Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

NAB and Multicast Must Carry

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 6:30:16 AM

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

<http://www.tvtechnology.com/dailynews/one.php?id=3208&g...;

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

More about : nab multicast carry

Anonymous
September 7, 2005 8:45:06 PM

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

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 02:30:16 GMT K. B. <hotmail.com@lis2lis2> wrote:

| <http://www.tvtechnology.com/dailynews/one.php?id=3208&g...;

I'm fulling in favor of multicast must-carry. Anyone here who isn't,
other than those who don't even like any form of must-carry?

IMHO, if I tune the main channel selection to a local TV channel via
cable, I should get _everything_ that station provides in their 6 MHz
of OTA channel space.

Also, IMHO, the cable industry wants to avoid a multicast must-carry
just so they can use it as a bargaining chip to extract money out of
even local broadcasters.

I'd even favor must-carry for LPTV. I'd also favor many other things
that are needed to get the cable TV industry cleaned up.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 8:45:07 PM

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 02:30:16 GMT K. B. <hotmail.com@lis2lis2> wrote:
>
> | <http://www.tvtechnology.com/dailynews/one.php?id=3208&g...;
>
> I'm fulling in favor of multicast must-carry. Anyone here who isn't,
> other than those who don't even like any form of must-carry?

Only all the people who actually want to watch HDTV.

Must-carry of all sub-channels means that TV stations who don't need
must-carry for their main channel (i.e., ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, etc.) can
still use it to load up with home-shopping channels that would *have* to
be carried. This would cut into the already close-to-the-edge bitrate
for HDTV.

Anybody who isn't a moron and who actually watches HDTV would know this.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/TeriHatcher.g...
Related resources
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 9:02:33 PM

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

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 02:30:16 GMT K. B. <hotmail.com@lis2lis2> wrote:

| <http://www.tvtechnology.com/dailynews/one.php?id=3208&g...;

Let me add to my previous followup that in many locations within every
designated market area, conditions have been imposed that require people
to use cable as a means to get OTA TV, even though they could otherwise
get it directly. Most of the conditions have come about simply because
cable TV exists and provides that alternative to the outside TV antenna
or the building antenna system in apartment buildings. If people who
live in these places cannot get all the OTA programming via their cable
service, then something is very wrong about this. This is a major reason
why all of us (even those who don't have cable) should urge Congress to
implement a multicast must-carry that requires the entire suite of OTA
programming to be carried for all local broadcasters (including adding
LPTV broadcasters to the concept) within one year of that broadcaster
shutting off analog, if the cable system offers any local channels in
digital form.

Additionally, I believe the must-carry rules should be applied based only
on whether the cable customers within the grade-B coverage area of the
broadcaster, regardless of how large the cable system is beyond that area
or where their headend(s) is/are located, provided that if the headend
serving the customers at issue is unable to receive a signal of acceptable
quality using good engineering practices, the must carry rule would not
apply unless the broadcaster will cover the costs (including maintenance
costs) of delivering that acceptable quality signal. The must-carry would
only apply to the cable customers inside the grade-B area. Broadcasters
must be willing to accept the cable system also carrying all the programming
throughout their entire system or the portions on a common headend with any
portions in the broadcaster's grade-B area.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 9:15:57 PM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 02:30:16 GMT K. B. <hotmail.com@lis2lis2> wrote:
>
> | <http://www.tvtechnology.com/dailynews/one.php?id=3208&g...;
>
> I'm fulling in favor of multicast must-carry. Anyone here who isn't,
> other than those who don't even like any form of must-carry?
>
> IMHO, if I tune the main channel selection to a local TV channel via
> cable, I should get _everything_ that station provides in their 6 MHz
> of OTA channel space.
>
> Also, IMHO, the cable industry wants to avoid a multicast must-carry
> just so they can use it as a bargaining chip to extract money out of
> even local broadcasters.
>
> I'd even favor must-carry for LPTV. I'd also favor many other things
> that are needed to get the cable TV industry cleaned up.
>
I am against any form of must carry. If it were eliminated broadcasters
would have to concentrate on their OTA spectrum. For one thing 8-VSB
would never have happened if must carry didn't exist. We would have a
viable and vibrant OTA DTV industry that would work easily with simple
antennas and inexpensive receivers today.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 12:04:52 AM

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

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 13:47:55 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
|> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 02:30:16 GMT K. B. <hotmail.com@lis2lis2> wrote:
|>
|> | <http://www.tvtechnology.com/dailynews/one.php?id=3208&g...;
|>
|> I'm fulling in favor of multicast must-carry. Anyone here who isn't,
|> other than those who don't even like any form of must-carry?
|
| Only all the people who actually want to watch HDTV.
|
| Must-carry of all sub-channels means that TV stations who don't need
| must-carry for their main channel (i.e., ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, etc.) can
| still use it to load up with home-shopping channels that would *have* to
| be carried. This would cut into the already close-to-the-edge bitrate
| for HDTV.

It's all a matter of degree. If the cable system has capacity to carry
the bit rate of full HDTV at max quality level, then it has the capacity
to carry multiple programs when there is no HD, such as 4 simultaneous
channels of SD late at night for people that like old reruns or old black
and white movies. And the compression should be better in black and white
since the U and V channels will be basically flat.

FYI, Have seen sharper images from black and white (when all the color
is turned off and it's just basic RS-170 at NTSC timing rates) than from
color. Years ago, WVIA channel 44 in Scranton PA showed old black and
white movies late at night. They were sharp and crisp. I wonder well
HD would do with those. It would compress better.

Back to topic. If the station carries it OTA, regardless of what the
content is, if restrictions on being able to receive OTA are based on
the existance of cable as the alternative, then cable _must_ be required
to carry the OTA to the extent its technology has in place (e.g. if they
have digital, they must carry the full ATSC content). That is what I
believe.

I do understand what you are saying about this making it tempting for
stations to back off on HD quality to get that shopping channel out.
But maybe it's the shopping channel someone wants to get. Lots of
people really do watch those, and buy from there. It is a thriving
business.


| Anybody who isn't a moron and who actually watches HDTV would know this.

There ya go again, making more personal attacks.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 12:04:53 AM

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> | Must-carry of all sub-channels means that TV stations who don't need
> | must-carry for their main channel (i.e., ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, etc.) can
> | still use it to load up with home-shopping channels that would *have* to
> | be carried. This would cut into the already close-to-the-edge bitrate
> | for HDTV.
>
> It's all a matter of degree. If the cable system has capacity to carry
> the bit rate of full HDTV at max quality level, then it has the capacity
> to carry multiple programs when there is no HD

This is where your lack of ever having real experience with digital TV
in the US comes out.

90% of the channels that have an HDTV stream for at least 1 minute per day
have it for every minute of the day. Likewise, they won't cut back on
multicasting just because an HDTV signal is there, because they don't do
it now. If they had a revenue-producing, must-carry sub-channel, there
is no way they would *ever* turn it off.

Again, you're a complete moron when it comes to all things HDTV. You prove
it with every post.

--
Jeff Rife | "...the flames began at a prophylactic recycling
| plant, near the edge of the forest..."
|
| -- "WarGames"
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 1:10:02 AM

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

<phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:D fn5ei29qn@news4.newsguy.com...

< snip >

> I'd even favor must-carry for LPTV. I'd also favor many other things
> that are needed to get the cable TV industry cleaned up.

I disagree. In San Diego there are multiple LPTV stations in Spanish, aimed
at the southern suburbs. I really didn't start to discover them until I
began looking for reasons why I was having trouble receiving some Los
Angeles OTA DTV stations. WHOA!! An analog signal on that channel, too!!
Well, who's he?!? A quick trip to http://www.fcc.gov/mb/video/tvq.html
brings the right answer for any city and any channel.

I don't want that loading up the cable. No anti-Mexico bias here -- just
anti low-end programming. (Damn, you should see some of the grainy, jumpy,
old movies that one of them pumps out. Again, damn!)
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 1:59:44 AM

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

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message news:MPG.1d891d5c4c3fbe0c989f83@news.nabs.net...
> (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> > | Must-carry of all sub-channels means that TV stations who don't need
> > | must-carry for their main channel (i.e., ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, etc.) can
> > | still use it to load up with home-shopping channels that would *have* to
> > | be carried. This would cut into the already close-to-the-edge bitrate
> > | for HDTV.
> >
> > It's all a matter of degree. If the cable system has capacity to carry
> > the bit rate of full HDTV at max quality level, then it has the capacity
> > to carry multiple programs when there is no HD
>
> This is where your lack of ever having real experience with digital TV
> in the US comes out.
>
> 90% of the channels that have an HDTV stream for at least 1 minute per day
> have it for every minute of the day.

Not here on Earth. What planet do you live on?

90% of the HD I see (or worth watching/recording) is on channels
that aren't usually broadcast in HD.
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 2:29:30 AM

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

Jeff G (nospam@earthlink.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> > 90% of the channels that have an HDTV stream for at least 1 minute per day
> > have it for every minute of the day.
>
> Not here on Earth. What planet do you live on?
>
> 90% of the HD I see (or worth watching/recording) is on channels
> that aren't usually broadcast in HD.

Really? You have stations other than PBS that switch to non-HD geometry?
AFAIK, every station except PBS just upconverts the SD and sticks it in
the center of an HD stream (with bars on the sides).

To do this and remain in good quality requires a lot more bits than sending
out an actual SD signal, so multicasting still hits it pretty hard
(although not as bad as true HD).

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/Chainsaw.gif
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 3:36:07 PM

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

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:53:48 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
|> | Must-carry of all sub-channels means that TV stations who don't need
|> | must-carry for their main channel (i.e., ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, etc.) can
|> | still use it to load up with home-shopping channels that would *have* to
|> | be carried. This would cut into the already close-to-the-edge bitrate
|> | for HDTV.
|>
|> It's all a matter of degree. If the cable system has capacity to carry
|> the bit rate of full HDTV at max quality level, then it has the capacity
|> to carry multiple programs when there is no HD
|
| This is where your lack of ever having real experience with digital TV
| in the US comes out.
|
| 90% of the channels that have an HDTV stream for at least 1 minute per day
| have it for every minute of the day. Likewise, they won't cut back on
| multicasting just because an HDTV signal is there, because they don't do
| it now. If they had a revenue-producing, must-carry sub-channel, there
| is no way they would *ever* turn it off.

Assuming your 90% figure is right (which is NOT a valid assumption when
coming from someone who is a sociopath) that still leaves 10%. Just
because a broadcaster does the wrong thing does not mean the technology
is what forces it. If the source material is SD, running it as HD is
just wrong. I don't know if you work in broadcasting or not, but I sure
as hell hope you don't (for the sake of viewers in your area).


| Again, you're a complete moron when it comes to all things HDTV. You prove
| it with every post.

Again, you show your entire purpose for being online is to be a harassing
sociopath.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 3:45:28 PM

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

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 22:29:30 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
| Jeff G (nospam@earthlink.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
|> > 90% of the channels that have an HDTV stream for at least 1 minute per day
|> > have it for every minute of the day.
|>
|> Not here on Earth. What planet do you live on?
|>
|> 90% of the HD I see (or worth watching/recording) is on channels
|> that aren't usually broadcast in HD.
|
| Really? You have stations other than PBS that switch to non-HD geometry?
| AFAIK, every station except PBS just upconverts the SD and sticks it in
| the center of an HD stream (with bars on the sides).

It seems the PBS stations are the ones with a clue. Now I know you aren't
the CE of a PBS station.


| To do this and remain in good quality requires a lot more bits than sending
| out an actual SD signal, so multicasting still hits it pretty hard
| (although not as bad as true HD).

Maybe they will eventually get a clue that when running old reruns that are
still in SD (because it's probably not worth going back to the original film
to re-do it in HD), by broadcasting it in SD, they have bits left over to
run another channel of programming, such as another old rerun in true SD.
Only the clueless believe that any subchannel has to be the same format 24x7.
But they will figure it out once they realize the greater ad revenues they
can get.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 3:52:50 PM

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

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 21:10:02 -0700 Sal M. Onella <salmonella@food.poisoning.org> wrote:

| <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
| news:D fn5ei29qn@news4.newsguy.com...
|
| < snip >
|
|> I'd even favor must-carry for LPTV. I'd also favor many other things
|> that are needed to get the cable TV industry cleaned up.
|
| I disagree. In San Diego there are multiple LPTV stations in Spanish, aimed
| at the southern suburbs. I really didn't start to discover them until I
| began looking for reasons why I was having trouble receiving some Los
| Angeles OTA DTV stations. WHOA!! An analog signal on that channel, too!!
| Well, who's he?!? A quick trip to http://www.fcc.gov/mb/video/tvq.html
| brings the right answer for any city and any channel.
|
| I don't want that loading up the cable. No anti-Mexico bias here -- just
| anti low-end programming. (Damn, you should see some of the grainy, jumpy,
| old movies that one of them pumps out. Again, damn!)

How about a must-carry that allows the cable company to stuff several
analog LPTV channels as subchannels in one QAM channel?

Otherwise, we'll just remain in disagreement. Although the Spanish
speaking population does have an overall lower ability to subscribe to
cable, those who can are very often in places where cable is their only
option to get anything 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
September 9, 2005 6:49:53 PM

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> If the source material is SD, running it as HD is
> just wrong.

Since you've never seen an actual HD display, we might be able to forgive
you for not understanding why sending SD with sidebars results in a better
picture.

And, since you don't have an HDTV tuner, we might be able to forgive you
for not understanding why switching between ATSC modes on the same sub-
channel isn't a good idea.

And, since you've never even talked with an engineer who has to support
HDTV at their station, we might forgive you for not knowing why switching
ATSC modes on the same sub-channel isn't a good idea at the transmission
end, either.

On the other hand, since you don't know squat about any of this stuff and
are still posting about it, I don't think we will forgive you.

Moron.

--
Jeff Rife | "A rabbit's foot? You slaughtered an innocent
| animal for some silly superstition?"
| "I didn't personally slaughter the rabbit. I shot
| a giant panda out of a tree, and he fell on it."
| -- "Cybill"
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 12:08:20 AM

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

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 14:49:53 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
|> If the source material is SD, running it as HD is
|> just wrong.
|
| Since you've never seen an actual HD display, we might be able to forgive
| you for not understanding why sending SD with sidebars results in a better
| picture.

If you are referring to having sidebars in the SD-over-HD, sure, that can
give a better picture than full HD since the sidebars will compress to such
small packets, leaving more room for the core of the image.

But sending SD source material natively as SD is still better than sending
it boxed in HD. One reason is that it can be correctly output when an STB
is configured to output to an SD-only display.


| And, since you don't have an HDTV tuner, we might be able to forgive you
| for not understanding why switching between ATSC modes on the same sub-
| channel isn't a good idea.

No, I don't have an HDTV tuner. Are you saying they are all defective and
fail to conform properly to the standard?


| And, since you've never even talked with an engineer who has to support
| HDTV at their station, we might forgive you for not knowing why switching
| ATSC modes on the same sub-channel isn't a good idea at the transmission
| end, either.

Since the ATSC standard has no issue with it, any issues that do exist
are obviously either poorly designed implementations, or poorly planned
operating practices.


| On the other hand, since you don't know squat about any of this stuff and
| are still posting about it, I don't think we will forgive you.

Since you didn't include any information in this post, leaving it to be
100% noise, I take it you don't have the information to post at all.


| Moron.

And on and on and on it drivels from your keyboard.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 12:08:21 AM

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> But sending SD source material natively as SD is still better than sending
> it boxed in HD.

Since you have never seen an HD display, you don't understand why this
statement is incorrect. Picture quality of SD upconverted to HD at the
station ends up higher than native SD. For reasons why, investigate
"anti-aliasing".

> One reason is that it can be correctly output when an STB
> is configured to output to an SD-only display.

True, poorly designed STBs might have a problem with this. Good ones,
however, can grab the center of the HD picture and downconvert to S-Video.

> | And, since you don't have an HDTV tuner, we might be able to forgive you
> | for not understanding why switching between ATSC modes on the same sub-
> | channel isn't a good idea.
>
> No, I don't have an HDTV tuner. Are you saying they are all defective and
> fail to conform properly to the standard?

The standard doesn't require ATSC tuners to deal with broken streams at
all, and switching to a different ATSC mode creates a stream break.

> | And, since you've never even talked with an engineer who has to support
> | HDTV at their station, we might forgive you for not knowing why switching
> | ATSC modes on the same sub-channel isn't a good idea at the transmission
> | end, either.
>
> Since the ATSC standard has no issue with it, any issues that do exist
> are obviously either poorly designed implementations, or poorly planned
> operating practices.

Welcome to the real world. That's where we live. You live in moron-world,
so you wouldn't understand.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/FoxTrot/TransporterError.j...
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 12:22:16 AM

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

<phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:D frt2i417bh@news3.newsguy.com...
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 21:10:02 -0700 Sal M. Onella
<salmonella@food.poisoning.org> wrote:

< spam >

> How about a must-carry that allows the cable company to stuff several
> analog LPTV channels as subchannels in one QAM channel?

Oh, I suppose ... However, my preference is for everything on the cable to
be to
my liking. I admit it's called "selfishness" and everyone has some of it,
whether
it's called "taste," "preference," "bias," or "distinction."

>
> Otherwise, we'll just remain in disagreement. Although the Spanish
> speaking population does have an overall lower ability to subscribe to
> cable, those who can are very often in places where cable is their only
> option to get anything at all.

True or not, I tend to be largely unsympathetic. The Spanish speakers
have made their own bed by emigrating or by sneaking in, whomever we're
talking about. (In this part of the country both classes are significant.)
They
need to assimilate but many don't because they've become "cultural
commuters."
Immigrants from Europe and Asia never had the luxury of quick trips back
and forth.

"Sal"
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 5:43:53 AM

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

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 16:58:51 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
|> But sending SD source material natively as SD is still better than sending
|> it boxed in HD.
|
| Since you have never seen an HD display, you don't understand why this
| statement is incorrect. Picture quality of SD upconverted to HD at the
| station ends up higher than native SD. For reasons why, investigate
| "anti-aliasing".

That's not a function of the standard, but rather, a function of poor
implementations. Blame the manufacturers, not the way digital TV works.
Anti-aliasing is a well known methodology that anyone can make use of. I
first included it in software I was working on in 1983. 22 years later
and some engineers don't know how to do it?

And just how good does that SD-over-HD do when converted back to SD?


|> One reason is that it can be correctly output when an STB
|> is configured to output to an SD-only display.
|
| True, poorly designed STBs might have a problem with this. Good ones,
| however, can grab the center of the HD picture and downconvert to S-Video.

Good ones can do better upconverting of SD to HD, too, including
anti-aliasing.


|> | And, since you don't have an HDTV tuner, we might be able to forgive you
|> | for not understanding why switching between ATSC modes on the same sub-
|> | channel isn't a good idea.
|>
|> No, I don't have an HDTV tuner. Are you saying they are all defective and
|> fail to conform properly to the standard?
|
| The standard doesn't require ATSC tuners to deal with broken streams at
| all, and switching to a different ATSC mode creates a stream break.

Maybe you are misinterpreting the standard. Nothing in there says it
breaks the stream to have a different mode later in time.


|> | And, since you've never even talked with an engineer who has to support
|> | HDTV at their station, we might forgive you for not knowing why switching
|> | ATSC modes on the same sub-channel isn't a good idea at the transmission
|> | end, either.
|>
|> Since the ATSC standard has no issue with it, any issues that do exist
|> are obviously either poorly designed implementations, or poorly planned
|> operating practices.
|
| Welcome to the real world. That's where we live. You live in moron-world,
| so you wouldn't understand.

You just don't understand implementations.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 10, 2005 12:13:41 PM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote >> that are needed to get the cable
TV industry cleaned up.
>>
> We would have a viable and vibrant OTA DTV industry that would work
> easily with simple antennas and inexpensive receivers today.
>
> Bob Miller

What a tired old lie.

Many COFDM installations *must* use rooftop antennas to overcome low
power/impulse noise issues. *Every* COFDM-using country has official
websites that discourage using "simple" indoor antennas.
September 10, 2005 6:28:15 PM

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

"David" <davey@home.net> wrote in message
news:WYednX0toahpUL_enZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote >> that are needed to get the
cable
> TV industry cleaned up.
> >>
> > We would have a viable and vibrant OTA DTV industry that would work
> > easily with simple antennas and inexpensive receivers today.
> >
> > Bob Miller
>
> What a tired old lie.
>
> Many COFDM installations *must* use rooftop antennas to overcome low
> power/impulse noise issues. *Every* COFDM-using country has official
> websites that discourage using "simple" indoor antennas.
>
>
Although, you conveniently forgot to mention the current disparity between
the power of analogue and digital, i.e. my local main transmitter pushes out
500k of analogue and only 5K of digital, yet in many instances the digital
still achieves better reception performance in awkward areas than analogue.

In fact a couple of local transmitters are only putting out 20W of digital
power, yet they still manage to serve catchment areas several kilometres
away delivering reliable digital reception to thousands of homes without
problems.

When analogue is eventually switched off (2008 in my area) then the output
power from main transmitters and relays will be tremendously increased, in
practise even with the severe handicap of very low power, many millions of
people here in the UK are enjoying good (Freeview) digital reception.
However given the circumstances that isn't to say that some people won't
experience problems, which even despite your mega power (big stick)
transmitters, I see that reception problems aren't totally unknown even on
your side of the pond.
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 11:34:41 PM

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

Ivan wrote:
> "David" <davey@home.net> wrote in message
> news:WYednX0toahpUL_enZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>>"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote >> that are needed to get the
>
> cable
>
>>TV industry cleaned up.
>>
>>> We would have a viable and vibrant OTA DTV industry that would work easily with simple antennas and inexpensive receivers today.
>>>
>>>Bob Miller
>>
>>What a tired old lie.
>>
>>Many COFDM installations *must* use rooftop antennas to overcome low power/impulse noise issues. *Every* COFDM-using country has official
>>websites that discourage using "simple" indoor antennas.
>>
>>
>
> Although, you conveniently forgot to mention the current disparity between the power of analogue and digital, i.e. my local main transmitter pushes out
> 500k of analogue and only 5K of digital, yet in many instances the digital still achieves better reception performance in awkward areas than analogue.
>
> In fact a couple of local transmitters are only putting out 20W of digital power, yet they still manage to serve catchment areas several kilometres
> away delivering reliable digital reception to thousands of homes without problems.
>
> When analogue is eventually switched off (2008 in my area) then the output power from main transmitters and relays will be tremendously increased, in
> practise even with the severe handicap of very low power, many millions of people here in the UK are enjoying good (Freeview) digital reception.
> However given the circumstances that isn't to say that some people won't transmitters, I see that reception problems aren't totally unknown even on
> your side of the pond.
>
>
Ivan you should also mention that in the UK you are hamstrung with only
2K COFDM which is doing very well for very many with simple indoor
antennas even though the power levels are so low that they would be
laughable in the US. Here a station broadcasting at 20K is chided for
being woefully low power while in the UK your HIGHEST powered digital
transmitter is at 20K, your average transmitter is at 3 K and you have
many transmitters at under 20W.

Reception problems are the rule in the US. Especially near transmitters
in big cities where a high percentage of those who still depend on OTA
TV live. We have yet to see a receiver that works 1/100 as well as that
of a 2K COFDM receiver that sells for $50 in the UK. Most of our retail
outlets don't stock OTA receivers or have them stuffed in the back room
or have one somewhere around here. Many are found in open box specials
where they have been returned after having been found wanting by the
first purchaser.

A friend of mine went thru nine from a WalMart before finding one he
SETTLED on, wasn't happy with it though. A high percentage of OTA
receivers sold in the US are part of a satellite receiver and most
buyers of such receivers never hook them to an antenna. RadioShack only
sells such satellite receivers and are having a clearance sale on them now.

Unlike in the UK where you are selling OTA COFDM receivers that work and
are affordable in the US most of the public still knows little about
digital TV and the word of mouth is that you should not waste your money
on the c**p 8-VSB OTA receivers available here. That is reflected in the
attitude of retailers and the MANDATE the FCC had to pass to try to
force the public to buy 8-VSB receivers.

Retailers however are getting around this by selling monitors that have
NO tuner in them telling customers that they should not waste any money
on tuners in their "TV" display devices if they are hooking up to cable.

The government's mandate is really a deceptive process to ensnare enough
of the ignorant so that they can declare the transition over with.
Congress however is going to decide the hell with all this and drop the
85% rule so that the transition is over with sooner.

It is a mess here with no relationship with what is happening in the UK.

The US will still switch to a more modern modulation, probably COFDM
based, but the impetus will be the need for a better compression system
than MPEG2. IMO. If we change the compression scheme we can change the
modulation at the same time since all current receivers will be obsolete
anyway.

The sooner the better.

Bob Miller
September 10, 2005 11:34:42 PM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:lzGUe.658$LS5.120@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Ivan wrote:
>> "David" <davey@home.net> wrote in message
>> news:WYednX0toahpUL_enZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>>>"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote >> that are needed to get the
>>
>> cable
>>
>>>TV industry cleaned up.
>>>
>>>> We would have a viable and vibrant OTA DTV industry that would work
>>>> easily with simple antennas and inexpensive receivers today.
>>>>
>>>>Bob Miller
>>>
>>>What a tired old lie.
>>>
>>>Many COFDM installations *must* use rooftop antennas to overcome low
>>>power/impulse noise issues. *Every* COFDM-using country has official
>>>websites that discourage using "simple" indoor antennas.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Although, you conveniently forgot to mention the current disparity
>> between the power of analogue and digital, i.e. my local main transmitter
>> pushes out
>> 500k of analogue and only 5K of digital, yet in many instances the
>> digital still achieves better reception performance in awkward areas than
>> analogue.
>>
>> In fact a couple of local transmitters are only putting out 20W of
>> digital power, yet they still manage to serve catchment areas several
>> kilometres
>> away delivering reliable digital reception to thousands of homes without
>> problems.
>>
>> When analogue is eventually switched off (2008 in my area) then the
>> output power from main transmitters and relays will be tremendously
>> increased, in
>> practise even with the severe handicap of very low power, many millions
>> of people here in the UK are enjoying good (Freeview) digital reception.
>> However given the circumstances that isn't to say that some people won't
>> transmitters, I see that reception problems aren't totally unknown even
>> on
>> your side of the pond.
> Ivan you should also mention that in the UK you are hamstrung with only 2K
> COFDM which is doing very well for very many with simple indoor antennas
> even though the power levels are so low that they would be laughable in
> the US. Here a station broadcasting at 20K is chided for being woefully
> low power while in the UK your HIGHEST powered digital transmitter is at
> 20K, your average transmitter is at 3 K and you have many transmitters at
> under 20W.
>
> Reception problems are the rule in the US. Especially near transmitters in
> big cities where a high percentage of those who still depend on OTA TV
> live. We have yet to see a receiver that works 1/100 as well as that of a
> 2K COFDM receiver that sells for $50 in the UK. Most of our retail outlets
> don't stock OTA receivers or have them stuffed in the back room or have
> one somewhere around here. Many are found in open box specials where they
> have been returned after having been found wanting by the first purchaser.
>
> A friend of mine went thru nine from a WalMart before finding one he
> SETTLED on, wasn't happy with it though. A high percentage of OTA
> receivers sold in the US are part of a satellite receiver and most buyers
> of such receivers never hook them to an antenna. RadioShack only sells
> such satellite receivers and are having a clearance sale on them now.
>
> Unlike in the UK where you are selling OTA COFDM receivers that work and
> are affordable in the US most of the public still knows little about
> digital TV and the word of mouth is that you should not waste your money
> on the c**p 8-VSB OTA receivers available here. That is reflected in the
> attitude of retailers and the MANDATE the FCC had to pass to try to force
> the public to buy 8-VSB receivers.
>
> Retailers however are getting around this by selling monitors that have NO
> tuner in them telling customers that they should not waste any money on
> tuners in their "TV" display devices if they are hooking up to cable.
>
> The government's mandate is really a deceptive process to ensnare enough
> of the ignorant so that they can declare the transition over with.
> Congress however is going to decide the hell with all this and drop the
> 85% rule so that the transition is over with sooner.
>
> It is a mess here with no relationship with what is happening in the UK.
>
> The US will still switch to a more modern modulation, probably COFDM
> based, but the impetus will be the need for a better compression system
> than MPEG2. IMO. If we change the compression scheme we can change the
> modulation at the same time since all current receivers will be obsolete
> anyway.
>
> The sooner the better.
>
> Bob Miller

Sorry, but you're just a failed datacasting business owner [and OCD
sufferer] with a personal axe to grind.
None of your postings about 8VSB have ever been the least bit accurate.
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 1:10:13 AM

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

Bob, why do you continue the lies and misinformation?

Very few Freeview installations are satisfactory with an indoor antenna.

http://www.freeview.co.uk/faqs/aerialsandreception.html

Can I watch FREEVIEW using a portable set-top aerial?
A small number of households may be able to use a set top aerial. This only
applies if you live in a coverage area close to a transmitter, but reception
would still be unreliable and so we strongly recommend that you use a roof
or loft aerial for good reception.

And these $50 set top boxes? The price is, on average, 60 POUNDS which is
about $110 US, over double your claim.
September 11, 2005 2:55:02 AM

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

"Frank Provasek" <frank@frankcoins.com> wrote in message
news:VYHUe.10450$FW1.9344@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Bob, why do you continue the lies and misinformation?
>
> Very few Freeview installations are satisfactory with an indoor antenna.
>
> http://www.freeview.co.uk/faqs/aerialsandreception.html
>
> Can I watch FREEVIEW using a portable set-top aerial?
> A small number of households may be able to use a set top aerial. This
only
> applies if you live in a coverage area close to a transmitter, but
reception
> would still be unreliable and so we strongly recommend that you use a roof
> or loft aerial for good reception.
>
> And these $50 set top boxes? The price is, on average, 60 POUNDS which is
> about $110 US, over double your claim.
>
>


As virtually every home in the UK is already equipped with an external UHF
antenna for analogue it's no big deal to upgrade, especially as many
antennas will probably be more than 20 years old anyway.

Reception predictors usually err on the side of pessimism, as the number of
people who can receive perfect digital reception in areas where the
predictor tells them that none exists bears testament.

Again, remember the 'minuscule' transmission powers involved with digital
here in the UK, which will be totally transformed after the switch-over, in
fact my guess is that there will be far more set-top antennas in use then
than there ever were a with analogue!

As for the cost of STB's Bob is correct, there are any number of different
manufacturers with prices ranging from around £25 up to over £100, just the
same as with any other commodity, from a washing machine to car, prices vary
tremendously.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?E201156CB
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 6:44:01 AM

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

Frank Provasek wrote:
> Bob, why do you continue the lies and misinformation?
>
> Very few Freeview installations are satisfactory with an indoor antenna.
>
> http://www.freeview.co.uk/faqs/aerialsandreception.html
>
> Can I watch FREEVIEW using a portable set-top aerial?
> A small number of households may be able to use a set top aerial. This only
> applies if you live in a coverage area close to a transmitter, but reception
> would still be unreliable and so we strongly recommend that you use a roof
> or loft aerial for good reception.
>
> And these $50 set top boxes? The price is, on average, 60 POUNDS which is
> about $110 US, over double your claim.
>
>
As Ivan points out even with minuscule power levels and the ancient 2K
COFDM modulation many and I would argue most homes in the UK could
receive with an indoor antenna. The fact is most homes in the UK already
have an installed rooftop antenna for analog reception so they naturally
use that and never even try to receive indoor.

The simple fact is that in New York city using ONE kW of power we were
able to deliver incredible mobile reception over much of the city, one
of the worst RF environments in the world, using COFDM as this video
demonstrates. And we were using simple omni monopole antennas. One
advantage we had was 8K COFDM which is used by every COFDM country but
the UK.

www.viacel.com/bob.wmv

As Ivan also says when they can turn off the 500K analog transmitters
and up the digital power and they are also going to upgrade to 8K COFDM
there will be no question of easy nationwide indoor reception with the
simplest of antennas as well as mobile reception. Mobile reception
already works in large parts of the UK if you use diversity antenna
systems which is quite amazing with a 2K system.

As for the price of COFDM receivers in the UK take a look for yourselves.

Here is one for $55.14 at Dixon's
http://www.dixons.co.uk:80/martprd/store/dix_page.jsp?B...

Ivan I believe that this price includes an 18% VAT tax. In the US we
would give the price before sales tax but in the UK the advertised price
includes the VAT so to compare subtract 18% or so from that $55.14. So
that would be more like $45.20 before tax. And I was talking about the
fact that COFDM receivers in the UK sell for as little as $50 not that
the average price was $50. Same as when on this list the lowest cost
8-VSB receiver is mentioned.

The Christmas before last there was one COFDM receiver in the UK at $35
on sale.

Bob Miller
September 11, 2005 4:21:22 PM

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

"Ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3oh30vF5rqhmU1@individual.net...
>
> "Frank Provasek" <frank@frankcoins.com> wrote in message
> news:VYHUe.10450$FW1.9344@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> Bob, why do you continue the lies and misinformation?
>>
>> Very few Freeview installations are satisfactory with an indoor antenna.
>>
>> http://www.freeview.co.uk/faqs/aerialsandreception.html
>>
>> Can I watch FREEVIEW using a portable set-top aerial?
>> A small number of households may be able to use a set top aerial. This
> only
>> applies if you live in a coverage area close to a transmitter, but
> reception
>> would still be unreliable and so we strongly recommend that you use a
>> roof
>> or loft aerial for good reception.
>>
>> And these $50 set top boxes? The price is, on average, 60 POUNDS which
>> is
>> about $110 US, over double your claim.
>>
>>
>
>
> As virtually every home in the UK is already equipped with an external UHF
> antenna for analogue it's no big deal to upgrade, especially as many
> antennas will probably be more than 20 years old anyway.
>
> Reception predictors usually err on the side of pessimism, as the number
> of
> people who can receive perfect digital reception in areas where the
> predictor tells them that none exists bears testament.
>
> Again, remember the 'minuscule' transmission powers involved with digital
> here in the UK, which will be totally transformed after the switch-over,
> in
> fact my guess is that there will be far more set-top antennas in use then
> than there ever were a with analogue!
>
> As for the cost of STB's Bob is correct, there are any number of different
> manufacturers with prices ranging from around £25 up to over £100, just
> the
> same as with any other commodity, from a washing machine to car, prices
> vary
> tremendously.
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?E201156CB


But if your boxes were 720p and 1080i HDTV-capable, wouldn't they be more
expensive?
September 12, 2005 2:12:55 AM

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

"David" <davey@home.net> wrote in message
news:mKedncP_0u8VxLneRVn-uw@comcast.com...
> "Ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3oh30vF5rqhmU1@individual.net...
> >
> > "Frank Provasek" <frank@frankcoins.com> wrote in message
> > news:VYHUe.10450$FW1.9344@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >> Bob, why do you continue the lies and misinformation?
> >>
> >> Very few Freeview installations are satisfactory with an indoor
antenna.
> >>
> >> http://www.freeview.co.uk/faqs/aerialsandreception.html
> >>
> >> Can I watch FREEVIEW using a portable set-top aerial?
> >> A small number of households may be able to use a set top aerial. This
> > only
> >> applies if you live in a coverage area close to a transmitter, but
> > reception
> >> would still be unreliable and so we strongly recommend that you use a
> >> roof
> >> or loft aerial for good reception.
> >>
> >> And these $50 set top boxes? The price is, on average, 60 POUNDS which
> >> is
> >> about $110 US, over double your claim.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > As virtually every home in the UK is already equipped with an external
UHF
> > antenna for analogue it's no big deal to upgrade, especially as many
> > antennas will probably be more than 20 years old anyway.
> >
> > Reception predictors usually err on the side of pessimism, as the number
> > of
> > people who can receive perfect digital reception in areas where the
> > predictor tells them that none exists bears testament.
> >
> > Again, remember the 'minuscule' transmission powers involved with
digital
> > here in the UK, which will be totally transformed after the switch-over,
> > in
> > fact my guess is that there will be far more set-top antennas in use
then
> > than there ever were a with analogue!
> >
> > As for the cost of STB's Bob is correct, there are any number of
different
> > manufacturers with prices ranging from around £25 up to over £100, just
> > the
> > same as with any other commodity, from a washing machine to car, prices
> > vary
> > tremendously.
> >
> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?E201156CB
>
>
> But if your boxes were 720p and 1080i HDTV-capable, wouldn't they be more
> expensive?
>
No doubt they would, but as it was blatantly obvious that I was replying to
a 'specific' statement made by a US poster about the cost of Freeview
receiver's *here in the UK* i.e. "And these $50 set top boxes? The price
is, on average, 60 POUNDS about $110 US, over double your claim" ... then I
fail to see a connection.
!