Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Sinclair still in the GOOD FIGHT!!

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 1:36:31 AM

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

Maybe this time with the NAB losing its leader they will put up a fight
also. The new leader may not have to stick with the mistakes of his
predecessor. There is always hope. As broadcasters get closer to the
fire they may start twitching and screaming even more. It is their
demise after all and the loss to us all of free OTA TV.

Bob Miller

What's Wrong With NAB's Digital Picture?
By Nat Ostroff for Broadcasting & Cable
(Ostroff is VP of new technology for the Sinclair Broadcast Group)

The National Association of Broadcasters, representing itself as
speaking for all broadcasters, has given up the good fight and agreed to
drop the 85%-penetration rule and turn off analog TV in 2009.

The Senate Commerce Committee has decided that 2009 is a good date but
that somehow viewers should not lose their over-the-air receiving
capability. The solution is to supply a “magic” set-top converter box to
all that need and deserve it. Such a box does not yet exist.

In the meantime, the cable forces are refusing to agree to even carry
the complete digital bit stream transmitted by TV stations. They claim
no power should be able to tell them what they will carry on their systems.

Finally, Congress wants to make sure that the public can be reached in
times of emergency and expects over-the-air TV to play a major role in
that effort.

What is wrong with this picture?

The ATSC 8-VSB transmission system simply is not capable of meeting the
needs of the average non–cable-connected viewer.

That transmission system, by the very admission of the FCC Office of
Engineering and Technology, is only a rooftop receiving-antenna system
and always will be. All efforts to date to make the digital system work
as well as the analog system of today in terms of simple antenna
reception have failed.

The NAB is between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Years ago, it
strongly supported the 8-VSB transmission standard and promised it would
be made to work as well as analog TV did as far as ease of reception was
concerned. This, of course, was when the NAB and the CEA (Consumer
Electronics Association) were on friendly terms.

Here we are in 2005, and there is still no demonstration of reception of
the ATSC 8-VSB transmitted signal that shows that it has the same
ability to be received with simple antennas as today's analog system.
CEA member companies, except for one or two, seem to have written off
the over-the-air customer altogether, relying instead on cable and
satellite penetration to provide the transmission of digital broadcast
signals.

Unfortunately, the NAB can't reverse course now and say that the 8-VSB
system is a failure. That would be admitting its earlier errors. That
never happens in Washington circles.

We as broadcasters face an uncertain future, and the public faces an
ever more powerful cable industry that seems to be above any reasonable
regulation. The cable industry will be further boosted by the prospect
that, in 2009, the ability to receive a TV picture by using an antenna
will, for all practical purposes, disappear.

But will Congress be satisfied when it learns that, when the cable is
down in an emergency, there will be no way to reach a very large segment
of the population? I wonder if a congressional mandate can overcome the
current laws of physics.

__________________

More about : sinclair good fight

Anonymous
August 11, 2005 5:08:39 PM

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

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 04:50:54 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:

>What you can't make work is the simple fact that at Best Buys and other
>retail outlets monitors are taking the place of integrated HDTV sets.

That's the fault of uneducated consumers and retailers that don't care.
I knew from the beginning that when I bought an HDTV set that it would
have to have a tuner.

As for Sinclair, I can't believe they'd fight the good fight on any
technical issue. I've seen the way they run their stations. I'm happy that
digital broadcasting allows me to get a clear picture from the next city
so that when the Sinclair station screws up yet again I can still watch
the show I was watching.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 11:25:40 PM

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

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 04:50:54 GMT Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:

| What you can't make work is the simple fact that at Best Buys and other
| retail outlets monitors are taking the place of integrated HDTV sets.

I think that has more to do with things like the added costs of digital,
pending tuner mandates, and so many consumers on cable or satellite who
just don't need (or want to pay for) an OTA tuner.


| John Q public is going to be sold a monitor since they don't need a
| tuner for cable. 8-VSB is and has been killing OTA TV. No one who buys a
| monitor and hooks it up to cable is going back to the store to buy a
| receiver and a rooftop antenna to receive OTA.

Whether 8-VSB or COFDM is over the air, an OTA digital tuner adds to
the cost. TVs have been including baseband video input for years and
people have been using them; the manufacuturers know this. Many such
TVs now have 2 or more baseband video inputs.


| In a few years when the MANDATE had totally killed OTA and NTSC is
| turned off and Congress comes up with a plan to sell off the rest of the
| free OTA spectrum you may complain but the $$$ will talk and OTA will die.

DTV actually looks like it can do the reverse. Many people are
reporting quality improvements that make cable moot. I expect to see
an uptick in OTA in the next decade, supplemented by satellite for
national programming.


| In the meantime in France they sold 500,000 OTA DTV receivers in the
| first THREE months of broadcasting OTA DTV which will come to at least
| TWO million the first year. That would be TWENTY million in the US in
| ONE year since we are 10 times the size of France.

The TV infrastructure of France is different. COFDM may well have been
the optimal choice.

Manufacturers offering discount prices for STBs and integrated tuners
is probably the largest part of the equation.


| In the meantime you can say what you will about how good 8-VSB is, it
| just isn't. Sorry.

Then I guess you will be needing this:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005B80...

:-)

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 12:28:58 AM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:o OAKe.4224$WD.1587@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> In the meantime in France they sold 500,000 OTA DTV receivers in the
> first THREE months of broadcasting OTA DTV which will come to at least
> TWO million the first year. That would be TWENTY million in the US in
> ONE year since we are 10 times the size of France.

The population of France is 60.6 million. Ours is 295 million, not 606
milllion.

I can't prove that everything you say is subject to fact-checking and
subsequent
correction, but you certainly screwed the pooch with that bogus claim.
August 12, 2005 7:23:41 AM

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

In article <ddg8nk01d6c@news4.newsguy.com>, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 04:50:54 GMT Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>| What you can't make work is the simple fact that at Best Buys and other
>| retail outlets monitors are taking the place of integrated HDTV sets.
>
>I think that has more to do with things like the added costs of digital,
>pending tuner mandates, and so many consumers on cable or satellite who
>just don't need (or want to pay for) an OTA tuner.
>

Even though i may not in the immediate future use or need a OTA ATSC tuner
since i use DirecTV, i am damn sure wanting it to be there in the event that i
may say to hell with Sat or cable.

>
>| John Q public is going to be sold a monitor since they don't need a
>| tuner for cable. 8-VSB is and has been killing OTA TV. No one who buys a
>| monitor and hooks it up to cable is going back to the store to buy a
>| receiver and a rooftop antenna to receive OTA.
>
>Whether 8-VSB or COFDM is over the air, an OTA digital tuner adds to
>the cost. TVs have been including baseband video input for years and
>people have been using them; the manufacuturers know this. Many such
>TVs now have 2 or more baseband video inputs.
>
>
>| In a few years when the MANDATE had totally killed OTA and NTSC is
>| turned off and Congress comes up with a plan to sell off the rest of the
>| free OTA spectrum you may complain but the $$$ will talk and OTA will die.
>
>DTV actually looks like it can do the reverse. Many people are
>reporting quality improvements that make cable moot. I expect to see
>an uptick in OTA in the next decade, supplemented by satellite for
>national programming.
>
>
>| In the meantime in France they sold 500,000 OTA DTV receivers in the
>| first THREE months of broadcasting OTA DTV which will come to at least
>| TWO million the first year. That would be TWENTY million in the US in
>| ONE year since we are 10 times the size of France.
>
>The TV infrastructure of France is different. COFDM may well have been
>the optimal choice.
>
>Manufacturers offering discount prices for STBs and integrated tuners
>is probably the largest part of the equation.
>
>
>| In the meantime you can say what you will about how good 8-VSB is, it
>| just isn't. Sorry.
>
>Then I guess you will be needing this:
>
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005B80...
>
>:-)
>
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 8:47:13 AM

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

In article <OOAKe.4224$WD.1587@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:


> >
> > The GOOD FIGHT would be to fix your own problems and not try to change
> > to a standard that you will mangle down to your level of incompetence.

Hmmmm, just ignore my comments and feed more disinformation...

> What you can't make work is the simple fact that at Best Buys and other
> retail outlets monitors are taking the place of integrated HDTV sets.
> John Q public is going to be sold a monitor since they don't need a
> tuner for cable. 8-VSB is and has been killing OTA TV. No one who buys a
> monitor and hooks it up to cable is going back to the store to buy a
> receiver and a rooftop antenna to receive OTA.

Yeah, sort of...monitors are bringing down the cost of HDTVs. And true,
not everyone needs a tuner. But many do have a tuner, and it will do
8VSB and 256QAM.

So to use your logic, let's just take away the spectrum from current
broadcasters. No one will receive it, so who needs broadcasters. 8VSB
killed OTA? How about lazy cheap broadcasters killed OTA.

> In a few years when the MANDATE had totally killed OTA and NTSC is
> turned off and Congress comes up with a plan to sell off the rest of the
> free OTA spectrum you may complain but the $$$ will talk and OTA will die.

Not as much as the NAB.

> In the meantime in France they sold 500,000 OTA DTV receivers in the
> first THREE months of broadcasting OTA DTV which will come to at least
> TWO million the first year. That would be TWENTY million in the US in
> ONE year since we are 10 times the size of France.
>
> http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/050803/323/foru6.html

So could there be any differences?
Yeah, the broadcasts are on the air. And more on the way. American
broadcasters are still dragging their feet and are barely on the air -
after how many years???

> In the meantime you can say what you will about how good 8-VSB is, it
> just isn't. Sorry.
>
> Bob Miller

I am sorry you have not even bothered to watch HDTV. Or Digital.
August 13, 2005 4:57:34 PM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:o OAKe.4224$WD.1587@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> lnh wrote:
>> In article <z9vJe.2708$WD.301@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>

What a _terrible_ injustice our government pulled on poor Bob by choosing
8VSB.
Bob could have been rolling in money with his COFDM-based datacasting
business.
It's just a damn shame, really. Just unfair and discriminatory,
really...know what I mean?







;-)
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 7:08:36 PM

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

In article <ddg8nk01d6c@news4.newsguy.com>, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 04:50:54 GMT Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
> | John Q public is going to be sold a monitor since they don't need a
> | tuner for cable. 8-VSB is and has been killing OTA TV. No one who buys a
> | monitor and hooks it up to cable is going back to the store to buy a
> | receiver and a rooftop antenna to receive OTA.
>
> Whether 8-VSB or COFDM is over the air, an OTA digital tuner adds to
> the cost. TVs have been including baseband video input for years and
> people have been using them; the manufacuturers know this. Many such
> TVs now have 2 or more baseband video inputs.

Also, ATSC is an HD format. As far as I know, in order to receive it
for a low-resolution (SD/NTSC) monitor, the tuner still has to decode
the highest resolution picture possible in high resolution and then
downconvert to low resolution. This increases costs in a way which as
absolutely ZERO to do with the choice of RF modulation. (Never mind how
much Bob wishes that the RF modulation was at fault.)

This is an important difference between the "cheap" receiver boxes in
the UK that Bob always likes to refer to, and the not so cheap ones we
have here in the United States. And it has nothing to do with the RF
modulation.

> | In the meantime in France they sold 500,000 OTA DTV receivers in the
> | first THREE months of broadcasting OTA DTV which will come to at least
> | TWO million the first year. That would be TWENTY million in the US in
> | ONE year since we are 10 times the size of France.
>
> The TV infrastructure of France is different. COFDM may well have been
> the optimal choice.

Is France even using an HD system? Knowing Bob, it is entirely likely
that they are using an SD system, and he would convienently ignore that
"insignificant" fact.
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 2:01:43 AM

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

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 15:08:36 -0500 Bruce Tomlin <bruce#fanboy.net@127.0.0.1> wrote:
| In article <ddg8nk01d6c@news4.newsguy.com>, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
| wrote:
|
|> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 04:50:54 GMT Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
|> | John Q public is going to be sold a monitor since they don't need a
|> | tuner for cable. 8-VSB is and has been killing OTA TV. No one who buys a
|> | monitor and hooks it up to cable is going back to the store to buy a
|> | receiver and a rooftop antenna to receive OTA.
|>
|> Whether 8-VSB or COFDM is over the air, an OTA digital tuner adds to
|> the cost. TVs have been including baseband video input for years and
|> people have been using them; the manufacuturers know this. Many such
|> TVs now have 2 or more baseband video inputs.
|
| Also, ATSC is an HD format. As far as I know, in order to receive it
| for a low-resolution (SD/NTSC) monitor, the tuner still has to decode
| the highest resolution picture possible in high resolution and then
| downconvert to low resolution. This increases costs in a way which as
| absolutely ZERO to do with the choice of RF modulation. (Never mind how
| much Bob wishes that the RF modulation was at fault.)

ATSC supports the transmission of 18 different formally recognized systems.
Many are HD. Some are SD. One of them matches the existing NTSC system.
Others include progressive scan, more lines, different frame rates. So a
broadcaster can use ATSC to transmit an NTSC standard definition video
program digitally with no conversion to a different system, and you can
receive it and feed it to an NTSC monitor, still with no conversion taking
place. ATSC can be transmitted with no HDTV at all.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 2:01:44 AM

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> | Also, ATSC is an HD format. As far as I know, in order to receive it
> | for a low-resolution (SD/NTSC) monitor, the tuner still has to decode
> | the highest resolution picture possible in high resolution and then
> | downconvert to low resolution.
>
> ATSC supports the transmission of 18 different formally recognized systems.

But, every ATSC-compliant receiver *has* to be able to decode all formats,
thus it needs full HD decode capability. This is unlike most other OTA
digital TV standards, which are either SD-only (UK, France), SD required
but HD supported (Australia). Only Korea has the same setup (all receivers
must be capable of decoding HD).

This is why digital OTA receivers in the US and Korea cost more...even the
cheapest has to do a lot more.

This is something that Bob ignores in his posts, and there's no doubt the
cost of receivers is currently a stumbling block in the US, but any system
that requires HD would be the same (which is what Bob ignores). The dearth
of HDTV in Australia points out exactly what would happen if the "SD required
but HD supported" system had been the US choice.

As it is, the US is far, far, *far* in front of any other country in terms
of HDTV broadcast hours, HDTV receivers, and HDTV viewers.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/TechSupport.gif
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 2:02:50 AM

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

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 12:57:34 -0400 David <davey@home.net> wrote:
| "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| news:o OAKe.4224$WD.1587@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
|> lnh wrote:
|>> In article <z9vJe.2708$WD.301@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
|>> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
|>>
|>> <snip>
|
| What a _terrible_ injustice our government pulled on poor Bob by choosing
| 8VSB.
| Bob could have been rolling in money with his COFDM-based datacasting
| business.
| It's just a damn shame, really. Just unfair and discriminatory,
| really...know what I mean?

I suggest we urge the FCC to make an exception and allow broadcasters within
25 miles of Bob to use COFDM. :-)

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 14, 2005 2:47:10 AM

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

"Bruce Tomlin" <bruce#fanboy.net@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:bruce%23fanboy.net-17B8BE.15083613082005@romeo.newsreader.com...
> In article <ddg8nk01d6c@news4.newsguy.com>, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 04:50:54 GMT Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > | John Q public is going to be sold a monitor since they don't need a
> > | tuner for cable. 8-VSB is and has been killing OTA TV. No one who buys
a
> > | monitor and hooks it up to cable is going back to the store to buy a
> > | receiver and a rooftop antenna to receive OTA.
> >
> > Whether 8-VSB or COFDM is over the air, an OTA digital tuner adds to
> > the cost. TVs have been including baseband video input for years and
> > people have been using them; the manufacuturers know this. Many such
> > TVs now have 2 or more baseband video inputs.
>
> Also, ATSC is an HD format. As far as I know, in order to receive it
> for a low-resolution (SD/NTSC) monitor, the tuner still has to decode
> the highest resolution picture possible in high resolution and then
> downconvert to low resolution. This increases costs in a way which as
> absolutely ZERO to do with the choice of RF modulation. (Never mind how
> much Bob wishes that the RF modulation was at fault.)
>
> This is an important difference between the "cheap" receiver boxes in
> the UK that Bob always likes to refer to, and the not so cheap ones we
> have here in the United States. And it has nothing to do with the RF
> modulation.
>
> > | In the meantime in France they sold 500,000 OTA DTV receivers in the
> > | first THREE months of broadcasting OTA DTV which will come to at least
> > | TWO million the first year. That would be TWENTY million in the US in
> > | ONE year since we are 10 times the size of France.
> >
> > The TV infrastructure of France is different. COFDM may well have been
> > the optimal choice.
>
> Is France even using an HD system? Knowing Bob, it is entirely likely
> that they are using an SD system, and he would convienently ignore that
> "insignificant" fact.
>

AIUI not initially, but they have allowed for the introduction of
high-definition pay-TV on DTT using MPEG 4.

HD starts here in the UK next year via BSkyB digital, which is for already
available in SD in around 8 million homes.

I'm surprised that you Americans of all people, didn't get digital OTA TV
off the ground in the same way as Freeview here in the UK.. i.e. by offering
30 extra free SD channels, 'and then' advancing to HDTV when you had a
captive market.

I can't help wondering how far Henry Ford would have gotten in hooking the
masses onto the automobile, if initially he had insisted on trying to sell
them Rolls-Royce's.
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 2:47:11 AM

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

Ivan wrote:

>
> I'm surprised that you Americans of all people, didn't get digital OTA TV
> off the ground in the same way as Freeview here in the UK.. i.e. by offering
> 30 extra free SD channels, 'and then' advancing to HDTV when you had a
> captive market.


It's because we are not stupid.

The idea of 30 free SD channels OTA is simply SILLY. It won't work
in the USA, period. We are not England. Virtually EVERYBODY, and
I do mean EVERYBODY, who wants more than the 6-9 free and useful
channels available OTA here analog, ALREADY HAS CABLE OR SATELLITE.
Yes, these are pay. But they give, at a minimum, 50 useful and
interesting, at least to many people, channels ... the most important
of which SIMPLY WILL NOT EVER BE AVAILABLE FREE.

HDTV was indeed the best use of OTA. It is becoming quite successful.

Doug McDonald
August 14, 2005 9:55:01 PM

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

I suspect Sinclair's used car investment isn't doing too well. (?)
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 2:04:56 AM

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

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 16:51:56 -0500 Doug McDonald <mcdonald@snpoam_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
| Ivan wrote:
|
|>
|> I'm surprised that you Americans of all people, didn't get digital OTA TV
|> off the ground in the same way as Freeview here in the UK.. i.e. by offering
|> 30 extra free SD channels, 'and then' advancing to HDTV when you had a
|> captive market.
|
|
| It's because we are not stupid.
|
| The idea of 30 free SD channels OTA is simply SILLY. It won't work
| in the USA, period. We are not England. Virtually EVERYBODY, and
| I do mean EVERYBODY, who wants more than the 6-9 free and useful
| channels available OTA here analog, ALREADY HAS CABLE OR SATELLITE.

I have lived in places where I got a lot more than that OTA in analog.
It varies by region.

With DTV, that number can rise, depending on what the broadcasters
decide to deliver.


| Yes, these are pay. But they give, at a minimum, 50 useful and
| interesting, at least to many people, channels ... the most important
| of which SIMPLY WILL NOT EVER BE AVAILABLE FREE.

That depends on what you consider important. As more ability exists to
send content at minimal cost to a free environment, supported by ads or
just plain free (typically religious broadcasts), more of this might
happen.


| HDTV was indeed the best use of OTA. It is becoming quite successful.

There should be HDTV on cable and satellite. But who is dragging their
feet on that?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 2:04:57 AM

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> | The idea of 30 free SD channels OTA is simply SILLY. It won't work
> | in the USA, period. We are not England. Virtually EVERYBODY, and
> | I do mean EVERYBODY, who wants more than the 6-9 free and useful
> | channels available OTA here analog, ALREADY HAS CABLE OR SATELLITE.
>
> I have lived in places where I got a lot more than that OTA in analog.
> It varies by region.

But, there really are few places with 10 or more *useful* channels OTA.

> | Yes, these are pay. But they give, at a minimum, 50 useful and
> | interesting, at least to many people, channels ... the most important
> | of which SIMPLY WILL NOT EVER BE AVAILABLE FREE.
>
> That depends on what you consider important. As more ability exists to
> send content at minimal cost to a free environment, supported by ads or
> just plain free (typically religious broadcasts), more of this might
> happen.

No, it won't.

Right now, CNN (for example) gets some amount of money selling commercial
time, and some amount of money per subscriber from the providers (cable
companies, satellite companies, etc.). This is true of *all* "cable"
channels with commercials. Why would they give up one part of their
guaranteed revenue for the hope of making more money selling commercial
time and losing the per subscriber (not per *viewer*) money?

Then, too, where would they be carried? And, even if they found OTA
stations willing to carry them, it would cost them far more to negotiate
200+ separate carriage agreements when today they need less than 50 (since
Comcast coporate handles negoiations for all Comcast cable companies,
Time Warner corporate handles for TW cable companies, etc.). Not to
mention the fact that CNN has a big advantage when negotiating with TW
(since they have the same parent company).

Last, why would they give up the leverage of bundles that they now have?

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/VelveetaAndRo...
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 2:19:16 AM

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

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 19:56:44 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
|> | Also, ATSC is an HD format. As far as I know, in order to receive it
|> | for a low-resolution (SD/NTSC) monitor, the tuner still has to decode
|> | the highest resolution picture possible in high resolution and then
|> | downconvert to low resolution.
|>
|> ATSC supports the transmission of 18 different formally recognized systems.
|
| But, every ATSC-compliant receiver *has* to be able to decode all formats,
| thus it needs full HD decode capability. This is unlike most other OTA
| digital TV standards, which are either SD-only (UK, France), SD required
| but HD supported (Australia). Only Korea has the same setup (all receivers
| must be capable of decoding HD).
|
| This is why digital OTA receivers in the US and Korea cost more...even the
| cheapest has to do a lot more.
|
| This is something that Bob ignores in his posts, and there's no doubt the
| cost of receivers is currently a stumbling block in the US, but any system
| that requires HD would be the same (which is what Bob ignores). The dearth
| of HDTV in Australia points out exactly what would happen if the "SD required
| but HD supported" system had been the US choice.
|
| As it is, the US is far, far, *far* in front of any other country in terms
| of HDTV broadcast hours, HDTV receivers, and HDTV viewers.

Now there's something I didn't know! I guess my US-centric experience
just didn't let me know that other countries were so far backwards on
deploying HDTV.

Does DSB/COFDM even have a set of standards for how to send HDTV over
their 7 MHz of bandwidth? Google has not come up with specific standards
documents on it. OTOH, I don't live there, so I don't really care.

The only thing that should make a OTA ATSC receiver somewhat cheaper is
when it only needs to produce NTSC output, as opposed to one that might
need to have both SD and HD output (and digital).

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 2:19:17 AM

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> The only thing that should make a OTA ATSC receiver somewhat cheaper is
> when it only needs to produce NTSC output, as opposed to one that might
> need to have both SD and HD output (and digital).

Other than the cost of connectors, HD output is far cheaper to do, and
digital output is the cheapest of all HD outputs (with FireWire recording
being the absolute rock bottom...all that has to be done is stripping the
ECC, and the resulting transport stream can be fed out raw to FireWire).

DVI is just the decoded MPEG-2 pixels clocked out onto the wire.

Component output requires only that the decoded MPEG-2 pixels be clocked
out onto the wires after D/A.

S-Video requires that the decoded MPEG-2 pixels be down-converted to 720x480
resolution, D/A converted, then additional components to sum the Pb' and Pr'
signals.

Composite requires an additional summing system after S-Video is done.

--
Jeff Rife | "The old guy was leading a 'Simon Says' game
| when he collapsed. On the way down he yelled
| 'call an ambulance!', but no one moved."
| -- Wings
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 2:04:17 PM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>
>
> Transmitting SD content in HD format is also a waste of bandwidth.
Actually, no, as Fox showed when it went 720p. Though they were
transmitting excellent 480p, their picture improved quite
remarkably ... even for 480i originated material ... when they
went 720p. The single upconversion, from pristine source, at
Fox NY, is better than what is normally done at the routine station.
I do note that the result probably is at the low end of the needed
bitrate for 720p, of course.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 2:06:52 PM

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

Je
>
> But, there really are few places with 10 or more *useful* channels OTA.
>
>
>>| Yes, these are pay. But they give, at a minimum, 50 useful and
>>| interesting, at least to many people, channels ... the most important
>>| of which SIMPLY WILL NOT EVER BE AVAILABLE FREE.
>>
>>That depends on what you consider important. As more ability exists to
>>send content at minimal cost to a free environment, supported by ads or
>>just plain free (typically religious broadcasts), more of this might
>>happen.
>


> Right now, CNN (for example) gets some amount of money selling commercial
> time, and some amount of money per subscriber from the providers (cable
> companies, satellite companies, etc.).

There are some cable channels which also are available OTA in
some places, but they are not ESPN or Fox News. For example,
where I live MTV2 is available OTA.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 3:18:09 PM

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

In article <ddoflc11g9i@news3.newsguy.com>, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
wrote:

> Transmitting SD content in HD format is also a waste of bandwidth. They
> could switch to multiple SD channels and play 4 to 6 infomercials at the
> same time, increasing the possibles sales.

And it's ugly. But you have to choose, and you can't transmit HD
content in an SD format, and it's a pain in the butt for the broadcaster
to change resolution on the fly. Keep in mind that resolution changes
are not necessarily clean. While you might not notice it on a plasma
set, a CRT HD monitor will likely blank the picture momentarily during
resolution changes. Changing resolution every time you go to a
commercial is really not feasible.

Still, I wish there were some way that entire blocks of SD content could
be marked as such so that those with 4:3 monitors wouldn't have to
change aspect ratio manually all the time. It bugs me the most when a
widescreen image gets shown in SD on an HD channel, because that means I
have THREE sets of letterboxing bars on the screen at the same time!

> At some ratios of conversion, it should be possible to invert the DCT
> encoded blocks at a resolution different than originally encoded. That
> could be a cheap way to effect the conversion.

Yep, that's basically what I was hinting at when I said "shortcuts". I
know enough about MPEG-2 to assume that should be possible, but not
enough to exactly how it would be implemented. There might be a bit
more error in the decoding of intermediate frames, but not enough to
notice on a low-resolution monitor.
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 12:34:51 AM

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

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:59:22 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

| Right now, CNN (for example) gets some amount of money selling commercial
| time, and some amount of money per subscriber from the providers (cable
| companies, satellite companies, etc.). This is true of *all* "cable"
| channels with commercials. Why would they give up one part of their
| guaranteed revenue for the hope of making more money selling commercial
| time and losing the per subscriber (not per *viewer*) money?

An example of one broadcaster that might not opt for a wider audience
on a strictly free ad-paid basis does not mean that no others ever will.


| Then, too, where would they be carried? And, even if they found OTA
| stations willing to carry them, it would cost them far more to negotiate
| 200+ separate carriage agreements when today they need less than 50 (since
| Comcast coporate handles negoiations for all Comcast cable companies,
| Time Warner corporate handles for TW cable companies, etc.). Not to
| mention the fact that CNN has a big advantage when negotiating with TW
| (since they have the same parent company).

So, explain how it is that _every_ network is just like CNN.


| Last, why would they give up the leverage of bundles that they now have?

So, explain how it is that _every_ network is just like CNN.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 12:34:52 AM

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:59:22 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
>
> | Right now, CNN (for example) gets some amount of money selling commercial
> | time, and some amount of money per subscriber from the providers (cable
> | companies, satellite companies, etc.). This is true of *all* "cable"
> | channels with commercials. Why would they give up one part of their
> | guaranteed revenue for the hope of making more money selling commercial
> | time and losing the per subscriber (not per *viewer*) money?
>
> An example of one broadcaster that might not opt for a wider audience
> on a strictly free ad-paid basis does not mean that no others ever will.

This is not "an example of one broadcaster". I simply don't have the
desire to list all 120 channels that would never dump their nice fat
"per subscriber" fees, but you know that...you just chose to be dense.

> So, explain how it is that _every_ network is just like CNN.

"Cable" stations that have commercials are *all* just like CNN in this case.
None would dump their large deals with providers to try and make it as OTA
alone. A very, very, very few small cable stations have made deals in some
cities to be broadcast OTA. Usually, these are places where the local cable
company doesn't see the value in carrying the station and can't be coerced
into it through "bundle" deals until the next re-negotiation.

Much of this has to do with the fact that "cable" stations are owned by a
handful of companies.

--
Jeff Rife | "She just dropped by to remind me that my life
| is an endless purgatory, interrupted by profound
| moments of misery."
| -- Richard Karinsky, "Caroline in the City"
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 12:51:22 AM

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

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 22:06:33 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
|> The only thing that should make a OTA ATSC receiver somewhat cheaper is
|> when it only needs to produce NTSC output, as opposed to one that might
|> need to have both SD and HD output (and digital).
|
| Other than the cost of connectors, HD output is far cheaper to do, and
| digital output is the cheapest of all HD outputs (with FireWire recording
| being the absolute rock bottom...all that has to be done is stripping the
| ECC, and the resulting transport stream can be fed out raw to FireWire).
|
| DVI is just the decoded MPEG-2 pixels clocked out onto the wire.
|
| Component output requires only that the decoded MPEG-2 pixels be clocked
| out onto the wires after D/A.

It would be nice to have a digital output _after_ the decoded MPEG-2, with
the audio added in, all over a simple coax. That can be SDI.


| S-Video requires that the decoded MPEG-2 pixels be down-converted to 720x480
| resolution, D/A converted, then additional components to sum the Pb' and Pr'
| signals.
|
| Composite requires an additional summing system after S-Video is done.

With the NTSC quadrature modulation of the Pb' and Pr' signals.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 12:51:23 AM

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> | Component output requires only that the decoded MPEG-2 pixels be clocked
> | out onto the wires after D/A.
>
> It would be nice to have a digital output _after_ the decoded MPEG-2, with
> the audio added in, all over a simple coax.

That connection is called "HDMI", and it's actually pretty useless in the
real world. Most people want digital audio to be sent to their A/V receiver,
while video gets sent to the display. Only a handful of new receivers can
switch HDMI, so you still need two connections.

> That can be SDI.

No, because SDI cannot support HD. There is an HD variant, though, but
why bother when the only use for this is display, and there are nice digital
display-only standards.

--
Jeff Rife | "She just dropped by to remind me that my life
| is an endless purgatory, interrupted by profound
| moments of misery."
| -- Richard Karinsky, "Caroline in the City"
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 1:11:21 AM

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

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 04:52:47 GMT K. B. <hotmail.com@lis2lis2> wrote:
| On 14 Aug 2005 22:19:16 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
| posted:
|
|>Does DSB/COFDM even have a set of standards for how to send HDTV over
|>their 7 MHz of bandwidth?
|
| <http://www.dvb.org/index.php?id=240&gt;
|
| 1997 seems to be the year DVB HDTV appeared.
|
| The July 2001 Timeline entry is interesting. :) 

Instead of "have" I should have said "have available for free download"
(e.g. in PDF format) like ATSC has.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 4:28:52 AM

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

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 11:18:09 -0500 Bruce Tomlin <bruce#fanboy.net@127.0.0.1> wrote:

| In article <ddoflc11g9i@news3.newsguy.com>, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
| wrote:
|
|> Transmitting SD content in HD format is also a waste of bandwidth. They
|> could switch to multiple SD channels and play 4 to 6 infomercials at the
|> same time, increasing the possibles sales.
|
| And it's ugly. But you have to choose, and you can't transmit HD
| content in an SD format, and it's a pain in the butt for the broadcaster
| to change resolution on the fly. Keep in mind that resolution changes
| are not necessarily clean. While you might not notice it on a plasma
| set, a CRT HD monitor will likely blank the picture momentarily during
| resolution changes. Changing resolution every time you go to a
| commercial is really not feasible.

That's why I made the comment that they may be expecting HD commercials.
But changing it in black at the top of the hour is feasible.


| Still, I wish there were some way that entire blocks of SD content could
| be marked as such so that those with 4:3 monitors wouldn't have to
| change aspect ratio manually all the time. It bugs me the most when a
| widescreen image gets shown in SD on an HD channel, because that means I
| have THREE sets of letterboxing bars on the screen at the same time!

This is one of the things about how poorly HD is being handled. Maybe a
TV feature could be implemented that detects what boxing is done, and do
the conversion according to the viewer preference accordingly. You would
then choose the preferred display format for each of the possible boxing
formats in each of the transmission formats. If you are converting HD to
SD for display on an SD-only CRT, and the program comes in pillarboxed,
instead of letterboxing the whole HD image and all that extra black (or
gray as the case may be), it would "zoom in" to the detected image area
and blow that up to your 4:3 NTSC as desired.


|> At some ratios of conversion, it should be possible to invert the DCT
|> encoded blocks at a resolution different than originally encoded. That
|> could be a cheap way to effect the conversion.
|
| Yep, that's basically what I was hinting at when I said "shortcuts". I
| know enough about MPEG-2 to assume that should be possible, but not
| enough to exactly how it would be implemented. There might be a bit
| more error in the decoding of intermediate frames, but not enough to
| notice on a low-resolution monitor.

I think it will require floating point math, or at least some scaled fixed
point math. I don't particularly care to go do an MPEG implemetation just
to prove it since it's not that important to me (as opposed to when I was
able to prove that GIF really supported more than 256 colors in one file
by actually implementing it).

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 4:34:14 AM

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

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 17:31:05 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
|> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:59:22 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
|>
|> | Right now, CNN (for example) gets some amount of money selling commercial
|> | time, and some amount of money per subscriber from the providers (cable
|> | companies, satellite companies, etc.). This is true of *all* "cable"
|> | channels with commercials. Why would they give up one part of their
|> | guaranteed revenue for the hope of making more money selling commercial
|> | time and losing the per subscriber (not per *viewer*) money?
|>
|> An example of one broadcaster that might not opt for a wider audience
|> on a strictly free ad-paid basis does not mean that no others ever will.
|
| This is not "an example of one broadcaster". I simply don't have the
| desire to list all 120 channels that would never dump their nice fat
| "per subscriber" fees, but you know that...you just chose to be dense.

There are plenty of smaller ones that I'm sure don't have fees anywhere
near as fast as CNN. A relative of mine works for a company has some
dealings with a couple cable broadcasters, and they have to pay the cable
companies to get carriage. Hey, guess what, they are small and don't have
the clout of CNN, TNT, ESPN, etc.


|> So, explain how it is that _every_ network is just like CNN.
|
| "Cable" stations that have commercials are *all* just like CNN in this case.

All that you know of, maybe.


| None would dump their large deals with providers to try and make it as OTA
| alone. A very, very, very few small cable stations have made deals in some
| cities to be broadcast OTA. Usually, these are places where the local cable
| company doesn't see the value in carrying the station and can't be coerced
| into it through "bundle" deals until the next re-negotiation.
|
| Much of this has to do with the fact that "cable" stations are owned by a
| handful of companies.

No doubt. Lots of bedfellows there, too, I'm sure. Probably no better
with the D******* satellite companies (though the delivery is better).

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 4:34:15 AM

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> There are plenty of smaller ones that I'm sure don't have fees anywhere
> near as fast as CNN. A relative of mine works for a company has some
> dealings with a couple cable broadcasters, and they have to pay the cable
> companies to get carriage.

Yes, we know that home shopping channels pay for carriage, but they make
up for that by being 100% advertisement.

Other than those and the required "public service" channels, you can check
from the SEC filings that no other "cable" channels pay major cable companies
for carriage.

--
Jeff Rife | "She just dropped by to remind me that my life
| is an endless purgatory, interrupted by profound
| moments of misery."
| -- Richard Karinsky, "Caroline in the City"
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 4:46:23 AM

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

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:29:13 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
|> | Component output requires only that the decoded MPEG-2 pixels be clocked
|> | out onto the wires after D/A.
|>
|> It would be nice to have a digital output _after_ the decoded MPEG-2, with
|> the audio added in, all over a simple coax.
|
| That connection is called "HDMI", and it's actually pretty useless in the
| real world. Most people want digital audio to be sent to their A/V receiver,
| while video gets sent to the display. Only a handful of new receivers can
| switch HDMI, so you still need two connections.

HDMI is not coaxial. It is multiple shielded twisted pairs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Definition_Multimedia...


| No, because SDI cannot support HD. There is an HD variant, though, but
| why bother when the only use for this is display, and there are nice digital
| display-only standards.

It also includes audio and control signals. It's a whole lot easier to
cable up the house with SD since it's basic 75-ohm coax. HDMI requires
some very expensive cable and can't really go very much beyond about 30
to 50 feet (SDI can do 2 kilometers).

Though the SDI specifications didn't include a reverse channel, it can
be done as long as the reverse is a good bit lower in data rate so any
reflections don't cause interference. But that would be plenty to do
stuff like send display parameters and remote control signals. Instead,
the industry has to go make some all new kind of cable and some all new
kind of connector and complicate things ... while screwing it up (e.g.
the length limitations ... as bad as Firewire).

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 4:46:24 AM

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> |> It would be nice to have a digital output _after_ the decoded MPEG-2, with
> |> the audio added in, all over a simple coax.
> |
> | That connection is called "HDMI", and it's actually pretty useless in the
> | real world. Most people want digital audio to be sent to their A/V receiver,
> | while video gets sent to the display. Only a handful of new receivers can
> | switch HDMI, so you still need two connections.
>
> HDMI is not coaxial. It is multiple shielded twisted pairs.

Still failed reading comprehension, huh?

The connection used for ready-to-display digital video plus audio is HDMI.
That's the standard. If you don't like it, don't use it.

> | No, because SDI cannot support HD. There is an HD variant, though, but
> | why bother when the only use for this is display, and there are nice digital
> | display-only standards.
>
> It also includes audio and control signals. It's a whole lot easier to
> cable up the house with SD since it's basic 75-ohm coax.

Since there is no need to transport already-converted-for-display digital
video signals around a whole house, there's no need for it. To transmit
unconverted signals, CAT5E works stunningly well, and already has the
networking support. Your complete lack of experience with the real world
is showing again.

--
Jeff Rife | "She just dropped by to remind me that my life
| is an endless purgatory, interrupted by profound
| moments of misery."
| -- Richard Karinsky, "Caroline in the City"
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 4:54:12 PM

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

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:48:21 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
|> There are plenty of smaller ones that I'm sure don't have fees anywhere
|> near as fast as CNN. A relative of mine works for a company has some
|> dealings with a couple cable broadcasters, and they have to pay the cable
|> companies to get carriage.
|
| Yes, we know that home shopping channels pay for carriage, but they make
| up for that by being 100% advertisement.

You seem to live a life of single examples. But at least in this case you
found one that shows my point. I'll let you wallow in that one because I
really don't care if you ever get a clue or not.


| Other than those and the required "public service" channels, you can check
| from the SEC filings that no other "cable" channels pay major cable companies
| for carriage.

Check out the religion channels, too.

Oh, wait, I wasn't supposed to pass more clues to you.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 2:25:02 AM

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

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:02:14 -0400 David <davey@home.net> wrote:

| http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=23850

Is there a reason you post a URL and no commentary? Is there an on-topic
reason for one to follow this URL?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 17, 2005 2:25:03 AM

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

<phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:D dtp3u022jc@news4.newsguy.com...
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:02:14 -0400 David <davey@home.net> wrote:
>
> | http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=23850
>
> Is there a reason you post a URL and no commentary? Is there an on-topic
> reason for one to follow this URL?
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/
> http://ham.org/ |
> | (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/
> http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The others are right, you're a waste of time.
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 4:17:56 AM

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

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:00:40 -0400 David <davey@home.net> wrote:
| <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
| news:D dtp3u022jc@news4.newsguy.com...
|> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:02:14 -0400 David <davey@home.net> wrote:
|>
|> | http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=23850
|>
|> Is there a reason you post a URL and no commentary? Is there an on-topic
|> reason for one to follow this URL?
|>
|> --
|> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/
|> http://ham.org/ |
|> | (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/
|> http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
|> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| The others are right, you're a waste of time.

Wow, now there are 3 anti-social people here. That puts this newsgroup
above all but the ham radio groups in number of anti-social people.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 4:17:57 AM

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> |> | http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=23850
> |>
> |> Is there a reason you post a URL and no commentary? Is there an on-topic
> |> reason for one to follow this URL?
> |>
> |
> | The others are right, you're a waste of time.
>
> Wow, now there are 3 anti-social people here.

No, we're anti-stupidity. We'll forgive ignorance, but when you repeatedly
refuse to do any work in order to reduce your ignorance, you're stupid.
Your repeated postings have taken stupidity to new depths.

You pooh-pooh'ed the idea of using CAT5E to transmit HDTV through the house,
yet you ignore the fact that people do it every day. I do, and others have
written up their experiences at various web pages, which in other cases you
seem to trust above all else.

Yet, when given a URL that shows exactly how people use CAT5E and CAT6 wire
to send HDTV around the house, you come back with a asinine comment instead
of taking 2 seconds to click the link.

--
Jeff Rife | "She just dropped by to remind me that my life
| is an endless purgatory, interrupted by profound
| moments of misery."
| -- Richard Karinsky, "Caroline in the City"
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 6:41:11 PM

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

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 22:12:22 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
|> |> | http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=23850
|> |>
|> |> Is there a reason you post a URL and no commentary? Is there an on-topic
|> |> reason for one to follow this URL?
|> |>
|> |
|> | The others are right, you're a waste of time.
|>
|> Wow, now there are 3 anti-social people here.
|
| No, we're anti-stupidity. We'll forgive ignorance, but when you repeatedly
| refuse to do any work in order to reduce your ignorance, you're stupid.
| Your repeated postings have taken stupidity to new depths.

I did the work. You're just too ignorant to understand what work was done.
It wasn't the work you expected because you failed to read the original post
to even understand what I was looking for. Because you made an assumption
that was false, you would not be on track. Normally I can excuse that, but
you immediately went into personal attacks about it. THAT showed your
sociopathic tendencies.


| You pooh-pooh'ed the idea of using CAT5E to transmit HDTV through the house,
| yet you ignore the fact that people do it every day. I do, and others have
| written up their experiences at various web pages, which in other cases you
| seem to trust above all else.
|
| Yet, when given a URL that shows exactly how people use CAT5E and CAT6 wire
| to send HDTV around the house, you come back with a asinine comment instead
| of taking 2 seconds to click the link.

These were incomplete, anyway, as they didn't explain what digital standard
is used to carry the video and audio. In fact, I didn't see any indication
of how audio was carried at all. It was clear that they were not sending
the SDI format over CAT5/6 since SDI multiplexes Y/U/V video and L/R audio
(and more) into the same bit stream.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 9:02:20 AM

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

Sal M. Onella wrote:

> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:o OAKe.4224$WD.1587@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>In the meantime in France they sold 500,000 OTA DTV receivers in the
>>first THREE months of broadcasting OTA DTV which will come to at least
>>TWO million the first year. That would be TWENTY million in the US in
>>ONE year since we are 10 times the size of France.
>
>
> The population of France is 60.6 million. Ours is 295 million, not 606
> milllion.
>
> I can't prove that everything you say is subject to fact-checking and
> subsequent
> correction, but you certainly screwed the pooch with that bogus claim.
>
>
You are right. Didn't look it up. Thought I remembered correctly. So it
should be 4.87 times which would have it be only 9.74 million OTA
receivers in the US in a year. Since we are selling near zero and the
public is almost totally ignorant of OTA DTV in the US it is still relevant.

Bob Miller
!