I Was Wrong!

[Ivan]

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:TCcFd.5052$pZ4.4395@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> ivan wrote:
> > "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:IMbFd.5369$Ii4.4892@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> >>
> >>>ivan wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>But as virtually every TV receiver and VCR manufactured during the
> >>>>last 15
> >>>>years is equipped with at least one Scart socket, and digital
> >>>>receivers can
> >>>>now be purchased for under £40, this is hardly the problem you would
> >>>>have us
> >>>>believe.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>The fact that DTV in the US does not have that natural backwards
> >>>compatibility explains exactly why the DTV rollout in the US is on a
> >>>different time scale than DTV in Europe.
> >>>
> >>>Matthew (no, it's not the modulation scheme)
> >>>
> >>
> >>Any digital receiver should be able to connect to an analog TV in the
> >>US. That is not the problem. In the US no one has offered a similar
> >>service to the UK's Freeview. USDTV is the closest but offers only 12
> >>subscription channels while in the UK you have 30 free channels.
> >>
> >>The combination of inexpensive receivers and 30 free channels is a
> >>powerful combo. Expect 50 subscription channels plus the regular free
> >>OTA broadcast channels to start being offered in larger markets in the
> >>US once 5th gen receivers appear.
> >>
> >>Bob Miller
> >>(its all about modulation which will become apparent with 5th gen 8-VSB
> >>receivers and COFDM networks) The first rule is that you have to have
> >>something that works before it can be successful.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I have to agree with Matthew on this one Bob.
> >
> > A single universal Scart lead carries component (RGB) composite video,
> > stereo sound, auto w\s switching etc, which means that the majority of
even
> > quite elderly receivers can make ideal monitors for digital TV.
> >
> > Also virtually every home in the UK has a rooftop UHF antenna, in which
case
> > if the customer is receiving reasonable quality analogue from a
transmitter
> > equipped for digital transmissions, then in the majority of cases it's
> > usually merely a question of plugging in the antenna and the Scart lead
to
> > the DTT receiver and away they go, although in some areas (due to
limited
> > spectrum) they may have to upgrade their antenna to one of a different
> > group.
> >
> >
> In the UK you have very low power levels and an older version of COFDM
> that does not allow for SFNs.
>
> Here in the US there is little need for rooftop antennas for much of the
> coverage area of a typical DTV station since they are operating at as
> much as 1,000,000 Watts. I think the highest powered transmitter in the
> UK is 20,000 Watts with the average being in the 1000 Watts or less.
>
> From test we did with 5th gen 8-VSB receivers I would think 90% of
> homes in the US will be able to receive 8-VSB plug and play without a
> rooftop antenna. This makes for an even more interesting market in the
> US than in the UK where as you say with 1000 Watt transmitters and no
> SFN capability rooftop antennas are needed by many.
>
> Recent polls show that 30 to 50% of US cable and satellite customers
> would switch to such as service if offered. That is a 50 channel PVR
> supported OTA service. I doubt if cable and satellite can survive even
> that initial attack. Long term cable and satellite stand no chance
> against the combined OTA fixed broadcast (8-VSB), mobile broadcast
> (COFDM) and wireless Internet ala carte delivery of content IMO.
>
> The UK is showing the way and you are NOT some special case. Similar
> offerings will work virtually everywhere.
>
However the success of DTT in the UK is IMO due in no small way to the fact
that other than the outlay of a few pounds for the DTT receiver (now being
sold alongside the tins of baked beans in my local supermarket!) in the
majority of cases the main components are already in place, i.e. a
compatible TV 'monitor' and an existing rooftop antenna, plus as you have
already pointed out the incentive of being able to receive many more 'free'
TV and radio channels by simply pushing in a couple of plugs.

I honestly believe that if the average digital viewer would have had to of
purchased a new TV and antenna, as well as the receiver, then we would more
likely have 50,000 digital viewer's, rather than the estimated circa 5
million that we have at present.



> Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

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

ivan wrote:

> However the success of DTT in the UK is IMO due in no small way to the fact
> that other than the outlay of a few pounds for the DTT receiver (now being
> sold alongside the tins of baked beans in my local supermarket!) in the
> majority of cases the main components are already in place, i.e. a
> compatible TV 'monitor' and an existing rooftop antenna, plus as you have
> already pointed out the incentive of being able to receive many more 'free'
> TV and radio channels by simply pushing in a couple of plugs.
>
> I honestly believe that if the average digital viewer would have had to of
> purchased a new TV and antenna, as well as the receiver, then we would more
> likely have 50,000 digital viewer's, rather than the estimated circa 5
> million that we have at present.

There is also the point that if the cost of replacing existing kit was
in the range of $1000 to $15000, as it has been until recently in the
US, the uptake rate would be similarly depressed.

Rather than accept such simple explanations for the relatively slow
rollout of HDTV in the US, bob clings to his wacko theory that "It's the
modulation, stupid".

Matthew

 

[Guest]

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

ivan wrote:
>
> However the success of DTT in the UK is IMO due in no small way to the fact
> that other than the outlay of a few pounds for the DTT receiver (now being
> sold alongside the tins of baked beans in my local supermarket!) in the
> majority of cases the main components are already in place, i.e. a
> compatible TV 'monitor' and an existing rooftop antenna, plus as you have
> already pointed out the incentive of being able to receive many more 'free'
> TV and radio channels by simply pushing in a couple of plugs.
>
> I honestly believe that if the average digital viewer would have had to of
> purchased a new TV and antenna, as well as the receiver, then we would more
> likely have 50,000 digital viewer's, rather than the estimated circa 5
> million that we have at present.

I agree. If they had too. But they don't in the UK or in the US. If you
buy an 8-VSB digital receiver you can plug it into an analog TV set in
the US. What we are missing is a receiver that works, that is less
expensive, 30 plus channels of free DTV and any interest on the part of
broadcasters to tell the customer about the OTA proposition.

The arrival of a receiver that works, the 5th gen receiver from LG,
Hisense or Toshiba, would change all that if that ever happens. There
will be other USDTVs, there will be more content and there will be
promotion. The only thing is our receivers will still cost more, around
$200 but subscription services like USDTV will supply free or close to
free receivers.

Bob Miller
>
>
>
>
>>Bob Miller
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> ivan wrote:
>
>>
>> However the success of DTT in the UK is IMO due in no small way to the
>> fact
>> that other than the outlay of a few pounds for the DTT receiver (now
>> being
>> sold alongside the tins of baked beans in my local supermarket!) in the
>> majority of cases the main components are already in place, i.e. a
>> compatible TV 'monitor' and an existing rooftop antenna, plus as you have
>> already pointed out the incentive of being able to receive many more
>> 'free'
>> TV and radio channels by simply pushing in a couple of plugs.
>>
>> I honestly believe that if the average digital viewer would have had
>> to of
>> purchased a new TV and antenna, as well as the receiver, then we
>> would more
>> likely have 50,000 digital viewer's, rather than the estimated circa 5
>> million that we have at present.
>
>
> I agree. If they had too. But they don't in the UK or in the US. If you
> buy an 8-VSB digital receiver you can plug it into an analog TV set in
> the US. What we are missing is a receiver that works,

This we have as so many posts in alt.tv.tech.hdtv testify. You, of
course, ignore them just as you ignored Marc Shubin's statement that he
did get ATSC reception in his apartment with early ATSC receivers. You
ignored them because the station was in Philadelphia.

> that is less
> expensive, 30 plus channels of free DTV and any interest on the part of
> broadcasters to tell the customer about the OTA proposition.

OTA is likely to continue being successful in the US, especially as
consumers discover that they can receive better quality HDTV OTA than
they will typically get from cable or satellite providers.

> The arrival of a receiver that works, the 5th gen receiver from LG,
> Hisense or Toshiba, would change all that if that ever happens. There
> will be other USDTVs, there will be more content and there will be
> promotion. The only thing is our receivers will still cost more, around
> $200 but subscription services like USDTV will supply free or close to
> free receivers.
>

That business model has not been proven to be applicable, much less
profitable. Just how many subscribers does USDTV have, as a percentage
of OTA receivers sold?

Matthew

 

[Guest]

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

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> ivan wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> However the success of DTT in the UK is IMO due in no small way to
>>> the fact
>>> that other than the outlay of a few pounds for the DTT receiver (now
>>> being
>>> sold alongside the tins of baked beans in my local supermarket!) in the
>>> majority of cases the main components are already in place, i.e. a
>>> compatible TV 'monitor' and an existing rooftop antenna, plus as you
>>> have
>>> already pointed out the incentive of being able to receive many more
>>> 'free'
>>> TV and radio channels by simply pushing in a couple of plugs.
>>>
>>> I honestly believe that if the average digital viewer would have had
>>> to of
>>> purchased a new TV and antenna, as well as the receiver, then we
>>> would more
>>> likely have 50,000 digital viewer's, rather than the estimated circa 5
>>> million that we have at present.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree. If they had too. But they don't in the UK or in the US. If
>> you buy an 8-VSB digital receiver you can plug it into an analog TV
>> set in the US. What we are missing is a receiver that works,
>
>
> This we have as so many posts in alt.tv.tech.hdtv testify. You, of
> course, ignore them just as you ignored Marc Shubin's statement that he
> did get ATSC reception in his apartment with early ATSC receivers. You
> ignored them because the station was in Philadelphia.
>
>> that is less expensive, 30 plus channels of free DTV and any interest
>> on the part of broadcasters to tell the customer about the OTA
>> proposition.
>
>
> OTA is likely to continue being successful in the US, especially as
> consumers discover that they can receive better quality HDTV OTA than
> they will typically get from cable or satellite providers.
>

Wow, continue to be successful? In Australia they talk of failure and
they have 7 times the sales of DTV receivers OTA as we do per capita. LG
announces that they are not even going to build 5th gen stand alone
receiver because there is no demand. Most consumers are avoiding the
mandated integrated sets as I predicted. Some success. What BTW would
you call failure? Would people have to be physically attacking broadcast
stations throwing their 8-VSB receivers at them?


>> The arrival of a receiver that works, the 5th gen receiver from LG,
>> Hisense or Toshiba, would change all that if that ever happens. There
>> will be other USDTVs, there will be more content and there will be
>> promotion. The only thing is our receivers will still cost more,
>> around $200 but subscription services like USDTV will supply free or
>> close to free receivers.
>>
>
> That business model has not been proven to be applicable, much less
> profitable. Just how many subscribers does USDTV have, as a percentage
> of OTA receivers sold?

Obviously it hasn't been proved yet, it hasn't been tried yet. There are
no 5th gen receivers to build a business with. USDTV is surviving with
4th gen receivers and MPEG2. What they need is 5th gen and MPEG4. They
know that.

What is happening in the UK, Italy and Berlin are instructive to what
will happen here when we do have decent receivers and therefore someone
offering decent business plans.

Bob Miller
>
> Matthew

 

[Guest]

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

Bob Miller wrote:

Once again, bob is given incontrovertable facts and asked direct
questions but all he does is change the subject and provide no answers.
You would think he was running for office.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

 

[Guest]

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

Matthew L. Martin wrote:

>
> This we have as so many posts in alt.tv.tech.hdtv testify. You, of
> course, ignore them just as you ignored Marc Shubin's statement that he
> did get ATSC reception in his apartment with early ATSC receivers. You
> ignored them because the station was in Philadelphia.

I don't ignore Mark's reception of a Phily station. Both he and I think
it is a joke. He could not receive more than two stations, one with the
antenna positioned in the middle of his living room on the floor on a
book and the other, maybe the Phily station on top of a bookcase in the
corner. Mark lives only a mile from the Empire State Building.

The good news is that when we tested the 5th gen receiver at his
apartment it worked very well. We received 8 or 9 stations with a simple
loop antenna. No manufacturer would even allow Mark to say that they had
tested in his apartment before the 5th gen receiver. That actually is
WHY I tested it. I knew before hand that LG was confident that their 5th
gen would work when they did not require a non-disclosure. The FIRST
TIME THIS HAS HAPPENED! Which tells it all and tells it like it is.

Pics here of Mark Shubin's apartment and test
http/public.fotki.com/robmx/5th_generation_test/

Posters on AVSForum are nashing their teeth because of the LG
announcement that they will not produce an 8-VSB 5th gen stand alone
receiver.
http/www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=143ba7f5924832ecfb9ccb9776f3a2fd&threadid=494029

Bob Miller

 

[aztech]

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

"ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:34kb4oF4dfc9aU1@individual.net...
<
> But as virtually every TV receiver and VCR manufactured during the last 15
> years is equipped with at least one Scart socket, and digital receivers can
> now be purchased for under £40, this is hardly the problem you would have us
> believe.

It means we aren't progressing, in actual terms we're moving backwards. More
*new* analogue equipment has shipped over the last year than DVB boxes, so
digital hasn't even kept pace with the growth of equipment added last year let
alone eaten into the existing pile of 80m+ analogue devices.

The same has been true every year since 1998, there is more new analogue kit
since 1998 than there has been digital boxes, and that's ignoring the existing
installed base.

The tipping point when digital first out sells analogue equipment may be
2008-10, this is the bullshit timeframe intended for complete switch-off of the
signal! In reality digital may have only commanded 51% of new sales by that
date.


Az.

 

[Guest]

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

Aztech wrote:
> "ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:34kb4oF4dfc9aU1@individual.net...
> <
>
>>But as virtually every TV receiver and VCR manufactured during the last 15
>>years is equipped with at least one Scart socket, and digital receivers can
>>now be purchased for under £40, this is hardly the problem you would have us
>>believe.
>
>
> It means we aren't progressing, in actual terms we're moving backwards. More
> *new* analogue equipment has shipped over the last year than DVB boxes, so
> digital hasn't even kept pace with the growth of equipment added last year let
> alone eaten into the existing pile of 80m+ analogue devices.
>
> The same has been true every year since 1998, there is more new analogue kit
> since 1998 than there has been digital boxes, and that's ignoring the existing
> installed base.
>
> The tipping point when digital first out sells analogue equipment may be
> 2008-10, this is the bullshit timeframe intended for complete switch-off of the
> signal! In reality digital may have only commanded 51% of new sales by that
> date.
>
>
> Az.
>
>
Unless of course sales of digital receivers double next year and the
year after.

Bob Miller

 

[aztech]

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:TCcFd.5052$pZ4.4395@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
<
> In the UK you have very low power levels and an older version of COFDM that
> does not allow for SFNs.
>
> Here in the US there is little need for rooftop antennas for much of the
> coverage area of a typical DTV station since they are operating at as much as
> 1,000,000 Watts. I think the highest powered transmitter in the UK is 20,000
> Watts with the average being in the 1000 Watts or less.

The ERP powers in the US take the biscuit, especially when you consider that
some are VHF or very low down in Band-IV UHF.

The highest ERP for DTT in the UK is 20kW at Crystal Palace covering London :-
http/www.bbc.co.uk/reception/tv_transmitters/tv_digit.shtml

Sutton Coldfield covering the second city is only at 8kW, and at least two of
those muxes are directly adjacent to 1000kW analogue channels. The QAM16 muxes
are receivable with a simple bow antenna on a 1st generation box, given the
circumstances Freeview shouldn't actually work.

Of course COFDM requires more power, hrm.


Az.

 

[Guest]

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

Aztech (az@tech.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> The ERP powers in the US take the biscuit, especially when you consider that
> some are VHF or very low down in Band-IV UHF.
>
> The highest ERP for DTT in the UK is 20kW at Crystal Palace covering London :-
> http/www.bbc.co.uk/reception/tv_transmitters/tv_digit.shtml

"Covering London"...big deal. When you can pick that signal up in
Birmingham, let us know.

This is the size difference between the US and the UK. The transmitter on
top of the Empire State Building is responsible for covering all of Long
Island, the tip of which is nearly 100 miles away from the ESB. That's
about the same difference as the distance from London to Birmingham.

Likewise, the transmitters in downtown Washington, DC, are responsible
for covering parts of West Virginia over 90 miles away.

> Of course COFDM requires more power, hrm.

It does, if you don't use multiple tiny transmitters and SFN. An SFN network
won't work in the US because of the great areas of low population density
that have to be served. You can't put up towers every 30 miles in Montana
and Wyoming, because each tower would only serve 1 or 2 households.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/SupportTraining.gif

 

[Ivan]

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

"Aztech" <az@tech.com> wrote in message
news:qaxFd.693729$2W1.56439@news.easynews.com...
> "ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:34kb4oF4dfc9aU1@individual.net...
> <
> > But as virtually every TV receiver and VCR manufactured during the last
15
> > years is equipped with at least one Scart socket, and digital receivers
can
> > now be purchased for under £40, this is hardly the problem you would
have us
> > believe.
>
> It means we aren't progressing, in actual terms we're moving backwards.
More
> *new* analogue equipment has shipped over the last year than DVB boxes, so
> digital hasn't even kept pace with the growth of equipment added last year
let
> alone eaten into the existing pile of 80m+ analogue devices.
>
> The same has been true every year since 1998, there is more new analogue
kit
> since 1998 than there has been digital boxes, and that's ignoring the
existing
> installed base.
>
> The tipping point when digital first out sells analogue equipment may be
> 2008-10, this is the bullshit timeframe intended for complete switch-off
of the
> signal! In reality digital may have only commanded 51% of new sales by
that
> date.
>
>
That wasn't really my point, which was that any one of those newly acquired
analogue TV's VCR's DVD recorders can very simply be upgraded to 'full'
Digital compatibility with just a single universal lead, at 'anytime' the
owner chooses to go digital.


> Az.
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Aztech wrote:
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:TCcFd.5052$pZ4.4395@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> <
>
>>In the UK you have very low power levels and an older version of COFDM that
>>does not allow for SFNs.
>>
>>Here in the US there is little need for rooftop antennas for much of the
>>coverage area of a typical DTV station since they are operating at as much as
>>1,000,000 Watts. I think the highest powered transmitter in the UK is 20,000
>>Watts with the average being in the 1000 Watts or less.
>
>
> The ERP powers in the US take the biscuit, especially when you consider that
> some are VHF or very low down in Band-IV UHF.
>
> The highest ERP for DTT in the UK is 20kW at Crystal Palace covering London :-
> http/www.bbc.co.uk/reception/tv_transmitters/tv_digit.shtml
>
> Sutton Coldfield covering the second city is only at 8kW, and at least two of
> those muxes are directly adjacent to 1000kW analogue channels. The QAM16 muxes
> are receivable with a simple bow antenna on a 1st generation box, given the
> circumstances Freeview shouldn't actually work.
>
> Of course COFDM requires more power, hrm.
>
>
> Az.
>
>
We like things big here.

When in doubt pick the biggest number. It has to be the best.

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

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

ivan wrote:
>
> That wasn't really my point, which was that any one of those newly acquired
> analogue TV's VCR's DVD recorders can very simply be upgraded to 'full'
> Digital compatibility with just a single universal lead, at 'anytime' the
> owner chooses to go digital.

Agreed, I don't understand his reasoning on this one.

The 1.5 or 1.6 million receivers sold in the last quarter will likely
be equaled by sales in the first quarter of 2005 and doubled in the last
quarter of 2005. This is not going to take all that long. I think each
sale is having an affect on two new sales.

Word of mouth is the most powerful sales tool. Both ways. Here in the US
it has stalled our transition in its tracks OTA. A couple of test of a
new 5th gen receiver and everyone is interested in OTA again. All kinds
of possibilities resurface.

No advertising just word of mouth amplified by the Internet.

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

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

Bob Miller wrote:
>
> No advertising just word of mouth amplified by the Internet.
>

You still haven't found a major network affiliated TV station that has
gone out of business, have you?

You still haven't said how many USDTV receivers are subscribed to the
USDTV service.

Matthew

 

[Guest]

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

Matthew L. Martin (nothere@notnow.never) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> You still haven't said how many USDTV receivers are subscribed to the
> USDTV service.

Very, very few, I'd imagine.

Word is getting out that these receivers are inexpensive and fairly good
ATSC tuners with no need for a subscription and no extra fee if you don't
subscribe.

Add to that the fact that they are sold at WalMart with very liberal return
policies, and a lot of people are buying them even for just a few OTA
channels.

--
Jeff Rife |
| "Resistance...is *futile*"
|
| -- Data, "Star Trek: First Contact"

 

[Ivan]

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2fyFd.5790$pZ4.879@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Aztech wrote:
> > "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:TCcFd.5052$pZ4.4395@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > <
> >
> >>In the UK you have very low power levels and an older version of COFDM
that
> >>does not allow for SFNs.
> >>
> >>Here in the US there is little need for rooftop antennas for much of the
> >>coverage area of a typical DTV station since they are operating at as
much as
> >>1,000,000 Watts. I think the highest powered transmitter in the UK is
20,000
> >>Watts with the average being in the 1000 Watts or less.
> >
> >
> > The ERP powers in the US take the biscuit, especially when you consider
that
> > some are VHF or very low down in Band-IV UHF.
> >
> > The highest ERP for DTT in the UK is 20kW at Crystal Palace covering
London :-
> > http/www.bbc.co.uk/reception/tv_transmitters/tv_digit.shtml
> >
> > Sutton Coldfield covering the second city is only at 8kW, and at least
two of
> > those muxes are directly adjacent to 1000kW analogue channels. The QAM16
muxes
> > are receivable with a simple bow antenna on a 1st generation box, given
the
> > circumstances Freeview shouldn't actually work.
> >
> > Of course COFDM requires more power, hrm.
> >
> >
> > Az.
> >
> >
> We like things big here.
>
> When in doubt pick the biggest number. It has to be the best.
>

Yes Bob, but sometimes the bigger they are.....


> Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

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

ivan wrote:

>
> Yes Bob, but sometimes the bigger they are.....
>
I can finish that. One of the spams I received this morning has the answer.

Bigger includes

1080i over 720P

MegaWatts of power over any discussion of a modern SFN network.

Big antennas with rotors over smart receivers.

Our FCC talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk when it comes to
technology and broadcasting. Instead of leading they follow an ignorant
Congress manipulated by special interest.

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

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

ivan wrote:

>
> Yes Bob, but sometimes the bigger they are.....
>

One other point. I find it ironic that most of the smaller HDTV sets are
the ones that can handle 1080i while most of the larger ones, Plasmas
and RPTVs are 720P. The smaller sets can't do justice to the purpose of
HDTV, to give you that theater experience, and any benefit that 1080i
offers, like when nothing is moving , while the larger screens are great
with 720P.

On the other hand 1080P (true 1080P content) on an Sony SXRD is
phenomenal. Better than any theater experience I have ever had except IMAX.

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Rife wrote:
> Aztech (az@tech.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>The ERP powers in the US take the biscuit, especially when you consider that
>>some are VHF or very low down in Band-IV UHF.
>>
>>The highest ERP for DTT in the UK is 20kW at Crystal Palace covering London :-
>>http/www.bbc.co.uk/reception/tv_transmitters/tv_digit.shtml
>
>
> "Covering London"...big deal. When you can pick that signal up in
> Birmingham, let us know.

You can pick up the same signal in Birmingham its just that it is
broadcast from Malvern or such. The UK does not use SFNs BTW. The
version of COFDM they chose does not support it.
>
> This is the size difference between the US and the UK. The transmitter on
> top of the Empire State Building is responsible for covering all of Long
> Island, the tip of which is nearly 100 miles away from the ESB. That's
> about the same difference as the distance from London to Birmingham.
>
> Likewise, the transmitters in downtown Washington, DC, are responsible
> for covering parts of West Virginia over 90 miles away.
>
>
>>Of course COFDM requires more power, hrm.
>
>
> It does, if you don't use multiple tiny transmitters and SFN. An SFN network
> won't work in the US because of the great areas of low population density
> that have to be served. You can't put up towers every 30 miles in Montana
> and Wyoming, because each tower would only serve 1 or 2 households.
>
See what I mean Aztech? The astounding ability to deny. Even the
theoretical difference in power levels between COFDM and 8-VSB have been
discounted by every country including such as China, Russia and
Australia but when you are in denial you say things like "tiny
transmitters". In the real world the power differential is non-existent.
At typical US and similar power levels, say a MegaWatt, COFDM and 8-VSB
will have similar reception characteristics at the radio horizon with
COFDM taking the cake because of multipath. I have offered the challenge
that at ANY location that an 8-VSB advocate picks where they can receive
8-VSB I will be able to receive COFDM MOBILE. I will drive around the
8-VSB reception site. ANYWHERE!! No one showed up in Toronto or New York
when we were operational there.

The theoretical power advantage of 8-VSB would only show up where you
are using low power transmitters like in the UK and what did the UK
chose? COFDM. What works GREAT at low power in the UK? COFDM. Sirius and
XMRadio didn't pick 8-VSB for their repeaters, they chose COFDM.
Qualcomm wants to cover the entire US with a DTV broadcast. What did
they chose? COFDM. Anyone that has the POWER of choice choses COFDM. The
only population in the world that chose 8-VSB was the US broadcaster.
Why? They didn't have a choice. They want, think, sleep and dream must
carry and Congress threatened them verbally and specifically that if
they voted for 8-VSB in January of 2001 they would be crucified with
loss of multicast must carry and early return of spectrum and possible
loss of all spectrum. LG's big parties for Congressman Tauzin and others
paid off big time. Expect that the drug companies will now be picking
your pockets even more that Tauzin is a $2 million a year lobbyist for
the drug industry.

An SFN with COFDM can have MegaWatt transmitters to if you want them.
They can have any power level you want. In Montana it may make sense to
have higher power transmitters and bigger cells. BTW the 8-VSB community
is all excited about making 8-VSB work with SFN's. They only disparage
COFDM for the things it can do that 8-VSB can not while they are
feverishly trying to get 8-VSB up to doing the same things.

Been that way from the beginning. Mobile, SFNs, on channel repeaters and
receivers that could work with multipath.

One out of four isn't bad after only 7 years of trying. They have a
receiver that works with static multipath pretty good. Nothing like
COFDM though.

Now all they have to do is get SFN's, Mobile, on channel repeaters and
dynamic multipath problems fixed. I give them about 35 years to
accomplish that at the rate they are going.

Now if we could only get one of those 5th gen receivers on the market or
a Linx or something. Anything that works and I mean works for the
industry not for a select few of self appointed early adopters who have
done a great job of intimidating anyone who comes within their range
away from OTA DTV with "there are no problems unless you are stupid or
so poor you can't afford a $5000 DTV".

A decent receiver is all we need to get the digital transition moving.
What gives? I can't get anyone on the phone to give me an answer. I am
starting to think in conspiratorial terms again. Why and who doesn't
want to see the digital OTA transition successful? Cable and satellite
are two, retailers who are making money selling satellite maybe, the
CEA, I don't know why.

Bob Miller