LG chooses COFDM

[Guest]

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

Gordon Burditt wrote:
>>Even if your vehicle doesn't have a TV screen installed in the back seat
>>as the article mentions what is to stop you from bringing in any of
>
>
> I question whether more than half of the vehicles in the USA even HAVE
> a back-seat passenger even once in any given week.
>
>
>>No law is going to stop mobile reception of DTV signals.
>
>
> But 8-VSB can! Which is why it's a great idea!
>
> Incidentally, does 8-VSB have reception problems for mobile
> *PEDESTRIANS*? (walking or jogging)?
>
> Gordon L. Burditt

Yes 8-VSB has problems with pedestrian reception among many other problems.

There is a lot of spectrum that does not require 8-VSB. Channels 51 thru
69 for instance.

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

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

poldy wrote:
> In article <jGXmd.29271$KJ6.12456@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>It is not 18fps and not provided by the mobile phone provicers. Qualcomm
>>will build their own overlay COFDM network and use QVGA video at up to
>>30 frames per second and high-quality stereo audio. They did this
>>because they are addressing small screens on cell phones. They could
>>have increased the bit rate to HD if they wanted to and decreased the
>>number of video programs.
>
>
> Nobody wants to watch video on cell phones.
>
> You are the weak link. Goodbye!

I don't, you don't, most people I talk to don't, we all will.

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:zgsnd.2917> I
don't, you don't, most people I talk to don't, we all will.
>
> Bob Miller

Now that I do somewhat agree with. Its like text messaging, I NEVER would
have thought people would do this. It is a huge money maker now, even
though I still have never text messaged anybody. People use it.

--Dan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>I don't, you don't, most people I talk to don't, we all will.
>

Interesting. So now BOB is telling you that we have no choice, we MUST buy
these cellphones and we MUST watch them. This man has some real issues.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>Yes 8-VSB has problems with pedestrian reception among many other problems.
>

As does COFDM, as does COFDM. BOB simply chooses not to tell you about that.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Vidguy7 wrote:
>>I don't, you don't, most people I talk to don't, we all will.
>>
>
>
> Interesting. So now BOB is telling you that we have no choice, we MUST buy
> these cellphones and we MUST watch them. This man has some real issues.

You must have a very low regard for other posters here Vidguy7 if you
think you can constantly twist what someone says and it won't reflect on
you.

I said people WILL watch DTV on cell phones. I did not say they Must
watch nor did I say they Must buy I just said they will.

People said that there was no reason for a GUI on your computer, real
men didn't need and wouldn't use a GUI, we all do. People said you
didn't need automatic transmissions and real men drove a stick, we all
use automatic transmissions. A lot of people did not see any reason for
a cell phone, most of us have them. The list goes on in fact it covers
almost every modern convenience we have.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>You must have a very low regard for other posters here Vidguy7 if you
>think you can constantly twist what someone says and it won't reflect on
>you.

No BOB, it is YOU that has an exceedingly low regard for people here. Your
lies, distortions and embellishments over the years to further your failed
business propositions are testimony to that. Your ongoing pursuit to slow the
digital transition, dismantle 8VSB, instill fear in those shopping for 8VSB
receivers are further testimony to how unsavory your tactics are. No BOB, it is
YOU that should be ashamed and I have said that often. SHAME ON YOU BOB!!!

>I don't, you don't, most people I talk to don't, we all will.

Well gee BOB, let's look at the above quote. I think it's pretty fair to imply
that everyone WILL watch (according to you) our teeny weeny HD cellphones. If I
choose not to and (according to you) most people you talk to don't, then I
guess you are TOTALLY inaccurate to characterize the future as "WE ALL WILL".
Why would I do something that I don't want to, makes no sense for me, is
ILLEGAL in a moving car etc. etc. What part of THAT don't you understand BOB?
It appears that many OR most WON'T watch on these cellphones. So once again
BOB, we have your very typical EMBELLISHMENT.
You've been doing it for years.

>People said you
>didn't need automatic transmissions and real men drove a stick, we all
>use automatic transmissions.

No BOB, we all DON'T use automatic transmissions. Man, it's a good thing you're
not an attorney. Talk about being free and loose with the English language!

 

[Guest]

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

magnulus wrote:

> [snip]



You are a ridiculous troll.













C.

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, manitou910 wrote:
> You are a ridiculous troll.

Please, let's get our definitions straight! There's a difference between
trolls and one of Psycho Bob's sock puppets!

-- 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.video.digital-tv,alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Bob Miller wrote:

>
> In five to ten years (if 8-VSB survives that long) the average household
> in the US will have 10 plus digital TV receive devices. All but one or
> two will be COFDM based and mobile.

Given your track record on predictions (zero for all) I guess we don't
have to worry about that.

> If 8-VSB survives this it will be
> relegated to the HD set in the living room (maybe another somewhere else).
>

Which, oddly enough, is what we want.

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.video.digital-tv,alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> In five to ten years (if 8-VSB survives that long) the average
>> household in the US will have 10 plus digital TV receive devices. All
>> but one or two will be COFDM based and mobile.
>
>
> Given your track record on predictions (zero for all) I guess we don't
> have to worry about that.
>
>> If 8-VSB survives this it will be relegated to the HD set in the
>> living room (maybe another somewhere else).
>>
>
> Which, oddly enough, is what we want.
>
> Matthew
>
That may be what you want but it is not what broadcasters want when they
sit down to sell advertising.

A number of years from now.

"So Mr. Broadcaster in our mobile society the average American is
moving. We hear that he is catching his favorite TV fare on the go more
and more. In fact 90% of consumers say they watch 75% of their TV
programming on devices NOT in the living room. So we are shifting 80% of
our advertising $$$ to your competitor mobile/portable broadcasters. In
fact we have found that people on the go or in the kitchen, on the boat
or in the backyard use their mobile DTV devices in such a way that they
do not interact as often and do not bother to skip commercial they sort
of use the mobile DTV as a diversion in the background while living room
sets are being Tivoed to death. So upon reconsideration we are upping
our mobile ad $$$s to 90%. And BTW of the remaining 10% we are moving
half to cable, satellite, Telecom and various Internet broadband
delivery channels that can delivery whatever just as well as you can to
the fixed receivers in the HD sets in the living room."

"Really sorry you have been so marginalized Mr. broadcaster what were
you thinking when the FCC and CEA foisted 8-VSB on you?"

The more aware broadcasters are already screaming bloody murder. (Call a
broadcaster and ask him about Qualcomm's venture, only the first in a
flood of competitors) Broadcasters will demand COFDM before it gets this
bad.

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

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

In news:bWbsd.84438$jE2.50036@bignews4.bellsouth.net,
magnulus <magnulus@bellsouth.net> typed:
> My ATSC reception in Orlando, Florida is spotty. I have the
> antenna mounted upstairs. Sometimes all it takes is somebody walking
> past or near the antenna to #$% it up. It's worse at night.
>
My ATSC reception in Dover, Delaware is great. I turn the antenna in the
attic (Rat Shack flying saucer) to Baltimore or Philadelphia and can count
on getting (*spotty)

Baltimore
ABC -2
NBC - 11*
CBS - 13
PBS - 22
FOX - 45*
WB - 54*

Philadelphia
CBS - 3
ABC - 6*
NBC - 10
PBS - 12
WB - 17
UPN - 57
PAX - 61*

I haven't been able to get DC for awhile, but I think the amp in the antenna
is going (that happens to rat shack amps).

Just FYI from 60 miles away. ;-) As always IMHO so YMMV.

 

[Neil]

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:41B21F28.2030906@earthlink.net...
> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>> Bob Miller wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> In five to ten years (if 8-VSB survives that long) the average household
>>> in the US will have 10 plus digital TV receive devices. All but one or
>>> two will be COFDM based and mobile.
>>
>>
>> Given your track record on predictions (zero for all) I guess we don't
>> have to worry about that.
>>
>>> If 8-VSB survives this it will be relegated to the HD set in the living
>>> room (maybe another somewhere else).
>>>
>>
>> Which, oddly enough, is what we want.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
> That may be what you want but it is not what broadcasters want when they
> sit down to sell advertising.
>
> A number of years from now.
>
> "So Mr. Broadcaster in our mobile society the average American is moving.
> We hear that he is catching his favorite TV fare on the go more and more.
> In fact 90% of consumers say they watch 75% of their TV programming on
> devices NOT in the living room. So we are shifting 80% of our advertising
> $$$ to your competitor mobile/portable broadcasters. In fact we have found
> that people on the go or in the kitchen, on the boat or in the backyard
> use their mobile DTV devices in such a way that they do not interact as
> often and do not bother to skip commercial they sort of use the mobile DTV
> as a diversion in the background while living room sets are being Tivoed
> to death. So upon reconsideration we are upping our mobile ad $$$s to 90%.
> And BTW of the remaining 10% we are moving half to cable, satellite,
> Telecom and various Internet broadband delivery channels that can delivery
> whatever just as well as you can to the fixed receivers in the HD sets in
> the living room."
>
> "Really sorry you have been so marginalized Mr. broadcaster what were you
> thinking when the FCC and CEA foisted 8-VSB on you?"
>
> The more aware broadcasters are already screaming bloody murder. (Call a
> broadcaster and ask him about Qualcomm's venture, only the first in a
> flood of competitors) Broadcasters will demand COFDM before it gets this
> bad.
>
> Bob Miller

To Bob Miller:

Well ...I've been watching your posts for some time now, Bob, silently
....but now I've just got to ask you a question or two.

Who in his right mind needs to or wants to watch TV "on the move"? I mean
really?! What? - I'm going to watch TV while I'm driving the car? I'm
going to watch TV on a mobile phone while I'm jogging? Do you really think
that, just because someone builds a technology that allows for TV to be
viewed while they are traveling that people will actually want it, or need
it? I certainly don't need it, nor do I want it, and I suspect that very
few other people do. The idea strikes me as being so silly as to make me
chuckle.

What I found revealing about your comments (above) is that you seem to be
approaching this "issue" from the standpoint of, and in defense of, the
advertisers and the broadcasters only. You are not considering the consumer
(me) who has no interest in mobile TV. In addition, you seem to think that
the advertisers and broadcasters are being deprived of revenue because of
some mythical lost market (a mobile TV market) that (you say) is the direct
result of America's use of 8VSB.

Wrong. There is no lost market because nobody needs or wants to watch TV
"on the move".

I think perhaps that others' observations about your dissatisfaction with
8VSB are (perhaps) revealing as to your real motives and bias. Others have
claimed, and please correct the record for all of us if this is wrong, that
you have (or have had) a business goal of either being a broadcaster using
COFDM or being in some way part of a business that involves COFDM. Is that
right? Please clarify. Are (or were) your business plans in some way
related to income derived from advertising via COFDM systems? Shed some
light on this for us, Bob.

Remember this simple business notion. Advertisers go where the audiences
are. In particular, those advertisers that use television go where the
television audiences are. Those audiences are sitting in their living
rooms, or watching a TV in a bar or at the airport. They are not driving
down the highway.

Respectfully,

Neil
Salem, MA USA

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>You are not considering the consumer
>(me) who has no interest in mobile TV.

Neil, you have hit the nail on the head. That has always been the underlying
theme in all of BOB's posts. He doesn't give a damn about you or I. His ONLY
concern is padding his own wallet and he'll do it at the expense of you and I.
You will also notice that, despite this being an HD ng, BOB almost never
discusses HD. It's always COFDM, COFDM, COFDM. His constant mention of COFDM in
other countries, always fails to mention that these same countries have ZERO
HD. He talks about receiving HD on these tiny pocket receivers and by doing so,
demonstrates in spades his utter ignornace of HD. Nobody but nobody would even
be able to recognize the fact that the transmission is HD on a tiny screen. HD
was developed for LARGER screens where the addtional resolution and detail can
be perceived. They can NOT be perceived on a tiny 3" or 4" screen. Unreal.

So you have certainly exposed BOB for what he is, someone who could care less
about the average consumer and who's only motivation are his own business
schemes (which have failed miserably in the past).

 

[Guest]

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

>In five to ten years (if 8-VSB survives that long) the average household
>in the US will have 10 plus digital TV receive devices. All but one or

What on earth for? The average household has, what, 3-4 people?
Why would they need more than one mobile TV device per person?
Including the children?

>two will be COFDM based and mobile. If 8-VSB survives this it will be
>relegated to the HD set in the living room (maybe another somewhere else).

I don't see what the demand is for Ultra Low Definition TV on a
cellphone. And that's all the resolution you are going to get on
a screen the size that can fit in someone's pocket or purse, unless
you've got plans for upgrading everyone's eyes to match (and I hate
to consider the copy-protect features that would be included in
that!).

What is it you're expecting people to do with all these? Go jogging
with a screen on their back so the guy behind them can watch TV?

Gordon L. Burditt

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>I don't see what the demand is for Ultra Low Definition TV on a
>cellphone. And that's all the resolution you are going to get on
>a screen the size that can fit in someone's pocket or purse, unless
>you've got plans for upgrading everyone's eyes to match (and I hate
>to consider the copy-protect features that would be included in
>that!).
>
>What is it you're expecting people to do with all these? Go jogging
>with a screen on their back so the guy behind them can watch TV?
>
> Gordon L. Burditt

Gordon, BOB has yet to figure out all these things that appear very intuitive
to us. I always laugh when he talks about being able to receive HD on a 3"
screen. Hysterical stuff. Pretty obvious that HD is not BOB's forte.

 

[Guest]

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

Gordon Burditt wrote:
>>In five to ten years (if 8-VSB survives that long) the average household
>>in the US will have 10 plus digital TV receive devices. All but one or
>
>
> What on earth for? The average household has, what, 3-4 people?
> Why would they need more than one mobile TV device per person?
> Including the children?
>
>
>>two will be COFDM based and mobile. If 8-VSB survives this it will be
>>relegated to the HD set in the living room (maybe another somewhere else).
>
>
> I don't see what the demand is for Ultra Low Definition TV on a
> cellphone. And that's all the resolution you are going to get on
> a screen the size that can fit in someone's pocket or purse, unless
> you've got plans for upgrading everyone's eyes to match (and I hate
> to consider the copy-protect features that would be included in
> that!).
>
> What is it you're expecting people to do with all these? Go jogging
> with a screen on their back so the guy behind them can watch TV?
>
> Gordon L. Burditt


In the average household of four of the future each person will have a
cell phone (4), there is probably a TV set in the master bedroom and one
for each of the children (3), one in the kitchen maybe in the door of
the refrigerator (1), at least two desktop computers (2) and two laptops
(2), two cars each with rear seat TVs (2), and a PDA or two (2), maybe
a game machine (1) and a portable DVD player. OOPs that is 17 devices in
a family of four. Two of the TVs are HD whiles the other 15 devices are
all COFDM.

The TVs may be connected to themselves and to the desktop computers and
laptops with a wireless 802.11a or g device or a UWB network also, both
of which will also be COFDM based.

Of course I don't see 8-VSB surviving in this world. It will be replaced
by the FCC at the demand of broadcasters as these other devices come on
board. For one thing if HD is in demand these other devices will also be
able to receive HD so that will not be something that broadcasters will
have exclusively.

The only thing broadcasters will have exclusive with 8-VSB is its lack
of mobile reception. Its inability to compete across the board with
other OTA broadcasters to that much larger market. That is other
broadcasters can compete in the fixed living room model while also
delivering to mobile. Current broadcasters will not be able to do that.
They will demand COFDM or they will be marginalized by advertisers as I
point out above.

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>Two of the TVs are HD whiles the other 15 devices are
>all COFDM.

Even in BOB's wacky world, notice how there is no relationship between COFDM
and HD. At least one bit of honesty from BOB.

>Of course I don't see 8-VSB surviving in this world.

Really BOOBY? Who would have guessed?


>The only thing broadcasters will have exclusive with 8-VSB is its lack
>of mobile reception.

Great, because who needs it? Nobody!!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Vidguy7 wrote:
>>I don't see what the demand is for Ultra Low Definition TV on a
>>cellphone. And that's all the resolution you are going to get on
>>a screen the size that can fit in someone's pocket or purse, unless
>>you've got plans for upgrading everyone's eyes to match (and I hate
>>to consider the copy-protect features that would be included in
>>that!).
>>
>>What is it you're expecting people to do with all these? Go jogging
>>with a screen on their back so the guy behind them can watch TV?
>>
>> Gordon L. Burditt
>
>
> Gordon, BOB has yet to figure out all these things that appear very intuitive
> to us. I always laugh when he talks about being able to receive HD on a 3"
> screen. Hysterical stuff. Pretty obvious that HD is not BOB's forte.

I have talked about receiving DTV on cell phones but since we are on the
topic why not receive HD on a cell phone.

You can watch it on the small screen or you can watch it on heads up
glasses or on a projector.

Not bad to have a receiver on your belt or in your pocket and be
immersed in HD virtually anywhere you are.

Seems counter intuitive that those who are so pro HD would want to see
its reception limited in any way.

Head mounted gear...
http/www.vrealities.com/5dt.html
http/www.brilliancorp.com/products/nearEye.html
http/www.cybermind.nl/body_home.html
http/www.cybermind.nl/body_home.html
http/www.kopin.com/products/cyberdisplay_apps.html

Projector...
http/optics.org/articles/ole/8/7/3/1

There is more to life and HD than the living room or the home theater.
After all HD is just a resolution we should want as high a resolution as
we can get wherever we are if it makes sense. But that is another story.

Anyone pro HD should be for the best technology. The best technology is
COFDM. Why should we settle for anything less? Why should we be stuck
with a modulation that limits us to a static location? Why wouldn't you
want to watch HD on your boat cruising up the Inland Waterway?

What is so good about 8-VSB that we MUST sacrifice anything? What is the
trade off? The only trade off I know is the extra $5.40 each of us has
to pay to LG for royalty rights above the $.60 we would have to pay for
COFDM.

That is a trade off I could do without.

Bob Miller

BTW in the not too distant future I expect that you will see a lot of
heads-up equipment being used mobile in Europe at sporting events to
watch the action from the stands or race track while keeping in touch
via DTV for the in car and closeups plus data etc. I know someone
working on that. And their cell phone will be their receiver. Multiple
camera angles, separate data feed and you chose what you want to have
displayed. Off and on at a tap.

The data will actually float in front of you ala F-16, video as well if
you want, see thru.

 

[Joe]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:18:23 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>I have talked about receiving DTV on cell phones but since we are on the
>topic why not receive HD on a cell phone.
>
>You can watch it on the small screen or you can watch it on heads up
>glasses or on a projector.
>
>Not bad to have a receiver on your belt or in your pocket and be
>immersed in HD virtually anywhere you are.
>
>Seems counter intuitive that those who are so pro HD would want to see
>its reception limited in any way.
>

Exactly. You'd have to have a rather crippled brain to claim mobile
reception is ludicrous.

Did bozo miss the term walkman in the past 25 years ?