The DTV Transition in the US is just SICK!

[Guest]

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

Phil Ross wrote:
> Bob, it seems to have gotten to a point that you can't even go one sentence
> without contradicting yourself. You say that "NO one has set minimum
> standards todate.", then in the very next sentence you say "Even the 5th gen
> receiver from LG which I have said is a decent receiver does not meet
> minimum standards". Well which is it? There are no set standards, or nobody
> can meet minimum standards? Or, are you setting what "minimum standards"
> are? If so, why don't you publish these "standards" for the rest of us. Oh
> wait, never mind. I don't want to get you started on another convoluted
> tirade about 8VSB vs. COFDM or how stupid we are because we like our HDTV
> sets despite how "terrible" you say they are.
>
>
> Phil
>
There have been discussions of what would constitute a minimum standard
on OpenDTV. A standard some think that the FCC should have set in the
beginning. A standard some think should be set if you are going to
MANDATE receivers in all TV sets as the FCC has done.

A MANDATE without any standard as to what satisfies the MANDATE, an
interesting concept, and one we live with. I can hear the CEA
manufacturers now saying since 90% of consumers will hook this HD set up
to cable or satellite maybe we could label the set as really only meant
for cable and satellite, steer all OTA users away from it, and just put
a pound of dog s**t in it and call it an 8-VSB receiver. Would it pass
the MANDATE sniff test? Who knows? If it is someone from the FCC who
picked 8-VSB in the first place I am sure it would. Same aroma.

Of course it would make sense to set such a minimum standard to protect
the public which is in affect forced to buy this unneeded receiver but
what the hell. That is if you are interested in protecting the public.
If you take that as your mission at the FCC. But of course their mission
is to cave to any CEA manufacturer's demands and needs. NO receiver
could meet any minimum standard that would not be a total embarrassment
so viola NO minimum standard. Problemo solved.

Now that there is a 5th gen receiver coming along they are talking of a
minimum standard again but someone whispered in somebody's ear that the
5th gen would need a "special" caveat in any such standard that would
again be embarrassing and the suggestion quickly was deep sixed.

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

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

Phil Ross wrote:
> Bob, it seems to have gotten to a point that you can't even go one sentence
> without contradicting yourself. You say that "NO one has set minimum
> standards todate.", then in the very next sentence you say "Even the 5th gen
> receiver from LG which I have said is a decent receiver does not meet
> minimum standards". Well which is it? There are no set standards, or nobody
> can meet minimum standards? Or, are you setting what "minimum standards"
> are? If so, why don't you publish these "standards" for the rest of us. Oh
> wait, never mind. I don't want to get you started on another convoluted
> tirade about 8VSB vs. COFDM or how stupid we are because we like our HDTV
> sets despite how "terrible" you say they are.
>
>
> Phil
>

A minimum standard for an 8-VSB receiver has been discussed on OpenDTV
in reference to the FCC Mandate. How do you have a MANDATE without a
minimum standard for what is required of such a MANDATED receiver.

There was no minimum standard set because no receiver would qualify. If
the FCC was on the side of the consumer and the MANDATE was in the
consumers best interest wouldn't a minimum standard be a good idea?

Can you hear the CEA manufacturer discussing this? Since 90% of our
customers will not make use of this built in MANDATED receiver, being
cable customers, it seems kind of a waste to waste too many $$$ on it.
Maybe we could suggest in various ways that this particular integrated
set is not the best for OTA and direct those customers who will really
use such an OTA set for OTA reception to another more appropriate stand
alone STB or upscale integrated set with say a 5th gen receiver in it.
Then we can just put a pound of dog s**t in 90% of our integrated sets
and call it an 8-VSB receiver. Will it past the FCC smell test? If the
same folks that gave us 8-VSB originally do take a sniff I am sure they
will recognize the aroma. Passed!! If you have no minimum standard
anything will pass.

But wait there are 5th gen receivers coming so it has been discussed
that since a receiver might pass some sort of minimal standard maybe we
should have one now. I mean standards are only good when you can pass
them right? But then someone whispered something in someones ear that
even the 5th gen receiver would have to have embarrassing things written
into the standard to pass so we will have to forgo a minimal standard a
while longer.

These pesky things will sort themselves out if we just wait long enough.
It has only been seven years after all. If it wasn't for those
foreigners doing so well with COFDM there wouldn't be so much trouble.
And then we have those nuts who actually paid for spectrum and actually
think we ever planned on letting them use it. Especially those first
responders who claim that people are actually dieing because of their
lack of spectrum promised so many years ago.

Your answer is TA DA, no 8-VSB receiver can meet any minimal standard
that anyone can think of that would no be embarrassing in the reading
thereof.

In short they would not want to see such a standard in writing like in
the New York Times or in a CLASS ACTION SUIT!

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 20:26:51 -0500, "David" <davey2@home.net> wrote:

>"Charles H. Tieman" <curious8@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:ras3r0pk7m4klqitvju1gf0p3vh4nqaqbo@4ax.com...
>> someone has a friend with OTA DTV but it conks out when
>> a car drives by.
>
>I've been surfing DTV newsgroups and HDTV forums for ~5 years.
>
>Your posting above is the first and only I have ever seen of it's type.
>Unresolved 8VSB reception problems involving nearby traffic?
>
>Can you provide any additional details about this?

I'm only repeating what a salesman at Sears told me. I forgot to
mention that the salesman at Best Buy said that we are in a fringe
area and that ignition noise can be a problem. The point is that this
is what people in my community are being told, true or false, and is
one reason why OTA DTV seems to have had little success here.

I've put up a Radio Shack UHF antenna and will find out for myself if
I can ever get my ATI HDTV Wonder board to work.

I've been shopping around for an HDTV set for months now and can't
remember seeing anyone in the stores actually buy a set, although
there are lots of lookers. What are the sales figures? Seems to me
that Vidguy7 and his noisy friends do a lot of hooting and hollering
and name calling, but don't really say much about HDTV to help us
folks who subscribe to alt.tv.tech.hdtv in order to learn something
about it.


charlie

 

[David]

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

"Charles H. Tieman" <curious8@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:jjk7r0plkuqtperqso4feh78d6n01p0r0c@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 20:26:51 -0500, "David" <davey2@home.net> wrote:
>
>>"Charles H. Tieman" <curious8@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>news:ras3r0pk7m4klqitvju1gf0p3vh4nqaqbo@4ax.com...
>>> someone has a friend with OTA DTV but it conks out when
>>> a car drives by.
>>
>>I've been surfing DTV newsgroups and HDTV forums for ~5 years.
>>
>>Your posting above is the first and only I have ever seen of it's type.
>>Unresolved 8VSB reception problems involving nearby traffic?
>>
>>Can you provide any additional details about this?
>
> I'm only repeating what a salesman at Sears told me. I forgot to
> mention that the salesman at Best Buy said that we are in a fringe
> area and that ignition noise can be a problem. The point is that this
> is what people in my community are being told, true or false, and is
> one reason why OTA DTV seems to have had little success here.
>
> I've put up a Radio Shack UHF antenna and will find out for myself if
> I can ever get my ATI HDTV Wonder board to work.
>
> I've been shopping around for an HDTV set for months now and can't
> remember seeing anyone in the stores actually buy a set, although
> there are lots of lookers. What are the sales figures? Seems to me
> that Vidguy7 and his noisy friends do a lot of hooting and hollering
> and name calling, but don't really say much about HDTV to help us
> folks who subscribe to alt.tv.tech.hdtv in order to learn something
> about it.
> charlie

Firstly, to find the truth about OTA HDTV, you really
need to ignore everything Bob Miller says. Seriously.

This newsgroup is a little like the Wild West.. makes it fun sometimes.

So, a good place to start would be JDeats' website:
http/hdtv.0catch.com/

Sinclair's new website is interesting: www.myfreehdtv.org

Then, for a more civilized forum atmosphere, try: www.hdtvoice.com

 

[Gman]

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

In article <%iIsd.29060$zx1.2626@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, "Phil Ross" <paross@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Well, technically, the NTSC goes back to 1940, so they have been setting
>American television standards for over 60 years. And, of course, it can be
>argued as to whom the "father" of modern television was, whether it be Philo
>Farnsworth, or Vladimir Zworykin under Sarnoff at RCA. Personally, I would
>give the bulk of the credit to Philo T., as he was a genius way ahead of his
>time, and Sarnoff was rather unscrupulous in terms of taking credit for
>early R&D. He pretty much screwed over the likes of Farnsworth and Edward
>Armstrong (inventor of FM, regeneration, and super regeneration,
>superheterodyne) in his march to "greatness" for RCA and NBC. But that is
>getting way off topic......

Read the info from the book at www.farnovision.com

The ONLY company RCA has ever had to pay royalty fees to ever in its existence
is to Philo T. they lost the copywrite battle.

And OH did it piss Sarnoff off.



>
>"GMAN" <glenzabr@nospamallowed.xmission.com> wrote in message
>news:covfpn$ri4$2@news.xmission.com...
>> In article <FEbsd.84436$jE2.16982@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "magnulus"
>> <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> NTSC was a simple standard that has lasted for almost 40 years. DTV
>>>should be a simple standard, too.
>>>
>>
>> You have the years wrong, yes NTSC has only been around that long but
>> Philo T.
>> invented the tech over 75 years ago.
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

David (davey3@home.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Sinclair's new website is interesting: www.myfreehdtv.org

Boy, talk about not caring about accuracy.

One of the things they list is network shows that are in HD. When a website
says "Dr. Vegas (fall)" and the show has already been on and cancelled,
you know they don't keep up with recent events.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/TeriHatcher.gif
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov |

 

[Guest]

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

"Brian Kraft" <bkraft@nyx.net> wrote in message
news:41b24380$0$8907$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
<snip>.
:
: As of December 2004 in my city located inside a red state that went
: for Bush, it's starting to go back the other way.

Huh? and How does that have anything to do with the price of Cofdm in
China?

 

[Guest]

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

>You've seen the IQ and Politics http/chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm


The information presented there is probably wrong, since there's no
such thing as IQs by states in the book "IQ and the Wealth of Nations".
But you can find information about education and income in each state,
and see if it correlates with how they voted in the election. I believe
it is possible to say that states with high IQ levels also have high
educational attainment, and that this should lead to higher incomes.
http/www.geocities.com/blue_vs_red_2004/

 

[Guest]

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

>You've seen the IQ and Politics http/chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm


The information presented there is probably wrong, since there's no
such thing as IQs by states in the book "IQ and the Wealth of Nations".
But you can find information about education and income in each state,
and see if it correlates with how they voted in the election. I believe
it is possible to say that states with high IQ levels also have high
educational attainment, and that this should lead to higher incomes.
http/www.geocities.com/blue_vs_red_2004/

 

[Guest]

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

>There is *nothing* that a 4th generation receiver adds to actual reception
>over the DTC-100. Other features (like DVI, HDMI, better guide integration,
>etc.) are in newer receivers, but the DTC-100 is a tank that works great.

But wait Jeff! I thought that 1st gen 8VSB receivers didn't work? Oh wait, that
was another one of BOOBY's lies.

 

[Guest]

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

>Seems to me
>that Vidguy7 and his noisy friends do a lot of hooting and hollering
>and name calling, but don't really say much about HDTV to help us
>folks who subscribe to alt.tv.tech.hdtv in order to learn something
>about it.

Hey Charlie, why don't you TRY asking a question? You might be surprised and
get a constructive answer. We waste most of our time 'correcting' BOB's lies,
embellishments and distortions. Did you know that BOB was kicked off the AVS
forum for that kind of lying? Before you accuse others, try and get a handle on
history. We've been hear for years and have had to deal with this Snake Oil
Salesman's lies for years. We're sick of it and are trying to show the
newcomers that BOB is someone to beware of. I'm far from being alone in my
beliefs and if you'd been here long enough, you'd know that. Have a lovely day.

 

[Guest]

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

Unfortunately, WWII intervened, and commercial television deployment was put
on hold until the end of the 40s, at which time most of poor Philo's patents
had expired, and RCA got a relatively free ride after that. Talk about bad
timing! Sure they paid royalties during the war, but nobody was making sets
anyway. Sarnoff dragged it out in court long enough to screw poor Farnsworth
out of everything but a symbolic victory in the courts.

"GMAN" <glenzabr@nospamallowed.xmission.com> wrote in message
news:cp10ui$2cp$2@news.xmission.com...
> In article <%iIsd.29060$zx1.2626@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, "Phil Ross"
> <paross@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>Well, technically, the NTSC goes back to 1940, so they have been setting
>>American television standards for over 60 years. And, of course, it can be
>>argued as to whom the "father" of modern television was, whether it be
>>Philo
>>Farnsworth, or Vladimir Zworykin under Sarnoff at RCA. Personally, I would
>>give the bulk of the credit to Philo T., as he was a genius way ahead of
>>his
>>time, and Sarnoff was rather unscrupulous in terms of taking credit for
>>early R&D. He pretty much screwed over the likes of Farnsworth and Edward
>>Armstrong (inventor of FM, regeneration, and super regeneration,
>>superheterodyne) in his march to "greatness" for RCA and NBC. But that is
>>getting way off topic......
>
> Read the info from the book at www.farnovision.com
>
> The ONLY company RCA has ever had to pay royalty fees to ever in its
> existence
> is to Philo T. they lost the copywrite battle.
>
> And OH did it piss Sarnoff off.
>
>
>
>>
>>"GMAN" <glenzabr@nospamallowed.xmission.com> wrote in message
>>news:covfpn$ri4$2@news.xmission.com...
>>> In article <FEbsd.84436$jE2.16982@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "magnulus"
>>> <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>> NTSC was a simple standard that has lasted for almost 40 years. DTV
>>>>should be a simple standard, too.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You have the years wrong, yes NTSC has only been around that long but
>>> Philo T.
>>> invented the tech over 75 years ago.
>>>
>>
>>

 

[Gman]

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

In article <tS6td.29744$zx1.6670@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, "Phil Ross" <paross@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Unfortunately, WWII intervened, and commercial television deployment was put
>on hold until the end of the 40s, at which time most of poor Philo's patents
>had expired, and RCA got a relatively free ride after that. Talk about bad
>timing! Sure they paid royalties during the war, but nobody was making sets
>anyway. Sarnoff dragged it out in court long enough to screw poor Farnsworth
>out of everything but a symbolic victory in the courts.
>

Yup, BINGO!


>"GMAN" <glenzabr@nospamallowed.xmission.com> wrote in message
>news:cp10ui$2cp$2@news.xmission.com...
>> In article <%iIsd.29060$zx1.2626@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, "Phil Ross"
>> <paross@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>Well, technically, the NTSC goes back to 1940, so they have been setting
>>>American television standards for over 60 years. And, of course, it can be
>>>argued as to whom the "father" of modern television was, whether it be
>>>Philo
>>>Farnsworth, or Vladimir Zworykin under Sarnoff at RCA. Personally, I would
>>>give the bulk of the credit to Philo T., as he was a genius way ahead of
>>>his
>>>time, and Sarnoff was rather unscrupulous in terms of taking credit for
>>>early R&D. He pretty much screwed over the likes of Farnsworth and Edward
>>>Armstrong (inventor of FM, regeneration, and super regeneration,
>>>superheterodyne) in his march to "greatness" for RCA and NBC. But that is
>>>getting way off topic......
>>
>> Read the info from the book at www.farnovision.com
>>
>> The ONLY company RCA has ever had to pay royalty fees to ever in its
>> existence
>> is to Philo T. they lost the copywrite battle.
>>
>> And OH did it piss Sarnoff off.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>"GMAN" <glenzabr@nospamallowed.xmission.com> wrote in message
>>>news:covfpn$ri4$2@news.xmission.com...
>>>> In article <FEbsd.84436$jE2.16982@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "magnulus"
>>>> <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>> NTSC was a simple standard that has lasted for almost 40 years. DTV
>>>>>should be a simple standard, too.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have the years wrong, yes NTSC has only been around that long but
>>>> Philo T.
>>>> invented the tech over 75 years ago.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

>The article is talking about the "half of the 5 million to 6 million
>U.S. households" who have no cable, satellite or OTA receiver, have an
>HDTV set, are watching SD and think they are watching HD

If they're watching SD, then they have the reciever to watch HD also, since
it's the same reciever.

 

[Guest]

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

"Brian Kraft" <bkraft@nyx.net> wrote in message
news:41b24380$0$8907$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
> Richard C. wrote:
>
> Another one has stopped showing the DTV channel number on their
> station identification screen, although the DTV is still broadcasting.

The dropping of the digital RF channel number on the analog channel was
mandated by the FCC. My DTV station is now called 6.1, 6.2, etc, although
my transmitter is on RF channel 21. This is supposed to make your life
easier.

No TV set/digital tuner automatically knows that 6.1 and 6.2 are on RF
channel 21 (in this part of the world) until AFTER it has found it the first
time (auto tune). After it finds my RF signal, the PSIP (Program and System
Information Protocol) datastream tells the set/tuner that it has found
channel 6.1, etc. Makes it hell to peak the antenna positioning the first
time, though.

R.

 

[Guest]

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

X-No-archive: yes

"That Guy" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:41d9d1db$0$2964$8b463f8a@news.nationwide.net...
>
> "Brian Kraft" <bkraft@nyx.net> wrote in message
> news:41b24380$0$8907$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>> Richard C. wrote:
>>
>> Another one has stopped showing the DTV channel number on their
>> station identification screen, although the DTV is still broadcasting.
>
====================================
No............sorry.................I did NOT write that!

 

[Guest]

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

You are SO correct! I have no idea why it grabbed your name. Worse, I
can't find the original post. Sorry about that.

R.

ps: Here's hoping this gets posted correctly.


"Richard C." <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:41d9f8d7$0$427$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> X-No-archive: yes
>
> "That Guy" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message
> news:41d9d1db$0$2964$8b463f8a@news.nationwide.net...
> >
> > "Brian Kraft" <bkraft@nyx.net> wrote in message
> > news:41b24380$0$8907$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
> >> Richard C. wrote:
> >>
> >> Another one has stopped showing the DTV channel number on their
> >> station identification screen, although the DTV is still broadcasting.
> >
> ====================================
> No............sorry.................I did NOT write that!
>
>