Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)
slalomguy wrote:
> the vast majority of the 20 million australian population live in the 5
> major cities and surrounding areas or smaller cities ie newcastle,w'gong so
> maybe 75% would be in a position to receive DTV
Thank you slalomguy, now does anyone have a percentage of US consumers
who have access to an HDTV broadcast? I know that on a land area basis,
non population , that 30% of the land area of the US depends on digital
translators stations and there are no digital translators operating yet
in the US. OZ is busy setting up the opposite of translators or what you
could call NON translator stations. They are using one of the unique
features of COFDM, the ability to rebroadcast on-channel which obviates
the need for translators which are in essence another station on another
frequency (wasted) being used to rebroadcast a parent station.
One sticky wicket with those digital translators the US needs for the 30
% of land area, there are no frequencies available for those needed
translators till after the transition. Oops!! It is times like these
that try men's souls. If only we had COFDM and the ability to do
on-channel repeaters.
It is claimed by some that 8-VSB will be able to do on channel repeating
also someday. Some even claim today. I have yet to here of a successful
on-channel repeater in use with 8-VSB. That is one that is not hiding
behind a mountain or something.
Can 75% of the US population receive an HD OTA signal today? What % of
stations in the US are at low power? What % are not passing thru HD?
Are we up to the standards of OZ? Do we measure up? We know they have at
least 7 times the number of DTV receivers as the US does based on
percentage of population. What are the numbers for coverage?
OH!! Almost forgot. In measuring OZ all stations are HD since it is
MANDATED there. In the US you have to check to see if the digital
station is actually transmitting HD since they don't have to now or ever.
So if half of US stations are at half power and 30% of the US land area
can't get a digital signal because there are no translators up and
running and some percentage of DTV stations on the air are not passing
any HD, what are the facts Jack??
Don't look now but Japan will pass us like we are standing still soon on
HDTV.
Of course we can always have the satisfaction that we have more 500 Watt
transmitters on the air capable of HD even if there is no one watching
OTA and even if the broadcasters don't bother to actually deliver HD. It
is after all the number of HD capable transmitters that count. (gasp, gasp)
Of course then, if you want to count all US DTV transmitters, even if
they are not broadcasting HD and if you want to be fair you would have
to count ALL COFDM transmitters in the world because they are ALL
supremely capable of delivering HD.
Bob Miller
>
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news
cOhd.15378$KJ6.12346@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Anthony Preston wrote:
>>
>>>No we have 24/7 DTV at both SD and HD. General HD is just upconverted SD.
>>>
>>>Only after 6pm when the viewing numbers are at there greatest do the
>>>stations transmit HD source material eg CSI etc etc.
>>>
>>>As for the number of cities that transmit DTV, all capital cities in
>>>Australia transmit DTV and now they are starting on delivering DTV to the
>>>country areas.
>>>
>>>If you would like to see where this is at try the follow web site
>>>www.dba.org.au
>>
>>What Mark wants to know Anthony is what percentage of OZ citizens are
>>actually covered by a digital TV signal.
>>
>>That is the important thing to Mark. If the US had 80% coverage of its
>>citizens and OZ only covers 70% then OZ is a loser even though OZ only has
>>been at it for 2.5 years while we have been at it for over 6 years and
>>even though OZ will have 7.8% of its households with a digital receiver
>>by the end of the year while the US will be lucky if we have 1%.
>>
>>From http
/www.dba.org.au/newsletter/IB-SepOct04-full.asp#PRODUCT1
>>
>>"At an average of 35,000 receivers sold per month, there are expected to
>>be more than 600,000 digital television homes by the end of 2004. This
>>represents 7.7% of Australia's 7.8 million homes."
>>
>>Also according to the article OZ will have 600,000 receivers sold (in
>>homes not dealerships or gathering dust in TV stations) by the end of the
>>year and it could go higher. At that rate, the US being 14.5 times bigger
>>than OZ population wise, the US would have had 8.7 million receivers sold
>>after the first 2.5 years and who knows how many after the seven we have
>>been at it.
>>
>>So if you can, I can't find it, could you let us know, Mark in particular,
>>what percentage of the population of OZ could receive a digital TV signal
>>if they put up a little antenna?
>>
>>Bob Miller
>>
>>>
>>>"Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
>>>newsine.LNX.4.62.0410281245310.24220@shiva0.cac.washington.edu...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, slalomguy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>in australia ,major cities,we have five free to air channels which
>>>
>>>broadcast
>>>
>>>
>>>>>most if not all of their SD and HD stuff after 6pm
>>>>
>>>>Do you mean to say that Australia has no DTV during the daytime?!?
>>>>
>>>>In the US, all the DTV stations are on 24 hours/day, just as their analog
>>>>counterparts. In the Seattle area, the only analog-only stations is one
>>>>religious station.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>no additional channels due to digital, just much better(great) viewing
>>>
>>>based
>>>
>>>
>>>>>on my own experience
>>>>
>>>>Everybody in the Seattle area who wants it can get great viewing of the
>>>>local analog channels via cable or satellite. The only reason to go DTV
>>>>is to get HDTV.
>>>>
>>>>-- Mark --
>>>>
>>>>http/staff.washington.edu/mrc
>>>>Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
>>>>Si vis pacem, para bellum.
>>>
>>>
>
slalomguy wrote:
> the vast majority of the 20 million australian population live in the 5
> major cities and surrounding areas or smaller cities ie newcastle,w'gong so
> maybe 75% would be in a position to receive DTV
Thank you slalomguy, now does anyone have a percentage of US consumers
who have access to an HDTV broadcast? I know that on a land area basis,
non population , that 30% of the land area of the US depends on digital
translators stations and there are no digital translators operating yet
in the US. OZ is busy setting up the opposite of translators or what you
could call NON translator stations. They are using one of the unique
features of COFDM, the ability to rebroadcast on-channel which obviates
the need for translators which are in essence another station on another
frequency (wasted) being used to rebroadcast a parent station.
One sticky wicket with those digital translators the US needs for the 30
% of land area, there are no frequencies available for those needed
translators till after the transition. Oops!! It is times like these
that try men's souls. If only we had COFDM and the ability to do
on-channel repeaters.
It is claimed by some that 8-VSB will be able to do on channel repeating
also someday. Some even claim today. I have yet to here of a successful
on-channel repeater in use with 8-VSB. That is one that is not hiding
behind a mountain or something.
Can 75% of the US population receive an HD OTA signal today? What % of
stations in the US are at low power? What % are not passing thru HD?
Are we up to the standards of OZ? Do we measure up? We know they have at
least 7 times the number of DTV receivers as the US does based on
percentage of population. What are the numbers for coverage?
OH!! Almost forgot. In measuring OZ all stations are HD since it is
MANDATED there. In the US you have to check to see if the digital
station is actually transmitting HD since they don't have to now or ever.
So if half of US stations are at half power and 30% of the US land area
can't get a digital signal because there are no translators up and
running and some percentage of DTV stations on the air are not passing
any HD, what are the facts Jack??
Don't look now but Japan will pass us like we are standing still soon on
HDTV.
Of course we can always have the satisfaction that we have more 500 Watt
transmitters on the air capable of HD even if there is no one watching
OTA and even if the broadcasters don't bother to actually deliver HD. It
is after all the number of HD capable transmitters that count. (gasp, gasp)
Of course then, if you want to count all US DTV transmitters, even if
they are not broadcasting HD and if you want to be fair you would have
to count ALL COFDM transmitters in the world because they are ALL
supremely capable of delivering HD.
Bob Miller
>
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news
cOhd.15378$KJ6.12346@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...>
>>Anthony Preston wrote:
>>
>>>No we have 24/7 DTV at both SD and HD. General HD is just upconverted SD.
>>>
>>>Only after 6pm when the viewing numbers are at there greatest do the
>>>stations transmit HD source material eg CSI etc etc.
>>>
>>>As for the number of cities that transmit DTV, all capital cities in
>>>Australia transmit DTV and now they are starting on delivering DTV to the
>>>country areas.
>>>
>>>If you would like to see where this is at try the follow web site
>>>www.dba.org.au
>>
>>What Mark wants to know Anthony is what percentage of OZ citizens are
>>actually covered by a digital TV signal.
>>
>>That is the important thing to Mark. If the US had 80% coverage of its
>>citizens and OZ only covers 70% then OZ is a loser even though OZ only has
>>been at it for 2.5 years while we have been at it for over 6 years and
>>even though OZ will have 7.8% of its households with a digital receiver
>>by the end of the year while the US will be lucky if we have 1%.
>>
>>From http
/www.dba.org.au/newsletter/IB-SepOct04-full.asp#PRODUCT1>>
>>"At an average of 35,000 receivers sold per month, there are expected to
>>be more than 600,000 digital television homes by the end of 2004. This
>>represents 7.7% of Australia's 7.8 million homes."
>>
>>Also according to the article OZ will have 600,000 receivers sold (in
>>homes not dealerships or gathering dust in TV stations) by the end of the
>>year and it could go higher. At that rate, the US being 14.5 times bigger
>>than OZ population wise, the US would have had 8.7 million receivers sold
>>after the first 2.5 years and who knows how many after the seven we have
>>been at it.
>>
>>So if you can, I can't find it, could you let us know, Mark in particular,
>>what percentage of the population of OZ could receive a digital TV signal
>>if they put up a little antenna?
>>
>>Bob Miller
>>
>>>
>>>"Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
>>>news
ine.LNX.4.62.0410281245310.24220@shiva0.cac.washington.edu...>>>
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, slalomguy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>in australia ,major cities,we have five free to air channels which
>>>
>>>broadcast
>>>
>>>
>>>>>most if not all of their SD and HD stuff after 6pm
>>>>
>>>>Do you mean to say that Australia has no DTV during the daytime?!?
>>>>
>>>>In the US, all the DTV stations are on 24 hours/day, just as their analog
>>>>counterparts. In the Seattle area, the only analog-only stations is one
>>>>religious station.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>no additional channels due to digital, just much better(great) viewing
>>>
>>>based
>>>
>>>
>>>>>on my own experience
>>>>
>>>>Everybody in the Seattle area who wants it can get great viewing of the
>>>>local analog channels via cable or satellite. The only reason to go DTV
>>>>is to get HDTV.
>>>>
>>>>-- Mark --
>>>>
>>>>http
/staff.washington.edu/mrc>>>>Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
>>>>Si vis pacem, para bellum.
>>>
>>>
>
Facebook
Twitter