1080p Screams for MPEG4

[Guest]

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

Bob,

With all due respect, this is just another example of how you divert
the subject of a thread to push your point. Your comment was

"They (Japan) have sold 3.2 million mostly integrated HD OTA sets in
Japan in
just the last year. We have in the US seen the sale of a "suspect" 4
million HD sets in the last 8 years....."

Your talking out "integrated" HD sets with tuners, and I'm telling you,
all the evidence is telling you that US consumers aren't buying
"integrated" HD sets primarly because US consumers have subscription
based services and since they don't intend to get rid of those services
they opt not to spend the extra $200-$300 on an "integrated" set.

You refuse to factor in HD Ready sets as "HD" when in fact most US
consumers that watch HD programming do so on non-integrated HD Ready
televisions. You also dodge the subject of avaiable HD content which I
feel is the most significant indicator of a successful adoption of High
Definition.

 

[David]

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:QKfae.10567$An2.5203@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Dave Oldridge wrote:
>> Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in
>> newsine.LNX.4.63.0504220844480.17694@shiva2.cac.washington.edu:
>>>On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Bob Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>>As volume 1080P capable DTV sets come to market the deficiencies of
>>>>MPEG2 compression which already bit starves 1080i OTA broadcasting
>>>>will deny 1080P. It will become more evident over the near term that
>>>>the rush to lock in MPEG2 and 8-VSB for OTA broadcasting was a
>>>>mistake, something that was evident to many in 2000.
>>>>http/news.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/10381/132877.html
>>>Of course, as usual with Psycho Bob postings, the article from that
>>>URL doesn't support his contention in anyway. In fact, the question
>>>of MPEG2 vs. MPEG4 isn't mentioned at all.
>>>However, that article does have one interesting quote about the
>>>"failure" of HDTV in the US that Psycho Bob keeps bleating about:
>>> ... there are currently 4 million HDTV households in the US, up
>>> from 1.6 million in March 2004
>>>So, a 150% increase (2.5 times) in HDTV deployment in one year
>>>indicates failure.
>> Gee, if it keeps failing at this rate, it will take until Christmas 2008
>> to get 100 million viewer market for the thing. What a dismal prospect!
>> Not!
> Depends on how you count. If they keep selling 2.4 million HD sets like
> they did in the last year till 2008 then we would have 11.2 million by
> then not 100 million. Of course if you want to use compounding then it
> could be 100 million. But then since it was 20 degrees cooler today in New
> York then yesterday I can predict that we will reach absolute zero
> sometime early next week if we compound the falling temperature rate.
>
> The funny thing is that if we had been selling COFDM receivers in the US
> at the same rate as they are currently selling in the UK we would reach
> 100 million COFDM DTV receivers sold in the US sometime this year with NO
> compounding.
> OTA TV in the US is failing and all of its spectrum would have been on the
> auction block by now if it wasn't for the miracle of must carry. The veils
> are lifting right now in Congress. They are really paying attention for
> the first time to the DTV transition because it keeps coming back to
> bother them. They really really want to see this problem go away.
>
> Bob Miller

I'm just wondering, weren't all of these lies already
challenged and disproved here just a few months ago?

Or are these posting newer examples of bob's lies?

 

[Guest]

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

"... compared to 290 million households" 290 million households??? How
about 290 million people. I don't think that every man, woman, or child in
this country has his or her own house, do you?



"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:j1Hae.1$Oz2.0@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Mark Crispin wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, Bob Miller wrote:
>>
>>> Sad? Japan?
>>> They have sold 3.2 million mostly integrated HD OTA sets in Japan in
>>> just the last year.
>>
>>
>> But most of those sets aren't viewing terrestrial digital HD because
>> there's no signal to receive! Homes with HDTV in Japan are mostly
>> satellite or cable.
>>
>> However, it makes no sense to buy an HDTV without an OTA tuner, even if
>> your area isn't served yet. The only reason HDTVs without tuners were
>> sold in the US is because Psycho Bob and his friends at Sinclair tried to
>> stop the DTV transition with it didn't go his way.
>>
>
> In Japan with little OTA HD broadcasting Mark admits a lot of HDTV sets
> are being sold. That could be because there may be more broadcasting than
> Mark admits of knows of and it could be because the players in the OTA
> HDTV business in Japan are more confident of their system. The
> manufacturers retailers and therefore their customers all are on board,
> confident and eager to buy into their OTA COFDM ISDB-T system. Why could
> that be even in the face of little broadcasting as Mark suggest?
>
> Well if your are a retailer selling big bulky integrated HDTV sets you
> will not be aggressive in selling them if you find a lot of them coming
> back because of problems. If the OTA receiver built in is a problem it
> would be better to push the HD set without the receiver and sell the
> receiver separately. When it comes back because of problems it is a much
> smaller part of the sale, weighs less and is just a smaller problem.
>
> In the US a lot of receivers come back and become open box specials. This
> has kept receivers out of integrated sets and caused the FCC to mandate
> what the industry, the retailers abhor. So in the US with almost universal
> DTV coverage, lots of HD content, a rich country eager normally to be the
> firstest with the mostest our problematic modulation has stymied our DTV
> transition.
>
> While in Japan with little coverage and less content people are being sold
> by eager retailers very expensive equipment that can't even receive HD yet
> while in the US people are taking home HD sets with no receiver in them to
> watch DVD's while there is a lot of free OTA being broadcast. And in many
> cases we find that the salespersons didn't even inform them of the HD
> options.
>
> And it is all because Bob Miller is posting on a newsgroup in the US and
> not Japan.
>
> Good logic!!!
>
> If the US with all its content and universal coverage had been selling
> 8-VSB integrated HDTV sets at the same, non accelerated rate, as has taken
> place in Japan this last year, the US would have seen the sale of 90
> million INTEGRATED HDTV SETS over the last five years. That is the US is
> six times as large as Japan. 46 million households compared to 290 million
> households. Five years of 3 million sales per year equals 15 million
> multiplied by 6 times as many households equals 90 million.
>
> But we should have expected an acceleration as the first years sale so 3
> million happy households induced more than 3 million the second year. The
> US with only a minor acceleration over the Japan rate would have seen more
> than 109 million HDTV integrated DTV sets sold in the last five years if
> we had the same sales rate as Japan with even half of the accelerated
> sales that Japan will see this year over last.
>
> THE US TRANSITION WOULD ALREADY BE OVER WITH!!! Every house would already
> have an integrated HDTV set.
>
> But Bob Miller all by himself thwarted this entire industry.
>
> Hint, if this entire industry believes this they can buy me off a lot
> cheaper than Congress and the FCC. A few million my way and they can be
> selling billions and billions of 8-VSB integrated sets tomorrow.
>
> And I will lead the band right down main street beating the drum for
> 8-VSB.
>
> Bob Miller
>
>
>> But Psycho Bob Miller won't tell you that.
>>
>> Psycho Bob lies, either directly or by misleadingly presenting
>> statistics.
>>
>> Remember, whatever Psycho Bob Miller says, the exact opposite is true!
>>
>> -- Mark --
>>
>> http/staff.washington.edu/mrc
>> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
>> Si vis pacem, para bellum.

 

[Guest]

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

Phil Ross wrote:
> "... compared to 290 million households" 290 million households??? How
> about 290 million people. I don't think that every man, woman, or child in
> this country has his or her own house, do you?
>
>
109 million households not 290, sorry.
>
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:j1Hae.1$Oz2.0@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Mark Crispin wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, Bob Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sad? Japan?
>>>>They have sold 3.2 million mostly integrated HD OTA sets in Japan in
>>>>just the last year.
>>>
>>>
>>>But most of those sets aren't viewing terrestrial digital HD because
>>>there's no signal to receive! Homes with HDTV in Japan are mostly
>>>satellite or cable.
>>>
>>>However, it makes no sense to buy an HDTV without an OTA tuner, even if
>>>your area isn't served yet. The only reason HDTVs without tuners were
>>>sold in the US is because Psycho Bob and his friends at Sinclair tried to
>>>stop the DTV transition with it didn't go his way.
>>>
>>
>>In Japan with little OTA HD broadcasting Mark admits a lot of HDTV sets
>>are being sold. That could be because there may be more broadcasting than
>>Mark admits of knows of and it could be because the players in the OTA
>>HDTV business in Japan are more confident of their system. The
>>manufacturers retailers and therefore their customers all are on board,
>>confident and eager to buy into their OTA COFDM ISDB-T system. Why could
>>that be even in the face of little broadcasting as Mark suggest?
>>
>>Well if your are a retailer selling big bulky integrated HDTV sets you
>>will not be aggressive in selling them if you find a lot of them coming
>>back because of problems. If the OTA receiver built in is a problem it
>>would be better to push the HD set without the receiver and sell the
>>receiver separately. When it comes back because of problems it is a much
>>smaller part of the sale, weighs less and is just a smaller problem.
>>
>>In the US a lot of receivers come back and become open box specials. This
>>has kept receivers out of integrated sets and caused the FCC to mandate
>>what the industry, the retailers abhor. So in the US with almost universal
>>DTV coverage, lots of HD content, a rich country eager normally to be the
>>firstest with the mostest our problematic modulation has stymied our DTV
>>transition.
>>
>>While in Japan with little coverage and less content people are being sold
>>by eager retailers very expensive equipment that can't even receive HD yet
>>while in the US people are taking home HD sets with no receiver in them to
>>watch DVD's while there is a lot of free OTA being broadcast. And in many
>>cases we find that the salespersons didn't even inform them of the HD
>>options.
>>
>>And it is all because Bob Miller is posting on a newsgroup in the US and
>>not Japan.
>>
>>Good logic!!!
>>
>>If the US with all its content and universal coverage had been selling
>>8-VSB integrated HDTV sets at the same, non accelerated rate, as has taken
>>place in Japan this last year, the US would have seen the sale of 90
>>million INTEGRATED HDTV SETS over the last five years. That is the US is
>>six times as large as Japan. 46 million households compared to 290 million
>>households. Five years of 3 million sales per year equals 15 million
>>multiplied by 6 times as many households equals 90 million.
>>
>>But we should have expected an acceleration as the first years sale so 3
>>million happy households induced more than 3 million the second year. The
>>US with only a minor acceleration over the Japan rate would have seen more
>>than 109 million HDTV integrated DTV sets sold in the last five years if
>>we had the same sales rate as Japan with even half of the accelerated
>>sales that Japan will see this year over last.
>>
>>THE US TRANSITION WOULD ALREADY BE OVER WITH!!! Every house would already
>>have an integrated HDTV set.
>>
>>But Bob Miller all by himself thwarted this entire industry.
>>
>>Hint, if this entire industry believes this they can buy me off a lot
>>cheaper than Congress and the FCC. A few million my way and they can be
>>selling billions and billions of 8-VSB integrated sets tomorrow.
>>
>>And I will lead the band right down main street beating the drum for
>>8-VSB.
>>
>>Bob Miller
>>
>>
>>
>>>But Psycho Bob Miller won't tell you that.
>>>
>>>Psycho Bob lies, either directly or by misleadingly presenting
>>>statistics.
>>>
>>>Remember, whatever Psycho Bob Miller says, the exact opposite is true!
>>>
>>>-- Mark --
>>>
>>>http/staff.washington.edu/mrc
>>>Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
>>>Si vis pacem, para bellum.
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:
> Bob,
>
> With all due respect, this is just another example of how you divert
> the subject of a thread to push your point. Your comment was
>
> "They (Japan) have sold 3.2 million mostly integrated HD OTA sets in
> Japan in
> just the last year. We have in the US seen the sale of a "suspect" 4
> million HD sets in the last 8 years....."
>
> Your talking out "integrated" HD sets with tuners, and I'm telling you,
> all the evidence is telling you that US consumers aren't buying
> "integrated" HD sets primarly because US consumers have subscription
> based services and since they don't intend to get rid of those services
> they opt not to spend the extra $200-$300 on an "integrated" set.
>
> You refuse to factor in HD Ready sets as "HD" when in fact most US
> consumers that watch HD programming do so on non-integrated HD Ready
> televisions. You also dodge the subject of avaiable HD content which I
> feel is the most significant indicator of a successful adoption of High
> Definition.
>

I am talking about a successful OTA transition to digital. The key is to
have a successful transition, HD is one resolution that digital TV can
address.

The four million US HD units include all 8-VSB receivers of any kind I
believe. Do you have different numbers? It seems to be hard to get real
numbers.

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
newsudae.12086$lP1.9217@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> The point of the article that I posted that I was trying to make is that
> while 1080P is going to become very popular we will not be able to receive
> it OTA because of the asinine limitations placed on OTA to cripple it such
> as MPEG2 and 8-VSB.
>
> With an advanced codec like MPEG4 1080P would be possible OTA in our six
> MHz channels. In fact so would 1080i something that MPEG2 can't handle
> very well.

Standards are in place, there is always a newer better model of something
coming out next week, there is no use in crying over spilled milk. Lets
just say for fun that the ATSC broadcast standards were changed to allow
MPEG4. 1 year passes and MPEG5 comes out, then what? Are you going to
complain about how old our system is then and insist on MPEG5? There will
ALWAYS be something better on the horizon, I think we just need to ride this
thing out for now, whatever the standards are. Can you imagine the costs if
the standards here in the US were changed, *right now*?

--Dan

 

[Guest]

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

dg wrote:
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> newsudae.12086$lP1.9217@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>The point of the article that I posted that I was trying to make is that
>>while 1080P is going to become very popular we will not be able to receive
>>it OTA because of the asinine limitations placed on OTA to cripple it such
>>as MPEG2 and 8-VSB.
>>
>>With an advanced codec like MPEG4 1080P would be possible OTA in our six
>>MHz channels. In fact so would 1080i something that MPEG2 can't handle
>>very well.
>
>
> Standards are in place, there is always a newer better model of something
> coming out next week, there is no use in crying over spilled milk. Lets
> just say for fun that the ATSC broadcast standards were changed to allow
> MPEG4. 1 year passes and MPEG5 comes out, then what? Are you going to
> complain about how old our system is then and insist on MPEG5? There will
> ALWAYS be something better on the horizon, I think we just need to ride this
> thing out for now, whatever the standards are. Can you imagine the costs if
> the standards here in the US were changed, *right now*?
>
> --Dan
>
>
>
>
Costs would not be that high and in comparison to the benefits would be
insignificant.

We should have a system for OTA that can change just like cable and
satellite can change. Simple as that. If that were the "standard" then
equipment for sale to consumers would or could include the ability to be
upgraded to newer codecs as they came along.

The consumer could decide if they want to buy a receiver that could be
upgraded or not. Take the chance that is. This was possible in 2000. We
could have had receivers built then that would be upgradeble to MPEG4
and presumably MPEG5. For example if COFDM had been allowed in 2000 we
were proposing that an advanced codec like VP4, now VP6 be allowed also
and that receivers use a chip like the Equator so that other codecs
could automatically be handled by the receiver like VP6 or MPEG4.

Didn't happen because the whole rush to set standards was all about JUST
THE OPPOSITE. CEMENTING IN STANDARDS that were getting long in the tooth
before that became apparent and keeping the royalties rolling in for
special interest.

Can you imagine the cost to consumers over the next X number of years in
lost opportunities, expensive receivers, antennas and their
installation, no access to OTA low cost cable killer options, no
reception of DTV on their OTA spectrum in many cases and no easy
reception mobile or portable? Those cost will exceed any cost of
switching by a thousand times at least.

Just the cost of having only HD 1080i program that barly fits into the
channels with the resulting pixelation instead of two that fit very
nicely with no pixelation or 16 SD programs in one 6 MHz channels
instead of 5 SD programs alone increases the value to the consumer by
double and that is for every hour of every day for who knows how many
years. You could also fit a 1080/60P HD program into that 6 MHz channel.

It is pretty easy to calculate what it would take to change. X number of
receivers replaced by same number of far less expensive receivers. x
number of modulators replaced by same number of modulators at somewhat
lower cost. Not so easy to calculate the incredible cost of what will
never be. What for instance is the cost for what has NOT happened over
the last five years? With COFDM we would have seen 100,000,000 receivers
eagerly bought or given away in a frenzied and vibrant free market like
what is happening in the UK instead of the MANDATED stagnation we have
in the OTA broadcasting business in the US transition.

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:z6fbe.13439$lP1.204@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Just the cost of having only HD 1080i program that barly fits into the
> channels with the resulting pixelation instead of two that fit very
> nicely with no pixelation or 16 SD programs in one 6 MHz channels
> instead of 5 SD programs alone increases the value to the consumer by

Whoa, slow the cable truck down, are you really claiming that mpeg4 allows
over 3 times as many channels as the current scheme? I remember when Voom
was allegedly working on mpeg4 people were talking 20% more efficient
compression. Going from 5 channels to 16 in a 6MHz channel is quite a
claim.

--Dan

 

[Guest]

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

dg wrote:
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:z6fbe.13439$lP1.204@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Just the cost of having only HD 1080i program that barly fits into the
>>channels with the resulting pixelation instead of two that fit very
>>nicely with no pixelation or 16 SD programs in one 6 MHz channels
>>instead of 5 SD programs alone increases the value to the consumer by
>
>
> Whoa, slow the cable truck down, are you really claiming that mpeg4 allows
> over 3 times as many channels as the current scheme? I remember when Voom
> was allegedly working on mpeg4 people were talking 20% more efficient
> compression. Going from 5 channels to 16 in a 6MHz channel is quite a
> claim.
>
> --Dan
>
>
Those who make the compressors have told me that the vast majority of
MPEG2 equipment in the field today can do a decent 4-5 SD programs, that
with the best MPEG2 equipment and with MPEG2 not expected to improve
much more, that 8 programs could be squeezed in. Few are using that
latest gen MPEG2 equipment.

MPEG4 comes out doing 10 SD programs per 6 MHz channel with a capability
to do 16 in a few years as it starts to hit its potential. So you pick
your numbers or tell me different.

If you think that is a lot there is company that claims to be five times
better than MPEG4 or 50 SD channels per 6 MHz channel and they say they
are just starting to scratch the surface. We will be testing that codec
soon.

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

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

You are annoying as hell. Go shove your 8VSB somewhere, but please spare
this board. Get a life, for example. You know, that's when you are NOT on
the computer with your stupid 8VSB babbling.

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4U7ae.10338$An2.156@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> As volume 1080P capable DTV sets come to market the deficiencies of MPEG2
> compression which already bit starves 1080i OTA broadcasting will deny
> 1080P. It will become more evident over the near term that the rush to
> lock in MPEG2 and 8-VSB for OTA broadcasting was a mistake, something that
> was evident to many in 2000.
>
> http/news.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/10381/132877.html
>
> Bob Miller