Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

UK indoor

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 10:06:59 PM

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

From Digital Spy forum
http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/showthread.php?t=20...

MRDAB writes...
"Yeah I got my power arc aerial from there. it needs 2 batteries once in
a blue moon (use some good duracells) it lives ontop of my wardrobe and
is very happily picking up all muxes.

I'm abt 30 miles from sutton coldfield"


Happily picks up all six Muxes or stations. These six stations are
broadcasting at 8 kW (5) and 10 kW (1).

That is indoor reception at 30 miles with ULTRA LOW POWER COFDM
transmitters. We hear complaints in the US when a station is at 120 kW
as being flee powered. I guess the UK is using NANO power transmitters.
So where is this BS about COFDM needing more power than 8-VSB?

In Manhattan we can't get reception at 9 blocks with directional
antennas with the broadcast using 800 kW.

Or to put it another way, 8-VSB can't deliver using 100 times the power
at only ONE sixtieth the distance while using a directional antenna
(arc) while COFDM can deliver using only 1/100th the power uses a simple
omni directional antenna INDOORS.

Bob Miller

More about : indoor

Anonymous
April 3, 2005 1:22:05 AM

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

Bob,

So who is going to reimburse consumers, manufacturers, broadcasters,
and retailers for all the now useless 8-VSB equipment? The government?
Are people just going to have to take the financial hit? Have you
figured out the total cost to society of a change? It would certainly
be in the billions of dollars.

I would love to get the Chinese version of COFDM combined with the
Microsoft's codec and go back in a time machine to 1995 and give the
FCC a demonstration. But I really think too much water has passed
under the bridge to change things now. I can't find any time machines
for sale on eBay, so I think we are out of luck.

IB
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 6:23:01 AM

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

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, inkyblacks@yahoo.com wrote:
> So who is going to reimburse consumers, manufacturers, broadcasters,
> and retailers for all the now useless 8-VSB equipment? The government?
> Are people just going to have to take the financial hit?

That's exactly what Psycho Bob wants.

> I would love to get the Chinese version of COFDM combined with the
> Microsoft's codec

No you don't.

Before you make such statements, you ought to study the technical issues
and the differences between China's conditions and North American
conditions.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Related resources
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 6:25:07 AM

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

On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, Phil Ross wrote:
> Why are you so hell bet on trading some 8VSB multi-path problems for COFDM
> impulse noise problems?

Psycho Bob has a twisted need for revenge.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 8:20:42 AM

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

But you are simply wrong. It will happen here for commercial television
even if the modulation for stations below 51 is not changed. Stations
above 51 will use COFDM and stations below will go out of business.
Congress will then auction off those stations and again they will be
used with COFDM for similar services.

I believe that will happen even if 5th gen receivers show up and do well
because I don't believe commercial TV can survive without mobile
reception. Any broadcaster using current spectrum and 8-VSB is condemned
to compete with satellite, cable, Internet and new mobile services.
Current broadcasters are not doing at all well with their analog
broadcasting. They depend totally on must carry. Sooner or later
Congress is going to notice that they are simply not using those
channels below 51. That the 15% is a myth, that it is more like 4.6% who
depend on OTA and who can't afford to buy cable or satellite and when
they discover that 3.6% of those steal cable or satellite the game is up
and they are going to take back that unused spectrum, channels 2 to 51
and sell it off.

That is the way it is going or do you expect that magically someday soon
the trend will change and people will start buying OTA receivers and the
curve will turn up all by itself? LG doesn't think so, they are betting
that the only receivers to be sold in the US are MANDATED ones in
integrated sets that very few will ever hook up to an antenna.

8-VSB and MPEG2 are doomed one way or another. They simply can't and by
the way are not competing.

Bob Miller

Phil Ross wrote:
> Why are you so hell bet on trading some 8VSB multi-path problems for COFDM
> impulse noise problems? Oh, that right, you don't watch (H)DTV, so it
> doesn't matter to you. Get over it. COFDM just ain't gonna happen here for
> commercial OTA television. I'm pretty happy with the current state of the
> art, and it is just going to get better, so buzz off, will ya?
>
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:qzG3e.2347$EE2.709@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>I am not as pessimistic. There is a good chance that we can change
>>modulations. While I am pursuing a better 8-VSB receiver from very
>>reluctant manufacturers I will also push for a modulation change. Sinclair
>>BTW would be all for it as well despite what they say and mean about LG 5th
>>gen prototype.
>>
>>The Senate is showing interest so we will see. If you see a hearing on the
>>subject posted by the Senate Commerce Committee you will know the game is
>>on once again.
>>
>>Bob Miller
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 8:20:43 AM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:uaK3e.4183$x4.2493@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
<snip>
> I don't believe commercial TV can survive without mobile reception.
> Any broadcaster using current spectrum and 8-VSB is condemned
> to compete with satellite, cable, Internet and new mobile services.
<snip>
I've never had satellite or cable, and I'm not particularly interested
in watching TV over the Internet or on a mobile phone. I'm also
not interested in paying a big monthly fee just to see more channels
of garbage. Whatever shakes out in OTA, that's what I'll probably
be using. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way.
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 10:30:14 AM

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

L David Matheny wrote:
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:uaK3e.4183$x4.2493@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> <snip>
>
>>I don't believe commercial TV can survive without mobile reception.
>>Any broadcaster using current spectrum and 8-VSB is condemned
>>to compete with satellite, cable, Internet and new mobile services.
>
> <snip>
> I've never had satellite or cable, and I'm not particularly interested
> in watching TV over the Internet or on a mobile phone. I'm also
> not interested in paying a big monthly fee just to see more channels
> of garbage. Whatever shakes out in OTA, that's what I'll probably
> be using. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way.
>
>
You don't know if your particularly interested in watching TV over the
Internet because you don't know what the offering will be or what the
experience will be like.

You may not like the idea of watching TV on your cell phone but the fact
that a cell phone or other such small device can receive the DTV signal
with an antenna one inch long is what is important. Using such small
device you will be able to watch DTV on any size screen you want
anywhere you want including in your living room which is the only place
you want to watch it I assume from your post. Your not open to any new
idea what-so-ever no matter how much easier or cheaper it might be.

You are just hog tied to what you know right now and no one can change
your mind about anything ever. Did I paint the picture right?

And I am sure you are not the only one like that or who feels that way.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 10:30:15 AM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:W3M3e.4254$x4.3794@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

> Your [sic] not open to any new
> idea what-so-ever [sic] no matter how much easier or cheaper it might be.
>
> You are just hog tied to what you know right now and no one can change
> your mind about anything ever. Did I paint the picture right?
>
> And I am sure you are not the only one like that or who feels that way.
>
> Bob Miller

You're ragging on the guy for no other reason than you don't like his
expressed
viewing choices! That's low.

I have almost nobody in the kill-file, but you're getting tempting. ...
and spare me
the patronizing remark that it's my decision whom to kill-file.
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 10:51:07 AM

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

inkyblacks@yahoo.com wrote:
> Bob,
>
> So who is going to reimburse consumers, manufacturers, broadcasters, and retailers for all the now useless 8-VSB equipment? The government?
> Are people just going to have to take the financial hit? Have you figured out the total cost to society of a change? It would certainly
> be in the billions of dollars.
>
> I would love to get the Chinese version of COFDM combined with the Microsoft's codec and go back in a time machine to 1995 and give the
> FCC a demonstration. But I really think too much water has passed under the bridge to change things now. I can't find any time machines
> for sale on eBay, so I think we are out of luck.
>
> IB
>
Why the same people who are reimbursing all the portable NTSC TV owners
or all the analog TV owners I should say. The same people that will buy
a converter for every device that has an NTSC tuner in it today or do
you believe all 25 million analog TV sets sold this year are just plain
out of luck because they should have known that NTSC was on its last
legs and would be replaced sometime soon. Or the 25 million that will be
sold this year for that matter. We know a transition is coming but no
one has told the public. No notice, no stickers na da.

Is there a book somewhere that list how much time is required before a
country can switch to a better modulation when they find out the one
they have s**ks? If you have to take care of everyone that would be hurt
by a modulation switch then the interval between changes shouldn't
matter. The only thing that should matter is does it make sense to
change? If we don't change now will we have to change latter? How much
later and why should we wait? If we change now will it cost more or will
it cost more latter when we change then? How much do we gain by changing
now and how much do we lose if we change later?

And if we change again should we think more about how we go about this
in the first place? Should we lock ourselves into a system that does not
allow for an upgrade even when we know that an upgrade will likely be a
good idea and we have a pretty good idea when it could take place and
there is something we could do to prepare for it? (MPEG4, VP6 were well
along in planning stages five years ago).

Or could we just allow both systems to operate in the same space.

How about that one???

If 8-VSB is as good as many say here there is no NO risk that anything
will happen. NO one will switch to COFDM. If they are anywhere near
being equal NO broadcaster will switch. It would be crazy to be that
other modulation that requires another receiver.

If COFDM and 8-VSB are anywhere near being equal in performance there is
NO risk to 8-VSB in allowing COFDM as Sinclair ask for in 2000. What the
8-VSB proponents knew in 2000 and know very well today is that if COFDM
is allowed in the US ALL broadcasters would switch en masse, in a heart
beat.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 11:20:22 AM

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

Sal M. Onella wrote:
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:W3M3e.4254$x4.3794@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
>>Your [sic] not open to any new
>>idea what-so-ever [sic] no matter how much easier or cheaper it might be.
>>
>>You are just hog tied to what you know right now and no one can change
>>your mind about anything ever. Did I paint the picture right?
>>
>>And I am sure you are not the only one like that or who feels that way.
>>
>>Bob Miller
>
>
> You're ragging on the guy for no other reason than you don't like his
> expressed
> viewing choices! That's low.
>
> I have almost nobody in the kill-file, but you're getting tempting. ...
> and spare me
> the patronizing remark that it's my decision whom to kill-file.
>
>
And I thought he was ragging on me.

OK my point is not his expressed viewing choice. He has every right to
it. My problem is that he wants to or is happy with a system that limits
everyone else to his viewing choice when we could have a system that
works fine for his viewing choice and happens to work in New York City
for the citizens that live there as well.

They should be able to use their TV spectrum as well as he can to watch
DTV. Especially since it does nothing to hurt or deprive him of
anything. People are constantly saying I got mine and its just tough
luck if you can't get yours.

Why? When it would be even easier for him to get what he wants while
others are not deprived. And it would even cost him less. It would also
have speeded up the DTV transition and all things HD. This morrass we
are in is not helping anything DTV related.

Staying the course with 8-VSB will kill OTA DTV below channels 51 within
ten years in my opinion. It will then be a few more years of waiting for
this spectrum to be re distributed to new users who will not be using
8-VSB whatever they are doing. I don't think this is idle speculation.
It has been two years since the outgoing Chairman of the FCC asked the
question, "What are we protecting" in regard to all OTA DTV broadcast
spectrum and the question was generated by what he thought was the OTA
population of 15% who depend on OTA.

The latest figures that the FCC's boss, the Congress is working with
talk of only 4.6% of the population that not only relies on OTA but does
so because it cannot afford cable or satellite. Congress is not going to
protect the other 11.4% who either don't care for TV at all or care so
little as to not buy cable or satellite. They are now focused on that
4.6% number and the question will (has already by suggestion) come up
again "What are we protecting?"

OTA days could be numbered. If Congress can get billions for stations
above channel 51 they can get many more for stations below 51.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 11:28:07 AM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> But you are simply wrong. It will happen here for commercial television
> even if the modulation for stations below 51 is not changed. Stations
> above 51 will use COFDM and stations below will go out of business.

So we can be secure. This is yet another prediction by bob. So far he
has been wrong 100% of the time.

> Congress will then auction off those stations and again they will be
> used with COFDM for similar services.

You really need to update your meds.

> I believe that will happen even if 5th gen receivers show up and do well
> because I don't believe commercial TV can survive without mobile
> reception.

Despite the fact that they have done so from the very beginning of
broadcast TV.

> Any broadcaster using current spectrum and 8-VSB is condemned
> to compete with satellite, cable, Internet and new mobile services.

And will be able to succeed.

> Current broadcasters are not doing at all well with their analog
> broadcasting.

Again, I challenge you to cite a single major network affiliate that has
gone under.

> They depend totally on must carry. Sooner or later
> Congress is going to notice that they are simply not using those
> channels below 51.

Really? What makes you think that they are ignorant of the uses of that
spectrum.

> That the 15% is a myth, that it is more like 4.6% who
> depend on OTA and who can't afford to buy cable or satellite and when
> they discover that 3.6% of those steal cable or satellite the game is up
> and they are going to take back that unused spectrum, channels 2 to 51
> and sell it off.

That's odd, you recently used the 15-40% statistics (you know, the real
ones) to support the size of the US OTA market in another post. Why do
you bother to lie when you provide the proof that you are lying almost
as soon as you lie?

> That is the way it is going or do you expect that magically someday soon
> the trend will change and people will start buying OTA receivers and the
> curve will turn up all by itself?

There are probably more OTA users now, with 8-VSB + NTSC than there were
with NTSC alone.

> LG doesn't think so, they are betting
> that the only receivers to be sold in the US are MANDATED ones in
> integrated sets

Which shows good strategic thinking on their part. They get to sell the
parts and collect the license fee.

> that very few will ever hook up to an antenna.

In your fantasy world.

> 8-VSB and MPEG2 are doomed one way or another. They simply can't and by
> the way are not competing.

Do you get your grammar lessons from the same place you get your
business advice?

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 3:48:13 PM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:uaK3e.4183$x4.2493@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>...
> ... I don't believe commercial TV can survive without mobile reception.
> ...
> ...

Though I do enjoy the spirited, albeit sometimes contentious, discussions,
and I do try to understand all points of view on the issues being discussed,
I am really having a hard time understanding Bob's belief that mobile
reception of digital TV is a requirement.

Bob, when would I, or anyone, find it necessary of desirable to watch
television while I'm "on the move" ...and what would I watch and where would
I be when I watch it? You speak of watching TV on small mobile devices.
Why?

What is it about digital TV and mobility that attracts you? Even if I
wanted to watch TV while walking down the street, I could do that with a
small analog TV from Radio Shack. Analog mobile TV has been possible for
decades. What is it you want so badly from digital mobile TV that I can't
get with the analog Radio Shack device (if I actually wanted such a device)?

The DTV standard in the US, and standards around the world, made high
definition a central feature of digital TV, though not the only feature.
The small mobile screens you speak of certainly would not be used for high
definition content. So - I would agree with others on this newsgroup that
high definition is of little interest to you, at least with regard to
digital mobile TV.

In addition, though I love good programming when it can be found on TV, I
have to make a conscious effort while at home to turn the TV set off or else
I might "vegetate" in front of the "boob tube". Too many homes have
families that are zombie-like in front of the TV with the result that simple
communication between family members becomes rare. Sometimes you just have
to turn the TV off to allow normal human interactions to go on.

When I leave my house, I want to see the world, to see people, and perhaps
talk to people. If I have my face buried in some mobile TV, I am as much a
zombie as the person who is hypnotized by his TV in his living room. If I'm
watching a mobile TV, I won't see the world and I won't see people.

Sometimes, I go to a club near to where I live - to get out of my house, and
to socialize. From time to time, the club owner turns on their TV, simply
so that the club does not appear quiet and "dead". I always ask him to turn
it off. I explain that the reason I am at the club, and the reason that I
left my house, is that I want to interact with the world, and socialize with
people ...*and* get away from TV. I explain that if I wanted to watch TV, I
would have stayed at home - by myself.

So, Bob, help me understand who would want or need mobile TV, and why. I'm
just not getting it.
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 4:55:19 PM

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

Bob,

I was again accused of being 'you' over at AVS Forum because I asked
what is the difference between the front end of a 8-VSB tuner and the
front end of a COFDM tuner. You keep saying it is cheaper to make a
COFDM tuner, but with 8-VSB receiver chips priced so low ($8.), how can
that be? A COFDM HDTV receiver will need a scaler and the same
up-front components as a 8-VSB receiver,...right? Also you seem to be
comparing the cost of USA 1080i/720p capable receivers with UK's meager
600 line capable receivers. Isn't some of the price difference due to
the fact that one is high definition and the other is not?

IB (not Bob Miller - laughs!)
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 5:07:21 PM

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

PS Current UK COFDM receiver don't need scalers at all because they
only have one 600 line TV standard to deal with,...right? Don't they
have just one audio standard as well? So, aren't you comparing apples
and oranges?

IB
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 5:07:54 PM

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

On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, Jeff Rife wrote:
> Bob keeps spouting the myth about "broadcasters depending on must-carry",
> when the reality is that only a very few stations in most markets ever
> invoke "must carry" on DBS or cable. Any ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, WB, or PBS
> station has no problem getting their signal carried without "must carry".
> Only low-value stations seem to have this problem.
> For those stations (home shopping channel repeaters, etc.), I have to admit
> that I agree with Bob that "must carry" is the only thing keeping them
> going.

The sad thing is that "must carry" was not intended to benefit home
shopping channel repeaters. Rather, it was intended to benefit such
stations as UHF foreign-language channel that served the immigrant
community; a channel which is of *great* value to a minority that would
otherwise be neglected.

It seems to me that "must carry" rules need to be revisited.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 6:51:31 PM

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

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 18:06:59 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> From Digital Spy forum
>http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/showthread.php?t=20...
>
>MRDAB writes...
>"Yeah I got my power arc aerial from there. it needs 2 batteries once in
>a blue moon (use some good duracells) it lives ontop of my wardrobe and
>is very happily picking up all muxes.
>
>I'm abt 30 miles from sutton coldfield"

Snip...

The original AV forum poster doesn't mention in which direction he
located from Sutton Coldfield; as there are several repeaters deployed
in and around the SC area. (Many of them well within a 30 mile
radius, I.E. The AV forum poster could be right next to a repeater,
but our resident COFDM Troll would never tell you about that tidbit of
info).

P.S.. Why so many repeaters(~8) all within 30 miles of SC??
Must be COFDM reception isn't all that good.

Another Item.
Since when do UK residents measure their distances in Miles??
Awfully odd for a member who just signed up in March 2005..
Another BM plant?

One last item, the UK doesn't have any HDTV broadcasts.
But that didn't stop Booby from polluting the HDTV usenet group
with his meanderings.
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 6:58:13 PM

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

Tim Keating wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 18:06:59 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>From Digital Spy forum
>>http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/showthread.php?t=20...
>>
>>MRDAB writes...
>>"Yeah I got my power arc aerial from there. it needs 2 batteries once in
>>a blue moon (use some good duracells) it lives ontop of my wardrobe and
>>is very happily picking up all muxes.
>>
>>I'm abt 30 miles from sutton coldfield"
>
>
> Snip...
>
> The original AV forum poster doesn't mention in which direction he
> located from Sutton Coldfield; as there are several repeaters deployed
> in and around the SC area. (Many of them well within a 30 mile
> radius, I.E. The AV forum poster could be right next to a repeater,
> but our resident COFDM Troll would never tell you about that tidbit of
> info).
>
> P.S.. Why so many repeaters(~8) all within 30 miles of SC??
> Must be COFDM reception isn't all that good.
>
> Another Item.
> Since when do UK residents measure their distances in Miles??
> Awfully odd for a member who just signed up in March 2005..
> Another BM plant?

The UK is semi-metrified. Distances are in miles and speeds are in miles
per hour. At least they were when I was in Norther Ireland and Scotland
last fall.

> One last item, the UK doesn't have any HDTV broadcasts.
> But that didn't stop Booby from polluting the HDTV usenet group
> with his meanderings.

Nope. It never does.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 7:15:18 PM

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

Matthew L. Martin (nothere@notnow.never) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Bob Miller wrote:
> > They depend totally on must carry. Sooner or later
> > Congress is going to notice that they are simply not using those
> > channels below 51.
>
> Really? What makes you think that they are ignorant of the uses of that
> spectrum.

Bob keeps spouting the myth about "broadcasters depending on must-carry",
when the reality is that only a very few stations in most markets ever
invoke "must carry" on DBS or cable. Any ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, WB, or PBS
station has no problem getting their signal carried without "must carry".
Only low-value stations seem to have this problem.

For those stations (home shopping channel repeaters, etc.), I have to admit
that I agree with Bob that "must carry" is the only thing keeping them
going. Of course, one of Bob's pet networks--PAX--is also in the same
boat because their management got greedy. Most cable and DBS providers
now have both a local *and* the national PAX channels, so the local
affiliates basically got screwed by the parent network.

--
Jeff Rife | "Because he was human; because he had goodness;
| because he was moral they called him insane.
| Delusions of grandeur; visions of splendor;
| A manic-depressive, he walks in the rain."
| -- Rush, "Cinderella Man"
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 8:14:45 PM

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

Well, Bob, there is a big difference between adding a STB to a NTSC TV
compared to replacing the ATSC tuner in a recently purchased $8000 plasma
TV, or in a $700 OTA DVR, which would actually become useless if its
internal receiver was made useless. People have known about the switch to
digital since the late 1990's, or at least have been told about it in
various forums, and have been making purchases accordingly. I doubt very
seriously that Congress or the FCC are going to change directions this far
into the game, especially when your proposed modulation scheme has its own
set of problems. I could see the reaction when folks that have made a huge
investment in HDTV equipment are forced to replace their equipment again,
and suddenly have new reception problems because of impulse noise, etc. I,
for one, would become very political if I actually thought that your dreams
and schemes were anything but the fantasy of a failed businessman who can
not accept the fact that he backed the wrong horse in a technological
gamble.


"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vnM3e.4261$x4.3653@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> inkyblacks@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Bob,
>>
>> So who is going to reimburse consumers, manufacturers, broadcasters, and
>> retailers for all the now useless 8-VSB equipment? The government?
>> Are people just going to have to take the financial hit? Have you
>> figured out the total cost to society of a change? It would certainly
>> be in the billions of dollars.
>>
>> I would love to get the Chinese version of COFDM combined with the
>> Microsoft's codec and go back in a time machine to 1995 and give the
>> FCC a demonstration. But I really think too much water has passed under
>> the bridge to change things now. I can't find any time machines
>> for sale on eBay, so I think we are out of luck.
>>
>> IB
>>
> Why the same people who are reimbursing all the portable NTSC TV owners or
> all the analog TV owners I should say. The same people that will buy a
> converter for every device that has an NTSC tuner in it today or do you
> believe all 25 million analog TV sets sold this year are just plain out of
> luck because they should have known that NTSC was on its last legs and
> would be replaced sometime soon. Or the 25 million that will be sold this
> year for that matter. We know a transition is coming but no one has told
> the public. No notice, no stickers na da.
>
> Is there a book somewhere that list how much time is required before a
> country can switch to a better modulation when they find out the one they
> have s**ks? If you have to take care of everyone that would be hurt by a
> modulation switch then the interval between changes shouldn't matter. The
> only thing that should matter is does it make sense to change? If we don't
> change now will we have to change latter? How much later and why should we
> wait? If we change now will it cost more or will it cost more latter when
> we change then? How much do we gain by changing now and how much do we
> lose if we change later?
>
> And if we change again should we think more about how we go about this in
> the first place? Should we lock ourselves into a system that does not
> allow for an upgrade even when we know that an upgrade will likely be a
> good idea and we have a pretty good idea when it could take place and
> there is something we could do to prepare for it? (MPEG4, VP6 were well
> along in planning stages five years ago).
>
> Or could we just allow both systems to operate in the same space.
>
> How about that one???
>
> If 8-VSB is as good as many say here there is no NO risk that anything
> will happen. NO one will switch to COFDM. If they are anywhere near being
> equal NO broadcaster will switch. It would be crazy to be that other
> modulation that requires another receiver.
>
> If COFDM and 8-VSB are anywhere near being equal in performance there is
> NO risk to 8-VSB in allowing COFDM as Sinclair ask for in 2000. What the
> 8-VSB proponents knew in 2000 and know very well today is that if COFDM is
> allowed in the US ALL broadcasters would switch en masse, in a heart beat.
>
> Bob Miller
>
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 8:14:46 PM

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

Phil Ross (paross@pacbell.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Well, Bob, there is a big difference between adding a STB to a NTSC TV
> compared to replacing the ATSC tuner in a recently purchased $8000 plasma
> TV, or in a $700 OTA DVR, which would actually become useless if its
> internal receiver was made useless.

This is also a case where DirecTV probably would *not* step up and provide
free replacements for the 1,000,000+ HD receivers for their subscribers
unless they got some cash from the government to offset their costs.

--
Jeff Rife | "Oooh, I love children...
| they taste like chicken."
|
| -- Heddy Newman, "Herman's Head"
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 8:16:16 PM

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

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 14:51:31 -0400, Tim Keating
<NotForJunkEmail@directinternet11.com1> wrote:

>On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 18:06:59 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>
>> From Digital Spy forum
>>http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/showthread.php?t=20...
>>
>>MRDAB writes...
>>"Yeah I got my power arc aerial from there. it needs 2 batteries once in
>>a blue moon (use some good duracells) it lives ontop of my wardrobe and
>>is very happily picking up all muxes.
>>
>>I'm abt 30 miles from sutton coldfield"
>
>Snip...
>
> The original AV forum poster doesn't mention in which direction he
>located from Sutton Coldfield; as there are several repeaters deployed
>in and around the SC area. (Many of them well within a 30 mile
>radius, I.E. The AV forum poster could be right next to a repeater,
>but our resident COFDM Troll would never tell you about that tidbit of
>info).
>
> P.S.. Why so many repeaters(~8) all within 30 miles of SC??
>Must be COFDM reception isn't all that good.
>
>Another Item.
> Since when do UK residents measure their distances in Miles??
> Awfully odd for a member who just signed up in March 2005..
^^^^^^^^^^^ this info is incorrect.. sorry..

The member Bob quoted "Gazza487" who signed up in Jul 2004..

>
>One last item, the UK doesn't have any HDTV broadcasts.
> But that didn't stop Booby from polluting the HDTV usenet group
>with his meanderings.
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 8:54:59 PM

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

In article <saKdnfHt0Lrejc3fRVn-uA@comcast.com>,
"Neil - Salem, MA USA" <Neil@Salem.Massachusetts.USA> writes:
>
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:uaK3e.4183$x4.2493@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>...
>> ... I don't believe commercial TV can survive without mobile reception.
>> ...
>> ...
>
> Though I do enjoy the spirited, albeit sometimes contentious, discussions,
> and I do try to understand all points of view on the issues being discussed,
> I am really having a hard time understanding Bob's belief that mobile
> reception of digital TV is a requirement.
>
> Bob, when would I, or anyone, find it necessary of desirable to watch
> television while I'm "on the move" ...and what would I watch and where would
> I be when I watch it? You speak of watching TV on small mobile devices.
> Why?
>
The big market for mobile TV would be on mass transit, where there would
be an additional revenue stream for the mass transit agency and a new
business for Bob. This would probably entail Jerry Springer with
tampon/condom commercials interspersed. Any claim of 'childrens'
entertainment would neglect the vast superiority of nicely reviewed
and controlled DVDs that play very well on the SUV video screen(s).
(Imagine letting your kids choose between Jerry Springer and Powerpuff
girls... Bob is 'Jerry' and most real world people prefer their kids
seeing powerpuff, knd or even spongebob.)

For 'news' and other timely info, the good old (and safe) radio
works great. More visual distractions for the driver just won't be
well received in our society.

John
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 9:08:47 PM

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

Neil - Salem, MA USA wrote:
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:uaK3e.4183$x4.2493@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>...
>>... I don't believe commercial TV can survive without mobile reception.
>>...
>
> Though I do enjoy the spirited, albeit sometimes contentious, discussions, and I do try to understand all points of view on the issues being discussed,
> I am really having a hard time understanding Bob's belief that mobile reception of digital TV is a requirement.
>
Not a requirement a necessity.

> Bob, when would I, or anyone, find it necessary of desirable to watch television while I'm "on the move" ...and what would I watch and where would
> I be when I watch it? You speak of watching TV on small mobile devices. Why?
>

> What is it about digital TV and mobility that attracts you? Even if I wanted to watch TV while walking down the street, I could do that with a
> small analog TV from Radio Shack. Analog mobile TV has been possible for decades. What is it you want so badly from digital mobile TV that I can't
> get with the analog Radio Shack device (if I actually wanted such a device)?

But you can't watch analog TV while walking down the street after analog
turnoff. That small market of free mobile TV goes away after analog
turnoff. And while it exist today as you say one reason it is small is
because it works badly like all analog TV. Remember the reason for cable
was originally to offer better reception of NTSC. Many would argue today
that cable and satellite exist because of the thousand channels they can
deliver. I disagree, far fewer channels OTA today would put both out of
business if they could be received anywhere anytime.
>
> The DTV standard in the US, and standards around the world, made high definition a central feature of digital TV, though not the only feature.
> The small mobile screens you speak of certainly would not be used for high definition content. So - I would agree with others on this newsgroup that
> high definition is of little interest to you, at least with regard to digital mobile TV.

The mobile screen shows the programming first not the resolution. Anyone
would opt for higher resolution if they can have it but the primary
reason for TV is the story, the game not the resolution. You want to see
the game first and then if it is possible and not too much of a chore
you will go for better resolution. That is and will be true of cell
phone reception. It is the biggest argument I have against the Qualcomm
and Crown Castle cell phone DTV ventures I have. They will reduce
resolution to fit the cell phone and increase programming. I think there
is a bigger market for higher resolution programming for all size
screens. For example the cell phone of the future will receive an HD res
program and either show it on its own small screen or allow you to watch
it on a pocket projector, a heads up display, a laptop or any size
screen including an HD set.
>
> In addition, though I love good programming when it can be found on TV, I have to make a conscious effort while at home to turn the TV set off or else
> I might "vegetate" in front of the "boob tube". Too many homes have families that are zombie-like in front of the TV with the result that simple
> communication between family members becomes rare. Sometimes you just have to turn the TV off to allow normal human interactions to go on.
>
> When I leave my house, I want to see the world, to see people, and perhaps talk to people. If I have my face buried in some mobile TV, I am as much a
> zombie as the person who is hypnotized by his TV in his living room. If I'm watching a mobile TV, I won't see the world and I won't see people.
>
> Sometimes, I go to a club near to where I live - to get out of my house, and to socialize. From time to time, the club owner turns on their TV, simply
> so that the club does not appear quiet and "dead". I always ask him to turn it off. I explain that the reason I am at the club, and the reason that I
> left my house, is that I want to interact with the world, and socialize with people ...*and* get away from TV. I explain that if I wanted to watch TV, I
> would have stayed at home - by myself.
>
> So, Bob, help me understand who would want or need mobile TV, and why. I'm just not getting it.
>
>

No argument with most of what you say, I agree. But we are talking about
the survival of OTA free broadcast TV. It has already shrunk from 100%
of viewers to something from 15% to 4.6% who rely on it for TV to the
highest of 40% of homes who have at least one TV set still hooked up to
an antenna, digital or analog though they don't depend on it.

This has nothing to do with the TV culture we live in, only whether OTA
free TV will survive the digital transition. The other subject is
another discussion in which I think we both agree.

So if a broadcaster today has say 15% of his viewers dependent on OTA
and that number is declining or as some are now saying in the House
Commerce Committee it has hit bottom at 4.6% who actually rely on OTA
and can't afford cable or satellite, what makes you think they will
survive? They are on life support as it is. The feeding tube is must
carry on cable. If the number can't go any lower and it is NOT rising
why are we protecting this OTA free thing as the Chairman of the FCC
asked. And now I might add it is the elephant in the room at the House
Commerce Committee.

Let me put it this way if must carry was overturned by the courts would
most TV stations in the US survive? Could they pay their electric bills?
The best content would go directly to cable and satellite and the
transmitters and their cost would be eliminated in many markets don't
you think? The best use of the spectrum broadcasters use for channels
below 51 is NOT to deliver a signal to the local cable company. So it
would find its best use if must carry, an artificial construct created
by the political power of broadcasters to protect themselves from
competition, went away.

In a world that has abandoned OTA reception by at least 85% and possibly
as much as 95.4% would the best use of the spectrum be to broadcast to
fixed receivers found in your living room? When that venue is already
being attacked by a new service, broadband Internet, that will also
compete for fixed reception in your living room.

What do the numbers have to get to before someone says hey I have a
better idea. We could use this spectrum to do X or Y or Z. And X, Y and
Z all have to do with delivering data to customers where ever they are.
That BTW includes in their living rooms. You don't lose the living room
by making reception ubiquitous. You only expand your market to
everywhere. And everywhere is something cable and satellite can't do or
do competitively. For example satellite can deliver mobile if you have
an expensive antenna and even then it will be excruciatingly line of
sight. No building or trees can get in the way.

Satellite only works for a portable solution in my book unless you build
a terrestrial repeater system like XM or Sirius did which could make it
truly mobile but only in cities where the repeaters are and then you
really have a terrestrial system.

So when I say mobile I mean to extend your coverage to all markets,
fixed, portable and mobile. I am not talking about ONLY mobile and ONLY
while you are moving. I am talking about simple easy reception
everywhere on a multitude of receivers of all sizes. I am talking about
OTA using its strength to compete with cable and satellite. I am saying
that if they don't do that then what we have is a failed OTA that
pretends to be alive with the fig leaf of must carry.

In other words a massive waste of spectrum. The question for Congress
then becomes why? Why not just invent another figment to allow
broadcasters must carry on cable without the need for any spectrum. Then
they could have the best of both worlds. Lots of money for selling off
the spectrum to those who would use it to maximize its potential and
broadcasters that would not have to pay electric bills for transmitters
that broadcast to no one.

They have a very difficult task legally with that solution since the
courts will see though the fiction a lot easier if there are no
transmitters used as a fig leaf. Remember this Congressional must carry
allusion was only held up by the Supreme Court by a vote of 5 to 4 and
the deciding vote was very iffy.

If the must carry laws go back to the Supreme Court with multicasting
added to them and the modern reality that even fewer people depend on
OTA than was true before and you can expect that the whole must carry
concept could be overturned.

Now as to your and my lack of need for mobile TV. The reality is that
most of the world will have mobile TV on cell phones, lap tops and DVD
players as well as just mobile TV sets in the coming years. This will
not be your daddy's analog mobile TV. This will be true in the US also
with at least four ventures in the works. These ventures will first
address the lucrative and trendy cell phone market but will very quickly
be in all vehicles and then they will attack broadcasters directly both
cable and satellite. And I predict that these new age broadcaster will
align themselves with broadband Internet seamlessly both tirelessly and
fixed in your living room.

The dinosaur that is 8-VSB DTV to fixed receivers which already looks
ancient to me will look ridiculous to the next generation if they are
ever even aware of it. How many of those under 30 today are aware of OTA
TV or DTV? I remember showing by daughter when she was 15 when we had a
cable outage that you could watch TV with an antenna. She was amazed.

That is the fate of ATSC 8-VSB. That is what it was designed for, to
only emulate NTSC and I am afraid that as designed it is doing a good
job of emulating the death rattle of analog TV and simply joining the
downward spiral already in place.

In other countries both HD and mobile and easy reception are all being
addressed and OTA TV is having an incredible rebirth. Not here.

We need the same thing they have, a modulation that offers easy plug and
play reception on inexpensive receivers that work anywhere mobile, fixed
or portable.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 9:14:56 PM

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

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 16:16:16 -0400, Tim Keating
<NotForJunkEmail@directinternet11.com1> wrote:

>On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 14:51:31 -0400, Tim Keating
><NotForJunkEmail@directinternet11.com1> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 18:06:59 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> From Digital Spy forum
>>>http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/showthread.php?t=20...
>>>
>>>MRDAB writes...
>>>"Yeah I got my power arc aerial from there. it needs 2 batteries once in
>>>a blue moon (use some good duracells) it lives ontop of my wardrobe and
>>>is very happily picking up all muxes.
>>>
>>>I'm abt 30 miles from sutton coldfield"
>>
>>Snip...
>>
>> The original AV forum poster doesn't mention in which direction he
>>located from Sutton Coldfield; as there are several repeaters deployed
>>in and around the SC area. (Many of them well within a 30 mile
>>radius, I.E. The AV forum poster could be right next to a repeater,
>>but our resident COFDM Troll would never tell you about that tidbit of
>>info).
>>
>> P.S.. Why so many repeaters(~8) all within 30 miles of SC??
>>Must be COFDM reception isn't all that good.

Here is a partial MAP of DTV retransmission towers within 62 miles
of Sutton Coldfield.. Note: Each tower transmits roughly the same
programming.

http://www.kswindells.34sp.com/freeview/show.php/localt...

>>
>>Another Item.
>> Since when do UK residents measure their distances in Miles??
>> Awfully odd for a member who just signed up in March 2005..
>^^^^^^^^^^^ this info is incorrect.. sorry..
>
>The member Bob quoted "Gazza487" who signed up in Jul 2004..
>
>>
>>One last item, the UK doesn't have any HDTV broadcasts.
>> But that didn't stop Booby from polluting the HDTV usenet group
>>with his meanderings.
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 9:24:02 PM

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

Phil Ross wrote:
> Well, Bob, there is a big difference between adding a STB to a NTSC TV compared to replacing the ATSC tuner in a recently purchased $8000 plasma
> TV, or in a $700 OTA DVR, which would actually become useless if its internal receiver was made useless. People have known about the switch to
> digital since the late 1990's, or at least have been told about it in various forums, and have been making purchases accordingly. I doubt very
> seriously that Congress or the FCC are going to change directions this far into the game, especially when your proposed modulation scheme has its own
> set of problems. I could see the reaction when folks that have made a huge investment in HDTV equipment are forced to replace their equipment again,
> and suddenly have new reception problems because of impulse noise, etc. I, for one, would become very political if I actually thought that your dreams
> and schemes were anything but the fantasy of a failed businessman who can not accept the fact that he backed the wrong horse in a technological
> gamble.
>

If we change modulations or not people will become very aware of the
difference between COFDM and 8-VSB. There will be other OTA broadcasters
using COFDM and the BS about its problems will be put to rest.

Many who have given up on OTA DTV or who suffer in silence because they
think it is their fault for not being smart enough will be amazed at OTA
digital reception on cell phones, laptops etc. that will be far better
than 8-VSB.

We were not the only ones who picked COFDM, others include ABC, NBC,
Pappas, Sinclair, Granite and others who were intimidated into silence
by our Congress. Our business has not failed. It has not started and not
because we picked the wrong horse. We picked the right one.

Our plan does not require any of the spectrum used by broadcasters and I
would be very happy if they were stuck with 8-VSB as a businessman if we
at the same time could use the spectrum we have purchased. We cannot
because broadcasters who were given their spectrum for free still squat
on the spectrum we purchased and paid for.

It is the digital transition being stuck that keeps us from launching
our venture. It is broadcasters being stuck with 8-VSB that holds us
back not us being stuck with 8-VSB because we are not. We can use COFDM.
We just can't use our spectrum. 8-VSB holds up competitors from using
spectrum to compete with current broadcasters, cable and satellite. That
delay is what the transition to digital was all about from day one back
in 1986 and it is still working very well.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 9:39:40 PM

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

inkyblacks@yahoo.com wrote:
> PS Current UK COFDM receiver don't need scalers at all because they
> only have one 600 line TV standard to deal with,...right? Don't they
> have just one audio standard as well? So, aren't you comparing apples
> and oranges?
>

Yes, he has been doing that for years. He gets called on it _every_
time, but he continues in the hopes of misleading the unwary.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 11:41:25 PM

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

Tim Keating wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 18:06:59 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>From Digital Spy forum
>>http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/showthread.php?t=20...
>>
>>MRDAB writes...
>>"Yeah I got my power arc aerial from there. it needs 2 batteries once in
>>a blue moon (use some good duracells) it lives ontop of my wardrobe and
>>is very happily picking up all muxes.
>>
>>I'm abt 30 miles from sutton coldfield"
>
>
> Snip...
>
> The original AV forum poster doesn't mention in which direction he located from Sutton Coldfield; as there are several repeaters deployed
> in and around the SC area. (Many of them well within a 30 mile radius, I.E. The AV forum poster could be right next to a repeater,
> but our resident COFDM Troll would never tell you about that tidbit of info).
>
I assume he knows wherefrom he gets his signal. He could easily be in a
direction from Sutton Coldfield that has no repeater. Here is a map of
transmitter sites.

http://www.wolfbane.com/articles/ukdmap2.htm

And even if he is closer to a repeater than a main site the power level
of the repeater may be so low as that the main transmitter site is where
he still gets his signal. For example on this map of the UK Brierley
Hill is the nearest repeater to Sutton Coldfield about 15 miles WSW and
its six stations have power levels of 200, 100, and 80 Watts compared to
Sutton Coldfields power of 8 kW (5 transmitters) and 10 kW (one
transmitter).

> P.S.. Why so many repeaters(~8) all within 30 miles of SC?? Must
be COFDM reception isn't all that good.
>
The power of COFDM lays in its use of multipath instead of avoidance of
it and its flexibility that ALLOWS the use of repeaters ON CHANNEL. A
feature not a negative. Something that 8-VSB would like to have and
sometimes it is suggested that someday if 8-VSB keeps improving it may
be able to do what COFDM did out of the box many years ago, SFNs and ON
CHANNEL repeaters.

There is a wide coverage area in which MRDAB can live where he would be
closer to Brierly and still have reception from Sutton Coldfield since
Sutton has between 40, 80 and 100 times the power ERP that Brierley has.
And as far as I can tell by the map there are only three such repeaters
within 30 miles of Sutton and they are all in the direction of and
around the other side of Birmingham. He could easily live to the South
East and his closest transmitter site would be Sutton regardless of
power levels.


> Another Item.
> Since when do UK residents measure their distances in Miles?? Awfully odd for a member who just signed up in March 2005..
> Another BM plant?

I think the UK has been measuring their speed and distance in Miles
since the 16th Century when QE the 1st set the mile at 5280 ft. Their
speedometers and speed limit signs are in miles. It seems the BM plant
is smart enough to know this.

>
> One last item, the UK doesn't have any HDTV broadcasts. But that didn't stop Booby from polluting the HDTV usenet group with his meanderings.

The UK has one and will have three satellite HD ventures. They are
looking into doing terrestrial HD also.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 11:41:26 PM

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

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 19:41:25 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>Tim Keating wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 18:06:59 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>From Digital Spy forum
>>>http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/showthread.php?t=20...
>>>
>>>MRDAB writes...
>>>"Yeah I got my power arc aerial from there. it needs 2 batteries once in
>>>a blue moon (use some good duracells) it lives ontop of my wardrobe and
>>>is very happily picking up all muxes.
>>>
>>>I'm abt 30 miles from sutton coldfield"
>>
>>
>> Snip...
>>
>> The original AV forum poster doesn't mention in which direction he located from Sutton Coldfield; as there are several repeaters deployed
>> in and around the SC area. (Many of them well within a 30 mile radius, I.E. The AV forum poster could be right next to a repeater,
>> but our resident COFDM Troll would never tell you about that tidbit of info).
>>
>I assume he knows wherefrom he gets his signal. He could easily be in a
>direction from Sutton Coldfield that has no repeater. Here is a map of
>transmitter sites.
>
>http://www.wolfbane.com/articles/ukdmap2.htm

Judging by my recent research in thed SC area..
I would say the map quoted by your link is incomplete.
(I.E. It's missing several transmission towers).
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 11:41:26 PM

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

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 19:41:25 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>Tim Keating wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 18:06:59 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>From Digital Spy forum
>>>http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/showthread.php?t=20...
>>>
>>>MRDAB writes...
>>>"Yeah I got my power arc aerial from there. it needs 2 batteries once in
>>>a blue moon (use some good duracells) it lives ontop of my wardrobe and
>>>is very happily picking up all muxes.
>>>
>>>I'm abt 30 miles from sutton coldfield"
>>
>>
>> Snip...
>>
>> The original AV forum poster doesn't mention in which direction he located from Sutton Coldfield; as there are several repeaters deployed
>> in and around the SC area. (Many of them well within a 30 mile radius, I.E. The AV forum poster could be right next to a repeater,
>> but our resident COFDM Troll would never tell you about that tidbit of info).
>>
>I assume he knows wherefrom he gets his signal. He could easily be in a
>direction from Sutton Coldfield that has no repeater. Here is a map of
>transmitter sites.
>
>http://www.wolfbane.com/articles/ukdmap2.htm

Judging by my recent research in thed SC area..
I would say the map quoted by your link is incomplete.
(I.E. It's missing several transmission towers).

Here is a partial MAP of DTV retransmission towers within 56 miles
of Sutton Coldfield.. Note: Each tower transmits roughly the same
programming.

http://www.kswindells.34sp.com/freeview/show.php/localt...
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 12:00:40 AM

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

"OTA needs to be viable"

It will be once they cut off analog transmission. Most Americans just
don't take digital OTA seriously now, but it will be as serious as a
heart attack when they unplug analog. I think even LG will then
reconsider their departure from making OTA tuners.

IB
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 12:58:40 AM

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

"We have documented a $3.50 price difference for the chip and a $5.40
IP"

I don't know what you mean by "IP", but you are comparing the cost of a
standard definition COFDM receiver chip with a high definition 8-VSB
chip. Europe does not have OTA HD, so your comparison is false. Then
you talk about antenna costs, but in your own tests the 5th generation
LG chip did best with a simple loop antenna, which can be had on the
Web for as little as $.29 each at SJGreatDeals.com.

Chips are made now with a 90 nanometer process and will soon go down to
65 nanometers. They will only get smaller and cheaper. I do not see
a significant long term cost benefit.

Also didn't South Korea recently pick 8-VSB over COFDM as their
transmission standard? They must have all the facts, yet they picked
8-VSB. Why?

You always say how lucky the British are to have their TV system, but
in about 3 minutes I am going to watch DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES in 720p.
Can they do that in London for free OTA? I have been enjoying FREE
HDTV for almost a year now, and for most Europeans HDTV is still a pipe
dream.

IB
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 2:51:51 AM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:W3M3e.4254$x4.3794@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
<snip quotes>
> You don't know if your particularly interested in watching TV over
> the Internet because you don't know what the offering will be or
> what the experience will be like.
>
If an Internet feed replaces cable and satellite, then I'll embrace it,
assuming that they don't try to overcharge like cable and satellite.
I'm not willing to pay for any programming that includes commercials.

> You may not like the idea of watching TV on your cell phone but the fact
> that a cell phone or other such small device can receive the DTV signal
> with an antenna one inch long is what is important. Using such small
> device you will be able to watch DTV on any size screen you want
> anywhere you want including in your living room which is the only place
> you want to watch it I assume from your post. Your not open to any new
> idea what-so-ever no matter how much easier or cheaper it might be.
>
You're selling the sizzle; I want to see the steak. Point me to a theoretical
comparison of COFDM vs 8-VSB. I do understand that you have an
uphill battle to fight, being a lone voice crying in the wilderness.

> You are just hog tied to what you know right now and no one can
> change your mind about anything ever. Did I paint the picture right?
>
No. I don't really care how it's done, as long as it works. I haven't
read enough theory about COFDM or 8-VSB to choose, and so far
the FCC hasn't asked for my opinion. I'm just saying that unless TV
programming is suddenly going to get a lot more intelligent (which I
doubt) or the Internet is going to take over, OTA needs to be viable.

> And I am sure you are not the only one like that or who feels that way.
>
> Bob Miller
>
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 6:06:30 AM

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

Tim Keating wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 19:41:25 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Tim Keating wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 18:06:59 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>From Digital Spy forum
>>>
>>>>http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/showthread.php?t=20...
>>>>
>>>>MRDAB writes...
>>>>"Yeah I got my power arc aerial from there. it needs 2 batteries once in
>>>>a blue moon (use some good duracells) it lives ontop of my wardrobe and
>>>>is very happily picking up all muxes.
>>>>
>>>>I'm abt 30 miles from sutton coldfield"
>>>
>>>
>>>Snip...
>>>
>>> The original AV forum poster doesn't mention in which direction he located from Sutton Coldfield; as there are several repeaters deployed
>>>in and around the SC area. (Many of them well within a 30 mile radius, I.E. The AV forum poster could be right next to a repeater,
>>>but our resident COFDM Troll would never tell you about that tidbit of info).
>>>
>>
>>I assume he knows wherefrom he gets his signal. He could easily be in a direction from Sutton Coldfield that has no repeater. Here is a map of
>>transmitter sites.
>>
>>http://www.wolfbane.com/articles/ukdmap2.htm
>
>
> Judging by my recent research in thed SC area..
> I would say the map quoted by your link is incomplete.
> (I.E. It's missing several transmission towers).
>
> Here is a partial MAP of DTV retransmission towers within 56 miles of Sutton Coldfield.. Note: Each tower transmits roughly the same
> programming.
>
> http://www.kswindells.34sp.com/freeview/show.php/localt...
>

Well according to your map I was wrong. I thought there was three
repeaters within 30 miles of Sutton Coldfield but there are only two. In
your post above you say there are "Many of them well within a 30 mile
radius". The only two I can see on your map are Brierley Hill: 24.6 km
: 233' and Bromsgrove: 31.9 km : 211', both to the South West.

Bromsgrove is operating at 50 Watts (2 channels) and 25 Watts (4
channels) which makes Sutton Coldfields lowest powered transmitter 160
to 320 times as powerful as the transmitters at Bromsgrove. All of
these stations at high UHF that normally need more power; 34, 41 and 68.

Bromsgrove, Channel 34 at 25 and 50 Watts
Brierley Hill, Channel 68 at 200, 100 and 80 Watts
Sutton Coldfield, Channel 41 at 8 kW and 10 kW

A typical US Transmitter on such UHF channels would operate at

#41 KKPX CA SAN JOSE 1000 kW
#41 WZVN-TV FL NAPLES 1000 kW
#41 WXYZ-TV MI DETROIT 700 kW

#68 KRCA CA RIVERSIDE 1000 kW (the only station on 68 -
no one likes these real high UHF power bills)

#34 KWGN-TV CO DENVER 1000 kW (when they finally let them build a
tower)
#34 WUSA DC WASHINGTON 1000 kW
#34 WDAF-TV MO KANSAS CITY 1000 kW

Again Sutton Coldfield operates at flea power compared to even what in
the US would be called low power and these repeater sites operate at
NANO power. And our friend gets good reception of all muxes (stations)
at 30 miles. He probably lives to the South East where on your map there
are no repeaters at all.

http://www.kswindells.34sp.com/freeview/show.php/transm...

And in New York City last week using a receiver with a 5th gen LG chip
in it that has benefited from 8 to 10 years of development, we could not
receive WCBS broadcasting from the Empire State Building at 34 the St.
in an apartment on West 72nd St. about 40 some blocks away.

#56 WCBS-TV NY NEW YORK 349 kW

This CBS station is operating at 35 times the power of the highest
powered transmitter and 43 times the lowest powered transmitter at
Sutton Coldfield and can't be received at 40 blocks (or even 9 blocks)
while Sutton can easily be received with a simple omni (arc) antenna in
someones bedroom on the top of his wardrobe at 30 miles.

It would seem that the story that COFDM needs hundreds of times the
power that 8-VSB needs is backwards. In fact I don't think you would be
able to receive CBS on 72nd St. with the state of the art 5th gen
receiver even if the 8-VSB power was so high that the antenna was melting.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 6:32:42 AM

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

inkyblacks@yahoo.com wrote:
> Bob,
>
> I was again accused of being 'you' over at AVS Forum because I asked what is the difference between the front end of a 8-VSB tuner and the
> front end of a COFDM tuner. You keep saying it is cheaper to make a COFDM tuner, but with 8-VSB receiver chips priced so low ($8.), how can
> that be? A COFDM HDTV receiver will need a scaler and the same up-front components as a 8-VSB receiver,...right? Also you seem to be
> comparing the cost of USA 1080i/720p capable receivers with UK's meager 600 line capable receivers. Isn't some of the price difference due to
> the fact that one is high definition and the other is not?
>
> IB (not Bob Miller - laughs!)
>

http://www.angliac.com/newsarchive/858.asp?article_id=1...

The latest single chip COFDM from STMicroelectronics is $4.50

And then you have IP cost of at least $6 for 8-VSB compared to 60 Cents
for COFDM.

After they mark up these differing cost and factor in real market size,
that is what they can realistically sell, you have a pretty wide price
differential.

We have documented a $3.50 price difference for the chip and a $5.40 IP
cost difference which totals $8.90. Mark that up a couple times and you
have real money.Especially when you are talking about under $100
receivers. Take out marketing and sales cost of at least 50% and where
do you hide an $8.90 difference after a 100% markup?

Both have similar HD cost so where ever you end up there is still a
major difference.

And then of course I would add on mucho additional antenna cost for
8-VSB. Time, aggravation and money all add to the cost of 8-VSB.

Basically 8-VSB was designed for broadcasters to lower their cost with
the thought in mind that viewers would never use OTA much so why worry
about what it would cost them. And it is going that way. The only fly in
ointment of this whole plan is that other countries actually came up
with a modulation that works real well for the viewer, the designers
were from the beginning thinking about the viewer and their cost.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 6:41:54 AM

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

Tim Keating wrote:

>
> The member Bob quoted "Gazza487" who signed up in Jul 2004..
>
Right it was "Gazza487". I think I will contact him for more information
on his situation.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 9:38:38 AM

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

L David Matheny wrote:

> No. I don't really care how it's done, as long as it works. I haven't
> read enough theory about COFDM or 8-VSB to choose, and so far
> the FCC hasn't asked for my opinion. I'm just saying that unless TV
> programming is suddenly going to get a lot more intelligent (which I
> doubt) or the Internet is going to take over, OTA needs to be viable.

OTA needs to be viable, I agree.

It is not viable today with 8-VSB and over a very short period of time
it will become far less viable.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 9:41:53 AM

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

inkyblacks@yahoo.com wrote:
> "OTA needs to be viable"
>
> It will be once they cut off analog transmission. Most Americans just
> don't take digital OTA seriously now, but it will be as serious as a
> heart attack when they unplug analog. I think even LG will then
> reconsider their departure from making OTA tuners.
>
> IB
>
The problem is that the politicians can't take the risk of turning off
analog. Even Barton will come to his senses when confronted with
reality. They will have to do something about receivers and or
modulation before anything else. At the moment they are listening to
anyone who will tell them what they want to here. That would be RCA at
the moment.

RCA says no problem we have cheap HD tv sets that work well. What a
surprise they are in for.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 9:50:51 AM

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

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 02:06:30 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>Tim Keating wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 19:41:25 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Tim Keating wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 18:06:59 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>From Digital Spy forum
>>>>
>>>>>http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/showthread.php?t=20...
>>>>>
>>>>>MRDAB writes...
>>>>>"Yeah I got my power arc aerial from there. it needs 2 batteries once in
>>>>>a blue moon (use some good duracells) it lives ontop of my wardrobe and
>>>>>is very happily picking up all muxes.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm abt 30 miles from sutton coldfield"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Snip...
>>>>
>>>> The original AV forum poster doesn't mention in which direction he located from Sutton Coldfield; as there are several repeaters deployed
>>>>in and around the SC area. (Many of them well within a 30 mile radius, I.E. The AV forum poster could be right next to a repeater,
>>>>but our resident COFDM Troll would never tell you about that tidbit of info).
>>>>
>>>
>>>I assume he knows wherefrom he gets his signal. He could easily be in a direction from Sutton Coldfield that has no repeater. Here is a map of
>>>transmitter sites.
>>>
>>>http://www.wolfbane.com/articles/ukdmap2.htm
>>
>>
>> Judging by my recent research in thed SC area..
>> I would say the map quoted by your link is incomplete.
>> (I.E. It's missing several transmission towers).
>>
>> Here is a partial MAP of DTV retransmission towers within 56 miles of Sutton Coldfield.. Note: Each tower transmits roughly the same
>> programming.
>>
>> http://www.kswindells.34sp.com/freeview/show.php/localt...
>>
>
>Well according to your map I was wrong. I thought there was three
>repeaters within 30 miles of Sutton Coldfield but there are only two. In
>your post above you say there are "Many of them well within a 30 mile
>radius". The only two I can see on your map are Brierley Hill: 24.6 km
>: 233' and Bromsgrove: 31.9 km : 211', both to the South West.

Soo.. And several of them are just outside of 30 mile
range(48.3km)..

29.. Fenton.. 49.5km
77.. The Wrekin 49.1 km
78.. The Wrekin B 49.1 km

Still speaks to COFDM's problem..
@ 30 to 31 Miles it already needs repeaters to function correctly.

As for the rest of your post .. snippy...
Comparing apples to oranges.. (non-contigous(UK-COFDM) verses
contiguous(US-8VSB)

The UK's OTA COFDM coverage is spotty as best. No contiguous
coverage.

B.T.W.. The UK has a one time payment (150 pounds, no monthly
charges) satellite service to fill in the transmission gaps. Note:
Sat users still have to pay the UK's annual TV tax.
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 10:15:39 AM

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

inkyblacks@yahoo.com wrote:
> "We have documented a $3.50 price difference for the chip and a $5.40
> IP"
>
> I don't know what you mean by "IP", but you are comparing the cost of a standard definition COFDM receiver chip with a high definition 8-VSB
> chip. Europe does not have OTA HD, so your comparison is false. Then you talk about antenna costs, but in your own tests the 5th generation
> LG chip did best with a simple loop antenna, which can be had on the Web for as little as $.29 each at SJGreatDeals.com.

IP stands for Intellectual Property. LG charges around $6 for its
patents for 8-VSB while the DVB-T COFDM standard charges $.60 or 1/10 as
much.

The chips we are comparing are for demodulation and the COFDM chip was
fully compliant with all DVB-T so that includes HD. While there are
chips that do both demodulating and decoding I don't think the $8 price
you gave is for such a chip. Nor do I know the state of such chips in
the 8-VSB side.
>
> Chips are made now with a 90 nanometer process and will soon go down to 65 nanometers. They will only get smaller and cheaper. I do not see
> a significant long term cost benefit.

I think that 8-VSB cost is on a plateau as far as cost and as cost come
down the IP cost will be and ever greater % of the total.
>
> Also didn't South Korea recently pick 8-VSB over COFDM as their transmission standard? They must have all the facts, yet they picked
> 8-VSB. Why?

S.Korea picked 8-VSB in 1998 when the US did without testing. Their
broadcasters refused to use it till a few months ago after being
promised that they could use COFDM in other spectrum. They also were
demonstrated the 5th generation chip. For years they had the courage to
stand up to their government. Taiwan went one better, their broadcasters
almost rioted in their Congress until they switched from 8-VSB which
they had officially chosen and named COFDM the national modulation.
>
> You always say how lucky the British are to have their TV system, but in about 3 minutes I am going to watch DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES in 720p.
> Can they do that in London for free OTA? I have been enjoying FREE HDTV for almost a year now, and for most Europeans HDTV is still a pipe
> dream.
>
> IB
>
True but that will not change the fact that their modulation is far
better than ours. They made a decision not to go with HD resolution,
that is a completely different decision and has little to do with
whether or not you deliver HD. They could have just as easily have
decided to go with HD, they did not.

But that has nothing to do with modulation.

And I never say that I think the the UK is lucky to have their TV
system. I think they should have waited a year or two and gone with an
8K COFDM system that would have been far better and I think that they
should have allowed for HD also. They will have a tough time switching
to HD terrestrial later. They will and do have the option of HD from
satellite and some of it may be free. There are two free satellite
ventures in the works. SKY offers a free satellite package and I think
the BBC is working on one. Maybe they will include HD.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 11:13:21 AM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> inkyblacks@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Bob,
>>
>> I was again accused of being 'you' over at AVS Forum because I asked
>> what is the difference between the front end of a 8-VSB tuner and the
>> front end of a COFDM tuner. You keep saying it is cheaper to make a
>> COFDM tuner, but with 8-VSB receiver chips priced so low ($8.), how can
>> that be? A COFDM HDTV receiver will need a scaler and the same
>> up-front components as a 8-VSB receiver,...right? Also you seem to be
>> comparing the cost of USA 1080i/720p capable receivers with UK's
>> meager 600 line capable receivers. Isn't some of the price difference
>> due to
>> the fact that one is high definition and the other is not?
>>
>> IB (not Bob Miller - laughs!)
>>
>
> http://www.angliac.com/newsarchive/858.asp?article_id=1...
>
> The latest single chip COFDM from STMicroelectronics is $4.50
>
> And then you have IP cost of at least $6 for 8-VSB compared to 60 Cents
> for COFDM.
>
> After they mark up these differing cost and factor in real market size,
> that is what they can realistically sell, you have a pretty wide price
> differential.
>
> We have documented a $3.50 price difference for the chip and a $5.40 IP
> cost difference which totals $8.90. Mark that up a couple times and you
> have real money.

Of course bob completely ignores standard practices. Purchased IP does
not get marked up the same way as purchased built goods. He keeps
inflating the IP costs to defend the indefensible. Even LG told him, and
he quoted them, that the modulation scheme had very little impact on
price when compared to the HD decoding section.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 11:16:56 AM

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

inkyblacks@yahoo.com wrote:
> "OTA needs to be viable"
>
> It will be once they cut off analog transmission. Most Americans just
> don't take digital OTA seriously now, but it will be as serious as a
> heart attack when they unplug analog. I think even LG will then
> reconsider their departure from making OTA tuners.
>

As will all the other electronics manufacturers. Once Congress sets a
date certain for analog shutoff, the planning for production of tens of
millions of STBs for SD output will begin to be laid. Until then, any
movement in that direction is a waste of time and money.

It doesn't take a Harvard MBA to figure this out, but it does take a lot
more than bob appears to have.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 11:18:33 AM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> L David Matheny wrote:
>
>> No. I don't really care how it's done, as long as it works. I haven't
>> read enough theory about COFDM or 8-VSB to choose, and so far
>> the FCC hasn't asked for my opinion. I'm just saying that unless TV
>> programming is suddenly going to get a lot more intelligent (which I
>> doubt) or the Internet is going to take over, OTA needs to be viable.
>
>
> OTA needs to be viable, I agree.
>
> It is not viable today with 8-VSB and over a very short period of time
> it will become far less viable.
>

Given your track record on predictions (100% wrong) I would say it might
be time to invest on OTA broadcast companies.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 11:20:49 AM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> inkyblacks@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> "OTA needs to be viable"
>>
>> It will be once they cut off analog transmission. Most Americans just
>> don't take digital OTA seriously now, but it will be as serious as a
>> heart attack when they unplug analog. I think even LG will then
>> reconsider their departure from making OTA tuners.
>> IB
>>
> The problem is that the politicians can't take the risk of turning off
> analog. Even Barton will come to his senses when confronted with
> reality. They will have to do something about receivers and or
> modulation before anything else. At the moment they are listening to
> anyone who will tell them what they want to here. That would be RCA at
> the moment.
>
> RCA says no problem we have cheap HD tv sets that work well. What a
> surprise they are in for.
>

Congress has already set the GAO on the task of figuring out the cost of
subsidizing the digital conversion. Esitmates in the $10 billion range
are being bandied about.

They aren't wasting a single cycle on the modulation scheme.


--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 11:26:00 AM

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

Bob Miller wrote:

> The chips we are comparing are for demodulation and the COFDM chip was
> fully compliant with all DVB-T so that includes HD.

So what? Being able to demodulate the data is the cheapest part of an HD
receiver. You should know this since you quoted an LG response to your
question about fifth generation receivers. That response clearly stated
that the demodulation scheme was far cheaper than the HD decoding subsystem.

Keep on lying, bob. You will be called on it _every_ time.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
April 4, 2005 12:15:30 PM

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

U.K. Reception problems?
Problems with Freeview? a.. Interference? There's nothing more
annoying than interference, pixelation, or the Freeview red dot when
watching your favourite show. Here are a few bits of advice on improving
your signal:
a.. Upgrade your aerial - This is always the best bet. Seek
professional advice and get the best that you can afford. More details can
be found elsewhere on this page.





More at:
http://www.radioandtelly.co.uk/tvfaq.html

Our U.S. 8VSB system really is excellent, having practically *zero* reported
issues with impulse noise/interference.
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 12:25:14 PM

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

David wrote:
> U.K. Reception problems?
> Problems with Freeview? a.. Interference? There's nothing more
> annoying than interference, pixelation, or the Freeview red dot when
> watching your favourite show. Here are a few bits of advice on improving
> your signal:
> a.. Upgrade your aerial - This is always the best bet. Seek
> professional advice and get the best that you can afford. More details can
> be found elsewhere on this page.
>
>
>
>
>
> More at:
> http://www.radioandtelly.co.uk/tvfaq.html
>
> Our U.S. 8VSB system really is excellent, having practically *zero* reported
> issues with impulse noise/interference.

However, bob, the one trick pony, claims that all of the 8-VSB reception
problems are multi-path. He's gone so far to say that improving an
antenna system will not improve ATSC reception.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 12:37:05 PM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:zqV3e.4490$x4.2073@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> ...
> And I predict that these new age broadcaster will align themselves with
> broadband Internet seamlessly both tirelessly and fixed in your living
> room.
> ...

Though I have always been enamored with anything that is broadcast
over-the-air (radio or television), I can imagine myself being attracted to
television over the Internet. Why? Because maybe some clever entrepreneurs
will realize that there are many people who, like me, what to choose the
television stations a la carte. As I've said before on this newsgroup, I
currently buy cable TV from Comcast. I don't like paying for many channels
I never watch. (I watch at most 10 or 15 channels out of several hundred.)

I would pay for TV over the Internet if:

1) I could pay for only those channels I want
2) The quality of the channels was as good as that from any other medium
3) Some of the channels were high definition
4) The total cost to me was less than what I now pay for Comcast

Neil
Salem, MA USA
April 4, 2005 2:47:27 PM

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

"Phil Ross" <paross@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:gLG3e.8747$V62.1847@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Why are you so hell bet on trading some 8VSB multi-path problems for COFDM
> impulse noise problems? Oh, that right, you don't watch (H)DTV, so it
> doesn't matter to you. Get over it. COFDM just ain't gonna happen here for
> commercial OTA television. I'm pretty happy with the current state of the
> art, and it is just going to get better, so buzz off, will ya?

LOL, I read that UK forum for about 30 seconds and saw this:

"info to stop interference?

In my house we have 4 stbs they are all connected to one airel via a four
way booster; the signal strengh is very good, the power levels are good, but
we still get a lot of iterference. This happens whenever the washing machine
clicks to another part of its cycle, whenever a mobile phone ring,(this is
upstairs only.) So could somone pleeease help, any surrgestions would be
greatly appreciated, thanks"



Anyway, bob can't line his mobile datacasting pockets with 8vsb... which is
such a shame.
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 3:18:53 PM

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

There is no way in hell Congress is going to spend 10 billion dollars
on a digital transmission subsidy. I would guess 2 billion at most.
They want to make money selling off the dead airspace, not lose it to
people who can afford to buy new TVs or cheap adapters. The adapter
boxes can be $80. each or less. 2 billion buys allot of them. Even
most people on welfare have cable and don't use their OTA analog
receivers anyway.

IB
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 3:33:49 PM

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

Neil - Salem, MA USA (Neil@Salem.Massachusetts.USA) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> I would pay for TV over the Internet if:
>
> 1) I could pay for only those channels I want
> 2) The quality of the channels was as good as that from any other medium
> 3) Some of the channels were high definition
> 4) The total cost to me was less than what I now pay for Comcast

Although you might win because Comcast is incredibly overpriced, in general
you can't cherry-pick channels and save money. This is because the content
owners bundle channels that reduce the price of many channels to clost to
"cost". If they were sold separately, they might cost $2/each (similar to
ESPN) instead of the $0.20/each they cost in the bundle.

This has to do with the fact that advertising cost is calculated based on
both actual ratings and prospective ratings, so if a channel is only in 1M
homes, it won't be able to charge much for advertising unless it has Super
Bowl-like ratings for shows. Channels that are available to 80M (or more)
homes can charge more for advertising.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/Workaholic.gi...
!