Next year hdtv law comes into effect

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

Thats when all manufacturers of television have to have hdtv. My
question is 'will that finally end paying extra for watching hd
channels?'

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

X-No-archive: yes

"Boothbay" <harri85274@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1121796282.699884.256080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Thats when all manufacturers of television have to have hdtv. My
> question is 'will that finally end paying extra for watching hd
> channels?'
>
================================
there is no such law. All TV will eventually be digital, however.
I get all the local HD stations free now. At least 7 HD via antenna.
Another 5 DTV free via antenna.
================================

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

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:48:48 -0700, Brad Houser
<bradDOThouser@intel.com> wrote:

>On 19 Jul 2005 11:04:42 -0700, Boothbay wrote:
>
>> Thats when all manufacturers of television have to have hdtv. My
>> question is 'will that finally end paying extra for watching hd
>> channels?'
>
>You don't have to pay extra for Over the Air Digital TV.
>
>Cable and satellite can still charge extra if they want.
>
>Brad H


Most of them don't.
Thumper

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

> Sounds like your talking about inner city demographics. If so the
> receivers that Congress is talking about subsidizing will not work in
> inner cities so not only will your poor inner city be on the street they
> will be mad as hell that their TV isn't working and will have something
> to throw at a tempting target, a non functioning government issue 8-VSB
> receiver.
>

You just can't make a post without a jab at 8-VSB, can you? Simply
amazing.

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

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 08:37:39 -0400 Michael J. Sherman <msherman@dsbox.com> wrote:

|> Sounds like your talking about inner city demographics. If so the
|> receivers that Congress is talking about subsidizing will not work in
|> inner cities so not only will your poor inner city be on the street they
|> will be mad as hell that their TV isn't working and will have something
|> to throw at a tempting target, a non functioning government issue 8-VSB
|> receiver.
|>
|
| You just can't make a post without a jab at 8-VSB, can you? Simply
| amazing.

He definitely wants to make sure that poor people in rural areas are the
ones to lose their TV.

I'm not convinced, myself, that 8-VSB is the very best choice, but it is
close enough that I'm not worrying about it. My choice would be a method
I came up with back in 1979. But it never got consideration at all, most
likely because it is either unknown or too complicated for engineers.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 07:22:28 -0700 Richard C. <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote:
| X-No-archive: yes
|
| <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
| newsbjt5402i9j@news3.newsguy.com...
|
|> That would be NTSC analog. SD over DTV at the same timing as NTSC
|
| ==============================
| No, that is totally wrong.
| SD DTV is ATSC, not NTSC.
| An NTSC set will not work without a converter (receiver STB)

SD still going to be sent at the same frame rate as NTSC in places where
NTSC is the common standard (e.g. North America and Japan).

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 08:37:39 -0400 Michael J. Sherman <msherman@dsbox.com> wrote:
>
> |> Sounds like your talking about inner city demographics. If so the
> |> receivers that Congress is talking about subsidizing will not work in
> |> inner cities so not only will your poor inner city be on the street they
> |> will be mad as hell that their TV isn't working and will have something
> |> to throw at a tempting target, a non functioning government issue 8-VSB
> |> receiver.
> |>
> |
> | You just can't make a post without a jab at 8-VSB, can you? Simply
> | amazing.
>
> He definitely wants to make sure that poor people in rural areas are the
> ones to lose their TV.

Poor people in rural areas will not lose their DTV with COFDM as
Australia, China and Russia found in their decisions for COFDM. They
have massive rural areas and decided that COFDM would do as well if not
better in the far field. The far field has multipath problems too. The
latest 8-VSB receiver technology is better but that does not mean it is
anywhere near as good as the worst COFDM receiver.

>
> I'm not convinced, myself, that 8-VSB is the very best choice, but it is
> close enough that I'm not worrying about it. My choice would be a method
> I came up with back in 1979. But it never got consideration at all, most
> likely because it is either unknown or too complicated for engineers.
>

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

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:10:51 -0700 Richard C. <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote:
| X-No-archive: yes
|
| <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
| newsbm2jc12sv2@news3.newsguy.com...
|> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 07:22:28 -0700 Richard C. <post-age@spamcop.net>
|> wrote:
|> | X-No-archive: yes
|> |
|> | <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
|> | newsbjt5402i9j@news3.newsguy.com...
|> |
|> |> That would be NTSC analog. SD over DTV at the same timing as NTSC
|> |
|> | ==============================
|> | No, that is totally wrong.
|> | SD DTV is ATSC, not NTSC.
|> | An NTSC set will not work without a converter (receiver STB)
|>
|> SD still going to be sent at the same frame rate as NTSC in places where
|> NTSC is the common standard (e.g. North America and Japan).
|>
| ================================================
| But it is not the same as NTSC.

But it has the same timing. That is what I said before. It is the video
that originates as NTSC or as components originally intended for use as
NTSC (and may also simultaneously be used for NTSC anyway). You can see
the NTSC origins in it, at least with the frame timing.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:50:56 -0400 Tim Keating <NotForJunkEmail@directinternet11.com1> wrote:
>
> | You will never be able to select the "very best choice".
> |
> | The "very best choice" is always a moving target, at some point
> | you must stop and standardize otherwise you get nowhere.
>
> Standardization can still be done by allowing both systems, letting which
> works best in a given location to be used.

The FCC tried this with AM-Stereo. That is an excellent example of why
your suggestion is a _bad_ idea.

> | The "Very best choice" for one solution is often a poor choice
> | when consider in the light of other factors..
>
> True. Hence my suggestion of using 2 systems.

See above. Two systems are not a standard.

> | Lastly 8VSB technology works reliably right out the radio horizon
> | without impacting current broadcasting methods. You can't ask for a
> | much better solution.
>
> It apparently has faults for in-city viewers regarding effects of ghosting.

COFDM has its own problems for in-city viewers regarding impulse noise.

> | As for anything invented in 1979.. (pre DSP days). I doubt you
> | could fit the necessary payload of 19.3 Mbps of error corrected
> | bandwidth, (raw payload 26.6Mbps), in the allotted spectrum (5.3Mhz)
> | without requiring some ungodly amount of Signal to Noise ratio.
>
> We'll see.

Does physics work differently where you live?

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:20:34 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> |> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:50:56 -0400 Tim Keating <NotForJunkEmail@directinternet11.com1> wrote:
> |>
> |> | You will never be able to select the "very best choice".
> |> |
> |> | The "very best choice" is always a moving target, at some point
> |> | you must stop and standardize otherwise you get nowhere.
> |>
> |> Standardization can still be done by allowing both systems, letting which
> |> works best in a given location to be used.
> |
> | The FCC tried this with AM-Stereo. That is an excellent example of why
> | your suggestion is a _bad_ idea.
>
> Stereo on AM has nothing to do with TV. Stereo on AM would be doomed
> to fail to matter what method was used to modulate 2 channels on it.
> So this comparison means squat.

It seems that you only mean to argue. The AM-Stereo effort was large,
involved many major and minor players, cost the companies and taxpayers
a lot of money. It would have succeeded if the FCC had ratified a
standard instead of leaving it to "market forces".

> |> | The "Very best choice" for one solution is often a poor choice
> |> | when consider in the light of other factors..
> |>
> |> True. Hence my suggestion of using 2 systems.
> |
> | See above. Two systems are not a standard.
>
> Sure they are. A receiver can be made to recognize which is being sent
> and receive that. It becomes a standard when it is decided to go with
> that.

You expect big city stations to broadast one in one system for the city
and another for the suburbs? That's economically DOA.

> |> | Lastly 8VSB technology works reliably right out the radio horizon
> |> | without impacting current broadcasting methods. You can't ask for a
> |> | much better solution.
> |>
> |> It apparently has faults for in-city viewers regarding effects of ghosting.
> |
> | COFDM has its own problems for in-city viewers regarding impulse noise.
>
> Whatever.

So, you have nothing to talk about? You want broadcasters to use to
systems and you have no interest in the deficiencies of one of them?

> |> | As for anything invented in 1979.. (pre DSP days). I doubt you
> |> | could fit the necessary payload of 19.3 Mbps of error corrected
> |> | bandwidth, (raw payload 26.6Mbps), in the allotted spectrum (5.3Mhz)
> |> | without requiring some ungodly amount of Signal to Noise ratio.
> |>
> |> We'll see.
> |
> | Does physics work differently where you live?
>
> Do you even understand physics?
>

Apparently better than you do.

HAND
--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

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

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:50:56 -0400 Tim Keating
>> <NotForJunkEmail@directinternet11.com1> wrote:
>>
>> | You will never be able to select the "very best choice".
>> | | The "very best choice" is always a moving target, at some point
>> | you must stop and standardize otherwise you get nowhere.
>>
>> Standardization can still be done by allowing both systems, letting which
>> works best in a given location to be used.
>
>
> The FCC tried this with AM-Stereo. That is an excellent example of why
> your suggestion is a _bad_ idea.

How about AM and FM, was that a bad idea?
>
>> | The "Very best choice" for one solution is often a poor choice
>> | when consider in the light of other factors..
>> True. Hence my suggestion of using 2 systems.
>
>
> See above. Two systems are not a standard.

And why not have two standards?
>
>> | Lastly 8VSB technology works reliably right out the radio horizon | without impacting current broadcasting methods. You can't ask for a
>> | much better solution.

You can ask for a number of better solutions, DVB-T, DMB-T, ISDB-T. Any
of these are far better solutions. 8-VSB works reliably right out to the
radio horizon? What are you smoking? It doesn't even work 8 blocks from
the Empire State Building where they have MegaWatts of power. 80-VSB is
a joke, the absolute worst modulation in the world.
>>
>> It apparently has faults for in-city viewers regarding effects of ghosting.


>
>
> COFDM has its own problems for in-city viewers regarding impulse noise.

Lets see in France they sold 300,000 receivers in the first three
months, no mandate. In Japan they have sold over 5 million receivers of
which 95% are integrated HD sets in their first 16 months, NO MANDATE,
Italy is going crazy in their first year, NO MANDATE. The UK is
approaching 7 million receivers sold in their first three years, NO
MANDATE. All these people are really put off by there insurmountable
impulse noise problems? NOT.

It is the US where the DTV OTA transition is stalled because of
problems, no receivers in the stores, no advertising, no enthusiasm even
by broadcasters. In general OTA in the US is just dead. Not so in most
other countries that are transitioning. Most are seeing a major rebirth
of OTA that is already threatening Satellite and Cable.

>
>> | As for anything invented in 1979.. (pre DSP days). I doubt you
>> | could fit the necessary payload of 19.3 Mbps of error corrected
>> | bandwidth, (raw payload 26.6Mbps), in the allotted spectrum (5.3Mhz)
>> | without requiring some ungodly amount of Signal to Noise ratio.
>> We'll see.
>
>
> Does physics work differently where you live?
>

I will bite what is this raw payload of 26.6 Mbps?

Bob Miller

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

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 04:38:12 GMT Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:


|> | So, you have nothing to talk about? You want broadcasters to use to
|> | systems and you have no interest in the deficiencies of one of them?
|>
|> You must not be reading what I said. The broadcaster would have a choice.
|> If they happen to have two different stations, they can make a different
|> choice in each one.
|
| Broadcasters would have NO choice. If COFDM was allowed any sane
| broadcaster would use COFDM.

You seem to be convinced that COFDM is the perfect ideal solution for
everything. Based on what I have read in a few places, and support by
the opinions of many, COFDM doesn't serve as well as 8-VSB for distant
reception. But you are simply wrong when you say that they have no
choice when given a choice. Did you forget your coffee this morning?

If it turns out every station chooses COFDM then so be it. That would
be the situation that proves the broadcasters all do believe in it.
And if they stick with that choice, it would show that COFDM works best
for all. Until then, I'm not convinced. (for either system).

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 04:25:36 GMT Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Matthew L. Martin wrote:
|> phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|>
|>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:50:56 -0400 Tim Keating
|>> <NotForJunkEmail@directinternet11.com1> wrote:
|>>
|>> | You will never be able to select the "very best choice".
|>> | | The "very best choice" is always a moving target, at some point
|>> | you must stop and standardize otherwise you get nowhere.
|>>
|>> Standardization can still be done by allowing both systems, letting which
|>> works best in a given location to be used.
|>
|>
|> The FCC tried this with AM-Stereo. That is an excellent example of why
|> your suggestion is a _bad_ idea.
|
| How about AM and FM, was that a bad idea?

No. It was a limited choice. It certainly was better than forcing all
AM broadcasters to switch to FM. But I am speaking of the frequencies
these classes of stations would have been operating in as well. These
being analog systems, there was not such much possible diversity in the
way the systems could work. The choices made in the FM mode (deviation,
for example) were not something that receivers of the day could
automatically detect and handle.


|>> | The "Very best choice" for one solution is often a poor choice
|>> | when consider in the light of other factors..
|>> True. Hence my suggestion of using 2 systems.
|>
|>
|> See above. Two systems are not a standard.
|
| And why not have two standards?

A choice between AM and FM would also be a choice about how much bandwidth
is needed. FM, with the parameters chosen, needs 800 kHz channel spacing
between stations in the same location. AM needs a lot less. The choice
did in fact exist, but it was bound to a particular allocation scheme on
different bands because intermixing them would have had allocation problems.
Additionally, FM with the parameters chosen for the VHF band would not have
worked in the MF band at all due to the huge bandwidth. The allocation
strategies would have to be all different.

If FM had been designed for the 10 kHz channel, it could have been
allowed on the MF band. But FM wouldn't give any better audio at high
frequencies in such a limited bandwidth. Top modulation would still be
5 kHz and the extra sidebands would have to be cut off.

Digital modes designed to work in the 6 MHz channel width would all
have the same allocation strategy, so they can readily be chosen in
individual cases. The choice between 8-VSB and COFDM, or even 16-QAM,
doesn't really change how the allocations of channels needs to be done.


| You can ask for a number of better solutions, DVB-T, DMB-T, ISDB-T. Any
| of these are far better solutions. 8-VSB works reliably right out to the
| radio horizon? What are you smoking? It doesn't even work 8 blocks from
| the Empire State Building where they have MegaWatts of power. 80-VSB is
| a joke, the absolute worst modulation in the world.

A test in Manhattan means squat for anything other than reception in
Manhattan. And in a city like that, even analog didn't work very well,
so most viewers would be on cable, anyway.


| Lets see in France they sold 300,000 receivers in the first three
| months, no mandate. In Japan they have sold over 5 million receivers of
| which 95% are integrated HD sets in their first 16 months, NO MANDATE,
| Italy is going crazy in their first year, NO MANDATE. The UK is
| approaching 7 million receivers sold in their first three years, NO
| MANDATE. All these people are really put off by there insurmountable
| impulse noise problems? NOT.
|
| It is the US where the DTV OTA transition is stalled because of
| problems, no receivers in the stores, no advertising, no enthusiasm even
| by broadcasters. In general OTA in the US is just dead. Not so in most
| other countries that are transitioning. Most are seeing a major rebirth
| of OTA that is already threatening Satellite and Cable.

And you think millions of viewers are making these decisions because of
8-VSB? That is definitely some awesome weed you have there.

So far everyone I know who could buy a digital TV and isn't, is holding
back because of the "broadcast flag" (the name really should be the
"screw the viewer public flag" ) issue. Some argue they don't want to
be stuck with a set that can't decrypt content that might be broadcast
in just a few years. Others argue they are boycotting digital OTA TV
simply because they don't want these kinds of things in there at all.

Additionally, the US is still in an economic recession that "W" refuses
to acknowledge exists. It happens to hit some major population segments
harder who would otherwise be the ones to lead the early buying into of
DTV.

All these things combined can have a significant effect.


|>> | As for anything invented in 1979.. (pre DSP days). I doubt you
|>> | could fit the necessary payload of 19.3 Mbps of error corrected
|>> | bandwidth, (raw payload 26.6Mbps), in the allotted spectrum (5.3Mhz)
|>> | without requiring some ungodly amount of Signal to Noise ratio.
|>> We'll see.
|>
|>
|> Does physics work differently where you live?
|>
|
| I will bite what is this raw payload of 26.6 Mbps?

I believe what he meant by raw payload is the actual bits that hit the
modulator, including content, block framing, and all forward error
correction bits. There might be something else in there; I have not
looked at just how the framing is done with ATSC.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

On 22 Jul 2005 14:08:34 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:


>So far everyone I know who could buy a digital TV and isn't, is holding
>back because of the "broadcast flag" (the name really should be the
>"screw the viewer public flag" ) issue. Some argue they don't want to
>be stuck with a set that can't decrypt content that might be broadcast
>in just a few years. Others argue they are boycotting digital OTA TV
>simply because they don't want these kinds of things in there at all.

Broadcast flag doesn't encrypt the original transmission..
it's just a bit set in the ATSC data stream.

Thus any HDTV receivers already purchased will continue to work in
the foreseeable future.

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

On 22 Jul 2005 16:17:52 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:59:55 GMT Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>| Every single broadcaster in the world given any kind of say in the
>| digital modulation they would use has chosen COFDM. Some have almost

As usual.. Booby isn't telling the whole story..


COFDM in the US was disqualified for many reasons.. here are
just a few.


1. It used up too much of the guard band for each 6Mhz freq
assignment. (COFDM 5.7Mhz vs 8VSB 5.3Mhz) and it radiated too much
noise into the adjacent NTSC channels.. (interference)

Note: In the US, large numbers of existing TV stations required decade
long transistion usage of adjacent channel assignments.


2. It required significantly more xmit power when compared to
8VSB, at least 6dB disadvantage (theoretical for COFDM QAM-64) and
upwards of 26dB to overcome local impulse noise issues. (More xmit
power, more problems with item #1)

3. Many little stick COFDM xmiters aren't compatible with existing
Big stick NTSC broadcasts. Where each little stick xmiter radiates
excess cross channel interference in a zone around each antenna.
(More local xmit power, more local #1 problems receiving distant
adjacent channel NTSC broadcasts.)

The only way to insure uniform cross channel interference is to
~collocate adjacent channel big stick xmiters/antennas. That way the
atmospheric losses will be similar for both channels resulting in
similar S/N ratios throughout the reception area. But COFDM wasn't
designed for big stick which results in more #2.

4. Getting zoning waivers for placement of little stick
antennas(500 to 700 ft) is not feasible and incurs huge overhead.
(Also requires very high pop density to be cost effective. ) I.E. The
local little stick xmiter and antenna tower must be amortized over a
limited viewer market which is not cost effective for 80 to 90% of the
US. (Too many channels avail to the viewers == negative ROI for COFDM
in areas with low pop densities).

5. Many little xmiters would also cause a maintenace/service
nightmare. It only takes one engineer to watch over a pair of
centrally located big stick xmiters (NTSC & 8VSB). Not so for
hundreds of low profit margin little sticks spread out over the
countryside. Same goes for backup power, stations have large gennys
to run both studios and xmiters. A geographically spread out xmit
grid would be far less reliable. (A lot more components to fail, and
a much longer time to repair).

Note: This is just a partial list.. I could list many more.

In the end.. COFDM wasn't even on the FCC's radar screen.
And Booby is just crying tears his failed business schema.

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:59:55 GMT Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> | Every single broadcaster in the world given any kind of say in the
> | digital modulation they would use has chosen COFDM. Some have almost
> | rioted for COFDM. Others have refused en masse to use 8-VSB for long
> | periods. Only those broadcasters under threats and intimidation
> | acquiesced to 8-VSB. That is the record. CBS would possibly be the only
> | exception on this planet but only as to past decisions. Having the
> | option today of choosing between COFDM and 8-VSB even ignorant
> | troglodytes like those at CBS would have to chose COFDM IMO or be
> | laughed off the air.
>
> When I get a chance, I'll call up some random broadcasters and ask
> them which they would prefer if they had the choice.
>
Good idea. Make sure you talk to an engineer not a lawyer, salesman or
accountant.

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

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:07:56 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
|> City stations (for example, New York, Dallas, Los Angeles) might choose
|> COFDM, while more rural stations (for example Oak Hill WV, North Platte NB)
|> might choose 8-VSB.
|
| This is where you show you don't understand US TV stations.
|
| The Oak Hill, WV station (there is only one) really only needs to cover out
| to a radius of about 40 miles from the tower, since it is an ABC/UPN
| affiliate, and there ABC and UPN affiliates in Charleston (38 miles away)
| and Roanoke (80 miles away).

This is where you show you don't understand the locality.

WOAY is regularly received well beyond the reach of WCHS. It is watched
as far north as Clarksburg, and as far northwest as Spencer (any further
becomes a co-channel problem with WCMH from Columbus OH). In the south
direction, it is watched even in Virginia where it is too far west of WSET
(in Lynchburg, not Roanoke) to get that signal very well. WOAY has the
best coverage of West Virginia of all the stations in the state. WSAZ in
Huntington probably has a larger coverage in total, but much of it is in
Ohio and Kentucky. This situation even existed way back in the 1960's
when both WOAY and WCHS were CBS affiliates.

Receiving duplicate affiliates is in fact quite common through much of
the state. It is significantly rural and ranges from hilly to mountainous.
It requires big antennas to get anything, and once you have a monster beam
on top of the hill, you get lots of channels. My grandfather's setup in
Sutton WV received:
2 KDKA Pittsburgh (the first station he ever got in the early 50's)
3 WSAZ Huntington
4 WOAY Oak Hill
5 WDTV Weston
6 WVVA Bluefield (a bit snowy but watchable, can't remember former call)
7 WDBJ Roanoke & WTRF Wheeling (too much interference to watch)
8 WCHS Charleston
9 WSWP Beckley
10 WSLS Roanoke (too snowy most of the time, but ID-able)
11 WPXI Pittsburgh (formerly WIIC, rather snowy, almost watchable)
12 WBOY Clarksburg
13 WOWK Huntington (formerly WHTN)
Eventually channel 24 and channel 33 were also added. We tried, but were
never able to get channel 15 WTAP from Parkersburg even though channel 20
WOUB from Athens would actually come in.

City folks were used to having their first stations located very close to
them, and never needed to try picking up distant stations (unless they were
into DX-ing). KDKA came on the air the first of all those listed above,
and people all over northern and much of central WV picked it up. It took
big antennas to do it. But they got used to getting distant stations. So
although Pittsburgh lost favor for much of West Virginia viewers, they were
used to having duplicate affiliate stations, and it is considered the norm.

FYI, WOAY actually ran their own locally produced "big time" wrestling on
late night TV, live, back in the 1960's. The reasons to pick up "duplicate"
stations was much for the local programming. WHTN (now WOWK) used to play
old black and white movies until around 3 AM on Friday and Saturday night.
Now days perhaps it isn't as much that way with all the syndication going
on. But local programming in the area used to be a big thing.


| The stations in New York, Dallas, and LA all need to cover *much* larger
| areas...sometimes as much as as 70 miles away.

The West Virginia stations may not "need" to cover larger areas the way you
see it, but it is the norm there. WOAY covers well over 100 miles easily,
150 in some directions.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

>
> Broadcasters would have NO choice. If COFDM was allowed any sane
> broadcaster would use COFDM.
>>

Still whoring for Sinclair? You should be ashamed. Your company has done
advanced TV more
harm with all the false information and doubt you have placed in minds of
consumers.

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

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 00:24:52 GMT Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:

| It is the US with its C**P modulation 8-VSB that is having a problem,
| using mandates, trying to force consumers to buy C**P receivers that
| they refuse to buy, which retailers refuse to sell and which when you
| find one is on special in an open box because it was returned. No
| advertising, no displays of receivers, no salespersons who know much if
| anything about OTA receivers, is there anything that is going right with
| 8-VSB?

I asked around at work today who has bought DTV, and if not, why not.
Most answers were "not enough stations with HD content". Some were
"no product available" (in smaller than the big screen stuff that the
manufacturer push on everyone). One was "still too expensive". I asked
about whether the USA's choice of 8-VSB over COFDM that the rest of the
world uses is influencing their choice. None of them understood what
that even was.

It seems the 8-VSB vs. COFDM debate is relatively unknown to the average
consumer.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 00:24:52 GMT Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> | It is the US with its C**P modulation 8-VSB that is having a problem,
> | using mandates, trying to force consumers to buy C**P receivers that
> | they refuse to buy, which retailers refuse to sell and which when you
> | find one is on special in an open box because it was returned. No
> | advertising, no displays of receivers, no salespersons who know much if
> | anything about OTA receivers, is there anything that is going right with
> | 8-VSB?
>
> I asked around at work today who has bought DTV, and if not, why not.
> Most answers were "not enough stations with HD content". Some were
> "no product available" (in smaller than the big screen stuff that the
> manufacturer push on everyone). One was "still too expensive". I asked
> about whether the USA's choice of 8-VSB over COFDM that the rest of the
> world uses is influencing their choice. None of them understood what
> that even was.
>

Don't any other countries use 8-VSB?

> It seems the 8-VSB vs. COFDM debate is relatively unknown to the average
> consumer.
>

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

tim@nocomment.com wrote:
> phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 00:24:52 GMT Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> | It is the US with its C**P modulation 8-VSB that is having a
>> problem, | using mandates, trying to force consumers to buy C**P
>> receivers that | they refuse to buy, which retailers refuse to sell
>> and which when you | find one is on special in an open box because it
>> was returned. No | advertising, no displays of receivers, no
>> salespersons who know much if | anything about OTA receivers, is there
>> anything that is going right with | 8-VSB?
>>
>> I asked around at work today who has bought DTV, and if not, why not.
>> Most answers were "not enough stations with HD content". Some were
>> "no product available" (in smaller than the big screen stuff that the
>> manufacturer push on everyone). One was "still too expensive". I asked
>> about whether the USA's choice of 8-VSB over COFDM that the rest of the
>> world uses is influencing their choice. None of them understood what
>> that even was.
>>
>
> Don't any other countries use 8-VSB?
>>
Yes. S. Korea after broadcasters there refused to use it for seven
years, had their own test of COFDM and 8-VSB and concluded that COFDM
was far superior, defied the government until the they allowed COFDM on
other spectrum for mobile and the advent of the LG 5th gen receiver
which gave them some hope.

Canada and Mexico also use 8-VSB mainly because of their borders with
the US. But neither Canada or Mexico is doing very much with DTV.

The US put lots of pressure on Australia and Taiwan to go with 8-VSB but
OZ tested themselves at the demand of their broadcasters and switched to
COFDM. Broadcasters in Taiwan almost rioted in their Congress to have
the official decision for 8-VSB rescinded and it was.

The US is holding out for Brazil which has been making up its mind now
for many years but seems in no hurry and did its own testing which
showed the Japanese COFDM ISDB-T modulation as best. They are
considering testing again. If they do then 8-VSB has no chance since
COFDM modulations have progressed a lot since 2000 and the world is now
flooded with inexpensive COFDM receivers and success stories.

Bob Miller

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

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 13:58:32 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
|> This is where you show you don't understand the locality.
|>
|> WOAY is regularly received well beyond the reach of WCHS. It is watched
|> as far north as Clarksburg, and as far northwest as Spencer
|
| That's as may be, but it's not where their target audience (that advertisers
| pay for) live, so it really is just a waste of radiation.

Audiences are not distributed in West Virginia the same way they are in
big cities. The advertisers don't necessarily go to the closest station.
I've seen advertisers from all over the state on several WV stations,
including on WOAY.


|> | The stations in New York, Dallas, and LA all need to cover *much* larger
|> | areas...sometimes as much as as 70 miles away.
|>
|> The West Virginia stations may not "need" to cover larger areas the way you
|> see it, but it is the norm there. WOAY covers well over 100 miles easily,
|> 150 in some directions.
|
| Somehow I find it hard to believe the people in Lexington, KY or Winston-
| Salem, NC are itching to watch WOAY from Oak Hill, WV.

Those locations were not mentioned, and are further away.


| Which just goes to show how far you missed the point.

You're thinking I missed your point? You missed mine.


| The Dallas station *has* to cover that area, as there is no other station
| available.

I listed Dallas as a contrast. I didn't say Dallas was like Oak Hill.
To make tests valid, they would have to be done in a variety of local
conditions. Now whether 8-VSB outperformas COFDM in WV or not, I do not
actually know since I didn't carry out the tests. But I have read in
several places that COFDM does well in multi-path cases that plague urban
locations, and 8-VSB does well in longer distance weaker signal rural
locations. If that is true, then it may well be that 8-VSB is really the
better choice for most of the land area of USA, and COFDM is the better
choice for most of the population of USA. Hence I believe there is the
real possibility that if the FCC had given each broadcaster a choice of
8-VSB or COFDM, some would indeed choose 8-VSB to better serve their
locality, while others would choose COFDM. As long as receivers had both,
then the only basis for the decision would be how well the method served
that station's needs.

Giving as an example a station that would do better with COFDM does not in
any way show that no other station would not do better with 8-VSB. That's
just dumb logic to think it would. It is not the case that because a
broadcaster in New York City or Dallas would choose COFDM on technical
merits, that every other broadcaster in the country would have to choose
the same.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:39:27 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
> | Frank Provasek wrote:
> |
> |> <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote
> |>
> |>
> |>>Stereo on AM has nothing to do with TV. Stereo on AM would be doomed
> |>>to fail to matter what method was used to modulate 2 channels on it.
> |>>So this comparison means squat.
> |>>
> |>
> |>
> |> Stereo AM is close to FM quality
> |>
> |> Actual samples
> |>
> |> http://www.geocities.com/amstereo2000/
> |>
> |
> | My bet is that phil-news-nospam will never respond to your post.
> |
> | I listened to the available AM-Stereo systems at an NAM convention in
> | Las Vegas years ago. Your assessment applied to most of them.
>
> It is getting more and more off-topic for alt.tv.tech.hdtv to discuss
> things like AM-stereo. At some point when people drag the topic off, I
> just normally quit responding.


IIRC, you were the one that dragged this subthread off-topic by
dismissing the analogy between the FCC's nonfeasance RE: AM-Stereo with
the result being a complete failure of a multi-billion dollar effort to
revitalize AM radio as compared to your silly assertion that the FCC
should permit two HDTV broadcast modulation schemes.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

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

Jeff Rife wrote:

> Ah, so you don't care about what is actually happening right now in the
> real world, where 8-VSB is serving just fine, with literally a handful of
> people having multipath issues. That same handful would be far worse off
> with COFDM's impulse noise issues, since there is so much more of *that*
> in the city, too.
>

That point has been made plain to him before. He really doesn't care.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

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

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:11e8k73flk97q27@corp.supernews.com...
> Frank Provasek wrote:
>
>> <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote
>>
>>
>>>Stereo on AM has nothing to do with TV. Stereo on AM would be doomed
>>>to fail to matter what method was used to modulate 2 channels on it.
>>>So this comparison means squat.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Stereo AM is close to FM quality
>>
>> Actual samples
>>
>> http://www.geocities.com/amstereo2000/

the spectrum analyzer on the ole mp3 player here shows the high freq
response of both the mono AM and the AM stereo side-by-side comparison clips
on this site to be identical

one needs to go digital to get the compression needed to fit a truly
FM-wideband quality signal on a narrow US AM channel