Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (
More info?)
Steve Bryan wrote:
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<PdGPc.7011$cK.2479@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>
>>Steve Bryan wrote:
>>
>>>"Danny Rushing" <drush@charter.net> wrote in message news:<10gmdea3tpfl2da@corp.supernews.com>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>What is the best OTA digital tuner ?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Hello, as you might be able to discern Bob Miller is sort of a
>>>resident court jester on this newsgroup. He has some seriously
>>>unresolved issues that significantly distort what he presents so his
>>>advice may not be very helpful. Despite the distortions presented here
>>>there are many of us who get excellent reception of HDTV. One of the
>>>liberating factors about digital TV is that once you are past a
>>>certain threshhold your reception really can't be any better. In those
>>>cases a fifth generation receiver has no practical significance.
>>>
>>
>>The distortion in this case is coming from Steve.
>>
>>The specific distortion in this case is to suggest that I have in post
>>on this newsgroup stated that something less than "many" can get decent
>>reception with current 8-VSB receivers. I have never said any such
>>thing. I have said that MANY cannot get good reception with current
>>8-VSB receivers and I have quoted the MSTV test of 2001 that said the
>>same thing. That report said that 8-VSB reception was "disappointing"
>>and gave figures like 30% to 50% failure to receive numbers. These are
>>low in cities like New York where 50% to 70% poor to impossible
>>reception is more like reality.
>>...
>
>
> There you go again. If you were to go back to 2001, I would have to
> report poor reception at my location. It wasn't exactly stellar by
> 2002 when I started receiving ATSC stations. It has only been in the
> last TV season that reception of HDTV has been routine for me and it
> is still less than optimum for the WB affiliate which is using a very
> low power transmitter according to people on a local HDTV oriented web
> site.
>
> That brings us to the case of New York City and the actual cause of
> the HDTV reception problems. In September of 2001 the World Trade
> Center was destroyed in a heinous act of terror. A fairly
> insignificant side effect of this despicable act was that the
> transmission facilities of essentially all the broadcasters were
> destroyed. Finding new locations in the area and building the
> necessary infrastructure was a difficult task. From what I've read
> recently this factor may have been overcome. These reports of
> successful reception are from consumers who have no access yet to
> fifth generation receivers so my guess is that broadcasters may have
> recovered from the setback.
>
> I know that the pace of change in the television world has been
> altered by the transition to ATSC. But I object to the
> characterization that 8VSB (the modulation standard for ATSC) was
> unusable before the soon to be released fifth generation of
> demodulators.
You seem incapable of posting without distortion. Again you put words in
my mouth. I never characterized 8-VSB as "unusable" before the 5th gen
receiver shows up. I have repeatedly said, and I did again in my last
post, that 8-VSB works OK for MANY. But many is not good enough.
Everyone should have access to the use of the TV spectrum that we as
citizens own.
Since in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 there was a digital TV
modulation, COFDM, that would allow EVERYONE to receiver easily and
inexpensively DTV why did we have to suffer the expense and lost time
that staying with 8-VSB gave us?
> Insofar as they are backward compatible I think they are
> a wonderful innovation. I am beginning to suspect that someone here
> might have a motivation to encourage developments that lead to only
> fifth generation receivers and later being supported. This guess would
> be based on the possibility that only fifth generation receivers being
> capable of supporting mobile digital TV reception. Did I hit one of
> your battleships Bob?
Not true. 8-SVB 5th gen does an adequate job of receiving a signal as
long as it is in a fixed location. NO MOBILE! Some kind of portable is all.
Backward compatible??? NO! If you talk modulation yes but the dirty
little secret is that these 5th generation receivers will all support
WM9 and possibly other advanced compression codecs. My problem with the
US transition was never just the modulation. It was equally the
compression codec used MPEG2.
Now these new receivers will support such codecs and broadcasters will
use them rendering, you guessed it, all current and past 8-VSB receivers
obsolete.
>
> My total investment in current ATSC reception is $150 for the PCI
> board and about $50 for the antenna I have installed in my attic. If
> standards evolve it is not exactly a disaster for me. I am not even
> sure the PCI board will handle the transition to the broadcast flag
> which networks are planning to deploy with this fall's TV season. But
> many people have spent a lot of money buying equipment that conforms
> to standards published by the FCC. I think it would be bad public
> policy to make alterations that could make some of this equipment less
> useful unless the change is crucial. Defining exactly what is crucial
> is what this debate is about.
The change is CRUCIAL. By using an advanced codec the same 6 MHz channel
can now deliver 2 to 3 times the content. That suggest it is 2 to 3
times more valuable than if they use MPEG2. It would be a CRIME not to
use our scarce spectrum as efficiently as possible.
The law also happens to allow broadcasters to do this. So you have the
value based economic pressure and the law that virtually dictate that
this will happen.
All current receivers are history whatever you paid for them and
whatever you think about it. It was and continues to be a major rip off
of the public. Wisely the public has for the most part avoided 8-VSB
altogether.
With 5th gen receivers this will now change. To bad we are doing it with
a POS technology.
Standard setting as presently practiced by the FCC is an ongoing crime
both politically and technically.
Facebook
Twitter