Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Sinclair pleased with 8VSB

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 5:26:25 AM

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

<http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&S...;

"Sinclair said results of the new trials show dramatically
improved reception with the receiver built around a new DTV chip
developed by LG Electronics Inc., Zenith's parent company."

Kirk Bayne
alt.video.digital-tv Home Page
<http://www.geocities.com/lislislislis/avdtv.htm&gt;

More about : sinclair pleased 8vsb

Anonymous
June 9, 2004 5:30:43 AM

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

K. B. (hotmail.com@lis2lis2) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> "Sinclair said results of the new trials show dramatically
> improved reception with the receiver built around a new DTV chip
> developed by LG Electronics Inc., Zenith's parent company."

There goes Bob's last corporate COFDM supporters.

--
Jeff Rife | "I once did a news report on the dangers of
SPAM bait: | plastic surgery, and do you know what the
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | statistics say?"
uce@ftc.gov | "Yes...that 9 out of 10 men prefer women
| with big boobs."
| "And the 10th guy preferred the 9 other men."
| -- "Just Shoot Me"
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 9:15:55 PM

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

Within these hallowed halls, K. B. of <hotmail.com@lis2lis2> added the
following to the collective conscience:
>
<http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&S...
8-2004/0002189302&EDATE=>
>
> "Sinclair said results of the new trials show dramatically
> improved reception with the receiver built around a new DTV chip
> developed by LG Electronics Inc., Zenith's parent company."
>
> Kirk Bayne

no no, the other paragraph ...

BALTIMORE, June 8 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Latest-generation digital
television (DTV) receiver technology shows significant improvements that
will
mean better over-the-air reception of DTV signals using simple indoor
antennas,
according to Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.

"indoor antennas ... INDOOR ANTENNAS!!!!!" is what Bob was heard babbeling
as they took him away in his white coat.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
June 10, 2004 12:47:51 AM

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

"21C BBS" <dontlook@here.net> wrote in message news:fBHxc.1178
<
> BALTIMORE, June 8 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Latest-generation digital
> television (DTV) receiver technology shows significant improvements that
> will
> mean better over-the-air reception of DTV signals using simple indoor
> antennas,
> according to Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.
>
> "indoor antennas ... INDOOR ANTENNAS!!!!!" is what Bob was heard babbeling
> as they took him away in his white coat.

"will mean" is future tense, is this finally the magic chip that was long been
promised?

Az.
Anonymous
June 10, 2004 1:18:19 AM

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

Aztech wrote:
> "21C BBS" <dontlook@here.net> wrote in message news:fBHxc.1178
> <
>
>>BALTIMORE, June 8 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Latest-generation digital
>>television (DTV) receiver technology shows significant improvements that
>>will
>>mean better over-the-air reception of DTV signals using simple indoor
>>antennas,
>>according to Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.
>>
>>"indoor antennas ... INDOOR ANTENNAS!!!!!" is what Bob was heard babbeling
>>as they took him away in his white coat.
>
>
> "will mean" is future tense, is this finally the magic chip that was long been
> promised?
>
> Az.
>
>
In the US we are limited by legacy 8-VSB receivers, low sales and
therefore high cost. Any 8-VSB fix has to be backward compatible also.

From what I hear this new LG receiver is good for fixed reception but
not mobile. This may cement the US in 8-VSB land which is perfect for a
mobile venture like we propose since current broadcasters will not be
able to compete.

Sinclair must be relieved that at least they can look forward to fixed
reception that may be plug and play. Now we will see what the price will
be. $50 is too much for many. I expect that the first LG receivers will
cost $400 or more, integrated at an extra $250.

It has only been 6 years of waiting and it will be another two before
decent prices. But the most important thing is that we can expect a
release of channels 51 -69 much sooner now.
Anonymous
June 10, 2004 3:02:41 AM

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

In article <v8Lxc.8152$uX2.4958@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
> Aztech wrote:
>> "21C BBS" <dontlook@here.net> wrote in message news:fBHxc.1178
>> <
>>
>>>BALTIMORE, June 8 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Latest-generation digital
>>>television (DTV) receiver technology shows significant improvements that
>>>will
>>>mean better over-the-air reception of DTV signals using simple indoor
>>>antennas,
>>>according to Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.
>>>
>>>"indoor antennas ... INDOOR ANTENNAS!!!!!" is what Bob was heard babbeling
>>>as they took him away in his white coat.
>>
>>
>> "will mean" is future tense, is this finally the magic chip that was long been
>> promised?
>>
>> Az.
>>
>>
> In the US we are limited by legacy 8-VSB receivers, low sales and
> therefore high cost.
>
Actually, even some of the 'earliest' legacy receivers work very well,
and receive HDTV also!!! The saddest cases will be the places where
there is no HDTV, and they'll need an upgrade to get HDTV at all.

>
> Any 8-VSB fix has to be backward compatible also.
>
Absolutely no change to 8VSB was needed for Sinclair's
'acceptance.'

Note that Sinclair's apparently mostly political admission that
8VSB works well is obvious. The Zenith receiver simply gives them
an excuse for their previous attitude.

John
Anonymous
June 10, 2004 3:02:42 AM

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

John S. Dyson wrote:

> In article <v8Lxc.8152$uX2.4958@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>>Aztech wrote:
>>
>>>"21C BBS" <dontlook@here.net> wrote in message news:fBHxc.1178
>>><
>>>
>>>>BALTIMORE, June 8 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Latest-generation digital
>>>>television (DTV) receiver technology shows significant improvements that
>>>>will
>>>>mean better over-the-air reception of DTV signals using simple indoor
>>>>antennas,
>>>>according to Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.
>>>>
>>>>"indoor antennas ... INDOOR ANTENNAS!!!!!" is what Bob was heard babbeling
>>>>as they took him away in his white coat.
>>>
>>>
>>>"will mean" is future tense, is this finally the magic chip that was long been
>>>promised?
>>>
>>>Az.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>In the US we are limited by legacy 8-VSB receivers, low sales and
>>therefore high cost.
>>
>
> Actually, even some of the 'earliest' legacy receivers work very well,
> and receive HDTV also!!! The saddest cases will be the places where
> there is no HDTV, and they'll need an upgrade to get HDTV at all.
>
>
>>Any 8-VSB fix has to be backward compatible also.
>>
>
> Absolutely no change to 8VSB was needed for Sinclair's
> 'acceptance.'
>
> Note that Sinclair's apparently mostly political admission that
> 8VSB works well is obvious. The Zenith receiver simply gives them
> an excuse for their previous attitude.
>
> John

Sorry John but this is a better receiver. There is no political anything
here. If Sinclair wanted to be politically correct they would have never
brought up the subject in the first place or they would have dropped it
like ABC did as soon as it became controversial. ABC engineers will
still tell you that COFDM is far far better.

Wait till you start seeing the advertising that I expect from Zenith/LG
of this new receiver. They will trumpet the difference between this
receiver and all previous receivers. Nothing will embarrass them. EXPECT
MAJOR RECEPTION DIFFERENCE IN THE NUMBERS by Zenith if they follow their
past pattern.
June 10, 2004 5:13:35 AM

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

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message news:ca84ug$1682
<
> > In the US we are limited by legacy 8-VSB receivers, low sales and
> > therefore high cost.
> >
> Actually, even some of the 'earliest' legacy receivers work very well,
> and receive HDTV also!!! The saddest cases will be the places where
> there is no HDTV, and they'll need an upgrade to get HDTV at all.

http://www.primezone.com/newsroom/news_releases.mhtml?d...

When you're in such a business giving out new boxes inline with developments is
part and parcel of maintaining a low churn, the original boxes have been
steadily upgrading to Sky+ PVR's, a new cycle will begin in 18 months.

Az.
Anonymous
June 10, 2004 6:00:52 AM

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

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 01:13:35 GMT, "Aztech" <az@tech.com> posted:

>http://www.primezone.com/newsroom/news_releases.mhtml?d...
>
>When you're in such a business giving out new boxes inline with developments is
>part and parcel of maintaining a low churn, the original boxes have been
>steadily upgrading to Sky+ PVR's, a new cycle will begin in 18 months.

From the land of Orwell/1984...what does this mean? ;) 
"...Channel 4's Big Brother Interactive..."

Any news on which video codec(s) BSkyB plans to use for this
proposed service (in particular, the HDTV offering)?

Kirk Bayne
alt.video.digital-tv Home Page
<http://www.geocities.com/lislislislis/avdtv.htm&gt;
June 10, 2004 6:56:11 AM

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

"K. B." <hotmail.com@lis2lis2> wrote in message
news:40c7beda.7010898@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 01:13:35 GMT, "Aztech" <az@tech.com> posted:
>
> >http://www.primezone.com/newsroom/news_releases.mhtml?d...
> >
> >When you're in such a business giving out new boxes inline with developments
is
> >part and parcel of maintaining a low churn, the original boxes have been
> >steadily upgrading to Sky+ PVR's, a new cycle will begin in 18 months.
>
> From the land of Orwell/1984...what does this mean? ;) 
> "...Channel 4's Big Brother Interactive..."

Just another reality TV show, they lock a bunch of nutty 20-30 somethings in a
house for six weeks with the prospect of winning £100k and c-list celebrity
status for 15 minutes. They sit around, get drunk, argue with each other and
chase chickens, most staggering is that people watch this in their millions, the
tabloid press laps it up everyday with the usual scurrilous headlines
(www.newsoftheworld.co.uk). You can of course bet on the outcome in any
highstreet bookies, or online betting exchange.

The interactive allows 24/7 access, choice of different camera feeds and the
ability to vote people off... most staggeringly more people voted in Big Brother
than did during the 2001 general election, and that will almost certainly be the
case for the European/local elections tomorrow.

This dismal show reveals a lot about modern day Britain, our citizens are
already monitored by more cameras per head of population than anyone else in the
world and we'll be getting our biometric ID cards soon.

On an intellectual basis I suppose you could call it a 21st century panopticon
(http://cartome.org/panopticon1.htm), in reality it's dumbed down tripe, Lord
Reith wouldn't be pleased.


<
> Any news on which video codec(s) BSkyB plans to use for this
> proposed service (in particular, the HDTV offering)?

I'm sure it will involve DVB-S2 now the standard is set, they seem to favour
H264/AVC.

Az.
Anonymous
June 10, 2004 9:32:38 PM

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

Within these hallowed halls, Aztech of <az@tech.com> added the
following to the collective conscience:
> "21C BBS" <dontlook@here.net> wrote in message news:fBHxc.1178
> <
>> BALTIMORE, June 8 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Latest-generation digital
>> television (DTV) receiver technology shows significant improvements
>> that will
>> mean better over-the-air reception of DTV signals using simple indoor
>> antennas,
>> according to Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.
>>
>> "indoor antennas ... INDOOR ANTENNAS!!!!!" is what Bob was heard
>> babbeling as they took him away in his white coat.
>
> "will mean" is future tense, is this finally the magic chip that was
> long been promised?
>
Apparently! I wouldn't think Sinclair would accept anything less.
Anonymous
June 11, 2004 1:17:40 AM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:v8Lxc.8152$uX2.4958@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

But the most important thing is that we can expect a
> release of channels 51 -69 much sooner now.


All kidding aside, I don't understand the significance of this. Who or what
is holding channels
51 - 69 and why? SoCal has analog and digital stations mixed up all across
the UHF band,
so what gives?

What will the "release" mean to me?

TIA
Anonymous
June 11, 2004 9:56:34 AM

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

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:17:40 -0700, "Sal M. Onella"
<salmonella@food.poisoning.org> posted:

>All kidding aside, I don't understand the significance of this. Who or what
>is holding channels
>51 - 69 and why? SoCal has analog and digital stations mixed up all across
>the UHF band,
>so what gives?

After the NTSC signals in channels 2-69 are turned off, ATSC
DTV/HDTV signals will be permitted in channels 2-51 only.

Channels 52-69 will be auctioned (COFDM is permitted in channels
52-69).

>What will the "release" mean to me?

The national debt will reduced (slightly) by the auction and
channels 52-69 may be used for mobile and/or subscription
wireless services.

The book "Defining Vision" explains the background for the
DTV/HDTV transition in the USA.

Kirk Bayne
alt.video.digital-tv Home Page
<http://www.geocities.com/lislislislis/avdtv.htm&gt;
Anonymous
June 11, 2004 5:57:51 PM

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

Sal M. Onella wrote:
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:v8Lxc.8152$uX2.4958@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> But the most important thing is that we can expect a
>
>>release of channels 51 -69 much sooner now.
>
>
>
> All kidding aside, I don't understand the significance of this. Who or what
> is holding channels
> 51 - 69 and why? SoCal has analog and digital stations mixed up all across
> the UHF band,
> so what gives?
>
> What will the "release" mean to me?
>
> TIA
>
>
Current broadcasters who have these channels 51 - 69 are "holding" these
channels for the duration of the digital transition. Current
broadcasters used the excuse that in the future they would need to do
HDTV which would require 12 MHz of spectrum or twice the spectrum they
then were allocated, 6 MHz. This was primarily a stratagem to keep these
channels in the TV fold since at the time the FCC was in the process of
removing these channels and allowing their use for two way radio
operations.

While this was happening the advent of digital broadcasting and better
compression technology reduced the need for 12 MHz back to 6 MHz and the
broadcasters were granted the "temporary" use of an additional 6 MHz to
facilitate the transition.

A VERY political process ensued to see what compression and digital TV
modulation standards would be FIXED as the US standards. This was
happening in the very earliest of times for these technologies and they
were and are changing rapidly.

In the rush minimal requirements were sought so that politically
connected parties could get their nascent technology picked and inflated
IP royalty streams could ensue. For example Congress only asked that the
ancient and failing NTSC analog standard only had to be "replicated" not
improved on. And Congress only demanded that "one NTSC (that is SD)
quality program" had to be delivered by a broadcasters even though the
rational for the whole exercise was to enable HDTV and even though the 6
MHz channel now could deliver between 4-5 (MPEG2) and at the time
clearly on the horizon, 12 to 15 (MPEG4) NTSC programs .

Knowing that better compression technology and digital TV modulations
were available and would challenge them the "politically connected"
parties made sure that the debate was limited, that the parameters of
what any competing technology must meet favored their's and did not
allow for the strengths of the other to be even considered and that no
foreign technology was investigated or even allowed to be demonstrated
if at all possible.

Then the question of when the digital transition would be over was
raised. Broadcasters whose original intent was to KEEP these channels in
the TV fold now had to face the fact that they would be auctioned off at
the end of the transition. They inserted language in the law that made
it all but impossible for this to happen in any reasonable period of
time. The 85% rule if interpreted (as it has been since 1998) their way
says that 85% of consumers have to have access to a digital signal in
their homes before any broadcaster giveback or channels 51 - 69. This
could easily take 50 years or the entire history of NTSC TV.

Further, even though these channels 51 -69 are to be used by new owners
after auction and could be used to compete with broadcasters by
broadcasting, broadcasters did not allow the rules governing there use
to MATCH the rules governing current broadcasters. New broadcasters
would have onerous and arbitrary rules thrust upon them concerning
interference that effectively rules out the use of the spectrum by the
new owners in any major market during the transition. And as was noted
this could easily last 50 years.

OK the FCC said to break this impasse they would ALLOW the new owners of
the spectrum to PAY OFF broadcasters to move OFF THE SPECTRUM EARLY.
That is before the transition was complete. Consider that current
broadcasters who were given their spectrum for free and are but tenants
on our the citizen's spectrum were now getting a PAYDAY for doing what
was required of them anyway. PAID OFF FOR BEING OBSTRUCTIONIST is the
correct description.

And new owners who had bought spectrum at auction would now have to PAY
AGAIN for the right to use their own leased property. But the biggest
VICTIM is the US citizens who OWN this spectrum. They are being
systematically ripped off for the true value of this spectrum.

Consider that if you are an entity that would or did buy spectrum (51 -
69) at auction. First you have to decide what it is worth to you. That
figure if it is the winning bid should go to the US treasury right? But
that bid is only the first step since you have to now buy the right to
use the spectrum from the squatting broadcaster and you have no idea
what this broadcaster might hold out for or for how long. It could be 5,
10 or 30 years.

Don't laugh, there are right now winning bidders of channels 54, 55 and
59 that are in just this situation. If you talk to broadcasters even
recently they thought that a 20 year transition was appropriate. This is
all changing with the last two Congressional Hearings.

What does this mean to you? A lot of new services on channels 51 -59
including broadcast and data services. Services that are allowed to use
whatever compression technology and modulation they want. Competition
for broadcasters, cable and satellite. Think about it like the breakup
of the telco AT&T monopoly where MCI was allowed to COMPETE.

This is already having affects in other countries. The new digital
terrestrial broadcast FREEVIEW system in the UK that is very successful
has caused the satellite competitor to offer 200 channels free just
yesterday. In Berlin the cable companies are going to court to try and
reign in a similarly successful free OTA system.

Terrestrial OTA broadcasting can compete with cable and satellite they
have just chosen not too. They took that easy route and used their
political muscle to gain must carry on cable laws and have paid little
attention to their original reason for being, OTA broadcasting. That is
why and the only reason why we are stuck with 8-VSB as a modulation in
the US. Broadcasters didn't have to and were not paying attention when
the process of picking a modulation was on-going. Broadcasters in all
other countries put up a fight. The fight is now on-going in Korea where
broadcasters are refusing to go on the air with 8-VSB.

They need competition. So far they have and continue to use their
political clout to keep it from happening.
June 11, 2004 5:57:52 PM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote
> Current broadcasters who have these channels 51 - 69 are "holding" these
> channels for the duration of the digital transition. Current
> broadcasters used the blah blah woof woof....


www.careerbuilder.com
Anonymous
June 11, 2004 6:13:34 PM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:zTiyc.1682$Wr.1367@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

> > Who or what is holding channels 51 - 69 and why?

< snip >

> Current broadcasters who have these channels 51 - 69 are "holding" these
> channels for the duration of the digital transition. Current
> broadcasters used the excuse that in the future they would need to do
> HDTV which would require 12 MHz of spectrum or twice the spectrum they
> then were allocated, 6 MHz. This was primarily a stratagem to keep these
> channels in the TV fold since at the time the FCC was in the process of
> removing these channels and allowing their use for two way radio
> operations.
>
> While this was happening the advent of digital broadcasting and better
> compression technology reduced the need for 12 MHz back to 6 MHz and the
> broadcasters were granted the "temporary" use of an additional 6 MHz to
> facilitate the transition.


< snip >

Thank you. That answers it. I have been following Digital TV and own
an 8VSB receiver.
Anonymous
June 11, 2004 6:24:24 PM

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

"K. B." <hotmail.com@lis2lis2> wrote in message
news:40c945a4.1462221@netnews.worldnet.att.net...

>
> >What will the "release" mean to me?
>
> The national debt will reduced (slightly) by the auction and
> channels 52-69 may be used for mobile and/or subscription
> wireless services.

< snip >

Got it. Makes sense except in one regard: The supposed benefit to the
Treasury.

The spectrum auction is not "found money" for the Treasury, as people
(not you)
describe it. It is a tax, collected from the end users by the winners of
the auction.
Look at it this way ... if you presented a business model that ignored any
front-end
spectrum costs, you'd be thrown out of the board room.

Thanks, Kirk.
!