A new COFDM offensive?
bob
ranks..
From OpenDTV
Joh Shutt wrote:
"It is time, in my humble opinion ... to end the charade of "staying the
course with 8-VSB" and immediately allow COFDM as an alternative
modulation
method for US broadcasters."
Hear, hear!! How long will be be required to continue with this
foolishness? You can bet that our plans for DTV construction include
the
capability to quickly and inexpensively convert to a system that
actually
works.
Unfortunately, the so-called leadership of our industry has other
political
fish to fry, and is allowing themselves to be politically intimidated by
those who don't want the embarassment of having the baby declared
certifiably UGLY.
LeBon G. Abercrombie
Sr. Exec. V.P./Planning & Development
Pappas Telecasting Companies
John Fischer
"bob" <b...@stealth.net> wrote in message news:3AAC6769...@stealth.net...
> Pappas who recently went along with other broadcasters might be breaking
> ranks..
Bob,
When are you going to get it thru your thick head that the "war" is over. No
amount of "offensives" is going to change it at this point...
John Golitsis
foolish. Why do you think he put it in message in the first place?
If this was Australia, you'd either be jailed or heavily fined for
forwarding emails without the writers permission. I hope you have
permission.
"bob" <b...@stealth.net> wrote in message
news:3AAC6769...@stealth.net...
Vidguy7
that is so one-tracked, so zealous in spreading outright lies and distortions.
It really is sickening and I for one have had enough of this creature.
JD
"Vidguy7" <vid...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20010312123408...@ng-mq1.aol.com...
> John, this man truly has serious mental issues. I have never ever seen anyone
> that is so one-tracked, so zealous in spreading outright lies and distortions.
> It really is sickening and I for one have had enough of this creature.
>
HDTV isn't an insane pre-occupation for me, and I just get intolerant of his
lies. He can keep on coming back into the various newsgroups, spewing his
misinformation. He'll end up sounding better and better, because I really have
no serious agenda, other than the main purpose for the frequency allocations and/or
the newsgroups: HDTV.
Frankly, I don't even care that much about HDTV, but certainly would like to have
it. There are individuals who have a vested future in mobile data, and they'll do anything
to get the proceeds from their stock options after an IPO.
John
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Well, I dunno what politics this comes form, but ALL of you seem to be
a bit shrill.
I'll keep watching.
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 2001, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
JD
"jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist" <j...@research.att.com> wrote in message
news:GA3Ku...@research.att.com...
> In article <20010312123408...@ng-mq1.aol.com>,
> Vidguy7 <vid...@aol.com> wrote:
> >John, this man truly has serious mental issues. I have never ever seen anyone
> >that is so one-tracked, so zealous in spreading outright lies and distortions.
> >It really is sickening and I for one have had enough of this creature.
>
> Well, I dunno what politics this comes form, but ALL of you seem to be
> a bit shrill.
>
> I'll keep watching.
>
once a lurker, and grew to understand the situation.
Again, my "impossible to receive" 8VSB works great, and I get all local channels
with an inside antenna, about 15mi away from the transmitters. The antenna is on
an inside wall, and it is wonderful.
I was once concerned, and actually bought a DTC100 for survey purposes
ONLY. I wanted to get an HDTV, and had to make sure it worked (due to FUD.)
There was no problem, so now my DTC100 is sitting on top of other,
relatively unused equipment, but my all-in-one full HDTV works great.
The ONLY reason for my purchase of a device to survey my location was
the fears that HDTV wouldn't work at all, but I really wanted to try.
Bob was actuallly one reason for my fear, so he cost me a few hundred
dollars due to his misinformation. I could have check more competent,
local sources, but I assumed that he might have been competent, and
I was quite wrong in my trust.
John
Vidguy7
arguments for a system that has been thrown out by the FCC on several
occasions. As John pointed out, it's like arguing the replacement of NTSC with
the European PAL. Its an absurd pointless argument that wastes time, space,
bandwidth and keeps us from discussing the REAL issues we are ALL interested
in.
Vidguy7
BOB is. It further illustrates the danger that BOB poses in putting unwarranted
fear in people's heads with the ultimate objective of stalling HDTV. BOB, is a
greedy, disgusting individual who exploits others. I too receive all 8VSB local
stations beautifully. Another one of BOB's "impossible situations".
bob
I have no idea why you trusted me, we have never met. If you had gotten
home after buying the 8-VSB receiver and found that you were in the 70%
of people who cannot get reception would I then be trustworthy? Sounds
sort of arbitrary to me. You should however have trusted the facts that
came out of the MSTV test that I have posted in this newsgroup.
It was those "facts" in the MSTV test, that showed that 70% or more of
sites that were tested could not receive an 8-VSB signal with indoor
antennas, that should have given you reason to pause.
Such "facts" maybe should merit your trust, not me. You can find them at
www.atsc.org. If would seem prudent to me that you did what you did and
tested. The fact that you get good reception does not mean that the test
results are bad. It also doesn't mean that I am untrustworthy.
The test results say that in 70% of cases it would have been the prudent
thing to test for reception because you won't get any and you would have
wasted your money.
I hope that by posting the test results I have caused many of those
people who are in the 70% no reception areas to check first.
I don't think by doing that that I am being untrustworthy.
Bob Miller
Scott Moore
> JD
>
> I have no idea why you trusted me, we have never met. If you had gotten
> home after buying the 8-VSB receiver and found that you were in the 70%
> of people who cannot get reception would I then be trustworthy? Sounds
> sort of arbitrary to me. You should however have trusted the facts that
> came out of the MSTV test that I have posted in this newsgroup.
>
Since you are going to invent statistics, why not go with 100% not received ?
--
Scott A. Moore is sam...@cisco.com
I don't have a solution, but I admire your problem.
bob
If anybody invented statistics the MSTV/NAB test did. That's where you
get statistics. I don't make them up. If I did I would have had a hard
time making up such high numbers. I didn't think 8-VSB was that bad.
Go to www.atsc.org
Its all there in gory detail. JD says he gets 8-VSB with an indoor
antenna. The three statistics in the MSTV test results for random arc,
radial and cluster reception sites in Washington, Baltimore and
Cleveland are 70,72 and 74% failure with indoor antennas. So JD is in
the lucky 30% or so that can get indoor reception.
Bob Miller
John S. Dyson
Scott Moore <sam...@cisco.com> writes:
> bob wrote:
>
>> JD
>>
>> I have no idea why you trusted me, we have never met. If you had gotten
>> home after buying the 8-VSB receiver and found that you were in the 70%
>> of people who cannot get reception would I then be trustworthy? Sounds
>> sort of arbitrary to me. You should however have trusted the facts that
>> came out of the MSTV test that I have posted in this newsgroup.
>>
>
> Since you are going to invent statistics, why not go with 100% not received ?
>
that newsgroups are often a sounding board for problems, and not all that
many people have apparently had problems with HDTV.
Alas, Bob has discounted his own credibility. I guess that since none of
us has met Bob, that we shouldn't trust him :-).
In my own little world of the newsgroup and my local friends, that HDTV
hasn't been a problem. The self-discredited Bob does seem to claim that
there are problems, though :-).
John
John
Vidguy7
indicate, anyone that frequents ngs or other HD websites will quickly see,
contrary to what BOB says, 80-90% of those that try get excellent reception. Is
it without problems? Ofcourse not. Is NTSC, FM etc reception without problems?
Ofcourse not. However, the internet is FLOODED with people who had lousy,
utterly lousy NTSC reception and get picture perfect OTA 8VSB reception.
I am sick and tired of BOB's lies and distortions that serve one and only one
purpose....to further his and his company's financial ends. SHAME ON YOU BOB,
SHAME ON YOU.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Vidguy7 <vid...@aol.com> wrote:
>jj, where are "shrill" because this clown continues to pose irrelevant absurd
>arguments for a system that has been thrown out by the FCC on several
>occasions.
That sentence no compute. But did you mean "We are shrill"..
If so, I can understand what you're saying.
>As John pointed out, it's like arguing the replacement of NTSC with
>the European PAL.
Replace Never the Same Color with Pathetic Analog Logic? What a thought.
>Its an absurd pointless argument that wastes time, space,
>bandwidth and keeps us from discussing the REAL issues we are ALL interested
>in.
There really are some scientific issues. There IS a standards decision here,
yes, but speaking as someone who had some visibility into the decision
methods, well, I've little faith.
I have no idea who "bob" is or what his hot-button is, but I can say
that many very competent people came away from the process understanding
that politics won out over economics and science.
Scott Moore
findings for COFDM. YOU ARE SELECTIVELY QUOTING FROM A PUBLICATION
THAT YOU CLAIM IS INCORRECT.
That is why you and I are not having a civil conversation. I don't have to take this BS.
Scott Moore
I have yet to meet someone in my area (SF bay, CA) that could not get receiption.
I recall one guy here on the newsgroup who had antenna problems that got solved.
The few people I know personally here DO claim that HDTV is a ripoff, however.
Because there is nothing on to watch.
>
> John
>
> John
Scott Moore
>
>
> Replace Never the Same Color with Pathetic Analog Logic? What a thought.
>
ATSC: All Tvs Shall Change
8-VSB:8: Very Slippery Bits.
FCC: Federal Confusion Commision
COFDM: Change Or face a Destructive Market
bob
Here are the 8-VSB stats overall. Each one had a "disappointing attached
to them. I have no problem with the 8-VSB statistics that the test
generated. They seem to have done a good job. In fact they probably did
a good job technically on the COFDM side also. They just didn't test a
COFDM receiver. They even mention the "anomaly" in the results and
suggest that in "phase two" they would check it out. Conveniently "phase
two" never happened.
If they had tested a COFDM "receiver", COFDM would have blown 8-VSB
away.
8-VSB Test Results
Cleveland (successful reception % of all sites)
Outdoor 30 ft. 73%
Outdoor 6 ft. 28%
Indoor 6 ft. 30% Silver Sensor and Bow Tie
Their conclusion Indoor Overall 6 ft. about 26%
Washington/Baltimore (successful reception % of all sites)
Outdoor 30 ft. 75%
Outdoor 6 ft. 37%
Indoor 6 ft. 32% Silver sensor
Indoor 6 ft. 30% Bow Tie
Their conclusion Indoor at 6 ft. about 30% reception
8-VSB successful 92% of the time when NTSC CCIR of 3 or greater, 80%
with a CCIR of 2 and 77% with a CCIR of 1.5
So much for the worst case. These were the results for "all sites" and
they did not pick tough spots. They used radials, every 5 miles on a
straight line out to 55 miles, arcs, 10, 20, 30, 40 miles and clusters.
Pretty good random selection.
Scott Moore
> Scott
>
> Here are the 8-VSB stats overall. Each one had a "disappointing attached
> to them. I have no problem with the 8-VSB statistics that the test
> generated. They seem to have done a good job. In fact they probably did
> a good job technically on the COFDM side also. They just didn't test a
> COFDM receiver. They even mention the "anomaly" in the results and
> suggest that in "phase two" they would check it out. Conveniently "phase
> two" never happened.
>
> If they had tested a COFDM "receiver", COFDM would have blown 8-VSB
> away.
>
> 8-VSB Test Results
>
> Cleveland (successful reception % of all sites)
>
> Outdoor 30 ft. 73%
27% failure.
>
>
> Outdoor 6 ft. 28%
>
> Indoor 6 ft. 30% Silver Sensor and Bow Tie
>
> Their conclusion Indoor Overall 6 ft. about 26%
>
You are wearing me out, but I guess that is the idea. Your 70% "failure" rate
is using the WORST CASE receiption of a cheap antenna on top of the set.
The next level, an antenna mounted 6 ft high, is strictly for statistics, as last time
I checked, not many folks leave their antenna 6 feet off the ground.
30 feet is the standard height of an antenna mounted on the chimmey of a
single story house. And that brings your "failed" ratio down to *** 27% ***
They had similar things to say about COFDM. Now would you care to tell us
why you insist on quoting the worst case figures from that report, WITHOUT
ANY QUALIFICATION THAT BETTER RESULTS WERE THE NORM.
And yes, if you are going to insist that bowtie antennas *should work*, then
you should also mention that CODFM sucked at that as well.
The report refuted that COFDM was superior in any way to 8-VSB. You claim that
is because the test was invalid. What makes the 8-VSB figures so valid that
you wish to quote them ? Why are you using the worst case from the report ?
>
> Washington/Baltimore (successful reception % of all sites)
>
> Outdoor 30 ft. 75%
>
25% failure.
George Graves
<sam...@cisco.com> wrote:
Does that mean quantity-wise or quality-wise? I might agree with the
latter, but here in the SF Bay area, there is plenty of HD quantity
(most all of CBS' primetime is HDTV) plus stuff from ABC, Leno on NBC
and several HD programs per month on PBS.
--
George Graves
bob
Not trying to wear you out.
You insist that my stats from the MSTV test are worst case. They are
not. They are all results from all sites. The sites are randomly picked.
Therefore the percentages are the average results. What you would expect
if you put a pin in the map of the coverage area.
As to test results of COFDM. They did not test a COFDM receiver so I do
not think and they didn't either that the results for COFDM were valid.
They called it an "anomaly". I guess if they had taken a portable radio
and called it a COFDM receiver you would still expect someone to accept
the results.
The COFDM test results are invalid on their face. They mean nothing.
They didn't test COFDM, they tested a transmitter monitor. I think they
did it on purpose. They have been successful in that endeavor so far.
On the other hand the 8-VSB results look fine. They had good testing
procedures and the best 8-VSB receivers. No one from the 8-VSB side
questioned the results, why should I.
In saying the outdoor 30 ft antenna 8-VSB results were 70% successful I
was wrong it was 73% and 75% Cleveland and Washington as the figures I
posted above say.
They are all right in the MSTV/NAB test report at www.atsc.org.
I don't know what you mean by a cheap antenna right on top of the set. I
don't think they did any of that. The indoor test used a bow tie and
Silver Sensor.
The test results say that 8-VSB is acceptable for a broadcast system
that depends on 30 ft. antenna for reception. I don't believe that such
a system can be successful in the US today. Cable and satellite will
simply take over.
Reliable indoor reception with a simple antenna that doesn't have to be
laid on the floor or taped to a window is required. Mobile is mandatory.
Soon cable, satellite and fiber will deliver DTV signals to most fixed
receivers. Wireless will be for mobile and portable reception primarily.
That will include HDTV.
John Golitsis
would have been much more delicious!
I can prove that pretty easily. Can you prove your statement?
"bob" <b...@stealth.net> wrote in message
news:3AAEDAF9...@stealth.net...
John Golitsis
===============
Grade 5 = Imperceptible (i.e. nearly perfect picture)
Grade 4 = Perceptible but not annoying
Grade 3 = Slightly annoying
Grade 2 = Annoying
Grade 1 = Very annoying
Draw you own conclusions.
"bob" <b...@stealth.net> wrote in message
news:3AAEDAF9...@stealth.net...
John Golitsis
story. *IF* you need to install an external antenna, then the installation
is about equal on the difficulty scale with a satellite dish, probably
easier.
If having to install an antenna is such a turn-off, why is satellite so
successful?
"bob" <b...@stealth.net> wrote in message
news:3AAF1617...@stealth.net...
bob
Why is 8-VSB ATSC so unsuccessful?
Bob Miller
John Golitsis
Now, If the ATSC modulation format were COFDM, give me 5 good reasons to buy
one.
You're a business man. This exercise should be easy for you!
"bob" <b...@stealth.net> wrote in message
news:3AAFAA6B...@stealth.net...
Scott Moore
> Scott
>
> Not trying to wear you out.
>
> You insist that my stats from the MSTV test are worst case. They are
> not. They are all results from all sites. The sites are randomly picked.
> Therefore the percentages are the average results. What you would expect
> if you put a pin in the map of the coverage area.
>
In the assumtion that you did not get the point of the message (which I don't
happen to beleive), here it is again.
You are using "70% failure rate" without any explaination. This is IN FACT
the failure rate of indoor rabbit ear antennas from the study. A much more
reasonable roof mounted antenna had a 70% SUCESS rate.
Further the results for CODFM were not better, but in fact slightly worse,
and again you leave that information out.
Further, you have claimed several times that the study was invalid, and yet
you continue to quote it as gospel, but only the selected parts you like.
And as long as you play games with this report, I am going to let you (and
everyone else) know that. I agree its probally not really nessary. No one
appears to be buying it here anyways.
>
> As to test results of COFDM. They did not test a COFDM receiver so I do
> not think and they didn't either that the results for COFDM were valid.
> They called it an "anomaly". I guess if they had taken a portable radio
> and called it a COFDM receiver you would still expect someone to accept
> the results.
>
If the report is NOT VALID (in your opinion), then stop quoting it. Yes, just stop.
If you are going to selectively quote it, then you are engaging in manipulation of
the facts.
>
> The COFDM test results are invalid on their face. They mean nothing.
> They didn't test COFDM, they tested a transmitter monitor. I think they
> did it on purpose. They have been successful in that endeavor so far.
>
> On the other hand the 8-VSB results look fine. They had good testing
> procedures and the best 8-VSB receivers. No one from the 8-VSB side
> questioned the results, why should I.
>
Ie., the results you agree with are valid. Lovely.
>
> In saying the outdoor 30 ft antenna 8-VSB results were 70% successful I
> was wrong it was 73% and 75% Cleveland and Washington as the figures I
> posted above say.
>
> They are all right in the MSTV/NAB test report at www.atsc.org.
>
> I don't know what you mean by a cheap antenna right on top of the set. I
> don't think they did any of that. The indoor test used a bow tie and
> Silver Sensor.
>
There is nobody here claiming DTV can be received with a set top antenna.
In fact, I have been preaching the contrary. Furthermore, the MSTV
tests found that COFDM did no better with such an antenna.
>
> The test results say that 8-VSB is acceptable for a broadcast system
> that depends on 30 ft. antenna for reception. I don't believe that such
> a system can be successful in the US today. Cable and satellite will
> simply take over.
>
Good. Cable and satellite is a perfectly good medium for HDTV. This
is the model used today. Use cable and satellite to bring receiption to
those who can't get it otherwise, or don't want to go to the trouble
of setting it up (an antenna). The only one with this idea that OTA
would rally and come back to defeat cable and satellite is you. But
that is the nature of the beast. I am a HDTV avocate. You are a
mobile avocate, and mobile does not include cable. Oddly, it does in
fact include satellite, which is where you should be putting your
effort (hint, hint).
>
> Reliable indoor reception with a simple antenna that doesn't have to be
> laid on the floor or taped to a window is required. Mobile is mandatory.
No it isn't. No it isn't. You are screwed anyways. DirectTV can be
received mobile. Life sucks. Your business model has no foundation.
>
> Soon cable, satellite and fiber will deliver DTV signals to most fixed
> receivers. Wireless will be for mobile and portable reception primarily.
> That will include HDTV.
>
No it won't. Mobile is about small sets even if it takes off. My kids will
be watching directTV on the road in our camper long before OTA gets
anywhere, COFDM or not. And why not ? 500 channels and no need
to retune when crossing from city to city.
Scott Moore
bob wrote:
> Scott
>
> .. trying to wear you out.
>
> ... my stats from the MSTV test are worst case. They are
> ... randomly picked.
> ... What you would expect ...
>
>
> ...the results for COFDM were valid.
> ...
>
> ... I think they... have been successful...
>
> ... the ... results look fine. They had good testing
> procedures and the best ... receivers.
> ...
>
> ...I
> was wrong ...
>
> They are all right at ... www.atsc.org.
Are we having fun yet ? This is a stupid game that proves nothing. Stop selectively
quoting facts from the report (and in general, in fact).
Scott Moore
> Cable's a no-brainer - twist on the connector. Satellite is a different
> story. *IF* you need to install an external antenna, then the installation
> is about equal on the difficulty scale with a satellite dish, probably
> easier.
>
> If having to install an antenna is such a turn-off, why is satellite so
> successful?
>
In europe, flat array antennas are proving popular. That's an antenna
that you slap on the nearest window and don't bother to aim.
The reason that does not fly in the USA is because we have more
space and don't care about having to mount and aim an antenna.
>
> "bob" <b...@stealth.net> wrote in message
> news:3AAF1617...@stealth.net...
>
> > The test results say that 8-VSB is acceptable for a broadcast system
> > that depends on 30 ft. antenna for reception. I don't believe that such
> > a system can be successful in the US today. Cable and satellite will
> > simply take over.
--
Scott Moore
I am ok with it. But the (few) people I know who have HDTVs tell me that.
So I don't really recommend going out and dumping a lot of money on such a
system (as I did). Besides, I watch far more DVDs on the thing anyways.
I would probally watch %400 more HDTV HBO movies if there were a way
to record them. I just can't drop my life to fit their schedule. The night I most
like CBS HDTV is friday. The times I get to actually watch it is zero. That
is because friday is "be with the wife" night, and she does not happen to
like Nash bridges.
JD
"Scott Moore" <sam...@cisco.com> wrote in message news:3AAFD2E6...@cisco.com...
> John Golitsis wrote:
>
> > Cable's a no-brainer - twist on the connector. Satellite is a different
> > story. *IF* you need to install an external antenna, then the installation
> > is about equal on the difficulty scale with a satellite dish, probably
> > easier.
> >
> > If having to install an antenna is such a turn-off, why is satellite so
> > successful?
> >
>
> In europe, flat array antennas are proving popular. That's an antenna
> that you slap on the nearest window and don't bother to aim.
>
> The reason that does not fly in the USA is because we have more
> space and don't care about having to mount and aim an antenna.
>
wouldn't even be unacceptable in the US, and had started planning on
using the flat arrays (Mitsubishi???)
I had about 6-7 different disciplines from all over the company working
of aspects of the direct TV project in 1988-1989. We were under a few
more constraints than the suppliers are today, including a dearth of birds
with enough power. We might have needed slightly larger dishes then
(even with DBS birds.)
John
bob
I will give you one at a time as I can. It is late.
First one. The price is right. Our receivers are free. If someone else
is offering them for a price the price would be as low as $250.00 maybe
dropping below $200.00 inflation adjusted within a year of introduction.
You may already have a HDTV ready monitor so a free or inexpensive
receiver is tempting. Also wouldn't need a big rooftop antenna to get
the signal.
bob
In line comments...
Scott Moore wrote:
>
> bob wrote:
>
> > Scott
> >
> > Not trying to wear you out.
> >
> > You insist that my stats from the MSTV test are worst case. They are
> > not. They are all results from all sites. The sites are randomly picked.
> > Therefore the percentages are the average results. What you would expect
> > if you put a pin in the map of the coverage area.
> >
>
> In the assumtion that you did not get the point of the message (which I don't
> happen to beleive), here it is again.
>
> You are using "70% failure rate" without any explaination. This is IN FACT
> the failure rate of indoor rabbit ear antennas from the study. A much more
> reasonable roof mounted antenna had a 70% SUCESS rate.
If I did say 70% failure rate I don't remember the context. In the
overall I could come up with a 70% failure rate. They didn't test for
city centers and the failure rate there is over 70% I'm sure. In thirty
percent of the land area of the US 8-VSB won't be receivable because
there are no translator stations available to rebroadcast full power
stations signal. In the rest of the US it is hit or miss with 90%
receivability in Houston and 55% in Pittsburgh. (I am making all these %
up and it is for 30 ft antennas only) and whatever in Detroit.
Many sites in the test showed 100% and 99% but once everything is up and
running across the country you might find that overall 70% failure is
close. With 30 ft antennas I would bet on a 55% overall failure to
receive rate in the US. I personally don't think it would be as bad as
70%.
There is no reason that COFDM on the other hand couldn't approach 100%
overall across the country. They are doing it using COFDM with XMRadio.
>
> Further the results for CODFM were not better, but in fact slightly worse,
> and again you leave that information out.
OK if you want to use a transmitter monitor to receive COFDM it will be
a lot worse that 8-VSB. I don't advise that you use a transmitter
monitor to try to receive COFDM because it was never designed to do
that. I recommend using a COFDM receiver.
>
> Further, you have claimed several times that the study was invalid, and yet
> you continue to quote it as gospel, but only the selected parts you like.
I have stated several time that the study as it pertains to 8-VSB is
apparently valid. No one who advocates 8-VSB has had any problem with
how the test was conducted or the receivers used. I don't see why I
should have a problem with it.
I don't have a problem with how the COFDM side was handled and the
results are probably pretty accurate as to the receivability of COFDM
using a transmitter monitor. Those results are irrelevant however when
trying to determine the receivability of COFDM with a receiver. I only
have a problem with what they tested. If they tested a receiver I would
have to live with the results or retest to check their accuracy. Since
they didn't test a receiver whatever they did is simply irrelevant.
>
> And as long as you play games with this report, I am going to let you (and
> everyone else) know that. I agree its probally not really nessary. No one
> appears to be buying it here anyways.
Well that is interesting, because of the level of discourse on this
thread, many lurkers are reluctant to stick there toes in and post but I
get quite a number of personal emails that are very supportive.
Engineers and such who point out errors and offer support but who are
reluctant to post. I am satisfied that I am getting a message across.
> >
> > As to test results of COFDM. They did not test a COFDM receiver so I do
> > not think and they didn't either that the results for COFDM were valid.
> > They called it an "anomaly". I guess if they had taken a portable radio
> > and called it a COFDM receiver you would still expect someone to accept
> > the results.
> >
>
> If the report is NOT VALID (in your opinion), then stop quoting it. Yes, just stop.
> If you are going to selectively quote it, then you are engaging in manipulation of
> the facts.
>
I only quote from the 8-VSB facts since I think they are probably
accurate. If they are not tell me why. As to the COFDM facts. Again I do
not say they are inaccurate but irrelevant. I have no interest nor can I
imagine anyone else having any interest in the COFDM reception
characteristics or a transmitter monitor.
> >
> > The COFDM test results are invalid on their face. They mean nothing.
> > They didn't test COFDM, they tested a transmitter monitor. I think they
> > did it on purpose. They have been successful in that endeavor so far.
> >
> > On the other hand the 8-VSB results look fine. They had good testing
> > procedures and the best 8-VSB receivers. No one from the 8-VSB side
> > questioned the results, why should I.
> >
>
> Ie., the results you agree with are valid. Lovely.
I agree with all the results. They are all accurate. OK? Now lets test a
COFDM receiver accurately and see how it does.
>
> >
> > In saying the outdoor 30 ft antenna 8-VSB results were 70% successful I
> > was wrong it was 73% and 75% Cleveland and Washington as the figures I
> > posted above say.
> >
> > They are all right in the MSTV/NAB test report at www.atsc.org.
> >
> > I don't know what you mean by a cheap antenna right on top of the set. I
> > don't think they did any of that. The indoor test used a bow tie and
> > Silver Sensor.
> >
>
> There is nobody here claiming DTV can be received with a set top antenna.
> In fact, I have been preaching the contrary. Furthermore, the MSTV
> tests found that COFDM did no better with such an antenna.
If they had tried to receive COFDM with a turkey or a 51 Chevy the
results would have been even worse. In fact I have heard that if you
want to get real bad COFDM reception test results you should try a loaf
of stale rye bread. Now if you want to fake more people out you could
use something technical like a broken microwave oven. Put a little
antenna on top and get something rotating inside and it would look like
it might receive something.
> >
> > The test results say that 8-VSB is acceptable for a broadcast system
> > that depends on 30 ft. antenna for reception. I don't believe that such
> > a system can be successful in the US today. Cable and satellite will
> > simply take over.
> >
>
> Good. Cable and satellite is a perfectly good medium for HDTV. This
> is the model used today. Use cable and satellite to bring receiption to
> those who can't get it otherwise, or don't want to go to the trouble
> of setting it up (an antenna). The only one with this idea that OTA
> would rally and come back to defeat cable and satellite is you. But
> that is the nature of the beast. I am a HDTV avocate. You are a
> mobile avocate, and mobile does not include cable. Oddly, it does in
> fact include satellite, which is where you should be putting your
> effort (hint, hint).
If OTA reception of DTV cannot compete with cable and satellite than
what are we talking about? Just take back all the spectrum and give it
to the 3G telecoms now. I am really confused. I thought you were
advocating that the broadcasters try to make a living broadcasting HDTV.
Now you say it is a lost cause and I am the only one for it?
>
> >
> > Reliable indoor reception with a simple antenna that doesn't have to be
> > laid on the floor or taped to a window is required. Mobile is mandatory.
>
> No it isn't. No it isn't. You are screwed anyways. DirectTV can be
> received mobile. Life sucks. Your business model has no foundation.
Well that's the way it goes, Direct TV uber alles.
>
> >
> > Soon cable, satellite and fiber will deliver DTV signals to most fixed
> > receivers. Wireless will be for mobile and portable reception primarily.
> > That will include HDTV.
> >
>
> No it won't. Mobile is about small sets even if it takes off. My kids will
> be watching directTV on the road in our camper long before OTA gets
> anywhere, COFDM or not. And why not ? 500 channels and no need
> to retune when crossing from city to city.
Lets see, XMRadio is using satellites for radio coverage of the US. I
think radio is a bit easier than DTV. Satellite has even a bigger
problem with line of sight than 8-VSB. So you expect to get DTV in your
car from satellite.
I wonder why XMRadio is deploying 1500 COFDM terrestrial transmitters
whose signal is the primary signal. If the receiver can't find a COFDM
signal then and only then it looks for the satellite signal. And that is
radio.
Now in talking to the chief scientist for the company doing the above,
he tells me that TV, DTV is a much tougher problem for mobile than radio
and he would go with a national COFDM terrestrial model, no satellite.
It will be done with 700 MHz spectrum IMHO.
Bob Miller
P.S. Mobile is about small sets? Why? Couldn't I have a projector in a
bus? I happen to think projection DTV is a big thing in the future.
Little 5 lb projectors and a big sheet and viola HDTV on the beach.
bob
If I have selectively quoted from the test results point it out. I tried
to select each statement that represented conclusions and overall
results. I didn't leave any out I don't think.
You should be able to destroy my arguments if I was so foolish as to
selectively quote from the test. That would be an easy one. The test
results are there for all to see. The people that ran the test, the
ATSC, MSTV and NAB and the broadcasters themselves have all concluded
that 8-VSB failed badly. They are raising money and having meetings and
issuing RFPs to try to quickly "fix" 8-VSB.
I don't have to selectively quote the results everyone agrees with me.
Bob Miller
Barry Brown
<jgol...@nbtelectronics.com> wrote:
> Who says it has to be a 'Big Ugly Antenna'? What about a roof mounted
> Silver Sensor, for instance?
Possibly. I don't know what sort of reception we'll have when DTV
becomes available in this area, but I have a large water tank about 200
yards from my house which is producing terrible ghosts on my V's (using
attic antenna). I'm not sure how the Silver Sensor would work in this
situation.
Barry Brown
John Golitsis
Silver Sensor, for instance?
"Barry Brown" <bar...@widomaker.com> wrote in message
news:150320010959493791%bar...@widomaker.com...
> In article <rMMr6.182403$Ki.6...@quark.idirect.com>, John Golitsis
> <jgol...@nbtelectronics.com> wrote:
>
> > If having to install an antenna is such a turn-off, why is satellite so
> > successful?
>
> There's a big difference between a BUA and a pizza-sized DBS dish. If a
> house is facing the correct direction you can even hide the antenna low
> on the roof in the back of the house. You can't hide a BUA unless you
> put it in an attic, but that doesn't work very well. I live in one of
> the most historic towns in the USA at least 35 miles from the closest
> TV transmitters. Very few people in this town would ever think about
> putting a BUA on their roof, but because of the wide dissatisfaction of
> the local cable company, they are discreetly installing sat dishes. Not
> a good omen for the local broadcasters when they go digital unless
> cable or satellite carries their signals.
>
> IMHO, local broadcasters should stop being fancy repeater stations for
> the networks, consolidate their resources and begin to provide full
> time programming slanted to local issues and interests. Then they may
> have a good reason for survival. As mentioned before, 85% of us now can
> get TV programming of national feeds via cable or satellite. The only
> thing missing in the equation is local programming.
Barry Brown
<jgol...@nbtelectronics.com> wrote:
> If having to install an antenna is such a turn-off, why is satellite so
> successful?
There's a big difference between a BUA and a pizza-sized DBS dish. If a
John Golitsis
> John
>
> I will give you one at a time as I can. It is late.
So late that your comprehension is suffering! Read my message thoroughly
and try again when you're well rested!
> First one. The price is right. Our receivers are free. If someone else
> is offering them for a price the price would be as low as $250.00 maybe
> dropping below $200.00 inflation adjusted within a year of introduction.
Your receivers will never be free.
> You may already have a HDTV ready monitor so a free or inexpensive
> receiver is tempting. Also wouldn't need a big rooftop antenna to get
> the signal.
I hope this isn't the best you can do! Only 1 Million out of 100 Million
homes have HDTV monitors today.