what I understand is true? LG
customer support checked with engineering who confirmed that their current
LZ30 lines of LCD TVs, also specifically, the LG model DU-37LZ30 37 inch TV
has the 5th Generation ATSC tuner. I had thought this was not available
yet.

Also, below is a quote from the LG press release date January 6th, 2005
that says their LZ30 line has the 5th Generation ATSC tuner.

http://us.lge.com/AboutUs.do?myAction=detail&boardType=...

" The 55LP1D is complemented by the LZ30 series, which includes new sleek
and slender 42-, 37- and 30-inch widescreen direct-view LCD HDTVs, which
receive free over-the-air digital broadcasts without the need for a separate
set-top box. These integrated HDTVs feature LG's fifth-generation ATSC
VSB/QAM tuner, which receives terrestrial digital HDTV and unscrambled
digital cable broadcasts, and an NTSC tuner for conventional analog TV
broadcasts."

Rick,
onlineZZZdog@excite.com <= remove ZZZ for correct email address.
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 7:48:23 PM

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

Rickk wrote:
> Ok,
> Just checking with this group that what I understand is true? LG
> customer support checked with engineering who confirmed that their current
> LZ30 lines of LCD TVs, also specifically, the LG model DU-37LZ30 37 inch TV
> has the 5th Generation ATSC tuner. I had thought this was not available
> yet.

That's probably because you were misled by bob.

Matthew
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 8:49:14 PM

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

Matthew,
So are you saying YES, 5th Generation ATSC Tuners are available in LG's
curent LZ30 line? Sorry, I didn't quite follow your response.

Rick


"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:10vvu984jbgto44@corp.supernews.com...
> Rickk wrote:
>> Ok,
>> Just checking with this group that what I understand is true? LG
>> customer support checked with engineering who confirmed that their
>> current LZ30 lines of LCD TVs, also specifically, the LG model DU-37LZ30
>> 37 inch TV has the 5th Generation ATSC tuner. I had thought this was not
>> available yet.
>
> That's probably because you were misled by bob.
>
> Matthew
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
February 1, 2005 10:08:50 PM

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

Good find, looks like they are available.
We've never had any big problems with 1st generation receivers, though.
YMMV.


"Rickk" <Rickk@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:_YmdnYjep6v6mp3fRVn-3Q@cablespeedmd.com...
> Matthew,
> So are you saying YES, 5th Generation ATSC Tuners are available in LG's
> curent LZ30 line? Sorry, I didn't quite follow your response.
>
> Rick
>
>
> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> news:10vvu984jbgto44@corp.supernews.com...
>> Rickk wrote:
>>> Ok,
>>> Just checking with this group that what I understand is true? LG
>>> customer support checked with engineering who confirmed that their
>>> current LZ30 lines of LCD TVs, also specifically, the LG model
>>> DU-37LZ30 37 inch TV has the 5th Generation ATSC tuner. I had thought
>>> this was not available yet.
>>
>> That's probably because you were misled by bob.
>>
>> Matthew
>
>
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 10:34:31 PM

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

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 19:08:50 -0500, "David" <davey@home.net> wrote:

>Good find, looks like they are available.
>We've never had any big problems with 1st generation receivers, though.
>YMMV.
>

LOL

Bob haters ;) 
February 2, 2005 5:32:23 PM

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

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:48:23 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin"
<nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

>Rickk wrote:
>> Ok,
>> Just checking with this group that what I understand is true? LG
>> customer support checked with engineering who confirmed that their current
>> LZ30 lines of LCD TVs, also specifically, the LG model DU-37LZ30 37 inch TV
>> has the 5th Generation ATSC tuner. I had thought this was not available
>> yet.
>
>That's probably because you were misled by bob.

Well, actually this is precisely what Bob (and others) said LG was
planning, that is, to make the 5th Gen. chips available in integrated
HDTV's, but not in ATSC tuners/STB's.
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 5:32:24 PM

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

BobT wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:48:23 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin"
> <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
>
>
>>Rickk wrote:
>>
>>>Ok,
>>> Just checking with this group that what I understand is true? LG
>>>customer support checked with engineering who confirmed that their current
>>>LZ30 lines of LCD TVs, also specifically, the LG model DU-37LZ30 37 inch TV
>>>has the 5th Generation ATSC tuner. I had thought this was not available
>>>yet.
>>
>>That's probably because you were misled by bob.
>
>
> Well, actually this is precisely what Bob (and others) said LG was
> planning, that is, to make the 5th Gen. chips available in integrated
> HDTV's, but not in ATSC tuners/STB's.
>

Actually, bob said absolutely nothing of the kind. I was one of those
that pointed out that 5th generation chips were likely be available in
integrated sets.

His obvious intent was to mislead:

> As of now No one plans on shipping a stand alone 5th generation LG receiver.
>
> Bob Miller

Matthew
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 8:34:11 PM

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

Matthew L. Martin wrote:

> BobT wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:48:23 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin"
>> <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Rickk wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ok,
>>>> Just checking with this group that what I understand is true? LG
>>>> customer support checked with engineering who confirmed that their
>>>> current LZ30 lines of LCD TVs, also specifically, the LG model
>>>> DU-37LZ30 37 inch TV has the 5th Generation ATSC tuner. I had
>>>> thought this was not available yet.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's probably because you were misled by bob.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, actually this is precisely what Bob (and others) said LG was
>> planning, that is, to make the 5th Gen. chips available in integrated
>> HDTV's, but not in ATSC tuners/STB's.
>>
>
> Actually, bob said absolutely nothing of the kind. I was one of those
> that pointed out that 5th generation chips were likely be available in
> integrated sets.
>
> His obvious intent was to mislead:
>
>> As of now No one plans on shipping a stand alone 5th generation LG
>> receiver.
>>
>> Bob Miller
>
>
> Matthew


In answer to Matt's obvious intent to mislead....

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 8:34:12 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
>> BobT wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:48:23 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin"
>>> <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Rickk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ok,
>>>>> Just checking with this group that what I understand is true? LG
>>>>> customer support checked with engineering who confirmed that their
>>>>> current LZ30 lines of LCD TVs, also specifically, the LG model
>>>>> DU-37LZ30 37 inch TV has the 5th Generation ATSC tuner. I had
>>>>> thought this was not available yet.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's probably because you were misled by bob.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, actually this is precisely what Bob (and others) said LG was
>>> planning, that is, to make the 5th Gen. chips available in integrated
>>> HDTV's, but not in ATSC tuners/STB's.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, bob said absolutely nothing of the kind. I was one of those
>> that pointed out that 5th generation chips were likely be available in
>> integrated sets.
>>
>> His obvious intent was to mislead:
>>
>>> As of now No one plans on shipping a stand alone 5th generation LG
>>> receiver.
>>>
>>> Bob Miller
>>
>>
>>
>> Matthew
>
>
>
> In answer to Matt's obvious intent to mislead....

Sorry bob. I quoted everything you said in your most recent thread
intended to sow FUD. Nowhere in that thread did you state that 5th
generation chips would appear in integrated sets.

Of course, there is the well proven fact that most people don't have
severe multipath problems and could care less about multipath mitigation
in any generation of receiver.


Matthew
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 8:40:43 PM

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

Matthew L. Martin (nothere@notnow.never) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Of course, there is the well proven fact that most people don't have
> severe multipath problems and could care less about multipath mitigation
> in any generation of receiver.

The people beta-testing the MDP-130 PCI card (which uses a 5th generation
ATI chipset) say that it has more multipath resistance but is also slightly
more sensitive (not a lot, but some). So, I think one thing that might
happen is that 5th gen chipsets will make a difference even in non-multipath
situations just because they have other "new" things.

--
Jeff Rife | "Eternity with nerds. It's the Pasadena Star
| Trek convention all over again."
|
| -- Nichelle Nichols, "Futurama"
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 10:46:08 PM

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

>Of course, there is the well proven fact that most people don't have
>severe multipath problems and could care less about multipath mitigation
>in any generation of receiver.
>
>
>Matthew

There you go again Matt, confusing BOB with facts.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 12:14:07 AM

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

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>>
>>> BobT wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:48:23 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin"
>>>> <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Rickk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok,
>>>>>> Just checking with this group that what I understand is true?
>>>>>> LG customer support checked with engineering who confirmed that
>>>>>> their current LZ30 lines of LCD TVs, also specifically, the LG
>>>>>> model DU-37LZ30 37 inch TV has the 5th Generation ATSC tuner. I
>>>>>> had thought this was not available yet.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's probably because you were misled by bob.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, actually this is precisely what Bob (and others) said LG was
>>>> planning, that is, to make the 5th Gen. chips available in integrated
>>>> HDTV's, but not in ATSC tuners/STB's.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, bob said absolutely nothing of the kind. I was one of those
>>> that pointed out that 5th generation chips were likely be available
>>> in integrated sets.
>>>
>>> His obvious intent was to mislead:
>>>
>>>> As of now No one plans on shipping a stand alone 5th generation LG
>>>> receiver.
>>>>
>>>> Bob Miller
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Matthew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In answer to Matt's obvious intent to mislead....
>
>
> Sorry bob. I quoted everything you said in your most recent thread
> intended to sow FUD. Nowhere in that thread did you state that 5th
> generation chips would appear in integrated sets.
>
> Of course, there is the well proven fact that most people don't have
> severe multipath problems and could care less about multipath mitigation
> in any generation of receiver.
>
>
> Matthew

Most people could be 51%. I don't like flying on airplanes that don't
crash 51% of the time.

"Most people" is not enough for a working system I am afraid. As is
evident after these last 7 years of stagnation.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 12:14:08 AM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
>
> "Most people" is not enough for a working system I am afraid. As is
> evident after these last 7 years of stagnation.

In that case, you should give up your harebrained scheme to display
8-VSB with COFDM since that won't cover most people in the US due to the
increased power required to be competitive in the far field.

Matthew
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 12:14:08 AM

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

Bob Miller wrote:

>
> Most people could be 51%. I don't like flying on airplanes that don't
> crash 51% of the time.
>
> "Most people" is not enough for a working system I am afraid. As is
> evident after these last 7 years of stagnation.

Care to cite a study that backs up your silly claim? From the reports we
get in this newsgroup the success rate for OTA reception appears to be
well above 75%. With proper antenna systems, it could be _+MUCH+_ higher.

Matthew
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 6:45:49 AM

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

Matthew L. Martin wrote:

> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> "Most people" is not enough for a working system I am afraid. As is
>> evident after these last 7 years of stagnation.
>
>
> In that case, you should give up your harebrained scheme to display
> 8-VSB with COFDM since that won't cover most people in the US due to the
> increased power required to be competitive in the far field.
>
> Matthew

Well the Chinese who recently tested the latest COFDM receivers with the
latest algorithms say that COFDM is 2.5 db better than 8-VSB. That is
almost a full 100% more power necessary for 8-VSB than COFDM. Tables may
have been turned. I am waiting for the official results.

Anyone using COFDM would not be interested in the power requirements to
BLAST signal from a single 2000 ft antenna anyway. They would/will, as
Qualcomm and Crown Castle, build SFN's that will use 100 Watt to 50 kW
transmitters on low 500 ft or less towers. Their power bills will be
much lower as will their combined rent. The Empire State Building has a
monopoly on height and little space, imagine the rent.

We were able to put transmitters on apartment buildings (which had
special roofs and facilities just for us) for $1000 to $2000 a month and
we used solid state transmitters. The rent included the electric. Can
you imagine the electric bill for a MEGAWatt liquid cooled transmitter
on the ESB???

And if something knocked one of our transmitters out it was hard to tell
without a spectrum analyzer.

Not so with the World Trade Center. Most TV was wiped out in New York.

What we are doing in the US is ancient stuff. We are only doing it
because broadcasters depend on must carry here and could care less about
their OTA spectrum. That is going to change.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 6:51:14 AM

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

Matthew L. Martin wrote:

> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> Most people could be 51%. I don't like flying on airplanes that don't
>> crash 51% of the time.
>>
>> "Most people" is not enough for a working system I am afraid. As is
>> evident after these last 7 years of stagnation.
>
>
> Care to cite a study that backs up your silly claim? From the reports we
> get in this newsgroup the success rate for OTA reception appears to be
> well above 75%. With proper antenna systems, it could be _+MUCH+_ higher.
>
> Matthew

Proper antenna systems with COFDM are small enough to fit in a cell
phone. Proper antennas with a 5th gen 8-VSB receiver are a $2 loop
antenna. But for the last 7 years and even now 8-VSB needs "proper" big
ugly rotorized antennas that will not help a bit, BTW, 5 miles from the
ESB in Manhattan if you have bad multipath.

BTW I will accept 75%. That is HORRIBLE. Not much better than 51%. As
the military, DoD, said about COFDM compared to 8-VSB, " we normally
think in terms of 99% plus in our RF systems." They were looking at 35%
to 65% for 8-VSB at the time.

Berlin's system was designed for 98% indoor reception in the coverage
area with COFDM. In Manhattan with 4th gen receivers the number must be
something like 20%. I will grant that 5th gen could take 8-VSB to over
95% for fixed reception in Manhattan.

But there is still no reason for the US to have a grossly inferior DTV
modulation to the rest of the world.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 6:57:36 AM

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

>"Most people" is not enough for a working system I am afraid. As is
>evident after these last 7 years of stagnation.
>

The only thing 'stagnating' BOB, are your lies.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 10:01:58 AM

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

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:1102ieat057lk34@corp.supernews.com...
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> Most people could be 51%. I don't like flying on airplanes that don't
>> crash 51% of the time.
>>
>> "Most people" is not enough for a working system I am afraid. As is
>> evident after these last 7 years of stagnation.
>
> Care to cite a study that backs up your silly claim? From the reports we
> get in this newsgroup the success rate for OTA reception appears to be
> well above 75%. With proper antenna systems, it could be _+MUCH+_ higher.
>
I guess me and the only other two people I know who have tried OTA are just
unlucky,
100% are in your 25%. With your success rate at least one would be working
just fine,
but that is just not the case. Like I posted some months ago, A salesman at
a high end
store said that about half of their installs cannot receive OTA, and he look
puzzled as to why.

Anyway, seems that most people who have problems just give up and get a
cable box, like
I did (at least until football season is over). This leaves only the ones
who have no problems
or are technical enough to solve small problems (but most people want and
need plug and play)
to post in this group, thus your 75%.


> Matthew
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 11:56:13 AM

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

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 03:45:49 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
>> Bob Miller wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Most people" is not enough for a working system I am afraid. As is
>>> evident after these last 7 years of stagnation.
>>
>>
>> In that case, you should give up your harebrained scheme to display
>> 8-VSB with COFDM since that won't cover most people in the US due to the
>> increased power required to be competitive in the far field.
>>
>> Matthew
>
>Well the Chinese who recently tested the latest COFDM receivers with the
>latest algorithms say that COFDM is 2.5 db better than 8-VSB.

As the europeans are finding out the hard way, all the lab testing
in the world doesn't equal squat in the real world. China claims to
be deploying a hybrid DMB-T using 8Mhz channel bandwidth.

The US is limited to 6Mhz channel widths and has thousands of
pre-existing TV stations already on the air. (A Huge Difference).

Lastly, you forgot to add in that COFDM needs an extra 10 to 15dB
S/N to overcome local impulse noise sources. (Something one doesn't
find out until they do a wide scale consumer deployment, and the
neighbors start using their newly purchased vacuum cleaners.)


and from

http://www.smpte.org.au/industrynews.asp

HEADLINES
Updated 12-01-05

"China Announces DTV Chip

A university in Shanghai says it has designed China’s first home-made
digital TV chip in collaboration with two domestic companies - Grace
Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation and Semiconductor
Manufacturing International Corporation."

Their First TV chip.. and it's only Jan 12 .. 2005..

"The China Daily newspaper reported that the chip, known as "Zhongshi
No 1", was designed based on China's Digital Multimedia Television
Broadcasting (DMB-T) standard. It quoted Zhou Dian, president of the
School of Microelectronics at Fudan University, as saying the chip had
outdone European and US standards for experimental broadcasts of
digital TV."

Claims only.. we'll see how it really performs, if it ever get's
deployed. COFDM's achilles heal (impulse noise) never showed it true
colors in a laboratory environment.

"According to other reports, however, China's digital TV standard is
losing appeal among manufacturers and broadcasters, which have been
turning to foreign systems after Beijing failed to announce its own
standards."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Looks like China is having some problems...


"The China Daily newspaper reported that regulators have been pushing
for China to develop its own digital TV standards, hoping to avoid
dependence on Western technology and nurture a new domestic industry.
But after they missed a deadline to issue a digital TV standard by the
end of 2003, broadcasters and manufacturers have been exploring
foreign standards."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Still sitting on the fence???


State-owned Guangdong Radio & Television New Technology Development is
using DVB-T for a trial programme to broadcast to receivers in taxis,
public buses and other vehicles. Similar trials of "mobile television"
are starting in Beijing and the central province of Hunan.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We in the US don't care for mobile TV.. It's a dangerous
distraction for the driver, and inherently low def..

P.S. Have you ever try to read a book while traveling in a car?
Did you get a headache trying it? Do you know why???
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 1:34:01 PM

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

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Bob Miller wrote:
> Proper antenna systems with COFDM are small enough to fit in a cell phone.

Then, why is it that in Tokyo, you are REQUIRED to have an outdoor
rooftop-mounted directional yagi?

Why is it that the BBC's own web page says that you need a rooftop-mounted
antenna?

Bob Miller is a pathological liar. When he doesn't know the facts, he
just makes things up. When he knows a limited set of facts, he puts them
together into complete non-sequitors to create lies.

Bob Miller is particularly fond of quoting articles that do not support
his claims. He's been caught doing this numerous time with English
language articles; he does it even more when there are foreign language
articles with pictures. Unfortunately for Bob, people bother to read the
articles and some even understand the foreign language in question.

There is currently *no* cell phone that receives terrestrial broadcast
COFDM based television. Nor are there any announced cell phones that do
so.

There are cell phones in Japan that receive *analog* television (just as
poorly as the 1988 vintage Casio TV-400 series), and there are cell phones
which receive digital video content from W-CDMA cell phone providers at
15fps. The latter may be terrestrial, and it may be digital, and (as it
has audio and video) is arguably television; but it is most assuredly not
the terrestrial digital television which is available experimentally in
Tokyo.

Even battery-powered portable digital TVs are at least two years in the
future in Japan. Digital TV reception is a big problem. Even less than 2
miles from the transmitter with an outdoor antenna, frequent pixellation
occurs. The service area doesn't even cover all of Tokyo municipality,
much less any suburbs.

Nor is the programming on terrestrial digital TV in Japan particularly
interesting yet. The newspapers don't even bother to list it yet. Most
Japanese who have HDTV subscribe to satellite, which *is* listed in the
newspapers.

None of this is to imply that COFDM is a worse choice than 8-VSB for
Japan. Almost the entire population of Japan lives in densely populated
cities, generally on the coastline. Their population is about half the
US, and less than 30% of Japan's landmass (on four large islands and
numerous small ones) is inhabitable. Mountainous terrain limits the
broadcast area. Consequently, COFDM probably does work better there.

Nevertheless, it is nonsense to imply, as pathological liar Bob Miller has
done, that this renders COFDM "better" than 8-VSB for use in North
America; nor does it create products that exist only in Bob Miler's
psychotic imagination.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 1:45:11 PM

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

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Mudd Bug wrote:
> I guess me and the only other two people I know who have tried OTA are
> just unlucky, 100% are in your 25%. With your success rate at least one
> would be working just fine, but that is just not the case.

A sample space of two is not statistically significant.

Recall the gambler's fallacy. If you flip a fair coin twice and it comes
up heads both times, that doesn't mean that it is more likely that it will
come up tails the next time.

If you can not understand this, then I strongly advise you not to go to a
casino, as people who do not understand statistics are their lawful prey.

> Like I posted some months ago, A salesman at a high end store said that
> about half of their installs cannot receive OTA, and he look puzzled as
> to why.

Anecdotal evidence is worthless without additional information, especially
when you are reporting the statement of a third party that the figure is
"about" such-and-such.

In order to be useful, we need a statistically significant sample size of
*all* the shops installs, and reports of success and failure from *each*
of these. Note the emphasized words; anything less than all of the
installs biases the data. Shops get more feedback from unhappy customers
than from happy customers. Consequently, data based upon customer
feedback is biased.

Next, even if the 50% figure is accurate, the report omits such critical
information as location. For example, a shop selling HDTV systems in
Anchorage probably will have such a low rate; there isn't much HDTV in
Anchorage, and the mountains and forests which surround Anchorage greatly
impact TV receiption outside of the urban center.

If you fail to consider all such factors, you're doing the same thing that
Psycho Bob Miller the pathological liar does when he acts like New York
City and its conditions are the thing that counts for the entire country.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
February 3, 2005 5:11:17 PM

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

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 11:20:15 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin"
<nothere@notnow.never> wrote:


>Actually, bob said absolutely nothing of the kind. I was one of those
>that pointed out that 5th generation chips were likely be available in
>integrated sets.

I realize many on this group are in the "get bob" camp, but it is a
good idea to at least stay close to the truth. Check Google, there
are several of Bob's posts that made that statement.

Just for background, 8-VSB works fine for me, surrounded by tall
apartment buildings in Chicago, as it apparently does for you.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 5:11:18 PM

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

BobT wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 11:20:15 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin"
> <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Actually, bob said absolutely nothing of the kind. I was one of those
>>that pointed out that 5th generation chips were likely be available in
>>integrated sets.
>
>
> I realize many on this group are in the "get bob" camp, but it is a
> good idea to at least stay close to the truth.

I will if bob will. So far he has shown absolutely no respect for the
truth therefore he deserves no respect.

> Check Google, there
> are several of Bob's posts that made that statement.

All of which are conspicuously absent from the quoted thread (his most
recent on the subject).

> Just for background, 8-VSB works fine for me, surrounded by tall
> apartment buildings in Chicago, as it apparently does for you.

A data point that bob will ignore.

Matthew
February 3, 2005 5:11:18 PM

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

"BobT" <fake@invalid.net> wrote

> I realize many on this group are in the "get bob" camp, but it is a
> good idea to at least stay close to the truth. Check Google, there
> are several of Bob's posts that made that statement.
>
> Just for background, 8-VSB works fine for me, surrounded by tall
> apartment buildings in Chicago, as it apparently does for you.

Bob, you should be really grateful [as we all should] that we have 8VSB
HDTV.

Bob Miller actually testified against our system in Washington in 2000,
trying to quash its deployment. All simply to line his pockets, as the owner
of a datacasting company. Interesting that he had apparently been accused of
lying, even then.

http://www.broadcast.net/pipermail/dtv/2000-July/000137...

!
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 5:11:19 PM

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

David wrote:
> "BobT" <fake@invalid.net> wrote
>
>
>>I realize many on this group are in the "get bob" camp, but it is a
>>good idea to at least stay close to the truth. Check Google, there
>>are several of Bob's posts that made that statement.
>>
>>Just for background, 8-VSB works fine for me, surrounded by tall
>>apartment buildings in Chicago, as it apparently does for you.
>
>
> Bob, you should be really grateful [as we all should] that we have 8VSB
> HDTV.
>
> Bob Miller actually testified against our system in Washington in 2000,
> trying to quash its deployment. All simply to line his pockets, as the owner
> of a datacasting company. Interesting that he had apparently been accused of
> lying, even then.
>
> http://www.broadcast.net/pipermail/dtv/2000-July/000137...
>

If you care to visit the content free site of viacel, you can click on
the email link and send a message to bob miller:

<http://www.viacel.com/&gt;

I think he would be better off without a website than with that pathetic
page.

Matthew
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 5:43:59 PM

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

Tim Keating wrote:

> On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 03:45:49 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bob Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Most people" is not enough for a working system I am afraid. As is
>>>>evident after these last 7 years of stagnation.
>>>
>>>
>>>In that case, you should give up your harebrained scheme to display
>>>8-VSB with COFDM since that won't cover most people in the US due to the
>>>increased power required to be competitive in the far field.
>>>
>>>Matthew
>>
>>Well the Chinese who recently tested the latest COFDM receivers with the
>>latest algorithms say that COFDM is 2.5 db better than 8-VSB.
>
>
> As the europeans are finding out the hard way, all the lab testing
> in the world doesn't equal squat in the real world. China claims to
> be deploying a hybrid DMB-T using 8Mhz channel bandwidth.

The only place that the supposed and past tense 2 to 4 db of advantage
8-VSB had over COFDM was in LAB TEST. In the real world country after
country that picked COFDM could not find this difference. I agree with
you "all the lab testing in the world doesn't equal squat in the real
world". And now that lab testing that doesn't mean "squat" says that
COFDM has the advantage by 2.5 db anyway.

The hard way? Selling all the receivers they can make? Pace pulled out
of the market in the UK because there are so many players profit margins
have shrunk. 25% of purchases of OTA COFDM receivers are people buying
second, third and fourth receivers as gifts or for other TV sets.

The test that China did were as near to 19.3 Mbps as possible for HD
which is what a US 6 MHz channel can handle.
>
> The US is limited to 6Mhz channel widths and has thousands of
> pre-existing TV stations already on the air. (A Huge Difference).

China has thousand of pre-existing TV stations on the air, I don't get
your point. 6 MHz is a non issue when considering what is that best
modulation. 8-VSB does not offer some advantage in a 6 MHz channel that
COFDM does not.
>
> Lastly, you forgot to add in that COFDM needs an extra 10 to 15dB
> S/N to overcome local impulse noise sources. (Something one doesn't
> find out until they do a wide scale consumer deployment, and the
> neighbors start using their newly purchased vacuum cleaners.)

That did happen in 1999 and 2000 with a bad design for the first 2K
DVB-T receivers in the UK. Couldn't have been too bad since they sold a
lot of them and people still use them. Later designs have eliminated
impulse noise as a problem. I can get 8-VSB to blink by simply turning a
fluorescent light on and off near a receiver. Something my COFDM
receiver has no problem with.
>
>
> and from

I am familiar with all that is happening in China. Most of this is now
old news only a couple of months later. China is close to the final
touches on DMB-T and everyone seems happy with it. We will test it as
soon as we can.
>
> http://www.smpte.org.au/industrynews.asp
>
> HEADLINES
> Updated 12-01-05
>
> "China Announces DTV Chip
>
> A university in Shanghai says it has designed China’s first home-made
> digital TV chip in collaboration with two domestic companies - Grace
> Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation and Semiconductor
> Manufacturing International Corporation."
>
> Their First TV chip.. and it's only Jan 12 .. 2005..
>
> "The China Daily newspaper reported that the chip, known as "Zhongshi
> No 1", was designed based on China's Digital Multimedia Television
> Broadcasting (DMB-T) standard. It quoted Zhou Dian, president of the
> School of Microelectronics at Fudan University, as saying the chip had
> outdone European and US standards for experimental broadcasts of
> digital TV."
>
> Claims only.. we'll see how it really performs, if it ever get's
> deployed. COFDM's achilles heal (impulse noise) never showed it true
> colors in a laboratory environment.
>
> "According to other reports, however, China's digital TV standard is
> losing appeal among manufacturers and broadcasters, which have been
> turning to foreign systems after Beijing failed to announce its own
> standards."
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Looks like China is having some problems...
>
>
> "The China Daily newspaper reported that regulators have been pushing
> for China to develop its own digital TV standards, hoping to avoid
> dependence on Western technology and nurture a new domestic industry.
> But after they missed a deadline to issue a digital TV standard by the
> end of 2003, broadcasters and manufacturers have been exploring
> foreign standards."
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Still sitting on the fence???
>
>
> State-owned Guangdong Radio & Television New Technology Development is
> using DVB-T for a trial programme to broadcast to receivers in taxis,
> public buses and other vehicles. Similar trials of "mobile television"
> are starting in Beijing and the central province of Hunan.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> We in the US don't care for mobile TV.. It's a dangerous
> distraction for the driver, and inherently low def..

Amazingly ignorant statement. 60% of SUV's sold by Chrysler come with
built in rear seat DVD players. That is before the after market which is
going crazy with this stuff. Sirius and XM have both announced that they
would be offering satellite TV. Qualcomm and Crown Castle are both
getting into the business with national plans. We OBVIOUSLY care a great
deal about TV in the vehicle.

Bob Miller
>
> P.S. Have you ever try to read a book while traveling in a car?
> Did you get a headache trying it? Do you know why???
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 5:44:00 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> Tim Keating wrote:
>

>> We in the US don't care for mobile TV.. It's a dangerous
>> distraction for the driver, and inherently low def..
>
>
> Amazingly ignorant statement. 60% of SUV's sold by Chrysler come with
> built in rear seat DVD players. That is before the after market which is
> going crazy with this stuff. Sirius and XM have both announced that they
> would be offering satellite TV. Qualcomm and Crown Castle are both
> getting into the business with national plans. We OBVIOUSLY care a great
> deal about TV in the vehicle.
>

The only thing that is obvious is that certain concerns are going to try
low definition satellite delivery of video content. There is no
guarantee that those efforts are going to succeed (technically or as a
business model), just as there is no guarantee that your scheme will
succeed.

Matthew
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 5:44:00 PM

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

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 14:43:59 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>Tim Keating wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 03:45:49 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>>>
>>>>Bob Miller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Most people" is not enough for a working system I am afraid. As is
>>>>>evident after these last 7 years of stagnation
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>In that case, you should give up your harebrained scheme to display
>>>>8-VSB with COFDM since that won't cover most people in the US due to the
>>>>increased power required to be competitive in the far field.
>>>>
>>>>Matthew
>>>
>>>Well the Chinese who recently tested the latest COFDM receivers with the
>>>latest algorithms say that COFDM is 2.5 db better than 8-VSB.
>>
>>
>> As the europeans are finding out the hard way, all the lab testing
>> in the world doesn't equal squat in the real world. China claims to
>> be deploying a hybrid DMB-T using 8Mhz channel bandwidth.
>
>The only place that the supposed and past tense 2 to 4 db of advantage
>8-VSB had over COFDM was in LAB TEST. In the real world country after

1.) COFDM's S/N floor varies based on bit rate and bandwidth.

>country that picked COFDM could not find this difference. I agree with
>you "all the lab testing in the world doesn't equal squat in the real
>world". And now that lab testing that doesn't mean "squat" says that

Obviously , since they did not factor in the REAL WORLD impulse
noise into the equation.

>COFDM has the advantage by 2.5 db anyway.

ATSC HDTV broadcasts using COFDM will always will be at a 5dB S/N
Disadvantage when compared with 8VSB in the US (6Mhz) markets.

2.) And that's not counting the extra 10 to 15dB S/N ratio COFDM
needs to overcome local impulse noise sources and deliver reliable
residential service.

>
>The hard way? Selling all the receivers they can make? Pace pulled out
>of the market in the UK because there are so many players profit margins
>have shrunk. 25% of purchases of OTA COFDM receivers are people buying
>second, third and fourth receivers as gifts or for other TV sets.
>
>The test that China did were as near to 19.3 Mbps as possible for HD
>which is what a US 6 MHz channel can handle.

Comparing a 8Mhz COFDM channel with data rate supplied by a 6Mhz
8VSB channel. That's an (item #1) Apples and Oranges comparison Bob.

>>
>> The US is limited to 6Mhz channel widths and has thousands of
>> pre-existing TV stations already on the air. (A Huge Difference).
>
>China has thousand of pre-existing TV stations on the air, I don't get

So, a quick search of the FCC's TV database indicates that their
are 21,426 TV stations listed.

>your point. 6 MHz is a non issue when considering what is that best
>modulation. 8-VSB does not offer some advantage in a 6 MHz channel that

A 6Mhz channel width has everything to do with and orderly (H)DTV
transition in the US. Nearly every TV receiver ever sold in the US
and Canada uses 6Mhz channel widths. Even the US cable TV channels are
in 6 Mhz increments.

Personally, I don't care what other countries use. And for the
most part, they don't have ANY OTA (H)DTV broadcasts, because of
items #1 and #2.

>COFDM does not.

8VSB in 8Mhz channel could go upwards of 30Mbits/sec without
changing its S/N noise floor. Not so with COFDM, (see item #1).

>>
>> Lastly, you forgot to add in that COFDM needs an extra 10 to 15dB
>> S/N to overcome local impulse noise sources. (Something one doesn't
>> find out until they do a wide scale consumer deployment, and the
>> neighbors start using their newly purchased vacuum cleaners.)
>
>That did happen in 1999 and 2000 with a bad design for the first 2K
>DVB-T receivers in the UK. Couldn't have been too bad since they sold a
>lot of them and people still use them.

And is still happening today. It's the parallel nature of COFDM
carriers that works against it. It simultaneously xmits on hundreds
if not thousands of carriers at the same time.. An impulse noise
event of sufficient duration corrupts them all simultaneously. No
way around that problem other than to xmit the same data patterns over
and over again.

COFDM's problem with reoccuring impulse noise especially problematic,
since it also corrupts subsequent retransmissions.

>Later designs have eliminated
>impulse noise as a problem. I can get 8-VSB to blink by simply turning a

^^^^^^^ you don't own a (H)DTV.. therefore it's Unlikely that you
have an ATSC 8-VSB receiver.

As for what you claim to have, list the make, model, and exact
overall configuration for each transmitter and receiver. I'll bet
dollars to donuts that you rigged results and are comparing apples to
oranges AGAIN.

>fluorescent light on and off near a receiver. Something my COFDM
>receiver has no problem with.

Considering your COFDM receiver is probably right next to your
transmitter you probably won't have a problem impulse noise. It's a
S/N ratio thing. Increase the distance between the two (dropping S/N
ratio) and CODFM's problem with impulse noise grows exponentially.


...Snip the rest of bob's rants..
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 6:13:02 PM

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

>But for the last 7 years and even now 8-VSB needs "proper" big
>ugly rotorized antennas that will not help a bit

Yet ANOTHER lie from BOB!! He's on a roll folks, don't stop him. We all know
that many people have no problems getting perfectly gorgeous 8VSB reception
with antennas in attics, small outdoor antennas, and yes, in SOME cases, larger
antennas with rotors. And to say these lareger antennas with rotors "will not
help a bit" is as bold a face lie as you've ever told. You are a despicable
little man BOB!

You will never understand that we are here watching your posts and catching you
in each and every LIE you tell.
February 3, 2005 6:13:03 PM

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

"Vidguy7" <vidguy7@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050203101302.17983.00000428@mb-m22.aol.com...
> >But for the last 7 years and even now 8-VSB needs "proper" big
>>ugly rotorized antennas that will not help a bit
>
> Yet ANOTHER lie from BOB!! He's on a roll folks, don't stop him. We all
> know
> that many people have no problems getting perfectly gorgeous 8VSB
> reception
> with antennas in attics, small outdoor antennas, and yes, in SOME cases,
> larger
> antennas with rotors. And to say these lareger antennas with rotors "will
> not
> help a bit" is as bold a face lie as you've ever told. You are a
> despicable
> little man BOB!
>
> You will never understand that we are here watching your posts and
> catching > you in each and every LIE you tell.

Bob must be referring to an antenna like this one:

http://www.satalogue.com/section7/page3.htm
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 6:13:03 PM

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

Vidguy7 (vidguy7@aol.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> >But for the last 7 years and even now 8-VSB needs "proper" big
> >ugly rotorized antennas that will not help a bit
>
> Yet ANOTHER lie from BOB!! He's on a roll folks, don't stop him. We all know
> that many people have no problems getting perfectly gorgeous 8VSB reception
> with antennas in attics, small outdoor antennas, and yes, in SOME cases, larger
> antennas with rotors.

You forgot all the people that do use indoor antennas like the Silver
Sensor. I can't, because of the metal in my house (beams and siding),
but when I was testing my outdoor antenna by connecting it in the basement,
I got about half the channels. I could probably get all of them from
inside the attic, but it's no big deal to mount an outdoor antenna.

--
Jeff Rife | "What's goin' on down here?"
| "Oh, we're playing house."
| "But, that boy is all tied up."
| "...Roman Polanski's house."
| -- Lois and Stewie Griffin, "Family Guy"
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 7:11:30 PM

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

>I can get 8-VSB to blink by simply turning a
>fluorescent light on and off near a receiver. Something my COFDM
>receiver has no problem with.

Funny BOB, I can't get any of my 8VSB receivers to do that. However, my XM
radio, relying on COFDM repeaters, DOES have problems getting a steady signal.
So much for real world use of COFDM.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 7:40:44 PM

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

Mark Crispin (MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> In order to be useful, we need a statistically significant sample size of
> *all* the shops installs, and reports of success and failure from *each*
> of these. Note the emphasized words; anything less than all of the
> installs biases the data. Shops get more feedback from unhappy customers
> than from happy customers. Consequently, data based upon customer
> feedback is biased.

In addition, different installers often end up with different results based
on the skill of the installer. Here in the DC area, there are a few "name"
installers of TV antennas, and one has gotten a horrible rep due to the
fact that their installs don't work well for digital TV, yet other
companies can come through afterward and fix things.

So, if one installer is having a lot of bad luck receiving digital TV on
their installs, that doesn't necessarily mean that digital TV is hard to
receive...it might just mean the installer doesn't know what he is doing.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/SupportTraining.gi...
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 9:57:16 PM

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

David wrote:
> "BobT" <fake@invalid.net> wrote
>
>
>>I realize many on this group are in the "get bob" camp, but it is a
>>good idea to at least stay close to the truth. Check Google, there
>>are several of Bob's posts that made that statement.
>>
>>Just for background, 8-VSB works fine for me, surrounded by tall
>>apartment buildings in Chicago, as it apparently does for you.
>
>
> Bob, you should be really grateful [as we all should] that we have 8VSB
> HDTV.
>
> Bob Miller actually testified against our system in Washington in 2000,
> trying to quash its deployment. All simply to line his pockets, as the owner
> of a datacasting company. Interesting that he had apparently been accused of
> lying, even then.
>
> http://www.broadcast.net/pipermail/dtv/2000-July/000137...
>

This was a hearing to consider allowing COFDM as well as 8-VSB use in
the US. My testimony was not to squash anything. It was to back up
Sinclair's demonstration that showed conclusively that COFDM was far
superior to 8-VSB. Sinclair was only asking for COFDM to be allowed so
that it could be used in cities like New York and Baltimore where 8-VSB
did not and still does not work. If you want to see how well COFDM works
in New York with the simplest of antennas mobile try this video.

www.viacel.com/bob.wmv

If you have ever wrestled with a rooftop antenna or tried in vain to get
an indoor Silver Sensor to work consider that one of those videos is
working mobile with a 3 inch omni antenna stuck on the roof of this van.

Testifying that one system is far better than the other is not an
attempt to destroy. What has virtually destroyed our DTV transition in
the US is 8-VSB.

Others can read the above account of the testimony if they think anyone
was accusing me of lying and then determine the veracity of David's
comments themselves. If you can't find anything about such an accusation
then I guess David is "lying". Maybe he thinks no one will read what he
post.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 10:42:05 PM

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

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:18:36 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin"
>
>I will if bob will. So far he has shown absolutely no respect for the
>truth therefore he deserves no respect.
>

This is one strange newsgroup and "truth" is not respected for sure.
Some of you make endless assertions about how wonderful OTA HDTV is,
but, when I read the posts on avsforum for my part of California
served by Sacramento stations, I hear of problems with wind, with
fog, with"terrain shielding and multipath", with "atmospheric
particulates". We are warned that frequent dropouts are to be
expected. For me, it works well most of the time, but I wouldn't want
to depend on it. I'm keeping my local station service on Directv.

Most of you seem to have nothing to contribute but trash talk against
Bob Miller. At least he is giving his version of the situation with
OTA broadcasting and putting his neck out making predictions. I
certainly enjoy hearing from him. Most of the rest of you should find
a life, some of you, like vidguy7, should get back to the books or
you'll never get out of Jr High.

charlie
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 10:42:06 PM

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

Charles Tieman wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:18:36 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin"
>
>>I will if bob will. So far he has shown absolutely no respect for the
>>truth therefore he deserves no respect.
>>
>
>
> This is one strange newsgroup and "truth" is not respected for sure.
> Some of you make endless assertions about how wonderful OTA HDTV is,
> but, when I read the posts on avsforum for my part of California
> served by Sacramento stations, I hear of problems with wind, with
> fog, with"terrain shielding and multipath", with "atmospheric
> particulates". We are warned that frequent dropouts are to be
> expected.

How good is your OTA on NTSC stations?

> For me, it works well most of the time, but I wouldn't want
> to depend on it. I'm keeping my local station service on Directv.

So, for all of the "problems" you cite, you say that it works well most
of the time. The fellow you are defending says it never works, it is
fatally flawed and the modulation scheme is the reason that consumers
aren't buying HD.

> Most of you seem to have nothing to contribute but trash talk against
> Bob Miller. At least he is giving his version of the situation with
> OTA broadcasting and putting his neck out making predictions.

You should note that he has been 100% wrong in his predictions. He also
argues frequenty that physics is wrong.

> I
> certainly enjoy hearing from him.

Care to say why someone who has been caught out in lies as often as bob
has been is worth listening to?


--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
February 4, 2005 12:19:06 AM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:guuMd.5613$cl1.2399@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> Bob Miller actually testified against our system in Washington in 2000,
>> trying to quash its deployment. All simply to line his pockets, as the
>> owner of a datacasting company. Interesting that he had apparently been
>> accused of lying, even then.
>>
>> http://www.broadcast.net/pipermail/dtv/2000-July/000137...
>>
>
> This was a hearing to consider allowing COFDM as well as 8-VSB use in the
> US.

Which would have ruined our USA HDTV.
"Honey, we have to buy another different receiver to watch that
show.......".

>My testimony was not to squash anything.

It was to line your pockets, incredibly obviously.

>It was to back up Sinclair's demonstration that showed conclusively that
>COFDM was far superior to 8-VSB.

What a shame your cofdm plan lost so conclusively. Besides, everyone now at
Sinclair considers you a crazy, ridiculous outcast. Why do you seem to get a
kick out of being disgraced?


>Sinclair was only asking for COFDM to be allowed so that it could be used
>in cities like New York and Baltimore where 8-VSB did not and still does
>not work.

Typical Bob Miller crazy lie.

>If you want to see how well COFDM works in New York with the simplest of
>antennas mobile try this video.

What makes you think we care about your 2 year old video?

> If you have ever wrestled with a rooftop antenna or tried in vain to get
> an indoor Silver Sensor to work consider that one of those videos is
> working mobile with a 3 inch omni antenna stuck on the roof of this van.

When you typed that, your wife was behind you screaming, "Turn that goddam
computer off and look for a job!".



> Testifying that one system is far better than the other is not an attempt
> to destroy.

Attempt to line your pockets at our expense?

>What has virtually destroyed our DTV transition in the US is 8-VSB.

LOL

> Others can read the above account of the testimony if they think anyone
> was accusing me of lying and then determine the veracity of David's
> comments themselves. If you can't find anything about such an accusation
> then I guess David is "lying". Maybe he thinks no one will read what he
> post.
>
> Bob Miller


You don't believe a single word you say.

The only reason you post all these lies is to anger AVS members, because you
correctly [for once] assume some of them attend this newsgroup.
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 12:43:34 AM

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

Mark Crispin wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> Proper antenna systems with COFDM are small enough to fit in a cell
>> phone.
>
>
> Then, why is it that in Tokyo, you are REQUIRED to have an outdoor
> rooftop-mounted directional yagi?

Now Mark has gone off the deep end. REQUIRED rooftop antennas? Could you
document that one Mark?
>
> Why is it that the BBC's own web page says that you need a
> rooftop-mounted antenna?

Probably to cover their asses as many will need such an antenna. The
fact remains that most do not. But if they do wouldn't you expect it?
After all if you add up all the power that all 480 transmitters in use
in the UK you come up with a TOTAL that is a FRACTION of ONE New York
City transmitter with 8-VSB.

Now I have to let you do the math yourself. Here is a list of those 480
transmitters and their ERP power levels. Add them up.

http://www.wolfbane.com/ukdtt.htm

Otherwise Mark will tell you I am making this up. With transmitters as
low a 3 Watts, yes I said 3 Watts, you might expect to need a rooftop
antenna. The fact that most do not is amazing. And what is even more
amazing is that that rooftop antenna that you need in the UK to receive
that 3 Watt transmitters signal probably will not help you in Manhattan
with 8-VSB even with 1,000,000 Watts of power. It just won't work. Now
isn't that AMAZING!!

And remember the 2K COFDM system used in the UK was the first and last
use of such a system. Everyone since uses an 8K version of COFDM. The
British just got carried away and couldn't wait. Still the 2K system
they use is far better than 8-VSB even if it is outmoded.
>
> Bob Miller is a pathological liar. When he doesn't know the facts, he
> just makes things up. When he knows a limited set of facts, he puts
> them together into complete non-sequitors to create lies.
>
> Bob Miller is particularly fond of quoting articles that do not support
> his claims. He's been caught doing this numerous time with English
> language articles; he does it even more when there are foreign language
> articles with pictures. Unfortunately for Bob, people bother to read
> the articles and some even understand the foreign language in question.
>

You have never "caught" me doing any such thing Mark. You just keep
making unsubstantiated remarks with nothing to back it up.
Show me an English article or even a Japanese one where I was misquoting
PLEASE! Come on try to back up something.

> There is currently *no* cell phone that receives terrestrial broadcast
> COFDM based television. Nor are there any announced cell phones that do
> so.

This is incredible. There are lots of announced COFDM terrestrial DTV
cell phones, there are lots of working prototypes and by now there may
be ones on the market in S. Korea.
>
> There are cell phones in Japan that receive *analog* television (just as
> poorly as the 1988 vintage Casio TV-400 series), and there are cell
> phones which receive digital video content from W-CDMA cell phone
> providers at 15fps. The latter may be terrestrial, and it may be
> digital, and (as it has audio and video) is arguably television; but it
> is most assuredly not the terrestrial digital television which is
> available experimentally in Tokyo.

All true but there are also terrestrial DTV cell phones both in Europe,
Japan and S. Korea. Also in the US where Crown Castle is testing them in
Pittsburgh. DVB-H in Europe and Pittsburgh, ISDB-T in Japan and T-DMB in
S. Korea are all cell phone COFDM DTV receiver realities.
>
> Even battery-powered portable digital TVs are at least two years in the
> future in Japan. Digital TV reception is a big problem. Even less than
> 2 miles from the transmitter with an outdoor antenna, frequent
> pixellation occurs. The service area doesn't even cover all of Tokyo
> municipality, much less any suburbs.

The coverage is as this site says it is unless Mark can come up with
some fantasy coverage map of his own or suggest why this site is in error.

And the data at this site seems pretty convincing. Maybe Mark can
explain this also.

http://www.dibeg.org/news/news-3/news-e3.htm
"...indicating that digital terrestrial sets are becoming an
increasingly popular option in flat panel TVs." People are buying this
sets with the "option" of picking one with a terrestrial receiver. The
radical increase in sales is attributable to terrestrial DTV since
satellite was available before and sales were flat.

Another quote at 22/10/2004 at this site about cell phone receivers....

"Encoding was in MPEG4 AVC/ITU-T H.264 format, and observers used mobile
phone type receivers developed by KDDI/Hitachi and portable receivers
developed by Sony to receive broadcasts for portable terminals while in
moving vehicles. Japanese broadcasters plan to launch commercial
broadcasts aimed at portable terminals by the end of FY2005, using the
format employed in this trial."

There is also a picture of such a cell phone held up by a man who has a
small form factor screen in his other hand which is also shown close up
below that.
>
> Nor is the programming on terrestrial digital TV in Japan particularly
> interesting yet. The newspapers don't even bother to list it yet. Most
> Japanese who have HDTV subscribe to satellite, which *is* listed in the
> newspapers.

Its one year old. How good was OTA HD in 1999 in the US after one year?
>
> None of this is to imply that COFDM is a worse choice than 8-VSB for
> Japan. Almost the entire population of Japan lives in densely populated
> cities, generally on the coastline. Their population is about half the
> US, and less than 30% of Japan's landmass (on four large islands and
> numerous small ones) is inhabitable. Mountainous terrain limits the
> broadcast area. Consequently, COFDM probably does work better there.

It does!!
>
> Nevertheless, it is nonsense to imply, as pathological liar Bob Miller
> has done, that this renders COFDM "better" than 8-VSB for use in North
> America; nor does it create products that exist only in Bob Miler's
> psychotic imagination.

No I never said that Japan's choice of COFDM was the main evidence that
WE should also use COFDM. I said that the fact that most countries in
the world have chosen COFDM lends credence to the fact that WE should
also have chosen it. That includes China, Russia all of Europe,
Australia, Hong Kong, Taiwan etc.

> -- Mark --
>
> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
> Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Mark calls me a liar. One big lie he claims I tell is that the world
will soon be awash in DTV receiving cell phones. Why he is in denial on
this simple fact that is reported daily in some paper or TV news report
and is all over the Internet I don't know. It is irrational.

Yes there are analog TV receivers in cell phones and yes there are cell
phones that do 15 fps over CDMA or other 3G cell phone networks.

I am talking and Mark denies the existence of cell phones that will
receive actual DTV transmissions with separate COFDM receivers on board.

Here is some info you can check out. Maybe just this once Mark will
check it out and show where I have gone wrong.

There are three going on four DTV COFDM modulations that will do or are
doing COFDM DTV OTA to cell phone receivers.

T-DMB in S. Korea which uses 1.25 MHz of DAB spectrum to deliver mobile
video to cell phones. The COFDM modulation used is Eureka 147.

ISDB-T does COFDM using part of there spectrum for delivery to cell
phones. That was documented above.

DVB-H COFDM is used in Europe and prototypes are being tested and
demonstrated and have been now for over a year. A test is ongoing in
Pittsburgh as well by Crown Castle.

This is a story about a Nokia COFDM DVB-H DTV cell phone receiver.
http://www.wolfbane.com/ukdtt.htm

DVB-SCENE articles
http://www.dvb.org/documents/newsletters/DVB-SCENE%20Is...

"One terminal used in the pilot is the Nokia 7700 Media Device with a
special prototype DVB-H receiver supplement. Philips is providing the
second prototype terminal, this being a portable consumer device capable
of receiving both the conventional DVB-T based TV programmes as well
as the new DVB-H based services."

"Dublin this year, explaining the motivation behind DVB-H development,
Jukka Henriksson, chairman of the DVB-H project, put it simply: “TV is
the biggest
medium, and the last one missing from mobile phones.”
In Europe, DVB-H is gravitating inexorably into mobile phones."

"Chris Carter, marketing manager of satellite and terrestrial business
in the set-top division at STMicroelectronics, has said, “Nothing stops
US operators
from embracing DVB-H.” Nothing, perhaps, but a lack of imagination in a
country known the world over for ‘good old American ingenuity’."

Of course we know that Crown Castle and Qualcomm have that ingenuity.

Notice of Nokia and Crown Castle test in Pittsburg...
http://press.nokia.com/PR/200411/970383_5.html

"DVB-H technology is being piloted in the United States by Crown Castle
and Nokia. The pilot has started in October in the Pittsburgh, PA, area
and it aims to prove and test the feasibility of DVB-H technology and
related service systems in the United States."

http://press.nokia.com/PR/200411/966982_5.html

"The pilot has started in October in the Pittsburgh, PA, area and it
aims to prove and test the feasibility of DVB-H technology and related
service systems in the United States. Later on, the pilot will be
expanded to test consumer experiences and acceptance of mobile phone TV
service."

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6768

"Unless severe problems emerge in the trials now under way in the US and
Europe, the momentum behind DVB-H seems unstoppable. Motorola, NEC,
Siemens, Sony-Ericsson, Samsung, Nokia, O2 and NTL expect to kick off
DVB-H services in 2006."

I"n the UK, the mobile network O2 will start using DVB-H next year,
despite having paid £4 billion for a 3G licence in April 2000. Nine
transmitters near Oxford operated by NTL, the Australian-owned company
that runs the UK’s independent TV transmitters, will broadcast 16
channels on a spare TV frequency."

"From 2006, mobile phones will be offering crisp, clear TV pictures. But
the pictures will not be coming over the cellphone network - they will
be sent from transmitters already used for TV broadcasts. And this means
a completely new breed of phones will be necessary to pick them up."

http://cellphones.engadget.com/entry/1234000483023527/

http://www.edtnscandinavia.com/printableArticle/?articl...

A lot of stuff here
http://www.dailywireless.org/modules.php?name=News&file...

"Korean vendors claim that they have leapfrogged Europe by completing
T-DMB. It is designed to beam digital TV broadcasts to handheld devices
— including mobile phones, PDAs and portable TV sets. "

"Data-intensive, mobile applications may be better served by DTV or
dedicated broadcast carriers (like Crown Castle's 1.4 GHz band), say
industry observers.

Crown Castle says it already has the spectrum it needs to provide DVB-H
broadcasts. Last year, Crown Castle quietly won a government auction,
paying $12 million for an exclusive terrestrial license to use 5 MHz of
U.S. L-band spectrum which extends from 1440 - 1790 MHz. It was
previously used for weather balloon and weather satellite down-linking.

The company has deployed DVB-H technology in a three-site,
single-frequency network trial in Pittsburgh, according to EE Times."

http://www.3g.co.uk/PR/June2004/7916.htm

http://broadcastengineering.com/news/broadcasting_demon...
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 1:04:19 AM

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

"Mark Crispin" <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
news:p ine.WNT.4.62.0502031034530.3060@Shimo-Tomobiki.panda.com...
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Mudd Bug wrote:
>> I guess me and the only other two people I know who have tried OTA are
>> just unlucky, 100% are in your 25%. With your success rate at least one
>> would be working just fine, but that is just not the case.
>
> A sample space of two is not statistically significant.
It's three, and it is significant when its me and 100% of all
others I know of first hand.
>
> Recall the gambler's fallacy. If you flip a fair coin twice and it comes
> up heads both times, that doesn't mean that it is more likely that it will
> come up tails the next time.
Buying a STB is a gamble, and it came up tails for me.
>
> If you can not understand this, then I strongly advise you not to go to a
> casino, as people who do not understand statistics are their lawful prey.
>

You don't seem to understand that a significant number of installs do not
work,
25% is a large percent.

>> Like I posted some months ago, A salesman at a high end store said that
>> about half of their installs cannot receive OTA, and he look puzzled as
>> to why.
>
> Anecdotal evidence is worthless without additional information, especially
> when you are reporting the statement of a third party that the figure is
> "about" such-and-such.
>
The comment was unsolicited from a salesman, the topic of OTA was just
started.
These were the installs the store was doing, if a professional has problems
what
chance does the general public have? This should be plug and play with an
indoor
antenna if you are in the broadcast area. Maybe a larger outdoor antenna if
you
are trying to receive an out of market station.

> In order to be useful, we need a statistically significant sample size of
> *all* the shops installs, and reports of success and failure from *each*
> of these. Note the emphasized words; anything less than all of the
> installs biases the data. Shops get more feedback from unhappy customers
> than from happy customers. Consequently, data based upon customer
> feedback is biased.
>
> Next, even if the 50% figure is accurate, the report omits such critical
> information as location. For example, a shop selling HDTV systems in
> Anchorage probably will have such a low rate; there isn't much HDTV in
> Anchorage, and the mountains and forests which surround Anchorage greatly
> impact TV receiption outside of the urban center.
>
> If you fail to consider all such factors, you're doing the same thing that
> Psycho Bob Miller the pathological liar does when he acts like New York
> City and its conditions are the thing that counts for the entire country.
>
I look at my results and wonder who the liars are. I am less than 12 miles
from the towers, I should have no problems, none at all. But that is not the
case.

I know little about 8-VSB or any other protocol, I just want it to work and
it does
not for me therefore it is a 100% failure for me. I hold out hope that it
gets fixed,
and soon.

> -- Mark --
>
> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
> Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 3:25:00 AM

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

Bob Miller (robmx@earthlink.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Sinclair was only asking for COFDM to be allowed so
> that it could be used in cities like New York and Baltimore where 8-VSB
> did not and still does not work.

ROFLMAO

Baltimore digital TV works just fine...except for the two Sinclair stations
that were dragging their feet for the longest time. They finally got network
passthrough working, so Baltimore can get Fox and WB in HD. And, only
those with ATSC receivers can do so, because Sinclair refuses to allow the
local Comcast to carry their digital channels.

I'm a good 50 miles away from the Baltimore towers and can receive all
the signals just fine, now that the CBS station has finished work on their
full-power transmitter.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/ArloNJanis/manure.gif
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 6:34:22 AM

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

>Bob Miller actually testified against our system in Washington in 2000,
>trying to quash its deployment. All simply to line his pockets, as the owner
>of a datacasting company. Interesting that he had apparently been accused of
>lying, even then.

No surprise there. He's been lying ever since. I honestly can't remember ever
seeing a poster on any forum who is so incapable of telling the truth.
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 6:38:09 AM

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

> If you want to see how well COFDM works
>in New York with the simplest of antennas mobile try this video.

OR, if you want to see how miserable COFDM is, simply drive around N.Y. and
other major cities with an XM radio. After a few days of that, FM will be
looking REALLY good to you.

>Testifying that one system is far better than the other is not an
>attempt to destroy. What has virtually destroyed our DTV transition in
>the US is 8-VSB.

No BOB, what ALMOST destroyed our digital transition was YOU and your kindred
spirits at Sinclair. Stalling tactic after stalling tactic. Everyone new that
Sinclair had ZERO interest in HD and was trying to do whatver they could to
avoid converting their stations to HD. Who do you think you're kidding BOB?
Don't you realize by now that we all have your number. You are despicable.
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 6:40:15 AM

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

>Why do you seem to get a
>kick out of being disgraced?

Dave, that's probably the most amazing thing about BOB. He's caught lying day
after day after day. He's called on it each and every time. Yet he comes back
for more. They say that only humans have the capacity for
embarrasment......hmm, I wonder what that says about BOB?
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 8:33:36 AM

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

Tim Keating wrote:

Bob Miller wrote:
>>> As the europeans are finding out the hard way, all the lab testingin the world doesn't equal squat in the real world. China claims to
>>>be deploying a hybrid DMB-T using 8Mhz channel bandwidth.
>>
>>The only place that the supposed and past tense 2 to 4 db of advantage 8-VSB had over COFDM was in LAB TEST. In the real world country after
>
>
> 1.) COFDM's S/N floor varies based on bit rate and bandwidth.
>
>
>>country that picked COFDM could not find this difference. I agree with you "all the lab testing in the world doesn't equal squat in the real
>>world". And now that lab testing that doesn't mean "squat" says that
>
>
> Obviously , since they did not factor in the REAL WORLD impulse
> noise into the equation.

Did you get the test results already? I am still waiting. I think they
are pretty good engineers and factored in all the relevant info.
>
>
>>COFDM has the advantage by 2.5 db anyway.
>
>
> ATSC HDTV broadcasts using COFDM will always will be at a 5dB S/N
> Disadvantage when compared with 8VSB in the US (6Mhz) markets.

Can you elaborate? Any data? Test results again. Until you can provide
any I will stick to the latest Chinese test results that show a 2.5 db
advantage for COFDM.
>
> 2.) And that's not counting the extra 10 to 15dB S/N ratio COFDM needs to overcome local impulse noise sources and deliver reliable
> residential service.

Didn't seem to need this in New York. Berlin has a 99% indoor reception
rate with COFDM and the simplest antennas while in New York 8-VSB has
maybe 25%. COFDM worked, 8-VSB doesn't. In fact at the hearings in 2000
COFDM was operating in a 6 MHz channel at 19.76 Mbps mobile in the
hearing room. 8-VSB had to have a special antenna, Silver Sensor,
mounted in a fixed and very precious position behind the curtains.
>
>
>>The hard way? Selling all the receivers they can make? Pace pulled out of the market in the UK because there are so many players profit margins
>>have shrunk. 25% of purchases of OTA COFDM receivers are people buying second, third and fourth receivers as gifts or for other TV sets.
>>
>>The test that China did were as near to 19.3 Mbps as possible for HD which is what a US 6 MHz channel can handle.
>
>
> Comparing a 8Mhz COFDM channel with data rate supplied by a 6Mhz 8VSB channel. That's an (item #1) Apples and Oranges comparison Bob.

No both COFDM and 8-VSB were tried in the same channel at 19.3 mbps. I
don't know if that was 8 or 6. Will find out soon.
>
>
>>> The US is limited to 6Mhz channel widths and has thousands ofpre-existing TV stations already on the air. (A Huge Difference).
>>
>>China has thousand of pre-existing TV stations on the air, I don't get
>
>
> So, a quick search of the FCC's TV database indicates that their are 21,426 TV stations listed.

There are less than 1700 full power NTSC stations and a similar number
of ATSC digital stations in the US. After the digital transition is over
the analog stations will not exist. There are 7500 low power (LPTV) and
translator stations combined in the US.

Translators just extends a full powered TV stations signal. LPTV
stations are limited in coverage and few actually offer significant
programming or are watched by many.

So there are less than 1700 full power TV stations at most in the US.
China has 3000 TV stations. Not a "HUGE" difference but a substantial one.
>
>
>>your point. 6 MHz is a non issue when considering what is that best modulation. 8-VSB does not offer some advantage in a 6 MHz channel that
>
>
> A 6Mhz channel width has everything to do with and orderly (H)DTV transition in the US. Nearly every TV receiver ever sold in the US
> and Canada uses 6Mhz channel widths. Even the US cable TV channels are in 6 Mhz increments.
>
> Personally, I don't care what other countries use. And for the most part, they don't have ANY OTA (H)DTV broadcasts, because of
> items #1 and #2.

Japan has a 6 MHz TV channel size and has COFDM HD OTA broadcast and has
been on the air for one year. In that year they have sold 2.161 million
OTA receivers of which 2.05 million were integrated DTV sets. How many
of anything OTA HD did we sell in the US over the last year??? Japan is
blowing away our OTA HD effort.
http://www.dibeg.org/news/news-3/news-e3.htm
>
>
>>COFDM does not.
>
>
> 8VSB in 8Mhz channel could go upwards of 30Mbits/sec without changing its S/N noise floor. Not so with COFDM, (see item #1).

As I have said in the real world COFDM can do a higher bit rate mobile
than 8-VSB can do to a fixed receiver. It was done before Congress in
2000. COFDM in a 6 MHz channel did 1080i HD with 19.76 Mbps and was able
to have its $2 antenna walked around the hearing room while 8-VSB had to
use a Silver Sensor in a fixed position to do 19.34 Mbps HD 1080i.
>
>
>>> Lastly, you forgot to add in that COFDM needs an extra 10 to 15dB S/N to overcome local impulse noise sources. (Something one doesn't
>>>find out until they do a wide scale consumer deployment, and the neighbors start using their newly purchased vacuum cleaners.)
>>
>>That did happen in 1999 and 2000 with a bad design for the first 2K DVB-T receivers in the UK. Couldn't have been too bad since they sold a
>>lot of them and people still use them.
>
>
> And is still happening today. It's the parallel nature of COFDM carriers that works against it. It
simultaneously xmits on hundreds
> if not thousands of carriers at the same time.. An impulse noise event of sufficient duration corrupts them all simultaneously. No
> way around that problem other than to xmit the same data patterns over and over again.
>
> COFDM's problem with reoccuring impulse noise especially problematic, since it also corrupts subsequent retransmissions.
>
>
>>Later designs have eliminated impulse noise as a problem. I can get 8-VSB to blink by simply turning a
>
>
> ^^^^^^^ you don't own a (H)DTV.. therefore it's Unlikely that you have an ATSC 8-VSB receiver.

Amazing what you think you know. I have multiple 8-VSB receivers and do
own an HDTV.
>

>>fluorescent light on and off near a receiver. Something my COFDM receiver has no problem with.
>
>
> Considering your COFDM receiver is probably right next to your transmitter you probably won't have a problem impulse noise. It's a
> S/N ratio thing. Increase the distance between the two (dropping S/N ratio) and CODFM's problem with impulse noise grows exponentially.

The video speaks for itself. The transmitter is at Canal St. and 6th
Ave. while we drive around most of Manhattan. The transmitter is 100 Watts.

www.viacel.com/bob.wmv

Manhattan is one huge generator or impulse noise but we have no problem
as we drive around the city using single monopole omni antennas one of
which is only 3 inches high. 8-VSB can be defeated in a fixed location
with a dual bowtie facing the Empire State Building even with a 5th gen
LG receiver from that same Canal St. location. It can be defeated simply
by standing in a particular position relative to the antenna or by
walking in front of the antenna. Yet I applaud this 5th gen receiver
because it is so far superior to anything I have seen in 8-VSB.

8-VSB is simply a bad joke period.

Bob Miller
>
>
> ..Snip the rest of bob's rants..
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 8:33:37 AM

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

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 05:33:36 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>Tim Keating wrote:
>
>>Bob Miller wrote:

>> And is still happening today. It's the parallel nature of COFDM carriers that works against it. It
>simultaneously xmits on hundreds
>> if not thousands of carriers at the same time.. An impulse noise event of sufficient duration corrupts them all simultaneously. No
>> way around that problem other than to xmit the same data patterns over and over again.
>>
>> COFDM's problem with reoccuring impulse noise especially problematic, since it also corrupts subsequent retransmissions.
>>
>>
>>>Later designs have eliminated impulse noise as a problem. I can get 8-VSB to blink by simply turning a

Bob seams to think that one can magically, recover data that the
receiver doesn't have.. (I don't think so..)...

>>
>>
>> ^^^^^^^ you don't own a (H)DTV.. therefore it's Unlikely that you have an ATSC 8-VSB receiver.
>
>Amazing what you think you know. I have multiple 8-VSB receivers and do
>own an HDTV.
>>

What bob left out..

" As for what you claim to have, list the make, model, and exact
overall configuration for each transmitter and receiver. I'll bet
dollars to donuts that you rigged results and are comparing apples to
oranges AGAIN. "

Again.... List all the make, model, and exact... test configurations..
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 8:49:08 AM

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

Mark Crispin wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Mudd Bug wrote:
>
>> I guess me and the only other two people I know who have tried OTA are just unlucky, 100% are in your 25%. With your success rate at least
>> one would be working just fine, but that is just not the case.
>
>
> A sample space of two is not statistically significant.

It sure isn't I agree but it doesn't stop poster after poster from
announcing that they can get good 8-VSB reception so 8-VSB is perfect
and you don't see Mark pointing that out, not once.
>
> Recall the gambler's fallacy. If you flip a fair coin twice and it comes up heads both times, that doesn't mean that it is more likely that
> it will come up tails the next time.
>
> If you can not understand this, then I strongly advise you not to go to a casino, as people who do not understand statistics are their lawful prey.
>
>> Like I posted some months ago, A salesman at a high end store said that about half of their installs cannot receive OTA, and he look
>> puzzled as to why.
>
>
> Anecdotal evidence is worthless without additional information, especially when you are reporting the statement of a third party that
> the figure is "about" such-and-such.
>
> In order to be useful, we need a statistically significant sample size of *all* the shops installs, and reports of success and failure from
> *each* of these. Note the emphasized words; anything less than all of the installs biases the data. Shops get more feedback from unhappy
> customers than from happy customers. Consequently, data based upon customer feedback is biased.
>
> Next, even if the 50% figure is accurate, the report omits such critical information as location. For example, a shop selling HDTV systems in
> Anchorage probably will have such a low rate; there isn't much HDTV in Anchorage, and the mountains and forests which surround Anchorage
> greatly impact TV receiption outside of the urban center.

One of the key problems is that the sales of OTA receivers and
integrated HD sets is so bad that the CEA obfuscates or doesn't report
true or any numbers. No mention of return rates or problems with
reception. Word of mouth takes care of that though. Or maybe someone
directs them to the AVSForum. Reading what they post there, that will
turn anyone off to DTV. First they say how much the "WOW" factor is with
HD then they go into their travails in receiving it. OTA is fading away
there to. Most talk is of cable and satellite now when they are not
moaning about not being able to get a 5th gen receiver.

In fact the CEA is ignoring OTA altogether lately. Their friends in
cable and satellite are probably very happy over this. OTA is dead long
die OTA they sing.
>
> If you fail to consider all such factors, you're doing the same thing that Psycho Bob Miller the pathological liar does when he acts like New
> York City and its conditions are the thing that counts for the entire country.

No I don't say that New York represents condition for the entire
country. I say that New York should be allowed to use a modulation that
works. A lot of people live here and in other cities that have
significant multipath problems. Sinclair was asking in 2000 for COFDM to
be allowed not to switch to COFDM. 8-VSB could have gone on and on as it
has doing nothing. In the meantime broadcasters like Sinclair could have
been broadcasting to million of satisfied OTA customers like is
happening in many countries. Japan, the UK, Germany and Italy have all
sold over a million receivers with the UK at 5 million after 2 years,
Japan at 2.161 million after one year. The US could be at least at 60
million COFDM receivers over the last 5 years.

Bob Miller
>
> -- Mark --
>
> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
> Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 8:50:53 AM

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

Charles Tieman wrote:

> On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:18:36 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin"
>
>>I will if bob will. So far he has shown absolutely no respect for the
>>truth therefore he deserves no respect.
>>
>
>
> This is one strange newsgroup and "truth" is not respected for sure.
> Some of you make endless assertions about how wonderful OTA HDTV is,
> but, when I read the posts on avsforum for my part of California
> served by Sacramento stations, I hear of problems with wind, with
> fog, with"terrain shielding and multipath", with "atmospheric
> particulates". We are warned that frequent dropouts are to be
> expected. For me, it works well most of the time, but I wouldn't want
> to depend on it. I'm keeping my local station service on Directv.
>
> Most of you seem to have nothing to contribute but trash talk against
> Bob Miller. At least he is giving his version of the situation with
> OTA broadcasting and putting his neck out making predictions. I
> certainly enjoy hearing from him. Most of the rest of you should find
> a life, some of you, like vidguy7, should get back to the books or
> you'll never get out of Jr High.
>
> charlie

Thanks charlie

Bob Miller
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 8:57:37 AM

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

Jeff Rife wrote:

> Mark Crispin (MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>In order to be useful, we need a statistically significant sample size of
>>*all* the shops installs, and reports of success and failure from *each*
>>of these. Note the emphasized words; anything less than all of the
>>installs biases the data. Shops get more feedback from unhappy customers
>>than from happy customers. Consequently, data based upon customer
>>feedback is biased.
>
>
> In addition, different installers often end up with different results based
> on the skill of the installer. Here in the DC area, there are a few "name"
> installers of TV antennas, and one has gotten a horrible rep due to the
> fact that their installs don't work well for digital TV, yet other
> companies can come through afterward and fix things.
>
> So, if one installer is having a lot of bad luck receiving digital TV on
> their installs, that doesn't necessarily mean that digital TV is hard to
> receive...it might just mean the installer doesn't know what he is doing.
>
In the UK the installer most often is the buyer. You pick up a COFDM
receiver at the local convenience store for $50 or so and you take it
home and plug it in, done. Then you like it so much you pick up a couple
more for other TVs around the house. 25% of sales are to homes that
already have one.

I know that is true in the US also but more likely the second purchase
is to find a receiver that works better than the first one. I never
heard of "open box" specials in the UK which seem so prevalent in the
US. They do not have the problems with reception in the UK even though
their broadcast power levels are on average about 1/1000 th of the power
used by US broadcasters.

That makes it so strange to hear people talk of the power advantage
8-VSB supposedly has over COFDM. Truly weird.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 9:01:58 AM

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

Matthew L. Martin wrote:

> Charles Tieman wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:18:36 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin"
>>
>>> I will if bob will. So far he has shown absolutely no respect for the
>>> truth therefore he deserves no respect.
>>>
>>
>>
>> This is one strange newsgroup and "truth" is not respected for sure.
>> Some of you make endless assertions about how wonderful OTA HDTV is,
>> but, when I read the posts on avsforum for my part of California
>> served by Sacramento stations, I hear of problems with wind, with
>> fog, with"terrain shielding and multipath", with "atmospheric
>> particulates". We are warned that frequent dropouts are to be
>> expected.
>
>
> How good is your OTA on NTSC stations?
>
>> For me, it works well most of the time, but I wouldn't want
>> to depend on it. I'm keeping my local station service on Directv.
>
>
> So, for all of the "problems" you cite, you say that it works well most
> of the time. The fellow you are defending says it never works, it is
> fatally flawed and the modulation scheme is the reason that consumers
> aren't buying HD.
>
>> Most of you seem to have nothing to contribute but trash talk against
>> Bob Miller. At least he is giving his version of the situation with
>> OTA broadcasting and putting his neck out making predictions.
>
>
> You should note that he has been 100% wrong in his predictions. He also
> argues frequenty that physics is wrong.

Could you list predictions that were wrong or name a "physics" that I
disputed?
>
>> I
>> certainly enjoy hearing from him.
>
>
> Care to say why someone who has been caught out in lies as often as bob
> has been is worth listening to?

Could you list a lie I have been caught at please? Simple assertions are
not very persuasive.

Bob Miller
>
>
!