Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Tower Crash

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 11:39:32 AM

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

First I read of this tower crash and then the post by Bob Robertson
about not finding an OTA receiver at three stores. Doesn't anyone see
anything funny in trying to defend the indefensible US DTV transition?

Tower crashes of 1700 foot broadcast towers using ancient OTA broadcast
network design. While most countries are building SFN low power networks
that do not rely on such monstocities that fall down or burn down. Many
short towers, none of which individually the network depends on.

No advertising. Few TV viewers in the US have any idea of the DTV
transition and no one is advertising receivers.

Nobody selling receivers.

Tower crash
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/...

Bob Robertson on alt.tv.tech.hdtv
"After going to 3 places (Circuit City, Bestbuy, Fry's), I came home
empty handed."

Wake up!! This is after 7 years. This is a joke, its funny, its truly
pathetic.

And what takes the cake is that after all this time the leader of the
8-VSB tribe comes up with a receiver that finally works, LG's 5th gen,
and they decide NOT to make them.

"Something is happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear"

Or is it the murder of free OTA broadcasting in broad daylight?

Bob Miller

More about : tower crash

March 2, 2005 11:39:33 AM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:8ZeVd.1897$L17.1377@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

> First I read of this tower crash-

Wait, let me guess...... you jumped up and danced around the room.

This really sad news item reminds me of your datacasting "career", kind of
like a trainwreck, no?
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 11:39:33 AM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> First I read of this tower crash and then the post by Bob Robertson
> about not finding an OTA receiver at three stores. Doesn't anyone see

> anything funny in trying to defend the indefensible US DTV
transition?
>
> Tower crashes of 1700 foot broadcast towers using ancient OTA
broadcast
> network design. While most countries are building SFN low power
networks
> that do not rely on such monstocities that fall down or burn down.
Many
> short towers, none of which individually the network depends on.
>
> No advertising. Few TV viewers in the US have any idea of the DTV
> transition and no one is advertising receivers.
>
> Nobody selling receivers.
>

We've been through all this before. It's all about supply and demand
and there is little customer interest in Integrated HDTVs or external
tuners. That's the primary reason. Customers would rather pay for a
subscription based television service, most already are. When the
customer discovers that she can tune HD channels buy paying a few extra
bucks a month to her cable company -and- recieve subscription only HD
channels (more HD content for her new set) of course she will elect to
go with a subscription provider! and we can prove this is exactly
what's happening, just look at the amount of HD product (includes HD
Ready sets) being sold each year. From the stats I've seen we've seen
excellent growth rate from 2002-present, proving that the problem isn't
a customers willingness to part with thousands of dollars for High
Definition DTV.

Supply and demand is the core principle of economics (they teach this
stuff in the 9th grade Bob), retailers aren't going to stock something
the public isn't interested in and there is a low interest in OTA HD,
just as there is a low interest in OTA NTSC in this country. but sales
stats have proven there is a large interest in HD product.

The other driving factor here is that most HDTV retailers are resellers
of some for of subscription based satellite service: Sears has VOOM,
BestBuy has DirectTV, I believe Circuit City has Dish Network.
Retailers know that most customers are going to go subscription for
their HDTV reception so (wisely) they are trying to get a little peace
of this market. It's more profitable for them to sell a HD Ready set
and a VOOM subscription package than an HD integrated set, so this
might have something to do with the reason so few integrated sets are
available, but it really all comes back to supply meeting the demand.
Related resources
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 1:07:22 PM

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

> When the
> customer discovers that she can tune HD channels buy paying a few extra
> bucks a month to her cable company -and- recieve subscription only HD
> channels (more HD content for her new set) of course she will elect to
> go with a subscription provider!

I'm sorry, this is off-topic, but I'm going to play grammar Nazi here.
The english neutral pronoun is "he", not "she". Political
correctness should not trump correct grammar.

That is all.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 1:34:35 PM

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

I know, the English language should have a gender neutral pronoun, but
it doesn't. Regardless of what is considered "proper", "He" always
implies male which is actually better suited in this case, but in
defiance I'll continue to use She.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 1:38:13 PM

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

"... So the whole reason that no one is buying or selling OTA receivers
is
that cable and satellite are compelling offerings for most people in
the
US and those people see no need for OTA broadcasting. That would be
somewhere between 85% and 95% of the public.

If that were true it would make US consumers radically different that
those in most other countries.".

In culture and demographic needs absolutely! This is what we've been
trying to tell you all along... This is why USDTV has largely been a
failure, this is why it's foolish to invest in OTA service providers in
the US.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 2:16:42 PM

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

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, it was written:
> Unlike Asia and Europe, many parts of the USA have target customers who are
> well disbursed over the landscape. Something Bob tends to ignore.

Of course. He's a Nyew Yawkah. "If it isn't in Manhattan, it doesn't
count" in Psycho Bob's worldview.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 2:27:12 PM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:8ZeVd.1897$L17.1377@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> First I read of this tower crash and then the post by Bob Robertson about
> not finding an OTA receiver at three stores. Doesn't anyone see anything
> funny in trying to defend the indefensible US DTV transition?
>
> Tower crashes of 1700 foot broadcast towers using ancient OTA broadcast
> network design. While most countries are building SFN low power networks
> that do not rely on such monstocities that fall down or burn down. Many
> short towers, none of which individually the network depends on.

Don't know what country you are from Bob but transmitter antenna elevation
is not going away anytime soon here in the US and it's certainly not an
antiquated concept or application. "most countries" that you are talking
about are smaller than many individual states in the United States. Doesn't
matter if it's a one watt or a one hundred thousand watt signal, elevating a
transmitter will ALWAYS be beneficial to maximum coverage of a transmission.
March 2, 2005 2:53:21 PM

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

"David" <davey@home.com> wrote in message
news:7a6dnUglYqSRMrjfRVn-gw@comcast.com...
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:8ZeVd.1897$L17.1377@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>> First I read of this tower crash-
>
> Wait, let me guess...... you jumped up and danced around the room.
>
> This really sad news item reminds me of your datacasting "career", kind of
> like a trainwreck, no?


Some people saw boob's gloating about this tower crash on HDTVoice.com and
complained. His posting there is gone now.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 5:42:28 PM

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

robmx@earthlink.net (Bob Miller) wrote in
news:8ZeVd.1897$L17.1377@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> Many short towers, none of which individually the network depends
> on.

Which will never get built in population centers because of the same
sort of resistance put up against cellphone towers.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@visi.com
March 2, 2005 5:42:29 PM

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

"Bert Hyman" <bert@visi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns960D589A02511VeebleFetzer@news.visi.com...
> robmx@earthlink.net (Bob Miller) wrote in
> news:8ZeVd.1897$L17.1377@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
>> Many short towers, none of which individually the network depends
>> on.
>
> Which will never get built in population centers because of the same
> sort of resistance put up against cellphone towers.
>
> --
> Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@visi.com

And which will not provide any service to suburban and many rural customers.
Unlike Asia and Europe, many parts of the USA have target customers who are
well disbursed over the landscape. Something Bob tends to ignore. The true
rural/country customer is already on the dish since OTA and cable don't
serve those customers; Bob knows this as well.

Richard.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 5:42:30 PM

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

Richard wrote:

>
> And which will not provide any service to suburban and many rural customers.
> Unlike Asia and Europe, many parts of the USA have target customers who are
> well disbursed over the landscape. Something Bob tends to ignore. The true
> rural/country customer is already on the dish since OTA and cable don't
> serve those customers; Bob knows this as well.


Digital OTA serves the vast majority of rural people, at least in the
continental US (not Alaska). Or rather it will when all digital
stations are full power. It's power that matters, not "multipath".

Bob Miller has no desire to serve these people ... he only cares about
Manhattan (NY, not KS) population densities.

Doug McDonald
March 2, 2005 6:43:17 PM

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

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:27:12 -0800, "Charles Tomaras"
<tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote:

>
>"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:8ZeVd.1897$L17.1377@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> First I read of this tower crash and then the post by Bob Robertson about
>> not finding an OTA receiver at three stores. Doesn't anyone see anything
>> funny in trying to defend the indefensible US DTV transition?
>>
>> Tower crashes of 1700 foot broadcast towers using ancient OTA broadcast
>> network design. While most countries are building SFN low power networks
>> that do not rely on such monstocities that fall down or burn down. Many
>> short towers, none of which individually the network depends on.
>
>Don't know what country you are from Bob but transmitter antenna elevation
>is not going away anytime soon here in the US and it's certainly not an
>antiquated concept or application. "most countries" that you are talking
>about are smaller than many individual states in the United States. Doesn't
>matter if it's a one watt or a one hundred thousand watt signal, elevating a
>transmitter will ALWAYS be beneficial to maximum coverage of a transmission.
>
As a licensed pilot I will tell you that I have never had a problem
dodging TV antennas. They are clearly marked on the charts just like
buildings and other man made structures.
Thumper
To reply drop XYZ in address
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 7:19:14 PM

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

Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:

> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>>First I read of this tower crash and then the post by Bob Robertson
>>about not finding an OTA receiver at three stores. Doesn't anyone see
>
>
>>anything funny in trying to defend the indefensible US DTV
>
> transition?
>
>>Tower crashes of 1700 foot broadcast towers using ancient OTA
>
> broadcast
>
>>network design. While most countries are building SFN low power
>
> networks
>
>>that do not rely on such monstocities that fall down or burn down.
>
> Many
>
>>short towers, none of which individually the network depends on.
>>
>>No advertising. Few TV viewers in the US have any idea of the DTV
>>transition and no one is advertising receivers.
>>
>>Nobody selling receivers.
>>
>
>
> We've been through all this before. It's all about supply and demand
> and there is little customer interest in Integrated HDTVs or external
> tuners. That's the primary reason. Customers would rather pay for a
> subscription based television service, most already are. When the
> customer discovers that she can tune HD channels buy paying a few extra
> bucks a month to her cable company -and- recieve subscription only HD
> channels (more HD content for her new set) of course she will elect to
> go with a subscription provider! and we can prove this is exactly
> what's happening, just look at the amount of HD product (includes HD
> Ready sets) being sold each year. From the stats I've seen we've seen
> excellent growth rate from 2002-present, proving that the problem isn't
> a customers willingness to part with thousands of dollars for High
> Definition DTV.
>
> Supply and demand is the core principle of economics (they teach this
> stuff in the 9th grade Bob), retailers aren't going to stock something
> the public isn't interested in and there is a low interest in OTA HD,
> just as there is a low interest in OTA NTSC in this country. but sales
> stats have proven there is a large interest in HD product.
>
> The other driving factor here is that most HDTV retailers are resellers
> of some for of subscription based satellite service: Sears has VOOM,
> BestBuy has DirectTV, I believe Circuit City has Dish Network.
> Retailers know that most customers are going to go subscription for
> their HDTV reception so (wisely) they are trying to get a little peace
> of this market. It's more profitable for them to sell a HD Ready set
> and a VOOM subscription package than an HD integrated set, so this
> might have something to do with the reason so few integrated sets are
> available, but it really all comes back to supply meeting the demand.
>

So the whole reason that no one is buying or selling OTA receivers is
that cable and satellite are compelling offerings for most people in the
US and those people see no need for OTA broadcasting. That would be
somewhere between 85% and 95% of the public.

If that were true it would make US consumers radically different that
those in most other countries. In the UK where 7 million homes out of 25
million have a satellite service called SKY by Robert Murdock and where
sales of SKY were very good before the new Freeview OTA offering SALES
of SKY have now stagnated as 6 million OTA receivers were sold over just
the last two years.

In Berlin where 93% to 95% of homes have cable or satellite sales of OTA
receivers have skyrocketed with cable companies complaining of unfair
competition.

What is different between these countries and US consumers. A lot but I
suggest it is the must carry laws in the US that are the big difference
in out present differing DTV transitions. The must carry laws in the US
had our broadcasters looking the other way when special interest rammed
though 8-VSB as our modulation. Everyone involved in the TV food chain
has shown little interest in providing consumers with compelling product
in the form of 8-VSB receivers, advertising or education. The consumer
has taken the hint, there is something wrong with this picture. So they
are not buying what is NOT being offered.

Seems reasonable.

Now 5th gen LG STB receivers are not being offered.

Seems unreasonable.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 7:19:15 PM

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

Mark Crispin wrote:

>
> Now, it is true that England and Germany do not have Bob Miller,

But they have Dermot Nolan.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 7:28:34 PM

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

Bert Hyman wrote:

> robmx@earthlink.net (Bob Miller) wrote in
> news:8ZeVd.1897$L17.1377@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
>
>> Many short towers, none of which individually the network depends
>> on.
>
>
> Which will never get built in population centers because of the same
> sort of resistance put up against cellphone towers.
>

When we were building our SFN demonstration in New York City we were
offered every building top we asked for or even looked at EAGERLY. Many
had rebuilt their roofs specifically for that RF facilities. The cost
was incredibly reasonable. $1000 to $3000 a month including electricity.
Our bargaining position was good because if apartment building A said no
or asked too much we could always go to apartment building B, C, D, E or
F in the same area. No need to be on ONE strategic super tower like the
Empire State Building.

We were offered similar opportunities across the country by tower
companies. There are news reports of hostile communities for new tower
sites but in general the infrastructure for a national network is
already in place.

Did you hear of a single incident for Sirius or XMRadio as they built
out at least 2000 transmitter sites? I didn't though there may have been
one.

Do you think that Crown Castle who will build a national network has
trouble sleeping over this problem? They are one of the largest owners
of towers themselves.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 7:31:26 PM

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

Richard wrote:

> "Bert Hyman" <bert@visi.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns960D589A02511VeebleFetzer@news.visi.com...
>
>>robmx@earthlink.net (Bob Miller) wrote in
>>news:8ZeVd.1897$L17.1377@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>>
>>
>>> Many short towers, none of which individually the network depends
>>> on.
>>
>>Which will never get built in population centers because of the same
>>sort of resistance put up against cellphone towers.
>>
>>--
>>Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@visi.com
>
>
> And which will not provide any service to suburban and many rural customers.
> Unlike Asia and Europe, many parts of the USA have target customers who are
> well disbursed over the landscape. Something Bob tends to ignore. The true
> rural/country customer is already on the dish since OTA and cable don't
> serve those customers; Bob knows this as well.
>
> Richard.
>
>
I expect that Qualcomm, Crown Castle and other new networks that will be
built will service the entire country. Expect to see new innovative
coverage ideas by the way.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 7:54:00 PM

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

Doug McDonald wrote:

> Richard wrote:
>
>>
>> And which will not provide any service to suburban and many rural
>> customers. Unlike Asia and Europe, many parts of the USA have target
>> customers who are well disbursed over the landscape. Something Bob
>> tends to ignore. The true rural/country customer is already on the
>> dish since OTA and cable don't serve those customers; Bob knows this
>> as well.
>
>
>
> Digital OTA serves the vast majority of rural people, at least in the
> continental US (not Alaska). Or rather it will when all digital
> stations are full power. It's power that matters, not "multipath".
>
> Bob Miller has no desire to serve these people ... he only cares about
> Manhattan (NY, not KS) population densities.
>
> Doug McDonald

30% of the land area of the US is served by Translator stations, other 6
MHz frequencies used to rebroadcast a full power stations signal. They
are not available for DTV until analog TV shuts down. COFDM would not
need to use them since they can do the same thing on channel.

And we will find that when all broadcasters are full power that
multipath is still the killer. Big ugly power is not the answer it just
cost a lot along with those pesky towers that keep falling down and
taking big chucks of territory off line.

What a sorry excuse for a modern broadcast system.

Maybe LG will deign to actually produce 5th gen receivers someday, there
is still hope.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 9:13:22 PM

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

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Charles Tomaras wrote:
>> So it has everything to do with the local broadcast towers for OTA. It
>> should have been, should be and I think will be redesigned to SFN
>> networks.
> How's that gonna work in Eastern Washington State or the numerous other
> rural areas where they don't even have decent cell coverage at this point.
> Big ass towers with powerful transmitters...that's how.

The answer in Japan is... no service!

If you are in a rural area of Japan (much less wilderness) there is NO
television and NO cell phone service.

I happen to own both a Japanese cell phone and a handheld portable analog
TV with Japanese channels. Television and cell phones are urban services
in Japan. There is no effort taken to serve people in the boonies.

I could not believe the coverage map that I was given with my cell phone
service. The coastal cities were all covered, but as soon as you get into
the interior (which is largly mountainous) there's nothing. A few of the
larger settlements have cell service, but not the smaller towns and
villages. Even major highways lack cell coverage once out of the
megapolis. Japanese cell phone coverage makes US cell phone coverage look
good.

I can also confirm that in Japan, if you aren't in an urban area there is
no television. Just a lot of snow.

This is the vision that Psycho Bob has for DTV in the US. Lots of little
transmitters servicing only the major population centers, with nothing for
people in rural areas. All so he can blat tampon commercials to New Yawk
City buses.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 9:52:55 PM

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

Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:

Bob Miller wrote...
> "... So the whole reason that no one is buying or selling OTA receivers is that cable and satellite are compelling offerings for most people in the
> US and those people see no need for OTA broadcasting. That would be somewhere between 85% and 95% of the public.
>
> If that were true it would make US consumers radically different that those in most other countries.".
>
Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:
> In culture and demographic needs absolutely! This is what we've been trying to tell you all along... This is why USDTV has largely been a
> failure, this is why it's foolish to invest in OTA service providers in the US.
>
Bob Miller writes:

Well I guess we disagree. I think we are far closer to these other
cultures than you think.

When I first heard of USDTV I laughed at the idea for three reasons. Not
enough programming, the company is a tenant of the spectrum with their
competitor broadcasters the landlord, 8-VSB reception problems makes
getting, keeping and keeping customers happy virtually impossible and
they were using the wrong compression technology.

With 5th generation receivers and using MPEG-4 for all but the ONE SD
program in MPEG-2 required by the FCC that would all change.

It seems that either USDTV is out of money or its NEW backers,
broadcasters, want it to hold off till the fight for must carry of
multicasting is finished or both.

They could just be waiting for their new 5th gen receivers with MPEG-4
before expanding.

It is foolish to invest in OTA service providers in the US because of
8-VSB period. With 5th gen LG receivers that changes however if we ever
have them.

OTA broadcasters and services will flourish in the US. We only have a
temporary bottleneck called 8-VSB. IMO we would be doing what Berlin and
the UK are doing now but only MORE so with OTA if we has the same
modulation.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 10:48:51 PM

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

Charles Tomaras wrote:

> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:8ZeVd.1897$L17.1377@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>First I read of this tower crash and then the post by Bob Robertson about
>>not finding an OTA receiver at three stores. Doesn't anyone see anything
>>funny in trying to defend the indefensible US DTV transition?
>>
>>Tower crashes of 1700 foot broadcast towers using ancient OTA broadcast network design. While most countries are building SFN low power networks
>>that do not rely on such monstocities that fall down or burn down. Many short towers, none of which individually the network depends on.
>
>
> Don't know what country you are from Bob but transmitter antenna elevation is not going away anytime soon here in the US and it's certainly not an
> antiquated concept or application. "most countries" that you are talking about are smaller than many individual states in the United States. Doesn't
> matter if it's a one watt or a one hundred thousand watt signal, elevating a transmitter will ALWAYS be beneficial to maximum coverage of a transmission.
>
>

No one building new broadcast networks that I know of are building big
stick big power vulnerable ones. Here in the US both Qualcomm and Crown
Castle will build national networks of low power transmitters.

"Most countries" that I talk about include Australia, China and Russia
all countries with more "frontier" than the US has.

Obviously higher antennas offer better coverage for a single
transmitter. And as they go higher the power levels allowed fall. But as
we see in country after country using COFDM they are going for SFNs and
on channel repeaters with lower power transmitters and short transmitter
towers to more control the coverage area an get the best reception
possible.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 10:48:52 PM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:D MoVd.3532$L17.3232@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Charles Tomaras wrote:
>
>> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:8ZeVd.1897$L17.1377@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>First I read of this tower crash and then the post by Bob Robertson about
>>>not finding an OTA receiver at three stores. Doesn't anyone see anything
>>>funny in trying to defend the indefensible US DTV transition?
>>>
>>>Tower crashes of 1700 foot broadcast towers using ancient OTA broadcast
>>>network design. While most countries are building SFN low power networks
>>>that do not rely on such monstocities that fall down or burn down. Many
>>>short towers, none of which individually the network depends on.
>>
>>
>> Don't know what country you are from Bob but transmitter antenna
>> elevation is not going away anytime soon here in the US and it's
>> certainly not an antiquated concept or application. "most countries" that
>> you are talking about are smaller than many individual states in the
>> United States. Doesn't matter if it's a one watt or a one hundred
>> thousand watt signal, elevating a transmitter will ALWAYS be beneficial
>> to maximum coverage of a transmission.
>
> No one building new broadcast networks that I know of are building big
> stick big power vulnerable ones. Here in the US both Qualcomm and Crown
> Castle will build national networks of low power transmitters.



So what does that have to do with a local broadcast tower for OTA
television?




>
> "Most countries" that I talk about include Australia, China and Russia all
> countries with more "frontier" than the US has.
>
> Obviously higher antennas offer better coverage for a single transmitter.
> And as they go higher the power levels allowed fall. But as we see in
> country after country using COFDM they are going for SFNs and on channel
> repeaters with lower power transmitters and short transmitter towers to
> more control the coverage area an get the best reception possible.
>
> Bob Miller
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 10:48:52 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> Charles Tomaras wrote:
>
>> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:8ZeVd.1897$L17.1377@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>> First I read of this tower crash and then the post by Bob Robertson
>>> about not finding an OTA receiver at three stores. Doesn't anyone see
>>> anything funny in trying to defend the indefensible US DTV transition?
>>>
>>> Tower crashes of 1700 foot broadcast towers using ancient OTA
>>> broadcast network design. While most countries are building SFN low
>>> power networks that do not rely on such monstocities that fall down
>>> or burn down. Many short towers, none of which individually the
>>> network depends on.
>>
>>
>>
>> Don't know what country you are from Bob but transmitter antenna
>> elevation is not going away anytime soon here in the US and it's
>> certainly not an antiquated concept or application. "most countries"
>> that you are talking about are smaller than many individual states in
>> the United States. Doesn't matter if it's a one watt or a one hundred
>> thousand watt signal, elevating a transmitter will ALWAYS be
>> beneficial to maximum coverage of a transmission.
>>
>
> No one building new broadcast networks that I know of are building big
> stick big power vulnerable ones. Here in the US both Qualcomm and Crown
> Castle will build national networks of low power transmitters.
>
> "Most countries" that I talk about include Australia, China and Russia
> all countries with more "frontier" than the US has.
>
> Obviously higher antennas offer better coverage for a single
> transmitter. And as they go higher the power levels allowed fall. But as
> we see in country after country using COFDM they are going for SFNs and
> on channel repeaters with lower power transmitters and short transmitter
> towers to more control the coverage area an get the best reception
> possible.
>

If I had to rely on a "broadcast" system based on existing cell towers I
would get no OTA at all as I have no cell coverage in my home. I might
get a useful signal with a rooftop antenna. As it is, I'm only 20.5
miles from the major antenna farm for the Boston, MA stations and I get
adequate reception of these VHF station with rabbit ears.

Your SFN scheme wouldn't even cover highly populated eastern MA without
requiring more towers than currently exist. Good luck getting the permits.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
March 2, 2005 10:48:53 PM

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

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 16:07:32 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin"
<nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

>Bob Miller wrote:
>> Charles Tomaras wrote:
>>
>>> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:8ZeVd.1897$L17.1377@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>> First I read of this tower crash and then the post by Bob Robertson
>>>> about not finding an OTA receiver at three stores. Doesn't anyone see
>>>> anything funny in trying to defend the indefensible US DTV transition?
>>>>
>>>> Tower crashes of 1700 foot broadcast towers using ancient OTA
>>>> broadcast network design. While most countries are building SFN low
>>>> power networks that do not rely on such monstocities that fall down
>>>> or burn down. Many short towers, none of which individually the
>>>> network depends on.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Don't know what country you are from Bob but transmitter antenna
>>> elevation is not going away anytime soon here in the US and it's
>>> certainly not an antiquated concept or application. "most countries"
>>> that you are talking about are smaller than many individual states in
>>> the United States. Doesn't matter if it's a one watt or a one hundred
>>> thousand watt signal, elevating a transmitter will ALWAYS be
>>> beneficial to maximum coverage of a transmission.
>>>
>>
>> No one building new broadcast networks that I know of are building big
>> stick big power vulnerable ones. Here in the US both Qualcomm and Crown
>> Castle will build national networks of low power transmitters.
>>
>> "Most countries" that I talk about include Australia, China and Russia
>> all countries with more "frontier" than the US has.
>>
>> Obviously higher antennas offer better coverage for a single
>> transmitter. And as they go higher the power levels allowed fall. But as
>> we see in country after country using COFDM they are going for SFNs and
>> on channel repeaters with lower power transmitters and short transmitter
>> towers to more control the coverage area an get the best reception
>> possible.
>>
>
>If I had to rely on a "broadcast" system based on existing cell towers I
>would get no OTA at all as I have no cell coverage in my home. I might
>get a useful signal with a rooftop antenna. As it is, I'm only 20.5
>miles from the major antenna farm for the Boston, MA stations and I get
>adequate reception of these VHF station with rabbit ears.
>
>Your SFN scheme wouldn't even cover highly populated eastern MA without
>requiring more towers than currently exist. Good luck getting the permits.

And out here in Western Ma. we're all behind a mountain or two.
Thumper
To reply drop XYZ in address
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 12:41:36 AM

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

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Thumper wrote:
>> I happen to own both a Japanese cell phone and a handheld portable analog
>> TV with Japanese channels. Television and cell phones are urban services
>> in Japan. There is no effort taken to serve people in the boonies.
> That's because most of japan is mountainous

Yet in the US there is cell phone service in many (not all) mountainous
areas. In Japan, you get a few km outside of settled areas and cell
service is out.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
March 3, 2005 1:09:25 AM

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

Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>
> The other driving factor here is that most HDTV retailers are
> resellers of some for of subscription based satellite service
<snip>

And these retailers get a kickback by selling cableco or DBS
subscriptions. So it's to their advantage to push subscription TV
instead of receivers for free OTA. That's why you don't see many OTA
STBs at B&M stores.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 1:21:33 AM

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

Charles Tomaras wrote:
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:D MoVd.3532$L17.3232@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Charles Tomaras wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>news:8ZeVd.1897$L17.1377@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>First I read of this tower crash and then the post by Bob Robertson about
>>>>not finding an OTA receiver at three stores. Doesn't anyone see anything
>>>>funny in trying to defend the indefensible US DTV transition?
>>>>
>>>>Tower crashes of 1700 foot broadcast towers using ancient OTA broadcast
>>>>network design. While most countries are building SFN low power networks
>>>>that do not rely on such monstocities that fall down or burn down. Many
>>>>short towers, none of which individually the network depends on.
>>>
>>>
>>>Don't know what country you are from Bob but transmitter antenna
>>>elevation is not going away anytime soon here in the US and it's
>>>certainly not an antiquated concept or application. "most countries" that
>>>you are talking about are smaller than many individual states in the
>>>United States. Doesn't matter if it's a one watt or a one hundred
>>>thousand watt signal, elevating a transmitter will ALWAYS be beneficial
>>>to maximum coverage of a transmission.
>>
>>No one building new broadcast networks that I know of are building big
>>stick big power vulnerable ones. Here in the US both Qualcomm and Crown
>>Castle will build national networks of low power transmitters.
>
>
>
>
> So what does that have to do with a local broadcast tower for OTA
> television?

It should have been the mission of the FCC to investigate how to future
proof our DTV broadcast network as much as possible by looking for all
the best possibilities and leaving the system as open to change as
possible. If they had they would have chosen a COFDM based modulation,
at least left the door open for better compression codec and redesigned
the our broadcast network as ALL other countries have or are doing.

The UK can be faulted for being in too much of a hurry to but at least
they picked a modulation going in the right direction. Our whole
decision making process was political.

So it has everything to do with the local broadcast towers for OTA. It
should have been, should be and I think will be redesigned to SFN networks.

Bob Miller
>
>
>
>
>
>>"Most countries" that I talk about include Australia, China and Russia all
>>countries with more "frontier" than the US has.
>>
>>Obviously higher antennas offer better coverage for a single transmitter.
>>And as they go higher the power levels allowed fall. But as we see in
>>country after country using COFDM they are going for SFNs and on channel
>>repeaters with lower power transmitters and short transmitter towers to
>>more control the coverage area an get the best reception possible.
>>
>>Bob Miller
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 1:21:34 AM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:N%qVd.3674$L17.662@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>
> So it has everything to do with the local broadcast towers for OTA. It
> should have been, should be and I think will be redesigned to SFN
> networks.
>
> Bob Miller

How's that gonna work in Eastern Washington State or the numerous other
rural areas where they don't even have decent cell coverage at this point.
Big ass towers with powerful transmitters...that's how.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 1:27:52 AM

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

Matthew L. Martin wrote:

> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> Charles Tomaras wrote:
>>
>>> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:8ZeVd.1897$L17.1377@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>> First I read of this tower crash and then the post by Bob Robertson
>>>> about not finding an OTA receiver at three stores. Doesn't anyone
>>>> see anything funny in trying to defend the indefensible US DTV
>>>> transition?
>>>>
>>>> Tower crashes of 1700 foot broadcast towers using ancient OTA
>>>> broadcast network design. While most countries are building SFN low
>>>> power networks that do not rely on such monstocities that fall down
>>>> or burn down. Many short towers, none of which individually the
>>>> network depends on.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Don't know what country you are from Bob but transmitter antenna
>>> elevation is not going away anytime soon here in the US and it's
>>> certainly not an antiquated concept or application. "most countries"
>>> that you are talking about are smaller than many individual states in
>>> the United States. Doesn't matter if it's a one watt or a one hundred
>>> thousand watt signal, elevating a transmitter will ALWAYS be
>>> beneficial to maximum coverage of a transmission.
>>>
>>
>> No one building new broadcast networks that I know of are building big
>> stick big power vulnerable ones. Here in the US both Qualcomm and
>> Crown Castle will build national networks of low power transmitters.
>>
>> "Most countries" that I talk about include Australia, China and Russia
>> all countries with more "frontier" than the US has.
>>
>> Obviously higher antennas offer better coverage for a single transmitter. And as they go higher the power levels allowed fall. But
>> as we see in country after country using COFDM they are going for SFNs and on channel repeaters with lower power transmitters and short
>> transmitter towers to more control the coverage area an get the best reception possible.
>>
>
> If I had to rely on a "broadcast" system based on existing cell towers I would get no OTA at all as I have no cell coverage in my home. I might
> get a useful signal with a rooftop antenna. As it is, I'm only 20.5 miles from the major antenna farm for the Boston, MA stations and I get
> adequate reception of these VHF station with rabbit ears.

Not necessarily on existing cell towers alone or at all. But don't judge
OTA COFDM by cell phone standards. Cell phone cells have to both
transmit and receive so the cell is engineered with the power of the
cell phone transmitter not the broadcast transmitter. OTA COFDM would
operate at any power level allowed by the FCC. In large areas of flat
terrain you might want higher power and taller towers. In more congested
areas and terrain challenged areas you would want more towers but lower
power.

There are far more interesting things happening though.
>
> Your SFN scheme wouldn't even cover highly populated eastern MA without requiring more towers than currently exist. Good luck getting the permits.

Our plan, Qualcomm and Crown Castles plans will not follow past
practices and will all be designed for ubiquitous coverage of all the US.

Bob Miller
>
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 1:27:53 AM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>>
>> Your SFN scheme wouldn't even cover highly populated eastern MA
>> without requiring more towers than currently exist. Good luck getting
>> the permits.
>
>
> Our plan, Qualcomm and Crown Castles plans will not follow past
> practices and will all be designed for ubiquitous coverage of all the US.
>

You keep saying that as though you believe it. There are a great many
people in a great many areas where it will not be economical to put
enough towers to provide the SFN coverage that NTSC broadcasters provide.

You are simply lying about the coverage you (as if you had enough VC
money to do anything) and others are planning to provide. Care to prove
otherwise?

If you did have any VC money, you would be far too busy to be lying on
multiple usenet newsgroups and other web forums. Having worked for many
VC funded start ups I know how little time there is for diversions.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 1:29:11 AM

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

none wrote:

> Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>The other driving factor here is that most HDTV retailers are
>>resellers of some for of subscription based satellite service
>
> <snip>
>
> And these retailers get a kickback by selling cableco or DBS subscriptions. So it's to their advantage to push subscription TV
> instead of receivers for free OTA. That's why you don't see many OTA STBs at B&M stores.

So one thing OTA has to do is join the subscription service business.
Would have years ago if there was a decent modulation. With 5th gen
receivers it is finally possible.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 1:49:14 AM

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

Thumper wrote:

> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:27:12 -0800, "Charles Tomaras"
> <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:8ZeVd.1897$L17.1377@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>First I read of this tower crash and then the post by Bob Robertson about not finding an OTA receiver at three stores. Doesn't anyone see anything
>>>funny in trying to defend the indefensible US DTV transition?

>>>
>>>Tower crashes of 1700 foot broadcast towers using ancient OTA broadcast network design. While most countries are building SFN low power networks
>>>that do not rely on such monstocities that fall down or burn down. Many short towers, none of which individually the network depends on.
>>
>>Don't know what country you are from Bob but transmitter antenna elevation is not going away anytime soon here in the US and it's certainly not an
>>antiquated concept or application. "most countries" that you are talking about are smaller than many individual states in the United States. Doesn't
>>matter if it's a one watt or a one hundred thousand watt signal, elevating a transmitter will ALWAYS be beneficial to maximum coverage of a transmission.
>>
>
> As a licensed pilot I will tell you that I have never had a problem dodging TV antennas. They are clearly marked on the charts just like
> buildings and other man made structures.
> Thumper
> To reply drop XYZ in address

You only have to have a problem one time though.

Tuesday, November 30, 2004
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139855,00.html
Seems the warning lights were out.

Fog
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/108...

This tower in Moscow still out of commission after fire in 2000.
http://english.pravda.ru/society/2002/08/27/35404.html

Here is a list of major tall tower collapses.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~hnetten/disaster.html

Dangerous things and unnecessary.

Bob Miller
March 3, 2005 2:54:02 AM

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

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 18:13:22 -0800, Mark Crispin
<MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:

>On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Charles Tomaras wrote:
>>> So it has everything to do with the local broadcast towers for OTA. It
>>> should have been, should be and I think will be redesigned to SFN
>>> networks.
>> How's that gonna work in Eastern Washington State or the numerous other
>> rural areas where they don't even have decent cell coverage at this point.
>> Big ass towers with powerful transmitters...that's how.
>
>The answer in Japan is... no service!
>
>If you are in a rural area of Japan (much less wilderness) there is NO
>television and NO cell phone service.
>
>I happen to own both a Japanese cell phone and a handheld portable analog
>TV with Japanese channels. Television and cell phones are urban services
>in Japan. There is no effort taken to serve people in the boonies.
>
That's because most of japan is mountainous
thumper
>I could not believe the coverage map that I was given with my cell phone
>service. The coastal cities were all covered, but as soon as you get into
>the interior (which is largly mountainous) there's nothing. A few of the
>larger settlements have cell service, but not the smaller towns and
>villages. Even major highways lack cell coverage once out of the
>megapolis. Japanese cell phone coverage makes US cell phone coverage look
>good.
>
>I can also confirm that in Japan, if you aren't in an urban area there is
>no television. Just a lot of snow.
>
>This is the vision that Psycho Bob has for DTV in the US. Lots of little
>transmitters servicing only the major population centers, with nothing for
>people in rural areas. All so he can blat tampon commercials to New Yawk
>City buses.
>
>-- Mark --
>
>http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
>Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
>Si vis pacem, para bellum.

To reply drop XYZ in address
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 6:39:54 AM

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

<Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109772364.958089.79440@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> We've been through all this before. It's all about supply and demand
> and there is little customer interest in Integrated HDTVs or external
> tuners.

Let's be honest here: there's little customer interest in HDTV, PERIOD.

> just look at the amount of HD product (includes HD
> Ready sets) being sold each year. From the stats I've seen we've seen
> excellent growth rate from 2002-present, proving that the problem isn't
> a customers willingness to part with thousands of dollars for High
> Definition DTV.

Many of those are flat panel TVs. And it looks as if many of those buyers
are far more interested in the TV being flat than whether it's HD.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 6:57:11 AM

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

> The answer in Japan is... no service!
>
> If you are in a rural area of Japan (much less wilderness) there is NO
> television and NO cell phone service.
>
> I happen to own both a Japanese cell phone and a handheld portable analog
> TV with Japanese channels. Television and cell phones are urban services
> in Japan. There is no effort taken to serve people in the boonies.

That is just not true. (on the TV part)
NHK has made a direct effort to provide TV service for everyone in Japan via
satellite.
Anywhere in Japan, you can get two unscrambled analog channels of NHK
in standard definition and one analog channel of NHK in HD (MUSE).
All via BSAT 1A
All though, because of it being NHK, you have to pay the receiving fee.

http://www.nhk.or.jp/pr/english/fee/fee.html

And one digital channel of NHK world
Via PAS 8
http://www.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/howtowatch_e.html

Plus a boat load of other broadcast networks that come down via satellite.
A small assortment of Japan broadcasters.
Australian broadcasting corp.'s Asia service on PAS8,
which has a good signal there.
A boat load of china propaganda tv and broadcasting.
Some Hong Kong channels and Taiwan channels.

Plus you have the obligatory Sky Perfect TV which covers Japan.
AKA Japanese DirecTV/Dish Network.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 6:57:12 AM

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

"Satan" <satan@hell.org> wrote in message
news:rWvVd.95491$Th1.39468@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>> The answer in Japan is... no service!
>>
>> If you are in a rural area of Japan (much less wilderness) there is NO
>> television and NO cell phone service.
>>
>> I happen to own both a Japanese cell phone and a handheld portable analog
>> TV with Japanese channels. Television and cell phones are urban services
>> in Japan. There is no effort taken to serve people in the boonies.
>
> That is just not true. (on the TV part)
> NHK has made a direct effort to provide TV service for everyone in Japan
> via satellite.
> Anywhere in Japan, you can get two unscrambled analog channels of NHK
> in standard definition and one analog channel of NHK in HD (MUSE).
> All via BSAT 1A
> All though, because of it being NHK, you have to pay the receiving fee.
>
> http://www.nhk.or.jp/pr/english/fee/fee.html
>
> And one digital channel of NHK world
> Via PAS 8
> http://www.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/howtowatch_e.html
>
> Plus a boat load of other broadcast networks that come down via satellite.
> A small assortment of Japan broadcasters.
> Australian broadcasting corp.'s Asia service on PAS8,
> which has a good signal there.
> A boat load of china propaganda tv and broadcasting.
> Some Hong Kong channels and Taiwan channels.
>
> Plus you have the obligatory Sky Perfect TV which covers Japan.
> AKA Japanese DirecTV/Dish Network.

I thought we were talking about OTA terrestrial FREE broadcasting.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 10:27:28 AM

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

Charles Tomaras wrote:
>
> I thought we were talking about OTA terrestrial FREE broadcasting.
>

I don't think you want to spend much time with a sock puppet.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 10:31:26 AM

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

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 16:54:00 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>And we will find that when all broadcasters are full power that
>multipath is still the killer. Big ugly power is not the answer it just
>cost a lot along with those pesky towers that keep falling down and
>taking big chucks of territory off line.


So they fall down all the time?
March 3, 2005 5:12:46 PM

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

> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Big ugly power is not the answer it
>just cost a lot along with those pesky towers that keep falling
>down and taking big chucks of territory off line.

Where ya gonna put all of *your* pesky towers?

True or not, many people associate neighborhood transmitter towers with
cancer. Others just think they're ugly and don't want them near their
house or cluttering up beautiful areas. Many towns have moratoriums on
new towers.

<http://www.google.com/search?q=cell+tower+cancer&gt;
March 3, 2005 8:05:59 PM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:8ZeVd.1897$L17.1377@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> First I read of this tower crash and then the post by Bob Robertson about not
> finding an OTA receiver at three stores. Doesn't anyone see anything funny in
> trying to defend the indefensible US DTV transition?
>
> Tower crashes of 1700 foot broadcast towers using ancient OTA broadcast
> network design. While most countries are building SFN low power networks that
> do not rely on such monstocities that fall down or burn down. Many short
> towers, none of which individually the network depends on.

Why do these things seem to readily collapse so often in the USA, quite often
with tragic consequences? Of course it's a big country with lots of masts and
difficult terrain, but it seems not a year goes by without hearing about
something like this, does there not seem to be an industry lapse in health and
safety? Given the litigious environment you'd think companies would be very hot
on this, when it amounts to the potential of 1700ft of steel falling from the
sky

When ice brought down 1200ft mast in the UK years ago they ensured it was
replaced with something a little more substantial, e.g. :-
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/emley/emley.asp

In the above, legal action went on well into the 80's and you're talking about a
collapse in which nobody was hurt, in decade that wasn't that litigious and in a
country that wasn't (!) litigious. The case was even appealed to the House of
Lords which is equivalent to appealing at the Supreme Court.

It seems that put the shits up them for some time and no collapses of note
occurred until very recently, the following being the private company that now
owns the mast piling on antennas for mobile and 3G services with little regard
for the integrity of the structure :-
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/peterborough/index.asp

When the investigations are complete I expect they'll get fined, hard!

Putting terrorist activity aside, nobody would stand for other large structures
like bridges or high-rises to collapse for seemingly no reason, why are
standards and expectations so low when it comes to broadcast towers?


Az.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 8:06:00 PM

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

In general big towers in the US are placed where they can do no serious
harm to people if they collapse, unless it is to workers
screwing up some tower work that actually causes the collapse.

That's certainly true of all the towers around here, except one
which might just possibly if it fell rather inmplausibly hit
a a farmhouse.

Of course, comparing the US to Europe is rather silly, since Europe does
not have hurricanes, tornados, or Midwest style big icestorms.

And I would suspect that most European countries do not have
activist groups that fight strongly against things like
strengthening of TV towers, something that is a substantial
hazard in the US.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 8:06:00 PM

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

Aztech wrote:
>
> Putting terrorist activity aside, nobody would stand for other large structures
> like bridges or high-rises to collapse for seemingly no reason, why are
> standards and expectations so low when it comes to broadcast towers?
>

Think of the situation that John Glenn was facing when he said: "It's
hard to be confident when you know that the missile you're sitting on
has been built by the lowest bidder".

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 8:06:00 PM

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

"Aztech" <az@tech.com> wrote in message
news:XtHVd.143909$Zm5.18980@news.easynews.com...
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:8ZeVd.1897$L17.1377@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> First I read of this tower crash and then the post by Bob Robertson about
>> not finding an OTA receiver at three stores. Doesn't anyone see anything
>> funny in trying to defend the indefensible US DTV transition?
>>
>> Tower crashes of 1700 foot broadcast towers using ancient OTA broadcast
>> network design. While most countries are building SFN low power networks
>> that do not rely on such monstocities that fall down or burn down. Many
>> short towers, none of which individually the network depends on.
>
> Why do these things seem to readily collapse so often in the USA, quite
> often with tragic consequences? Of course it's a big country with lots of
> masts and difficult terrain, but it seems not a year goes by without
> hearing about something like this, does there not seem to be an industry
> lapse in health and safety?

Just curious where you got your facts? Could you please provide some sort of
evidence of all of these tower failures in the US you talk about? I don't
think it happens quite as often as you are alluding.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 8:06:01 PM

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

> Time for a redesign of the entire OTA broadcast industry.


Ooh! Let me guess! To use COFDM to support YOUR failing business???
Did I get it right? What do I win?

I'll go back to watching my FREE HDTV now. That I get over the air.
For free. Again, free. And it's perfect. Man, I wish this 8-VSB
wasn't so darn good! I wish I knew what it was like to use COFDM with
not enough bandwidth for HDTV and constant dropouts. That must be fun.

;-/
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 8:53:45 PM

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

Charles Tomaras wrote:
> "Aztech" <az@tech.com> wrote in message
> news:XtHVd.143909$Zm5.18980@news.easynews.com...
>
>>"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:8ZeVd.1897$L17.1377@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>First I read of this tower crash and then the post by Bob Robertson about
>>>not finding an OTA receiver at three stores. Doesn't anyone see anything
>>>funny in trying to defend the indefensible US DTV transition?
>>>
>>>Tower crashes of 1700 foot broadcast towers using ancient OTA broadcast
>>>network design. While most countries are building SFN low power networks
>>>that do not rely on such monstocities that fall down or burn down. Many
>>>short towers, none of which individually the network depends on.
>>
>>Why do these things seem to readily collapse so often in the USA, quite
>>often with tragic consequences? Of course it's a big country with lots of
>>masts and difficult terrain, but it seems not a year goes by without
>>hearing about something like this, does there not seem to be an industry
>>lapse in health and safety?
>
>
> Just curious where you got your facts? Could you please provide some sort of
> evidence of all of these tower failures in the US you talk about? I don't
> think it happens quite as often as you are alluding.
>
>

This post did not make it to this list.

In answer to a pilot who claimed that TV towers never caused him a
problem because they have waring lights.


"You only have to have a problem one time though.

Tuesday, November 30, 2004
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139855,00.html
Seems the warning lights were out.

Fog
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/108...

This tower in Moscow still out of commission after fire in 2000.
http://english.pravda.ru/society/2002/08/27/35404.html

Here is a list of major tall tower collapses.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~hnetten/disaster.html

Dangerous things and unnecessary.

Bob Miller "
March 3, 2005 9:22:52 PM

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

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:D 07gt5$qct$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>
>
> In general big towers in the US are placed where they can do no serious
> harm to people if they collapse, unless it is to workers
> screwing up some tower work that actually causes the collapse.
>
> That's certainly true of all the towers around here, except one
> which might just possibly if it fell rather inmplausibly hit
> a a farmhouse.
>
> Of course, comparing the US to Europe is rather silly, since Europe does
> not have hurricanes, tornados, or Midwest style big icestorms.

I'm not primarily talking about freak weather events, that seems to bring enough
of them down but thankfully often with no causalities, if it was just about
weather we wouldn't hear of so many riggers being killed.

There are frequent collapses unrelated to mother nature... not that it's much of
an excuse anyway, if a structure is unable to deal with ice then you need a
different structure. As mentioned before, the old Emley Moor could take the ice
but the concrete structure has no problem.


<
> And I would suspect that most European countries do not have
> activist groups that fight strongly against things like
> strengthening of TV towers, something that is a substantial
> hazard in the US.

People are against strengthening?

I a perverse way I can see why that's a hazard given the number of causalities
associated with these towers failing when riggers are performing maintenance and
strengthening... if the tower is in such a sorry state it just needs replacing
and brining down. They shouldn't be trying to repair something or adding DTV
rigging to something that is so far gone.

You can pretty much guarantee anything built the wrong side of the 70's needs
replacing, especially so given your hurricanes, tornados, or Midwest style big
icestorms.


Az.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 9:22:53 PM

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

Aztech wrote:

> People are against strengthening?

Yes, of course. These people are against EVERYTHING. And if
you replace one big tower with 15 little ones, you will get 15 times
the againstness. That BRitish tower you sent us to the web
site of would be be really really really really and about
25 more reallys attacked by these people ... it is a large
concrete structure, which would excite them far more than
a regular guyed tower. Ideally they would prefer nothing at
all, but if something was necessary they would
prefer the absolute thinnest lest stable tower possible ...
they pray every night that they fall down.

Doug McDonald
March 3, 2005 11:19:06 PM

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

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:D 07lgo$rpa$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
> Aztech wrote:
>
>> People are against strengthening?
>
> Yes, of course. These people are against EVERYTHING. And if
> you replace one big tower with 15 little ones, you will get 15 times
> the againstness. That BRitish tower you sent us to the web
> site of would be be really really really really and about
> 25 more reallys attacked by these people ... it is a large
> concrete structure, which would excite them far more than
> a regular guyed tower.

The whole point of a 1100ft concrete structure was to reassure people it would
never fall down like the previous metal mast, so the locals could see an over
engineered structure as an implicit guarantee of that. Certainly no problems
with ice and guy wires. It looks quite elegant out on the moors :-
http://www.geocities.com/puffin11uk/index/emley_moor_ma...


> Ideally they would prefer nothing at
> all, but if something was necessary they would
> prefer the absolute thinnest lest stable tower possible ...
> they pray every night that they fall down.

I just can't see why strengthening or replacing a structure could be opposed,
there's negligible atheistic impact, concrete aside. You'd think they'd be
pleased, do they expect a structure made exposed thin steel and wire to last a
century?

The BBC added mixed polarisation FM to their network in the 80's, they ended up
replacing quite a few >1000ft masts for this reason, just to ensure there wasn't
any issues regarding loading... one collapse is enough I suppose.


Az.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 11:19:07 PM

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

Aztech wrote:

> I just can't see why strengthening or replacing a structure could be opposed,
> there's negligible atheistic impact, concrete aside.

Because it causes the structure to be noticed, that's why. The people
who are against TV towers are against them partially because they
exist, but more because they give a good excuse for againstness. They
are big, semi-ugly, and are theoretically capable of causing
cancer. But even if the canceer scare were 100% totally rebutted,
the'd still be against. They'd be against a structure as beautiful
as the Eiffel Tower.

Their main reason for being against is to get publicity for
being against. It's what they live for ... being against anything
that is modern, or increases the standard of living, etc. The only
things they are not against are things that reduce the standard of living.

Doug McDonakld
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 12:17:08 AM

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

Michael J. Sherman wrote:
>
>> Time for a redesign of the entire OTA broadcast industry.
>
>
>
> Ooh! Let me guess! To use COFDM to support YOUR failing business???
> Did I get it right? What do I win?
>
> I'll go back to watching my FREE HDTV now. That I get over the air. For
> free. Again, free. And it's perfect. Man, I wish this 8-VSB wasn't so
> darn good! I wish I knew what it was like to use COFDM with not enough
> bandwidth for HDTV and constant dropouts. That must be fun.
>
> ;-/

I suggest that there is not enough bandwidth for 1080i HDTV using a 6
MHz channel right now in the US using 8-VSB.

Much better to have MPEG-4 which will do 3 to 4 times what MPEG-2 will
do and to also have COFDM which will deliver 19.76 Mbps in that 6 MHz
channel unlike the 19.34 Mbps that 8-VSB is stuck with.

This is what France will have. MPEG-4 and COFDM. It is also what China
will have.

Bob Miller
!